Loading...
2020-03-04 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Wednesday, March 4, 2020 – 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 February 18, 2020 City Council Minutes b. Approval of the February 19, 2020 Council Work Session Minutes c. Acknowledge the January 14, 2020 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes d. Acknowledge the January 28, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes e. Approve Purchase Order for Ash Tree Removal f. Approve Community Service Officer Hire g. Approve Police Officer Promotion to Sergeant h. Accept Firefighter Retirement i. Approve Purchase of Fire Station Fitness Equipment j. Approval of Contract for July 4th Fireworks Display k. Ratify 2020-2021 Labor Agreement with the Minnesota Public Employees Association l. Acknowledge Fire Synopsis Report – January 2020 m. Approval of Claims List 6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) *See guidelines below 7. Presentations a. Rogers Lake Water Quality Report – Saint Thomas Academy 8. Public Hearing - none 9. New and Unfinished Business a. Resolution 2020-15 Approving a Lot Line Adjustment for 1875 & 1885 Hunter Lane [Planning Case 2020-02] b. Resolution 2020-16 Approving a Variance for 554 Junction Lane [Planning Case 2020-03] c. Resolution 2020-14 Approving a Conditional Use Permit Authorizing the Amendment to The Mendota Heights Town Center Planned Unit Development - The Village at Mendota Heights [Planning Case 2020-01] 10. Community Announcements 11. Council Comments 12. Adjourn Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: “The Citizen Comments section of the agenda provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. All are welcome to speak. Comments should be directed to the Mayor. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per person and topic; presentations which are longer than five minutes will need to be scheduled with the City Clerk to appear on a future City Council agenda. Comments should not be repetitious. Citizen comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens, nor will any decisions be made at that presentation. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Citizen comments will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made, but rather for hearing the citizen for information only. If appropriate, the Mayor may assign staff for follow up to the issues raised.” CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, February 18, 2020 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. Councilors Paper, Miller, and Petschel were also present. Councilor Duggan was absent. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Petschel moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 SWEARING IN OF POLICE OFFICER POWELL Police Chief Kelly McCarthy provided background information on Police Officer Powell, noting that he has been a great addition to the force. Mayor Garlock administered the Oath of Office to Police Officer Jared Powell. PRESENTATIONS A) UPDATE ON FIRE STATION EXPANSION/REMODEL Paul Oberhaus, CPMI, reported that a significant amount of work has occurred in the past two months, providing an update on the internal work that has been completed. He believed that the work would be completed by the end of March. He also provided an update on the exterior work. He stated that once the addition is completed, they would begin the remodel with the hope that all of the work would be completed by August 2020. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Petschel moved approval of the consent calendar as presented. page 3 a. Approval of February 4, 2020 City Council Minutes b. Approve Resolution 2020-11 Appointments to the Board of Directors to the Mendota Heights Fire Relief Association c. Authorize 2019 Auditing Services with BerganKDV d. Approve Resolution 2020-13 Accept Project and Approve Final Payment for 2019 Sanitary Sewer Cleaning and Televising Project e. Approve Purchase Order for Rogers Lake Skate Park Improvements f. Approve Resolution 2020-12 Declaring Surplus City Materials and Equipment g. Approve Out of State Travel Request for Police Captain h. Follow-up from Citizen Comments from February 4, 2020 Council Meeting i. Approve Building Activity Report January 2020 j. Approve January 2020 Treasurer’s Report k. Approve Claims List Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the public wished to be heard. PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) AUTHORIZE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR UPDATE TO NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN Natural Resources Technician Krista Spreiter explained that the Council was being asked to approve the update to the Natural Resources Management Plan (NRMP) Request for Proposals (RFP). Councilor Miller stated that he appreciates the time and energy staff has put into this, as this is an important first step in the process. He commented that environmental needs remain a priority for the community and therefore it is important for the City to spend the time updating this to provide guidance. Mayor Garlock also thanked staff, noting that this plan will help to further improve the City. Councilor Petschel moved to approve the Request for Proposals and authorize staff to obtain quotes for the Natural Resources Management Plan update. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 page 4 B) AUTHORIZE PURCHASE ORDER FOR FRIENDLY HILLS BACKSTOP Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the Council was being asked to authorize a purchase order to replace the backstop at Friendly Hills Park. The Council is also asked to approve the addition of covered dugouts at Friendly Hills and Hagstrom King parks. Councilor Paper stated that he likes the proposed improvements for the backstop at Friendly Hills and the dugout covers at Hagstrom King. He commented that he would be hesitant to go forward with the dugout covers at Friendly Hills without fully knowing if the City will gain the best use out of that improvement. He stated that there is more activity at Mendakota and was unsure of the benefit for the smaller field. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that in some discussions it was noted that if the dugout covers are constructed, some of the younger baseball games would be moved to Friendly Hills. Councilor Paper commented that he sees more of a need for shade at Victoria Highlands, as Friendly Hills receives some shade in the afternoon. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the proposal for Friendly Hills was included because the contractor would be at Friendly Hills constructing the backstop. Councilor Petschel agreed that the Council should look for the fields with the most use and need for shade. She stated that she would like to see the prioritization from the youth association. Councilor Paper stated that when a contractor is completing this type of work there is not a cost-savings from equipment mobilization. He stated there is a need at Mendakota for shade. He believes that the backstop and covering for Hagstrom King should move forward. He stated that if there is additional funding, he would like to see dugout covers for Victoria Highlands. Councilor Miller asked for details on the field size at Friendly Hills. Councilor Paper explained that some of the fields are larger for older children and the smaller fields are for younger children. Councilor Miller stated that if Friendly Hills is not a field receiving regular use, he would be unsure that adding the dugout covers would be the best use of the money. Mayor Garlock asked if there will be a joint meeting with the City Council and Park and Recreation Commission. City Administrator Mark McNeill confirmed that he could schedule a meeting. Councilor Petschel agreed that she would like to review the budget and a list of priorities rather than making a quick decision on the second dugout cover location. Councilor Petschel moved to authorize staff to execute a purchase order for the backstop replacement at Friendly Hills in the amount of $24,928 and the dugout covers for Hagstrom King to Dakota Unlimited for $16,840. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 page 5 COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Mark McNeill commented that the skating rink season is coming to a close with the changing weather. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Petschel stated she is excited for the community garage sale taking place on February 29th. Councilor Miller reported that the community garage sale will take place from 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. at the Fire Hall and will feature surplus items from the Fire Department and Public Works. Councilor Paper commended Public Works for the excellent job they continue to do with snow plowing. ADJOURN Mayor Garlock moved to adjourn. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m. ____________________________________ Neil Garlock Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk page 6 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Council Work Session Held Tuesday, February 19, 2020 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a workshop 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 4:17 p.m. Council members Miller, Paper, and Petschel were also present. Council member Duggan participated via a video conference call from the Sun City Public Library, Sun City, Arizona. Staff in attendance included City Administrator Mark McNeill, Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Community Development Director Tim Benetti, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, Recreation Coordinator Meredith Lawrence, and City Clerk Lorri Smith. DISCUSSION OF WENTWORTH WARMING HOUSE RECONSTRUCTION The City Council discussed the replacement of the warming house at Wentworth Park. Quotes had been received for a pole frame constructed building, 30 feet by 40 feet, with an 8 foot overhang. The low quote was received from Structural Buildings, at a price range of between $164,000 and $169,000. A representative from Structural Buildings was present to discuss the features proposed, which includes three restrooms and in floor heat. The Council asked that the building be built to support solar panels on the roof. Soil conditions were also discussed. There may be a need to do a soil boring test. It was noted that the building is estimated at $164,000. The cost of utilities to the site is estimated at $50,000, electric to the site is estimated at $6,000, and gas to the site is estimated at $3,000. The outside concrete work could be included in the parking lot improvement project. All of the ancillary work would be done by others. SPECIAL PARKS FUND STATUS Cheryl Jacobson discussed with the Council the current status of the Special Parks Fund. A list of the proposed projects for 2020 was discussed. If all projects were completed, the fund would be left with a balance of $250,466. The Council discussed maintaining a balance of $360,000 in the fund. Councilor Petschel stated that this fund has a limited amount of money available. She suggested that when the Par 3 bonds are paid in full, then those dollars could be directed to this fund. She stated that she would like to see the Parks and Recreation Commission work similar to the way the Planning Commission works, where they make recommendations to the City Council for official action. page 7 Councilor Paper suggested that the list of projects for 2020 is extensive and some of the suggested projects could be delayed. Councilor Miller suggested that the dog park feasibility study, the dedicated pickle ball courts, and the Ivy Hills basketball court expansion be postponed to a future project. With those projects removed, the fund would maintain a $360,000 fund balance. The other Councilors were in agreement. UPDATE ON MARIE AVENUE REHABILITATION Ryan Ruzek gave the Council an update on the Marie Avenue reconstruction project. He stated the proposed trail improvements to Lexington Avenue have been removed due to costs and the impact to the trees. Bump-outs would be constructed at Eagle Ridge Drive and Walsh/Lilac, along with a new trail from Victoria Road to Marie Park on the north. Due to cost increases, the underpass will remain for walkers. An at-grade crossing for bikers is proposed near the tennis courts. The Council was in agreement with the proposed changes. DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL GOALS Mark McNeill presented the 15 goals which had been identified by the City Council at a workshop meeting which had been held on January 2nd. He said that periodic updates would be provided to the City Council in the future. CITY ADMINISTRATOR ANNUAL REVIEW The Council discussed the procedure for the City Administrator’s annual review. It was decided that the Councilors will each complete a written evaluation form, which will be returned to the Assistant City Administrator. A committee of Mayor Garlock and Councilor Petschel will then review the results with the City Administrator. ADJOURN Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 5:20 pm. ____________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 8 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING JANUARY 14, 2020 The January meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on Tuesday, January 14, 2020, at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. 1. Call to Order – Chair Steve Goldade called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call – The following Commissioners were present: Chair Steve Goldade, Commissioners: Patrick Cotter, Pat Hinderscheid, Bob Klepperich, Stephanie Meyer, David Miller, Dan Sherer and Student Representative Matthew Boland. Staff present: Recreation Program Coordinator, Meredith Lawrence, Assistant City Administrator, Cheryl Jacobson and Public Works Director, Ryan Ruzek. 3. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 4. Approval of Agenda Motion Klepperich/second Cotter, to approve the agenda AYES 7: NAYS 0 5.a Approval of Minutes from December 10, 2019 Regular Meeting Motion Meyer/second Hinderscheid, to approve the minutes of the December 10, 2019 Parks and Recreation Commission Regular Meeting. AYES 7: NAYS 0 6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) None. 7. Acknowledgement of Reports Chair Goldade read the titles of the three updates (Par 3, Recreation, and Field and Facility Use Policy Updates) and polled the Commissioners for questions. 7.a Par 3 Update Recreation Program Coordinator, Meredith Lawrence, briefly reviewed the 2019 November Financial Report. She stated that December will not have revenue but will have expenses. She noted that a final report will be forthcoming for 2019. 7.b Recreation Update Chair Goldade commended staff for the excellent work on the Orbit Earth Expo. 7.c Field and Facility Use Policy Update Ms. Lawrence stated that this is an informational document. She stated that the Field and Facility Use Policy amendments were approved by the City Council. She noted that most of the amendments were specific to language and highlighted some of the changes. She stated that the process included good discussions with the Council, Commission, and user groups. Commissioner Miller suggested that staff highlight the changes in the document to make it easier for the Commission to find the changes. page 9 Chair Goldade asked if there is a deadline for Mendota Heights residents to make reservations. Ms. Lawrence stated that page two of the policy identifies deadlines, noting that the first deadline would be February for the 2020 Field and Facility season of March through July. Motion Klepperich/second Cotter to acknowledge the staff reports. AYES 7: NAYES 0 8. Unfinished Business 8.a Community Engagement Check In Ms. Lawrence stated that they met with the Rotary which she believed was a worthwhile meeting. She stated that residents are happy with the parks and feel that the parks are clean and well maintained. She noted that there were positive comments related to park equipment, trails, and partnerships with surrounding communities. She reported that the residents would like to see a marketing campaign for the parks, more adult league options, more family friendly pop-up events in the parks, more movies in the park, possible pursuit of a splashpad, perhaps a trail to access the high school to increase safety for students, work out equipment along the trails, and additional trail maps at the parks. She stated that there was discussion about the possibility of partnering with businesses to provide more nature-based play programing, which is an increasing trend. She advised that the Mendota Heights Living magazine was discussed and praised, noting that is not a City publication. Commissioner Hinderscheid stated that they met with the Rotary on January 8th and he was impressed that a good number of the attendees utilizing the parks and/or recreation programs. He thanked staff and the Rotary Club for the information they were able to obtain. Chair Goldade stated that he was happy that the group was excited to talk about the parks and share ideas. He stated that a number of Rotary members spoke as grandparents that enjoy the parks with their grandchildren. Commissioner Meyer asked if there were any examples of good parks given. Commissioner Hinderscheid stated that they did ask if there were features in other parks that the members liked but could not remember any examples that were provided. Ms. Lawrence commented that the only park she remembered being named was Madison’s Place in Woodbury, which is a large destination park with great features. She noted that Mendota Heights does not have the space available to create a park of that scale at this time. Commissioner Hinderscheid stated that the President of the Rotary Club is also the Executive Director of the YMCA and expressed interest in perhaps partnering on future projects and funding. Chair Goldade stated that this process is providing great information and highlighted some of the upcoming engagement groups. 8.b Par 3 Trail Connection Public Works Director, Ryan Ruzek, stated that a resident previously asked the City about the possibilities of a soft trail along the edge of the Par 3 golf course. He identified the platted right- of-way that goes to the edge of the Par 3, noting that it appears to be an undeveloped right-of- way but there is a homeowner with fencing and landscaping within that area. He stated that page 10 staff walked along the edge and there are some challenging grades along the area, some which would require large amounts of fill. He provided a rough estimate of $200,000 for the trail and highlighted some of the challenges that would exist. He advised that the City did commission a Dodd Road corridor study and an alternative option for that connection could go along Dodd Road. He stated that although the alternative trail connection option along Dodd Road would have a similarly estimated cost, it would align more with the long-range goal of the City. Commissioner Cotter asked for additional information on how the East route option would better fit into the City’s long-range plans. Mr. Ruzek replied that in 2016 the City received a grant from the County and had a consultant study the entire Dodd Road corridor. He stated that report could be shared with the Commission and should be posted on the City’s website. He explained that the larger goal would be to construct a trail along the entire corridor. Commissioner Cotter asked for input on whether it could be preferred to construct segments of the trail in a piecemeal fashion. Mr. Ruzek stated that staff is currently seeking quotes for two intersection control points along Dodd Road. He stated that the Capital Improvement Plan identifies potential intersection improvements beginning in 2023. He explained that segments of the trail could be constructed along with intersection improvements. Commissioner Sherer agreed that the East option would provide better connectivity and would be a preferred route. He stated that this segment appears to be a current gap in the corridor. Mr. Ruzek stated that staff is working with the County and West St. Paul on the reconstruction of Delaware Avenue that would include a trail on one or both sides. He discussed the feasibility of other trail segments along Dodd. Commissioner Sherer referenced the elementary school on Dodd, noting that children walk along Dodd without sidewalks or trails. Mr. Ruzek advised of current connections to the elementary school as well as potential crossings that would provide safer routes. Commissioner Cotter asked if completing a trail along with an intersection improvement would provide a cost benefit. Mr. Ruzek confirmed that typically you can see some economy of scale in a larger project compared to a smaller project. Chair Goldade asked for details on the trail that would be required, including possible curb and buffer. Mr. Ruzek confirmed that MnDOT would require curb and a five-foot grass boulevard before the eight to ten-foot-wide bituminous trail. Chair Goldade asked if an application would need to be submitted to MnDOT. page 11 Mr. Ruzek explained that would depend upon how the City decides to fund that improvement. He noted that if the trail is included with a road improvement, the City could use State Aid funds. He stated that if local funds were used, the City would need to obtain a permit from MnDOT. He stated that the typical timeline for that type of approval would be 30 to 45 days but could extend out to 90 days. He stated that drainage concerns would be one of the largest concerns from MnDOT. He provided additional information on stormwater elements currently in the area. He stated that staff is looking for input on whether the Commission would like to continue to consider a trail along the W est side of the Par 3 or whether the Eastern option along Dodd Road would be sufficient, and whether the Dodd Road trail should be pursued as a standalone project or in conjunction with an intersection improvement. Chair Goldade asked if the City has previously acquired Safe Routes to School funds and whether the City would be interested in that option. Mr. Ruzek explained the additional steps that would be necessary. He noted that staff could reach out to a local school to determine if they would like to participate in the future. He was unsure that this segment would qualify as it is not directly adjacent to a school. Commissioner Meyer asked if staff believes the Dodd Road segment would make more sense. She stated that personally she does not like either of the options. She explained that the Dodd Road segment does not appear that it will extend all the way down to Wentworth and therefore residents will still zigzag down different areas. Mr. Ruzek confirmed that this segment would connect the two neighborhoods that have a barrier between them. Commissioner Sherer stated that he recalled that the residents that spoke were looking for a walking path that would connect the two neighborhoods. He commented that seemed like an easier option but having to meet ADA requirements would add additional challenges and costs. Mr. Ruzek stated that the City follows the State bike and trail manual whenever trails are constructed. Commissioner Sherer stated that the Par 3 option has a segment along one of the greens, which would make users a target for golf balls. Commissioner Meyer referenced a portion of the Dodd Road trail and asked if that would be too close to the sand trap or tee box. Mr. Ruzek commented that the trail could be constructed within MnDOT right-of-way and would not touch the Par 3 course. Ms. Lawrence stated that there are irrigation heads that would need to be relocated/redirected along the Dodd Road segment. Commissioner Miller stated that it first seemed that the East path along Dodd would make sense as there would eventually be a path along that roadway. He recognized that there would also be an advantage towards taking people off a busy road and putting the trail through nature, therefore he would prefer the Western option. page 12 Commissioner Hinderscheid stated that given the challenges and expense, he would prefer not to pursue either option. Commissioner Klepperich stated that he would favor the Eastern option along Dodd Road because of the construction complications of the Western option. He commented that he believes eventually there will be paths along Dodd Road. He stated that the costs would be well beyond what the parks fund could support and therefore alternative funding would need to be pursued. Commissioner Sherer stated that he would support the option along Dodd Road as that is consistent with the goals of both the City and MnDOT. Commissioner Cotter stated that he would also support the Eastern option along Dodd Road, although that would require additional information. He stated that it could be beneficial to combine the project with the intersection project as there could be a possibility to utilize State Aid funding. Student Representative Boland commented that the Eastern option would seem more realistic because of the challenges that would exist for the Par 3 option. Commissioner Meyer stated that while she prefers a nature-based option, she does agree that the Eastern option would make more sense. Chair Goldade agreed that the Eastern option seems more practical and fits with the long-range goals of the City and County. Mr. Ruzek stated that he can bring the issue of whether the trail should occur as a standalone project or combined with an intersection project to the next meeting. 8.c Pickleball Court Planning Chair Goldade reviewed the definitions of designated pickleball court and multi-use court, providing an example of a multi-use court within the City. Mr. Ruzek stated that the City previously reviewed possible additions for pickleball courts and identified a potential location at Hagstrom King Park that was brought forward in the past by a resident. He stated that the request did not move forward at that time and the City instead pursued improvements to a multi-use court at Marie Park. He identified the tennis courts at Valley Park which could be repurposed for another use. He noted that the court currently has sport court tiles because of the pour drainage in the park. He was unsure if the pickleball court could utilize that type of tile or whether it would need to be removed in order to be repurposed. He estimated the cost for the construction and necessary trail connections and fencing at the Hagstrom King park to be $125,000 compared to the repurposing of the Valley Park court which would be about $80,000. Commissioner Hinderscheid asked for a comparison of the two parks in terms of proximity of homes noting that sound has been an issue for pickleball. Mr. Ruzek identified the proximity of the homes to each of the court/proposed court locations. He noted that both parks are near busy roadways that cause noise. page 13 Commissioner Hinderscheid commented that it would appear the Valley Park location would potentially have less issues with noise for adjacent homes. Commissioner Cotter asked if there has been a thought to spacing out the courts more, as there is a multi-purpose court available at Marie Park and Valley Park is just one mile away. Mr. Ruzek explained that if the designated courts were done at Valley Park, the multi-purpose court at Marie Park would eventually become a dedicated hockey court. Commissioner Meyer identified additional flat land behind the pavilion at Valley Park and asked if that would provide an opportunity for future expansion. Mr. Ruzek stated that disturbing trees and vegetation would not be well supported. Commissioner Klepperich asked if there has been a consensus to not reduce the number of tennis courts. Ms. Lawrence noted that in a previous study it was found that the City has a sufficient number of tennis courts and the study would not recommend removing courts. She stated that she has received the largest amount of tennis court permits for 2020, noting that most prefer to use Marie Park because the courts are brand new. Commissioner Scherer commented that the court at Valley Park is used. Commissioner Hinderscheid stated that the Commission has discussed pickleball for a long time and it is one of the fastest growing sports. He stated that it is time Mendota Heights moves forward on pickleball. He stated that his preference would be the option at Valley Park as he would be sensitive to the issue of noise for adjacent homes. Commissioner Miller echoed the comment, noting that there are other tennis courts available for those users in that area. He noted that Valley Park is also a centralized location. Commissioner Klepperich suggested resurfacing Friendly Hills in 2020 with the Commission then recommending that the Council budget for designated pickleball courts in 2021. He noted that the decision could then be made at that time whether to choose Valley or Hagstrom King. Commissioner Sherer stated that he does not support removing tennis courts. He referenced the flat area at Friendly Hills and asked if that could be a location for designated court space. Ms. Lawrence commented that could be a good location, but it has been used for soccer in the past. Commissioner Cotter stated that it is obvious that there is a desire for pickleball courts. He stated that the City already spent funds at Marie Park to create the multi-purpose court and therefore is unsure about spending additional funds one mile away to create a dedicated court at Valley Park. He stated that he likes the idea of resurfacing at Friendly Hills for the time being and attempting to gain support from the Council in terms of funding, which would also provide additional time to find a good location for dedicated pickleball courts. page 14 Student Representative Boland stated that some residents in his neighborhood have attempted to play pickleball on the tennis courts at Friendly Hills. He stated that he would also not support removing tennis courts to create pickleball courts. Commissioner Meyer stated that he likes the idea of Valley Park because of the isolated location and would support that option. Chair Goldade stated that he likes the idea of dedicated pickleball courts and also would like to see that option south of 62. He confirmed the consensus of the Commission to reopen the discussion on pickleball and will decide on a location during a future agenda. Commissioner Klepperich asked if the Commission should pursue resurfacing at Friendly Hills, or whether that should be delayed. Mr. Ruzek explained that the City will be obtaining a quote in the future related to resurfacing at Friendly Hills and additional work could be done to determine if there would be space available that could be used for a pickleball court. 9. New Business None. 10. Staff Announcements Ms. Lawrence shared the following announcements: • Blade with the Blue on February 8th– registration is required • Royal Ball on February 9th • Other events can be found on the city’s website Ms. Lawrence also thanked Commissioner Miller for his contributions to the Commission, noting that he will be greatly missed. Commissioner Miller stated that he has found it enjoyable to be a part of this group. 11. Student Representative Update Student Representative Boland stated that he spoke with a parent in his neighborhood and received positive feedback related to the skating areas at Friendly Hills Park and Hagstrom King. 12. Commission Comments and Park Updates Chair Goldade thanked Commissioner Miller for his contribution to the Commission. Commissioner Cotter • Thanked Commissioner Miller for this service to the Commission. • He has been impressed with the number of winter skaters and the great use of the City’s rinks. Commissioner Sherer page 15 • Thanked Commissioner Miller for his service. • He commended Ms. Lawrence on her recent recognition. Commissioner Klepperich • Thanked Commissioner Miller and wished him well in his retirement. • Acknowledged Ms. Lawrence for the recognition she received from the Recreation and Parks Association. Commissioner Meyer • She echoed the congratulations to Ms. Lawrence and thanks to Commissioner Miller. • She stated that she was also pleased to see the skating numbers and high use of the rinks and parks. Commissioner Hinderscheid • He congratulated Ms. Lawrence for her award and the favorable golf report. • He stated that it is nice to see the small fenced area for the dog park, noting that the dog park continues to be well used. • Thanked Commissioner Miller for his years of service and wisdom he has brought to the Commission. Commissioner Miller • He explained that he has been able to think about different uses of the parks through the eyes of his grandchildren. Chair Goldade • The Commission continues to discuss Wentworth and potential upgrades to the warming house and tennis court. • He referenced a recent article about Valley Park in the Friday News • He congratulated Ms. Lawrence for her award and again thanked Commissioner Miller for his years of service. 13. Adjourn Motion Miller/Second Klepperich, to adjourn the meeting at 7:55 PM AYES 7: NAYS 0 Minutes drafted by: Amanda Staple TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. page 16 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 28, 2020 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 28, 2020 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Mary Magnuson, Commissioners John Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of December 19, 2019 Minutes Commissioner Katz noted the first page, the first paragraph, it should state, “August 27 December 19, 2019”. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 2019. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 3 (Corbett, Noonan, and Toth) Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2020-01 GRAND REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, 725 LINDEN STREET & 735 MAPLE STREET – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Grand Real Estate Advisors is requesting approval to amend a previously approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) Development Plan, which would allow a new mixed-use development proposal for the City-owned lots, generally located in The Village at Mendota Heights. The lots are bounded by Dodd Road to the west, Maple Street to the south, and Linden Street to the east. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 1,320-ft. of the site; one comment was received in support. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. page 17 Commissioner Corbett referenced the parking and asked for additional information on the senior housing referenced in the bullets. Community Development Director Tim Benetti clarified that the parking requirements were approved through the original PUD and noted that the senior housing reference is for this project. He also provided details on the wetland buffer requirement for the West Neighborhood included in the original PUD. He stated that staff reviewed records and could not find a record of a wetland in that area. He noted that staff has also visited the site and did not find the wetland on the site, therefore there is no longer a need for that setback for a wetland permit. Commissioner Katz referenced the map of the overall area and asked if the original Village concept was based on a trip analysis or traffic study, which would take into account different variables. Community Development Director Tim Benetti was unsure if there was a traffic study or report at that time but assumed that some type of study was completed. He stated that the original intent was to ensure that all the parking would be shared. He stated that the site currently has more parking than is used on a daily basis and believed the site could be adequately served by the underground and surface parking, even with the restaurant use. Commissioner Toth referenced the parking calculation used for the restaurant use, one stall for four customers. He noted that most people will travel two people to a vehicle for a restaurant. He stated that snow conditions also impact the number of available stalls and therefore he would like to see a snow removal plan from the developer. He referenced the trip generation study and asked what the peak hours were. Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that typically there are a.m., noon, and p.m. peak hours. Commissioner Toth stated that he would like to know when the study was done in terms of hours and what the peak hours are. Commissioner Corbett asked the process for defining the basis of parking within PUD. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that he would assume the ordinance was used that basis and then provided discount to that number because of the shared uses. He stated that the ultimate value was most likely negotiated. He explained that typically senior apartment uses provide one stall per unit because of a lesser demand for that type of residential use. He noted that specific standards are in place within the PUD for each neighborhood, with the intent of all the uses fitting together. Commissioner Noonan stated that the Village has been up for at least 15 years and he has not seen parking problems at the various times he has been there throughout that time. He stated that the standards within the PUD have done the development and the community well. He stated that the parking standards and recommendations seem to be appropriate. page 18 Community Development Director Tim Benetti agreed that in his time with the City he has not noticed an issue with parking or received complaints. He stated that the mixed-use development is setup for shared parking with walkability, therefore if you cannot park near the desired location, you can park within the development and walk to that location. Commissioner Petschel asked where senior housing it codified in the ordinance, or whether this speaks to a general standard on senior housing throughout the twin cities. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that this number was codified through the original PUD agreement. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Judd Fenlon, Grand Real Estate Advisors, stated that he has reached out to his engineers about snow storage, noting that three or four locations for snow storage have been identified on the site that could be used for that purpose. He recognized under high snowfall winters, snow may need to be hauled offsite. He referenced the discussion related to the wetland delineation. He noted that his engineers met with City staff in November on site and City staff agreed that it was determined not to be a wetland. He stated that their traffic analysis used the MnDOT definition of peak hours of 7:00 to 8:00 a.m. and 4:45 to 5:45 p.m. for the Dodd Road intersection. He stated that in regard to parking, he believes that as designed there is ample parking for the restaurant and the residents. He stated that this is a large project and they would not make the investment if they felt parking would be compromised. He explained that the success of a restaurant and residential use is dependent on available parking. He noted that there is also a public ramp near to the site, that is underutilized and could be used by employees to free up additional nearby spaces. He stated that the restaurant and apartments will be owned by the same party and therefore have an aligned interest in sufficient parking. He commented that the site is meant to be walkable and he anticipates some visitors will be pedestrian or cyclists. He stated that there are an additional 23 on-street parking stalls within the proximity of the site that could be available for patrons of the site. He confirmed that the on-street public parking was not included in the site calculations for parking. Commissioner Corbett asked if Grand Real Estate Advisors would be the end owner of the project. Mr. Fenlon noted that he would be a partner in the end ownership of the project, along with his partners. Commissioner Corbett referenced the outdoor seating for the restaurant, which will be 50 to 100 feet from the residential property and asked how those uses would intermix. Mr. Fenlon stated that the restaurant is anticipated to serve breakfast, lunch and dinner. He commented that outdoor seating is a continued trend for restaurant operations. He provided examples of existing restaurants with outdoor seating adjacent residential properties that have been able to manage those uses successfully with buffer and hour limitations. He stated that he believes the restaurant would close at 11:00 p.m. on weeknights and midnight on weekends. He stated that they have reviewed the option of enclosing the outdoor seating area. page 19 Commissioner Toth stated that it is great that residents of Mendota Heights are excited to build within the city. He referenced the comment related to the area being accessible to pedestrians and cyclists and asked if there would be consideration for designated bicycle/moped parking. Mr. Fenlon confirmed that there would be bicycle racks accessible but noted that they could look into moped/motorcycle parking as well. Commissioner Katz referenced the deliveries for the restaurant and asked where the service entrance for the restaurant would be and where the truck would park. Mr. Fenlon stated that most of the deliveries do not come in a full semi, that would only happen perhaps once per week. He identified the service entrance location for the restaurant, noting that most of the delivery vehicles can handle their deliveries within the site. He identified the area a full semi could park to access the service entrance. Commissioner Toth referenced the additional traffic from Maple Street onto Dodd and asked if there has been consideration of a stoplight to control that intersection. Mr. Fenlon stated that they have not had that discussion and referenced the comments from the traffic study that does not feel that the number of trips will make a noticeable difference on the streets. Chair Magnuson thanked the developer; and called for anyone from the public wishing to speak on this matter to approach the podium and address the commission. Marie ? – a neighboring resident (indicated she lived on Dodd Road - address not given) stated she disagrees with the traffic study. She commended Commissioner Corbett for his comments on the outdoor seating as that would be a concern for the adjacent residential properties. She stated that she is not against the project as she would enjoy the restaurant. She disagreed with the trip counter, noting that the senior use would be 55 plus, noting that most people that age typically work. She stated that the restaurant estimates are also low as many groups have people that each drive separate and meet at the restaurant. She commented that she believes there would be a problem with the semi-truck deliveries and could also be an issue for fire trucks attempting to access the site. She asked that the site be reviewed by a fire department to obtain additional comments. She commented that there was previously a wetland/wet space that has since been filled in. She stated that after the Village was constructed there has been more issues with water flowing onto Dodd Road. She asked that the City not approve this until the speed on the road is decreased from 40 mph to 30 mph. Brad Wallace, 715 Linden, stated that he is speaking on behalf of his condominium homeowners’ association. He thanked the Commission for their thoughtful questions and commended the developer for the cooperative spirit they have shown throughout this process. He stated that they would like to see the tree buffer between the condominium building and the new development, with removed trees replaced on a one for one basis. He stated that the street parking spots near Linden are used the townhome residents as overflow and would hope that there would be page 20 something in place to ensure that those parking stalls are not used by restaurant patrons. He referenced the parking ramp, which is very underutilized. He stated that he would love to see some way for the City to direct people into the parking area, as it is virtually empty most of the time. He stated that people do not know to park in the ramp and perhaps additional education could help visitors use that ramp more. Marie [the Dodd Road Resident] asked if there would be something permanent related to the senior housing or whether that use could be changed in the future to allow housing for all ages. Mr. Fenlon stated that he has not been aware of a document that would restrict the housing by age for a period of time. He noted that there is a strong demand for senior housing, and they have every intention of building and keeping the use as senior housing. Commissioner Noonan stated that the staff report references the reduced standards for senior housing, with parking reduced to one space per unit. He explained that market rate apartments would have a different parking rate and therefore if the use changed from senior to market rate, the parking would be severely under supplied. He was unsure as to the control the City would have to limit that use. Mr. Fenlon stated that he has no intention to do anything other than senior housing, noting that his comment was simply that he was not aware of that type of document. Commissioner Noonan asked if the developer would be comfortable with a provision in the Development Agreement that would restrict the use to senior housing for a period of time. Mr. Fenlon confirmed that he would be comfortable with that. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that there is an agreement that goes along with a PUD which can include that this building would only be allowed for senior housing. He explained if the desire were to change to a market rate apartment, the applicant would need to come back before the Commission and Council to request a change in that use. Mr. Fenlon explained that the building would not work well as a market rate apartment because of the differences in number of units, types of amenities, ratio of one- and two-bedroom apartments, square footage of apartments, and parking needed. Chair Magnuson stated that as a person that would qualify, by age, to live in this type of housing, she would agree that people of this age generate multiple trips and have multiple vehicles. Mr. Fenlon commented that the traffic study was completed by a third party and noted that the building space is designed to support active use. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. page 21 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2002 MENDOTA HEIGHTS TOWN CENTER (THE VILLAGE AT MENDOTA HEIGHTS), WHICH WOULD ALLOW A NEW MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF A 48-UNIT SENIOR APARTMENT BUILDING WITH A RESTAURANT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, ALONG WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Mendota Heights, in a form prepared by the City Attorney; and final draft shall be approved by the City Council. The Development Agreement shall contain language restricting use of the building to senior housing. Should the developer propose a change to the use of the property, or to market rate housing, the developer shall be required to amend the Development Agreement. 2. Development shall provide a clearly marked crosswalk on Maple Street over to the separated parking lot, with final location and design approved by Public Works Director. 3. Necessary drainage and utility easements shall be included on the Final Plat, as determined by the Public Works Director and if necessary, the Saint Paul Regional Water Services. 4. All new buildings shall be constructed only in conformance to building and site plans certified by a registered architect and engineers (as applicable); and in accordance with the architectural and building standards found under Title 12-1E-8, Subpart F “Architectural Controls” and Subpart G – Structural, Electrical and Mechanical Requirements. 5. Any ground-level mechanicals and utility appurtenances must be screened with vegetation or one or more of the materials used in the construction of the principal structure, which must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department as part of the building permit process. 6. The Landscape Plan shall be reviewed by Master Gardeners for compliance with the City Pollinator Friendly Policy. 7. Plant material shall be utilized as a screening element for any building utility areas, but shall not obstruct Fire Department connections or hydrants, to be reviewed by the Planning and Fire Departments and verified as part of the building permit review process. 8. A park dedication fee of $4,000/residential unit shall be paid at time of building permit approvals. 9. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an amount equal to at least one and one-half times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other improvements, to be included as part of the Development Agreement. 10. The developer and/or their respective agents shall be jointly and severely responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions allow. All landscape areas must be irrigated. page 22 11. The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS) standards. 12. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction commencement. 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. All applicable fire and building codes, as adopted/amended by the City, shall apply and the buildings shall be fully protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that he appreciates the motion but believes that this should be tabled tonight. He stated that there were a number of items requested at the concept review that have not been addressed and additional questions arose tonight. He believed that there is sufficient time available to table the request to allow for that additional information to be supplied. He stated that he would like to see the snow storage plan. He noted that he would assume the building would be sprinkled which would eliminate the need for multiple fire trucks in the case of fire. He stated that he would like to see the review of the landscaping plan completed by the Master Gardeners prior to Council review rather than prior to issuance of a building permit. He stated that during the concept review there was a request for a comparison between the impervious surface and stormwater treatment for the original PUD versus what is being proposed, and how the stormwater treatment would handle the runoff for the increased impervious surface and the higher intensity storms. He stated that he would like to see a comparison between the proposed development traffic volumes and flows to the traffic study the City completed in 2017 that proposed a different type of development for this site. He noted that the City’s study identified future improvements along Dodd Road and if the traffic is going to be changed from the assumptions in that plan, it is possible that the need for some of those improvements will also change. He commented that he would like to see the pedestrian connections that would make it possible for pedestrian traffic to flow from this site to the remainder of the overall site. He referenced the parking calculations for the restaurant use and did not believe that to be adequate. He suggested that the traffic study use ITE and data from other Mendota Heights restaurants rather than using the peak times from MnDOT. He noted that if the motion from Commission Noonan does not pass, he would be willing to make a motion to table. Commissioner Noonan stated that he will withdraw his motion. Commissioner Corbett supported that action. Motion withdrawn. Commissioner Katz noted that some of the questions from Commissioner Mazzitello could be answered tonight by the applicant. COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 page 23 Mr. Fenlon confirmed that the building will be fully sprinkled. He stated that the snow storage plan has been prepared. He stated that he has also scheduled a meeting with the Master Gardeners in advance of the City Council meeting. He stated that he does not have a copy of the 2017 traffic study from the City but stated that he would commit to having his traffic consultant update that study. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that he would not require the applicant to update that study, but simply to update the tables in the study. Mr. Fenlon stated that he was unsure if his traffic consultant looked at ITE numbers in addition to MnDOT numbers. He stated that he did push his traffic consultant on the afternoon hours and noted that the consultant picked a classification a step more casual and faster in order to be more conservative with the counts. He noted that the classification of restaurant proposed would most likely reduce those counts. Joseph Kimbrell, project architect, stated that he cannot provide details on the stormwater question as the engineers would have to provide that information. He stated that the snow storage areas are identified in note 17 of the civil site plan. He stated that curb cuts were added to connect the parking lot on Maple to the main lot. He stated that pedestrian striping was not proposed as the remainder of the PUD site does not have that element but noted that they would be willing to add that element for the project. Commissioner Mazzitello referenced the two areas that he would like to see pedestrian connectivity provided. Mr. Fenlon stated that they were able to answer a few of the items and would be willing to engage his traffic consultant to obtain the additional information requested. He asked if the Commission would be agreeable to moving this forward with that commitment. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if tabling this request would cause a delay in the developer’s timeline. Mr. Fenlon stated that he would like to begin construction in May in order to avoid increased winter construction conditions, which would be at risk if the action is tabled tonight. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO THE FEBRUARY 27, 2020 MEETING. page 24 Further discussion: Commissioner Katz stated that he visited the site at a time he did not anticipate being busy and was lucky to find a parking stall. He stated that he would like a more complete traffic study to be completed using the current traffic that exists and how the additional uses would impact the current commercial and residential areas. He believed that the current layout causes congestion and would want to see a more complete review for this site and the overall area. AYES: 6 NAYS: 1 (Petschel) Commissioner Petschel stated that it appears that Commissioner Katz is requesting a review of the overall PUD and surrounding area, whereas the applicant provided a study on this project and increased use from the project. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided details on the City study that was completed in 2017, along with the report that was presented to the City Council privately for the original PUD. Commissioner Petschel asked the type of study Commissioner Katz would like. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that the City study is publicly available and used real traffic counts. He noted that studies for proposed projects would use ITE, or a similar practice. He clarified that his request was for the applicant to update the tables/traffic models within the City’s 2017 report with the proposed traffic counts for their proposed uses as the original use projected a different use with different counts. Commissioner Katz confirmed that could be sufficient. He stated that he would still like to see 2020 data and asked if the applicant would be willing to entertain the cost to complete an actual traffic study for that area. He appreciated what the applicant has done but noted that he would like additional data. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that he believes what he is requesting from the applicant would answer the questions from Commissioner Katz. It was the consensus of the Commission that the following items should be addressed by the developer prior to the February Planning Commission meeting: • Comparison of the 2017 traffic study (numbers/tables) with the proposed development in place of the original PUD use • Impervious surface comparison from the original PUD to the proposed use, taking into account the change in impervious surface and the change in rainfall intensity • Master Gardeners review complete • Traffic Model for Restaurant to be updated • Pedestrian Connectivity, showing where connectivity to the Village would be provided page 25 B) PLANNING CASE 2019-29 CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 553 – AMENDING CERTAIN REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS REGARDING KEEPING OF DOMESTIC CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the City is asked to consider a few amendments to City Code Title 5 – Police Regulations and Title 12 – Zoning regarding certain provisions and standards related to the keeping of domestic chickens in the city. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Corbett referenced the statement that composting will be allowed unless there is a complaint. He asked what would prevent him from making a complaint that would shut down that ability for someone. Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that staff would visit the site to complete a review before making the determination. He confirmed that there would be consistent enforcement. He stated that the expectation would be on the homeowner completing the composting to complete the activity in an effective manner. He stated that if there is a complaint, that staff verifies upon site review, the homeowner would be provided the opportunity to resolve the issue and if that is not done, staff would remove the ability for the homeowner to compost. Commissioner Noonan noted that there are specific criteria/tests listed in the ordinance that would be used for regulation as well. Commissioner Corbett stated that he feels comfortable with the criteria included and the staff process described, noting that his concern was simply that there was a consistent manner in which enforcement would occur. Commissioner Toth asked if a half acre lot could have an accessory building of 144 square feet and a chicken coop sized up to 144 square feet. Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that any lot under four acres could have one accessory building up to 144 square feet and could be allowed an additional 81 square feet for the chicken coop, for a total of up to 225 square feet. Commissioner Toth asked why the increase is proposed from four to six chickens and what the recommended living area is for one chicken. page 26 Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the request was received from current chicken permit holders to increase the number of allowed chickens. He noted that the staff report includes the detailed information on the recommended living space for each chicken. Commissioner Toth stated that perhaps many residents choose to have chickens over the next two years and asked if there have been considerations on the other impacts the keeping of chickens could have on rodents, predators, and other elements of that nature. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that the City has only received 12 permits out of the over 5,000 households, which is a very limited scope. He did not foresee a proliferation of chicken keeping throughout the city in the future. Chair Magnuson referenced the language related to composting and suggested that the language to be amended to a complaint from a resident, as the currently proposed language could be interpreted to require complaints from multiple residents. Commissioner Noonan asked if a resident could construct a chicken coop of 225 square feet if they do not have any other accessory structures. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the size of the chicken coop is limited and therefore a coop of that size would not be allowed. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Noonan stated that he does not support the keeping of chickens in an urban environment. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY TOTH, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE No. 553 AS PRESENTED. AYES: 2 (Noonan and Toth) NAYS: 5 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE No. 553 AS WITH THE MODIFICATION NOTED BY CHAIR MAGNUSON. page 27 AYES: 5 NAYS: 2 (Noonan and Toth) Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review: • Appointment of new and incumbent Planning Commissioners Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that Litton Field will join the Commission at its meeting in February. He reported that Commissioner Mazzitello was reappointed by the Council. • Recognition of Commissioner Michael Noonan for his service to the Commission Chair Magnuson stated that it is with great regret that this is Commissioner Noonan’s last meeting and thanked him for all of his input and experience. She stated that the contributions from Commissioner Noonan have furthered the business of the Commission over the past nine years. She presented Commissioner Noonan with a plaque thanking his for his service to the Commission. Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:03 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 page 28 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: March 4, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Authorize Purchase Order for Ash Tree Removal COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to authorize a purchase order to SavATree for removal of boulevard ash trees along Delaware Avenue. BACKGROUND The city ash trees are quickly being infested by the emerald ash borer. Delaware Avenue north of Dodd Road has a number of boulevard trees which are mostly ash. These trees are infested with the ash borer (EAB) and treatment is no longer an option. DISCUSSION Staff reached out to tree contractors to solicit a quotes for the removal of the ash trees. The trees are considered hazard trees due to the EAB dieback and their proximity to pedestrians, parked cars, and structures. The quotes received are as follows: Contractor DBH Total Price Cost per DBH SavATree 270 Inches $12,840 $47.55 Rainbow TreeCare 136 Inches $8,265 $60.77 • The Rainbow TreeCare quote includes the removal of 6 trees versus 12 trees for SavATree. All 12 trees show signs of infestation and should be removed. The SavATree quote has the lowest cost per DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) BUDGET IMPACT The city budgeted $40,000 for tree removal in the street budget. RECOMMENDATION I recommend that the Council authorize the purchase order for the ash tree removal on Delaware Avenue. ACTION REQUIRED If Council agrees with the staff recommendation, authorize staff to execute a purchase order for the ash tree removal on Delaware Avenue to SavATree for $12,840. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 29 2019 Ash Tree Map page 30 llll ll l l l l l l OTTAWA AVECHIPPEWA AVEDELAWARE AVECHEROKEE AVEDODD RDMIRIAM ST MINA ST ANNAPOLIS ST W HIAWATHA AVE FREMONT ST SIMARD ST JUNCTION LN WINSTON CT DIEGO LNELLEN ST GA R D E N L N KIRCHNER A V E Delaware Ave - Ash Trees Date: 2/25/2020 City ofMendotaHeights0310 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. page 31 Request for City Council Action DATE: March 4, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator Wayne Wegener, Police Captain SUBJECT: Approve Community Service Officer Hire INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to approve the hiring of Alyssa Milligan for the position of Community Service Officer. BACKGROUND Staff has completed the recruitment process to fill the part-time Community Service Officer position and recommends the hiring of Alyssa Milligan for the position. Ms. Milligan is currently enrolled in the Criminal Justice program at Inver Hills Community College with aspirations of becoming a police officer. Alyssa has successfully completed a comprehensive background investigation, a pre-employment physical, and a psychological evaluation. Pending approval of the City Council, Alyssa’s anticipated start date is March 9th. BUDGET IMPACT The part-time Community Service Officer position is a budgeted position. The starting hourly rate is $19.99, which is step 1 of pay grade 2 of the City’s Compensation Plan. The position is eligible for benefits, on a prorated basis. ACTION RECOMMENDED Staff recommends that the City Council approve the hiring of Alyssa Milligan as Community Service Officer, at an hourly rate of $19.99. ACTION REQUIRED If City Council concurs, it should by motion, approve the hiring of Alyssa Milligan to the position of Community Service Officer with the Mendota Heights Police Department. page 32 Request for City Council Action DATE: March 4, 2020 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator Kelly McCarthy, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Approve Police Officer Promotion to Sergeant INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to approve the promotion of Officer Nick Gorgos to Sergeant. BACKGROUND In 2020, the Council approved the resignation of Erik Petersen and gave permission to start the promotional process to fill the vacant Sergeant position. The promotional process consisted of an evaluation of training and experience, an oral interview, and a full assessment and psychological test conducted by Martin-McAllister. We had two very qualified candidates, but Officer Gorgos’ extensive experience stood out. Nick was hired by the Mendota Heights Police Department August of 2014 after spending 4 years with the Savannah-Chatham (Georgia) Police Department. Nick has a bachelor’s degree from Armstrong State University and is a veteran of the United States Marine Corps. BUDGET IMPACT The Sergeant position is a budgeted position. ACTION RECOMMENDED Staff recommends that the City Council approve the promotion of Nick Gorgos from Officer to Sergeant. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the promotion of Nick Gorgos to the position of Police Sergeant with the Mendota Heights Police Department. page 33 Request for City Council Action DATE: March 4, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Firefighter Retirement INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to accept the retirement of Justin Fitzgerald as a firefighter with the Mendota Heights Fire Department. BACKGROUND Firefighter Justin Fitzgerald has announced his retirement from the Fire Department effective March 1, 2020. Justin become a firefighter with the Mendota Heights Fire Department on April 5, 2006. During this time he has had 12 years of service to the department and citizens, and Justin has been an active member of the Fire Department. Staff would like to acknowledge Justin’s contributions to the department and community and also thank him for his time serving on the Mendota Heights Fire Department. BUDGET IMPACT N/A ACTION RECOMMENDED Staff recommends that the City Council accept the retirement of Justin Fitzgerald as a firefighter with the Mendota Heights Fire Department and formally thank Justin for his 12 years of service. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should by motion, accept the retirement of Justin Fitzgerald effective March 1, 2020, from the Mendota Heights Fire Department and formally thank Justin for this 12 years of service to our community as a Mendota Heights Firefighter. page 34 DATE: March 4, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, City Administrator, and Fire Chief FROM: Scott Goldenstein, Assistant Fire Chief SUBJECT: Request to purchase fitness equipment for the fire station INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to authorize the purchase of fitness equipment for use in the Fire Station. BACKGROUND Physical fitness is important for the well-being of our first responders. As part of the budgeting process for the construction and remodeling of the Fire Station, funds were allocated for the purchase of fitness equipment to be used in the newly constructed fitness room. That portion of the station is due to be occupied by the department on or about the third week of March, 2020. A committee was formed to assess what equipment was most appropriate for the fire station and then prepare a list of equipment that prioritized the equipment as well as develop minimum criteria that products had to meet to help to ensure that the products chosen would stand up well in a commercial environment. Previously, the fire department has not had a fitness area and consequently does not have fitness equipment. Users will need be trained, and use will be limited to current firefighters only. BUDGET IMPACT The original budget amount for fitness equipment was $20,000. Competitive pricing was sought. In order to stay within the budget, two items were removed from the equipment list and two used pieces of equipment which are nearly new but provide for a substantial savings, versus being new. The equipment would be bought from 3 different vendors being: Johnson Fitness (commercial sales division), Push Pedal Pull (commercial sales division) and Omni Fitness USA (out of Chanhassen, MN). The equipment included is as follows: Strength Equipment New Omni Fitness w/ delivery & set-up. Includes ½ rack, weight plates, 2 adj benches, barbell, trap bar, dumbbells & rack Elliptical Johnson Fitness w/delivery & 2 yr. ext warranty Octane XT one (Refurb) Treadmill Push Pedal Pull delivery & set-up extra page 35 True Model #C650 (Refurb) Functional Trainer New Push Pedal Pull delivery & set-up extra Inflight Model #FT-1000 StairMill New Push Pedal Pull delivery & set-up extra Core Health & Fitness (StairMaster) 9-5270-8G-LCD Rower New Push Pedal Pull delivery & set-up extra Spirit Fitness #800945 KettleBells New Push Pedal Pull delivery & set-up extra Troy Barbell #CKB9 ClubPac w rack ACTION RECOMMENDED It’s my recommendation that we move forward with the purchase of the fitness equipment utilizing the 3 vendors as shown: Omni Fitness $5075.00 (all free weight equipment) Johnson Fitness $2,580.00 (elliptical) Push Pedal Pull $11,411 (balance of equipment) Total $19,066 does not include freight or setup (except with free weights) ACTION REQUIRED If the City Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the purchase of Fire Station fitness equipment, as recommended. page 36 DATE: March 4, 2020 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: July 4 Fireworks Contract Comment: Introduction: The City Council is asked to approve a contras act with Northern Lighters Pyrotechnics (NLP) to provide the fireworks for Independence Day again this year. Background: For approximately twenty years, the Mendota Heights fireworks display on July 4th has been provided by NLP. They have proposed to do it again this year. The attached contract is nearly identical to the contract which was utilized last year. Because Mendakota Country Club provides the launch site, the agreement is between the three parties. Budget Impact: 2019 was the first year that the City funded the fireworks entirely. 2020 will be the same arrangement, in the amount of $14,000. Recommendation: I recommend approval. Action Required: If the Council concurs, t should, by motion approve the contract for the July 4th fireworks display, between Northern Lighters Pyrotechnics, Mendakota Country Club, and the City of Mendota Heights. Mark McNeill City Administrator page 37 AGREEMENT This Agreement is made as of the _____day of _______, 2020, by and among Northern Lighter Pyrotechnics, Inc. (“NLP”), the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota (the “Client”), and Mendakota Country Club, Inc. (the “Landowner”): WHEREAS, NLP is a nonprofit corporation formed under the laws of the State of Minnesota engaged in the activity of producing firework displays; and WHEREAS, Client desires to utilize the services of NLP for its Fourth of July event, to be held at the premises of the Landowner; and WHEREAS, NLP, Client and Landowner desire to enter into this Agreement to more fully set forth and describe the duties and obligations of the parties to this Agreement; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises of the parties hereto and the mutual benefits to be gained by the performance hereof, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Description of Project. On July 4, 2020 NLP shall provide for Client a fireworks display (the “Display”), as set forth on the municipal permit (the “Permit”) completed by NLP describing the Display at the location described as Snack Shack shoot site (the “Display Site”) at the premises of Landowner, which is located at 2075 Mendakota Drive, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. In the event of inclement weather or other conditions that, in the reasonable judgment of the parties hereto, make conducting the Display materially more unsafe or hazardous than otherwise agreed to by NLP in this Agreement, the Display may be delayed but still held on July 4, postponed to a later date, or cancelled. Any back-up date for conducting the Display shall be determined collaboratively by the parties hereto. 2. Payment. For and in total consideration for NLP’s performance of the Display, Client agrees to pay to NLP the sum of $14,000 (the “Display Fee”). The Display Fee shall be paid in full by Client to NLP on or before the Display date. Upon execution of this Agreement, Client shall pay the Display Fee to by June 1, 2020, so as to secure the Display date and ensure product availability. 3. Representations of Parties 3.1 NLP represents that the Display will be performed by its member volunteers whose qualifications and training is supervised and approved by NLP. NLP represents that it is fully experienced and properly qualified to perform the Display described herein and that it is properly licensed, equipped, organized and financed to perform such work. 3.2 NLP shall supply a sufficient number of properly skilled staff and all tools, equipment, materials and facilities and perform all functions necessary to perform the Display. 3.3 NLP shall perform the Display in accordance with all applicable local, state and federal rules, regulations and laws. page 38 3.4 NLP shall take all reasonable safety precautions with respect to its work, shall comply with all safety measures initiated by the authority(s) having jurisdiction at the Display Site and with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and orders of any public authority for the safety of persons or property in accordance with the requirements of the Display. 3.5 NLP shall be at all times an independent contractor and shall not be deemed an employee, agent, partner, joint venture or otherwise of Client. 3.6 It is the intention of the parties that the entire control of the Display Site be and remain the responsibility of NLP, and that any representative of Client or Landowner who may be present, will be present only in a consulting capacity. NLP shall be solely responsible for the means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures of the Display. 3.7 The Client shall determine, coordinate and provide the proper police and fire protection necessary to allow NLP to conduct the Display as described hereunder. The Client shall bear all costs related to providing proper police and fire protection for the Display and the Display Site. In the event NLP determines, in its sole discretion, that additional police and/or fire protection is necessary to allow NLP to conduct the Display as described hereunder, the Client agrees that it shall cooperate with such requests by NLP. 3.8 In order to ensure a safe Display Site and the orderly progress of the Display, NLP shall have full and final control of all personnel, other contractors, or other individuals present on the Display Site. 3.9 The Client waives all claims against NLP for loss or damage to Client’s real property, personal property and fixtures arising out of or reasonably related to NLP conducting the Display, except for losses or damages occasioned by NLP’s intentional actions or negligent actions or inactions. 3.10 The Landowner waives all claims against NLP for loss or damage to Landowner’s real property, personal property and fixtures arising out of or reasonably related to NLP conducting the Display, except for losses or damages occasioned by NLP’s intentional actions or negligent actions or inactions. 3.11 Except as required by law, NLP shall not be required to directly correspond, communicate or interact in any way with any third parties, except with the prior consent of NLP. 4. Permits, Fees and Notices. NLP shall secure and pay for all permits. All further governmental fees, licenses and inspections necessary for the proper execution and completion of the Display shall be the responsibility and expense of Client. 5. Standard of Care. NLP warrants that all services performed or furnished by NLP under this Agreement in relation to the Display will be performed with the care and skill ordinarily used by members of NLP’s profession practicing under similar circumstances at the same time and in the same locality. 6. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Client shall indemnify and hold harmless NLP, its agents, officers, employees and volunteers from and against claims, damages, losses and expenses, including claims for bodily injury, sickness, death, or to injury to or destruction of tangible property, and including, but not limited to attorneys’ fees, arising out of or resulting from NLP conducting the Display, but only to the extent caused by the negligent acts or omissions of the Client, anyone directly or indirectly controlled or employed by Client or anyone for page 39 whose acts the Client may be liable, regardless of whether or not such claim, damage, loss or expense is caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder. Likewise, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the Landowner shall indemnify and hold harmless NLP, its agents, officers, employees and volunteers from and against claims, damages, losses and expenses, including claims for bodily injury, sickness, death, or to injury to or destruction of tangible property, and including, but not limited to attorneys’ fees, arising out of or resulting from NLP conducting the Display, but only to the extent caused by the negligent acts or omissions of the Landowner, anyone directly or indirectly controlled or employed by Landowner or anyone for whose acts the Landowner may be liable, regardless of whether or not such claim, damage, loss or expense is caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder. 7. Insurance. NLP shall secure commercial general liability/public liability insurance in an amount not less than $2,000,000 naming Client and Landowner as additional insureds. To the fullest extent permitted by law, and notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the total liability, in the aggregate, of NLP and NLP's officers, directors, employees, and agents to Client, Landowner, and anyone claiming by, through, or under Client or Landowner for any and all claims, losses, costs, or damages whatsoever arising out of, resulting from or in any way related to the Display or this Agreement from any cause or causes, including but not limited to the negligence, professional errors or omissions, strict liability or breach of contract, or warranty express or implied of NLP or NLP’s officers, directors, employees, agents, or any of them, shall not exceed the policy limits of the CGL/Public Liability insurance provided by NLP under this Agreement. 8. Cancellation. In the event Client cancels the Display, NLP shall be reimbursed for all direct expenses incurred by NLP in preparing for the Display, including, but not limited to, the cost of obtaining the insurance described in Section 7 hereof. 9. Suspension. NLP or the Client each reserves the right, at any time, to suspend the Display (until such time that the default described hereunder is cured to the satisfaction of the non-defaulting party), in whole or in part, upon written notice thereof to the other party if: 9.1 a party hereto persistently or repeatedly refuses or fails to supply enough properly skilled staff (including police and fire protection) or proper materials for the conduct the Display; 9.2 a party hereto fails to make payment required hereunder; 9.3 a party hereto persistently disregards laws, ordinances, or rules, regulations or orders of a public authority having jurisdiction; or 9.4 a party hereto is otherwise is guilty of substantial breach of a provision of this Agreement. 9.5 In the event of a suspension hereunder that results in the cancellation of the Display, NLP shall be reimbursed for all direct expenses incurred by NLP in preparing for the Display, including, but not limited to, the cost of obtaining the insurance described in Section 7 hereof. page 40 10. Dispute Resolution. 10.1 All claims, controversies, disputes and other matters in question between the parties to this Agreement arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof, shall be decided by arbitration in Hennepin County, Minnesota, in accordance with Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association then in place. 10.2 If arbitration is invoked, then notice of demand for arbitration shall be filed in writing with the other parties to this Agreement and with the American Arbitration Association. The demand shall be made within a reasonable time after the claim, controversy, dispute or other matter in question has arisen. In no event shall the demand for arbitration be made after the date when institution of legal or equitable proceedings based on such claim, dispute or other matter in question would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 10.3 An award rendered by the arbitrators shall be appealable to the applicable district court and considered in accordance with applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 11. No Waiver. Any failure by a party to enforce at any time any terms and conditions of this Agreement shall not be considered a waiver of that party's right thereafter to enforce each and every term and condition of this Agreement. 12. Severability. The invalidity of any provision or obligation hereunder or the contravention thereby of any law, rule or regulation shall not relieve a party to this Agreement from its obligation under, nor deprive a party to this Agreement of the advantages of any other provisions of this Agreement. 13. Entire Agreement. The foregoing contains the entire agreement of the parties hereto, and no modification thereof shall be binding upon the parties unless the same is in writing signed by the respective parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year above written. NORTHERN LIGHTER PYROTECHNICS, INC. By: _PAUL D MARCHIO_________________________________________ Title: _____PRESIDENT___________________________________ Date: _______________________________________ page 41 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By: __________________________________________ Title: Mayor Date: ________________________________________ By: __________________________________________ Title: City Clerk Date: ________________________________________ MENDAKOTA COUNTRY CLUB, INC. By: __________________________________________ Title: ________________________________________ Date: ________________________________________ page 42 DATE: March 4, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: 2020-2021 MNPEA Labor Agreement INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to ratify a two-year labor agreement with the Minnesota Public Employees Association, representing Police Sergeants. BACKGROUND Attached for review and consideration is the 2020-2021 labor agreement between the City of Mendota Heights and Minnesota Public Employees Association (MNPEA), for which there is a tentative agreement. The 2020-2021 agreement is consistent with the direction that staff received from the City Council. Changes and updates to the 2020-2021 contract include: • Article XI Work Schedules (Section 11.2) Amended language so that holidays and authorized leave time accrues and are calculated on the basis of the actual length of time of assigned shifts. • Article XVI Insurance—The City will provide $1,680 per month for 2020, with a reopener for 2021. • Article XXII Wage Rates—A 3.0% cost of living adjustment for 2020 and a 3.0% cost of living adjustment for 2021. 