Loading...
2017-07-25 Planning Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA July 25, 2017 — 7:00 p.m. Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Adopt Agenda 4. Approve June 27, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes 5. Public Hearings: a. Case No. 2017-16: Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of two new single-family dwellings for property located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway (Precision Homes, LLC Applicant / James R. Hanson -Owner) 6. Unfinished Business a. Case No. 2017-14: Preliminary Plat, Variance and Wetlands Permit for a new subdivision plat to be titled "Orchard Heights" - located at 1136 and 1140 Orchard Place (Marcel Eibensteiner- Royal Oaks Realty — Applicant) [This item was tabled at the June 27`h regular meeting] 7. Staff Update on Approved or Pending Developments 8. Staff and Commission Announcements 9. Adjourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 27, 2017 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 27, 2017 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, Christine Costello, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: None Approval ofA,-enda Chair Field, after consulting with the other Planning Commissioners, changed the order of the agenda as follows: B) Planning Case #2017-12 C) Planning Case #2017-13 E) Planning Case #2017-15 A) Planning Case #2017-11 D) Planning Case #2017-14 All of the commissioners agreed to this change in the order of the agenda. Approval ofMay 23, 2017 Minutes COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2017, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Hearings B) PLANNING CASE #2017-12 GEMINI MEDICAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLAZA, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 17,000 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this was a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to amend the previously approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Mendota Heights Plaza. The property is generally located at 796-820 Highway 110. The applicants are seeking approval to amend the Planned Unit Development in conjunction with a proposed June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFT Page 1 of 26 17,000 headquarter office building to locate just behind the current Walgreens facility. The City Code requires the City Council approval for any amendments to an approved PUD. Mr. Benetti shared an aerial view of the property under consideration, located immediately behind the current Walgreens facility, right off of South Plaza and Dodd Road. Gemini Medical is a partner of Arthrex orthopedic medical devices and feel they would be better able to serve their clientele of orthopedic surgeons in the metro area with this new facility. This new facility would serve as their new headquarters/primary offices for business administration and sales teams, provide area for shipping and receiving necessary supplies and inventory, with 2/3 of the building area being for client hospitality/education and administration and sales, while the remaining 1/3 of the building area would be dedicated to inventory shipping and receiving. The building itself would have some decent architectural features to match the tones and themes within The Plaza. The Comprehensive Plan says that the intent of the subject area within the Mendota Plaza development is guided as Mixed -Use PUD; to allow for mixed use developments that combine residential, retail, and commercial uses into a coordinated, planned development project. Mr. Benetti shared the necessary standards that need to be met to amend an existing PUD and shared how this development would meet those standards. The site plan shows the building being centrally located on the lot with two access points off of the access road with parking along the north and the east sides of the building. The backyard area will not be incorporated parking at this point; however, it is identified as proof of parking. This is a simple way of saying that if additional parking is needed in the future, this area could be converted to a parking lot. Mr. Benetti, along with the site plan, shared the grading plan, utility plan, landscape plan, lighting plan, and parking plan. All of this information was available in the Planning Commission's information packet. Commissioner Hennes asked if there were any concerns on the city's part that the proposed project is a lot smaller than what was envisioned in the original PUD. Mr. Benetti replied that, at this point, there are no concerns. The City and Paster Properties are happy to see a viable business and activity coming onto the space. It would also serve an economic need and this project is seen as adequate and suitable. Commissioner Hennes also asked if there had been any discussions with city staff about a larger building, whether it is two or three stories, and leasing out the rest of the space. Mr. Benetti replied that, to his knowledge, there have been no such discussions. Councilmember Petschel noted that in the drawings provided the building appears to be two stories. Mr. Benetti replied that it does appear that way; however, it is only one story. There was a proposal initially to do a mezzanine level but that was dropped. The warehouse portion of the building requires a higher roof line and it is easier to build using all one frame. June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFT Page 2 of 26 Commissioner Magnuson asked if the vehicles would be coming in and out from Dodd Road. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative, the two access points are on the access road between Subway and Walgreens. Mr. Jeff Schuler, 275 Market Street, Minneapolis is the architect of this project; came forward and stated that Mr. Benetti explained the project very well. He noted that what they are trying to do is to get a bigger space for Gemini Medical to grow into. They are designing this building and there have been multiple discussions to ensure that this building will serve their needs for a long time coming. They have tried to incorporate current colors and building tones of the existing space in the existing PUD, but have it incorporate a high technical feel. Commissioner Hennes asked about the timetable. Mr. Schuler replied that they plan to be open in the spring; hoping to start construction in October 2017. Commissioner Noonan asked if the rendering that was shown is an accurate representation of the height, notwithstanding the fact that the mezzanine is not included. Mr. Schuler replied that it is an accurate representation and that they tried to do that to allow for plenty of height for the shipping area. They also knew that the original plan was for a three-story building and they tried to respect the initial planning by making it look taller and have it fit a similar mold. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-12, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLAZA, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 17,000 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING in accordance with the staff recommendations on pages 15 and 16, with the conditions as outlined on page 17, and the findings of fact on page 17 of the staff report AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 5, 2017 meeting. June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFT Page 3 of 26 C) PLANNING CASE #2017-13 XCEL ENERGY, 800 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE TEMPORARY STORAGE OF GAS LINE PIPES, JOB TRAILER, AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT AT THE SIBLEY GAS PLANT PROPERTIES Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request was from Mr. Brian Sullivan on behalf of North States Power/Xcel Energy. They requested an Interim Use Permit, or short-term use permit, for an outdoor storage area in their gas plant facility located at 800 Sibley Memorial Highway. The property is currently zoned B -IA, Business Parking. Commercial businesses do allow for essential services, such as this gas plant, so this is a permitted use in this area. The proposed outdoor storage area would be in the excess patch of parking on the front edge of the property, just off of the entry point. Mr. Benetti shared the standards that need to be met to allow this temporary use and explained how this project meets those standards. He also noted that although this site is located within the Critical Area, no new development, permanent structures, grading work, or removal of vegetation is taking place; therefore, the City has elected to forgo the need or processing of a separate critical area permit or review at this time. It was also explained that there will be no storage of any type of hazardous waste or any chemicals on the site. Basically all that will be seen are gas pipes. The interim use shall terminate by December 31, 2017; any continuation of this use would need to return to the Commission and the City Council for approval. Commissioner Magnuson asked if they were planning on putting up any kind of a fence. Mr. Benetti replied that there are no plans to install any type of fencing or landscaping because of the short-term duration. Mr. Brian Sullivan of Xcel Energy, 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis came forward to address the Commission and answer questions. He had nothing to add to the staff report. In regards to any security concerns, the pipes being stored would be 20 inches in diameter and 20 feet long; it would take more than a football team to move one. Mr. Jake Sedlacek of Xcel Energy, 3000 Maxwell Avenue, Newport also came forward and presented on the project taking place across the street from the proposed storage area. Excel Energy has two transmission or large natural gas lines, which currently go right down the bluff from the garden center down to the parking lot of the trail. They have been there since 1948 and serve approximately 400,000 customers in the metro area. The intent of this project is to do regular maintenance, replace the pipes, and have it operating seamlessly in a way that no one would really know that they are there. Because of the challenge of construction in this area, there would have been impacts upon Highway 13, the senior living facility, the garden center, and the vegetation area. Their proposal is to take the two gas transmission lines and bring them down around the State June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFT Page 4 of 26 right-of-way, avoiding the other sanitary facilities in the area, and then stop short of the railroad trestle, stop short of their own electric transmission work, and then cross under the railroad to where they can hook up with those lines in Lilydale Park. There really is no other area for them to store these pipes in a safe and reliable manner. The plan is start construction in early August with an anticipated completion date in October 2017. Any restoration they would not be able to get into by winter or when the asphalt plants would close would be completed in the spring. That would be part of the project — not part of this interim use so there would be no concerns about having to extend the interim use. Commissioner Petschel asked if this project was related or unrelated to the work being done at the propane storage facility nearby. Mr. Sedlacek replied that the propane work has been completed and was last year's project. Xcel Energy worked east of that area, at the propane plant, and this is the final piece to have it all tied up in this area. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-13, INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE TEMPORARY STORAGE OF GAS LINE PIPES, JOB TRAILER, AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT AT THE SIBLEY GAS PLANT PROPERTIES BASED ON THE FINDING OF FACT THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE POLICIES AND STANDARDS OF THE CITY CODE AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The interim use shall terminate by December 31, 2017. 2. The Applicant shall provide a financial surety (in an amount negotiated between Xcel and the City Administrator) to cover the cost of removing an interim use and any structures upon expiration or revocation of the interim use permit 3. Any extension of this interim use permit must be submitted to the City of Mendota Heights at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date, and approved by the City Council. 4. Upon completion of the gas main replacement project or the expiration of the permit, the outdoor storage site shall be restored to its original condition. 5. No hazardous, caustic, or explosive materials shall be stored on the outdoor area; with no dumpsters, refuse, and garbage or scrapped (junk) materials stored or kept on the site. All gas main pipes and related material shall be stacked or stored neatly, and stored as far away from the trail system along Sibley Memorial Highway. June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFT Page 5 of 26 6. The Applicant (Xcel Energy and/or its subsidiaries) will ensure the job trailer is secured and well maintained; and the storage space area is kept clean of trash and debris, free of weeds, and well maintained throughout the duration of the permit term. 7. Any existing or additional lighting (if provided), shall be temporary only, with downcast, shielded light heads, and all lighting directed away from the residential area to the east. 8. Hours of operation for moving equipment in and out of the site shall be limited between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm, Monday thru Friday, with allowance of 9:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturday only. Any expanded hours, including Sunday or holiday hours must be approved by the City Council. 9. The interim use permit is shall comply with the provisions established under 12-1L-6-1: INTERIM USES and the conditions approved herewith, and shall be periodically reviewed to ensure compliance with the applicable codes and policies and, if necessary, amended accordingly. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 5, 2017 meeting. E) PLANNING CASE #2017-15 BOB AND JANE REIDELL, 751 WILLOW LANE WETLANDS PERMIT TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW IN - GROUND SWIMMING POOL, POOL HOUSE; POOL DECK; RETAINING WALLS AND LANDSCAPING Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained this is a wetlands permit applied for by Mr. Mike Fritz of M & M Homes on behalf of the property owners, Bob and Jane Reidell at 751 Willow Lane. This permit would facilitate the construction of a new in -ground pool, deck, pool house, and some landscaping. As part of the wetlands permit, whenever any work is done within 100 feet of any wetland or recognized water resource area, a wetlands permit is necessary. This is being presented under a public hearing and notices had been sent to the owner; no comments have been received up to this time. The property was a new lot that was created a couple of years ago under a lot split [April 2015]. It is over 25,000 square feet, or 0.59 acre parcel. There is an existing brand new single family home on the site, is currently zoned R-1 Residential, is guided as R-1 or LR, and there are no changes on that. Marie Creek touches on the back corner of the lot, making this a wetland area. Mr. Benetti shared images taken of the area in question showing a very well landscaped back yard and unfinished area, which is the proposed location of the pool, deck, pool house, and landscaping. He also made sure the commission understood that the proposed items are not located within the wetland area itself, just within the 100 -foot boundary from the wetland. There would be no impact to Marie Creek. However, staff has recommended that they provide a 25 -foot vegetative strip that June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFT Page 6 of 26 is usually required around any water resource areas to help prevent any type of washout or runoff and to help hold down any fertilizer runoff from the lawn before it reaches the creek. Due to an oversight in 2015, staff is demanding that easements be replatted or rededicated on this site as a part of this process. Before any work can begin, easement dedications will be done, simply as a carryover from the 2015 approvals. Mr. Mike Fritz of M & M Home Contractors came forward to address the Commission and to answer any questions. He had nothing to add to the staff report and the Commissioners had no questions. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mr. Joy Cacicia, 724 Spring Creek Circle, stated that her backyard, all 162 feet of it, looks out on this piece of property. She came to the meeting two years ago and was told that there would be no building within 100 feet of the wetland. She was also told that a considerable number of pines would be saved. As of now, 27 of those pines have been removed along with a lot of other trees. She understands that the house is built and is not looking to make enemies with the new neighbors as it is their property to do exactly what they want with it. She asked how high the pool house would be, would there be a fence installed, and how close to the creek will it be. Mr. Benetti replied that the edge of the pool would be approximately 40 feet inside the 100 -foot line [approximately 60 feet from the creek] and the pool house itself would basically be an accessory structure. Therefore, it cannot exceed 15 feet in height per code. The preliminary plans show that it would be 10 x 14. Commissioner Petschel asked about the fence. Mr. Benetti replied that it is yet to be determined; as part of a new pool they are required to have a new fence either around the pool itself or around the backyard. It must be a five or six foot high fence and is part of the conditions of approval. The Reidell's indicated that the fence would be around the backyard. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COSTELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-15, WETLANDS PERMIT TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW IN -GROUND SWIMMING POOL, POOL HOUSE; POOL DECK; RETAINING WALLS AND LANDSCAPING BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFT Page 7 of 26 1. The proposed construction activities to be allowed under this Wetlands Permit meet the purpose and intent of the City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The dedication of the new Marie Creek buffer easement and property drainage and utility easements will provide adequate work space, means of suitable access, and safeguards to the city and property owners for any restoration or erosion control work in this are, if needed. 3. No grading or vegetation removal within the required 25 -foot non -disturb buffer area will occur as part of the proposed construction projects. 4. Adequate erosion control measures will be maintained and observed during construction. 5. Vegetation will be replanted in the disturbed areas after construction is completed. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant shall dedicate a 25 -foot non -disturb buffer area from the edge of Marie Creek; along with a 10 -foot wide drainage and utility easement along the front and rear property line; and 5 -foot wide easements along the two side property lines. 2. The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with associated easements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 3. No disturbance, besides installation of erosion control measures during construction, shall occur within 25 feet of the edge of Marie Creek. 4. Any land disturbance activities shall be in compliance with the City's Land Disturbance Guidance document. 5. A Landscape Plan is submitted for review by the Planning Department showing vegetation to be re -planted within the 100 -foot wetland/water resource -related area after construction. 6. The new swimming pool must have a fence or approved barrier per Title 9-2-1 of the City Code. The pool site plan must be revised to show the layout and locations of all fencing. 7. Due to ongoing complaints of recent construction activities in this Willow Lane neighborhood, the City requests the Owners and its contractor(s) direct its workers to park personal vehicles and/or equipment in front of the subject property only, or farther down the road at Valley Curve Road and Willow Lane. Parking in front of neighboring residence shall be discouraged and avoided. 