01/01/2020 01/01/2021 At 0-12 months $7,414 $7,636 At 12-24 months $7,784 $8,018 At 24+ months $8,174 $8,419 At 240 months $8,340 $8,590 BUDGET IMPACT Costs associated with the negotiated agreement are included in the 2020 city budget. page 43 ACTION RECOMMENDED Staff recommends ratification of the agreement between the City of Mendota Heights and the Minnesota Public Employees Association, covering Police Sergeants for 2020-2021. ACTION REQUIRED If the City Council concurs, it should, by motion, ratify the 2020-2021 labor agreement between the City of Mendota Heights and the Minnesota Public Employees Association. page 44 MASTER LABOR AGREEMENT CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND MINNESOTA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (SERGEANTS UNIT) January 1, 2018 2020 - December 31, 20192021 page 45 Table of Contents ARTICLE I ARTICLE II ARTICLE Ill ARTICLE IV ARTICLE V ARTICLE VI ARTICLE VII ARTICLE VIII ARTICLE IX ARTICLE X ARTICLE XI ARTICLE XII ARTICLE XIII ARTICLE XIV ARTICLE XV ARTICLE XVI ARTICLE XVII ARTICLE XVIII ARTICLE XIX ARTICLE XX ARTICLE XXI ARTICLE XXII ARTICLE XXIII ARTICLE XXIV ARTICLE XXV ARTICLE XXVI ARTICLE XXVII ARTICLE XXVIII PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT 2 RECOGNITION 2 DEFINITIONS 2 EMPLOYER SECURITY 3 EMPLOYER AUTHORITY 3 UNION SECURITY 4 EMPLOYEE RIGHTS GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 4 SAVINGS CLAUSE 7 SENIORITY 7 DISCIPLINE 8 WORK SCHEDULES 9 OVERTIME 9 COURT TIME 10 CALL BACK TIME 10 WORKING OUT OF CLASSIFICATION 10 INSURANCE 10 STANDBY 11 UNIFORMS 11 INJURY ON DUTY 11 EDUCATIONAL INCENTIVE 11 WAIVER 12 WAGE RATES (MONTHLY BASE RATE) 12 VACATIONS 12 HOLIDAYS 13 PERSONAL LEAVE/EXTENDED DISABILITY PROTECTION SICK LEAVE 13 INDEMNIFICATION INSURANCE 14 TRAINING 14 DURATION 15 page 46 MASTER LABOR AGREEMENT CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND MINNESOTA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION ARTICLE I PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT is entered into as of January 1, 2018 2020 between the City of Mendota Heights, hereinafter called the EMPLOYER, and the Minnesota Public Employees Association, hereinafter called the UNION. It is the intent and purpose of this AGREEMENT to: 1.1 Establish procedures for the resolution of disputes concerning this AGREEMENT's interpretation and/or application; and 1.2 Place in written form the parties' agreement upon terms and conditions of employment for the duration of this AGREEMENT. ARTICLE II RECOGNITION 2.1 The EMPLOYER recognizes the UNION as the exclusive representative, under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 179A for all police personnel in the following job classification: Licensed Police Sergeant 2.2 In the event the EMPLOYER and the UNION are unable to agree as to the inclusion or exclusion of a new or modified job class, the issue shall be submitted to the Bureau of Mediation Services for determination, pursuant to the rules and procedures established by the BMS. ARTICLE Ill DEFINITIONS 3.1 UNION: Minnesota Public Employees Association 3.2 UNION MEMBER: A member of the Minnesota Public Employees Association 3.3 EMPLOYEE: A member of the exclusively recognized bargaining unit. 3.4 DEPARTMENT: The Mendota Heights Police Department. page 47 3.5 EMPLOYER: The City of Mendota Heights. 3.6 CHIEF: The Chief of the Mendota Heights Police Department. 3.7 UNION OFFICER: Officer elected or appointed by Minnesota Public Employees Association 3.8 OVERTIME: Work performed at the express authorization of the EMPLOYER in excess of the employee scheduled shift. 3.9 SCHEDULED SHIFT: A consecutive work period including rest breaks and a lunch break. 3.10 REST BREAKS: Periods during the SCHEDULED SHIFT during which the employee remains on continual duty and is responsible for assigned duties. 3.11 LUNCH BREAKS: A period during the SCHEDULED SHIFT during which the employee remains on continual duty and is responsible for assigned duties. 3.12 STRIKE: Concerted action in failing to report for duty, the willful absence from one's position, the stoppage of work, slow-down, or abstinence in whole or in part from the full, faithful and proper performance of the duties of employment for the purpose of inducing, influencing or coercing a change in the conditions or compensation of the rights, privileges or obligations of employment. ARTICLE IV EMPLOYER SECURITY The UNION agrees that during the life of this AGREEMENT that the UNION will not cause, encourage, participate in or support any strike, slow-down or other interpretation of or interference with the normal functions of the EMPLOYER. ARTICLE V EMPLOYER/AUTHORITY 5.1 The EMPLOYER retains the full and unrestricted right to operate and manage the workforce, facilities and equipment; to establish functions and programs; to set and amend budgets; to determine the utilization of technology; to establish and modify the organizational structure; to select, direct, and determine the number of personnel; to establish work schedules, and to perform any inherent managerial function not specifically limited by this AGREEMENT. page 48 5.2 Any term and condition of employment not specifically established or modified by the AGREEMENT shall remain solely within the discretion of the EMPLOYER to modify, establish or eliminate. ARTICLE VI UNION SECURITY 6.1 The EMPLOYER shall deduct from the wages of employees who authorize such a deduction in writing an amount necessary to cover monthly UNION dues. Such monies shall be remitted as directed by the UNION. 6.2 The UNION may designate employees from the bargaining unit to act as a Steward and an alternate and shall inform the EMPLOYER in writing of such choice and changes in the position or steward and/or alternate. 6.3 The EMPLOYER shall make space available on the employee bulletin board for posting UNION notice(s) and announcement(s). 6.4 The UNION agrees to indemnify and hold the EMPLOYER harmless against any and all claims, suits, orders, or judgments brought or issued against the EMPLOYER as a result of any action taken or not taken by the EMPLOYER under the provisions of this Article. ARTICLE VII EMPLOYEE RIGHTS GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 7.1 DEFINITION OF A GRIEVANCE A grievance is defined as a dispute or disagreement as to the interpretation or application of the specific terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT. 7.2 UNION REPRESENTATIVES The EMPLOYER will recognize REPRESENTATIVES, including union attorneys and business agents, as designated by the UNION as the grievance representatives of the bargaining unit having the duties and responsibilities established by this ARTICLE. The UNION shall notify the EMPLOYER in writing of the names of such UNION REPRESENTATIVES and of their successors when so designated. page 49 7.3 PROCESSING OF A GRIEVANCE It is recognized and accepted by the UNION and the EMPLOYER that the processing of grievances as hereinafter provided is limited by the job duties and responsibilities of the EMPLOYEES and shall therefore be accomplished during normal working hours only when consistent with such EMPLOYEE duties and responsibilities. The aggrieved EMPLOYEE and a UNION REPRESENTATIVE shall be allowed a reasonable amount of time without loss of pay when a grievance is investigated and presented to the EMPLOYER during normal working hours provided that the EMPLOYEE and the UNION REPRESENTATIVE have notified and received the approval of the designated supervisor who has determined that such absence is reasonable and would not be detrimental to the work programs of the EMPLOYER. 7.4 PROCEDURE Grievances, as defined by Section 7.1, shall be resolved in conformance with the following procedure: Step 1 - An EMPLOYEE, or a union representative with the consent of the EMPLOYEE, claiming a violation concerning the interpretation or application of this AGREEMENT shall, within twenty-one (21) calendar days after such alleged violation has occurred, present such grievance to the EMPLOYEE supervisor as designated by the EMPLOYER. Grievances and grievance responses will be allowed to be presented via email, fax, US Mail, or Hand Delivery. The EMPLOYER-designated representative will discuss and give answer to such Step 1 grievance within ten (10) calendar days after receipt. A grievance not resolved in Step 1 and appealed to Step 2 shall be placed in writing setting forth the nature of the grievance, the facts on which it is based, the provision or provisions of the AGREEMENT allegedly violated, the remedy requested, and shall be appealed to Step 2 within ten (10) calendar days after the EMPLOYER- designated representative final answer in Step 1. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 2 by the UNION within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. Step 2 - If appealed, the written grievance shall be presented by the UNION and discussed with the EMPLOYER- designated Step 2 representative. The EMPLOYER designated representative shall give the UNION the EMPLOYER Step 2 answer in writing within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of such Step 2 grievance. A grievance not resolved in Step 2 may be appealed to Step 3 within ten (10) calendar days following the EMPLOYER- designated representative final Step 2 answer. page 50 Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 3 by the UNION within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. Step 3 - If appealed, the written grievance shall be presented by the UNION and discussed with the EMPLOYER - designated Step 3 representative The EMPLOYER- designated representative shall give the UNION the EMPLOYER answer in writing within ten (10) calendar days following the EMPLOYER-designated representative receipt of Step 3 appeal. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 4 by the UNION within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. Step 3A- Mediation: if the Employer and UNION mutually agree, a grievance unresolved at step 3 may be submitted to the MN Bureau of Mediation Services ("BMS") within 10 days after UNION receipt of the Employer's response to Step 3. If the grievance is resolved through Mediation, the settlement shall be reduced to writing and signed by the UNION and the EMPLOYER. If the grievance is unresolved through Mediation, it may be appealed to Step 4 within 10 days starting the day following the Mediation Meeting Session. If either party elects to not go through with Mediation after initially agreeing, it must be withdrawn in writing; then the grievance can be appealed to Step 4 within 10 days starting the day following the party's written withdrawal from mediation. Step 4 - A grievance unresolved in Step 3 and appealed to Step 4 by the UNION shall be submitted to arbitration subject to the provisions of the Public Employment Labor Relations Act of 1971. The selection of an arbitrator shall be made in accordance with the Rules Governing the Arbitration of Grievances as established by the Bureau of Mediation Services. 7.5 ARBITRATOR AUTHORITY A. The arbitrator shall have no right to amend, modify, nullify, ignore, add to, or subtract from the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT. The arbitrator shall consider and decide only the specific issue(s) submitted in writing by the EMPLOYER and the UNION, and shall have no authority to make a decision on any other issue not so submitted. B. The arbitrator shall be without power to make decisions contrary to, or inconsistent with, or modifying or varying in any way the application of laws, rules, or regulations having the force and effect of law. The arbitrator's decision shall be page 51 submitted in writing within thirty (30) days following close of the hearing or the submission of briefs by the parties, whichever be later, unless the parties agree to an extension. The decision shall be binding on both the EMPLOYER and the UNION and shall be based solely on the arbitrator's interpretation or application of the express terms of this AGREEMENT and to the facts of the grievance presented. C. The fees and expenses for the arbitrator's services and proceedings shall be borne equally by the EMPLOYER and the UNION provided that each party shall be responsible for compensation of its own representatives and witnesses. If either party desires a verbatim record of the proceedings, it may cause such a record to be made, providing it pays for the record. If both parties desire a verbatim record of the proceedings, the cost shall be shared equally. 7.6 WAIVER If a grievance is not presented within the time limits set forth above, it shall be considered waived. If a grievance is not appealed to the next step within the specified time limit or any agreed extension thereof, it shall be considered settled on the basis of the EMPLOYER's last answer. If the EMPLOYER does not answer a grievance or an appeal thereof within the specified time limits, the UNION may elect to treat the grievances as denied at that step and immediately appeal the grievance to the next step. The time limit in each step may be extended by mutual written agreement of the EMPLOYER and the UNION in each step. ARTICLE VIII SAVINGS CLAUSE This AGREEMENT is subject to the laws of the United Stated, the State of Minnesota, and the City of Mendota Heights. In the event any provision of this AGREEMENT shall be held to be contrary to law by a court of competent jurisdiction from whose final judgment or decree to appeal has been taken within the time provided, or administrative ruling or is a violation of legislation or administrative regulations, such provisions shall be voided. All other provisions of this AGREEMENT shall continue in full force and effect. The voided provision may be renegotiated at the written request of either party. ARTICLE IX SENIORITY 9.1 Seniority shall be determined by the employee length of continuous employment as a sergeant for the EMPLOYER, referred to as IN CLASS SENIORITY. Seniority rosters will be posted in an appropriate location. page 52 9.2 During the one (1) year probationary period a newly hired or rehired employee may be discharged at the sole discretion of the EMPLOYER. During the one (1) year probationary period, a promoted or reassigned employee may be replaced in his previous position at the sole discretion of the EMPLOYER. 9.3 A reduction of work force will be accomplished on the basis of IN CLASS SENIORITY. Employees shall be recalled from layoff on the basis of IN CLASS SENIORITY. An employee on layoff shall have an opportunity to return to work within two years of the time of this layoff before any new employee is hired. 9.4 Qualified employees shall be given shift assignment preference after eighteen (18) months of continuous full-time employment based on IN CLASS SENIORITY. A shift bidding shall be posted annually. 9.5 One continuous vacation period shall be selected on the basis of IN CLASS SENIORITY until March 15th of each calendar year. ARTICLE X DISCIPLINE 10.1 The EMPLOYER will discipline employees for just cause only. Discipline will be in one or more of the following forms: a. Oral reprimand b. Written reprimand c. Suspension d. Demotion; or e. Discharge 10.2 Suspensions, demotions and discharges will be in written form. 10.3 Written reprimands, notices of suspension, and notices of discharge which are to become part of an employee's personnel files shall be read and acknowledged by signature of the employee. Employees and the UNION will receive a copy of such reprimands and/or notices. 10.4 Employees may examine their own individual personnel files at reasonable times under the direct supervision of the EMPLOYER. 10.5 An employee who is the subject of a disciplinary investigation will be given a reasonable opportunity to have a UNION representative present during questioning if he/she requests such representation. page 53 10.6 Grievance relating to this ARTICLE shall be initiated by the UNION in Step 3 of the grievance procedure under ARTICLE VII. ARTICLE XI WORK SCHEDULES 11.1 The normal work year is two thousand and eighty hours (2080) to be accounted for by employee through: a. Hours worked on assigned shifts b. Holidays c. Assigned training d. Authorized leave time 11.2 Holidays and authorized leave time are to be accrued and calculated on the basis of the actual length of time of the assigned shifts. 11.3 Nothing contained in this or any other Article shall be interpreted to be a guarantee of a minimum or maximum number of hours the EMPLOYER may assign employees. ARTICLE XII OVERTIME 12.1 Employees will be compensated at one and one-half (1-1/2) times the employee's regular base pay rate for hours worked in excess of the employee's regularly scheduled shift. Changes of shift do not qualify an employee for overtime under this Article. 12.2 Overtime will be distributed as equally as practicable. 12.3 Overtime refused by employees will for record purposes under article 12.2 be considered as unpaid overtime worked. 12.4 For the purpose of computing overtime compensation, overtime hours shall not be pyramided, compounded or paid twice for the same hours worked. 12.5 Overtime will be calculated to the nearest fifteen (15) minutes. 12.6 Employees have the obligation to work overtime or call back if requested by the EMPLOYER unless unusual circumstances prevent the employee from so working. 12.7 An employee may choose to receive compensatory time as compensation for overtime hours at the rate of 1.5 hours for each hour worked. The maximum allowable balance of such hours carried into the next calendar year shall be one hundred (100) hours. The EMPLOYER may cash out an employee balance in excess of the 100 hours maximum. page 54 12.8 An employee may cash out any portion of their compensatory time balance the second pay period in May and November if requested in writing with the submission of the employee time sheet. ARTICLE XIII COURT TIME 13.1 An employee who is required to appear in Court during his/her scheduled off duty time shall receive a minimum of three (3) hours pay at one and one half (1-1/2) times the employee base pay rate. An extension or early report to a regularly scheduled shift for Court appearances does not qualify the employee for the three (3) hour minimum. 13.2 An employee who is not notified of the cancellation of a scheduled court appearance by 4:00 pm the previous business day shall receive a minimum of two and one-half (2-1/2) hours of pay at one and one-half (1- 1/2) times the employee base pay rate. ARTICLE XIV CALL BACK TIME An employee who is called to duty during his scheduled off-duty time shall receive a minimum of two and one half (2.5) hours pay at one and one-half (1-1/2) times the employee base pay rate. An extension or early report to a regularly scheduled shift does not qualify the employee for the two and one half (2.5) hour minimum. ARTICLE XV WORKING OUT OF CLASSIFICATION Employees assigned by the EMPLOYER to assume the full responsibilities and authority of a higher job classification shall receive the salary schedule of the higher classification for the duration of the assignment. ARTICLE XVI INSURANCE The EMPLOYER will contribute up to a maximum of one thousand six hundred dollars ($1,600680) per month toward health, dental, long term disability, short term disability, and term life (up to $50,000) insurance for 20182020. There will be a reopener for 2019 2021 insurance language. If any City of Mendota Heights employee group is awarded a higher amount in 2018 2020 the UNION MEMBERS shall receive the higher amount. page 55 In the event the health insurance provisions of this Agreement fail to meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act and its related regulations or cause the Employer to be subject to a penalty, tax or fine, the Union and the Employer will meet immediately to bargain over alternative provisions so as comply with the Act and avoid any penalties, taxes or fines for the Employer. ARTICLE XVII STANDBY Employees required by the EMPLOYER to standby shall be paid for such standby time at the rate of one hour pay for each hour on standby. An employee shall be considered to be in standby status only if he or she is expressly directed to serve in such capacity by the Chief of Police or his/her designee. ARTICLE XVIII UNIFORMS The EMPLOYER shall provide required uniform and equipment items. Each employee shall also receive a maximum of three hundred ($300) dollars annual reimbursement for cleaning and maintenance of uniforms. Reimbursement shall be upon presentation of receipts for cleaning and maintenance services from any cleaners. ARTICLE XIX INJURY ON DUTY Employees injured during the performance of their duties for the EMPLOYER and thereby rendered unable to work for the EMPLOYER will be paid the difference between the employee regular pay and Worker Compensation insurance payments for a period not to exceed one hundred twenty (120) working days per injury, not charged to the employee vacation, sick leave or other accumulated paid benefits. ARTICLE XX EDUCATIONAL INCENTIVE 20.1 Supplementary pay based on educational degree will be paid to employees who have been employed by the City as a patrol officer for a period of at least 12 consecutive months prior to the promotion. Four year degree 9% Masters Degree 12% page 56 ARTICLE XXI WAIVER 21.1 Any and all prior agreements, resolutions, practices, policies, rules and regulations regarding terms and conditions of employment, to the extent inconsistent with the provisions of this AGREEMENT, are hereby superseded. 21.2 The parties mutually acknowledge that during the negotiations, which resulted in this AGREEMENT, each had the unlimited right and opportunity to make demands and proposals with respect to any term or condition of employment not removed by law from bargaining. All agreements and understandings arrived at by the parties are set forth in writing in this AGREEMENT for the stipulated duration of this agreement. The EMPLOYER and the UNION each voluntarily and unqualifiedly waive the right to meet and negotiate regarding any and all terms and conditions of employment referred to or covered in this AGREEMENT or with respect to any term or condition of employment not specifically referred to or covered by this AGREEMENT, even though such terms or conditions may not have been within the knowledge or contemplation of either or both of the parties at the time this AGREEMENT was negotiated or executed. ARTICLE XXII WAGE RATES The monthly base rate of pay without educational degree shall be: 201820 20 20192021 At 0-12 months $7,0057,414 $7,1987,63 6 At 12-24 months $7,3557,784 $7,5578,01 8 At 24+ months $7,7248,174 $7,9368,41 9 At 240 months (total department service) $7,8808,340 $8,0978,59 0 If any group of employees within the City of Mendota Heights that has been formally certified as a bargaining unit by the BMS receives an across-the-board pay increase that is more than 2.75%, then the employees in the sergeant's bargaining unit will receive the same across- the-board percentage increase as the BMS certified bargaining unit that receives the highest percentage increase. ARTICLE XXIII VACATIONS Time accrued according to the following schedule: 0-5 years of service 10 days per year 6-10 years of service 15 days per year Over 10 years of service 1 additional day per year, page 57 not to exceed 20 days Accrued vacation shall be used in the year following the year which said time is earned. Employees may accrue vacation leave not to exceed a maximum of two hundred hours (200). On December 31st of each year any hours over 200 will be forfeited. No employee shall be permitted to waive vacation for the purpose of receiving double pay. ARTICLE XXIV HOLIDAYS Each employee shall be granted a total of eleven (11) paid holidays. Holiday leave time will be accounted for in a separate holiday leave bank and shall not accumulate from year to year. Any holiday leave time remaining in the employee holiday leave bank on December 31 shall be paid to the employee at their then current rate. If an employee works on a legal holiday, they shall be granted ½ hour of compensatory time for each hour worked, in addition to the holiday pay. Each employee shall be granted one floating holiday during the calendar year. The floating holiday is not eligible for carry-over or monetary compensation. ARTICLE XXV PERSONAL LEAVE/EXTENDED DISABILITY PROTECTION SICK LEAVE 25.1 PERSONAL LEAVE: Permanent full-time employees shall accrue personal leave at the rate of four (4) hours per month, to a maximum of 320 hours. Personal leave shall be available for use without restriction, except by prior approval of the supervisor. An employee shall not be allowed to use more than twenty (20) consecutive personal days, or a combination of twenty (20) consecutive personal and vacation days, without prior approval consistent with city personnel policies. Each December 1, any employee with an accrued Personal Leave balance in excess of 320 hours may convert the excess hours at a rate of 50%, to either additional cash compensation, or additional vacation time. The compensation will be made, or the extra vacation credited, with the second payroll in December. Beginning November 1st of each year beginning November 2012, all employees have agreed to contribute to the State of Minnesota's Post Employment Health Care Savings Plan as described below: Employees shall contribute 1% of pay, and the cash equivalent of 24 hours of personal time each year. page 58 All employees eligible for severance pay will contribute 75% of their severance payouts to their post-employment health care savings accounts. Upon separation, employees will be compensated for any unused Personal Leave, vacation and compensatory time balances accrued. 25.2 EXTENDED DISABILITY PROTECTION: Permanent full-time employees shall accrue extended disability leave at the rate of four (4) hours per month, to a cumulative maximum of 640 hours. Extended disability protection is available for use on the first day of a personal illness, and thereafter, or anytime for a work-related illness or injury. Employees are to keep their supervisor informed of their condition. The supervisor may require a letter or report from the attending physician. Claiming extended disability leave when physically fit may be cause for disciplinary action, including transfer, demotion, suspension or dismissal. In cases of extreme emergency involving employees with a record of meritorious service, who through serious or protracted illness have used up all accumulated personal leave, extended disability leave, vacation leave and compensatory time off, an extension of extended disability leave beyond the maximum provided in this resolution may be granted by the City Council. The resultant deficit will be repaid promptly through application of future personal, extended disability, vacation, and compensatory leave accruals. ARTICLE XXVI INDEMNIFICATION INSURANCE The City shall provide a policy to cover the employee for indemnification for civil liability cases arising out of and within the scope of the Employee's job duties. ARTICLE XXVII TRAINING 27.1 The employer shall be responsible for providing all training required by the POST Board to maintain the licensure as a certified police officer, and shall pay the cost of the POST licensure and shall pay employees for all time spent in such training at the applicable rate. 27.2 The EMPLOYER will allow employees to attend such other job- related training programs as may be mutually agreed upon by the EMPLOYER and individual employees. Employees scheduled to work during such a training session will be allowed time off without loss of pay for attendance and those attending during non- scheduled hours will be allowed compensatory time off or pay at page 59 straight time for time spent in training, unless the time is required to be compensated at time and one-half under applicable law. 27.3 The EMPLOYER shall reimburse employees for all reasonable costs incurred in obtaining EMPLOYER approved training, including but not limited to, registration, and license fees, mileage, and lodging and meals. 27.4 All training activities shall be subject to the prior approval of the Police Chief. ARTICLE XXX DURATION This agreement shall be effective as of January 1, 2018 2020 and shall remain in full force and effect until the 31st day of December, 20192021. FOR THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Mayor Date City Administrator Date City Clerk Date FOR THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Business Agent Date Steward Date page 60 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: March 4, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Scott Golden SUBJECT: COMMENT: Fire Calls The month of January had 2020 starting off with 29 call for service. Geographically, the calls were distributed as follows: Mendota Heights 16 call(s) Lilydale 3 call(s) Mendota 3 call(s) Sunfish Lake 1 call(s) Other 6 call(s) Types of calls: Actual Fires: 1 Mendota Heights Fire was paged to a garbage fire within 6 feet of a home. Medical/Extrication: 4 The Fire Department responded to three calls that were medical in nature. In addition, we responded to a call for a stuck elevator and possible person trapped. When we arrived, the elevator cab proved to be unoccupied. Mutual Aid: 6 We had a larger than normal number of requests for assistance in January. There were five requests from Eagan (of which four were actual fires) and one for a structure fire in West Saint Paul. Hazardous Situation: 3 The Fire Department had a total of three calls that were for hazardous situations. One of the three calls, was for a CO alarm in a residence where a significant amount of CO was confirmed in the home. The Mendota Heights Fire Department also responded to a smell of gas in a home where it was confirmed that there a natural gas leak in the residence. We also responded to a vehicle accident with a need for containment of gasoline that was leaking from a car that had just filled its tank. Service Call: None for January Good Intent: 7 During January, we had five calls that we were dispatched to, but were then cancelled before arriving on scene. We also responded to one call for an outdoor smell of gas in the area. We also were paged to a vehicle fire that ended up being an overheated vehicle engine. page 61 False Alarms: 8 We responded to four CO detector calls that were due to detector malfunction, low battery, or end of life. In addition, we also responded to four fire/smoke alarms where it was due to the system malfunctioning. January Training January 8 18:30 Hose Drills This drill was a hands-on drill going over proper hose deployment methods, reloading hose methods, as well as a refresher on O2 administration. January 9 07:00 Hose Drills This drill was a hands on drill going over proper hose deployment methods, reloading hose methods, as well as a refresher on O2 administration. January 15 18:30 General/Relief Meeting January 20 18:30 Search Drills. This drill was dedicated to skills practice for locating victims or equipment and/or crew in an impaired/zero visibility environment. The drill involved two stations, one involved locating and assembling equipment with zero visibility and the other station involved locating SCBA components in an area with impaired visibility and reassembling a complete SCBA pack. January 21 07:00 Search Drills. This drill was dedicated to skills practice for locating victims or equipment and/or crew in an impaired/zero visibility environment. The drill involved two stations, one involved locating and assembling equipment with zero visibility and the other station involved locating SCBA components in an area with impaired visibility and reassembling a complete SCBA pack. page 62 Number of Calls 29 Total Calls for Year 29 FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE ACTUAL FIRESStructure - MH Commercial $0Structure - MH Residential $0Structure - Contract Areas $0Cooking Fire - confined $0Vehicle - MH $0Vehicle - Contract Areas $0Grass/Brush/No Value MHGrass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSESOther Fire 1 OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $0 $0 $0 MEDICALEmergency Medical/Assist 1Vehicle accident w/injuriesExtrication ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$0Medical, other 3 HAZARDOUS SITUATION MEND. HTS. ONLY STRUCT/CONTENTS $0Spills/Leaks 1Carbon Monoxide Incident MEND. HTS. ONLY MISCELLANEOUS $0Power line downArcing, shortingHazardous, Other 4 MEND. HTS. TOTAL LOSS TO DATE $0 SERVICE CALLSmoke or odor removalAssist Police or other agencyService Call, other GOOD INTENTGood IntentDispatched & Cancelled 4 Current To Date Last YearSmoke Scare 1 16 16 21HazMat release investigation 3 3 5Good Intent, Other 3 3 0 FALSE ALARMS 1 1 0 False Alarm 6 6 1Malfunction3Total:29 29 27Unintentional3False Alarm, other 2 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH MUTUAL AID 6 INSPECTIONS Total Calls 29 INVESTIGATIONS RE-INSPECTION WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year MEETINGS FIRE CALLS 500.5 500.5 458 MEETINGS 128.5 128.5 117 ADMINISTRATION TRAINING 190 190 319.5 SPECIAL ACTIVITY 23.5 23.5 14.5 PLAN REVIEW/TRAINING FIRE MARSHAL TOTAL:0 TOTALS 842.5 842.5 909 REMARKS:SEE OTHER SIDE FOR SYNOPSIS MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT JANUARY 2020 MONTHLY REPORT Mendota Heights Sunfish LakeOther FIRE LOSS TOTALS LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS LilydaleMendota page 63 page 64 page 65 page 66 page 67 page 68 page 69 page 70 page 71 page 72 page 73 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: March 4, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician SUBJECT: Rogers Lake Water Quality Report Presentation by Saint Thomas Academy COMMENT: INTRODUCTION At its regular meeting of March 4th, the Council will hear a presentation from students at St. Thomas Academy about the water quality of Rogers Lake. BACKGROUND Since the early 1990’s, Saint Thomas Academy Environmental Science Classes have been monitoring several aspects of the water quality present in Rogers Lake. The City Council hears an annual update from the students. The attached historical data on the lakes’ water quality shows a trend of the water quality of Rogers Lake improving over the past several recent years. In 2019 the overall rating decreased slightly over the preceding year. DISCUSSION Mr. Tony Kinzley is the Advanced Placement Environmental Sciences Instructor. He has a group of students who have conducted the research and prepared a presentation for Council. Attached is a summary sheet the students prepared, which will be presented at the Council meeting. BUDGET IMPACT None. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council receive the Rogers Lake Water Quality Report presentation from Saint Thomas Academy. ACTION REQUIRED No Council action is required. For informational purposes only. page 74 Rogers Lake Historical Data 2001‐2019 (9 Parameters and Overall Rating)Blank cells indicate that data is not availableBold values indicate data collected using probewareRed values indicate historical recordDissolved OxygenFecal ColiformpHBOD5Δ TemperaturePhosphateNitrateTurbidityTotal SolidsOverallSeason(ppm)(col./100ml)(units)(ppm)(Degrees C)(ppm)(ppm)(JTU)(mg/L)(0‐100)Fall 20016.97.84.61.81.30.740.062.5Spring 20025.98.04.02.02.20.124.168.0Fall 20025.98.23.61.71.71.122.2233.165.1Spring 20036.37.72.70.91.41.021.268.2Fall 20034.87.51.71.41.00.327.2409.664.9Spring 20043.27.62.21.61.10.422.0440.359.0Fall 200469.8Spring 200571.0Fall 20054.937.97.22.41.01.10.411.6307.570.9Spring 2006 2.71.97.61.52.01.20.711.8318.572.8Fall 20067.949.57.62.61.51.11.010.174.6Spring 20077.911.28.22.51.50.70.611.3301.878.4Fall 20077.825.97.62.81.10.60.39.0477.276.7Spring 20088.00.07.64.70.90.50.412.4321.274.3Fall 20086.434.27.93.81.21.10.417.5451.372.1Spring 20098.03.17.02.50.91.00.412.6344.677.9Fall 20097.211.66.22.11.01.00.68.8290.575.6Fall 20106.89.96.22.41.00.90.218.6293.270.8Fall 20118.134.07.54.50.81.00.416.5298.775.5Fall 20127.728.97.73.01.11.00.414.4296.175.9Fall 20137.610.87.62.50.90.80.49.2300.078.6Fall 20147.79.17.51.81.00.50.98.6280.380.8Fall 20157.15.07.72.91.01.00.615.5276.780.2Fall 20169.50.07.71.31.20.90.47.4254.185.1Fall 201710.50.87.72.21.20.91.07.9261.785.9Fall 201810.71.47.83.21.70.40.55.0231.384.3Fall 20199.81.67.73.30.91.10.49.6264.983Average7.214.67.62.81.31.00.515.0316.874.1page 75 Which chemical tests were performed? What does each test for? What factors affect the readings? What is an acceptable reading? What were the Fall 2019 readings? Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.) The amount of oxygen dissolved in the water. Plant life increases D.O., organic waste inputs (pet waste, grass clippings, leaves) lowers D.O. 5-12 ppm 9.8 ppm (10.7 in 2018) Acceptable Fecal Coliform Levels of bacteria associated with pathogenic bacteria and viruses in the water Goose and pet waste. Faulty septic systems and sewer lines. 0 colonies/100ml is safe to drink. 200 colonies/100ml or less is safe for swimming 1.6 col/100ml (1.4 in 2018) Acceptable pH The acidity or basicity of the water Acid rain is the typical cause of acidification of lakes 6.5-8.5 pH units (slightly basic) 7.7 units (7.8 in 2018) Acceptable Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD 5 ) How much oxygen is being used by bacteria in the lake that decompose organic waste put into the water. Organic waste inputs (leaves, grass clippings, or animal waste) and algal blooms from fertilizer runoff 0-3 ppm 3.3 ppm (3.2 in 2018) Unacceptable ∆ Temperature (Change In Temp.) The difference in temperature between 2 testing sites on the lake Sun/shade differences, industrial thermal pollution, removal of trees/shade 0-1 °C 0.9 °C (1.7 in 2018) Acceptable Nitrate Measure of the amount of Nitrates in the water Animal waste, grass clippings, leaves, fertilizers. Faulty septic systems and sewer lines 0.1-3 ppm (Low levels needed for proper aquatic plant growth) 0.4 ppm (0.5 in 2018) Acceptable Total Phosphates Measure of the amount of various phosphates in the water Soil runoff, animal waste, grass clippings, leaves, some fertilizers. Faulty sewer lines and septic systems. 0.1-1 ppm (Low levels needed for proper aquatic plant growth) 1.1 ppm (0.4 in 2018) Unacceptable Turbidity Amount of suspended solids in the water. Measure of water clarity Soil erosion, organic waste input 1-40 JTU 9.6 JTU (5.0 in 2018) Acceptable Total Solids Amount of suspended and dissolved solids in water Road salt, soil erosion, organic waste input. 1-300 mg/L 264.9 mg/L (231.3 in 2018) Acceptable Overall Rating A composite score of all 9 chemical tests. The 9 chemical tests Excellent: 90-100 Good: 70-89.9 Medium: 50-69.9 83.0 (84.3 in 2018) Acceptable page 76 Fall 2019 Chemical Assessment of Rogers Lake Performed by Saint Thomas Academy A. P. Environmental Science Program page 77 Thank you for allowing us the time to share our findings with the Mendota Heights City Council. Sixty four students participated in the program this year and were required to prepare a formal group presentation on Rogers Lake to their class. The winning group will present on Wednesday, March 4. This is a genuine learning opportunity for all of these students, especially the winning group. This document gives an overview of the chemical water quality monitoring program used by the A.P. Environmental Science students at Saint Thomas Academy for the Mayor, Council Members, and Staff. Based on the data taken last fall, Rogers Lake once again continues to be a very healthy lake. The actual data, analysis of the data, areas in need of improvement, and possible solutions will be further discussed at the council meeting. Please direct any questions to Mr. Tony Kinzley, A.P. Environmental Science Teacher, at tkinzley@cadets.com. page 78 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: March 4, 2020 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2020-15 Approving a Lot Line Adjustment for 1875 & 1885 Hunter Lane [Planning Case No. 2020-02] Introduction City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution approving a Lot Line Adjustment between two properties located at 1875 and 1885 Hunter Lane, owned respectively by the Cosgriff and Van families. Background Mrs. Van has agreed to convey to the Cosgriff family a rectangular shaped parcel of land that sits directly behind the Cosgriff’s new property, located at 1875 Hunter Lane. The Cosgriff’s wish to obtain this land and have it serve as an added view-shed protection from their rear yard area. City Code Title 11-1-5.C allows for lot line adjustments to take place, provided the division is only to permit the adding of a parcel of land to an abutting lot, and the newly created property line will not cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation of city code. This request meets this section. On February 27, 2020, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item, whereby a planning staff report was presented and received by the commission, comments from the Applicant and public were received and noted for the record. A copy of this 02/27/2020 report is appended to this memo (note: due to the later date of the PC meeting, minutes were not available for adding to this council packet report). Discussion The City is using its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on subdivision requests and has limited discretion; a determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable subdivision code standards is required. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimously (7-0 vote) to approve the Lot Line Adjustment between the properties located at 1875 and 1885 Hunter Lane, with certain conditions and specific findings of fact to support said approval. Action Requested If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2020-15 APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1875 AND 1885 HUNTER LANE This action on the resolution requires a simple majority vote. page 79 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020-15 RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1875 AND 1885 HUNTER LANE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2020-02) WHEREAS, John Cosgriff, in cooperation with Joy Van, (as “Applicants”) have applied for a lot line adjustment, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-02, for the two parcels located at 1875 and 1885 Hunter Lane (the “Subject Properties”), and legally described on attached Exhibit A and illustrated on attached survey Exhibit C; and WHEREAS, the Subject Properties are both guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and are located in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, Title 11-1-5C of the City Code (Subdivision Regulations) allows for the readjustment of lot lines between or within legal parcels of records, provided the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable and underlying zoning district; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have agreed to adjust and realign the most northwesterly parcel boundary line of the southerly parcel identified as 1885 Hunter Lane (PID No. 27-53500- 01-021), and create a new east/west shared boundary line between 1885 Hunter Lane with the northerly parcel identified as 1875 Hunter Lane (PID No. 27-18200-00-050), whereby said adjustment creates a new parcel of land located directly behind 1875 Hunter Lane, which is to be combined with 1875 Hunter Lane, as described and illustrated on attached Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, on February 27, 2020, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this item with staff and the Applicant, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (7-0 vote) to approve the request for Lot Line Adjustment between 1875 and 1885 Hunter Lane, with certain conditions and findings of fact to support such approval. page 80 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Lot Line Adjustment as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-02 is hereby approved, with the following findings of fact: A. The proposed lot line adjustment request meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Approval of the lot line adjustment will have no visible impact on the subject properties; and poses no threat or creates any negative impacts on the character of the neighborhood or the Mississippi River Critical Corridor area. C. The proposed adjustment does not cause any non-conformities on either parcel, based on the applicable zoning district standards for lot size and frontage requirements. D. The Council may place conditions upon the Lot Line Adjustment and Variance. Variance conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows: 1) Applicant shall file lot/parcel combination documents with Dakota County indicating the new parcel created by this line adjustment shall be added to or combined with 1875 Hunter Lane property, Parcel ID No. 27-18200-00-050. 2) All transfer or deed documents which convey the portion of lands under the lot line adjustment and lot split process shall be recorded with Dakota County. 3) No development activities, including grading/filling work, landscaping, tree removals, retaining walls, fencing, stairway or walkways, or any structure requiring a zoning and/or building permit will be allowed unless authorized under a separate critical area permit application. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Lot Line Adjustment for the properties located at 1875 and 1885 Hunter Lane, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-02, is hereby approved. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of March, 2020. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 81 EXHIBIT A (EXITING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS) 1875 HUNTER LANE PID No. 27-18200-00-050 Lots 4 and 5, Colliton Place except all that part of Lot 4 lying north of the following described line: Commencing on the East line of said Lot 4 at a point 90 feet South of the Northeast corner thereof; thence in a Westerly direction parallel with the North line of said Lot 4 a distance of 316 feet to a point; thence in a Northwesterly direction to a point on the West line of said Lot 4 which is 26. 55 feet North of the intersection on said West line and the first above described line extended and there terminate, all according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. (abstract property) 1875 HUNTER LANE (PER DOC. NO. 2782653) PID No. 27-53500-01-021 Lot 2, Block 1, except that part lying westerly of the northerly extension of east line of Lot 1, Block 1, Oak Point, Dakota County, Minnesota (abstract property) page 82 EXHIBIT B (LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS of PARCELS as a RESULT OF NEW LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT) PARCEL A Lots 4 and 5, Colliton Place except all that part of Lot 4 lying north of the following described line: Commencing on the East line of said Lot 4 at a point 90 feet South of the Northeast corner thereof; thence in a Westerly direction parallel with the North line of said Lot 4 a distance of 316 feet to a point; thence in a Northwesterly direction to a point on the West line of said Lot 4 which is 26. 55 feet North of the intersection on said West line and the first above described line extended and there terminate, all according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. and That part of Lot 2, Block 1, which lies easterly of the northerly extension of the east line of Lot 1, Block 1, all in OAK POINT, Dakota County, Minnesota and which lies northerly of the westerly extension of the south line of Lot 5, COLLITON PLACE, Dakota County, Minnesota. PARCEL B Lot 2, Block 1, except that part lying westerly of the northerly extension of the east line of Lot 1, Block 1, OAK POINT, Dakota County, Minnesota, and except that part which lies northerly of the westerly extension of the south line of Lot 5, COLLITON PLACE, Dakota County, Minnesota. Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 page 83 EXHIBIT-C page 84 Planning Staff Report DATE: February 27, 2020 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2020-02 Lot Line Adjustment APPLICANT: John Cosgriff / Joy Van PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1875 & 1885 Hunter Lane ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/SF Residential ACTION DEADLINE: May 26, 2020 (120-day Review Period) INTRODUCTION Mr. John Cosgriff, in cooperation with Ms. Joy Van, are requesting consideration of a simple lot line adjustment between two properties located at 1875 and 1885 Hunter Lane. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcels. The city received one letter/email of support from a neighboring resident (appended to this report); and no other comments or objections on this item. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Mr. & Mrs. Cosgriff recently purchased 1875 Hunter Lane, and are now in the process of completing the construction of a new single-family dwelling at this location. In 2019, the Cosgriff’s requested a critical area permit and variance to construct this new residential dwelling, which was approved the city under Resolution No. 2019-24 (April 2, 2019). The larger Van property (1885 Hunter Lane) to the south of Cosgriffs, is an “L”-shaped parcel with an approximate 154’ x 154’ square-shaped area located directly behind Cosgriff’s property. The Cosgriff’s have agreed to purchase this rear parcel area from Mrs. Van, with the expressed purpose of combining this land area with their 1875 Hunter Lane tax parcel. The parcel created by this line adjustment will not be used create a new, buildable lot for a future residential dwelling or any other development. page 85 ANALYSIS The 1875 Hunter Lane property is relatively rectangular in shape, consisting of 87,531-sf. of area, which includes a new home under construction (light brown shaded area -below). The 1885 Hunter Lane property is an “L” shaped parcel consisting of over 194,364-sf. (5-acres) of area, with a 2,670-sf. single-story residence and a 34’ x 36’ accessory structure in the back (SW) corner (light-blue shaded area-below). Title 11-1-5.C of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows lot line adjustments to take place, provided the following standards are met: Lot line adjustment request to divide a lot which is a part of a recorded plat where the division is to permit the adding of a parcel of land to an abutting lot and the newly created property line will not cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation with this title or the zoning ordinance. This request to modify the Van parcel boundary line meets this City Code section, as the resulting parcel is being added to an abutting parcel; and the resulting adjustment does not cause the other remaining lots to be in violation of the zoning ordinance. page 86 The Applicant’s properties remain unchanged along the public street frontage; and each lot will easily exceed the minimum lot size of 15,000 sq. ft. for parcels in the R-1 One-Family Residential district. This lot line adjustment will have little, if any impact upon the neighboring properties, the residual parcel, nor impede the normal use, enjoyment and purpose of the entire Hunter Lane neighborhood. It should be noted that both properties are situated in the current Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area overlay district; and these rear yards of both parcels are impacted by steep bluffs that drop down to the west. Since the Applicant does not plan to perform any major changes to the subject land parcel (i.e. grading, tree removals, or development requiring a building permit), this lot line adjustment does not require a critical area permit. The Cosgriffs wish to keep the added parcel as an untouched and preserved natural extension to their current rear yard area. No new development will occur in this area, and the city has conditioned that this new parcel must be combined with the Cosgriff’s main tax parcel to avoid any creation of a “non-conforming parcel” without any access or frontage on a public roadway system. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the lot line adjustment, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions; or 2. Recommend denial of the lot line adjustment, based on the findings of fact that the proposed adjustment is not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan and may have a negative impact on surrounding properties; or 1. Table the request; request additional information if required, and extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. page 87 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment based on the attached findings of fact supporting the request, with conditions noted as follows: 1) Applicant shall file lot/parcel combination documents with Dakota County indicating the new parcel created by this line adjustment shall be added to or combined with 1875 Hunter Lane property, Parcel ID Number 27-18200-00-050. 2) All transfer or deed documents which convey the portion of lands under the lot line adjustment and lot split process shall be recorded with Dakota County. 3) No development activities, including grading/filling work, landscaping, tree removals, retaining walls, fencing, stairway or walkways, or any structure requiring a zoning and/or building permit will be allowed unless authorized under a separate critical area permit application. FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Lot Line Adjustment 1875 & 1885 Hunter Lane (Cosgriff & Van properties) The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed lot line adjustment request meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Approval of the lot line adjustment will have no visible impact on the subject properties; and poses no threat or creates any negative impacts on the character of the neighborhood or the Mississippi River Critical Corridor area. 3. The proposed adjustment does not cause any non-conformities on either parcel, based on the applicable zoning district standards for lot size and frontage requirements. page 88 1875 & 1885 HUNTER LANE Property Information February 20, 2020 0 225 450112.5 ft 0 60 12030 m 1:2,400 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. page 89 2020-02 500.00 500.00 01/26/2020 03/26/2020 page 90 page 91 page 92 1875 HUNTER LANE (COSGRIFF)1885HUNTER LANE (VAN)page 93 From:Tim Bartusch To:Tim Benetti Subject:Lot Line Adjustment Date:Tuesday, February 18, 2020 8:50:17 AM After receiving the notice regarding the Cosgriff-Van application, Nancy and Tim Bartusch 1890 Hunter Lane have no objection to this request. Kind Regards Tim Bartusch page 94 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: March 4, 2020 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2020-16 Approving a Variance for 554 Junction Lane [Planning Case No. 2020-03] Introduction The City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution, which would approve a Variance of two-feet (2’) from the ten-foot (10’) side-yard setback requirements, for a new garage addition. The subject property is located at 554 Junction Lane and owned by Rachel Quick. Background The subject property is a pie-shaped lot, located along the tightly curved-road section on Junction Lane. The property contains a one-story dwelling with a detached 22’ x 22’ two-car garage; and the homeowner request to construct a small addition off the back of the home, and replace the old garage with a new 24’ x 22’ attached garage and enclosed connection-way, which encroaches 2-ft. into the side yard setback. On February 27, 2020, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item, whereby a planning staff report was presented and received by the commission, comments from the Applicant and public were received and noted for the record. A copy of this 02/27/2020 report is appended to this memo (note: due to the later date of the PC meeting, minutes were not available for adding to this council packet report). Discussion The City can use its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on certain land use or zoning decisions, such as this variance, and has broad discretion. A determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimously (7-0 vote) to approve the Variance for the property located at 554 Junction Lane, with certain conditions and specific findings of fact to support said approval. Action Requested If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2020-16 APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 554 JUNCTION LANE. This action on the resolution requires a simple majority vote. If the Council wishes to over-turn this recommendation, make a motion to table this matter; and direct city staff to prepare an alternative resolution of denial for final consideration at the March 17, 2020 meeting. The 60-day statutory review period expires March 27, 2020. page 95 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020-16 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 554 JUNCTION LANE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2020-03) WHEREAS, Rachel Quick, (the “Applicant”) applied for a Variance on the property located at 554 Junction Lane (the “Subject Property”), legally described on attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and is located in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance to encroach two-feet (2’) into the ten-foot (10’) side-yard setback under the R-1 District standards for a new garage/connection addition, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-03; and WHEREAS, Title 12-1L-5 of the City Code (Variances) allows for the Council to grant variances or certain modifications from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code, and impose conditions and safeguards with variances if so needed or granted: and WHEREAS, on February 27, 2020, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this item with staff and the Applicant, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (7-0 vote) to approve the application for Variance, with certain findings of fact to support such approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation from the Planning Commission is hereby affirmed, and the Variance requested under Planning Application Case No. 2020-03 is hereby approved, with the following findings of fact: page 96 A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance for a reduced setback, by: i.) the proposed matching and small-scale addition and attached garage to the existing home is consistent with other homes and properties throughout the surrounding neighborhood, and the overall use and enjoyment of the home and property does not change even with the allowance of the variance, and therefore the requested variance is considered a reasonable request. ii.) the subject property was originally platted in 1944, creating a uniquely “pie- shaped” style lot and developed in 1947, prior to the current R-1 Zone setback standards, which in turn generated some unique circumstances, difficulties or impediments to the Applicant on adding a reasonable addition on to the home in the rear yard area, except by means of a variance. iii.) approving the Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as the neighboring properties and residential neighborhood area will not be affected by the approval of this variance; and iv.) This new addition and request for variance is considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans for the community. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of the Variance is for 554 Junction Lane only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. page 97 E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2020-03, dated and presented February 27, 2020 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2020-16. F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his Variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows: i.) The proposed encroachment for the addition shall not extend further than 2.0- feet into the required 10-foot side-yard setback, as illustrated on the survey and site plan included in the application submittal, on file with the City Planning Dept. Planning Case File No. 2020-03. ii.) The new addition, including the roofline, will match the overall architecture and design of the existing residential dwelling. iii.) Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. iv.) All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. v.) Approval of the variance is contingent upon City Council approval of the application and corresponding site plan. If the variance is approved by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed addition within one-year from said approval date. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Variance application for the property located at 554 Junction Lane, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-03, is hereby approved. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of March, 2020. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 98 EXHIBIT-A PROPERTY ADDRESS: 554 Junction Lane Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 PID No. 27-42100-01-020 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 2, Block 1, KIRCHNER ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota. (Torrens property: Cert. No. 154480) Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 page 99 Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: February 27, 2020 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2020-03 VARIANCE APPLICANT: Rachel Quick PROPERTY ADDRESS: 554 Junction Lane ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: March 27, 2020 (60-Day Review Period) INTRODUCTION Rachel Quick, owner of 554 Junction Lane, is requesting consideration of a variance of 2-feet from the 10- foot side-yard setback requirements, in order to provide an addition and connection to a new two-car garage. A public hearing notice for this item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. The Applicants have submitted three letters of support from neighboring residents (appended to this report), including the immediate neighbor to the east; along with one verbal comment of support from another neighboring resident; and one objection from the immediate neighbor to the west. BACKGROUND / SITE DESCRIPTION The subject parcel is located within one of older R-1 One Family Residential Zoning Districts in the community, and generally identified as the “North End” neighborhood. This district and neighborhood is comprised of smaller, single-family residential lots and properties, that were platted in and around the 1940’s. When observing this property and the surrounding properties, there appears to be a number of sites that do not conform to many of the setback standards or minimum lot-size standards under the R-1 zoning district. The neighborhood in which the subject property is located features a number of page 100 homes that were originally built with single car or smaller two-car garages. The subject property is a pie- shaped lot, located along the tightly curved-road section on Junction Lane. The property consists of 10,740- sf. (0.25 acres); with a 1,728-sf. one-story dwelling (built in 1947) along with a 22’ x 22’ detached two-car garage, which sits just behind the home (see images-below). Street View of Dwelling/Garage (Google Maps) According to the Applicant’s survey, the existing dwelling sits 40-ft. off front lot line along Junction Lane; and 5-ft. off the south lot line at the closest corner of the home. The existing 22’ x 22’ detached garage structure sits a few feet behind the home, slightly askew from the back wall of the home, and sits at least 10-ft. from the adjacent side lot line. The small shed located behind the garage is a chicken coop. The plan calls for an addition to the back of the home, consisting of a new mud-room and laundry room, with a small walkway connection to the newly constructed and slightly larger 24’ x 22’ garage (highlighted in green – image below). In order to match the lines off the back of the home with the addition and garage attachment, the new garage needs to sit approximately 2-feet closer to the side-lot line, which necessitates this variance. The applicant has provided a narrative explaining their reasons for making this request. page 101 ANALYSIS Variance Process City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variance requests. The city must consider a number of variables when recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i) practical difficulties; and (ii) impact to the community. The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality or neighborhood. It is also noted that economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. In addition, variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further provides other issues the city may consider when granting or denying a variance, noted as follows: • Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community. • Existing and anticipated traffic conditions. • Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. • Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan. • Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate undue hardship or difficulty. When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have been met in granting a variance, and provide findings of facts to support such a recommendation to the City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to meet these standards, or has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings of fact supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined. page 102 As part of any variance request, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and findings, which for this case, are noted below (in italic text), followed by a brief staff response: 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance. Applicant’s Response: The owner would like to build a new, attached garage to replace the existing detached garage. By building a new garage, the garage slab can be raised to mitigate a current drainage issue that results in standing water at the foundation of the home. The use of the property remains the same. Staff’s Response: The subject property as it exists today, with a typical single family dwelling and detached garage, can easily be determined as being used in a “reasonable manner” permitted by the zoning code. The city must now give careful consideration of whether or not the use of the property as altered by the variance, is reasonable or will remain reasonable after requested improvements are made. The proposed garage to be re-built under this plan is not excessive (in size) compared to the old one scheduled for removal; and can be recognized as a wise choice by the homeowner wishing to limit the mass and scale of the new garage project on this smaller-sized lot. The Applicants request to construct the addition and garage “parallel” to the back of the home, which essentially shifts the small portion of the back corner of garage slightly outward and into the adjacent 10-ft. side-yard setback area, appears minimal and reasonable, and does not impact the neighboring property. Based on aerial mapping review and interpretation of this neighborhood area, it appears a number of homes and accessory garage structures (including the subject property) do not meet some of the required setbacks under the R-1 District standards. The owners request to allow the small addition and new physical connection to the re-built garage structure is consistent with many other homes and properties throughout the community. Staff finds the overall use and enjoyment of the home and property does not change; and the Applicant’s desire to construct a small addition/connection to the rear portion of the existing house, even one that requires this variance, can be considered a reasonable request and use of the property. 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. Applicant’s Response: The lot, Lot 2 Block 1, Kirchner Addition, 554 Junction Lane, is a pie shaped lot, wider at the front (street) and narrower at the rear. The location of the house requires the garage to be behind the house in order to successfully build the new garage and connect it to the home, it will be parallel to the home (the current two car garage is detached and parallel to the property line). The rear corner of the proposed garage, will encroach on the side yard setback approximately 2’. The existing garage of the lot to the immediate north is only 6’ from the property line encroaching on the side yard setback 4’. Staff’s Response: Staff finds that there may be some unique circumstances to this property, particularly with the “pie-shaped” formation of the lot, which was created by the original platting in 1944. This smaller, odd shaped lot creates some constraints that limit the full use of the property by the owner, especially towards the rear yard space; and does not provide the added allowances normally afforded to a typical rectangular shaped or larger area lot found in other parts of the city. The existing home with a reduced 5-foot setback on the opposite side, is indicative of a shared trait among many other properties in this “North End” neighborhood and some adjacent neighboring properties. Even though staff has acknowledged that other non-conforming lots or properties where variances may have been granted do not add precedent value to a new variance request (i.e. variances should stand on their own merits and be determined individually), it is still acceptable for the city to page 103 give some favorable weight to such physical circumstances, such as a uniquely shaped lot or existing (reduced) setbacks currently existing on the subject site. One can assume with the subject home being originally constructed in 1947 (staff unable to determine if garage built at that time or later), it predated city ordinance by over a decade. The existing home and property is now considered legal nonconforming, as it does not meet the required side-yard setback on the south. Due to the location of the home, and its proximity to the adjacent side lot lie, lining up the new attached garage/addition with the back-side of the house appears treasonable; and may give some added weight to creating or supporting this practical difficulty argument for the property owner. 3. The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Applicant’s Response: The proposed new garage and connection to the home will use the same materials that presently exist on the home. The roof pitch of the new, proposed garage will match the existing. The location of the proposed garage is essentially in the same location as the existing garage. Staff’s Response: The neighborhood is all but residential in character. The new addition represents a considerable investment by the Applicant to bring the existing 1940’s style and designed dwelling into a nicer, more up-to-date home for the owner. Staff believes the Applicant has demonstrated through their architectural/construction design plans, that the new addition and attached garage features will be made to match the existing home, will not look out of place, or detract from the overall design and feel of the existing dwelling, the neighboring properties or overall neighborhood. Many other properties in the vicinity feature garages both attached and detached, that may not meet some required setback standards. As noted previously, based on aerial mapping review and interpretation of this neighborhood area, it appears a number of homes and accessory garage structures (including the subject property) do not meet some of the required setbacks under the R-1 District standards. A search of city records did not find any instances of other variances granted (or denied) on other properties addressed off Junction Lane. Therefore, staff believes the essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered by granting the variance. 4. Restrictions on Granting Variances. The following restrictions should be considered when reviewing a variance: a) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. When weighing the economic factor(s) of a variance application, taking economic considerations into account alone should not be the reason for either denying – or even approving a variance. In this particular case, the property owner is simply requesting to provide a small addition to her home which includes a convenient, sheltered walkway connection to the garage. This new addition/garage requires a small corner encroachment, which helps minimizes and reduces the loss of valuable back yard space, and does not impact the neighboring properties. Although one can conclude this new attached garage and addition will provide some economic value to the owner by increasing the property value of the home and/or marketability (future sale), the Applicant has demonstrated other practical difficulties in this case, and some reasonable explanations for requesting this variance. It is not clear how economic considerations alone may affect the outcome of this variance request, as they do not appear to be the sole reason for rejecting this variance. b) Variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff finds that the request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the R-1 One Family Residence district, as this proposed addition with attached garage are all consistent and allowed as a permitted use in the underlying zoning. The city is not allowed to permit a variance on any use not allowed in the district where the property is located (i.e. “use variance”); and this variance is page 104 not requesting such use. The R-1 districts are most predominant throughout the community, and this district is intended to maintain the character of even older neighborhoods, like the North End in the community. The subject property is designated as LR-Low Density Residential in the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and the same is called for proposed 2040 Plan. Certain land use goals and policies are noted below: • LUG #1: Maintain and enrich the mature, fully developed residential environment and character of the community. • LUP #5: Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level in community development and building. • LUP #2.2.2: Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level in community development and building. • LUP # 2.2.6: Provide a mechanism to allow for the maintenance and reinvestment in select non-conforming properties. The guiding principles in the comprehensive plan provide for maintaining, preserving, and enhancing existing single-family neighborhoods. The requested variance would preserve the residential character of the neighborhood and would provide a substantial investment into a property to enhance its overall use and enjoyment by the owner. The proposed garage/addition poses no threat or any effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. This new addition and request for variance can be viewed or considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans for the community. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the variance request, based on the following findings of fact that support the granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance for a reduced setback, by: i.) the proposed matching and small-scale addition and attached garage to the existing home is consistent with other homes and properties throughout the surrounding neighborhood, and the overall use and enjoyment of the home and property does not change even with the allowance of the variance, and therefore the requested variance is considered a reasonable request. ii.) the subject property was originally platted in 1944, creating a uniquely “pie-shaped” style lot and developed in 1947, prior to the current R-1 Zone setback standards, which in turn generated some unique circumstances, difficulties or impediments to the Applicant on adding a reasonable addition on to the home in the rear yard area, except by means of a variance. page 105 iii.) approving the Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as the neighboring properties and residential neighborhood area will not be affected by the approval of this variance; and iv.) This new addition and request for variance is considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans for the community. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of the Variance is for 554 Junction Lane only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2020- 03, dated and presented February 27, 2020 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2020-____. (final number to be assigned later) F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his Variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows: i.) The proposed encroachment for the addition shall not extend further than 2.0 feet into the required 10-foot side-yard setback, as illustrated on the survey and site plan included in the application submittal, on file with the City Planning Dept. Planning Case File No. 2020-03. ii.) The new addition, including the roofline, will match the overall architecture and design of the existing residential dwelling. iii.) Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. iv.) All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. v.) Approval of the variance is contingent upon City Council approval of the application and corresponding site plan. If the variance is approved by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed addition within one-year from said approval date. page 106 2. Recommend denial of the variance request, based on the findings of fact that confirm the Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a variance for reduced setback. The proposed addition is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and the fact the addition requires a variance to a normal setback standard, and is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property, especially if the owner were to reduce the addition size, or shift the garage elsewhere on the site, thereby eliminating the need for the variance. C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration to Alternative No. 1, approval of the variance with findings of facts to support the granting of said variance, with the conditions noted therein. Attachments 1. Aerial/Site Location Map 2. Planning Application – with Variance Response (Narrative) 3. Survey/Site Plan/Floor Plans 4. Letters of Support page 107 Planning Application (2020) Page 1 of 4 PLANNING APPLICATION Office Use Only: Case #: Fees: (App) $ (Escrow): $ Application Date: 60-Day Review Date: Property Address/Location: Applicant Name: Applicant Mailing Address: Daytime Phone: Cell Phone: E-Mail: (If different from Applicant above): Property Owner Owner Mailing Address: Daytime Phone: Cell Phone: E-Mail: Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) Type of Request (fees noted on following page): Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Variance Lot Split / Lot Line Adjustment Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Zoning Appeal Zoning Code Amendment Comprehensive Plan Amendment Wetlands Permit Standard Administrative Critical Area Permit Standard Administrative Other________________________ I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true and to the best of my knowledge. I/We further authorize city officials, including staff, planning commissioners and city councilmembers to inspect the above-referenced property during daylight hours. ____________________________________________ Signature of Applicant Date ____________________________________________ Signature of Property Owner Date 554 Junction Lane Rachel Quick 554 Junction Lane Lot 2 Block 1 Kirchner Addition X 1/27/2020 1/27/2020   page 108 page 109 page 110 page 111 page 112 From:John Cuzzo To:Tim Benetti Subject:Rachel Quick Garage Date:Wednesday, January 22, 2020 12:40:55 PM Tim Bennetti, I am Rachel's East side next door neighbor (548 Junction Lane). Sadly, I'm also a recipient of relative and historically recent water damage to both of the properties. We have had explanations and expert advise with zero solution, I have lived in or had this house in the family for at least 40 years with minimal water issue and zero flooding until this year. Rachel has been having it for a couple years, seemingly coinciding with construction in Upper Mendota Heights. Her Garage and house along with property value are going to at some point in the near future are going to drive her out of the neighborhood. My house has been a nightmare, since moving in 9 months ago and we still haven't unpacked due to water damage or potential for it, we are having to rip apart our basement to install drain tile in order to stay or sell the home, How Rachel has even stayed this long is beyond my comprehension, please allow her the garage reconstruction. I'm fine with the rebuild and zone concern. Thank You Regards, John Cuzzo 612 812-3983 page 113 From:Leanne To:Tim Benetti Subject:Variance for Rachel Quick Date:Thursday, January 23, 2020 8:58:14 PM Tim We are supportive of Rachel’s request for a variance needed to replace her garage. The variance would allow Rachel to replace her garage and update her house. Our neighborhood has several nonstandard yards which makes remodels to homes more challenging. This would also support maintaining high quality starter homes in our community. Thanks Leanne and Scott Schmiesing Sent from my iPhone page 114 From:Solomonson, Eva M. To:Tim Benetti Subject:Rachel Quick reconstruction project Date:Tuesday, January 28, 2020 2:39:04 PM Hi Tim, I am a neighbor who shares a fence with Rachel Quick. Rachel lives at 554 Junction Lane, Mendota Heights. I live at 540 Junction Lane. Rachel informed me recently that she is wanting to reconstruct her garage, but that it will require a variance of one foot over the setback. Per Rachel’s request, I am reaching out to you to let you know that I would be fine if this variance is granted. Best, Eva Solomonson Eva Solomonson, MSW, LICSW Director of BSW Field Education, Clinical Faculty University of St Thomas School of Social Work Morrison Family College of Health University of St Thomas School of Social Work Office: University of St Thomas SCB 218 Mail SCB 201, 2115 Summit Ave St. Paul, MN 55105-1096 Tel: 651-962-5833/ Fax: 651-962-5819 solo1758@stthomas.edu www.stthomas.edu/socialwork page 115 554 JUNCTION LANE Property Information February 20, 2020 0 225 450112.5 ft 0 60 12030 m 1:2,400 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. page 116 page 117 page 118 page 119 page 120 page 121 page 122 page 123 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: March 4, 2020 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2020-14 Approving a Conditional Use Permit to Amend The Mendota Heights Town Center Planned Unit Development (The Village at Mendota Heights) Planning Case No. 2020-01 Introduction The City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution, which would approve a conditional use permit (CUP) authorizing an amendment to a previously approved planned unit development (PUD) and its accompanying master development plan. This original PUD was created in 2002 as “The Mendota Heights Town Center” and is now retitled or locally identified as The Village at Mendota Heights. The properties are located at 725 Linden Street and 735 Maple Street. Background The subject properties are currently owned by the city, and consist of four parcels totaling 2.67 acres in size. The site and proposed development properties are currently guided and zoned MU-PUD [Mixed Use- Planned Unit Development]. There are no re-zoning or land uses changes needed for this development. The original PUD and Master Plan for the Mendota Heights Town Center included a mix of retail, office and residential uses. The Village PUD is now substantially complete, with the exception of the last phase referred to as the “West Neighborhood” in the PUD Master Plan. This West Neighborhood originally called for 14 residential townhomes with 5 home-office style townhomes; however, these 19-units were never constructed by the former developer; and the city later acquired these lots through foreclosure proceedings. Last March 2019, the city requested development proposals (RFP’s) on the city owned parcels; and the city subsequently received five development proposals, which led to the selection of Grand Real Estate Advisors (GREA) as the preferred developer of the site. The PUD Amendment proposed to revise the original townhome plans with a new mixed-used development consisting of a three-story, 48-unit senior apartment building, which includes an attached sit-down style café/restaurant, and underground and surface parking facilities. On January 28, 2020, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held an initial public hearing on this item, whereby a planning staff report was presented and received by the commission, comments from the Applicant and public were received and noted for the record, and the item was tabled to the following February 27, 2020 meeting. At the February meeting, the commission re-opened the public hearing; allowed for additional comments, and officially closed the hearing. Copies of the January 28th and February 27th planning reports are page 124 appended to this memo; however, only the Jan. 2020 meeting minutes are included, and the Feb. 2020 minutes were not available for adding to this council packet report. Discussion The City can use its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on certain land use or zoning decisions, such as this variance, and has broad discretion. A determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation At the February 28, 2020 regular meeting, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (7-0 vote) to approve the conditional use permit authorizing an amendment to the 2002 The Mendota Heights Town Center Planned Unit Development, n/k/a The Village at Mendota Heights, and for the properties located at 725 Linden Street and 735 Maple Street, with findings of fact to support said approval and a list of conditions of approval, as noted in the draft resolution. Action Requested If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2020-14 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2002 THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS TOWN CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, n/k/a THE VILLAGE AT MENDOTA HEIGHTS, LOCATED AT 725 LINDEN STREET AND 735 MAPLE STREET. This action on the resolution requires a simple majority vote. page 125 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020-14 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2002 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND MASTER PLAN FOR THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS TOWN CENTER (N/K/A THE VILLAGE AT MENDOTA HEIGHTS) LOCATED AT 725 LINDEN STREET AND 735 MAPLE STREET WHEREAS, Grand Real Estate Advisors (the “Applicant”) has applied for a conditional use permit to amend a previously approved planned unit development (PUD) and final master development plan for the development originally titled The Mendota Heights Town Center, which is now known as The Village at Mendota Heights, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-01 and for the properties legally described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, this amendment seeks to amend the “West Neighborhood” of this original Mendota Heights Town Center PUD plan, which called for fourteen (14) residential townhomes and five (5) home-office style townhomes, to be replaced with a new mixed-used development consisting of a three-story, 48-unit senior apartment building with an attached sit-down style café/restaurant, with underground and surface parking facilities, initially titled “Mendota Heights Senior Apartments”; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2020, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission received a planning staff report and presentation on this planning application item, held a public hearing on this matter, received comments from the public and Applicant, and whereby this item was tabled by the commission to the February 27, 2020 regular meeting; and WHEREAS, at the February 27, 2020 meeting, staff and the Applicant provided additional information for the planning commission’s consideration, re-opened the public hearing, heard additional comments from the public, and after closing the hearing, the commission recommended unanimously (7-0 vote) to approve the conditional use permit authorizing an amendment to The Mendota Heights Town Center (n/k/a The Village at Mendota Heights) Planned Unit Development page 126 and its Master Development Plan, with certain findings of fact to support such approval, and with certain conditions of approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the conditional use permit authorizing an amendment to The Mendota Heights Town Center (n/k/a The Village at Mendota Heights) Planned Unit Development and its Master Development Plan, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-01, is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: 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 amended planned unit development can be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site 3. 