8. A cash bond, letter of credit or agreed upon surety in the amount of $2,500 shall be submitted and held by the city for a period of at least one (1) year from completion of all work, to ensure all new landscaping has survived, the buffer/vegetation strip is well established, easements dedicated, and necessary restoration work to the site has been completed in accordance with this permit approvals and City Code standards. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 5, 2017 meeting. June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFT Page 8 of 26 A) PLANNING CASE #2017-11 KEITH OSTROSKY, TALAIA BOWEN, RAY J. MILLER; 1680 LEXINGTON AVENUE AND 1104 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO RE -GUIDE CERTAIN PROPERTIES FROM "LR -LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" TO "MR -MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this was an official request from Mr. Keith Ostrosky, Ms. Talaia Bowen, and Mr. Ray J. Miller to only change the Comprehensive Plan / Land Use for the community. This was not a rezoning and it is not a new development plan. This is simply the beginning stages of opening a door for development if they so choose. The land use is just an underlying land use that has to be consistent with any future zoning or current zoning. The current land use is LR -Low Density Residential and the request is to change it to MR -Medium Density Residential. Mr. Benetti shared an aerial view of the properties under consideration with Lexington Avenue and Highway 13 (Sibley Memorial Highway) surround it. The Overlook Condos; Riverpointe; and Lexington Riverside condos surround the property and a limited number of single family dwellings are immediately to the west and surrounding area of the Overlook development. 1680 Lexington Avenue is a complete 2.33 acre parcel, has a one-story single-family dwelling that was originally built in 1952, and the site is heavily wooded and impacted by a bluff line along the mostly northerly half segment of the lot. The useable area of this lot is approximately 1.0 acre in size. The house next door, located at 1104 Sibley Memorial Highway, is located on 0.42 acres of land. It contains a two-story split-level single-family home originally built in 1977. It too is impacted by woods and grades along the bluff line. The vacant lot next door is 0.38 acres, undeveloped and has been on the market for sale. This lot is mostly wooded, with evidence of some very steep slopes. Mr. Benetti continued by stating that the `buildable' portions of these lots, based on aerial photos and GIS contour elevation interpretations, are as follows: • The Ostrosky parcel — is approximately 0.9 to 1 acre • The Bowen parcel — is estimated to be 0.3 acres • The Miller lot is undetermined In the future, final determinations would have to be made or determined later should these sites become available or presented for future development. Mr. Benetti shared the definitions of the current land use category and the requested land use category: Low Density Residential (LR), (LR -H) • Most prevalent land use category in the City June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFT Page 9 of 26 • Provides for single family development • Density not to exceed 2.9 units per acre • Corresponding zoning district classifications are One Family Residential Districts Medium Density Residential (MR), MR -PUD) • Provides for townhome and attached housing development • Urban densities of up to 4.35 units per acre • Corresponding zoning district classifications are R-2 (Medium Density Residential District) and MR -PUD (Medium Density Residential Planned Unit Development) Taking these definitions in consideration and the current lot areas, the current density allowed on the parcels are: • Ostrosky parcel — 10 units • Bowen parcel — 1 unit • Miller lot — I unit • All three lots combined — 13 units • Bowen and Miller lots combined — 3 units Mr. Benetti clarified that these numbers are based only on the parcel acreage; however, the actual number of units would need to take into consideration the parking, stormwater management, and setback requirements. If these requirements cannot be met, they may not be able to get 13 units in there. Mr. Benetti believes (assumptions only) that they may be able to fit only four to six units. Mr. Benetti then shared the character of the area and how this request in land use would meet those characteristics. City staff believes the existing multi -family and single-family uses should experience little, if any impacts due to this proposed land use change and recommended approval of this comprehensive plan amendment. Commissioner Hennes asked for a review of the overview map to see how the three properties related to each other, which Mr. Benetti provided. Commissioner Petschel asked if this was purely a step to attract a potential developer. Without speaking on behalf of the owners, Mr. Benetti replied that he believes this is true. Commissioner Petschel then asked if the Commission could even consider this without Mr. Miller's signature on the application. Mr. Benetti replied that Mr. Miller did provide written permission; so yes, this can be considered. Commissioner Magnuson asked if there isn't a plan on the table and this is to have something available down the road should something occur, why the Commission is being asked to recommend approval now when the City is in the process of redoing the Comprehensive Plan anyway. She asked if this shouldn't be dealt with in the overall contours of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Benetti replied that he asked Mr. Ostrosky if this could be presented at that time; however, because the City does not have a moratorium in place to stop these type of land use applications during the Comprehensive Plan review, Mr. Ostrosky had the ability to apply for the application and expressed his desire to get it done. June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFT Page 10 of 26 Commissioner Petschel asked for a primer on what legal rights this would give a combined owner of these three properties if they were sold together. Mr. Benetti replied that this would be an outward expression to a potential developer that may be interested but they would have to proceed at their own risk. This decision would not bind the City in any way. Commissioner Hennes asked how long this decision would be delayed if the Commission decided to wait until the Comprehensive Plan was up for review. Mr. Benetti replied that would be approximately one year from now; the deadline is the end of 2018 but the City is planning on having it done by June or July 2018. They would then have to layer in the Metropolitan Council's approval. Ms. Talaia Bowen came forward and explained that she and Mr. Ostrosky believe this to be an opportune time with the housing market and the development market. Hearing that it may look at a 2020 date to incorporate it into the Comprehensive Plan, it was important to them to come forward and start this opportunity; knowing that there still some additional steps to be taken. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Ms. Lucille Collins, 1137 Sibley Memorial Highway, has lived in her home for 50 years. She has seen Lilydale develop and Mendota Heights does not need it. There are enough problems going on as all of the land along Lilydale and along Highway 13, and even up into Mendota Heights — everything is on springs. She is afraid there will be a water problem; more than what they have currently. They are digging next to her unit to put in water mains because of the problems with the bluff. Also, the corner there is so bad with traffic — even at night with motorcycles, semi -trucks, etc. Rush hour is terrible. Chair Field stated that the Commission appreciates her comments and concerns; however, they are not approving development right now, they are just approving the land use designation. She continued by stating that it is a bad concept and should not be approved. Upon request, Ms. Collins showed the location of her townhome in relation to the properties under consideration. Commissioner Noonan asked Ms. Collins if she was aware that even if the Council were to deny this application, redevelopment of the lots could still take place on the three properties. According to the existing guide plans something in the range of 10 units could be potentially sited on the Ostrosky property. He also asked if her concerns about single family homes being built there would be same as what she has expressed about medium -density homes. Ms. Collins replied that her concerns would remain because of the water problems and the traffic. She would express her opposition to any additional development occurring on the property, even if it was allowed per density and zoning codes. Commissioner Noonan continued to press his point that the property owners have their rights and they could not be denied to exercise those rights. Ms. Marsha Easton, 1123 Sibley Memorial Highway, expressed the same concerns and objections as Ms. Collins and also stated that 10 units would be better than 30 units. There are more houses on the bluff that cannot be sold because they have water issues, mold, and there are springs that move from day to day. Also, the City would have to provide ponding for all of that water; from the parking lots, roofs, and other impervious surfaces. Chair Field stated that one of the rules is June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFT Page 11 of 26 that the testimony provided needs to be relevant to the proposed application. The Commission does not have any specific application at this time; so it is very hard for them to conceptualize parking lots, building surfaces, and 30 -unit buildings when that is not what is in front of them. He also explained that the land use guidance is what would be changing, not the actual zoning. Councilmember Noonan reminded everyone that Mr. Benetti stated that the maximum number of units that could be put on the combined sites is 13; and then he provided the testimony that in light of his professional opinion and taking into consideration the steep slopes and the wooded areas, it would probably be more like 6 units. To suggest 20 or 30 units is misleading. In response to Ms. Easton's continued comments about developers cutting down trees and wooded areas disappearing, Chair Field also explained that these properties are located in the critical area so the Commission and the Council has more than a few considerations as to respect to protecting the slopes and the quality of the wooded area and the elevations on these particular lots. This is a very unique parcel of land and the development potential is exceedingly limited. Commissioner Magnuson asked for clarification on what exactly the Commission is being asked to do and what the limitations are; as they are not being asked to approve a development, they are doing something vastly different. Mr. Benetti replied that what was presented was simply a `land use change'. The land use is simply the beginning process of to rezone a property. If this were currently guided medium density, the conversation about a rezoning could occur. However, that is not the case. Under a rezoning package, the City would typically ask a developer why they are requesting a rezoning; are they proposing new development — the City would want to see that development plan if they were rezoning. The land use amendment is just to change the underlying land use; there is no rezoning, there is no proposed development plan. The units per acre is set in the Comprehensive Plan because that is what is used to guide the land use; how many units does the City want to see per acre under the single-family, the multi -family, and so forth. In this case, it is 2.9 units per acre under the single-family (low density) guidance and 4.25 units per acre under the medium density guidance. That is under a clear case scenario; if this were a beautiful piece of flat ground with no issues or problems on it. With the impacts of the slope and everything else in this area, this would include a lot of `what if's' and `hypotheticals' because there is no plan and there should not be a plan at this point. This is just the beginning steps of a potential redevelopment later on down the road — that may never occur. All of the concerns raised would be meted out at that time; and the critical area is not a fun area to deal with and that is on purpose. The City does not want people destroying the integrity of the bluff line and the slopes. Mr. James Lindsey, 1101 Sibley Memorial Highway, noted that many in attendance are from Lilydale and asked if they have much to say. Chair Field noted that they are an adjoining community and are welcome to speak. Mr. Benetti replied that the normal standard of operating procedure for notifications is typically only those residents in the community that are being affected. Under this process, he selected to choose all of the residents within 350 feet of the three sites. Dakota County has the ability to pick all of the property owners within a 350 foot radius of the property. All of the names came up on the list and all were notified. Normally whenever something is in an adjacent or abutting jurisdiction, typically a notice is only sent to the official in charge of the community. Those jurisdictions did receive notices, but so did everyone within the June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFT Page 12 of 26 350 feet, regardless of their municipality. If the Commission decides that he should continue to do that in this case, he would be more than happy to do so. Commissioner Noonan noted, as clarification, that if an individual comes to the meeting and they live outside of the municipality under consideration but within the 350 feet surrounding it, their testimony would be heard and taken under consideration. Ms. Susan O'Connell, 1700 Lexington Avenue South, lives directly above Mr. Ostrosky. She, along with her neighbors, would prefer to see that the land use does not change to medium density. They are very concerned about additional units being added below them. They have noise levels that drive them crazy now, not just from the residents already there but from the traffic on Highway 13. Generally, most of the people living in the building would prefer this to not be multi -use; however, the do understand that the land could be developed by the owner or by another purchaser. Any landowner wants to be able to put something on it. However, they would prefer to see it not as a multi -residential use. Commissioner Noonan asked why not multi -residential use. Ms. O'Connell replied that there are simply too many units. If someone were to come forward with a plan to put 10 units on the property, as is their right, the neighbors would return to express their dislike. Commissioner Noonan reiterated that medium -density can get them a maximum of 13 but the likelihood, because of all of the reasons mentioned before, is significantly less than that. Ms. Joelle Rasmussen, 1101 Sibley Memorial Highway, asked how many acres comprise the subject property. Mr. Benetti replied that all three properties combined is 3.13 acres. She asked for clarification on Commissioner Hennes' comment about the number of units per acre. Commissioner Hennes replied that he said that changing the land use to medium density would add one unit per acre. Ms. Rasmussen then asked if this land could possibly be zoned as rental in the future. Chair Field replied that the only thing under consideration tonight is the use of the land; not the potential development of the land. But rental is always a possibility. Ms. Rasmussen stated that she finds it strange that they are asking for this land use change now when they could ask for that land use change when they present a plan for development. Another resident (name/address unknown) noted that when he looked at the documentation that came out there was a land use program dated April 25, 2017 and it was designated as low-density. He then asked why, after this study came out, there is an interest now in changing it. Chair Field replied that, at the end of the day, someone asked the Commission to do this and they paid a fee; so that is what the Commission is dealing with. He also noted that the last land use plan came out in 2010. The date on the document he may have seen would have referenced what Comprehensive Plan edition it was issued under. Mr. Bruce Westland, 1700 Lexington Avenue South, stated that basically everyone speaking this evening is sharing their human side of the concerns of what the development may be. He agreed with Commissioner Noonan that everyone has the right to ask and to request development of their June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFT Page 13 of 26 property and do a change. As a Commission, he believes their responsibility is to understand what those changes are and how that affects the city and the overall look. He understands that he does not have a right to own the sunset that a potential building may block, nor the city line that a potential development may obscure; however, what are the limitations that Mendota Heights has to that property in a maximum condition for occupancy — in height and elevations. Chair Field and Commissioner Petschel replied that, because this is in the critical area, the DNR and the City of St. Paul would have input into any development on the property. Chair Field noted that he understands that coming into a public hearing such as this can be confusing; however, the Commission is just trying to make a decision on what is before them now; not what could possibly come in the future. Mr. Westland continued by stating that he understands what is before the Commission; however, everyone knows that once this change is done the potential development will go through. Chair Field disagreed and stated that the rezoning is a much bigger issue than the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Petschel stated that the Commission has tried to make it clear that this does nothing in terms of firm plans. Mr. Westland replied that he understands the position of the Commission this evening; however, this approval opens the gateway for potential development on that ridge or just below the ridge. No one knows what that is going to be, including the Commission. He then asked what the maximum condition and restrictions would be that the City would allow. Mr. Benetti replied that R-2 is the same as a single-family; it is two stories or 25 feet in height maximum, the setbacks are 30 feet in the front and in the rear and 10 feet on the side. Commissioner Magnuson stated that it would be fair to add that there are some building restrictions with respect to bluff lines because it is in the critical area. This in no way should give anyone false indication that they can develop to the maximum on these properties; there are restrictions — they cannot clear cut the woods and plot out 13 units. The reality is that there is not a lot that can be done on these properties and it would be up to the developer — if any — to meet the rezoning requirements and that would be very hard to do. The critical area has height limitations, it has limitations on the color so it cannot stand out from river — limitations designed to preserve the quality of the Mississippi Corridor. It makes building in that area very difficult. Ms. Talaia Bowen returned and commented that the discourse and the back and forth is important. Everyone needs to be heard and it is important that, as neighbors, really understand and recognize what is important to one another. She expressed her appreciation to the Commission for recognizing that ultimately, land owners have the right to have some type of open opportunity to consider what they would like to do with their property and how they move forward with it. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFT Page 14 of 26 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-11 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO RE -GUIDE CERTAIN PROPERTIES FROM "LR -LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" TO "MR -MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL based on the Findings of Fact on page 7 of the staff report Commissioner Noonan comments that when the Commission looks at re -guiding, they look at the surrounding area and they look at the context. Commissioner Magnuson has said very clearly that it is not a slam-dunk, it is not an immediate intensive development coming forward; but rather there are limitations on to what the maximum condition could be. The reality is that it is an extremely difficult site, it is a site that has unique challenges, and if a matter comes forward a developer is going to have to find real opportunities here to bring something forward because it is a considerable cost to bring something forward. It is going to have to come forward with significant background material to help the Commission address and be satisfied with the myriad of concerns that have been addressed. That would apply even if the Commission did not re -guide the property and were to consider a plat under the residential. Commissioner Magnuson stated that she would vote in favor of this request; however, she wanted to mention that it is only because the Commission is not looking at anything specific at this point. It is simply a re -guiding of the land. She knows that if there is a proposal that comes forward, there would be another public hearing — or more than one public hearing — and Mr. Benetti has indicated that everyone would be notified as they were this time. She encouraged all of them to come and provide their input and the Commission would actually have something to look at and would be able to discuss specifics, issues, problems, or whatever. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 5, 2017 meeting. D) PLANNING CASE #2017-14 MARCEL EIBENSTEINER, ROYAL OAKS REALTY, PRELIMINARY PLAT, VARIANCE, AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR A NEW SUBDIVISION PLAT TO BE TITLED "ORCHARD HEIGHTS" 1136 AND 1140 ORCHARD PLACE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oaks Realty, acting on behalf of the property owners Marilyn Olin and David Olin, is seeking to subdivide an existing single family parcel, located at 1136/1140 Orchard Place, into 19 new lots, to be titled "Orchard Heights" of Mendota Heights. This also involves a variance and a wetlands permit. The site is a 13.45 acre parcel located right off of Orchard Place, is currently guided LR — Low Density Residential, and is zoned R-1. There is no change in the land use or the zoning under this June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFT Page 15 of 26 proposal. The main larger site has been used as a local apple orchard for some time and all of the dwellings on the site would be removed as part of this project. The single family home on the mid -point or the high -point of the lot is where Ms. Olin currently lives. There are a couple of outbuildings off to the side, just a couple hundred feet away from the home and another single family resident on the 1136 parcel, on the corner. Mr. Benetti shared the standards required in the R-1 district for new lots and explained how this project meets those standards; all of the 19 proposed lots meet or exceed the minimum standards. Lots 8, 9, 10, 11 are on the south side of the plat and are very large because of the impact to the wetlands or ponds on the south. Most of the adjacent lots on the Sun View Hills Addition, on the other side of Hunter, are 150 -foot wide lots — wider than what is being proposed here. The lots on the other side of Orchard Hill Roadway, the Swanson 2nd Addition, are also a little bit wider and they also have some wider lots for those lots coming off of Lexington on the far east side. There are some very, very larger lots next door to this one. Mr. Benetti shared an image of the proposed plat and explained that basically it is a new roadway, a cul-de-sac road coming off of Orchard Place. The 19 lots are strategically situated around the cul-de-sac and meet the minimum width, depth, and size requirements and the larger lots are on the south side because of this was as far as they could go with the cul-de-sac for the extension. All of the contours reflected on the image are reflective of the new contours that would be graded into the site as part of the grading plan. A neighborhood meeting was held on Thursday, July 22, 2017 which was fairly well attended. Mr. Benetti noted that the plan falls well within the R-1 design standards. The density of the new plat is 1.41 units/acre, which his much less than the Comprehensive Plan maximum of 2.9 units/acre. When entering the property, a person would go up the hill, hit the top of the hill which is very flat, and then it drops way down. In order for this development to work and the grades to work for the new roadway and especially for the lots to lay out, they have to grade all of that stuff down. There is going to be a lot of dirt moving in this area to make this work. A lot of grading work needs to be done on the backside as well because they are putting in a retention pond — capturing pond — on the backside of the property before it enters the other pond on the back. As part of the stormwater management, they have to preserve and protect as much as possible. Mr. Benetti then shared the Concept Grading and Drainage Plan, Storm Sewer System, and Utility Plan for the sanitary sewer and water; all of which had been included in the Commissioner's meeting packet. All easements will be shown as 10 -foot along the front and 5 -foot along the side, but 25 feet along the back side to ensure that all of the drainage is taken care of on-site. However, as the report indicated, it shows that some of the utility service mains will be approximately 20 feet deep, which is a very deep system. Whenever those systems break down, cities have to go in there and fix them and going down 20 to 30 -plus feet to fix a sanitary, sewer, or water line it is expensive. The deeper June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFT Page 16 of 26 the system the more expensive it is on the city's end; and pose some nightmares or concerns to any city engineer or city official. Staff has expressed concerns with the 20 -foot lines; however, due to the complicated topography of the site the developer is wishing to provide this grading as much as possible without destroying the whole integrity of the site and is trying to make the grades work as best as possible with the depths as shown. Therefore, staff is having the City Council approve the new utility depths. Should the Council disapprove, the developer would have to go back and re-evaluate and redesign and make it work for them. For all intents and purposes, would the new system work at the 20 -foot depth — yes, it would all work but they need a confirmation from the City Council. Mr. Benetti also noted that with this heavy grading there would be a lot of trees lost; expect possibly some perimeter trees and the backside trees. The grade difference at the entrance to midpoint of the lot is approximately 52 feet. It is hoped that a lot of the landscaping and trees at the backside of the property can be saved as the slope begins to gradually slope down towards the pond and wetlands, from 952 feet to approximately 894 feet. Mr. Benetti then shared the reason for the street design and variances as being very simple. The new subdivision will be served by a single access, two-way traffic cul-de-sac roadway. The developer intends to dedicate the road back to the public and would meet the minimum 60 -foot width but is short by three feet in the curb -to -curb width, 30 feet to the required 33 feet. Also, City Code Title 11-3-3 says that streets may not exceed 6% in grade, unless the city engineer recommends or allows excess street grades. Currently, the streets would range from 1% to 8%; therefore engineering was queried and the City Engineer is allowing the plat to exceed the 6% street grades in certain (limited) areas and accepts the 3 -foot difference (down to 30 -feet) in street width. The planned cul-de-sac measures well over 950 feet from the beginning point off Orchard Place to the center -point of the end circle. City Code states that cul-de-sacs shall normally not be longer than 500 feet. Staff encouraged the developer to meet the standard as the fire department does not like to see anything longer because of hose lengths to fight fires. Mr. Benetti noted that there is a segment of right-of-way that splits between properties; an undeveloped segment of right-of-way referred to as `a segment of Mallard Road.' Basically it looks like a yard space between the two properties. Veronica Lane is a paved surface that connects and provides access for homes and dead -ends right at this property line. So they could have pursued an access point here; however, when on the south end of the lot it would be tricky. To meet those grades and try to make a road connection on the south side would involve a lot more grading and would have impacted the wetland area and the pond areas. Staff felt that this was not a very good idea and would not support it. There are no available connection points on the east side. Because of these points and there being no real viable alternatives in providing a secondary access, staff allowed the developer to present a request for the single access and longer cul-de-sac roadway. Based on this determination, the developer returned to the fire department and asked what alternatives he had to get their approval. Their reply was that if he fire -sprinkled all of the homes they would acquiesce on the length. The developer agreed and so all of the new homes will be fire - sprinkled as a part of the conditions for approval. June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFT Page 17 of 26 Mr. Benetti shared the standards that need to be met to grant a variance and explained how this project meets those standards. The wetland impacts report was received just today and is being reviewed by the city engineer/public works director for accuracy and will be reviewing/analyzing that later on. Staff will make sure that all impacts to the wetland are minimal or zero and will also provide for buffering and protection throughout the duration of the project; before, during, and after the project. Mr. Benetti pointed out a letter given to the Planning Commission from an adjacent resident who was concerned about traffic coming in and out of the development. He stated that he believes the developer did a great job in indicating that the level of service or level of traffic coming in and out of the development would be approximately 100 — 150 vehicle trips per day (based on the typical family home generating approximately six to eight trips per day). Commissioner Hennes asked if there were a lot of cul-de-sacs longer than 500 feet now in the City. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative and stated that there are a number of them. Commissioner Hennes then asked if any approached the 900 foot length. Mr. Benetti replied that there are some approaching almost a quarter mile. Commissioner Hennes, referencing the possible access points off of Veronica or Mallard, stated that the Veronica one seems like it would be totally unreasonable due to the wetland and ponds. The Mallard one is actually fairly close to the cul-de-sac and asked if there would be a way to build a reasonable access point in there to have a shorter cul-de-sac. Mr. Benetti deferred to the Public Works Engineer. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that City staff did draw out what that would like. He noted that anything is possible, it is just a matter of who much work, money, and effort will it take to accomplish that. If that connection was made shallower utilities could also be provided. Staff did drop an option and that has not been shared with the developer. However, they would gladly share that with the Commission and the public. Commissioner Noonan stated that there is a preliminary plat in front of the Commission and asked, if the preliminary plat were to advance, if the final plat would be coming back to the Commission for approval. Mr. Benetti replied that the final plat only goes back to the City Council. Commissioner Noonan asked for confirmation that, in any event, the final plat gets reviewed by some recommending or decision-making body. Mr. Benetti confirm that typically when a final plat is submitted, city staff reviews it for compliance with the approved preliminary plat and then it goes to the City Council for final recommendation or final approvals. Commissioner Noonan then asked, in order to deny the preliminary plat, what findings the Commission would have to make. Mr. Benetti replied that they can make a number of them; however, they would have to find technical basis — the grading does not work, the sewer does not work; or the access does not work. Commissioner Noonan clarified that staff has not identified any technical reasons; which Mr. Benetti confirmed. However, for all intents and purposes, if there is something that the Commission feels warrants or merits a denial, staff would have to have some very strong technical or reasonable findings for denial. June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFT Page 18 of 26 Commissioner Noonan noted that the suggestion was that 60 -foot is the standard city right-of-way; Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan continued by indicating that they are only putting in 30 feet, even though a 33 -foot cross section could fit in there. He asked why the City was moving away from the standard to 30 feet. Mr. Benetti replied that it was a preference made by the applicant to narrow the roadway by three feet. Commissioner Noonan reminded the Commission on the long and exhaustive discussion they had when Mr. Mazzitello was here with respect to going from 30 to 33. Commissioner Noonan stated that he did not understand why sprinklers are being requested. Mr. Benetti replied that the new fire chief and the fire marshal felt that if the houses were sprinkled, it would give them [the fire department] added extra time to respond to emergency if there was a fire. Basically, they said that if the developer were to fire -sprinkler their buildings the fire department would drop their objections. Mr. Benetti also noted that the State Legislature has been talking about making all new homes auto fire -sprinkled as part of any new home improvement. However, there is a lot of push back from builders and other organizations. Commissioner Petschel asked about the owner situation on the back eighth of this property; where the ring water pond is and the adjacent areas. Mr. Benetti replied that the three lots on the back side; their lot lines would go almost all of the way back to the south perimeter. Commissioner Petschel then asked if they could conceivably be further subdivided. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative because it is all wetland and would be encumbered under the drainage and utility easement. All that area back there will, more than likely, be unbuildable. Mr. Ruzek also noted that the long-term maintenance of the pond would be maintained by the City; however, there would not be any weekly mowing or maintenance as it is not park land. Also, under the drainage and utility easement, it would be the responsibility of the land owner to maintain the trees and maintenance of that area. Commissioner Magnuson asked if there was an access granted off of Hunter Lane [the Mallard portion], what that would do to the holding pond and all of those drainage easements. Mr. Ruzek replied that staff has not redesigned any ponds or shown any grades. Things could be moved, they may lose a lot, and they may be able to add a lot, it is hard to say without their engineers having fully looked at the plan. Chair Field asked if it would be fair to say that it could be done, in theory and based on the work that has been done to date. Mr. Ruzek replied in the affirmative and noted that there would be the added step of wetland impacts so they would have to go through a wetland conservation act process. That process would also include the DNR, the State Board of Water and Soil Resources, Dakota County Soil and Water; a number of agencies would comment on any wetland impacts. Chair Field stated that it would be unfair, since the applicant has not even seen it, for the Commission to review Mr. Ruzek's handiwork; although he finds it extremely appealing as an alternative. June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFT Page 19 of 26 Commissioner Magnuson asked for an explanation of why there is no opportunity to provide access off of Lexington. Mr. Benetti replied that the area in question is a long private driveway. He also noted that the original intent was to have an access point road coming off of Orchard, extending west over to approximately mid -point of the Olin property. In any event, that extension never got created or approved. Therefore, they basically land locked this parcel and the developer indicated that it would not work from a design standpoint. Commissioner Petschel asked if the City Engineer agreed that it would not work. Mr. Ruzek replied that Veronica would be prohibitive; however, Mallard Way could have potential. The impacts to the wetlands from Veronica would be too major. Mr. Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oaks Realty came forward to address the Commission and to answer any questions. He stated that Mr. Benetti did a good job as far as explaining the complete project. He also noted that he understands that certain things need to be tweaked as the project goes along. Some of the main issues are, as far as he is concerned, is that people are interested in saving trees. However, they have a lot of grading going throughout the whole project and they have some catch basins in the back yards. They will save as many trees as they can but a lot of them will be removed. Most of them are not of very good quality. As far as grading is concerned, they have to maintain erosion control during the project so that rain does not drain onto the neighbors lots. They will do everything possible to maintain the erosion on their own property. If something does happen they will reimburse. Commissioner Noonan, noting that there was some discussion with respect to the pursuing of a secondary access point, asked if the development team looked at that in any detail, specifically the Mallard or potentially just exploring an extension of Veronica Lane. Mr. Eibensteiner replied that they were told that it would take approximately 17 feet of fill to build Mallard open to their property, plus there are tremendous wetlands across, and city staff advised them that it would practically be impossible. The same thing for Veronica Lane. Commissioner Noonan stated that there has been some sketching done for extending Mallard; however, that has not been shared with Mr. Eibensteiner; who confirmed. Commissioner Noonan also noted that Mr. Eibensteiner said they would need 17 feet of fill for the Mallard option; however, a portion of this site is going to have to be cut to the tune of 10 — 12 feet; sounds like the developer is going to be a little long on dirt in any event. Mr. Eibensteiner disagreed and stated that he still might be short. Chair Field asked for confirmation that Mr. Eibensteiner has not seen the drawings by staff on the Mallard easement. Mr. Eibensteiner confirmed that this is so. Commissioner Magnuson, to ensure she was operating with full disclosure, noted that she is a neighbor of this property and so would have some interest on a personal level. One of her major concerns is, when looking at the character of the neighborhood, this proposal of 19 additional houses basically doubles the size of the neighborhood in one little development. She wondered, with 19 houses on one cul-de-sac with one only opportunity to in and out onto Orchard Place, if that was extraordinarily dense for that neighborhood and creating a lot of traffic issues and not June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFT Page 20 of 26 fitting with what is already there. She asked if he had considered increasing the lot sizes and reducing the number of homes being put into this development. Mr. Eibensteiner replied that the current minimum lot size is 106 feet by 141 feet; however, as they go along and they have a project approved by September 1 or October 1, then he would talk to his clients and some lots would be larger, and some would be a lot and half or so, before they record the plat. The total number of lots may be reduced down to 12 lots. As a developer, they start out with 19 lots — the maximum that can be approved — and adjustments can be made to make the lots larger but not to make them smaller — before the final plat is recorded. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mr. Stephen Rolf, 1861 S. Lexington Avenue, who owns the property on the east side of the development and also adjacent to Orchard Hills Road, stated that he had a few concerns that have already been dealt with, including the number of lots brought up by Commissioner Magnuson. He then shared an image of his solution and noted that Mr. Eibensteiner spoke of being willing to reduce the number of lots as low as 12. The solution he shared was for 11 lots with the road being on the edge of the property so that the large lots — expensive lots — would be able to have deep lots. The original plan, with the road going up the middle would still reduce the depth of the lots, even if more than one were combined. The lots would still be short with the homes being close to the road. His option gives the opportunity for houses to be further from the road and gives home buyers more flexibility with what to do with the placement of their houses and their yards. Chair Field noted that he has given Mr. Rolf some flexibility; however, this is not the plan that is before the Commission to consider. It is an illustrative example of what could be done. However, the Commission cannot dwell on it unless the applicant is applying for it. Since Mr. Rolf does not own the land, there is very little that the Commission or the Council can take into consideration. It is Mr. Eibensteiner's application. Commissioner Magnuson stated that the Planning Commission only makes recommendation to the City Council. When this comes to the Council for consideration, then Mr. Rolf can provide input. She stated that she likes his plan a lot better, it is very creative; however, as the chair stated that is not what is before the Commission currently. Commissioner Noonan also explained that the property is zoned a particular way and what is being presented is clearly in compliance with the zoning. Mr. Rolf explained that he came up with this scenario because, as mentioned by Commissioner Magnuson, many of the surrounding residents do not feel that the small lot sizes are not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. He also noted that one of the neighbors at the meeting talked about vision; what is the vision of this development and what is the vision of the City. It occurred to him, and he just recently learned about this, that the proclamation that Mayor Krebsbach made declaring Mendota Heights a pollinator -friendly community — he has created a horticultural experiment on his property that has been pretty successful. Because the City encourages pollinator -friendly lots, have larger lots would provide a vision, would be in accord with the City's own proclamation, and would enhance the rural feel and the character of the June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFT Page 21 of 26 neighborhood. He would like to see the residents of the development take up this cause and make it an emblem for their community. Mr. Joe Capecchi, 1162 Veronica Lane, raised his concern about the water table. Currently, there is a very large wetland area; at least two-thirds the length of the property. With pushing the hill down into the southern part of the property; despite the fact that there would be holding basins, his concern is fluctuation of the water table. Three years ago they had flooded basements and he wished to go on record as to his concern about the water level. Chair Field replied that it was commented by Mr. Benetti that the City Engineer would be completely evaluating the water plan as part of any final condition. However, his comments would definitely be on record. Ms. Peggy Reagan, 1853 Orchard Hill, was a part of the 1996 `no access' because it would have come directly across her backyard. She is on a one acre lot and most the lots in her neighborhood are large. The discussion at the meeting was that the homes would be worth approximately $1M to $3.5M and she questioned how that could be on 0.3 acres of land. She does not understand why the land is being plotted for 19 homes just because it is allowed; being allowable does not make it the best value. She was also unsure if the lots are larger if they would sell for more rather than the smaller pieces of property. She expressed her desire to preserve the neighborhood and it would be nice to see fewer homes. Mr. Keith Kelley, 1905 Lexington Avenue, has a lengthy piece of property. The hill on the subject property slopes west toward his property so he is quite concerned about the 25 foot easement because now there is going to be hard surfaces with water runoff; running right back down onto his property. He is also very concerned about the pond. The three property owners along the north side of the pond do not use chemicals on their yards because they do not want anything in the pond that does not have to be. They are very protective. The catch basins that have been mentioned will actually need catch everything from the top of the hill flowing south and he wanted to ensure that they would be large enough to catch all of that. The new property owners will probably have a very nice lawn and probably lawn care — with chemicals. More than likely these would runoff into the pond and he asked that everyone be very careful to keep that in mind. Upon being asked, Mr. Ruzek noted that the catch basins would not run directly into the pond but would run into some pretreatment basins and/or infiltration basins. There would still be further review of the stormwater needs that occur. Mr. Robert Fogt, 1145 Orchard Place, noted that his driveway is directly across Orchard Place from the intended new street. His living room and bedroom windows face the front of the house and this is going to have a big presence for them. He asked to be put on record as saying that they would love nothing more than a second point of access to share the traffic load going in and out. Mr. Jay Phillips, 1127 Orchard Place, expressed his agreement with Commissioner Magnuson on the character of the neighborhood; it is a huge factor in regards to his personal well-being in the neighborhood. He bought his property because of the open lots and is really concerned about adding 19 properties. It seems like an excessive number of homes. Going by the estimated number of trips per home of six, times 19 homes, which is 114 trips up and down and is currently dumping on his route. He would prefer a second access point. Even if they reduced the number down to 13, June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFT Page 22 of 26 that would still be 78 additional trips a day coming down his street. Speeds on the road have increased since the rehabilitation of it and adding more cars will not change that. In regards to the size of the road, he would prefer the 30 -foot road to the 33 -foot. When they were doing Orchard Place and Hunter Lane there was much discussion about that and they specifically requested something narrower because they did not want it to look like a runway. After some negotiations they settled on 29 feet. He would also prefer a second access point. He noted that they have some very good neighbors in the Olin's and the property is an absolute gem and he is probably in the early stages of grief to see that going. Mr. Paul Dorn, 1129 Orchard Circle, is a neighbor and a real estate broker and he represents the Olin's in this transaction. He also knows most of the people that have provided testimony this evening. He understands everything they are saying and thinks he will probably be involved in the sale of these lots. He can tell from the initial request he received for information and the type of homes that would be going in here, most of the buyers probably would not buy a lot unless they were larger than this what is planned. He understands that the Commission has to consider the application before them as it is written; however, he highly doubts that the lot sizes will remain as small as planned — not to say that could not happen because it could — but it is highly unlikely. Ms. Dawn Loving, 1851 Orchard Hill, lives next to the apple orchard and is really going to miss the purchasing the apples and the honey. She wished to reiterate what everyone else has said; they have concerns about 19 lots, concerns with things like noise and traffic, and they would be an advocate of smaller number of homes on larger lots. Chair Field asked Mr. Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oaks Realty if he would like to respond to any of the comments and concerns raised by the neighbors. Mr. Eibensteiner stated that he would take everyone's comments into consideration; however, they still have a long way to go and will be doing a lot of tweaking. He agreed with Mr. Dorn that there will most likely be less than 19 lots; he gut feeling is that they will end up with approximately 12 lots. However, he is not promising anything — the market could change and they would be back to building houses on 106 foot lots. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO TABLE THIS APPLICATION; SPECIFICALLY TO ASK THE APPLICANT TO CONSIDER ADDITIONAL ROAD CONNECTIONS TO THE SUBDIVISION, THE PLATTING AND LOT SIZE OF THE SUBDIVISION; THE FINDINGS OF THE WETLAND DELINEATION PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THEIR UNDERSTANDING; A June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFT Page 23 of 26 BETTER DESCRIPTION OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS RAISED, INCLUDING THE FUNCTIONING OF THE POND HIGH- WATER AND THE BALANCE OF THE POND; AND A BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND JUSTIFICATION FOR SPRINKLERS TO BE IMPOSED OR INCLUDED IN THE NEW HOMES. Commissioner Noonan explained that the reason he is suggesting to table is that there a number of the concerns really are quite concerning and does not believe that the Commission has enough information. The applicant did say that he would take the comments into consideration but the Commission is being asked to make a final decision and they should have the benefit of hearing the consideration and making a determination based upon that consideration. He also heard the comment that there is a lot of tweaking that needs to be done. Whenever he hears that there is a lot of tweaking that needs to be done leads him to believe that the application is not necessarily ready for prime time and there is additional work that needs to be brought before the Commission. Commissioner Hennes expressed his agreement to Commissioner Noonan as there is too much fuzziness and the Commission needs more definition to they have a more complete proposal and a better sense of where this is going and able to make a better decision. Commissioner Petschel asked for clarification that the Commission really as no control over the lot size other than to beg for consideration, as long as they are conforming lots. That was confirmed. Chair Field asked Mr. Benetti about the 60 day rule. Mr. Benetti replied that the City is still well within the 60 day rule on this application and it could also be extended. The 60 days would be August 1 so the Commission would have the July 25, 2017 meeting to consider the application. Commissioner Noonan suggested staff exercise the 60 -day extension. Mr. Benetti asked the applicant if he would be open to that extension. After research, Mr. Benetti replied that the City has time on the plat decision (120 days) but not on the variance (60 days); however, the Commission can exercise one extension. Chair Field noted that the 60 day extension for the variance would need to be added to the motion. Upon the request of the applicant, the Commission took a five minute recess to allow him to confer with his client. Upon return of the Commission, Mr. Eibensteiner stated that he and his client would accept the decision to table the application tonight but asked that if the decision at the July 25th meeting is again to table, could he request a denial judgment and have it move on to the City Council. Chair Field informed Mr. Eibensteiner that the action tonight would essentially grant a 60 day extension on the variance request because of the timing of the next City Council meeting. However, he could return to staff and request an up or down decision and staff could present that to the Commission at the July 25th meeting. However, the Commission is hoping that he would do some wonderful things between now and the 25th of July. June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 24 of 26 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MODIFIED HIS MOTION BY EXERCISING THE COMMISSIONS 60 -DAY RIGHT TO EXTEND THE VARIANCE APPLICATION AND THE WETLANDS PERMIT. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON SECONDED THE MODIFICATION. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Field noted that the public hearing was officially closed; however, it can be reopened at the next Planning Commission meeting. As requested by Mr. Benetti. Chair Field stated that anything the Commission saw at their desk this evening would be part of the public record. Staff Update on Approved or Pending Developments Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that the Commission, at their last meeting, recommended denial of the code amendment for the auto sales for service stations. The City Council tabled the application because they wanted the City Attorney and staff to work with the applicant to see if they could explore some alternatives or other options. Staff met with the applicant; however, the City Attorney is still exploring those options. The Dodge Nature Center lot split, the Jacobs variance request for a garage, the Christopherson variance request for an encroachment, and the sign ordinance were approved. The Swenson land use change for the Mendota Motel and the Larson Garden Center was approved and is now in the review stages at the Metropolitan Council (Met Council). Also, the TIF #2 was approved at the last Council meeting. Staff will be finalizing that agreement under a future development agreement before the Council. There is one application in for next month's meeting and that would be for a critical area permit for a two lot subdivision that is two lots with one house. They would be removing the house and building on the individual lots. They need a critical area permit for the demolition and future work on that site. Also, the tabled preliminary plat would return for consideration. and Commission Announcements Chair Field stated that the City Council is in the throes of evaluating the open Planning Commission position. The interviews have been set with the Councilmembers. The July 4th festivities will be occurring next week with fireworks at Mendakota. Highway 110 is still closed but should be open by September 1; however, they will still be working on the project until November. June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFT Page 25 of 26 The Mendota Heights Road project will be starting, possibly as early as July 5, 2017. This would be between 35-E and Dodd Road. Adiournment COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:11 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFT Page 26 of 26 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com 77 OFF - It CITY OF MENGGTA HEIGHTS Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: July 25, 2017 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-16 Critical Area Permit & Conditional Use Permit APPLICANT: Precision Homes, LLC (on behalf of James R. Hanson- Property Owner) PROPERTY ADDRESS: 796 Sibley Memorial Highway ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: September 5, 2017 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is seeking a Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit, which would allow the removal of an existing single family dwelling currently situated across a shared lot line between two lots; and further allow the construction of two new single-family dwellings on each lot. The subject property is located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway, which is within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area and requires approval of the proposed project by the City Council before any building permit can be issued. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the local South-West Review newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350 -feet of the affected parcel. No comments have been received by the city. BACKGROUND The subject property encompasses two parcels, which are considered separate, legal parcels and are not combined for property tax purposes. The two parcels are however, under single ownership by James R. Hanson. The northerly lot is legally described as Lot 6, Goodrich Happy Hollow and consists of 1.08 acres; while the southerly Lot 7 consists of 1.19 acres, or 2.27 acres total. The site contains an existing two-story, single-family dwelling of 3,432 square feet, constructed in 1952; along with a two -car attached garage. The site contains a single access point/driveway off Sibley Memorial Highway, currently situated on Lot 6 only (see attached image — below left) The westerly half section of subject site is fairly level with grades coming off Sibley Memorial Highway, but the property begins a dramatic upward slope towards the back half of the property, going form 810 feet to roughly 860 feet in elevation. The property is fairly wooded with a variety of mature trees, along with a large section of volunteers and nuisance (buckthorn, box elder and others) scattered throughout the site. (see attached image — below right) DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The Applicant, acting as the Developer, intends to remove the existing single-family structure and any other related accessory structures, remove a number of trees, regrade and reshape the property in order to provide two new house pads on each lot (see image below). a AIC) Loth�,�"�'� f� ppRp LOT 7 M1 Hn115 AF?VAGL ,5 Based on the applicable City Code requirements, the proposed project requires the following requests: 1. Critical Area Permit for general construction activities. 2. Conditional Use Permit to disturb slopes between 18-40%. Approval of a critical area permit would allow the developer to remove the dwelling, commence grading and tree removal work; and allow the construction of the two new homes on each lot. There are two areas in and around the new house pad sites that contain slopes greater than 18%, which will be affected by this new construction work. According to Title 12-3-14-B of the City Code, any work in sloped area between 18% and up to 40% requires a conditional use permit approval. ANALYSIS ❖ Comprehensive Plan The subject property is guided LR -Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant's request to construct new single family dwellings on each lot is consistent with the property's current land use designation and use as single-family residences. Critical Area Permit The following standards and provisions are noted under Title 12 -Zoning, Chapter 3 — Critical Area Overlay District. Title 12-3-2 of the City Code, the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is to: Prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource Promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas; and Preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems Title 12-3-5: Site Planning Requirements: No building permit, zoning approval, or subdivision approval permit or certificate shall be issued for any action or development located in an area covered by this chapter until a site plan has been prepared and approved in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. New single family structures are being proposed; therefore a Critical Are Permit is required Title 12-3-8: Development Standards: The objectives of dimensional standards are to maintain the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi River corridor critical area. These standards are designed to protect and enhance the shoreline and bluff areas, as well as provide sufficient setback for on-site sanitary facilities, to prevent erosion of bluffs, to minimize flood damage and to prevent pollution of surface and ground water. • Setbacks. No structure shall be constructed less than forty feet landward from the bluff line of the river. The purpose of the standard is to prevent structures being built close to the bluff, for erosion and aesthetic reasons. In this case, the proposed house pads are located approximately 300+ feet from the toe of the bluff line; so the above standard does not apply. All new grading work and land disturbance will take place in and around the new house pad sites and driveway areas, so no impacts to the bluff line or areas will occur under this development. • Height limits. R -I District: 12-I-E.D (3): Structure Height: No structure or building shall exceed two (2) stories or twenty five feet (25) in height, whichever is the lesser in height.... .. • Critical Area Overly: 12-3-8. C: `All new structures shall be limited to thirty five feet... " The developer has not provide the city with any proposed or final house plan or design, as these homes will be custom-built dwellings. Any new home will be subject to the two-story, 25 -foot height limitations established under the R-1 Ordinance. • Retaining Wall The proposed development includes a new, U-shaped retaining wall structure on the north edge of the new driveway for the house on Lot 6. This wall will be used to shore up the driveway tab or vehicle turn -around off the new driveway (see image below). irnsn snxp� . •� 1P1 $14 �• .. � s��� r . PRo LOT 8 s xrrvnnw,xe,�{(,yLE f 8.20' %USpF pep i Title 12-3-9.2.d requires retaining walls in the Critical Area, on slopes between 12% and 18%, to be constructed of native stone or wood and not exceed 5 feet in height. The plans indicated the wall will be 3 -feet in height; but do not provide specific details of the materials to be used. Staff has added a condition that this wall must be natural or native stone as part of any approval. There is no dimension or setback shown on the driveway tab. Using the map scale measurement, it appears the driveway tab is less than 5 feet from the north lot line. Code requires driveways have a 5 -foot setback from property lines. The plan needs to show this driveway tab meets the 5 -foot setback; reduced in size or moved to the other side of the driveway. The wall also needs to be moved outside of the new [proposed] drainage and utility easement along the outer lot lines, which will be addressed later under the Surface Water Runoff Management section below. Title 12-3-14: Process for Construction on Property within the Critical Area: Critical Area Permit: The construction of any building or structure, or the alteration of any land consisting of more than one hundred (100) cubic yards of fill or excavation, shall require a critical area permit from the city council. " The grading and land alteration to accommodate these two new dwelling structures are likely to consist of more than 100 cubic yards; therefore a Critical Are Permit is required. Title 12-3-9-D & 12-3-9-F Wildlife Protection and Vegetation Management The Applicant/Developer provided a detailed survey identifying a certain number of significant trees that will be saved/protected under this new development plan, along with some removals. The proposed developments of these two new home will occupy the previously -developed area of the existing house and driveway area. According to the Applicant, a number of volunteer trees and invasive species (buckthorn, box elders, and others) are planned to be removed and thinned from the site in order to gain more useable yard space. Staff recommended in pre -application meeting with the Developer, to be very prudent and mindful when removing existing trees and vegetation on the site, and save and protect as many mature and significant trees as possible. From an overall review of their landscape and grading plans, staff does not anticipate any negative impacts to the habitat or the remaining natural vegetation on the subject property. . - • ! ^r _ I,l .� SLOPES GREATER THAN 18% d - q _ I N1. f Sr. 1 i ar I .��I ;� � �$r'iP"'" 1'""9C'✓f ti ��✓ r _moi //�' r oz The removal plans identified 43 "high value trees within the main development area. Of these trees, 16 have been targeted for removal, with 27 marked for saving. The plans note that these trees will be protected during construction activities; and new tree replacement will take place when new homes are constructed (reviewed at time of building permit review). Title 12-3-9-G: Surface Water Runoff Management: The original Goodrich Happy Hollow plat (cir. 1950) that includes these two lots, does not appear to show any easements dedicated on each existing lot. Although the Site Plan appears to show some form of dashed - line pattern inside the lot line boundaries, it is not clear if these are supposed to be easements or setback delineation, or other. Nevertheless, the City typically requests developers/owners to dedicate new drainage and utility easements along the outer perimeters of lots when under consideration of similar land use applications (i.e. lot splits, wetland permits, critical area permits), if or when needed. These easements are typically 10 foot wide along the front and rear lot lines, and 5 feet along side lines. Due to this requests of easements, the retaining wall noted previously in this report (to be built on the north edge of the new driveway, will need to be moved outside of any drainage easement area. Engineering staff has reviewed the application information and does not believe the proposed project clearly addresses or meets the general requirements for surface water runoff. The applicable Code section lists six requirements a project in the critical area must meet. The first five are not applicable to the subject property as they deal with septic systems, well draw from local aquafers, contaminated areas, surface water infiltration, and siltation deposits in area wetlands and water bodies. The only applicable requirement states: 6. Development shall not increase the runoff rate or decrease the natural rate of absorption of storm water. The City Engineer has provided the following statements and noted deficiencies when reviewing the submitted site/grading and drainage plans: • The survey does not capture enough surrounding topography to accurately determine there will not be negative consequences from this proposal. Topography should be gathered on neighboring properties with the drainage area (existing water issue to the south cannot have increased drainage). • The catch basin to the north is not shown. • Storm sewer and elevations must be shown. • The drainage swale between proposed homes needs to be a minimum of 2% grade (currently under 1 %). • More information if a driveway culvert is needed for the new driveway on to Wachtler; and if the culvert underneath the new driveway on to HWY 13 is scheduled for replacement. • Must show new driveway grades. • Must move wall out of any new easement. • The plans are absent of many grade contours; the plan must be updated and resubmitted for review. • Utility data appears incorrect on utility plan and must be updated and resubmitted for review. • Additional trees may need to be removed to provide adequate drainage. Since the new dwellings will be built essentially over pre-existing built -out or graded areas, and new grades will be established that tie the grades from the new house pad sites to the existing surrounding grades, the new home developments must not substantially alter the runoff rate or quantity from the subject property. City staff is aware of previous (unauthorized) grading and maintenance work performed by the current property owners, which led to some impacts and issues with neighboring properties. Because of these previous impacts, city staff needs to be assured that any new grading work will be acceptable and suitable for the site; and all storm water management is handled accordingly. ❖ Conditional Use Permit As noted on the "Existing Conditions" map, there is an area along the north side of Lot 6 and the south side of Lot 7 that identify "Slopes Greater than 18%", which are also identified by a unique hatch pattern. The proposed house pad on the north lot (Lot 6) will involve some additional grading work in this sloped area in order to provide necessary side yard drainage swales and protection from the north neighboring property. The sloped area on the south portion of Lot 7 area will also be affected, but again it appears that only new grades will be replaced and established to help provide effective drainage way and protection of the neighboring property to the south. Title 12-3-14-B: Any affected activity requiring a critical area permit on slopes greater than eighteen percent (18%) but less than forty percent (4001o) shall require a conditional use permit, and shall be required to meet the procedural and performance requirements of this section. Title 12-3-16: A conditional use permit may be granted only when the following findings are made, in addition to those conditions listed in this zoning ordinance: A. The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the critical area order and the city's comprehensive plan; B. The proposed use is compatible with uses in the immediate vicinity; and C. The proposed use is allowed under the applicable ordinances of the city of Mendota Heights. D. Any request for a conditional use permit shall include, in addition to other required public notice, a notification to the appropriate Minnesota department of natural resources staff for review and comment. The slopes in -question do not appear to be natural and were likely created when the lot was originally developed many years ago, and were probably established prior to establishment of the Critical Area Overlay District. Under the circumstances surrounding this case, the proposed project meets all four required findings above. INTERAGENCY REVIEW In addition to the public and private property owners within 350 feet of the subject property, public hearing notices and application materials were sent to the following agencies for review and comment: ➢ Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) The site plan was forwarded to Jennie Skancke, Area Hydrologist with Dept. of Natural Resources, and confirmed the development plan appear to show minimal impacts to the bluff area; appeared to be a fairly routine [single-family] development plan; and no additional comments or conditions would be needed from the DNR. ➢ City of St. Paul Parks and Recreation Department (Lilydale Regional Park) No comments were received from the City of St. Paul Parks Dept. on this item. ➢ City of Lilydale No comments were received from the City of Lilydale on this case. ALTERNATIVES Recommend approval of the Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit requests for the property located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions. I' 2. Recommend denial of the Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit requests for the property located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway, based on the finding of fact that the application does not meet certain policies and standards of the City Code and/or Comprehensive Plan. OR 3. Table the request; direct staff to work with the Developer and allow them more time to refine the site and grading and drainage plans for the properties; and extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is "tentatively" recommending Alternative No. 3, which asks the Planning Commission to consider tabling the request; direct staff to work with the Developer and allow them more time to refine the site and grading and drainage plans for the properties; and extend the application review period The reason for the tentative recommendation is that Staff contacted the Developers just prior to this planning report being finalized, and sent them the City Engineer's review comments and red -lined image of the grading/drainage plans. The Developer stated a strong desire not to have this item delayed; and asked if they could submit an updated plan before next Tuesday night's meeting. Should the Developer provide the necessary information or make the changes needed to the plans (per the city engineer's comments), then city staff agreed to provide an update to the Planning Commission at next Tuesday night's public hearing. If all outstanding issues have been or will be resolved to the satisfaction of city staff before the meeting, and more importantly to the Planning Commission, then staff will offer an amended recommendation to approve the critical area permit and conditional use permit, based on the attached findings of fact and following conditions: 1. Building and grading permits shall be approved by the City prior to any demolition or removal of any existing structures, and before any construction of any new dwelling on each lot. 2. The retaining wall proposed under this development plan must be made of natural or native stone materials. 3. Removal of trees and vegetation, including any invasive trees or unsuitable vegetation must be performed by qualified tree and landscaping professional/firm. Removal of vegetation is primarily confined to the silt fenced area noted on the "Existing Conditions, Soils, Landscaping and Demo Plan" map. Any removals beyond this silt fenced area shall be limited to buckthorn and other similar but smaller invasive plantings [2" or less caliper size]. The cutting or clearing of any significant trees beyond the silt fence boundary line, regardless of variety, is prohibited. 4. Each dwelling lot shall have a tree replacement plan at time of building permit review/approval of at least ten (10) new significant trees per lot, in order to replace the 16 trees projected for removal under this development plan. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 6. All grading and landscape work shall be performed by a qualified, professional contractor and/or landscape company. 7. A financial security of $5,000 ($2,500 per lot) shall be held by the City to ensure all grading, tree and vegetation removals, and any new landscaping work is performed according to plans. The security shall be held a minimum of one-year after construction work on each home has been completed, to ensure all plantings have been established and survived at least one growing season. 8. A park dedication fee of $4,000 shall be paid at time of the first building permit submittal. 9. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. 10. 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. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Applicant's Letter of Intent 2. Aerial/Location map 3. Full Site & Grading Plans FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Critical Area Permit & Conditional Use Permit 796 Sibley Memorial Highway The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed development of the properties with two separate dwelling structures meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District, including the additional conditional use permit standards. 3. The proposed development will make a concerted effort to reduce the removal of any significant trees on the subject property; the [professional] removal of invasive and harmful planting provides a benefit to helping restore the natural environment and native plant growth in this area; and provides a condition to help replace and replenish the loss of some significant trees. 4. The grades in excess of 18% and 40% impacted by the proposed project appear to have been man- made and will not negatively impact the bluff area or any significant or protected areas of the subject property or surrounding properties. Precision Homes Pavel Bodnar City of Mendota Heights, Tim Benetti Owner and Builder Street Address City, ST ZIP Code 10937 93rd Ave N Telephone Maple Grove, Minnesota Email (612) 290-9336 pavel@precisionhomesUc.org @y 6d, 2017 Dear City of Mendota Heights, Tim Benetti, Precision Homes is submitting a request to tear down the existing residence located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. Once tear down is complete the builder would utilize both lots and rebuild a single family home on each meeting city requirements for setbacks. The homes that will be built will be priced between $800,000 and $1,100,000 each depending on final approval of project. Please feel free to reach out with any questions or concerns to Myself or my real estate agent Stephanie Cook, (612)- 308-6902. Sincerely, Pavel Bodnar PH PRECISIONHOMES LIC#BC63555E 796 Sibley Memorial Highway 3/7/2017 0 _- 100 m 06666 SCALE IN FEET City of Mendota Heights 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 contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or 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. v 0 80 NORTH 160 240 LEGEND These standard symbols will be found on this plan sheet. DENOTES PROPERTY LINE — — — — — — — DENOTES SECTION LINE — DENOTES BUILDING SETBACK LINE DENOTES EDGE OF PROPOSED BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY DENOTES EDGE OF PROPOSED HOUSE PAD DENOTES EDGE OF PROPOSED GARAGE BENCHMARK TOP NUT HYDRANT 65 FEET NORTHEAST OF CENTERLINE OF WACHTLER AVENUE AND 35 FEET SOUTHEAST OF CENTERLINE OF SYBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY. ELEVATION: 810.16 NOTES 1.) NO CONSTRUCTION MAY BEGIN UNTIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS ARE IN PLACE AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS. 2.) NO CONSTRUCTION MAY BEGIN UNTIL A PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING IS HELD WITH THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS. 3.) PREVAILING SPECIFICATIONS: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MUTCD, MNDOT SPECIFICATIONS, CEAM SPECIFICATIONS. 4.) NO CHANGES SHALL BE MADE TO APPROVED PLANS WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS. 5.) ONLY CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS EMPLOYEES ARE PERMITTED TO OPERATE VALVES AND HYDRANTS. 6.) ELEVATIONS FOR CONNECTING TO EXISTING STUBS FOR SANITARY SEWER, WATER, AND STORM SEWER WILL NEED TO BE FIELD VERIFIED. 7.) EXISTING "AS—BUILT' INFO IS FROM BOTH THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY. INDEX TO PLAN SHEETS - Sheet Title Sheet. No. O„ Me< TITLE SHEET a EXISTING CONDITIONS, SOILS, AND DEMO PLAN 2 SITE PLAN 3 GRADING PLAN 4 way HYDROLOGY PLAN 5 UTILITY PLAN 6 This pan contains 6 Total sheets k SITE ADDRESS vie W1 ----- --�- -- --- ------------------------------- ---{, } rt VcKerel Lake 4� Lilydala 796 SYBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION .h,w4 ;a S. LOTS 6 & 7, BLOCK 1, GOODRICH HAPPY HOLLOWa`° FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP FIRM MAP NUMBER: 27037CO017E EFFECTIVE DATE: DECEMBER 2, 2011 CONTACTS CITY MENDOTA HEIGHTS PUBLIC WORKS ........... 651-454-4059 FIRE DEPARTMENT .................................................651-452-1850 XCEL ENERGY .........................................................800 -895-4999 GOODHUE COUNTY COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC... 507-732-5117 MINNESOTA ENERGY RESOURCES CORP ........... 800-889-9508 FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS...............................800-921-8102 M E D I AC O M................................................................866-609-6180 CENTU RYLI N K ..........................................................800 -244-1111 aya�w Sedicr L,mdot Liwng CQrrbn C ontef SITE LOCATION U Pe! .. '13 n,• U111 4 i 3 f Laura Ct a SOXL a 6io4halUs Lr Cherry �'4-mdai4 RJ "i VICINITY MAP Ls 1sil Ave ° a J �r 4y� YWi s k, sP Hiretr,,r 4Y Valivo Ln s bulbi AVt W 50� wy 4115 �r } b� Maple p316 D1 VY FMIs AV= 5unse{ Ln CALL BEFORE YOU DIG GOPHERSTATE ONE OL CALL TWIN AR AREA 651-454-0002 MN. TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166 Cale0hile L Emer FILE PATH S: Share PLATS GOODRICH HAPPY HOLLOW BLOCK1 PRECISION HOMES CIVIL DESIGN JOHNSON �c SCOFIELD INC. 