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. 4. The reduced setback and building separation does not pose any threat to the general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding properties or diminishes the usefulness of the planned development of this property. 5. The proposed PUD should be approved with a higher density allotment, due to: a. it will be an effective and unified treatment of the development; b. the development plan includes provisions for the preservation and replacement of natural amenities; c. financing is available to the applicant on conditions and in an amount which is sufficient to assure completion of the planned unit development and the PUD is consistent with the comprehensive plan; and d. the new PUD Amendment plans can be and will be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site. e. The proposed increased density is consistent with surrounding suburban communities and would allow for adequate open space as part of the proposed development; and f. 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 6. Construction of the proposed high-density residential development will help contribute to meeting the projected Metropolitan Council’s 2040 forecasted population and household numbers. page 127 7. The new mixed-use senior residential with a restaurant use would be in character with other surrounding uses in the existing PUD area. 8. The proposed trail and pedestrian connections included as part of the mixed-use development project will facilitate a walkable and livable environment within the overall Village at Mendota Heights PUD and the surrounding neighborhoods. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the conditional use permit authorizing an amendment to The Mendota Heights Town Center (n/k/a The Village at Mendota Heights) Planned Unit Development and Master Development Plan, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-01, is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. The Developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Mendota Heights, in a form prepared by the city attorney; and final draft shall be approved by the city council. 2. Developer shall provide a clearly marked crosswalk on Maple Street over to the separated parking lot, with final location and design approved by Public Works Director. 3. Necessary drainage and utility easements shall be included on the Final Plat, as determined by the Public Works Director and if necessary the Saint Paul Regional Water Services. 4. All new buildings shall be constructed only in conformance to building and site plans certified by a registered architect and engineers (as applicable); and in accordance with all architectural and building standards found under Title 12-1E-8, Subpart F “Architectural Controls” and Subpart G – Structural, Electrical and Mechanical Requirements. 5. Any ground-level mechanicals and utility appurtenances, must be screened with vegetation or one or more of the materials used in the construction of the principal structure, which must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department as part of the building permit process. 6. Plant material shall be utilized as a screening element for any building utility areas, but shall not obstruct fire department connections or hydrants, to be reviewed by the Planning and Fire Departments and verified as part of the building permit review process. 7. A park dedication fee of $4,000/residential unit shall be paid at time of building permit approvals. page 128 8. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an amount equal to at least one and one-half (11/2 ) times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other improvements, to be included as part of the Development Agreement. 9. The Developer and/or their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions allow. All landscape areas must be irrigated. 10. The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS) standards. 11. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction commencement. 12. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 13. All applicable fire and building codes, as adopted/amended by the City, shall apply and the buildings shall be fully-protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of March, 2020. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 129 EXHIBIT A Legal Descriptions page 130 Request for Planning Commission Action (Supplemental Information) DATE: February 27, 2020 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2020-01 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for PUD AMENDMENT APPLICANT: Grand Real Estate Advisors PROPERTY ADDRESS: City-Owned Lots in The Village (Dodd Rd./Maple St./Linden St.) ZONING/GUIDED: MU-PUD [Mixed Use-Planned Unit Development] ACTION DEADLINE: March 6, 2020 Introduction / Information Grand Real Estate Advisors are requesting approval to amend a previously approved planned unit development (PUD) development plan, which would allow a new mixed-use development proposal for the city-owned lots, generally located in The Village at Mendota Heights. The lots are bounded by Dodd Road to the west, Maple Street to the south, and Linden Street to the east (between the Linden Street Lofts condominiums and Mendakota Animal Hospital). At the January 28th regular meeting, a planning report was presented on this new development proposal; the developer provided an overview of their development and answered questions from the commission; and comments were received and recorded from the public. After some considerable discussion, the planning commission made a motion to table this application. As part of this action, the commission requested the developer should respond and address a number of items, which are noted as follows: 1. Comparison of the 2017 traffic study (numbers/tables) with the proposed development in place of the original PUD use; 2. Impervious surface comparison from the original PUD to the proposed use, taking into account the change in impervious surface and the change in rainfall intensity; 3. Master Gardeners provide a complete review of the landscape plan prior to city council review; 4. Traffic Modeling and Trip Generation for Restaurant (the site) be updated; and 5. Pedestrian Connectivity, showing where connectivity to the Village would be provided. page 131 As part of this response, the developer has provided for the city’s review the following information: A) Planning Commission Response Letter from Pope Architects, dated 02/19/2020. B) Technical Memo on Stormwater System and Modeling Summary from Wenck Associates, dated 02/13/2020. (note: staff is providing a “reduced” version of this report, as the entire report is over 197 pages and is very technical. If a commissioner requests to have the full copy of the report, staff will provide a digital/PDF copy for your review). C) Stormwater Management Summary memo from Wenck Assoc. – dated 02/13/2020. D) An updated “Mendota Heights Senior Apartments” plan set – dated 02/18/2020, which includes an updated Site Plan and Landscape Plan for the subject site. No other significant changes were made to the building layout or parking areas. The updated plan reflects new pedestrian connection ways; and a schedule of new landscape planting and material varieties that appear to be in compliance with the city’s pollinator friendly policy. Staff and the developer (along with their architect and landscape architect) met with city staff and the Master Gardener to review and discuss a number of recommended changes to the landscape/planting plans. The goal was to ensure the development conformed (as best as possible) with the city’s pollinator friendly policy, which staff feels this updated landscape plan now meets. Follow-up comments were made by the MG to the developer’s landscape architects just prior to the completion of this report; and staff hopes to have final recommendations or findings ready or presented at the Feb. 27th meeting. E) An “All Day Café” restaurant layout plan. The plan illustrates interior seating capacity of 132 seats, with 60 patio seats available (seasonally), for total of 192 seats. The Pope Response Memo provides a comparison of current Zoning Code, the 2002 PUD and proposed 2020 PUD Amendment plan. The developer indicates the 41 spaces in the separated lot, plus the 24 surface spaces in front of the building, along with the parking available on the streets and public parking lots in the Village, will provide adequate parking for its employees and customers at the new restaurant, including the senior residential use. F) The Developer is still working on the traffic/trip generation information. They hope to have that information to the city soon. (Staff will provide this report in a follow-up email). Since it was alluded to in the discussions at the January 28th meeting, staff is also providing for the commissioner’s review the 2018 Dodd Road North-South Mobility Study. The city also received a review memo from MnDOT, dated 02/05/2020. The memo states the ramps, walkways and paths must be compliant with ADA standards, which the developer indicates will be met on the site. The plans must also be sent to MnDOT for drainage permit review, which has already been done or will be done as part of the building permit review process. MnDOT is also recommending “the construction of a left turn lane on southbound Highway 149 (Dodd Road) to accommodate the additional traffic that the development is expected to generate.” page 132 City staff however, feel this road right-of-way may be too narrow and does not support the addition of a left turn lane at this location. There are no similar left-turn lanes along Dodd Road (except farther south at Decorah/Wagon Wheel intersections) that support this MnDOT recommendation. At this time, city staff is not recommending the installation of any left-turn lane for this development. Attached to this supplemental memo are these updated plan sheets, consultant memos/reports, the MnDOT review memo, and the original PC Planning Report from the January 28th meeting (note: this original report copy does not include the “Mendota Heights Town Center Master Development Plan & Design Standard” document due to its large size/number of pages. Please refer to your 02/28/20 PC packet copy if necessary). ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit for the requested planned unit development amendment, based on the attached finding of facts, with conditions; 2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit for the requested planned unit development amendment, based on amended finding(s) of facts as determined by the Planning Commission; or 3. Table the request. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit approving an Amendment to the 2002 Mendota Heights Town Center (The Village at Mendota Heights), which would allow a new mixed-use development consisting of a 48-unit senior apartment building with a restaurant, based on the attached findings of fact, along with the following suggested conditions of approval: 1. The Developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Mendota Heights, in a form prepared by the city attorney; and final draft shall be approved by the city council. 2. Developer shall provide a clearly marked crosswalk on Maple Street over to the separated parking lot, with final location and design approved by Public Works Director. 3. Necessary drainage and utility easements shall be included on the Final Plat, as determined by the Public Works Director and if necessary the Saint Paul Regional Water Services. 4. All new buildings shall be constructed only in conformance to building and site plans certified by a registered architect and engineers (as applicable); and in accordance with all architectural and building standards found under Title 12-1E-8, Subpart F “Architectural Controls” and Subpart G – Structural, Electrical and Mechanical Requirements. 5. Any ground-level mechanicals and utility appurtenances, must be screened with vegetation or one or more of the materials used in the construction of the principal structure, which must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department as part of the building permit process. 6. Plant material shall be utilized as a screening element for any building utility areas, but shall not obstruct fire department connections or hydrants, to be reviewed by the Planning and Fire Departments and verified as part of the building permit review process. 7. A park dedication fee of $4,000/residential unit shall be paid at time of building permit approvals. page 133 8. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an amount equal to at least one and one-half (11/2) times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other improvements, to be included as part of the Development Agreement. 9. The Developer and/or their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions allow. All landscape areas must be irrigated. 10. The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS) standards. 11. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction commencement. 12. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 13. All applicable fire and building codes, as adopted/amended by the City, shall apply and the buildings shall be fully-protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. page 134 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit for PUD Amendment Mendota Senior Housing Development 725 Linden Street & 735 Maple Street The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 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 amended planned unit development can be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site 3. 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. 4. The reduced setback and building separation does not pose any threat to the general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding properties or diminishes the usefulness of the planned development of this property. 5. The proposed PUD should be approved with a higher density allotment, due to: a. it will be an effective and unified treatment of the development; b. the development plan includes provisions for the preservation and replacement of natural amenities; c. financing is available to the applicant on conditions and in an amount which is sufficient to assure completion of the planned unit development and the PUD is consistent with the comprehensive plan; and d. the new PUD Amendment plans can be and will be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site. e. The proposed increased density is consistent with surrounding suburban communities and would allow for adequate open space as part of the proposed development; and f. 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 6. Construction of the proposed high-density residential development will help contribute to meeting the projected Metropolitan Council’s 2040 forecasted population and household numbers. 7. The new mixed-use senior residential with a restaurant use would be in character with other surrounding uses in the existing PUD area. 8. The proposed trail and pedestrian connections included as part of the mixed-use development project will facilitate a walkable and livable environment within the overall Village at Mendota Heights PUD and the surrounding neighborhoods. page 135 To: Tim Benetti Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 From Joseph Kimbrell On behalf of: Grand Real Estate Advisors Pope Architects 1295 Bandana Blvd. N Suite 200 St. Paul, MN 55108 Re: Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Response to 5 Planning Commission Comments Mendota Heights New Senior Housing Vacant Village Lots Mendota Heights, MN 55118 PLANNING COMMISSION RESPONSE LETTER 02/19/20 Mr. Benetti, This letter and attachments provide additional information requested by the planning commission at the January 28th commission meeting regarding the above cited project (Planning Case #2020-01). The commission requested additional information / clarifications regarding the following 5 items. Responses are indicated below each item along with references to supporting documentation attached. 1. Landscape plans should be reviewed by city’s Master Gardeners – and comments addressed prior to passing the project on to City Council for approval / prior to the next PC 2/27 meeting. RESPONSE: Pope Architects, GREA, and Wenck have completed two rounds of revisions to the landscape plans. Revision-1 incorporated initial master gardener comments provided by the city staff in writing. Revision-2 incorporated comments received at an in-person meeting with master gardener, Cindy Johnson, held on 2-4-20. The revisions incorporated as part of this process include changing trees and shrubs to pollinator friendly species. The revisions also add approximately 144 shrubs, 107 perennials, and replaced rock mulch at the center parking island with green mulch. Please see the attached “2020-0220 MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS_LANDSCAPE PLANS.pdf” for the current landscape design drawings and supporting documentation. At the time of this letter a final / third review and revision is in process. We will issue a final updated plan once this final revision is completed. The design team is very confident that the project meets all city code requirements and the pollinator friendly policy. 2. A comparison of impervious surfaces and impact on stormwater management should be provided showing the difference between the original 2002 PUD design and this new design. This should take into account the new, higher rain fall estimates. Provide just simple side by side tables not full reports and flow data. RESPONSE: Please see the attached “2020-0213 Stormwater Management Summary Tables.pdf” for the requested information. Please also note full reports and drawings have also been provided to city staff. page 136 GREA / Mendota Heights Sr. Housing 2/19/20 Page 2 3. Provide side by side tables showing generated traffic estimates of the 2017 KOJ traffic study vs a table showing the impact of this new project. RESPONSE: An updated trip generation report is currently in process by Swing Traffic Solutions. We will send this requested information to you as soon as possible. 4. Provide a parking comparison table showing side by side parking requirement numbers for, the 2002 PUD, City Zoning Code, and this proposed development. RESPONSE: Please see the table below showing # of parking spaces required and provided. # of parking spaces provided USE / BASIS OF DESIGN AND OCCUPANCY ZONING CODE 2002 PUD (GOVERNS) 2020 PROPOSED POSSIBLE OCCUPANCY BASED ON PROPOSED 2020 PROVIDED PARKING RESTAURANT (150 SEATS)* 58* (1 PER 3 SEATS + 8) 38 (1 PER 4 SEATS) 64* Zoning Code: 192 seats* (64X3) 2002 PUD: 256 seats* (64X4) RESIDENTIAL (48 UNITS) 120 (2.5 PER UNIT) 60 (1.25/UNIT) 71 NA / 56.8 Units (74/1.25) TOTAL PARKING SPACES 180 98 135 NA * Basis of design calculations included 150 restaurant seats and 8 employees. In all scenarios above GREA plans to require all project employees to park at the public lot / ramp across Linden St. Please see the attached “ALLDAYCAFE_MENDOTA HGTS_FITPLAN_02.20.20.pdf” for the current restaurant layout showing # of seats within the range allowed by the available parking. 5. More clearly show pedestrian connections between the project site and the village. RESPONSE: Please see the attached “C-101 from 2020-0218 MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS 5898- 0003.pdf” for the current civil site plan showing crosswalks and connection locations to the village. Please note: all crosswalks will be provided with required ADA ramps. These are already in place on the village side of Linden St. Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information regarding this application. Sincerely, Joseph Kimbrell Pope Architects LLC. page 137 1 | P a g e M e n d o t a S e n i o r H o u s i n g , M e n d o t a H e i g h t s February 24, 2020 To: Judd Fenlon, Grand Real Estate Advisor, LLC From: Vernon Swing, PE Re: Trip Generation Study – Mendota Senior Housing, Mendota Heights MN Per your request, Swing Traffic Solutions, LLC has conducted a trip generation analysis for the proposed development of the Mendota Senior Housing in Mendota Heights, MN including 48 senior apartments and a 4,352 square foot restaurant. The proposed restaurant will serve breakfast and will include a bar area and may include patio seating during the summer. The 2.667-acre site is located on the east side of Dodd Road, with the majority of the site just north of Maple Street and just west of Linden Street, and includes an additional area for parking located to the south of Maple Street. (See attached site plan figure.) Full access to the main site is proposed from two locations, one on Maple Street and one on Linden Street, and access to the additional parking area is planned on Maple Street across from the main site access. This memorandum documents the anticipated site generated traffic, compares this estimate with the previously proposed Trammell Crow development, and reviews the traffic operations along Dodd Rd to be consistent with the earlier Trammell Crow study, and with the City’s N-S Mobility Study. Trip Generation The trip generation for the proposed development has been estimated based on the methodology described by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation, 10th Edition. The ITE land codes coinciding with the proposed development are Code 252 for senior attached housing and Code 932 for High Turnover Sit Down restaurant. Table 1 summarizes the findings. Table 1 Trip Generation Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Trips Enter Exit Enter Exit Senior Apartments (48 units) 3 Trips 7 Trips 7 Trips 5 Trips 178 Trips Restaurant (4.352 k-sf) 24 Trips 20 Trips 26 Trips 16 Trips 485 Trips Adjustments - 5 Trips - 5 Trips -16 Trips -9 Trips - 145 Trips TOTAL 34 Trips 29 Trips 518 Trips Different developments generate trips with different purposes, for example an office development generates trips that are destined to the office while a convenience store generates trips that are on their way to a primary destination, but stop as they are passing by for gas or convenience items making trips referred to as pass-by trips. The pass-by trips are not new trips generated by the land use under study, and thus, are not added to the network, but are trips using the site accesses roads and driveways. In this case, the restaurant use will generate 44 trips during the AM peak hour and 42 trips during the PM peak hour, however, according to the ITE Trip Generation Handbook approximately 20 percent of its AM page 138 2 | P a g e M e n d o t a S e n i o r H o u s i n g , M e n d o t a H e i g h t s traffic and approximately 60 percent of its PM traffic is already using the roadway network serving the area. While the total trips associated with the development will turn to and from Dodd Road onto Maple Street, 20 percent of this traffic in the morning and 60 percent of this traffic in the afternoon already exist on Dodd Road and is diverted from the through traffic passing the site. In other words, to avoid double counting the amount of traffic a development generates by including traffic that already exist on the roadways near a site, the trip generation is adjusted to account for the pass-by trips. As shown in Table 1, the site will generate 22 new entering and 22 new exiting trips during the morning traffic peak hour, and 17 new entering and 12 new exiting trips during the afternoon traffic peak hour. Previously, Trammell Crow proposed to develop this site as a larger senior attached housing development referred to as Linden Street Senior Housing. This project only included the residential project which only generates destination-based trips. From the earlier study conducted by Spack Consulting, a trip generation analysis was conducted with the results summarized in Table 2. Table 2 Trammell Crow Trip Generation Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Trips Enter Exit Enter Exit Senior Apartments (150 units) 11 Trips 20 Trips 21 Trips 18 Trips 556 Trips TOTAL 31 Trips 39 Trips 556 Trips Comparison of the information contained in Tables 1 and 2 indicates the Mendota Heights Senior proposal will generate less new traffic to the area on a daily basis and during the PM Peak hour. In fact, when compared with the previous Linden Street Senior Housing development, the proposed Mendota Senior Housing will generate 10 fewer new trips during the PM Peak hour and 38 fewer new trips per day. Traffic Operations The operating conditions of transportation facilities, such as roadways, traffic signals, roundabouts and stop-controlled intersections, are evaluated based on the relationship of the theoretical capacity of a facility to the actual traffic volume on that facility. Various factors affect capacity including travel speed, roadway geometry, grade, number of travel lanes, and intersection control. The current standards for evaluating capacity and operating conditions are contained in the 6th Edition of Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board. The procedures describe operating conditions in terms of driver delay represented as a Level of Service (LOS). Operations are given letter designations with "A" representing the best operating conditions and "F" representing the worst. Generally, level of service “D” represents the threshold for acceptable overall intersection operating conditions during a peak hour. The Chart below summarizes the level of service and delay criteria for signalized and unsignalized intersections. page 139 3 | P a g e M e n d o t a S e n i o r H o u s i n g , M e n d o t a H e i g h t s LOS Designation Signalized Intersection Average Delay/Vehicle (Sec.) Unsignalized Intersection Average Delay/Vehicle (Sec.) A < 10 < 10 B > 10-20 > 10-15 C > 20-35 > 15-25 D > 35-55 > 25-35 E > 55-80 > 35-50 F > 80 > 50 For side street stop-controlled intersections special emphasis is given to providing an estimate for the level of service of the minor approaches. Traffic operations at an unsignalized intersection with side street stop-control can be described two ways. First, consideration is given to the overall intersection level of service. This takes into account the total number of vehicles entering the intersection and the capability of the intersection to support these volumes. Second, it is important to consider the delay on the minor approaches, since the mainline does not have to stop. It is common for intersections with higher mainline traffic volumes to experience increased levels of delay and poor level of service on the side streets. A final fundamental component of operational analyses is a study of vehicular queuing, or the line of vehicles waiting to pass through an intersection. An intersection can operate with an acceptable Level of Service, but if queues from the intersection extend back to block entrances to turn lanes or accesses to adjacent land uses, unsafe operating conditions could result. In this report, the Industry Design Standard 95th percentile queue length is used. The 95th Percentile Queue Length refers to that length of vehicle queue that has only a five-percent probability of occurring during an analysis hour. The intersections studied for this report are the Dodd Road intersections with Marie Street, Maple Street, Market Street and TH 62. This study has adopted the existing conditions from the N-S Mobility Study and reanalyzed with them the current version of Synchro, to establish the baseline operations to be compared with. Further this study includes the results from the Linden Street Senior Housing development including distribution assumptions related to site generated traffic and the operational analysis results for the earlier proposal. Lastly, we have reviewed the 2040 Base condition results which we understand include the Linden Street Senior Housing projections to determine if the reduced trip generation associated with the Mendota Senior Housing proposal will impact the suggested roadway improvements included in the N-S Mobility Study. The majority of the site generated traffic from the proposed development will utilize the Maple Street intersection to access Dodd Road. Review of the trip distribution assumptions included in the Linden Street Senior Housing study, as well as the current conditions on the roadway network, suggest 70 percent of the site generated traffic will be destined to or from TH 62, with 10 percent destined to or from the north on Dodd Road, 15 percent destined to or from the south of TH 62 on Dodd Road, and 5 percent destined to or from Linden Street to visit the nearby retail establishments. Detailed intersection capacity analyses were conducted for the AM and PM peak hours for the existing conditions, the previously proposed Linden Street Senior Housing development, and the proposed page 140 4 | P a g e M e n d o t a S e n i o r H o u s i n g , M e n d o t a H e i g h t s Mendota Senior Housing development reflecting 2020 traffic conditions, as well as the 2040 Base conditions and the 2040 Base conditions with the Mendota Senior Housing proposed development. Table 3 summarizes the results of the analyses in terms of Level of Service (LOS) for the worst-case peak condition for each scenario. Table 3 Traffic Operations Comparison Intersection Existing Condition Linden Street Senior Mendota Heights Senior 2040 Base Condition 2040 Base+ Mendota Heights Senior Marie & Dodd LOS b LOS c LOS b LOS e LOS e Maple & Dodd LOS c LOS d LOS c LOS f LOS f Market & Dodd LOS f LOS f LOS f LOS f LOS f TH 62 & Dodd LOS E LOS E LOS E LOS F LOS F * LOS in Capital Letter reflects signalized condition for the overall operation. Marie and Dodd is All-way Stop while other intersections are two- way stop and the LOS reflects the operations of the worst movement. The results shown in Table 3 indicate the addition of the Mendota Heights Senior development will not result in a change in the traffic operations at the studied intersections. An in-depth review further indicates the intersection of TH 62 and Dodd Road is currently operating at or near capacity which is resulting in traffic queues on Dodd Road that occasionally block the traffic movements at Market Street. The additional traffic from the proposed development has a negligible impact on the intersection operations at Market Street and at TH 62. The TH 62 and Dodd Road intersection is a regional issue requiring Dakota County and MnDOT to participate in developing solutions to alleviate congestion at this intersection. By 2040 the LOS F operations at TH 62 and Dodd Road will block access to Market Street and will affect the ability to enter and exit Maple Street. Further, by 2040 the increase in background traffic in the area will likely result in the need to modify the traffic control at Dodd Road and Marie Street. The N-S Mobility Study identified potential solutions to the area intersections including converting TH 62 and Dodd to “Continuous Flow Intersection”, installing a roundabout at Market Street and a min- roundabout at Marie Street. This combination provided acceptable operations at all intersections except TH 62 which will still operate at capacity (LOS E). Preliminary analysis of these improvements with the addition of the Mendota Heights Senior (MHS) development indicates the additional traffic associated with the development will not affect the study area intersection operations. Table 4 summarizes the operations with identified improvements. Table 4 Traffic Operations Comparison Intersection 2040 Base w/ Improvements 2040 MHS w/ Improvements Marie & Dodd LOS d LOS d Maple & Dodd LOS c LOS c Market & Dodd LOS a LOS a TH 62 & Dodd LOS E LOS E * LOS in Capital Letter reflects signalized condition for the overall operation. Marie and Dodd and Market and Dodd are roundabout intersections while Maple and Dodd is a two-way stop and the LOS reflects the operations of the worst movement. page 141 5 | P a g e M e n d o t a S e n i o r H o u s i n g , M e n d o t a H e i g h t s As indicated in Table 4, the proposed improvements address the poor operations at the study intersections in 2040. The Maple Street and Dodd Road intersection has less volume under the Mendota Heights Senior development than was analyzed as part of the N-S Mobility Study’s 2040 Base condition, resulting in a slightly less delay. Parking Summary Parking generation for the proposed site uses was also reviewed. The parking demand was estimated based on the statistics contained in Parking Generation, 4th Edition, published by ITE. Again, the Land Use Codes 252 and 932 were used and the resulting estimated parking demand during the highest peak time is 29 spaces for the senior apartments and 49 spaces for the restaurant for a total peak parking demand of 78 spaces. The proposed development is providing 135 spaces, 69 below grade for the apartments and 66 at grade for the restaurant and visitors. The parking supply exceeds the anticipated demand. In conclusion, the proposed development has appropriate access to the site and to the surrounding roadway network. While the traffic operations are beginning to degrade at the intersection of TH 62 and Dodd Road, the addition of the proposed development will have a negligible impact on traffic operations in the area. The parking supplied as part of the development exceeds the anticipated demand. In other words, the roadway network serving the proposed development will function well with the senior apartment project, and the proposed parking supply will exceed the demand. Please contact Vernon Swing at vswingtraffic@gmail.com or 612-968-4142 with any questions. page 142 6 | P a g e M e n d o t a S e n i o r H o u s i n g , M e n d o t a H e i g h t s page 143 Stormwater Management Summary Wenck | Colorado | Georgia | Minnesota | North Dakota | Wyoming Toll Free 800-472-2232 Web wenck.com Subject: Mendota Heights Apartments – Stormwater Management Summary Date: February 13, 2020 Table 1. Stormwater Rainfall Depth Summary 2-Year Rainfall (in.) 10-Year Rainfall (in.) 100-Year Rainfall (in.) 100-Year 10- Day Snowmelt (in.) PUD Condition (TP-40) 2.80 3.50 5.90 7.20 PUD Condition (Atlas 14) 2.81 4.19 7.47 7.20 Proposed Condition (Atlas 14) 2.81 4.19 7.47 7.20 Increase from TP-40 to Atlas 14 0.01 0.69 1.57 0.00 Table 2. Impervious Surface Summary (Total Drainage Area Analyzed) Impervious (sf) Pervious (sf) Composite CN PUD Condition 65,111 123,387 74 Proposed Condition 94,975 93,610 80 Difference +29,864 -29,777 +6 Table 3. Stormwater Rate Control Summary Event East City Storm West City Storm Site Total PUD (cfs) Proposed (cfs) PUD (cfs) Proposed (cfs) PUD (cfs) Proposed (cfs) 2-year 2.7 1.2 0.6 1.2 3.3 2.2 10-year 5.1 4.3 1.3 2.0 6.4 6.0 100-year 11.1 11.1 3.2 4.1 14.3 13.5 10-day Snowmelt 4.6 3.4 0.6 0.6 5.1 4.0 Table 4. Water Volume Requirement Summary New Impervious (sf) 1.1-inch Runoff (cf) Volume Infiltrated (cf) Proposed Condition 29,864 2,738 9,511 page 144 page 145 page 146 page 147 STATE HIGHWAY 62ST A T E H I G H W A Y 1 4 9 ( D O D D R O A D )LINDEN STREETMAPLE STREETOAK STREETMAIN STREETWESLEY LANEHILLTOP ROADRIDGE PLACE5898-0003SHEETDMLJRAMENDOTAHEIGHTSAPARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN01/06/20POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101www.popearch.comCITY COMMENTREVISION 202/18/20WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY, SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(763) 252-6800 | FAX (952) 831-1268WWW.WENCK.COMWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALLCOOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FORTHE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIEDSTRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLTWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166CALL BEFORE YOU DIGCITY SUBMITTAL01/17/20CITY SUBMITTAL11/18/19CONCEPT SUBMITTAL02/07/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 102/13/20CITY SUBMITTAL02/18/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 2C-001COVER SHEETENGINEERWENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(P) - 763-252-6800CONTACT: DAN LAVENDER, P.E.VICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALEPRELIMINARY SITE CONSTRUCTION PLANSFORMENDOTA HEIGHTS SENIOR APARTMENTS725 AND 721 LINDEN STREET; 735 MAPLE ROADMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTAFEBRUARY 2020PROJECT LOCATIONCITY: MENDOTA HEIGHTSCOUNTY: DAKOTAPROJECT SITEARCHITECTPOPE ARCHITECTS1295 BANDANA BLVD N. SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108(P) - 651-642-9200CONTACT: JOSEPH KIMBRELLTHIS PLANSET CONTAINS 15 SHEETSSHEET INDEXSHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLEC-001COVER SHEETC-003EXISTING CONDITIONSC-004 REMOVAL PLAN AND PRECONSTRUCTION EROSION CONTROL PLANC-101SITE PLANC-201POST CONSTRUCTION STABILIZATION PLANC-301GRADING PLANC-401UTILITY PLANC-501STORM SEWER PLANL-101LANDSCAPE PLANL-102LANDSCAPE DETAILS AND NOTESEX-1VEHICLE ACCESS PLAN2-SHEETSCERTIFIED SURVEY1-SHEETTREE SURVEY1-SHEETPHOTOMETRIC PLAN11111112page 148 MAPLE STREETSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)LINDEN STREET>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>L=86.80 R=195.00Δ=25°30'15"CHB=S71°24'36"ECH=86.09S89°59'45"W 76.47N89°59'45"E 50.30L=73.91R=195.00Δ=21°42'58"CHB=N79°08'55"WCH=73.47L=160.91R=480.00Δ=19°12'26"CHB=S33°55'47"WCH=160.16L=114.30R=480.00Δ=13°38'35"CHB=S50°21'17"WCH=114.03S23°27'39"E 125.00S13°23'35"E 212.60L=69.09 R=333.00Δ=11°53'15"CHB=N18°23'21"ECH=68.97L=214.70R=686.38Δ=17°55'20"CHB=N33°17'38"ECH=213.83S47°53'03"E 109.95S46°27'59"E 102.26S41°59'00"W 113.00S30°29'37"W 122.43S42°15'19"W 318.57S42°15'19"W 7.96S89°59'45"W 76.47N89°59'45"E 50.30L=51.17 R=135.00Δ=21°42'58"CHB=N79°08'55"WCH=50.86L=255.67R=630.00Δ=23°15'07"CHB=N42°52'06"ECH=253.92S0°12'52"E 195.67 I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>>>RIM=865.83INV=857.0 EINV=858.6 NRIM=867.10INV=857.9 WINV=858.0 ERIM=867.94INV=863.1 SINV=862.9 NINV=870.21INV=872.10RIM=865.75INV=860.0 SINV=860.1 NRIM=869.20INV=864.9 SERIM=869.35INV=858.9RIM=871.15INV=859.7RIM=872.88INV=860.2RIM=873.49INV=862.4 NINV=862.5 SRIM=877.86INV=862.3RIM=873.77INV=862.2 NINV=862.2 WINV=865.7 ERIM=871.77INV=860.9 WINV=861.0 EINV=861.0 SRIM=869.26INV=856.8 EINV=856.8 WINV=862.7 NERIM=868.38INV=856.7 EINV=856.6 WINV=856.7 NRIM=868.61INV=859.1RIM=868.22INV=856.0 WINV=856.2 EINV=856.3 SRIM=865.99INV=856.1 EINV=856.1 WINV=861.3 SEN INV COUKLD NOT REACHRIM=865.81INV=861.7 SRIM=868.09INV=856.9 NINV=856.9 WINV=856.9 ERIM=867.87INV=860.3 WCOULD NOT SEE OTHER PIPESROAD DOWN TO 1 LANE VERY BUSY WILL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT DIFFERENT TIMEINV=859.18RIM=869.41INV=857.5 EINV=857.1 NEINV=857.1 SWRIM=869.04INV=863.3 SERIM=866.99INV=855.3 E/WINV=864.36RIM=867.60INV=863.7 SERIM=867.31INV=858.21>>>>UEOUOUOUOUOUOUGGUEUEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUUEUEUEUEUECOMCOMTRD 286TRD 383TRD 387TRD 352TRD 353TRD 318TRD 317TRD 316TRD 315TRD 397TRD 324TRD 340TRD 341TRD 344TRD 328TRD 327TRD 304TRD 305TRD 329TRD 346TRD 320TRD 338TRD 351TRD 338TRD 400TRD 382TRD 365TRD 358TRD 356TRD 362TRD 363TRD 371TRD 377TRD 367TRD 359TRD 364TRD 349TRD 332TRD 385TRD 334TRD 307TRD 321TRD 311TRD 343TRD 330TRD 312TRD 306TRD 314TRD 396TRD 303TRD 319TRD 323TRD 360TRD 356TRD 335TRD 302TRD 354TRD 336TRD 310TRD 309TRD 383TRD 322TRD 325TRD 345TRD 347TRD 339TRD 308TRD 348TRD 384TRD 388TRD 337TRD 326TRD 331TRD 333TRD 342TRD 313TRD 389TRD 381TRD 391TRD 346I I>>>>>>6" PVC SAN STUBINV 859.346" PVC SAN STUBINV 858.62>>>>12" HDPE STUBINV=859.9212" HDPE STUBINV=858.1012" HDPE STUBINV=856.88III865865870870 8 7 0 8708 7 0 8708 7 0 8 7 0870870 8 7 5 8 7 5 875 8 8 0 880 8 8 5 885 863863864864866866 866 866 866866867867867867867867867 8678688688688 6 8 868868868 868868869869869869869869 869869 871871871 87 1 8718 7 1 8718 7 2 8 7 2 8728 7 3 8 7 3 874 8 7 4 8 7 4 876876876876876876 87 6 8778 7 7 877 87 7 8 7 8 878 878 8 7 9 879 8 8 1 881 8 8 2 882 8 8 3 883 8 8 4 884 8 8 688688 7 5898-0003SHEETDMLJRAMENDOTAHEIGHTSAPARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN01/06/20POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101www.popearch.comCITY COMMENTREVISION 202/18/20WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY, SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(763) 252-6800 | FAX (952) 831-1268WWW.WENCK.COMWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALLCOOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FORTHE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIEDSTRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLTWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166CALL BEFORE YOU DIGCITY SUBMITTAL01/17/20CITY SUBMITTAL11/18/19CONCEPT SUBMITTAL02/07/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 102/13/20CITY SUBMITTAL02/18/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 2C-003EXISTING CONDITIONSXX>>>>LOT LINEEASEMENT LINESETBACK LINEEXISTING RAILROAD TRACKEXISTING FENCE LINEEXISTING GUARD RAILEXISTING RETAINING WALL LINEEXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING SANITARY SEWERFMEXISTING FORCEMAINIEXISTING WATERMAINIRRIRREXISTING IRRIGATION LINEGASGASEXISTING UNDERGROUND GAS LINECOMCOMEXISTING UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATION LINEF/OF/OEXISTING UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC LINEUEUEEXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINEOUEXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY LINEEXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENTEXISTING EDGE OF GRAVELEXISTING ROAD CENTERLINEEXISTING DITCH CENTERLINEWETEXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARYEXISTING TREE LINEEXISTING CONCRETE SURFACEEXISTING ASPHALT SURFACEEXISTING GRAVEL SURFACEEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING MINOR CONTOUREXISTING MAJOR CONTOURRIGHT OF WAY LINESECTION LINEQUARTER LINEEXISTING EASEMENT LINEEXISTING PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY BOUNDARYEXISTING CURB AND GUTTEREXISTING SANITARY MANHOLEEXISTING CLEANOUTEXISTING STORM SEWER MANHOLEEXISTING STORM SEWER INLETEXISTING STORM SEWER INLETEXISTING FLARED END SECTIONEXISTING CURB STOPEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING WATER WELLEXISTING WATER VALVEEXISTING AUTO SPRINKLEREXISTING POST INDICATOR VALVEEXISTING WATER METEREXISTING SPRINKLER HEADEXISTING IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVEEXISTING GAS MARKEREXISTING GAS VALVEEXISTING COMMUNICATIONS PEDESTALEXISTING TELEPHONE MANHOLEEXISTING ELECTRICAL PEDESTALEXISTING ELECTRIC METEREXISTING TRANSFORMEREXISTING SIGNEXISTING BOLLARD/POSTEXISTING UTILITY POLEEXISTING ANCHOR CABLEEXISTING LIGHT POLEEXISTING DECORATIVE LIGHTEXISTING STUMPEXISTING DECIDUOUS TREEEXISTING CONIFEROUS TREEEXISTING SHRUB/BUSHLEGENDEXISTING ELECTRIC MANHOLEEXISTING GAS METEREXISTING WETLANDpage 149 MAPLE STREETSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)LINDEN STREET>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>S47°53'03"E 109.95S46°27'59"E 102.26I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>>>RIM=865.83INV=857.0 EINV=858.6 NRIM=867.10INV=857.9 WINV=858.0 ERIM=867.94INV=863.1 SINV=862.9 NINV=870.21INV=872.10RIM=865.75INV=860.0 SINV=860.1 NRIM=869.20INV=864.9 SERIM=869.35INV=858.9RIM=871.15INV=859.7RIM=872.88INV=860.2RIM=873.49INV=862.4 NINV=862.5 SRIM=877.86INV=862.3RIM=873.77INV=862.2 NINV=862.2 WINV=865.7 ERIM=871.77INV=860.9 WINV=861.0 EINV=861.0 SRIM=869.26INV=856.8 EINV=856.8 WINV=862.7 NERIM=868.38INV=856.7 EINV=856.6 WINV=856.7 NRIM=868.61INV=859.1RIM=868.22INV=856.0 WINV=856.2 EINV=856.3 SRIM=865.99INV=856.1 EINV=856.1 WINV=861.3 SEN INV COUKLD NOT REACHRIM=865.81INV=861.7 SRIM=868.09INV=856.9 NINV=856.9 WINV=856.9 ERIM=867.87INV=860.3 WCOULD NOT SEE OTHER PIPESROAD DOWN TO 1 LANE VERY BUSY WILL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT DIFFERENT TIMEINV=859.18RIM=869.41INV=857.5 EINV=857.1 NEINV=857.1 SWRIM=869.04INV=863.3 SERIM=866.99INV=855.3 E/WINV=864.36RIM=867.60INV=863.7 SERIM=867.31INV=858.21>>>>UEOUOUOUOUOUOUGGUEUEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUUEUEUEUEUECOMCOMTRD 286TRD 383TRD 387TRD 352TRD 353TRD 317TRD 316TRD 315TRD 397TRD 324TRD 327TRD 304TRD 305TRD 338TRD 351TRD 338TRD 400TRD 382TRD 365TRD 358TRD 356TRD 362TRD 363TRD 371TRD 377TRD 367TRD 359TRD 364TRD 349TRD 332TRD 385TRD 334TRD 307TRD 311TRD 343TRD 391I I>>>>>>6" PVC SAN STUBINV 859.346" PVC SAN STUBINV 858.62>>>>12" HDPE STUBINV=859.9212" HDPE STUBINV=858.1012" HDPE STUBINV=856.88III865865865865870 8638638648648668 6 6 8 6 7 867868 868869 871 87087 5869869871 872 87 3 87 4 87 6 8 7 7870875 8 6 6 866 867867868868869871871871 872 873 874 87 6 87 7 870 870 875 88 0 8 8 5867867868 868 869 869 871 871 872 873 874 876 877 878 879 88 1 88 2 8 8 3 8 8 4 8 8 6 8 8 7 888870870870870867868868869869871871 11111122222222233333334445556777889910111111812121313131321212121.121.12122222121212323232323232424242424242424252626272727272727910141420202012021.15898-0003SHEETDMLJRAMENDOTAHEIGHTSAPARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN01/06/20POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101www.popearch.comCITY COMMENTREVISION 202/18/20WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY, SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(763) 252-6800 | FAX (952) 831-1268WWW.WENCK.COMWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALLCOOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FORTHE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIEDSTRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLTWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166CALL BEFORE YOU DIGCITY SUBMITTAL01/17/20CITY SUBMITTAL11/18/19CONCEPT SUBMITTAL02/07/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 102/13/20CITY SUBMITTAL02/18/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 2C-004REMOVAL PLAN ANDPRECONSTRUCTIONEROSION CONTROLPLANLEGENDEASEMENT LINEPROPERTY LINE TO BE VACATEDEASEMENT LINE TO BE VACATEDPROPERTY BOUNDARYREMOVE SIGNREMOVE LIGHT POLEREMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTREMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENTREMOVE CURB AND GUTTERSAWCUT PAVEMENTCLEAR AND GRUB AREA1. SEE SHEET C-002 FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECT NOTES.2. CONSTRUCTION SITE SHALL HAVE STABILIZED EXIT AT ALL TIMES THROUGHOUTTHE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. CONTRACTOR IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLETO PROTECT DOWNSTREAM WATERS FROM CONSTRUCTION RUNOFF.3. UNTRENCHED SILT FENCE OR ORANGE SNOW FENCE MAY BE USED FOR TREEPROTECTION.4. CONSTRUCTION LIMITS AND SILT FENCE SHOWN OFFSET FROM PROPERTY LINEFOR CLARITY, WHEN APPLICABLE.5. WATER SERVICES WERE NOT SURVEYED AND ARE SHOWN SCHEMATICALLY.CONTRACTOR SHALL POTHOLE AND VERIFY ELEVATION, LOCATION, SIZE, ANDMATERIAL, AND COORDINATE FINAL DESIGN WITH ENGINEER.6. SEE TREE SURVEY FOR SPECIFIC TREES TO BE REMOVED.NOTESREMOVE TREEROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCESILT FENCEINLET PROTECTIONBIOROLLTREE PROTECTION1. SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (TYP.)2. REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER (TYP.)3. REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (TYP.)4. REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT (TYP.)5. CLEAR AND GRUB AREA (TYP.)6. CLEAR AND GURB AS NEEDED FOR CONSTRUCTION. DO NOT CLEAR ANDGRUB BEYOND PROPERTY LINE. (TYP.)7. REMOVE TREE (TYP.)8. REMOVE AND RELOCATE HANDHOLES/PEDESTALS AND UTILITY LINE(S) ASNEEDED FOR CONSTRUCTION. COORDINATE WITH UTILITY COMPANY.9. SALVAGE SIGN AND POST. SEE SHEET C-101 FOR REINSTALLATION LOCATION.10. SALVAGE LIGHTPOLE. COORDINATE WITH CITY ON REINSTALLATIONLOCATION.11. APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF TREE LINE AFTER CLEAR AND GRUB COMPLETED.COORDINATE ADDITIONAL TREE REMOVALS WITH OWNER AND LANDSCAPEARCHITECT.12. VACATED PROPERTY LINE13. VACATED EASEMENT LINE14. REMOVE SANITARY STUB TO MAIN15. THRU 19 NOT USED20. BIOROLL (TYP.) - SEE DETAIL21. SILT FENCE (TYP.) - SEE DETAIL21.1. DOUBLE ROW OF SILT FENCE ADJACENT TO LOW AREA22. ROCK CONSTRUCTION EXIT - SEE DETAIL23. INLET PROTECTION SEE DETAILS24. TREE PROTECTION - SEE NOTE 325. PROTECT EXISTING HYDRANT26. PROTECT EXISTING LIGHTPOLE27. PROTECT EXISTING STORM STRUCTURE AND PIPESKEYNOTES#11page 150 MAPLE STREETSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)LINDEN STREETOUOUOUOUOUOUGGOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUCOMCOMPROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY / RESTAURANT29,304 SFMULTI-FAMILY FFE = 871'RESTAURANT FFE = 869.5'233482106127439'18'18'9'18'9'9'18'9'1 8 '24'24'64.6'24'24.8'24'24'24'25.2'25.6'17'10.4'9'18'24'24'9'18'9'25.2'9'18'18'9'24'2 4 'R3.67'R20'R20'R20'R5'R5'R484'R3.67 ' R 3 . 6 7 'R1 9 9 'R3.67'R10'R20'R100'R20'R10'R3.67 'R3.67'R3.67'R 2 5 9 'R30'R3.67'R3.67'R5'R10'R10'R3.67'R3.67'R3.67'R3.67'R3.67'R3.67'R3.67'R3.67'20.6'25.3'26.24'74.45'0.12'111111111R100'222222333233333333344555556R544'6778899101111111111111111111111111111111122222222212131313131313131313131313131414141515161616.45'171711181818181818R0.67'R5'R5'R5'3.33'2.95'3.36'3.33'3.33'3.66'19517171720202020202215898-0003SHEETDMLJRAMENDOTAHEIGHTSAPARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN01/06/20POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101www.popearch.comCITY COMMENTREVISION 202/18/20WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY, SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(763) 252-6800 | FAX (952) 831-1268WWW.WENCK.COMWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALLCOOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FORTHE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIEDSTRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLTWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166CALL BEFORE YOU DIGCITY SUBMITTAL01/17/20CITY SUBMITTAL11/18/19CONCEPT SUBMITTAL02/07/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 102/13/20CITY SUBMITTAL02/18/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 2LOT LINEEASEMENT LINEEXISTING EASEMENT LINEEXISTING PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY BOUNDARYCURB AND GUTTER#PROPOSED PARKING COUNTBITUMINOUS PAVEMENTCONCRETE PAVEMENTRETAINING WALL [BY OTHERS]C-101SITE PLANLEGEND1. SEE SHEET C-002 FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECT NOTES.2. REFERENCE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR UNDERGROUND PARKING COUNT.3. SEE SHEET C-601 FOR PAVING PLAN.4. IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY 149 (DODD ROAD) ROW WERECOMPLETED AFTER SURVEY WAS COLLECTED. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFYLOCATION AND ELEVATION OF SIDEWALK AND CONFIRM PROPOSED SIDEWALKCONNECTION MEETS ALL ADA CRITERIA. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFYLOCATION OF POWER POLES WITHIN DODD ROAD ROW AND CONFIRM NOIMPACT IS REQUIRED. COORDINATE WITH UTILITY COMPANY AS NEEDED.NOTES1. MATCH EXISTING (TYP.)2. CONCRETE PAVEMENT (TYP.) - SEE SHEET C-6013. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (TYP.) - SEE SHEET C-6014. ADA CURB RAMP - SEE SHEET C-301 FOR DETAILED GRADING5. ADA CURB RAMP WITHIN PUBLIC ROW - SEE DETAIL6. ADA STALL WITH SIGN - SEE DETAILS7. VAN ADA STALL WITH SIGN - SEE DETAILS8. ADA AISLE - SEE DETAIL9. PAINT STRIPE (TYP.) - SEE DETAIL10. STRIPE 4" SWSL11. DOOR LOCATION/STRUCTURAL STOOP/STAIRS WITH LANDING - SEEARCHITECTURAL/STRUCTURAL PLANS FOR DETAIL AND PRECISE LOCATION12. RAMP TO UNDERGROUND PARKING - SEE ARCHITECTURAL/STRUCTURALPLANS FOR DETAIL (INCLUDING PAVEMENT TYPE) AND PRECISE LOCATION13. HANGING BALCONY/COLUMN - SEE ARCHITECTURAL/STRUCTURAL PLANS FORDETAIL AND PRECISE LOCATION14. STOP SIGN - SEE DETAIL15. INSTALL SALVAGED SIGNPOST - COORDINATE WITH CITY ON FINAL LOCATION16. INSTALL SALVAGED STREETLIGHT - COORDINATE WITH CITY ON FINALLOCATION17. SNOW STORAGE LOCATION18. RETAINING WALL BY OTHERS - COORDINATE WITH ARCHITECT19. PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGN - SEE DETAIL20. PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK MARKING - COORDINATE WITH CITY FOR EXACTLOCATION AND DETAIL.21. PROPOSED LOT LINEKEYNOTES#SNOW STORAGE AREA111111page 151 MAPLE STREETSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)LINDEN STREET>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>>>RIM=865.83INV=857.0 EINV=858.6 NRIM=867.10INV=857.9 WINV=858.0 ERIM=867.94INV=863.1 SINV=862.9 NINV=870.21INV=872.10RIM=865.75INV=860.0 SINV=860.1 NRIM=869.20INV=864.9 SERIM=869.35INV=858.9RIM=871.15INV=859.7RIM=872.88INV=860.2RIM=873.49INV=862.4 NINV=862.5 SRIM=877.86INV=862.3RIM=873.77INV=862.2 NINV=862.2 WINV=865.7 ERIM=871.77INV=860.9 WINV=861.0 EINV=861.0 SRIM=869.26INV=856.8 EINV=856.8 WINV=862.7 NERIM=868.38INV=856.7 EINV=856.6 WINV=856.7 NRIM=868.61INV=859.1RIM=868.22INV=856.0 WINV=856.2 EINV=856.3 SRIM=865.99INV=856.1 EINV=856.1 WINV=861.3 SEN INV COUKLD NOT REACHRIM=865.81INV=861.7 SRIM=868.09INV=856.9 NINV=856.9 WINV=856.9 ERIM=867.87INV=860.3 WCOULD NOT SEE OTHER PIPESROAD DOWN TO 1 LANE VERY BUSY WILL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT DIFFERENT TIMEINV=859.18RIM=869.41INV=857.5 EINV=857.1 NEINV=857.1 SWRIM=869.04INV=863.3 SERIM=866.99INV=855.3 E/WINV=864.36RIM=867.60INV=863.7 SERIM=867.31INV=858.21>>>>UEOUOUOUOUOUOUGGUEUEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUUEUEUEUEUECOMCOMI I>>>>>>6" PVC SAN STUBINV 859.346" PVC SAN STUBINV 858.62>>>>12" HDPE STUBINV=859.9212" HDPE STUBINV=858.1012" HDPE STUBINV=856.88IIIPROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY / RESTAURANT29,304 SFMULTI-FAMILY FFE = 871'RESTAURANT FFE = 869.5'870870 868 869 8 6 9 867 868 869870868869870 8718658708638648668678688698711111.1111870 875 866866867 8 6 8 869871871871 872 873 874 87 6 87 7 870 875 880 8 8 5 868 869 871 872 873 874 876 877 878 879 881 88 2 88 3 8 8 4 8 8 6 866 8 6 6 86786786886886987087 5869871872 873 87 4 87 622333333344344555666666667771.11.13335898-0003SHEETDMLJRAMENDOTAHEIGHTSAPARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN01/06/20POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101www.popearch.comCITY COMMENTREVISION 202/18/20WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY, SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(763) 252-6800 | FAX (952) 831-1268WWW.WENCK.COMWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALLCOOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FORTHE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIEDSTRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLTWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166CALL BEFORE YOU DIGCITY SUBMITTAL01/17/20CITY SUBMITTAL11/18/19CONCEPT SUBMITTAL02/07/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 102/13/20CITY SUBMITTAL02/18/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 2C-201POST CONSTRUCTIONSTABILIZATION PLANEASEMENT LINEEXISTING EASEMENT LINEEXISTING PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY BOUNDARYROCK CONSTRUCTION EXITSILT FENCEINLET PROTECTIONEROSION CONTROL BLANKETSEED/SOD - SEE SHEET L-101TREE PROTECTIONEXISTING MINOR CONTOUREXISTING MAJOR CONTOURPROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR901PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR900GRADING LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITS>>>>EXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING STORM SEWER MANHOLEEXISTING STORM SEWER INLETEXISTING STORM SEWER INLETEXISTING FLARED END SECTIONEXISTING SANITARY MANHOLEEXISTING SANITARY SEWERIEXISTING WATERMAINEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING WATER VALVESTORM MANHOLESTORM CATCH BASINSANITARY SEWERWATERMAINSANITARY MANHOLECLEANOUTHYDRANTGATE VALVESTORM SEWERLEGEND1. SEE SHEET C-002 FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECT NOTES.2. CONSTRUCTION SITE SHALL HAVE STABILIZED EXIT AT ALL TIMES THROUGHOUTTHE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. CONTRACTOR IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLETO PROTECT DOWNSTREAM WATERS FROM CONSTRUCTION RUNOFF.3. UNTRENCHED SILT FENCE OR ORANGE SNOW FENCE MAY BE USED FOR TREEPROTECTION.4. CONSTRUCTION LIMITS AND SILT FENCE SHOWN OFFSET FROM PROPERTY LINEFOR CLARITY, WHEN APPLICABLE.5. EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SHALL BE INSTALLED ON ALL SLOPES 4:1 ANDSTEEPER UPON COMPLETION OF GRADING.NOTES1. SILT FENCE (TYP.) - SEE DETAIL1.1. DOUBLE ROW SILT FENCE ADJACENT TO LOW AREA2. CONSTRUCTION EXIT - SEE DETAIL, NOTE 23. INLET PROTECTION - SEE DETAIL4. TREE PROTECTION - SEE NOTE 35. EROSION CONTROL BLANKET - SEE DETAIL6. SEED/SOD (TYP.) - SEE SHEET L-1017. BIOROLL (TYP.) - SEE DETAILKEYNOTES#BIOROLL11page 152 865865870870 870 87 0 87087 5 87 5 875 8 8 0 88 0 8808 8 5 88 5 8638638648648 6 6 866 8668668678678678678678 6 7 868868868868868 868 86 9 869 86986986987 1 871 871871871 87 1 871872 87 2 872873 87 3 87 3 874 87 4 87 4 87 6 87 6 87 6 8 7 7 87 7 877 8 7 8 878 878 8 7 9 879 879 8 8 1 88 1 8818 8 2 88 2 8828 8 3 88 3 8838 8 4 88 4 8848 8 6 88 6 8 8 7 88 7 MAPLE STREETSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)LINDEN STREET>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>>>RIM=865.83INV=857.0 EINV=858.6 NRIM=867.10INV=857.9 WINV=858.0 ERIM=867.94INV=863.1 SINV=862.9 NINV=870.21INV=872.10RIM=865.75INV=860.0 SINV=860.1 NRIM=869.20INV=864.9 SERIM=869.35INV=858.9RIM=871.15INV=859.7RIM=872.88INV=860.2RIM=873.49INV=862.4 NINV=862.5 SRIM=877.86INV=862.3RIM=873.77INV=862.2 NINV=862.2 WINV=865.7 ERIM=871.77INV=860.9 WINV=861.0 EINV=861.0 SRIM=869.26INV=856.8 EINV=856.8 WINV=862.7 NERIM=868.38INV=856.7 EINV=856.6 WINV=856.7 NRIM=868.61INV=859.1RIM=868.22INV=856.0 WINV=856.2 EINV=856.3 SRIM=865.99INV=856.1 EINV=856.1 WINV=861.3 SEN INV COUKLD NOT REACHRIM=865.81INV=861.7 SRIM=868.09INV=856.9 NINV=856.9 WINV=856.9 ERIM=867.87INV=860.3 WCOULD NOT SEE OTHER PIPESROAD DOWN TO 1 LANE VERY BUSY WILL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT DIFFERENT TIMEINV=859.18RIM=869.41INV=857.5 EINV=857.1 NEINV=857.1 SWRIM=869.04INV=863.3 SERIM=866.99INV=855.3 E/WINV=864.36RIM=867.60INV=863.7 SERIM=867.31INV=858.21>>>>UEOUOUOUOUOUOUGGUEUEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUUEUEUEUEUECOMCOMI I>>>>>>6" PVC SAN STUBINV 859.346" PVC SAN STUBINV 858.62>>>>12" HDPE STUBINV=859.9212" HDPE STUBINV=858.1012" HDPE STUBINV=856.88IIIPROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY / RESTAURANT29,304 SFMULTI-FAMILY FFE = 871'RESTAURANT FFE = 869.5'870870867 867868868868868868869869869 869 868868868 868870870870870 867 868 869869 869 8 6 9 87187 1 8 7 1 871 865863864866867868869870 868 869 870 868 869 870869 870868868869869870870870870 8688688688 6 8 868868869869869869 869871871 4:14:14:14:110:14:19:1 13:18:110:19:1 1.7%1.5%1 . 4%4.9%0.8% 1.9 % 10.9% 4.5%2.9%1.4%3.5%2.1%3.9%1.9 %3.3%1 . 8% 2 . 4%3.1% 2.5 % 1 . 3% 1.8 %2.2%2.8%1.5%2.4%2.4%2.8%3.7%1.5%2.4%1.6%1.6%EOF=70.04EOF=69.24EOF=67.90EOF=67.34EOF=67.528.3%1.0%4.8%1.1 % 8.4%0.7%1.5% 2.6 %1.0%5.0%1.5%1 . 6%2.2%9:1 13:1CBMH 100CB 101STMH 107STMH 109STMH 108CBMH 102CB 105CBMH 106TRENCH DRAIN 24.2 %1.2%1.4%2.1% 1. 7 %3.8%1.0%1.6%1.6%0.5%0.8%TC=66.57TC=68.09TC=68.92FG=62.551STMH 103STMH 10425898-0003SHEETDMLJRAMENDOTAHEIGHTSAPARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN01/06/20POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101www.popearch.comCITY COMMENTREVISION 202/18/20WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY, SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(763) 252-6800 | FAX (952) 831-1268WWW.WENCK.COMWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALLCOOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FORTHE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIEDSTRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLTWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166CALL BEFORE YOU DIGCITY SUBMITTAL01/17/20CITY SUBMITTAL11/18/19CONCEPT SUBMITTAL02/07/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 102/13/20CITY SUBMITTAL02/18/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 2C-301GRADING PLANEASEMENT LINEEXISTING EASEMENT LINEEXISTING PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY BOUNDARYPROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR901PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR900GRADING LIMITSFL=9XX.XXFG=9XX.XXME=9XX.XXSW=9XX.XXEP=9XX.XXEOF=9XX.XXTC=9XX.XXTW=9XX.XXBW=9XX.XXFLOW LINE ELEVATIONFINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONMATCH EXISTING ELEVATIONSIDEWALK ELEVATIONPAVEMENT ELEVATIONEMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEVATIONTOP OF CURB ELEVATIONTOP OF WALL ELEVATIONBOTTOM OF WALL ELEVATION (AT GRADE)SURFACE GRADE & FLOW DIRECTIONEXISTING MINOR CONTOUREXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR>>>>EXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING STORM SEWER MANHOLEEXISTING STORM SEWER INLETEXISTING STORM SEWER INLETEXISTING FLARED END SECTIONSTORM SEWERSTORM MANHOLESTORM CATCH BASINEXISTING SANITARY MANHOLEEXISTING SANITARY SEWERIEXISTING WATERMAINEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING WATER VALVESANITARY SEWERWATERMAINSANITARY MANHOLECLEANOUTHYDRANTGATE VALVEHP=9XX.XXLP=9XX.XXTOP=9XX.XXTOE=9XX.XXRIM=9XX.XXHIGH POINT SPOT ELEVATIONLOW POINT SPOT ELEVATIONTOP OF DITCH SPOT ELEVATIONTOE OF DITCH SPOT ELEVATIONSTRUCTURE RIM SPOT ELEVATIONTNH=9XX.XXTOP NUT HYDRANT SPOT ELEVATIONSURFACE SLOPE (H:V) & FLOW DIRECTION3.0:11.00%3.0:1LEGEND1. SEE SHEET C-002 FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECT NOTES.NOTES1. UNDERGROUND RAMP DRAINAGE TO BE COLLECTED VIA INTERNAL TRENCHDRAIN (DESIGN BY OTHERS) AND DISCHARGED VIA INTERNAL SUMP TOUNDERGROUND INFILTRATION SYSTEM. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITHPLUMBING AND STRUCTURAL DESIGN FOR EXACT LOCATION, DESIGN, ANDDETAIL OF RAMP DRAINAGE SYSTEM.2. SEE SHEET C-501 FOR UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION SYSTEM DETAILKEYNOTES#11page 153 MAPLE STREETSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)LINDEN STREET>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>>>RIM=865.83INV=857.0 EINV=858.6 NRIM=867.10INV=857.9 WINV=858.0 ERIM=867.94INV=863.1 SINV=862.9 NINV=870.21INV=872.10RIM=865.75INV=860.0 SINV=860.1 NRIM=869.20INV=864.9 SERIM=869.35INV=858.9RIM=871.15INV=859.7RIM=872.88INV=860.2RIM=873.49INV=862.4 NINV=862.5 SRIM=877.86INV=862.3RIM=873.77INV=862.2 NINV=862.2 WINV=865.7 ERIM=871.77INV=860.9 WINV=861.0 EINV=861.0 SRIM=869.26INV=856.8 EINV=856.8 WINV=862.7 NERIM=868.38INV=856.7 EINV=856.6 WINV=856.7 NRIM=868.61INV=859.1RIM=868.22INV=856.0 WINV=856.2 EINV=856.3 SRIM=865.99INV=856.1 EINV=856.1 WINV=861.3 SEN INV COUKLD NOT REACHRIM=865.81INV=861.7 SRIM=868.09INV=856.9 NINV=856.9 WINV=856.9 ERIM=867.87INV=860.3 WCOULD NOT SEE OTHER PIPESROAD DOWN TO 1 LANE VERY BUSY WILL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT DIFFERENT TIMEINV=859.18RIM=869.41INV=857.5 EINV=857.1 NEINV=857.1 SWRIM=869.04INV=863.3 SERIM=866.99INV=855.3 E/WINV=864.36RIM=867.60INV=863.7 SERIM=867.31INV=858.21>>>>UEOUOUOUOUOUOUGGUEUEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUUEUEUEUEUECOMCOMI I>>>>>>6" PVC SAN STUBINV 859.346" PVC SAN STUBINV 858.62>>>>12" HDPE STUBINV=859.9212" HDPE STUBINV=858.1012" HDPE STUBINV=856.88IIIPROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY / RESTAURANT29,304 SFMULTI-FAMILY FFE = 871'RESTAURANT FFE = 869.5'870870870 87 5 875 875 88 0 8 8 5 866 8 6 6 8678678688688688 6 8 868869869 869871871871 871 871 872 872 872 873 873 87 3 874 874 87 4 87 6 876 87 6 877877 87 7 878 879 88 1 88 2 8 8 3 8 8 4 8 8 6 866866867 8 6 8 870870868868869 869 8 6 9 865870863864866867868869871870868869870 868 869 BLDG SAN SERVICE8" INV OUT=858.97 (S)SEE MEP PLANS FOR CONTINUATIONVERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION8 LF OF 8" PVC @ 2.00%SAN STUB CONNECTION8" INV IN=858.80 (N)VERIFY LOCATION, SIZE, MATERIAL, AND ELEVATION6" DIP WM SERVICESEE MEP PLANS FOR CONTINUATIONVERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION22.5° BEND8" DIP WM SERVICESEE MEP PLANS FOR CONTINUATIONVERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION45° BEND8" GVCONNECT TO EXISTING 8" DIP STUBVERIFY LOCATION, SIZE, MATERIAL, AND ELEVATION6" GVWET TAP EXISTING 8" DIP WM WITH 8"x6" TEEVERIFY LOCATION, SIZE, MATERIAL, AND ELEVATION11.25° BEND6" GV6" DIP WM6" DIP WM SERVICESEE MEP PLANS FOR CONTINUATIONVERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION45° BEND6" HYDRANT6" GV8" DIP WM8" DIP WM SERVICESEE MEP PLANS FOR CONTINUATIONVERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION8" GV11.25° BENDWET TAP EXISTING 8" DIP WM WITH 8"x6" TEEVERIFY LOCATION, SIZE, MATERIAL, AND ELEVATIONCONNECT TO EXISTING 8" DIP WM STUBVERIFY LOCATION, SIZE, MATERIAL, AND ELEVATION5898-0003SHEETDMLJRAMENDOTAHEIGHTSAPARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN01/06/20POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101www.popearch.comCITY COMMENTREVISION 202/18/20WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY, SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(763) 252-6800 | FAX (952) 831-1268WWW.WENCK.COMWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALLCOOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FORTHE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIEDSTRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLTWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166CALL BEFORE YOU DIGCITY SUBMITTAL01/17/20CITY SUBMITTAL11/18/19CONCEPT SUBMITTAL02/07/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 102/13/20CITY SUBMITTAL02/18/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 2C-401UTILITY PLANEASEMENT LINEEXISTING EASEMENT LINEEXISTING PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY BOUNDARYEXISTING MINOR CONTOUREXISTING MAJOR CONTOUREXISTING SANITARY MANHOLEEXISTING STORM SEWER MANHOLEEXISTING STORM SEWER INLETEXISTING STORM SEWER INLETEXISTING FLARED END SECTIONEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING WATER VALVE>>>>EXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING SANITARY SEWERIEXISTING WATERMAINSTORM SEWERSANITARY SEWERWATERMAINSTORM MANHOLESTORM CATCH BASINSANITARY MANHOLEHYDRANTGATE VALVEPROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR901PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR900LEGEND1. SEE SHEET C-002 FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECT NOTES.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATION, SIZE, INVERT, AND MATERIAL OF ALLUTILITY CONNECTIONS TO UTILITY MAINS AND STUBS.NOTESpage 154 MAPLE STREETSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)LINDEN STREET>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>>>RIM=865.83INV=857.0 EINV=858.6 NRIM=867.10INV=857.9 WINV=858.0 ERIM=867.94INV=863.1 SINV=862.9 NINV=870.21INV=872.10RIM=865.75INV=860.0 SINV=860.1 NRIM=869.20INV=864.9 SERIM=869.35INV=858.9RIM=871.15INV=859.7RIM=872.88INV=860.2RIM=873.49INV=862.4 NINV=862.5 SRIM=877.86INV=862.3RIM=873.77INV=862.2 NINV=862.2 WINV=865.7 ERIM=871.77INV=860.9 WINV=861.0 EINV=861.0 SRIM=869.26INV=856.8 EINV=856.8 WINV=862.7 NERIM=868.38INV=856.7 EINV=856.6 WINV=856.7 NRIM=868.61INV=859.1RIM=868.22INV=856.0 WINV=856.2 EINV=856.3 SRIM=865.99INV=856.1 EINV=856.1 WINV=861.3 SEN INV COUKLD NOT REACHRIM=865.81INV=861.7 SRIM=868.09INV=856.9 NINV=856.9 WINV=856.9 ERIM=867.87INV=860.3 WCOULD NOT SEE OTHER PIPESROAD DOWN TO 1 LANE VERY BUSY WILL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT DIFFERENT TIMEINV=859.18RIM=869.41INV=857.5 EINV=857.1 NEINV=857.1 SWRIM=869.04INV=863.3 SERIM=866.99INV=855.3 E/WINV=864.36RIM=867.60INV=863.7 SERIM=867.31INV=858.21>>>>UEOUOUOUOUOUOUGGUEUEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUUEUEUEUEUECOMCOMI I>>>>>>6" PVC SAN STUBINV 859.346" PVC SAN STUBINV 858.62>>>>12" HDPE STUBINV=859.9212" HDPE STUBINV=858.1012" HDPE STUBINV=856.88IIIPROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY / RESTAURANT29,304 SFMULTI-FAMILY FFE = 871'RESTAURANT FFE = 869.5'870868 868869868870868869 868869 870870870 867 868 869869 869 8 7 1 8658658708638638648648668668678678688688698698688708 6 9 870868869CBMH 106RIM=869.2212" INV IN=864.00 (NE)12" INV OUT=863.36 (SW)STMH 107RIM=868.0512" INV IN=862.33 (W)12" INV OUT=857.80 (SE)CB 101RIM=867.2212" INV OUT=862.05 (W)CB 105RIM=867.4012" INV OUT=862.67 (NW)CBMH 100RIM=866.9912" INV IN=861.09 (E)18" INV IN=861.09 (N)18" INV OUT=861.09 (SW)TRENCH DRAIN 212" INV=864.30STMH 109UNGD OUTLETSEE NOTE 2 THIS SHEETRIM=867.5912" INV OUT=862.80 (E)STMH 108UNGD INLETRIM=867.1818" INV IN=861.00 (NE)30 LF OF 12" RCP @ 1.00%15 LF OF 12" RCP @ 1.00%29 LF OF 12" RCP @ 1.00%48 LF OF 12" RCP @ 2.00%19 LF OF 18" RCP @ 1.00%47 LF OF 12" RCP @ 1.00%9 LF OF 18" RCP @ 1.00%CBMH 102RIM=866.6715" INV IN=861.29 (N)18" INV OUT=861.28 (S)CORE RECTANGULAR ORIFICE INTO EXISTINGOUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE ON NORTHWEST SIDEORIFICE TO BE 30" LONG x 6" TALLIE: 867.80'TRENCH DRAIN 112" INV=864.00117.4'15.6'98 LF OF 12" RCP @ 1.00%STMH 104RIM=868.1512" INV IN=862.38 (NE)12" INV IN=862.38 (SE)12" INV OUT=862.38 (SW)42 LF OF 12" RCP @ 1.00%STMH 103RIM=867.8612" INV IN=861.96 (NE)12" INV IN=863.85 (E)15" INV OUT=861.96 (S)67 LF OF 15" RCP @ 1.00%5898-0003SHEETDMLJRAMENDOTAHEIGHTSAPARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN01/06/20POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101www.popearch.comCITY COMMENTREVISION 202/18/20WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY, SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(763) 252-6800 | FAX (952) 831-1268WWW.WENCK.COMWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALLCOOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FORTHE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIEDSTRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLTWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166CALL BEFORE YOU DIGCITY SUBMITTAL01/17/20CITY SUBMITTAL11/18/19CONCEPT SUBMITTAL02/07/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 102/13/20CITY SUBMITTAL02/18/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 2>>>>IC-501STORM SEWER PLAN#LEGEND1. SEE SHEET C-002 FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECT NOTES.2. INSTALL WEIR WITH ORIFICE IN STMH 109 PER DETAILNOTESEASEMENT LINEEXISTING EASEMENT LINEEXISTING PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY BOUNDARYEXISTING MINOR CONTOUREXISTING MAJOR CONTOUREXISTING SANITARY MANHOLEEXISTING STORM SEWER MANHOLEEXISTING STORM SEWER INLETEXISTING STORM SEWER INLETEXISTING FLARED END SECTIONEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING WATER VALVEEXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING SANITARY SEWEREXISTING WATERMAINSTORM SEWERSANITARY SEWERWATERMAINSTORM MANHOLESTORM CATCH BASINSANITARY MANHOLEHYDRANTGATE VALVEPROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR901PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR9001. UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION SYSTEM 1KEYNOTES1page 155 PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY / RESTAURANT29,304 SFMULTI-FAMILY FFE = 871'RESTAURANT FFE = 869.5'MAPLE STREETSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)LINDEN STREETUEUEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUGGGUEUEUEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUECOMCOMCOMTRD 316TRD 3246" PVC SAN STUBINV 859.346" PVC SAN STUBINV 858.6216.4'19.5'17.7'18.1'18.2'TRD 360TRD 356TRD 354TRD 302TRD 335TRD 383TRD 336TRD 310TRD 309TRD 322TRD 325TRD 345TRD 313TRD 303TRD 393TRD 314TRD 306TRD 312TRD 330TRD 333TRD 342TRD 389TRD 323TRD 319TRD 321TRD 347TRD 384TRD 331TRD 337TRD 326TRD 388TRD 381TRD 339TRD 308TRD 320TRD 348TRD 346TRD 329TRD 328TRD 344TRD 341(1) QB(1) QB(1) QB(1) AG(1) CC(1) QB(1) PD(1) PD(1) QB(3) DS(7) HA(3) DS(3) DS(3) DS(3) DS(3) DS(3) DS(3) DS(3) DS(7) HA(7) HA(7) HA(3) HA(3) DS(3) DS(3) DS(4) CA(4) CA(8) CA(4) CA(7) CA(4) CA(4) CA(4) CA(4) CA(4) CA(13) CS(4) CS(9) CS(11) CS(11) CS(1) CC(1) CC(2) GT(1) CO(1) TA(4) AG(2) AG(1) TA(2) AG(1) CC(1) CO(2) GT(1) GT(8) DS(10) HA(1) CC(1) CC(1) AG(1) AG(1) PD(15) CA(14) CA(13) CA(30) CA(27) CA(107) NR(10) HA(8) DS2'(TYP.)5898-0003SHEETDMLJRAMENDOTAHEIGHTSAPARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN01/06/20POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101www.popearch.comCITY COMMENTREVISION 302/25/20WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY, SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(763) 252-6800 | FAX (952) 831-1268WWW.WENCK.COMWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALLCOOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FORTHE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIEDSTRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLTWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166CALL BEFORE YOU DIGCITY SUBMITTAL01/17/20CITY SUBMITTAL11/18/19CONCEPT SUBMITTAL02/07/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 102/13/20CITY SUBMITTAL02/18/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 202/25/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 3L-101LANDSCAPE PLANLOT LINEEASEMENT LINESETBACK LINERIGHT OF WAY LINESECTION LINEQUARTER LINEEXISTING EASEMENT LINEEXISTING PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY BOUNDARYLEGENDDECIDUOUS TREESHRUB/PERENNIAL PLANTEXISTING BUFFER TREESPROPOSED ROCK MULCHDOUBLE SHREDDEDHARDWOOD MULCH1. CONTRACTOR SHALL PLANT ALL PROPOSED TREES NORTH OF THE PROPOSEDBUILDING BY HAND TO PREVENT COMPACTION OF SOIL AND DAMAGE TO ROOTSYSTEM OF EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN. HEAVY EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT BEALLOWED WITHIN THE NORTHERN WOODED AREA ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING.2. QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THE PLAN SHALL SUPERSEDE QUANTITIES SHOWN INTHE PLANTING SCHEDULE SHOULD THERE BE A DISCREPANCY.3. SHRUBS SHALL BE PLANTED AND SPACED ACCORDING TO THEIR MATUREWIDTH TO PREVENT OVERLAP AND CROWDING.NOTESSEEDJRNLNJINSET 1 - THIS SHEETFOUNDATION LANDSCAPE DETAIL1L-101SCALE: 1" = 5'333333page 156 PAGE 1 OF 1Drawn By: SANDYDate:1/9/2020Scale: AS NOTEDRevisions# Date CommentsGENERAL NOTES:A. PULSE PRODUCTS DOES NOT ASSUME RESPONSIBILITYFOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS CALCULATION ORCOMPLAINCE TO THE LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERALLIGHTNG CODES OR ORDINANCES.B. LIGHTING LAYOUT IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTIONDOCUMENTS BUT ONLY TO ILLUSTRATE THE PERFORMANCEOF THE PRODUCT.C. ALL READINGS/CALCULATIONS SHOWN ARE SHOWN ONOBJECTS/SURFACES.MULTI FAMILY HOUSINGMENDOTA HEIGHTSChecked By: TRENTLuminaire ScheduleSymbolQtyLabelArrangementLLFLuminaire Location SummaryLumNoDescriptionLabelXYZOrientTiltCalculation SummaryLabelArr. WattsLum. Lumens25AA2554967.2-241155.220026BB554785.4-241266.2290027BB554716.9-241266.22CalcType900Units28BB554821.1-241195.22220.748029BB554678.81AA2BACK-BACK0.900AvgMax-241198.22311.604030BB555017.8-241216.22102.556MinAvg/MinMax/MinSITE GROUNDIlluminanceFc0.84MCGRAW GLEON-AF-02-LED-E1-5WQ MOUNT ON 20FT POLE WITH 2FT BASE22613123031BB554867.4-241152.8BBSINGLE0.900MCGRAW GLEON-AF-02-LED-E1-SL4-HSS MOUNT ON 20FT POLE WITH 2FT BASE113101112239.908032BB554901.3-241202.2230.446012.2234BB554720.8-241158.22311.604035CC555065.6-241140.80.0N.A.N.A.MAIN PARKINGIlluminanceFcCCSINGLE0.9001800362.703.71.02.70LUMARK XTOR2B WALL MOUNT AT 8FT18.22135CC554832.6-241088.3.70SW PARKING1DDSINGLE0.900LUMARK XTOR4B WALL MOUNT AT 10FT37.742698218.486037DD555041.5-241114.102700IlluminanceFc2.624.11.02.624.10Plan ViewScale: 1 inch= 40 Ft.M A PL E ST R E E TSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)LINDEN STREETIN V 859.346" P V C S A N S TU B IN V 858.626" P V C S A N S TU B T PT P T P T P TPT PTPBBCCCCDDAA2 BBBBBBBBBBBBBB0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.0 1.8 2.7 3.2 2.8 3.1 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.4 3.1 2.8 3.2 2.8 3.2 2.6 1.6 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 1.5 2.3 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.3 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.2 2.9 2.8 3.2 2.9 3.0 2.7 2.1 1.2 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.2 2.0 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.5 1.7 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.2 2.7 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.7 3.0 3.0 2.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.1 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 2.2 2.8 3.3 3.5 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.7 3.1 3.0 3.0 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 2.7 2.7 2.2 1.8 1.6 1.6 2.0 2.5 2.9 2.7 2.1 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 2.4 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.0 2.6 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.6 3.3 3.3 1.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 2.5 2.8 2.7 2.4 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.5 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.3 2.7 2.7 1.6 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 2.0 3.5 4.1 3.7 3.1 2.5 2.1 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.3 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 3.3 3.5 3.1 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.7 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.2 2.6 2.5 1.9 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.8 4.0 3.8 3.1 2.6 2.1 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.8 2.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 2.6 3.1 3.2 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.2 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.40.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.6 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.2 3.8 3.7 3.2 2.9 2.8 2.9 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.1 2.6 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.2 0.80.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.2 3.1 2.5 2.2 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 3.3 4.0 3.6 3.3 2.9 2.9 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.1 2.5 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.0 0.60.