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, REVISED BY DATE LATEST REVISION: SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY DESIGNED SPV Pre PRECISION H QQ�� ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND/ pared For: Surveying & Engineering, UNDER THE LAWS AM A DULY SOF THE STATE ED NAL ENGINEER PAVEL (PAUL) BODNAR TITLE SHEET MINNESOTA DRAWN sPD PRECISION HOMES 796 6 S I B LE Y MEMORIAL H V Y Y 1203 Main Street Red Wing, MN 55066 CHECKED SPV 10937 93RD AVENUE NORTH MENDOTA HMINNESOTA SHEET 1 OF 6 SHEETS ph. 651.388.1558 fax 651.388.1559 Steven P. Voigt, PE MAPLE GROVE, MN 55369 DATE 06/09/17 REG. N0. 20034 PHONE: 612-290-9336 {4� C a N S 13 .. '13 n,• U111 4 i 3 f Laura Ct a SOXL a 6io4halUs Lr Cherry �'4-mdai4 RJ "i VICINITY MAP Ls 1sil Ave ° a J �r 4y� YWi s k, sP Hiretr,,r 4Y Valivo Ln s bulbi AVt W 50� wy 4115 �r } b� Maple p316 D1 VY FMIs AV= 5unse{ Ln CALL BEFORE YOU DIG GOPHERSTATE ONE OL CALL TWIN AR AREA 651-454-0002 MN. TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166 Cale0hile L Emer FILE PATH S: Share PLATS GOODRICH HAPPY HOLLOW BLOCK1 PRECISION HOMES CIVIL DESIGN JOHNSON �c SCOFIELD INC. 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, REVISED BY DATE LATEST REVISION: SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY DESIGNED SPV Pre PRECISION H QQ�� ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND/ pared For: Surveying & Engineering, UNDER THE LAWS AM A DULY SOF THE STATE ED NAL ENGINEER PAVEL (PAUL) BODNAR TITLE SHEET MINNESOTA DRAWN sPD PRECISION HOMES 796 6 S I B LE Y MEMORIAL H V Y Y 1203 Main Street Red Wing, MN 55066 CHECKED SPV 10937 93RD AVENUE NORTH MENDOTA HMINNESOTA SHEET 1 OF 6 SHEETS ph. 651.388.1558 fax 651.388.1559 Steven P. Voigt, PE MAPLE GROVE, MN 55369 DATE 06/09/17 REG. N0. 20034 PHONE: 612-290-9336 CALL BEFORE YOU DIG GOPHER STATE ONE CALL TWIN AREA 651-454-0002 MN. TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166 \BM' SLOPES GREATER THAN 18% a•]VW,Ni M A BENCHMARK TOP NUT HYDRANT 65 FEET NORTHEAST OF CENTERLINE OF WACHTLER AVENUE AND 35 FEET SOUTHEAST OF CENTERLINE OF SYBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY. ELEVATION: 810.16 LOPES GREATER THAN 18% �810V I� \ 1p" ASH SOIL UNIT DEPTH TO BEDROCK MAP UNIT NAME AVAILABLE WATER STORAGE IN PROFILE TOTAL DISTURBED SOIL 100A 12" TO 20" COPASTON LOAM VERY LOW (3") 0.69 ACRES 896E MORE THAN 80" KINGSLEY-MAHTOMEDI COMPLEX MODERATE (8") N/A NOTE: SOIL DATA COMES FROM USDA NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY Q NORTH EJOHATSOAT & SCOFIELD INC. SSurveying & Engineering, 1203 Main Street Red Wing, MN 55066 ph. 651.388.1558 fax 651.388.1559 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIO ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE F MINNESOTA �� ) Steven P. Voigt, PE DATE 06/09/17 REG. No. 20034 DESIGNED SPV DRAWN SPD CHECKED SPV / ti // //// /Cb00 / / // / / SLOPES GREATER THAN 40% TREE PRESERVATION TOTAL HIGH VALUE TREES INVENTORIED: 43 ANTICIPATED TREES TO BE REMOVED: 16 TOTAL HIGH VALUE TREES SAVED: 27 TREE PROTECTION TREE PROTECTION WILL BE AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY. TREE REPLACEMENTS TREE REPLACEMENT WILL TAKE PLACE WHEN HOMES ARE CONSTRUCTED AS REQUIRED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS. REVISED I BY I DATE LATEST REVISION: Prepared For: PAVEL (PAUL) BODNAR PRECISION HOMES 10937 93RD AVENUE NORTH MAPLE GROVE, MN 55369 PHONE: 612-290-9336 HEAVY DUTY & MACHINE SLICED -METAL T WITH WELDED PLATE PREASSEMBLED -WOOD WITH SHARPENED END LEGEND These standard symbols will be found on this plan sheet. DENOTES PROPERTY LINE ------ DENOTES CENTERLINE OF ROAD —DHP [HP OHP OHP OTP— DENOTES OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE o W DENOTES UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINE - G - DENOTES UNDERGROUND GAS LINE SS SS _@_ SS SS DENOTES SANITARY SEWR LINE AND MANHOLE - S s S S S a DENOTES STORM SEWER LINE AND APRON - W W W +� W*DENOTES HEAVY DUTY & PREASSEMBLED WATER LINE, VALVE AND HYDRANT - Fo FD FD TO FD - DENOTES UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC LINE - T T T T T- DENOTES UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE LINE - TV TV TV TV TV - DENOTES UNDERGROUND TELEVISION LINE - 7-1-0 - DENOTES EXISTING INDEX CONTOUR ----------- 709------------ DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR r DENOTES POWER POLE WITH GUY WIRE -.-.-.-.-.- -.--.-.-.-.-.-.--.-.-%-%- DENOTES FENCE LINE — DENOTES SOIL TYPE BOUNDARY 0 0 o— DENOTES SILT FENCE DENOTES ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE DENOTES 12" DIA BIOLOG DENOTES BITUMINOUS ROAD SURFACE TO BE REMOVED. o� DENOTES EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT (9) DENOTES PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL DENOTES STEEP SLOPE AREAS 0 DENOTES EXISTING TREE DENOTES SHRUB BMP LIST: ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS TOTAL ESTIMATED QUANTITY 1 ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EA 1 1 2 SILT FENCE LF 1 740 EXISTING LOT SIZE: 2.27 ACRES SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL • CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL PERIMETER SILT FENCE BEFORE START OF ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. TO PREVENT SEDIMENT RUNOFF FROM REACHING THE CURB OR STREET RIGHT OF WAY, PERIMETER DOWN-SLOPE SILT FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED ACROSS ALL PRIVATE LOTS. WHILE STILL VULNERABLE DUE TO EXPOSED SOIL, ROCK CHECK DAMS WILL BE PLACED EVERY 25 FEET ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF EACH DRAINAGE SWALE ON GRADES EXCEEDING 4% TO REDUCE FLOW VELOCITIES THAT CAUSE EROSION. SEE DETAIL SHEET. • TO PREVENT TRACKING OF DIRT ONTO HARD SURFACE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY, ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL VEHICLE ENTRANCES ONTO THE SITE ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED AND TOPSOIL IS SCHEDULED TO BE REPLACED. ALL VEHICLE ACCESS TO THIS SITE SHALL USE THE ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES. SHOULD THE ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES BECOME INEFFECTIVE DUE TO EXCESSIVE SOIL CONTAMINATION, THEY SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED. SEE DETAIL SHEET. • SUFFICIENT TOPSOIL IS TO BE SALVAGED TO PROVIDE COVER AFTER GRADING OPERATIONS. ALL SOIL STOCKPILES AND FINISHED GRADED AREAS ARE TO BE SEEDED IMMEDIATELY IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH VEGETATION WITH WHEAT OR RYE GRASS @ 100 LB./ACRE . • DURING CONSTRUCTION INSTALL AND MAINTAIN APPROVED INLET PROTECTION AT ALL ACTIVE STORM SEWER INLETS. SEE DETAILS SHEET. SEDIMENT RUNOFF SHOULD BE MINIMIZED BY RESPONSIBLE SITE EROSION CONTROL. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MUST BE INSPECTED BY THE CITY BEFORE ANY GRADING ACTIVITY BEGINS. TO PREVENT SILT AND SEDIMENT FROM ENTERING THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM, A FILTER BAG INSERT, SEDIMENT CONTROL INLET HAT, ROCK LOG RING OR OTHER DEVICE APPROVED BY THE CITY, SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE INLET. • ALL AREAS DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE STABILIZED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN DISTURBED OR AT FINISH GRADE, BUT HAVE NO ACTIVE WORK, SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED OR SODDED WITHIN 14 DAYS, EXCEPT ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 4HAV. STEEPER SLOPES SHALL BE SEEDED AND COVERED WITH AN EROSION CONTROL BLANKET OR SEEDED AND MULCHED WITH A TACKIFYING AGENT OR SODDED. AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER GRADING OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED, TOPSOIL SHALL BE SPREAD AND THE ENTIRE SITE SHALL BE VEGETATED. FINAL SITE STABILIZATION SHALL BE EVIDENT WHEN SEEDED GRASS IS PRESENT ON ALL EXPOSED GRADING AREAS AND HAS GROWN TO A LENGTH OF 6 INCHES AND THERE ARE NO SIGNS OF ONGOING EROSION. IF SOD IS PLACED IN -LIEU OF SEED, IT SHALL BE WATERED AND MAINTAINED AND SHOW NO SIGNS OF STRESS FOR AT LEAST 30 DAYS. THE CITY SHALL APPROVE FINAL SITE STABILIZATION. • A CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA IS REQUIRED FOR ALL CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION. THE WASHOUT SYSTEM CAN BE A PORTABLE UNIT PROVIDED BY THE CONCRETE SUPPLIER OR AN IN -GROUND SYSTEM CONSTRUCTED BY THE CONTRACTOR. ONE ACCEPTABLE METHOD OF CREATING AN IN -GROUND WASHOUT PIT WOULD BE TO EXCAVATE A 3 FOOT DEEP AREA (MIN. 3' WIDTH X VARIABLE LENGTH AS NEEDED), LINED WITH 10 MIL. PLASTIC AND PERIMETER ANCHORED WITH SAND BAGS OR AGGREGATE. IF THE LINING BECOMES DAMAGED (PUNCTURED OR RIPPED), THE WASHOUT SHALL NOT BE USED UNTIL THE LINING IS REPAIRED. CONCRETE POURS SHALL NOT BE CONDUCTED DURING OR BEFORE AN ANTICIPATED STORM EVENT. CONCRETE WASTES SHALL BE ALLOWED TO HARDEN, BROKEN UP, THEN DISPOSED OF ACCORDING TO LOCAL ORDINANCE. THIS WASHOUT PIT SHALL BE LOCATED AWAY FROM ALL STEEP SLOPES AND DRAINAGE INLETS. • A NPDES STORM WATER PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT j HEAVY DUTY & MACHINE SLICED -ATTACHED WITH ZIP TIES PREASSEMBLED -ATTACHED WITH STAPLES g F tz�NO O iN 0`R�OS10N PGE O 5G4FOp0 R 50- 0 0 G' MAX. SPACING -INSERTED WITH SOIL SLICING BLADE NOTES; 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT SILT FENCE AREAS ON A WEEKLY BASIS AND WITHIN 24 HOURS OF EACH 1/2"+ RAIN EVENT FOR ANY DAMAGE AND FILLING OF THE SILT FENCE. ANY REPAIRS OR MAINTENANCE OF THE SILT FENCE SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF THE RAIN EVENT AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE SILT FENCE UPON FINAL STABILIZATION, AS DEFINED IN THE MPCA GENERAL STORMWATER PERMIT, OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. NOT TO SCALE SILT FENCE PFZECISION HOMES 796 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWY 9- RADIUS - AS REQUIRED f GEOTEXRLE MATERIAL PER MNDOTJ SPEC. 3733 TYPE V 6" MIN, DEPTH OF 1" TO 3" WASHED NOTES: 1. STABILIZED VEHICLE ENTRANCE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER THE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION BEGINS TO MINIMIZE TRACKING OF SOILS ONTO EXISTING ROADWAYS. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN THE STABILIZED VEHICLE ENTRANCE THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER AS AN INCIDENTAL ITEM TO STABILIZED VEHICLE ENTRANCE CONSTRUCTION. 3. TRACKED SEDIMENT MUST BE REMOVED WITHIN 24 HOURS FROM ANY PAVED SURFACE INCLUDING BORROW PIT ENTRANCES, AND ANY OTHER AREAS THAT ARE AFFECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE STABILIZED VEHICLE ENTRANCE UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AS AN INCIDENTAL ITEM TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. NOT TO SCALE ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE FILE PATH S: Share PLATS GOODRICH HAPPY HOLLOW BLOCK1 PRECISION HOMES CIVIL DESIGN EXISTING CONDITIONS, SOILS, LANDSCAPE, AND DEMO PLAN MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA SHEET 2 OF 6 SHEETS 0 m _W o W �4 U z z � J g FABRIC ANCHORAGE TRENCH HEAVY DUTY & PREASSEMBLED -BACKFILL AND TAMP WITH NATURAL SOIL MACHINE SLICED G' MAX. SPACING -INSERTED WITH SOIL SLICING BLADE NOTES; 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT SILT FENCE AREAS ON A WEEKLY BASIS AND WITHIN 24 HOURS OF EACH 1/2"+ RAIN EVENT FOR ANY DAMAGE AND FILLING OF THE SILT FENCE. ANY REPAIRS OR MAINTENANCE OF THE SILT FENCE SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF THE RAIN EVENT AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE SILT FENCE UPON FINAL STABILIZATION, AS DEFINED IN THE MPCA GENERAL STORMWATER PERMIT, OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. NOT TO SCALE SILT FENCE PFZECISION HOMES 796 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWY 9- RADIUS - AS REQUIRED f GEOTEXRLE MATERIAL PER MNDOTJ SPEC. 3733 TYPE V 6" MIN, DEPTH OF 1" TO 3" WASHED NOTES: 1. STABILIZED VEHICLE ENTRANCE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER THE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION BEGINS TO MINIMIZE TRACKING OF SOILS ONTO EXISTING ROADWAYS. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN THE STABILIZED VEHICLE ENTRANCE THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER AS AN INCIDENTAL ITEM TO STABILIZED VEHICLE ENTRANCE CONSTRUCTION. 3. TRACKED SEDIMENT MUST BE REMOVED WITHIN 24 HOURS FROM ANY PAVED SURFACE INCLUDING BORROW PIT ENTRANCES, AND ANY OTHER AREAS THAT ARE AFFECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE STABILIZED VEHICLE ENTRANCE UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AS AN INCIDENTAL ITEM TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. NOT TO SCALE ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE FILE PATH S: Share PLATS GOODRICH HAPPY HOLLOW BLOCK1 PRECISION HOMES CIVIL DESIGN EXISTING CONDITIONS, SOILS, LANDSCAPE, AND DEMO PLAN MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA SHEET 2 OF 6 SHEETS CALL BEFORE YOU DIG GOPHERSTATE ONE I CALL TWN AREATM 651-454-0002 MN. TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166 EJOHNSON &,- S COFIELD INC. Surveying & Engineering, e rin g g9 1203 Main Street Red Wing, MN 55066 ph. 651.388.1558 fax 651.388.1559 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFZD NGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE S MINNESOTA Steven P. Voigt, PE DATE 06/09/17 REG. No. 20034 4' \ �I/?2. ASH�{ �E k \ 23„w y„ t�k � 669-92 18"ASH �X _ k 0 14" ASH LOPES GREATER THAN 18% OAK 16"OAK \ \ \ ` 8" ASH , \ o� \ TOE OF BLUFF LINE --16” ASH ` )T7 Z7- 16” OAK 8" ELM I 20"AK p z 0 10" TWI R3H DESIGNED SPV DRAWN SPp CHECKED SPV FENCE 24.44' k \ A- k 0'3 2„E 591-97 — — _ o J 00 EXISTING DEC jHOUSEj - -J REVISED I BY I DATE I LATEST REVISION: Prepared For: PAVEL (PAUL) BODNAR PRECISION HOMES 10937 93RD AVENUE NORTH MAPLE GROVE, MN 55369 PHONE: 612-290-9336 LEGE1\1D These standard symbols will be found on this plan sheet. DENOTES LOT LINE DENOTES BUILDING SETBACK LINE ------- ------ DENOTES CENTERLINE O F ROAD X X X X DENOTES FENCE LINE DENOTES PROPOSED RETAINING WALL DENOTES PROPOSED BITUMINOUS SURFACE DENOTES HOUSE DENOTES EDGE OF PROPOSED HOUSE PAD DENOTES EDGE OF PROPOSED GARAGE DENOTES EDGE OF PROPOSED BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY Ar DENOTES EXISTING TREE DENOTES SHRUB ��D NORTH SITE PLAN NOTES DRIVEWAYS AND APRONS SHALL BE BITUMINOUS. ALL RADII AND PAVEMENT LENGTHS ARE TO THE EDGE OF BITUMINOUS OR CONCRETE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. BUILDING DIMENSIONS MUST BE VERIFIED WITH ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS. IN THE EVENT OF A DISCREPANCY ARCHITECTURAL DIMENSIONS SHALL BE USED. TREES SHOWN ARE CONSIDERED HIGH VALUE. THE NUMBER OF TREES TO BE REMOVED WILL DEPEND ON HOW FILL IS PLACED AND WHETHER OR NOT LOCALIZED LANDSCAPE WELLS ARE UTILIZED AT TREE LOCATIONS ZONING ZONED R-1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED SITE AREAS LOT 6 ......................................1.08 ACRES LOT 7 ......................................1.19 ACRES TOTAL.....................................2.27 ACRES IMPERVIOUIS SURFACE AREAS EXISTING LOT BUILDING FOOTPRINT............................2105 S.F. BITUMINOUS PAVING..............................6916 S.F. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA.....................9021 S.F. (0.21 ACRES) PROPOSED LOTS LOT 6 BUILDING FOOTPRINT............................6000 S.F. BITUMINOUS PAVING..............................1700 S.F. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA.....................7700 S.F. (0.18 ACRES) LOT 7 BUILDING FOOTPRINT.............................6000 S.F. BITUMINOUS PAVING..............................1427 S.F. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA.....................7427 S.F. (0.17 ACRES) TOTAL EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA....... 9021 S.F. (0.21 ACRES) TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA ... 15127 S.F. (0.35 ACRES) CHANGE IN IMPERVIOUS AREA................6106 S.F. (0.14 ACRES) IaII=J:111:06gM01am�\aI_11y1tole] 17:4[y:E:/_1aKMnoINI[6PJ►\:3[11424\\I: IIf60[0]1E.[0]ANl�yT4kTJ11]�00EdII PRECISION HOMES 796 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWY MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA SITE PLAN SHEET 3 OF 6 SHEETS 0)«� r 100 S,�P �,� (80�� � 01 CALL BEFORE YOU DIG GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 'WAREA'Ty 651-454-0002 MN. TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166 v 0 20 NORTH 40 60 EJOHNSON & SCOFIELD INC. SSurveying 8c Engineering, 1203 Main Street Red Wing, MN 55066 ph. 651.388.1558 fax 651.388.1559 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY DESIGNED SPV ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND 1 AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE DRAWN MINNESOTA n SPD CHECKED SPV Steven P. Voigt, P DATE 06/09/17 REG. No. 20034 ALL PROPOSED CONTOURS DEPICT FINISHED ELEVATIONS REVISED I BY I DATE I I ATP -CT RwicinNi- Prepared For: PAVEL (PAUL) BODNAR PRECISION HOMES 10937 93RD AVENUE NORTH MAPLE GROVE, MN 55369 PHONE: 612-290-9336 'RECISION HOMES 796 SIBLEY n1EMORIAL HWY F/N/X( / W/7 /A VIA MAN These standard symbols will be found on this plan sheet. — — — — — — — DENOTES LOT LINE DENOTES CENTERLINE O F ROAD ------------- ® DENOTES EXISITNG INDEX CONTOUR - ------ DENOTES EXISITNG CONTOUR X X X X DENOTES FENCE LINE DENOTES PROPOSED BITUMINOUS SURFACE Ea DENOTES PROPOSED INDEX CONTOUR AND ELEVATION LABEL En DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOUR AND ELEVATION LABEL 2.0% DENOTES PROPOSED SLOPE ARROW AND SLOPE PERCENTAGE -TW=67477 BW=674.27 DENOTES PROPOSED TOP AND BOTTOM OF WALL ELEVATION X DENOTES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION ---- DENOTES SURFACE WATER FLOW DIRECTION DENOTES HOUSE DENOTES EDGE OF PROPOSED HOUSE PAD DENOTES EDGE OF PROPOSED GARAGE of DENOTES EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT DENOTES PROPOSED RETAINING WALL 0 DENOTES EXISTING TREE DENOTES SHRUB Cut volume: 5,633.6 C.F., 208.65 C.Y. Fill volume: 42,101.7 C.F., 1,559.32 C.Y. Area in Cut: 27,951.7 S.F., 0.64 Acres Area in Fill: 70,126.6 S.F., 1.61 Acres Total inclusion area: 98,475.7 S.F., 2.26 Acres Total disturbed area: 30,236 S.F., 0.69 Acres Average Cut Depth: 0.20 FT Average Fill Depth: 0.60 FT Cut to Fill ratio: 0.13 Import Volume: 1,350.7 C.Y. Elevation Change To Reach Balance: -0.370 FT Volume Change Per .1 ft: 364.7 C.Y. Cut (C.Y.) /Area (acres): 92.29 Fill (C.Y.) /Area (acres): 689.75 Max Cut: 1.800 Max Fill: 4.12 BENCHMARK TOP NUT HYDRANT 65 FEET NORTHEAST OF CENTERLINE OF WACHTLER AVENUE AND 35 FEET SOUTHEAST OF CENTERLINE OF SYBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY. ELEVATION: 810.16 IaII=J:111W106q M01 IT ,IaW_I0XV11618111 loll to] :Ea_1aKMusIMII1IPJ►\:11IIIN 1iNIa:1[0]NOto] IE.[INT,10y1ty►,T/II1*0[1]11 MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA 1"�\�11�l�1"I11 SHEET 4 OF 6 SHEETS O / N`b co �� \ III�II II���IIII,, EXISTING DRAINAGE AREAS J G 00 0 811.00 808 CO / 810 ----_ V 7 , � o CP � LOT 11 P 81 0 000 � x �I 9 810 81 I 180 ac, � W I Z so I sr 8� / �\ ti\ PAD 812.50 �� /00 / i / U I � \F—e'09— -Z o -807 k�3 0° 0'32' --807--- 'EXISTING DEC $rLo t/1 �//� HousE j�1 ///A� / / / h, /////c'// i moo/ w'/ / o � z'y C) / o II III r5 co �� co �a �80 A �� PROPOSED DRAINAGE AREAS DTW=811.00 \ '08_ 0 / —Iaoa� r moo, �� IIpI�II �N%2o olil I DA3 ,) / j 5223"W 6 ^� LOT PAD 812.50Cb Cb -807 \\ IIS/°� \ o /CUD 0 I 1 W I lol �— / Z) I ao� .9 �, 1 / DIA2 / / P / / / / / / i ��„ �'/ , �� / / / / z I rao7 Ao , 8,, LOT/1 I / / / >� I PAD 812.50 / / / / / / / oo////� / ///// / /�f/ // I I � / / / / / / ///�/ / h/ // h // ,O0O \ 0 DAA w/ I / � �o4j " k S ---807 o°0'32' J — --_ T — —807— — — / �. W EXISTING DEC / //// $ZO /, / Q` / / / b/ / h, // ////O/ /.///i/��///,�<!]///// CALL BEFORE YOU DIG GOPHER STATE ONE CALL ''"AREA'TM 651-454-0002 MN. TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166 EJOHATSOAT (c SCOFIELD INC. Surveying & E Engineering, e rin g g9 1203 Main Street Red Wing, MN 55066 ph. 651.388.1558 fax 651.388.1559 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIO ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATEF MINNESOTA �� ) Steven P. Voigt, PE DATE 06/09/17 REG. No. 20034 DESIGNED SPV DRAWN SPp CHECKED SPV REVISED I BY I DATE I LATEST REVISION: Prepared For: PAVEL (PAUL) BODNAR PRECISION HOMES 10937 93RD AVENUE NORTH MAPLE GROVE, MN 55369 PHONE: 612-290-9336 FA I Not ii These standard symbols will be found on this plan sheet. DENOTES PROPERTY LINE DENOTES LOT LINE ---- ------ DENOTES CENTERLINE OF ROAD ®- DENOTES EXISITNG INDEX CONTOUR ------ ------M------ DENOTES EXISITNG CONTOUR - -- DENOTES FENCE LINE DENOTES PROPOSED BITUMINOUS SURFACE DENOTES PROPOSED INDEX CONTOUR AND ELEVATION LABEL M DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOUR AND ELEVATION LABEL TW=674.77 BW=674.27 DENOTES PROPOSED TOP AND BOTTOM OF WALL ELEVATION x 67!:18 DENOTES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION DENOTES SURFACE WATER FLOW DIRECTION DENOTES EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA DENOTES PROPOSED DRAINAGE AREA Peak Discharge Comparison 2 -YEAR STORM (cfs) 10 -YEAR STORM (cfs) 100 -YEAR STORM (cfs) Existing Proposed Change Existing Proposed Change Existing Proposed Change 2.85 4.01 1.16 6.06 7.52 1.46 14.44 16.38 1.94 Runoff Volume Comparison 2 -YEAR STORM (ac -ft) 10 -YEAR STORM (ac -ft) 100 -YEAR STORM (ac -ft) Existing Proposed Change Existing Proposed Change Existing Proposed Change 0.039 1 0.17 0.131 0.26 0.319 1 0.059 0.65 0.713 0.063 PRECISION HOMES 796 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWY D 0 40 NORTH 80 120 aII=J_31:W61MMamM,\aWIN 0yV[fill 11:Nto] :Ea_1ai'a.[NII16 J►\:3[0y:1iNIa:Nxy[.y[0]1E.[01TAI*0TI]k•/l1]*40to] I MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA I:�'���1��l�91�11 SHEET 5 OF 6 SHEETS .S. UB 81 FT FROM M.H. 1014 � C�D N .797.50 (FIELD VERIFY) I VIII Ailk tio�ll 40, M.H. 1014,_, \ ��� � I �� / / USE EXISTING UTILITIES FROM DEMOLISHED HOUSE LOT 6 0 FT FROM PROPS NE P OPOSEDI C I P STOP � —I `77 Z � 'a' ' T I s 4\.?'� ` _-,� LOT 7--z T- 8. SS ', ss V ss ss — s ss ,= SS Lo CONNECT TO S.S. MIN IN C.L. OF ROADWAY OPEN CUT ROADWAY TO MAKE SANITARY SERVICE CONNECTION EXISTING WYE V RISER 130' FROM M.H. 1014 INV. 798.60 (FIELD VERIFY) I SANITARY SEWER WATER LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 6 CONNECT TO EXISTING SERVICE CONNECT TO EXISTING WYE CONNECT TO EXISTING SERVICE FROM DEMOLISHED HOUSE WYE 1 FT RISER 130 FT FROM M.H. 1014 FROM DEMOLISHED HOUSE 15" RCP CLIII SANITARY SERVICE 15" VITRIFIED CLAY PIPE SANITARY SERVICE INV=797.50 (FIELD VERIFY) INV=798.60 (FIELD VERIFY) BENCHMARK TOP NUT HYDRANT 65 FEET NORTHEAST OF CENTERLINE OF WACHTLER AVENUE AND 35 FEET SOUTHEAST OF CENTERLINE OF SYBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY. ELEVATION: 810.16 LOT 7 END 12" C.I.P. F&I CORPORATE VALVE F&I WET TAP F&I CURB STOP JOHNSON dc S COFIELD INC. C, , 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY DESIGNED SPV ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND 1 S u r ve I n 8c E n i n e e r i n AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIO ENGINEER y g g g , UNDER THE LAWS OF THE ST TE F DRAWN MINNESOTA � SPD 1203 Main Street Red Wing, MN 55066 Steven P. Voigt, PE CHECKED SPV ph. 651.388.1558 fax 651.388.1559 DATE 06/09/17 REG. No. 20034 D NORTH 0 20 40 60 12" MIN LARGER OF 4" OR OD /8 OUTSIDE DIAMETER (OD These standard symbols will be found on this plan sheet. DENOTES PROPERTY LINE DENOTES LOT LINE�E) 4 GRANULAR ENCASEMENT - OR SUITABLE MATERIAL 1/4 OD (12" MAX) 0� LARGER OF 6" OR 0 U SPRING LINE �— NATURAL GROUND GRANULAR BEDDING ALL COSTS OF EXCAVATION BELOW GRADE AND PLACEMENT OF GRANULAR BEDDING SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE BID PRICES FOR PIPE ITEMS, UNLESS SPECIFIC BID QUANTITIES ARE LISTED FOR GRANULAR BEDDING FOR WATERMAIN. � EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT UTILITY NOTES WATERMAIN SHALL BE PVC CONFORMING TO AWWA C900, DR14. A NO. 12 AWG TRACER SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH ALL PVC WATERMAIN. ALL FITTINGS SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON. • 8" PVC SERVICE PIPE SHALL BE SDR -26. r,ll� A. PIPES 4" TO 10" IN SIZE MUST COMPLY WITH AASHTO M252. C. ALL FITTINGS MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM D3212. dl� D. WATERTIGHT JOINTS MUST BE USED AT ALL CONNECTIONS INCLUDING STRUCTURES. A MINIMUM HORIZONTAL SEPARATION OF 10 FEET MUST BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN WATER SERVICE AND ANY SEWER WHENEVER POSSIBLE. A MINIMUM VERTICAL SEPARATION OF 18 INCHES MUST BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN WATER SERVICE • AND ANY SEWER, WITH WATER CROSSING ABOVE SEWER. REVISED I BY I DATE I 14TP- CT RwICInNI• Prepared For: PAVEL (PAUL) BODNAR PRECISION HOMES 10937 93RD AVENUE NORTH MAPLE GROVE, MN 55369 PHONE: 612-290-9336 FILE PATH S:\Shar PLATS GOODRICH HAPPY HOLLOW BLOCK1 PRECISION HOMES CIVIL DESIGN PRECISION HOMES UTILITY PLAN 796 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWY MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MIN][V]ESOT NOT TO SCALE PIPE BEDDING FOR VACANT LOTS & NEW DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTOR SHALL PLACE A STEEL FENCE POST MINOUSBY EACH CURB BOX PROPERTY LINE MIN 1" HOLE FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT LOCATE CURB BOXES 10' INTO PROPERTY .- IES -4x4 POST s 0 0] w S CURB BOX 0 z � w w Li p to U I Z_ ORPORATION STOP 1" COPPER SERVICE PIPE � I --- CURB STOP wr WATERMAIN CONTINUOUS PIECE OF STUB PIECE OF COPPER FROM MAIN TO CONCRETE PATIO BLOCK COPPER WITH CURB STOP OR 4' CONCRETE BLOCK PEENED END 1. 1' OF SLACK TO ALLOW FOR SETTLEMENT. HORIZONTAL OFFSET MAY HAVE TO BE USED IN SOME PLACES TO INSURE A MINIMUM OF 7.5' COVER OVER SERVICE LINE. 2. BOX MUST BE ADJUSTED SO THAT THE CAP IS NO MORE THAN 2" BELOW FINISHED GRADE. (INCIDENTAL) 3. AGATE VALVE BOX AND COVER MUST BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED OVER ALL CURB STOP BOXES THAT ARE LOCATED IN DRIVEWAYS. 4. FOR REPLACEMENT OF GALVANIZED SERVICE. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL TYPE 'K" COPPER OF THE SAME DIAMETER AS EXISTING OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER NOT TO SCALE WATER SERVICE CONNECTION TRENCH BITUMINOUS PATCH DETAIL RA\A/ rl IT RITZ If,AlKl(ll IC DA\/Pf,APIK IT A SHEET 6 of 6 SHEETS DENOTES DRAINAGE/UTILITY EASEMENT ------ DENOTES CENTERLINE OF ROAD —oHP oHP oHP OHP oHP— DENOTES OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE — E E E E E— DENOTES UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINE — G G G G G— DENOTES UNDERGROUND GAS LINE SS ss —& Ss Ss DENOTES SANITARY SEWR LINE AND MANHOLE — w w w —>< w*DENOTES WATER LINE, VALVE AND HYDRANT --7-1-0 ----— DENOTES EXISITNG INDEX CONTOUR ----------- 7e�----------- DENOTES EXISITNG CONTOUR DENOTES AN ELECTRIC UTILITY � DENOTES POWER POLE WITH GUY WIRE —.—.—.—.—.—°—.—°—.—.—.—.—.—.—°—.—°—,—x— DENOTES FENCE LINE DENOTES HOUSE DENOTES EDGE OF PROPOSED HOUSE PAD DENOTES EDGE OF PROPOSED GARAGE o� DENOTES EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT DENOTES PROPOSED RETAINING WALL DENOTES PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER SERVICE wTRwTR DENOTES PROPOSED WATER SERVICE GRANULAR ENCASEMENT - OR SUITABLE MATERIAL 1/4 OD (12" MAX) 0� LARGER OF 6" OR 0 U SPRING LINE �— NATURAL GROUND GRANULAR BEDDING ALL COSTS OF EXCAVATION BELOW GRADE AND PLACEMENT OF GRANULAR BEDDING SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE BID PRICES FOR PIPE ITEMS, UNLESS SPECIFIC BID QUANTITIES ARE LISTED FOR GRANULAR BEDDING FOR WATERMAIN. � EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT UTILITY NOTES WATERMAIN SHALL BE PVC CONFORMING TO AWWA C900, DR14. A NO. 12 AWG TRACER SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH ALL PVC WATERMAIN. ALL FITTINGS SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON. • 8" PVC SERVICE PIPE SHALL BE SDR -26. r,ll� A. PIPES 4" TO 10" IN SIZE MUST COMPLY WITH AASHTO M252. C. ALL FITTINGS MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM D3212. dl� D. WATERTIGHT JOINTS MUST BE USED AT ALL CONNECTIONS INCLUDING STRUCTURES. A MINIMUM HORIZONTAL SEPARATION OF 10 FEET MUST BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN WATER SERVICE AND ANY SEWER WHENEVER POSSIBLE. A MINIMUM VERTICAL SEPARATION OF 18 INCHES MUST BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN WATER SERVICE • AND ANY SEWER, WITH WATER CROSSING ABOVE SEWER. REVISED I BY I DATE I 14TP- CT RwICInNI• Prepared For: PAVEL (PAUL) BODNAR PRECISION HOMES 10937 93RD AVENUE NORTH MAPLE GROVE, MN 55369 PHONE: 612-290-9336 FILE PATH S:\Shar PLATS GOODRICH HAPPY HOLLOW BLOCK1 PRECISION HOMES CIVIL DESIGN PRECISION HOMES UTILITY PLAN 796 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWY MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MIN][V]ESOT NOT TO SCALE PIPE BEDDING FOR VACANT LOTS & NEW DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTOR SHALL PLACE A STEEL FENCE POST MINOUSBY EACH CURB BOX PROPERTY LINE MIN 1" HOLE FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT LOCATE CURB BOXES 10' INTO PROPERTY .- IES -4x4 POST s 0 0] w S CURB BOX 0 z � w w Li p to U I Z_ ORPORATION STOP 1" COPPER SERVICE PIPE � I --- CURB STOP wr WATERMAIN CONTINUOUS PIECE OF STUB PIECE OF COPPER FROM MAIN TO CONCRETE PATIO BLOCK COPPER WITH CURB STOP OR 4' CONCRETE BLOCK PEENED END 1. 1' OF SLACK TO ALLOW FOR SETTLEMENT. HORIZONTAL OFFSET MAY HAVE TO BE USED IN SOME PLACES TO INSURE A MINIMUM OF 7.5' COVER OVER SERVICE LINE. 2. BOX MUST BE ADJUSTED SO THAT THE CAP IS NO MORE THAN 2" BELOW FINISHED GRADE. (INCIDENTAL) 3. AGATE VALVE BOX AND COVER MUST BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED OVER ALL CURB STOP BOXES THAT ARE LOCATED IN DRIVEWAYS. 4. FOR REPLACEMENT OF GALVANIZED SERVICE. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL TYPE 'K" COPPER OF THE SAME DIAMETER AS EXISTING OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER NOT TO SCALE WATER SERVICE CONNECTION TRENCH BITUMINOUS PATCH DETAIL RA\A/ rl IT RITZ If,AlKl(ll IC DA\/Pf,APIK IT A SHEET 6 of 6 SHEETS 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.rnendota-heights.com mR CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Planning Staff Report (Supplemental) DATE: July 25, 2017 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-14 Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights / Variance /Wetlands Permit APPLICANT: Marcel Eibensteiner, Royal Oaks Realty (on behalf of David Olin / Marilyn Olin — Property Owners PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1136 and 1140 Orchard Place ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: August 1, 2017 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oaks Realty, acting on behalf of the property owners Marilyn Olin and David Olin, is seeking to subdivide an existing single family parcel into 19 new lots, to be titled "Orchard Heights" of Mendota Heights. This preliminary plat request also includes a request for a variance to exceed the maximum length of cul-de- sac roadway (that serves this development), along with a wetlands permit due to work taking place nearby the established pond, which is a recognized water feature in this area. BACKGROUND The subject plat is essentially a combination of two existing parcels, locally addressed as 1140 Orchard Place and 1136 Orchard Place. The main larger site has been used as a local apple orchard (hence the plat name) for quite some time, and the Olin family is no longer interested in operating or maintaining the orchard upon the close of this growing season (see aerial image below). This item was originally presented under a duly noticed public hearing action item at the June 27, 2017 meeting. Upon hearing from many neighboring residents, the developer and discussion amongst all commissioners and city staff, the Commission closed the public hearing, and thereafter elected to table the application, with the following reasoning statements: 1) applicant to consider additional road connections to the subdivision; 2) the platting and lot size of the subdivision; 3) the findings of the wetland delineation presented to the planning commission for their understanding; a better description of the stormwater management to address some of the concerns raised, including the functioning of the pond high-water and the balance of the pond; and 4) a better understanding and justification for sprinklers to be imposed or included in the new homes. As the Commission is well aware, there were a number of issues discussed and raised that night, including the depths of the water and sanitary sewer lines; the need or justification for the over -length cul-de-sac roadway; and the general drainage plan and possible impacts upon neighboring properties. Since the June 27' meeting, city staff met with the Developer and his support team and civil engineers (twice) to review the overall layout of the plat, discuss options or alternatives on revising the underground utility plans; revising the stormwater management plans, and exploring the added roadway connections, from both the east and west sides of this property. The Developer has submitted a revised and updated civil engineering plan set to the city for review. The new plans are attached to this supplemental report and will be presented and reviewed by city staff at the July 25' meeting. Planning Case 2017-14 Page 2 of 10 ANALYSIS — Supplemental 1) Lot Size. The R-1 District requires minimum lot width of 100 feet and minimum lot area of 15,000 sq. ft. The original plan called for 19 new lots. The new plan now illustrates 18 lots, with essentially the same matching layout as before, except for the loss of a buildable lot at the upper northwest corner of the plat, which is now shown with a new storm pond feature. All new lots still exceed the minimum lot standards of 100 -ft. minimum lot widths and 15,000 sq. ft. lot area. 2) Density. The density of the new plat has been slightly reduced from 1.41 units/ac. to 1.34 units/ac., which remains much less than the Comprehensive Plan maximum of 2.9 units/acres. 3) Grading & Stormwater Drainage Plan: The updated grading and drainage plans still shows a large cut or removal of the large mid-section of this property, which was detailed in the previous June 251}i report and reported by city staff during the June 25t1i PC Meeting. The plans called for a high point would essentially remain at the center section of the plat; and would entail storm water to be handled on the north end and south end by separate storm utility systems. The north end's storm water will be captured in five separate catch basins along the street edge, along with a storm catch basin located behind Lots 2 and 3 ( to capture the rear yard drainage), and which all lead to or tied into the new storm pond located at the northwest corner. The south end will be directed to three new catch basins near the end of the cul-de-sac system, along with two additional catch basins located behind Lot 8 and Lot 11, and those lead to or tied into the previously identified storm pond system to be installed behind Lots 9 and 10. Planning Case 2017-14 Page 3 of 10 'r • I+ 07 i r' Iw FL -899.3 us. ta. �. L� i S 3. : 1 qpw FL=915. Jill I LGw+ fl ` B1fy OPEr+- 7.0. [��g�'i LGW FL 9Gas OPE -914.0 LOW Low pPEN=925.0 'i I i0r J, i�• I 7. i C• LD7'' li ` G I 23. C i '•. --_ -�A xW 1� $ h.1. m—r � + --- ISI TOP OF BFrW ELEV 902.2 — I �I CCOW FF9g6.3. I ;Lp>ty [�PEN.41 a.a '� I OXY FL-. 15.3 . I '.Low PFR��]G LOW 1. .� I M1 ' Ld i GUT Id• j ORCHARDY ---- - ------ --777 The south end will be directed to three new catch basins near the end of the cul-de-sac system, along with two additional catch basins located behind Lot 8 and Lot 11, and those lead to or tied into the previously identified storm pond system to be installed behind Lots 9 and 10. Planning Case 2017-14 Page 3 of 10 • •\ -, ; •. ` f a.� d �\ ,•\ �•�. � n`rt'�q ��� PROPosee Patti [wl IrslLrnAnor HW_ 9MO HW1972.3 n SHEI. FS Top �' •,j- . ' ` ELEV$03.a J $ _T. _� ----------- A5 �I -------- _ -8t� 43 a g 4---- ap 4) Utility Plan. As was noted under the June 27t' report and meeting presentation, city staff expressed great concerns with having new sanitary and water system lines well over 20 feet in depth. The concern was expressed or noted when considering the future maintenance and repairs of these systems once the roadway is dedicated to the City. It was stated that service lines that deep would require an enormous open trench/excavation pit with massive shoring devices in order to gain safe access for repairs, and would likely impact and disturb abutting residential lots and yard spaces. The updated plans now show the plat has reduced these depths to approximately 15 to 19 feet for the sanitary line (near the high -point of the plat) and approximately 7-8 feet for the water main. Although the sanitary system lies at a higher depth than normally seen for these types of lines, city staff has agreed to support the proposed plan and depths as shown, but still defers final determination and acceptance by the City Council. Planning Case 2017-14 Page 4 of 10 Street Design & Variances As illustrated on the preliminary plat map (and related plans) this subdivision will be served by a single access, two-way traffic cul-de-sac roadway. The developer intends to dedicate the road back to the City, which will then become a public road once completed and accepted by the City Engineer. The road meets the minimum 60 -foot wide platted width, but is only shown with a 30 -foot wide curb -to -curb width, whereas a 33 -foot width is required. The cul-de-sac however, measures well over 950 feet from the beginning point off Orchard Place to the center - point of the end circle. Pursuant to Title 11-3-3 Streets and Alleys, the following standard applies to cul-de- sacs type roadways: D. Dead End and Cul -De -Sac Streets: Dead end streets are prohibited, but cul-de-sacs will be permitted only where topography or other conditions justify their use. Cul-de-sacs shall normally not be longer than five hundred feet (500'), including a terminal turnaround which shall be provided at the closed end, with an outside curb radius of at least forty nine feet (49') and a right of way radius of not less than sixty feet (60'). City staff researched other cul-de-sac developments throughout the city, and discovered that approximately 19 over -length, single access cul-de-sac roadways exist in this city (see attached diagrams). It was unclear from this research if the 500 -foot standard was in places at the time of these various plat approvals or developments; or if variances were approved for such developments. To eliminate the need for the variance on this proposed over -length cul-de-sac, staff was directed to work with the Developer, and seek an alternative or explore other options for possible, second road connection or access, thereby eliminating the variance. As also noted in the previous June 25' report/presentations, the subject property currently has two potential right-of-way connections coming off Hunter Lane to the west of this site. The two connectors are identified as Mallard Road and Veronica Lane. (See highlighted image below). Veronica Lane is currently paved and provides general access to four homes in this area. The city -owned lot at the end of Veronica houses a sanitary lift -station for this area. Mallard Road remains an undeveloped section of land located between 1890 and 1908 Hunter Lane properties. Staff directed the Developer to explore the Planning Case 2017-14 Page 5 of 10 possibility of making a second access or connection point to these right-of-way segments, and also see if utility connections could be made to these areas as well. The Developer later indicated that to make any connection to Mallard, the difference in elevations were to extreme (from 920 -ft. to 894 -ft.), and would impose severe impacts on the adjacent wetlands. Moreover, to regrade the section of Mallard to make the connections would also require grading beyond the limits to the Mallard ROW and into neighboring properties, which would have also included the loss of some significant evergreen trees on the north side of Mallard. Any connection onto Veronica was also