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 2.4 2.5 1.8 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 2.8 2.9 3.3 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.9 3.2 3.5 3.7 3.5 3.0 2.3 1.8 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.80.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.8 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 2.5 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.6 2.1 1.6 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.9 3.4 7.80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.5 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.1 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.2 1.8 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.3 2.7 4.50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 2.0 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.4 4.9 5.0 1.2 0.40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.8 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.8 1.3 11.2 12.2 1.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 4.0 3.8 0.20.7 0.8 0.8 0.60.4 0.6 0.6 0.60.6 0.6 0.5 0.40.2 0.1 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 4.60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 fc1 fc0.5 fc0.25 fcTYPE AA2 & BBTYPE CC & DDpage 157 Issues and Revisions: Commission No: Drawn by: Checked by: SHEET 1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200 ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735 (651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101 www.popearch.com POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0"1/2"1" TRUE SHEET SCALE 1/7/2020 3:05:52 AM C:\Revit Projects\36142_19071_GREA MENDOTA HGTS_R19-workshared_jkimbrell.rvt A3.4 AERIAL PERSPECTIVE Checker Author 36142-19071 MENDOTA SENIOR HOUSING MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 1 CONCEPT SUBMITTAL 11-18-19 2 PDU AMENDMENT 01-06-20 A3.4 1 AERIAL PERSPECTIVE page 158 Issues and Revisions: Commission No: Drawn by: Checked by: SHEET 1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200 ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735 (651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101 www.popearch.com POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0"1/2"1" TRUE SHEET SCALE 1/7/2020 3:04:06 AM C:\Revit Projects\36142_19071_GREA MENDOTA HGTS_R19-workshared_jkimbrell.rvt A3.3 EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVES JK DD 36142-19071 MENDOTA SENIOR HOUSING MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 1 CONCEPT SUBMITTAL 11-18-19 2 PDU AMENDMENT 01-06-20 A3.3 3 NORTH WEST PERSPECTIVE A3.3 2 SOUTH EAST PERSPECTIVE A3.3 1 SOUTH WEST PERSPECTIVE page 159 GROUND LEVEL 100'-0" SECOND LEVEL 113'-0" THIRD LEVEL 124'-1 7/8" JOIST BEARING 133'-2" LOWER LEVEL 89'-0" STN-2 SHINGLE-1 STN-1 FCB-1 FCB-2SHINGLE-2 FCB-1 SHINGLE-2 GROUND LEVEL 100'-0" SECOND LEVEL 113'-0" THIRD LEVEL 124'-1 7/8" JOIST BEARING 133'-2" LOWER LEVEL 89'-0"3'-4"STN-2 SHINGLE-1 BRICK-1 SHINGLE-1 SHINGLE-2 FCB-1 FCB-2 STN-1 EXTERIOR MATERIAL FINISH SCHEDULE PCAST - 1 MATERIAL ID MATERIAL MANUFACTURER FINISH/ SERIES COLOR LOCATION STN - 1 STN - 2 FCB - 1 FCB - 2 FLASH - 1 AFS FLASH - 1 PRECAST CONCRETE WALL PANELS STONE VENEER SIDING SIDING CAP FLASHING WINDOW SILL FLASHING ALUMINUM WINDOW FRAMES PRECAST CONCRETE PAVERSCPAV-1 AFS-1 BRICK-1 FACE BRICK STONE VENEER SIOUX CITY SMOOTH BLACK HILLS GROUND LEVEL NOTE: THE "BASIS OF DESIGN" MATERIALS FOR THE PROJECT ARE LISTED ON THE SCHEDULE ABOVE. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL MATERIAL INFORMATION AND OTHER APPROVE D SUBSTITUTIONS. STONE BAND RESTAURANT BUMP-OUT BUMP-OUT AND COLUMNS SHINGLE-1 SHINGLE SHINGLE-2 SHINGLE CORONADO WHITE CORONADO LIGHT GREY FRENCH LIMESTONE SAWTOOTH LEDGE JAMES HARDIE JAMES HARDIE NIGHT GREYSIDING PANEL FRENCH WHITESIDING PANEL TBD CREAM TBD TAN UPPER LEVELS GABLES CHARCOAL GREY CHARCOAL GREY BLACK CMG CMG TBD QUATTROTECTURA HBL740 COMMUNITY DECK OWNER APPROVAL OF EXTERIOR DESIGN AND MATERIALS: SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE: OWNER SIGNATURE:DATE: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE: OWNER SIGNATURE:DATE: CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PHASE: OWNER SIGNATURE:DATE: CONSTRUCTION ADMIN. PHASE: OWNER SIGNATURE:DATE: Issues and Revisions: Commission No: Drawn by: Checked by: SHEET 1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200 ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735 (651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101 www.popearch.com POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0"1/2"1" TRUE SHEET SCALE 1/7/2020 3:02:09 AM C:\Revit Projects\36142_19071_GREA MENDOTA HGTS_R19-workshared_jkimbrell.rvt A3.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS JK DD 36142-19071 MENDOTA SENIOR HOUSING MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 3/32" = 1'-0"A3.1 1 SOUTH ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0"A3.1 4 WEST ELEVATION 1 CONCEPT SUBMITTAL 11-18-19 2 PDU AMENDMENT 01-06-20 page 160 GROUND LEVEL 100'-0" SECOND LEVEL 113'-0" THIRD LEVEL 124'-1 7/8" JOIST BEARING 133'-2" LOWER LEVEL 89'-0" STN-2 SHINGLE-1 STN-1 FCB-1 SHINGLE-2 GROUND LEVEL 100'-0" SECOND LEVEL 113'-0" THIRD LEVEL 124'-1 7/8" JOIST BEARING 133'-2" LOWER LEVEL 89'-0" BRICK-1 SHINGLE-1 STN-1 FCB-2 FCB-1 BRICK-1 STN-1 EXTERIOR MATERIAL FINISH SCHEDULE PCAST - 1 MATERIAL ID MATERIAL MANUFACTURER FINISH/ SERIES COLOR LOCATION STN - 1 STN - 2 FCB - 1 FCB - 2 FLASH - 1 AFS FLASH - 1 PRECAST CONCRETE WALL PANELS STONE VENEER SIDING SIDING CAP FLASHING WINDOW SILL FLASHING ALUMINUM WINDOW FRAMES PRECAST CONCRETE PAVERSCPAV-1 AFS-1 BRICK-1 FACE BRICK STONE VENEER SIOUX CITY SMOOTH BLACK HILLS GROUND LEVEL NOTE: THE "BASIS OF DESIGN" MATERIALS FOR THE PROJECT ARE LISTED ON THE SCHEDULE ABOVE. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL MATERIAL INFORMATION AND OTHER APPROVE D SUBSTITUTIONS. STONE BAND RESTAURANT BUMP-OUT BUMP-OUT AND COLUMNS SHINGLE-1 SHINGLE SHINGLE-2 SHINGLE CORONADO WHITE CORONADO LIGHT GREY FRENCH LIMESTONE SAWTOOTH LEDGE JAMES HARDIE JAMES HARDIE NIGHT GREYSIDING PANEL FRENCH WHITESIDING PANEL TBD CREAM TBD TAN UPPER LEVELS GABLES CHARCOAL GREY CHARCOAL GREY BLACK CMG CMG TBD QUATTROTECTURA HBL740 COMMUNITY DECK OWNER APPROVAL OF EXTERIOR DESIGN AND MATERIALS: SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE: OWNER SIGNATURE:DATE: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE: OWNER SIGNATURE:DATE: CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PHASE: OWNER SIGNATURE:DATE: CONSTRUCTION ADMIN. PHASE: OWNER SIGNATURE:DATE: Issues and Revisions: Commission No: Drawn by: Checked by: SHEET 1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200 ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735 (651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101 www.popearch.com POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0"1/2"1" TRUE SHEET SCALE 1/7/2020 3:02:31 AM C:\Revit Projects\36142_19071_GREA MENDOTA HGTS_R19-workshared_jkimbrell.rvt A3.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS JK DD 36142-19071 MENDOTA SENIOR HOUSING MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 3/32" = 1'-0"A3.2 1 NORTH ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0"A3.2 2 EAST ELEVATION 1 CONCEPT SUBMITTAL 11-18-19 2 PDU AMENDMENT 01-06-20 page 161 STAIR 2-1 4,352 SF RESTAURANT STAIR 1-1TRASH ROOM1,058 SF 2 BEDRM. 1,180 SF 2 BEDRM. 812 SF 1 BEDRM.493 SFSTORAGE1,097 SF 2 BEDRM. 1,410 SF 2 BEDRM. + 1,551 SF 2 BEDRM. +DEN 941 SF 1 BEDRM. 941 SF 1 BEDRM. 1,490 SF 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1,840 SF LOBBY 1,105 SF FITNESS VEST. ELEC.524 SFGOLF1,056 SF R. PATIO RESTROOMSR. TRASH1,342 SF 2 BEDRM. + 1,291 SF 2 BEDRM. + HALL HALL 5'-0"MAIL1,342 SF 2 BEDRM. + LEASING OFFICE 25,002 SF PARKING LEVEL 67 CARS 488 SF UTILITY STAIR 2-0STAIR 1-0695 SF WORK ROOM 288 SF UTILITY BIKE STRG. AHUAHUBIKE STRG.ELEV.CIRCULATION 1,551 SF 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1,291 SF 2 BEDRM. + 1,180 SF 2 BEDRM. 1,343 SF 2 BEDRM. + 1,102 SF 2 BEDRM. 1,552 SF 2 BEDRM. +DEN 941 SF 1 BEDRM. 941 SF 1 BEDRM. 1,490 SF 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1,100 SF 2 BEDRM. 1,500 SF 2 BEDRM. + 1,180 SF 2 BEDRM. 1,180 SF 2 BEDRM. 1,670 SF COMMUNITY ROOM 610 SF C. TERRACE STAIR 1-2STAIR 2-2 1,525 SF 2 BEDRM. +DEN 918 SF STORAGE 189 SF ELEC. 204 SF TOILET AND STORAGE 810 SF 1 BEDRM. 812 SF 1 BEDRM. 941 SF 1 BEDRM. TRASH CIRCULATION 1,551 SF 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1,302 SF 2 BEDRM. + 1,180 SF 2 BEDRM. 1,343 SF 2 BEDRM. + 1,102 SF 2 BEDRM. 1,552 SF 2 BEDRM. +DEN 941 SF 1 BEDRM. 941 SF 1 BEDRM. 1,490 SF 2 BEDRM. +DEN 918 SF STORAGE 1,100 SF 2 BEDRM. 1,206 SF 2 BEDRM. + 842 SF 1 BEDRM. 810 SF 1 BEDRM. 1,180 SF 2 BEDRM. 1,180 SF 2 BEDRM. 1,525 SF 2 BEDRM. +DENSTAIR 1-3STAIR 2-3 1,386 SF 2 BEDRM. + ELEC. 941 SF 1 BEDRM. 812 SF 1 BEDRM. TRASH APARTMENTS - ONE BEDROOM AREA PLANS KEY LEASING OFFICE PARKING APARTMENTS - TWO BEDROOM APARTMENT COMMUNITY ROOM APARTMENT FITNESS APARTMENTS - TWO BEDROOM +, TWO BEDROOM + DEN RESTAURANT RESTAURANT KITCHEN CIRCULATION AND ENTRY LOBBY STORAGE, UTILITY, RESTROOMS Issues and Revisions: Commission No: Drawn by: Checked by: SHEET 1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200 ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735 (651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101 www.popearch.com POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0"1/2"1" TRUE SHEET SCALE 1/7/2020 3:01:46 AM C:\Revit Projects\36142_19071_GREA MENDOTA HGTS_R19-workshared_jkimbrell.rvt A2.0 OVERALL PLANS - AREA PLANS JK DD 36142-19071 MENDOTA SENIOR HOUSING MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 3/64" = 1'-0"A2.0 2 FIRST LEVEL 3/64" = 1'-0"A2.0 1 LOWER LEVEL 3/64" = 1'-0"A2.0 3 SECOND LEVEL 3/64" = 1'-0"A2.0 4 THIRD LEVEL 1 CONCEPT SUBMITTAL 11-18-19 2 PDU AMENDMENT 01-06-20 PROJECT NORTHTRUE NORTHPROJECT NORTHTRUE NORTHPROJECT NORTHTRUE NORTHPROJECT NORTHTRUE NORTHGROSS UNIT SCHEDULE Level Name Count Area Comments SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,490 SF SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,525 SF SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,551 SF SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,552 SF 17 20,438 SF THIRD LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 810 SF THIRD LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 812 SF THIRD LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 842 SF THIRD LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 941 SF THIRD LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 941 SF THIRD LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 941 SF THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,100 SF THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,102 SF THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,180 SF THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,180 SF THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,180 SF THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,206 SF THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,302 SF THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,343 SF THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,386 SF THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,490 SF THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,525 SF THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,551 SF THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,552 SF 19 22,382 SF TOTAL UNIT COUNT: 48 57,275 SF GROSS UNIT SCHEDULE Level Name Count Area Comments GROUND LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 812 SF GROUND LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 941 SF GROUND LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 941 SF GROUND LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,058 SF GROUND LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,097 SF GROUND LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,180 SF GROUND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,291 SF GROUND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,342 SF GROUND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,342 SF GROUND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,410 SF GROUND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,490 SF GROUND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,551 SF 12 14,455 SF SECOND LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 810 SF SECOND LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 812 SF SECOND LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 941 SF SECOND LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 941 SF SECOND LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 941 SF SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,100 SF SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,102 SF SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,180 SF SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,180 SF SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,180 SF SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,291 SF SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,343 SF SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,500 SF page 162 page 163 Planning Staff Report DATE: January 28, 2020 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2020-01 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for PUD AMENDMENT APPLICANT: Grand Real Estate Advisors PROPERTY ADDRESS: City-Owned Lots in The Village (Dodd Rd./Maple St./Linden St.) ZONING/GUIDED: MU-PUD [Mixed Use-Planned Unit Development] ACTION DEADLINE: March 6, 2020 INTRODUCTION Grand Real Estate Advisors, as “Applicants” are requesting approval to amend a previously approved planned unit development (PUD) development plan, which would allow a new mixed-use development proposal for the city-owned lots, generally located in The Village at Mendota Heights. The lots are bounded by Dodd Road to the west, Maple Street to the south, and Linden Street to the east (between the Linden Street Lofts condominiums and Mendakota Animal Hospital). Title 12-1K-6-G of the City Code requires City Council approval for amendments to an approved planned unit development final development plan by conditional use permit. A public hearing for this concept plan review was posted and published in the local newspaper, and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 1,320-ft. (1/4 mile) of the subject property. BACKGROUND The subject properties consist of four parcels: Lot 1/Blk. 3 at 0.48 acres, Lot 2/Blk. 3 at 0.79 acres, and Lot 1/Blk. 2 at 0.45 acres; plus, Outlot D at 0.95 acres, or a total of 2.67 acres available for this development. The properties are currently guided and zoned MU-PUD [Mixed Use-Planned Unit Development] and have been since 2002. There are no zoning or land uses changes needed for this development. The original and approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Master Plan for the Mendota Heights Town Center (now known as The Village at Mendota Heights) included a mix of retail, office and residential uses. The Village PUD is now substantially complete, with the exception of the last phase, referred to as the “West Neighborhood” in the PUD Master Plan. This West Neighborhood originally called for 14 residential townhomes with 5 home-office style townhomes; however, these 19-units never materialized under the former developer. page 164 The City acquired the ownership rights to the four undeveloped parcels a number of years ago, and since that time the city received a number of inquiries to selling and/or developing the lots by third-parties. In 2017, the City considered a separate proposal from Trammell-Crow to develop a 150-unit senior luxury apartment building on the subject properties, which eventually led to a decision by the council to reject a letter of intent and later withdrawal by the developer of this development plan. In March 2019, the city requested development proposals (RFP’s) on the city owned parcels, whereby the city received five (5) development proposals from various development or real estate firms. After a follow- up workshop meeting in May; and a June 4th Council review/interview session with two of the development trams, the Council selected Grand Real Estate Advisors (GREA) as the developer of the city owned lots; and tentatively accepted a letter of intent and purchase agreement. The Village of Mendota Heights PUD The final Master Development Plan and Design Standards for The Village was approved in 2002-2003 and constructed in phases, with most of the center’s construction completing around 2007. The development was to contain the following uses and amenities: • Diverse mix of retail/office space (single and two-story) • On-street and underground public parking facilities (approximately 400 spaces) • 36-unit condominium units (2 buildings) • 20 row homes (3 buildings) • 60-unit senior apartment building (owned and operated by the Dakota County CDA) • Market Square Park (0.24-acre open space with fountain) • River to River Greenway Trail connection (regional trail) Any changes to a final (approved) development plan requires an Amendment to the Final PUD Plan in compliance with Title 12, Chapter 1, Article K of the City Code and approval by the City Council. All amendments to a previously approved PUD are performed through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application process. General Location of City-Owned Lots (Townhomes/Offices) page 165 PROJECT DESCRIPTION  New Structure and Site Improvements The project proposes a 48-unit (originally 47) market-rate apartment building targeted for seniors, aged 55+ (restricted) housing. Units range from 1-bedroom units approx. 810-sf. to 950-sf. in size, with 2-bed units 1,000 to 1,350-sf. in size, and 2-bed + den units up to approx. 1,500-sf. in size. The building will provide on-site amenities for the residents including a community room, fitness center and private terrace. The plan also includes a new 4,352-sf. sit-down restaurant, with a 1,056-sf. outdoor seating/patio area. The name of the restaurant has yet to be named or identified by the developer. It should be noted that the developer has eliminated the original proposed co-working space area of 1,757- sf., which was presented previously at the December 5th neighborhood meeting and during the concept review held at the December 19, 2019 planning commission meeting. As part of this work space removal, the developer was able to provide one additional residential unit. The overall development will take place over two separate “lots” as identified by the developer in their site plans. The single, “L-shaped” building would be built on the proposed “North Lot” (a combination of Lots 1 & 2 – Block 3 and Outlot D), and consists of a new 3-story wood framed structure, with a single-floor footprint of 29,304-sf, which leads to gross square footage of living restaurant space of 87,912-sf. The sub- floor is an enclosed, private parking area for the residents, consisting of 25,002-sq. ft. Combined floor space equals 112,914-sq. ft. The building footprint is approximately 30.6% of the total site area. The “South Lot” (Lot 1-Block 2) is identified as new off-site parking area for the development, and will likely serve as the parking lot for restaurant customers. The new building is shown with a 20.6-ft. and 26.24-ft. setback off Dodd Road; a 74.45-ft. setback from the north line; 25.6-ft. off the front from Linden Street; and 16.45-ft. off Maple Street. The surface parking lot areas are setback from 2.95-ft. - 3.33-ft. - 3.66-ft. from property lines. Access to the apartment building site will take place off Maple Street to the south and from Linden Street to the east. No access is planned onto Dodd Road. The new restaurant is planned for 4,352-sf. of total seating/kitchen area, with a 1,056-sf. outdoor seating/patio space located on the south side of the restaurant/building. At the December 2019 meeting, the developer indicated the new restaurant would seat approximately 130-140 patrons. (Note: no final design or interior floor plan have been submitted on this use). Parking for the apartment/restaurant development will include 24 surface parking spaces in the front of the building. Access to the private (residents only) underground parking will come directly from the main access point off Linden Street (east side), with a sloped driveway leading underneath the building. This underground area is shown with 69 spaces, along with bike and resident storage areas, and a work room. The overall development site will also be provided with 41 spaces in the small triangular shaped parcel (the “South Parcel”) located across Maple Street. A total of 134 spaces will be provided for the development. A majority area north of the new apartment facility (Outlot D) will not be developed, and is intended to serve as natural buffer space between the Linden Lofts Condo development. This outlot was created or platted by the original developers RMF Group, and a drainage and utility easement was placed over the page 166 entire outlot. Today part of this outlot serves as a small drainage area, with a catch-basin and storm pipe inside the lot, that connects into the city storm water system under Linden Street. The lot also contains a compact, wooded patch long the north area of this lot, with a variety of volunteer trees (ash, bur oak, silver maples, cottonwoods, box-elders) and miscellaneous vegetation. During the preliminary review and assessment of these city-owned properties, staff and the developer noticed an existing boulder retaining wall (built for the Linden Lofts condos site) is encroaching into this Outlot D parcel. The developer, city and condo association reps have been discussing the option of separating a segment of this Outlot D to the condo association ownerships, or providing an easement and agreement for the condo owners to take over the ownership and control of this retaining wall. (Looking Northerly – towards back of Linden Lofts Condos – wooded area and retaining wall) The overall Village at Mendota Heights (PUD) site encompasses approximately 20+ acres of previously developed (and some undeveloped lands) in this NE quadrant of Highway 62 and Dodd Road. The City’s other mixed-use development, The Plaza of Mendota Heights, is located directly across the highway to the south, and are now linked together by the new underpass trail system installed by MnDOT and Dakota County. The proposed project includes integrated commercial and high-density residential developments with connections to existing retail uses, shared parking facilities, and adjacent off-street trail systems.  Removal/Erosion Control Plans ((Plan Sheet C-004) The plan calls for th removal of some existing trees along the westerly edge of Dodd Road (10 trees) and approximately 36 trees in the outlot to the north. The developer provided a tree survey in this outlot area, and most appear to be identified mostly of ash, bur oak, silver maples, cottonwoods, box-elders. The City Code of Ordinances contains various standards pertaining to erosion and sediment control, surface water drainage, wet soils, and steep slopes. The Public Works/Engineering Department has reviewed the applicable plans and provided comments to the Developer, which will include recommended conditions of approval prior to any issuance of building permit. In addition, all construction activities must comply with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document.  Landscape Plans (Plan Sheet L-101) The developer has provided a detailed landscape plan that includes new trees and ground plantings in and around the parking lot areas and building; along with a large placement of new trees in the outlot area to replace those removed as part of this new development. This landscape plan was given to the city’s Master Gardeners for review and input. As of the preparation and completion of this report, staff had not yet received page 167 their review or comments. As with other reviewed developments, the city has included a condition that the MG’s will review the final landscape plans and ensure the site meets compliance with the city’s pollinator friendly policies.  Utility Plans (Plan Sheet C-401) The plans show that all utilities are readily available to the site, with gas, water and sanitary services to be installed near the south corner (Near Maple Street and Dodd Road intersection). There appears to be two separate water main service lines feeding into the apartment building (assume one for potable/resident water needs and other for fire-service/sprinklers); and a third (separate) water main line at the south side for the restaurant use.  Storm Sewer Plans (Sheet C-501) The plans include a small number of new catch-basins and storm pipes to serve this new development. A trench drain is situated at the top of the ramp leading into the underground parking garage, and two catch basins and two new manholes in the front surface parking area. This system feeds over to an underground storm chamber system underneath the parking lot in the triangular shaped parcel, across Maple Street. The system includes an emergency over-flow outlet pipe leading out to the city’s storm systems underneath adjacent Linden Street. The Public Works/Engineering Department has reviewed the storm water plans and has provided comments to the Developer, which will include recommended conditions of approval before any building permit is issued.  Building Architecture and Elevations (Plan Sheets A2.0; A3.1; A3.2, A3.3 & A3.4) The proposed building is an L-shaped design facility, and runs generally north-south between Maple Street and the vacant outlot and Linden Lofts Condos to the north. According to the applicant, design for this project is guided by a desire to respect and fit into the already established village development in terms of scale and materiality; and [the developer] will continue to develop the design with this principle in mind. The proposed 3-story building height (mean measurement – per architect) is 39.58 feet. The proposed building’s exterior is a combination of the following materials and are generally consistent with the City Code and Design Standards: • Face brick • Stone veneer • Stone sills • Cement board siding and trim • Prefinished metal trim • Prefinished aluminum railings (decks) • Pre-Cast Concrete wall panels • Asphalt shingles  Park Dedication As with recent and previous multi-family developments, the city requires new developments to pay a park dedication fee instead of dedicating public land. In accordance with current Fee Schedule, the applicable fees are as follows: • Single and Multi-Family Residential: $4,000/dwelling unit • Commercial/Industrial: 10% of assessed value of unimproved land page 168 Since this development is a “mixed-use” of residential (apartment) with commercial (restaurant), staff is recommending the city only apply the current $4,000/unit fee on the residential component of this development, and not assess any fees on the commercial element. Payment of this park dedication fees is included as part of the building permit review/approvals. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan The subject parcels are guided Mixed-Use PUD in the current 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 subject parcels are also guided Mixed-Use PUD in the proposed (but not yet adopted) 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which includes the following statements: The largest concentration of commercial or business uses in the City is not guided Business, but rather Mixed Use, at Highway 62 and Dodd Road, in the Mendota Plaza and The Village of Mendota Heights developments. 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. This land use designation is located both north and south of the Hwy. 62 and Dodd Road intersection, the City’s only significant retail area. The northeast quadrant of this intersection has been developed into a mixed use center known as The Village at Mendota Heights. The southeast corner of this includes the Mendota Plaza shopping center which has seen renovation and redevelopment in recent years, including a new Walgreen’s pharmacy; White Pine Senior Living, a 50-unit assisted living complex, and a 4-story 139-unit apartment project developed by At Home Apartments. As indicated earlier, the entire Village at MH development was re-guided and rezoned to MU-PUD as part of a previous PUD approval process. The existing zoning and proposed commercial/retail and residential uses are consistent with the future land use designations. Construction of the proposed 48-unit, high-density residential development could contribute slightly to the projected amounts of Year 2040 forecasted population and household numbers, which are approx. 12,000 and 5,000 respectively. According to the applicant, the proposed project includes senior- aged restricted “market-rate” units, which will likely not meet or include “affordable” numbers or definitions per Metropolitan Council requirements. Since the development of Lexington Heights Apartment in 1984, along with several condominiums, townhouse, and senior apartment developments, the City has not experienced a lot of demand or construction of similar high-density residential developments, except in the last 4 years. The proposed high-density residential development may satisfy a potential demand for senior (targeted) residential units in the community, which appears to remain a strong trend or demand in suburban and metro-wide communities. The availability of desirable senior [rental] units may also appeal to existing senior homeowners who are looking to downsize and stay in the community, which may stimulate turnover of the existing single-family residential housing stock for newer, younger, or growing families seeking to live in the city. page 169 For these reasons, the proposed mixed-use project fits many of the land use and housing goals/policies in the Comprehensive Plan. PUD Master Development Plan – Existing (2002) The current Mendota Heights Town Center - PUD Final Master Development Plan was approved in 2002. A full copy of this final PUD plan is included and appended immediately after this report. The PUD Agreement generally provides for the following: Introduction, which includes goals and objectives, plan submittal requirements, and other general information. This leads to the Master Plan information, which includes Site Development principles addressing Land Use; Setbacks; Grading/Drainage/Stormwater; Parking; Landscaping; Open Spaces; Architecture; Lighting, and Signage. The “Submittal Process and Requirements” include the following statements: All development within Mendota Heights must meet the requirements of the City of Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance. The Mendota Heights Town Center is zoned as a Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MU-PUD) district and in addition to complying with the Zoning Ordinance, must comply with the Mendota Heights Town Center Master Development Plan and Design Standards, as adopted by the Planning Commission and the City Council under the PUD approval process. The Master Development Plan and Development Guidelines are intended to work in conjunction with the City of Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance and City Code standards. Where there is a difference between the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and this document, this document shall take precedence. The terms used in this document shall be understood as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, except to the extent terms are further defined in the Glossary included at the end of this document. The Planned Unit Development section of the city zoning code should be used as a guide regarding rights to a planned unit development, approval and administration, and granting of a conditional use permit. Unless specifically defined or approved as part of this document, all development must comply with City standards. All development within Mendota Heights Town Center shall be subject to any and all conditions for PUD development approval. The PUD also provided the following [selected] statements on building setbacks, orientation and coverage are noted: In keeping with the intent of the Master Development Plan, substantial separation of buildings by use is not encouraged. The central business district on the Town Center plan includes a senior housing site, and is then ringed by three residential neighborhoods. Since integration is the major theme of a mixed- use district, setbacks based on use, and use restrictions based on adjacency to residential uses may not generally apply in this district. a) Strong relationships between the buildings and the streets and sidewalks are encouraged, therefore building setbacks from streets within the town center will generally be less than those required under other existing zoning districts (see each district for specific requirements); b) Maximizing open space for public use is encouraged, while reducing less usable yards. c) The maximum overall building site coverage should be limited to 40% of the total site area. The remainder of the site shall be developed as parking, pedestrian walks, or landscaped open space as shown Master Development Plan. In keeping with the mixed-use theme called for under this 2002 PUD Plan, it identified the two “districts” of developments: (1) Town Center Commercial District and; (2) Residential Neighborhoods. These residential page 170 neighborhoods were identified separately by four separate sub-groupings known as (a) Senior Housing, (b) West, (c) East and (d) North neighborhoods. As part of this PUD Amendment application, city staff encouraged the developer to focus on the original “Senior Housing” and “West Neighborhood” sections, and apply these site standards and regulations to their own [amended] development plan. If the new development plan required specific changes or modifications to fit or meet their new development plans, the developer was asked to call these out and request additional allowances or flexibility towards their own new design plan and layouts, as necessary. The Senior Housing area is referenced to the Dakota County CDA Apartments, constructed in 2003. The PUD Agreement stipulated age-restricted (55+) housing for seniors, with on-site amenities encouraged. The senior building was approved with reduced 20-foot setbacks; balconies allowed to encroach up to 10-feet into setbacks; and building coverage limited to 60% of lot area. Parking was to be provided under the building at one (1) space per unit, with 0.25 spaces/unit for guest parking; and encouraged “shared-parking” inside the development. The original “West Neighborhood” was targeted for single and multi-level row houses and “Hoffices” which are dwelling units with a dedicated home office work environment and allowance. Setbacks again were reduced to 20-feet; structures were required to meet a 50-foot setback from the “wetlands buffer”; overall building coverage limited to 40% of lot; and parking noted at 2 spaces per unit (inside) with 0.5 spaces per unit for guest parking. PUD Master Development Plan - Amendments The applicant intends to amend the existing PUD Final Development Plan with this submitted and new mixed-use residential apartment/restaurant facility. 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(s) as requested under this new PUD plan submittal qualifies under No. 2 above and is required to be approved by the City Council by conditional use permit. The Developer is requesting to amend this 2002 PUD Plan/Agreement by including another “Senior Residential” development or component to the original project area. This 48-unit senior (age restricted 55+) housing is similar to what was approved for the Dakota County CDA site; the only difference is the new project will be for market-rate rentals while the CDA was built to accommodate qualified/affordable senior rentals. The three residential living levels will be accessed by a main front door/lobby area on the east side of the building, with an elevator to shuttle residents/guest to the upper floors. Stairways are also included. The living units range in smaller 812-sf. to 941-sf. one bedroom units; 1,100-1,180-sq. ft. two bedroom units; page 171 and 1,291 to 1,552-sq. ft. two-bedroom plus den units. The residents will have a private fitness center room, a simulated golf driving center; a community room with attached private terrace, and storage rooms. The proposed 4,300 sq. ft. restaurant use is intended to be a complete service, sit-down style restaurant (no drive-thru or service windows), and a small, seasonal outdoor seating area for customers. Although this restaurant will be connected to the senior residential building, customers will not be allowed to enter the private residential areas (unless accompanied by a resident), as access will be restricted by the developer and restaurant ownership. Site and Setback Allowances The Senior and West Neighborhood standards under the 2002 PUD indicated allowing a reduced 20-foot setback for structures in these areas. The new apartment/restaurant building is shown with a 20.6-ft. setback off Dodd Road; 74.45-ft. from the north, 25.6-ft. from the east off Linden Street; and a 16.45-ft. setback off Maple Street to the south. The developer was encouraged to push or site this building as close to the south as possible, in order to provide a s much separation from the existing condos to the north, and help minimize any impacts to the storm water system (pipe) and natural buffers created in the outlot to the north. The Planning Commission will need to determine if this reduced 16.45 setback and all other noted setbacks are acceptable, and should make a recommendation accordingly. Parking Allowances The proposed development includes 134 parking spaces, some of which will be shared by guests of residents and restaurant patrons. The 69-spaces underneath the building will be exclusively reserved for the tenants and possibly some limited parking for employees of the apartment and restaurant (assuming space is available). This leaves 24 surface spaces in the front of the building, plus the 41 spaces in the triangular shaped lot across Maple Street, or 65 spaces. According to Title 12-1E-E of the City Code, the number of required off-street parking spaces (in the R-3 District) is a “…minimum of 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit, one of which shall be enclosed. “The number of off-street parking spaces for restaurants/café is “…1 space for each employee per shift and 1 space for each 3 seats in the facility.” Holding to these regular City Code standards, the apartment would require 120 spaces alone, and the restaurant approximately 44 to 50 spaces for seating, plus an estimated 10-15 additional spaces for employees. In total, approximately 170-185 spaces needed. The 2002 Village PUD anticipated some varying degrees of parking demands, but the mixed-use nature of this plan suggested that somewhat less parking should be allowed than what current zoning standards require. With that noted, the original PUD allowed restaurants to provide 1 space per 4 seats (with no added standard for employees). With 130-150 seats planned, the restaurant would only require 33 to 38 spaces, depending on the estimated seating levels. The overall “Residential Design Standards” in the 2002 PUD stipulated 2 spaces /dwelling unit for residents, and 0.25 spaces /dwelling unit for guests, unless specified differently in the individual neighborhood section. If the Commission would agree to treat this new senior apartment similar to the pre- existing “Senior Housing” use, then only one (1) space per unit plus 0.25 spaces for guest parking would be required; or 48 spaces plus 12, or 60 spaces. The spaces underneath the building and surface parking in front of the building should sufficiently provide for the resident and guest parking needs on this site. It should also be noted that the 2002 PUD identified and encouraged shared parking across the entire PUD areas, and allowed for the utilization of on-street parking spaces where available (which is normally not allowed under regular or standard parking rules for uses, unless specifically authorized by the city). Below is an image with red-circled area that show where some of these on-street parking areas are located along the public streets, and which can be used by visitors or customers to this new development site: page 172 (Aerial Image – illustrating bump-outs for on-street parking The current PUD site is also provided with a public parking garage, which was funded by the city as part of a cooperative agreement with the original developer RMF Group. This garage contains 134 underground spaces, plus 54 spaces above (outside) the structure, all of which is free for customers and clients to use when visiting/shopping at this mixed-commercial center, and which parking can also be used by the visitors/customers to the new apartment/restaurant development as well. (Image of Public Parking Garage) As noted previously, the surface parking lots appear to have setbacks ranging from 2.95-ft. to 3.66 feet in areas. City Code requires parking in R-3 Districts (for high density residential) areas to have a minimum of 40-foot setback from roadways. The 2002 Agreement however, allows “Guest parking may be located within the setbacks, with required buffers from the street.” This provision never indicated or gave a minimum setback distance, nor details on what was required for the buffers (i.e. landscaping, berming, fencing, etc.). The developer is showing new plantings to be installed within these narrow setback spaces between the open parking lot and roadway edges (refer to Landscape Plans – L-101). As per the suggestion of the commissioners, the city is requesting the developer to provide a clearly marked cross-walk for customers parking in the separated lot across from Maple Street. The Planning Commission will need to determine if these reduced parking setbacks are acceptable under this amendment plan, and make a recommendation accordingly. page 173  Traffic and Parking Impacts Pursuant to City Code Section 12-1D-17: TRAFFIC STUDIES: A. An applicant for any proposed development or redevelopment project that results in the change or intensification of the existing or planned land use may be required to conduct or submit a recently completed traffic study, at the cost of the applicant and prepared by a licensed engineer, analyzing existing and proposed traffic patterns of the surrounding area for review and comment as part of any permit application. B. The study shall be prepared in compliance with the most current version of the Dakota County traffic impact analysis guidelines. C. When potentially impacted roadways included in the traffic study are under county, state, or adjacent city jurisdiction, the city reserves the right to request additional review and comment from those jurisdictions for consideration in evaluating the permit application. During the Concept Plan Review at the December 19th meeting, staff asked the commission if a traffic or parking study was needed for further review in this application case. Although there was some discussion on parking, access and vehicle movements, there was no direction or recommendation to perform a study. Staff however, in follow-up with the developer, requested they provide some information related to expected trip generations and statements on the parking for the site. As of the preparation of this report, this information was not yet ready, but may be available at the Jan. 28th meeting. In 2017 when the city was working with Trammel-Crow on the proposed 150-unit senior housing development, T-C presented a Traffic Impact Study from Spack Consulting for city staffs’ review. This report was presented to the council at workshop settings, but was never released or presented to the public, due to T-C withdrawing their development request before it reached any official application review. The Spack Report did include the following “executive summary” statement on that plan’s proposal: A senior housing development is proposed between Dodd Road and Linden Street near Hilltop Road in Mendota Heights, Minnesota. The purpose of this study is to determine the traffic impacts associated with the build out of the proposed development on the study roads and intersections where significant impact is anticipated. Results: • The proposed senior housing development is expected to generate approximately 555 new trips during an average weekday, 30 new trips during the a.m. peak hour and 40 new trips during the p.m. peak hour. • All roadways in the study network are forecast to operate within capacity through 2019 with the exception of TH 110 which is currently operating at or above capacity. • All study intersections are forecast to operate acceptably in terms of queues through the 2019 build scenarios. • The westbound 95th percentile queue on Market Street at Dodd Road in the 2019 Build p.m. peak hour is forecast to be just under five vehicles in length. Based on the results of this study, with the construction of an extension of Hilltop Road to Linden Street to replace the vacated Maple Street as part of this proposed development, no additional mitigation measures are needed in the study area. The Market Street intersection with Dodd Road should continue to be monitored into the future if general growth in the area exacerbates the queuing for the westbound approach. page 174 There is other technical information provided in this Spack report, and staff is unsure if this information can be made public or shared at this time (since the report was never officially made public) and because the two developments are somewhat different from each other. The senior residential vs. commercial restaurant uses being proposed under this PUD Amendment will likely produce varying traffic and trip generations for each use. Staff anticipates the trip/traffic generations from the 48-senior residential units will be minimal throughout a typical day; but the restaurant use, with typical AM, Noon and PM peak-hour activities and vehicle movements, may require more information for the commission to make a comfortable determination (or recommendation) that this development can operate and function properly at this location, and not create any serious impacts to the surrounding uses or road systems.  Density The density calculation for this particular development (alone) is calculated as follows: Number of Units: 48 / Lot Area: 2.667 acres = 17.99, or 18 Units/Ac. According to Title 12-1K-5-B-1 of the City Code: …The density of individual uses in the MU-PUD district may be guided by the standard zoning district for each use. The city council shall have the authority to determine the allowed density based on the quality and components of the planned unit development. Said density may be lesser or greater than that prescribed by the standard zoning district(s) at the discretion of the council. The applicable standard residential district for the proposed use may be the R-3 High Density Residential District. The corresponding future land use designation for the R-3 District is HR-High Density Residential, which has a maximum allowed density of 8.5 units/acre. Under the 2040 Plan Update, the HR-High Density Residential land use category was recommended to have densities of more than 6.0 but not to exceed 9.0 units/acre. Based on analysis of other high-density residential uses developed as a PUD or under the R-3 District standards, some, if not all existing high-density developments in the city exceed the maximum density amounts noted in the current (and updated) Comprehensive Plan. However, the Code provision above does allow the City Council discretion to determine the allowed density, which may be lesser or greater than the standard zoning district. According to Title 12-1K-5-B-3 of the City Code: The planning commission shall determine the number of dwelling units which may be constructed within the planned unit development by dividing the net acreage of the project area by the required lot area per dwelling unit which is required in the equivalent zoning district for the area in which the planned unit development is located. The net acreage shall be defined as the project area less the land area dedicated for public streets, but shall include all lands to be conveyed to the city for public parks. No portion of any wetlands, to the average high water marking as indicated on the city wetlands map, may be included for purposes of calculating land density. The Planning Commission will need to determine if this proposed density is found to be acceptable under this PUD Amendment, and make a recommendation accordingly. Zoning and Land Use Information 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 page 175 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. The proposed mixed use of residential and restaurant uses can be considered consistent with those other mix of uses in the existing Village PUD site and as called for under the 2002 Development Plan. According to Title 12-1K-1 of the City Code, regarding the purpose of a PUD: The purpose of the planned unit development is to encourage a flexibility in the design and development of land; and in connection therewith, and by way of illustration and not limitation, to preserve the natural and scenic quality of open areas, to encourage a diversity of housing types within a given development, to permit a mixture of several zoning district uses within a development project, and to permit modification and variance of zoning district requirements, but nevertheless and at the same time limiting development to a scale appropriate to the existing terrain and surrounding land uses. 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. The proposed amendment is a unified plan for the project site and connects well with the existing adjacent uses. Although this project area is technically (and physically) separated from the main body of The Village Center by Linden Street, this roadway separator does not and will not impede the future development of these parcels. All portions of the design and construction of this new mixed-use development will be financed privately by Grand Real Estate Advisors (or their subsidiaries) through traditional means, such as both private/owner equity and a construction loans provided by a lending institution. There are no public funds, such as TIF (Tax Increment Financing), city, county or federal grants, or others being requested or allocated for this proposed development. Since the overall PUD project area is currently guided as MU-PUD and is not being changed as part of this requested application, the proposed amendment can be considered consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the yet to be adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan. page 176 Preliminary/Final Plat Although not part of this CUP application, the Developer will be requesting a re-platting of these city- owned parcels under a future preliminary and final plat application review. The idea is to take the combined areas noted as the “North Lot” (Lots 1 & 2 – Block 3 and Outlot D) and create one large single, combined developed parcel site, and replat the “South Lot” (a/k/a Lot 1-Block 2) into a new platted lot of record. As part of this re-platting, the developer will be required to re-establish and dedicate (on the plat map) new drainage and utility easements. According to Title 11-3-4 of the City Code: A. An easement for utilities at least five feet (5') wide shall be provided along the side line of lots. A similar easement of at least ten feet (10') in width shall be provided along the front and rear of each line of lots. If necessary for the extension of water main, sewer lines, similar utilities, or access to adjoining property, easements of greater width may be required along lot lines or across lots. Additional easements may be required, as determined appropriate by the city engineer. B. Utility easements shall connect with easements established in adjoining properties. These easements, when approved, shall not thereafter be changed without the approval of the city council, after a recommendation from the planning commission. C. Additional easements for pole guys should be provided at the outside of turns. Where possible, lot lines shall be arranged to bisect the exterior angle so that pole guys will fall alongside lot lines. D. Where a subdivision is traversed by a watercourse, drainage way, channel, or stream, a storm sewer easement, drainage right of way or park dedication, whichever the planning commission may deem the most adequate, conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourses, shall be provided, together with such further width or construction, or both, as will be adequate for the storm water drainage of the area. The width of such easements shall be determined by the city engineer. In some areas of this development plan, it appears that not all parts will be able to accommodate the minimum 5-foot wide easement width, due to the parking lot setbacks along the roadways and the zero-foot setback on the restaurant’s outdoor seating area (near the corner of Maple Street with Dodd Road). The final placement and design of these easements will need to be reviewed and approved by the city engineer. As was noted previously, there is an apparent encroachment on the current Outlot D parcel, of a large boulder-style retaining wall that was installed as part of the Linden Lofts Condo project around 2004. Although this new development includes a small segment of this outlot, the developer stated early on that they did not want to be responsible for the ownership or maintenance of this wall, since it benefits only the condominium association. Initial thoughts were to subdivide this outlot into two separate parcels, whereby the developer keeps about one-half the parcel while the other half is transferred to the condo association. Concerns were recently expressed however, that in creating a new parcel for addition into the already established condo association, may prove somewhat of a challenge due to the numbers and different ownership rights involved with the association, and possible (complicated) title issues. A suggestion by city staff was to have the developer split-off a section of Outlot D of what they need to accommodate their development, and the remaining Outlot D would remain with the city – including the retaining wall, whereby the city may consider drafting a separate agreement with the condo association on the maintenance and ownership of said retaining wall. More information on this issue will be presented later at the time of the plat review. MnDOT Review As recommended by city staff, the Developer submitted an original concept plan to MnDOT approximately 3 months ago for their review. That initial concept plan included a proposal to have a driveway or access point onto Dodd Road, lining up across from Hilltop Road intersection. MnDOT rejected this access; and page 177 suggested they provide access to the development through the local road systems, which the plans currently illustrate. The updated plans set provided under this CUP-PUD Amendment application has been submitted to MnDOT again for review. As of the preparation of this report, the city has not received any comments or review letter from this state agency. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit for the requested planned unit development amendment, based on the attached finding of facts, with conditions; 2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit for the requested planned unit development amendment, based on amended finding(s) of facts as determined by the Planning Commission; or 3. Table the request. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit approving an Amendment to the 2002 Mendota Heights Town Center (The Village at Mendota Heights), which would allow a new mixed-use development consisting of a 48-unit senior apartment building with a restaurant, based on the attached findings of fact, along with the following suggested conditions of approval: 1. The Developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Mendota Heights, in a form prepared by the city attorney; and final draft shall be approved by the city council. 2. Developer shall provide a clearly marked crosswalk on Maple Street over to the separated parking lot, with final location and design approved by Public Works Director. 3. Necessary drainage and utility easements shall be included on the Final Plat, as determined by the Public Works Director and if necessary the Saint Paul Regional Water Services. 4. All new buildings shall be constructed only in conformance to building and site plans certified by a registered architect and engineers (as applicable); and in accordance with all architectural and building standards found under Title 12-1E-8, Subpart F “Architectural Controls” and Subpart G – Structural, Electrical and Mechanical Requirements. 5. Any ground-level mechanicals and utility appurtenances, must be screened with vegetation or one or more of the materials used in the construction of the principal structure, which must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department as part of the building permit process. 6. The Landscape Plan shall be reviewed by Master Gardeners for compliance with the city pollinator friendly policy. 7. Plant material shall be utilized as a screening element for any building utility areas, but shall not obstruct fire department connections or hydrants, to be reviewed by the Planning and Fire Departments and verified as part of the building permit review process. 8. A park dedication fee of $4,000/residential unit shall be paid at time of building permit approvals. page 178 9. 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. 10. The Developer and/or their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions allow. All landscape areas must be irrigated. 11. The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS) standards. 12. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction commencement. 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. All applicable fire and building codes, as adopted/amended by the City, shall apply and the buildings shall be fully-protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. page 179 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit for PUD Amendment Mendota Senior Housing Development 725 Linden Street & 735 Maple Street The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 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 amended planned unit development can be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site 3. 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. 4. The reduced setback and building separation does not pose any threat to the general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding properties or diminishes the usefulness of the planned development of this property. 5. The proposed PUD should be approved with a higher density allotment, due to: a. it will be an effective and unified treatment of the development; b. the development plan includes provisions for the preservation and replacement of natural amenities; c. financing is available to the applicant on conditions and in an amount which is sufficient to assure completion of the planned unit development and the PUD is consistent with the comprehensive plan; and d. the new PUD Amendment plans can be and will be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site. e. The proposed increased density is consistent with surrounding suburban communities and would allow for adequate open space as part of the proposed development; and f. 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 6. Construction of the proposed high-density residential development will help contribute to meeting the projected Metropolitan Council’s 2040 forecasted population and household numbers. 7. The new mixed-use senior residential with a restaurant use would be in character with other surrounding uses in the existing PUD area. 8. The proposed trail and pedestrian connections included as part of the mixed-use development project will facilitate a walkable and livable environment within the overall Village at Mendota Heights PUD and the surrounding neighborhoods. page 180 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 28, 2020 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 28, 2020 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Mary Magnuson, Commissioners John Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of December 19, 2019 Minutes Commissioner Katz noted the first page, the first paragraph, it should state, “August 27 December 19, 2019”. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 2019. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 3 (Corbett, Noonan, and Toth) Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2020-01 GRAND REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, 725 LINDEN STREET & 735 MAPLE STREET – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Grand Real Estate Advisors is requesting approval to amend a previously approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) Development Plan, which would allow a new mixed-use development proposal for the City-owned lots, generally located in The Village at Mendota Heights. The lots are bounded by Dodd Road to the west, Maple Street to the south, and Linden Street to the east. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 1,320-ft. of the site; one comment was received in support. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. page 181 Commissioner Corbett referenced the parking and asked for additional information on the senior housing referenced in the bullets. Community Development Director Tim Benetti clarified that the parking requirements were approved through the original PUD and noted that the senior housing reference is for this project. He also provided details on the wetland buffer requirement for the West Neighborhood included in the original PUD. He stated that staff reviewed records and could not find a record of a wetland in that area. He noted that staff has also visited the site and did not find the wetland on the site, therefore there is no longer a need for that setback for a wetland permit. Commissioner Katz referenced the map of the overall area and asked if the original Village concept was based on a trip analysis or traffic study, which would take into account different variables. Community Development Director Tim Benetti was unsure if there was a traffic study or report at that time but assumed that some type of study was completed. He stated that the original intent was to ensure that all the parking would be shared. He stated that the site currently has more parking than is used on a daily basis and believed the site could be adequately served by the underground and surface parking, even with the restaurant use. Commissioner Toth referenced the parking calculation used for the restaurant use, one stall for four customers. He noted that most people will travel two people to a vehicle for a restaurant. He stated that snow conditions also impact the number of available stalls and therefore he would like to see a snow removal plan from the developer. He referenced the trip generation study and asked what the peak hours were. Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that typically there are a.m., noon, and p.m. peak hours. Commissioner Toth stated that he would like to know when the study was done in terms of hours and what the peak hours are. Commissioner Corbett asked the process for defining the basis of parking within PUD. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that he would assume the ordinance was used that basis and then provided discount to that number because of the shared uses. He stated that the ultimate value was most likely negotiated. He explained that typically senior apartment uses provide one stall per unit because of a lesser demand for that type of residential use. He noted that specific standards are in place within the PUD for each neighborhood, with the intent of all the uses fitting together. Commissioner Noonan stated that the Village has been up for at least 15 years and he has not seen parking problems at the various times he has been there throughout that time. He stated that the standards within the PUD have done the development and the community well. He stated that the parking standards and recommendations seem to be appropriate. page 182 Community Development Director Tim Benetti agreed that in his time with the City he has not noticed an issue with parking or received complaints. He stated that the mixed-use development is setup for shared parking with walkability, therefore if you cannot park near the desired location, you can park within the development and walk to that location. Commissioner Petschel asked where senior housing it codified in the ordinance, or whether this speaks to a general standard on senior housing throughout the twin cities. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that this number was codified through the original PUD agreement. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Judd Fenlon, Grand Real Estate Advisors, stated that he has reached out to his engineers about snow storage, noting that three or four locations for snow storage have been identified on the site that could be used for that purpose. He recognized under high snowfall winters, snow may need to be hauled offsite. He referenced the discussion related to the wetland delineation. He noted that his engineers met with City staff in November on site and City staff agreed that it was determined not to be a wetland. He stated that their traffic analysis used the MnDOT definition of peak hours of 7:00 to 8:00 a.m. and 4:45 to 5:45 p.m. for the Dodd Road intersection. He stated that in regard to parking, he believes that as designed there is ample parking for the restaurant and the residents. He stated that this is a large project and they would not make the investment if they felt parking would be compromised. He explained that the success of a restaurant and residential use is dependent on available parking. He noted that there is also a public ramp near to the site, that is underutilized and could be used by employees to free up additional nearby spaces. He stated that the restaurant and apartments will be owned by the same party and therefore have an aligned interest in sufficient parking. He commented that the site is meant to be walkable and he anticipates some visitors will be pedestrian or cyclists. He stated that there are an additional 23 on-street parking stalls within the proximity of the site that could be available for patrons of the site. He confirmed that the on-street public parking was not included in the site calculations for parking. Commissioner Corbett asked if Grand Real Estate Advisors would be the end owner of the project. Mr. Fenlon noted that he would be a partner in the end ownership of the project, along with his partners. Commissioner Corbett referenced the outdoor seating for the restaurant, which will be 50 to 100 feet from the residential property and asked how those uses would intermix. Mr. Fenlon stated that the restaurant is anticipated to serve breakfast, lunch and dinner. He commented that outdoor seating is a continued trend for restaurant operations. He provided examples of existing restaurants with outdoor seating adjacent residential properties that have been able to manage those uses successfully with buffer and hour limitations. He stated that he believes the restaurant would close at 11:00 p.m. on weeknights and midnight on weekends. He stated that they have reviewed the option of enclosing the outdoor seating area. page 183 Commissioner Toth stated that it is great that residents of Mendota Heights are excited to build within the city. He referenced the comment related to the area being accessible to pedestrians and cyclists and asked if there would be consideration for designated bicycle/moped parking. Mr. Fenlon confirmed that there would be bicycle racks accessible but noted that they could look into moped/motorcycle parking as well. Commissioner Katz referenced the deliveries for the restaurant and asked where the service entrance for the restaurant would be and where the truck would park. Mr. Fenlon stated that most of the deliveries do not come in a full semi, that would only happen perhaps once per week. He identified the service entrance location for the restaurant, noting that most of the delivery vehicles can handle their deliveries within the site. He identified the area a full semi could park to access the service entrance. Commissioner Toth referenced the additional traffic from Maple Street onto Dodd and asked if there has been consideration of a stoplight to control that intersection. Mr. Fenlon stated that they have not had that discussion and referenced the comments from the traffic study that does not feel that the number of trips will make a noticeable difference on the streets. Chair Magnuson thanked the developer; and called for anyone from the public wishing to speak on this matter to approach the podium and address the commission. Marie ? – a neighboring resident (indicated she lived on Dodd Road - address not given) stated she disagrees with the traffic study. She commended Commissioner Corbett for his comments on the outdoor seating as that would be a concern for the adjacent residential properties. She stated that she is not against the project as she would enjoy the restaurant. She disagreed with the trip counter, noting that the senior use would be 55 plus, noting that most people that age typically work. She stated that the restaurant estimates are also low as many groups have people that each drive separate and meet at the restaurant. She commented that she believes there would be a problem with the semi-truck deliveries and could also be an issue for fire trucks attempting to access the site. She asked that the site be reviewed by a fire department to obtain additional comments. She commented that there was previously a wetland/wet space that has since been filled in. She stated that after the Village was constructed there has been more issues with water flowing onto Dodd Road. She asked that the City not approve this until the speed on the road is decreased from 40 mph to 30 mph. Brad Wallace, 715 Linden, stated that he is speaking on behalf of his condominium homeowners’ association. He thanked the Commission for their thoughtful questions and commended the developer for the cooperative spirit they have shown throughout this process. He stated that they would like to see the tree buffer between the condominium building and the new development, with removed trees replaced on a one for one basis. He stated that the street parking spots near Linden are used the townhome residents as overflow and would hope that there would be page 184 something in place to ensure that those parking stalls are not used by restaurant patrons. He referenced the parking ramp, which is very underutilized. He stated that he would love to see some way for the City to direct people into the parking area, as it is virtually empty most of the time. He stated that people do not know to park in the ramp and perhaps additional education could help visitors use that ramp more. Marie [the Dodd Road Resident] asked if there would be something permanent related to the senior housing or whether that use could be changed in the future to allow housing for all ages. Mr. Fenlon stated that he has not been aware of a document that would restrict the housing by age for a period of time. He noted that there is a strong demand for senior housing, and they have every intention of building and keeping the use as senior housing. Commissioner Noonan stated that the staff report references the reduced standards for senior housing, with parking reduced to one space per unit. He explained that market rate apartments would have a different parking rate and therefore if the use changed from senior to market rate, the parking would be severely under supplied. He was unsure as to the control the City would have to limit that use. Mr. Fenlon stated that he has no intention to do anything other than senior housing, noting that his comment was simply that he was not aware of that type of document. Commissioner Noonan asked if the developer would be comfortable with a provision in the Development Agreement that would restrict the use to senior housing for a period of time. Mr. Fenlon confirmed that he would be comfortable with that. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that there is an agreement that goes along with a PUD which can include that this building would only be allowed for senior housing. He explained if the desire were to change to a market rate apartment, the applicant would need to come back before the Commission and Council to request a change in that use. Mr. Fenlon explained that the building would not work well as a market rate apartment because of the differences in number of units, types of amenities, ratio of one- and two-bedroom apartments, square footage of apartments, and parking needed. Chair Magnuson stated that as a person that would qualify, by age, to live in this type of housing, she would agree that people of this age generate multiple trips and have multiple vehicles. Mr. Fenlon commented that the traffic study was completed by a third party and noted that the building space is designed to support active use. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. page 185 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2002 MENDOTA HEIGHTS TOWN CENTER (THE VILLAGE AT MENDOTA HEIGHTS), WHICH WOULD ALLOW A NEW MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF A 48-UNIT SENIOR APARTMENT BUILDING WITH A RESTAURANT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, ALONG WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Mendota Heights, in a form prepared by the City Attorney; and final draft shall be approved by the City Council. The Development Agreement shall contain language restricting use of the building to senior housing. Should the developer propose a change to the use of the property, or to market rate housing, the developer shall be required to amend the Development Agreement. 2. Development shall provide a clearly marked crosswalk on Maple Street over to the separated parking lot, with final location and design approved by Public Works Director. 3. Necessary drainage and utility easements shall be included on the Final Plat, as determined by the Public Works Director and if necessary, the Saint Paul Regional Water Services. 4. All new buildings shall be constructed only in conformance to building and site plans certified by a registered architect and engineers (as applicable); and in accordance with the architectural and building standards found under Title 12-1E-8, Subpart F “Architectural Controls” and Subpart G – Structural, Electrical and Mechanical Requirements. 5. Any ground-level mechanicals and utility appurtenances must be screened with vegetation or one or more of the materials used in the construction of the principal structure, which must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department as part of the building permit process. 6. The Landscape Plan shall be reviewed by Master Gardeners for compliance with the City Pollinator Friendly Policy. 7. Plant material shall be utilized as a screening element for any building utility areas, but shall not obstruct Fire Department connections or hydrants, to be reviewed by the Planning and Fire Departments and verified as part of the building permit review process. 8. A park dedication fee of $4,000/residential unit shall be paid at time of building permit approvals. 9. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an amount equal to at least one and one-half times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other improvements, to be included as part of the Development Agreement. 10. The developer and/or their respective agents shall be jointly and severely responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions allow. All landscape areas must be irrigated. page 186 11. The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS) standards. 12. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction commencement. 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. All applicable fire and building codes, as adopted/amended by the City, shall apply and the buildings shall be fully protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that he appreciates the motion but believes that this should be tabled tonight. He stated that there were a number of items requested at the concept review that have not been addressed and additional questions arose tonight. He believed that there is sufficient time available to table the request to allow for that additional information to be supplied. He stated that he would like to see the snow storage plan. He noted that he would assume the building would be sprinkled which would eliminate the need for multiple fire trucks in the case of fire. He stated that he would like to see the review of the landscaping plan completed by the Master Gardeners prior to Council review rather than prior to issuance of a building permit. He stated that during the concept review there was a request for a comparison between the impervious surface and stormwater treatment for the original PUD versus what is being proposed, and how the stormwater treatment would handle the runoff for the increased impervious surface and the higher intensity storms. He stated that he would like to see a comparison between the proposed development traffic volumes and flows to the traffic study the City completed in 2017 that proposed a different type of development for this site. He noted that the City’s study identified future improvements along Dodd Road and if the traffic is going to be changed from the assumptions in that plan, it is possible that the need for some of those improvements will also change. He commented that he would like to see the pedestrian connections that would make it possible for pedestrian traffic to flow from this site to the remainder of the overall site. He referenced the parking calculations for the restaurant use and did not believe that to be adequate. He suggested that the traffic study use ITE and data from other Mendota Heights restaurants rather than using the peak times from MnDOT. He noted that if the motion from Commission Noonan does not pass, he would be willing to make a motion to table. Commissioner Noonan stated that he will withdraw his motion. Commissioner Corbett supported that action. Motion withdrawn. Commissioner Katz noted that some of the questions from Commissioner Mazzitello could be answered tonight by the applicant. COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 page 187 Mr. Fenlon confirmed that the building will be fully sprinkled. He stated that the snow storage plan has been prepared. He stated that he has also scheduled a meeting with the Master Gardeners in advance of the City Council meeting. He stated that he does not have a copy of the 2017 traffic study from the City but stated that he would commit to having his traffic consultant update that study. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that he would not require the applicant to update that study, but simply to update the tables in the study. Mr. Fenlon stated that he was unsure if his traffic consultant looked at ITE numbers in addition to MnDOT numbers. He stated that he did push his traffic consultant on the afternoon hours and noted that the consultant picked a classification a step more casual and faster in order to be more conservative with the counts. He noted that the classification of restaurant proposed would most likely reduce those counts. Joseph Kimbrell, project architect, stated that he cannot provide details on the stormwater question as the engineers would have to provide that information. He stated that the snow storage areas are identified in note 17 of the civil site plan. He stated that curb cuts were added to connect the parking lot on Maple to the main lot. He stated that pedestrian striping was not proposed as the remainder of the PUD site does not have that element but noted that they would be willing to add that element for the project. Commissioner Mazzitello referenced the two areas that he would like to see pedestrian connectivity provided. Mr. Fenlon stated that they were able to answer a few of the items and would be willing to engage his traffic consultant to obtain the additional information requested. He asked if the Commission would be agreeable to moving this forward with that commitment. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if tabling this request would cause a delay in the developer’s timeline. Mr. Fenlon stated that he would like to begin construction in May in order to avoid increased winter construction conditions, which would be at risk if the action is tabled tonight. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO THE FEBRUARY 27, 2020 MEETING. page 188 Further discussion: Commissioner Katz stated that he visited the site at a time he did not anticipate being busy and was lucky to find a parking stall. He stated that he would like a more complete traffic study to be completed using the current traffic that exists and how the additional uses would impact the current commercial and residential areas. He believed that the current layout causes congestion and would want to see a more complete review for this site and the overall area. AYES: 6 NAYS: 1 (Petschel) Commissioner Petschel stated that it appears that Commissioner Katz is requesting a review of the overall PUD and surrounding area, whereas the applicant provided a study on this project and increased use from the project. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided details on the City study that was completed in 2017, along with the report that was presented to the City Council privately for the original PUD. Commissioner Petschel asked the type of study Commissioner Katz would like. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that the City study is publicly available and used real traffic counts. He noted that studies for proposed projects would use ITE, or a similar practice. He clarified that his request was for the applicant to update the tables/traffic models within the City’s 2017 report with the proposed traffic counts for their proposed uses as the original use projected a different use with different counts. Commissioner Katz confirmed that could be sufficient. He stated that he would still like to see 2020 data and asked if the applicant would be willing to entertain the cost to complete an actual traffic study for that area. He appreciated what the applicant has done but noted that he would like additional data. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that he believes what he is requesting from the applicant would answer the questions from Commissioner Katz. It was the consensus of the Commission that the following items should be addressed by the developer prior to the February Planning Commission meeting: • Comparison of the 2017 traffic study (numbers/tables) with the proposed development in place of the original PUD use • Impervious surface comparison from the original PUD to the proposed use, taking into account the change in impervious surface and the change in rainfall intensity • Master Gardeners review complete • Traffic Model for Restaurant to be updated • Pedestrian Connectivity, showing where connectivity to the Village would be provided page 189