rules out due to the farther distance; same grade issues, and increased (greater) impacts to the wetlands. The Developer has provided the attached memorandum from their engineers at Plowe Engineering stating the reasons or justifications for not being able to provide any secondary access or utility extensions on to Mallard or Veronica. The Developer also offered to explore the option of providing a 60 -ft. wide right-of-way connection, ideally located near or between Lots 5 and 6, which would allow a future roadway connection over to the east should or when the property[ies] to the east decide to develop. The Developer contacted the property owner to the immediate east, Mr. Stephen Rolf, who owns a large, developable piece of land off 1861 Lexington Avenue and Orchard Hill (see image below). Mr. Rolf indicated to the Developer that any right way access point near this area may hinder his ability to fully develop or lay out potential (future) lots in this area, and politely declined to accept or support any future access point into his property. Pursuant to Title 11-1-9, Variances from the strict application of the provisions of this title (i.e. Title 11 — General Subdivision Provision) can be requested under the requirements of section 12-1L-5 of the City Code. To approve this over -length cul-de-sac, a variance to this standard is in order. Under section 12-1L-5 of City Code: "The council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of this chapter and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted in cases where there are practical difficulties in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of this chapter." Practical difficulties", as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. " For all intents and purposes, the variance can be supported based on the following statements: Planning Case 2017-14 Page 6 of 10 1) Practical difficulties are evident in this proposed development area, so the longer cul-de-sac seems a reasonable request and will be used in a reasonable manner; 2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, especially the difficulties of not having a secondary accesspoint connection provided when surrounding properties were beingplatted; and 3) The variance to allow this longer roadway system will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. At this time, City Staff does not object or have any concerns with the length of the proposed cul-de-sac as designed; and the recommendation and findings that support the variance to allow such roadway length remains as noted in the previous June 25' report. Statement Justifying the Home Fire Sprinkler Systems As noted previously, when the initial concept plan of this plat was presented to the Fire Dept. for review, the fire department staff raised some concerns to having a single -access roadway longer than the 500 -ft. recommended standard, and initially indicated they would oppose and not support a variance to allow the over - length cul-de-sac at that time. The Fire Chief later met with the Developer, and agreed to drop his concern or objections, provided that all new homes would be equipped with automatic fire sprinkling systems. A question was made at the last meeting seeking a justification, explanation, or reasons for such recommendations, noted as follows [these are paraphrased comments from Fire Chief Dreelan to city staff]: • Although we have a concern for one-way in/ one-way out, past history has shown that there are a number of existing over -length cul-de-sacs in the city; and these other roadways have apparently not hindered or impacted the department's current emergency response times in these areas. • The in-home sprinkles will provide a temporary stop -gap or short-term fire suppression system for any emergency until full firefighting and rescue equipment can arrive on the scene, thereby helping in any emergency incident. • Should the single access to the development be blocked (such as fallen tree, caved in street, etc), the sprinklers willprovide added fire suppression measures until full fire-fightinglemergency services can arrive on the site. The sprinklers will also help contain the damage to the affected home, and help reduce any possible impacts or spreading to neighboring homes. • The costs in providing these home sprinkler systems are not that expensive; and home owners insurance companies will support and provide a reduced discount to homeowner premiums. The Fire Chief has also provided an attached "Facts about home fire sprinklers" for the Commission to review. REQUESTED ACTION Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights, based on the attached findings of fact with conditions. OR 2. Recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights, with findings of fact as determined by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. OR 3. Table the request once again, pending additional information from staff or others. Planning Case 2017-14 Page 7 of 10 STAFF RECOMMENDATION It remains City Staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council to approve the Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights, along with the Variance to certain street length standards and a Wetlands Permit, with the following conditions: 1. The existing single family dwellings and detached accessory buildings must be removed prior to the Final Plat being recorded by Dakota County. 2. In lies of land dedication, the Developer/Applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of $4,000 per unit (19 lots — 2 existing dwellings = 17 x $4,000/unit, or $68,000) is collected after City Council approval and before the Final Plat is recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any permits. 3. All new homes within this development shall have an automatic fire sprinkler/fire suppression system, reviewed and approved by the City Building Official. 4. Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 5. The final grading plan must be submitted to the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or land disturbance permit. 6. Full erosion control plans and measures, including silt fence, bales and/or bio -filtration rolls must be in place prior to any construction and maintained throughout the duration of project. 7. Streets and utilities shall have approved profiles showing final street grades, horizontal curves, pipe lengths, pipe slopes, pipe materials, and elevations. 8. Street grades in excess of 6% - but no more than 8% are hereby allowed in certain locations as shown on the submitted Plans. In the event the Plans are revised in the future, the Developer must make every effort to meet the 6% grade standard along this roadway section. Any changes to the Plans must be resubmitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 9. The City Engineer recommends the city allow the 30 -ft. face-to-face street width as proposed. 10. Plans must be revised on the pond with a 10 -ft. depth, whereby City Code permits only an 8 -ft. maximum depth; and the top of the berm around pond shall be 1.5 feet above HWL. All revisions and new elevations to the plans must be approved by the City Engineer. 11. A SWPPP shall be developed for the project. Protected waters shall have a double silt fence/redundant BMP per MPCA rules, and a separate NPDES permit is required. 12. The Developer/Applicant shall submit a wetland delineation report to the City for review. Any impacts or mitigation measures (if needed) in order to complete construction work in or around the wetlands must be approved by the City prior to issuance of any permits. 13. No disturbances shall occur within a 25 -foot wide wetland buffer, which shall include provisions for no cutting (non -mowing) and a natural vegetation buffer area around the delineated edges of the wetland. The buffer strip shall be shown and dedicated on the final plat. 14. Provide treatment from structures 301, 302, 303, 304. The proposed "Rain Guardian" is not an approved BMP. 15. Final drainage structure along streets shall have a minimum of 3 -foot sump (301, 103). Planning Case 2017-14 Page 8 of 10 16. Any utilities greater than 20 feet in depth will require council approval. 17. The Developer/Applicant shall provide subsurface drainage, per geotechnical report. 18. Temporary sediment basins will be required during construction. 19. Any proposed retaining wall(s) greater than 4 feet in height require engineered drawings. 20. All Plans shall be reviewed by St. Paul Regional Water Service. 21. The Developer/Applicant shall submit final grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with associated easements, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department and Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 22. All grading and construction activity as part of the proposed development 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. 23. Future construction on the newly -created parcels will be compliant with all applicable City Code and Building Code provisions MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. June 271 Planning Staff Report 2. Updated Preliminary Plat Map of Orchard Heights 3. Updated Grading & Drainage/Civil Plans 4. Olin Property — Wetland Delineation Report (excerpt) 5. Memorandum from Plowe Engineering 6. Images of Over -Length Cul -de -Sacs 7. Facts about home fire sprinklers Planning Case 2017-14 Page 9 of 10 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Preliminary Plat, Variance and Wetlands Permit for Orchard Heights 1136 and 1140 Orchard Place 1. The proposed plat generally meets the purpose and intent of the Title 11 - Subdivision Code; and meets the general policies and goals of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan regarding LR -Low Density Residential areas. 2. The proposed lots meet the minimum standards in the R-1 Zoning District. 3. The City Council accepts the depths of the utility service lines presented under this preliminary plat request. 4. The Variance for an elongated cul-de-sac roadway section is approved based on the following added findings: a. practical difficulties are evident in this proposed development area, so a longer cul-de-sac is a reasonable request and will be used in a reasonable manner; b. the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, especially the difficulties of not having a secondary access point connection provided when surrounding properties were being platted; and c. the variance to allow this longer roadway system will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 4) Any impacts to the wetlands will be determined upon submittal and review of a wetland delineation report; whereby city staff will ensure any mitigation measures (if needed) to complete work under this development in or around the wetlands will be done in accordance with State Laws and City Ordinances. Planning Case 2017-14 Page 10 of 10 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.rnendota-heights.com mR CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Planning Staff Report DATE: June 27, 2017 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-14 Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights / Variance /Wetlands Permit APPLICANT: Marcel Eibensteiner, Royal Oaks Realty (on behalf of David Olin / Marilyn Olin — Property Owners PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1136 and 1140 Orchard Place ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: August 1, 2017 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oaks Realty, acting on behalf of the property owners Marilyn Olin and David Olin, is seeking to subdivide an existing single family parcel into 19 new lots, to be titled "Orchard Heights" of Mendota Heights. This preliminary plat request also includes a request for a variance to exceed the maximum length of cul-de- sac roadway (that serves this development), along with a wetlands permit due to work taking place nearby the established pond, which is a recognized water feature in this area. This item is being presented as a public hearing item. Notices were mailed to all surrounding property owners within 350 -feet of the site; and a notice was published in the local newspaper. BACKGROUND The subject plat is essentially a combination of two existing parcels, locally addressed as 1140 Orchard Place and 1136 Orchard Place. The main larger site has been used as a local apple orchard (hence the plat name) for quite some time, and the Olin family is no longer interested in operating or maintaining the orchard upon the close of this growing season (see aerial image below). P7 d"AWN, • The 1140 Orchard Pl. parcel contains an existing single family residential dwelling with 3,377 finished square feet of living space, a double -car tuck -under garage, and was built in 1959. A separate detached accessory or outbuilding is nearby (see photos below). Planning Case 2017-14 Page 3 of 12 • The 1136 Orchard Pl. parcel contains an existing two-story, single family residential dwelling, with attached two car garage, built in 1992 (see photo below). • The combined area of the subject properties is 585,843 sq. ft., or 13.45 acres in area. • The property is guided LR Low Density Residential in the City's Land Use Plan. • The property is zoned R-1 One Family Residential. • No change in land use or zoning is proposed. • All dwellings and out -buildings will be removed as part of this new housing development. ANALYSIS 1) Lot Size. The R-1 District requires minimum lot width of 100 feet and minimum lot area of 15,000 sq. ft. All 19 proposed new lots will meet or exceed these minimums: A majority of the lots along the Orchard Heights Lane roadway (Lots 2 thru 7 and Lots 12 thru 18) are established with 107 -ft. lot widths and 141.25 ft. depths. Lot 8 is slightly larger; and lots 9 (0.96 ac.), 10 (4.02 ac.) and 11 (1.46 ac.) are much larger due to their location at the end of the cul-de-sac. Most of the adjacent lots platted to the west in Sun View Hills Addition, located off Hunter Lane were platted with approximately 150 -ft. lot widths. The lots to the east along the Orchard Hill roadway (Swansons 2" d Addition) are also wide due to their layout along the end of their own cul-de-sac; and the lots farther south (accessed from Lexington Avenue) range in width from approx. 190 -ft. (Rolf parcel), 200 ft. (Illetschko parcel) up to 485 feet (Kelly parcel). 2) Density. The density of the new plat is 1.41 units/acre, which is much less than the Comprehensive Plan maximum of 2.9 units/acres. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss or determine if the scale of the proposed plat and lot dimensions are consistent with the City's Comp Plan and in keeping with the surrounding (adjacent) residential uses. 3) Grading and Trees. When entering the property from the north off Orchard Place, the grades start out even with the road bed, but once you enter the site, the gradient begins to increase dramatically once you Planning Case 2017-14 Page 4 of 12 begin to traverses up the long asphalt driveway leading back to the 1140 homestead. The grade difference is approx. 900 feet at the entrance, and roughly 952 -feet at the existing house pad. The house appears to be at or near the highest point of this property. From the back of the house, the grades begin to gradually drop down southward towards the pond and wetlands area located at the southernmost end of the lot, from 952 feet to approx. 894 feet, or a 58 foot decrease (see photo below). Due to the need to create new and suitable house pads, the installation of a new main access roadway, new utilities and additional on-site storm ponds, it is expected that a vast and intensive level of grading work will be required to re -grade and re -shape this site; and it appears many of the existing trees on the site, including every apple tree, will be removed under this new development plan. Some trees and vegetation Planning Case 2017-14 Page 5 of 12 may be saved and protected along the outer edges of the site, and some will probably be protected in and around the existing pond and wetland to the south. 4) Concept Grading & Drainage Plan: The grading plan indicates the property will be shaved down (at the high pint) almost 14 to 15 feet, which is necessary to make the road grades and new house pad elevations feasible. The grading directs the drainage from the northerly 600 feet of the development (from about Lot 6 and 14) northward down to the storm systems that eventually connect into the existing city -owned systems in Orchard Place (note: plans are mislabeled as Orchard Lane). The drainage plan calls for what appears to be new storm catch basins along the back sides of Lots 1 & 2; Lots 2 &3; and Lots 17 &18. RM PM °.e I I INV 211M I I Q'i' o INV W WY 910.30 r- -� Lcyr I 1_ � �+- �F'� a:ri�[:.:•�i��ili.��.iC G�C� J��J– r�:.�v� ,I IA � II II I II II 1 ru! ► II II W. Rwai.a �iriC�triill�� 1 1 I writ 11 —-ne I Mvi. S 1 �� •~ ­!Vo,1 I LDP❑ � i l LOT 9K ,1 l i LOT IS„. The drainage plan calls for what appears to be new storm catch basins along the back sides of Lots 1 & 2; Lots 2 &3; and Lots 17 &18. The southerly half of the development (Lots 7 thru 13) then drain southward towards the new ponding areas to be installed by the developer. Planning Case 2017-14 Page 6 of 12 RM PM °.e I I INV 211M I I Q'i' o INV W WY 910.30 r- -� Lcyr I � II II I II II 1 I 11 ` 11 I I II -II II II W. Rwai.a 1 1 I writ 11 —-ne I Mvi. S 1 �� •~ ­!Vo,1 I LDP❑ � i l LOT 9K ,1 l i LOT IS„. it " 1 I —P li it l� �I 1 i 1 11 11 li III cjG &D C1RCLe: I MY 910. y ca toe I BKO I i �ppx.p INV 91%N wY 6B�.00–S,C i soy The southerly half of the development (Lots 7 thru 13) then drain southward towards the new ponding areas to be installed by the developer. Planning Case 2017-14 Page 6 of 12 "I'll, % 1 r�4._p,�q l yi• MSL 90a� / z �- -- ----�'- -- \q J-eCy --- loaf r o ow r CL 904* it I.� 1 ,�L •`5,��� Y 90T...9 �ti pr ill I � ia1 �Dn�s � \ .l a •� _ - ami ___�n __ � �J �I�'911 I I � • I 1 �, ,• { - - - , � pp6 p -• I � NF F­".V.. / iAi• I f I ifna,• •'- 999p6666]]a]]iiiiiyyyyy � M 40 r I'q L , PpNO SDDDEO FF R CIP W wa • .• q' --- '-Tao or s�Fu ! 9015 - I ; -�p :I � ! : I'r - ,t•- [:-�5r:'t 8 p vnw �wvi�crev Stormwater drainage will be captured by new storm inlets installed within the roadway system, and in some cases along the back sides of some residences. Many of the rear yards of these lots have a drainage swale incorporated into their designs, with U-shaped rock check dams spaced about 50 to 100 feet apart from each, which are designed to essentially slow the high flow rates of water in these areas. Plans show the new pond with a 10 -ft. depth, whereby City Code permits only an 8 -ft. maximum depth. The top of the berm around pond must also be 1.5 feet above HWL. All revisions and new elevations to the plans must be approved by the City Engineer. The new development also calls for the installation of a new retaining wall along the back side of lots 11, 12 and 13. There are no details on this wall at this time. The City Engineer recommends that any new wall(s) over 4 -feet in height must have engineered designs and approved by the City Engineer and Building Official. The proposed grading plan is only required to show that a potential new dwelling could be constructed that meets the applicable Code standards, and is not meant to bind a future property owner into a specific location or design. Subdivision Code requires that no construction or grading on slopes 33% or greater. There does not appear to be any slopes over 33% percent on site. 5) Utility Plan. Sanitary sewer main extension and water main extensions for all lots will come from the existing systems under Orchard Place. Each main service line essentially runs south down to the end of the cul-de-sac, with individual service lines to each lot to be determined later. The utility service mains (sanitary and water) feeding this development are shown with depths greater than 20 feet in some areas. The City Engineer has expressed great concerns with having sewer lines that deep; and is especially alarmed with taking on maintenance and repairs of these systems in the future, once the roadway is dedicated to the City (note: service lines that deep would require an enormous open trench/excavation pit with massive shoring devices in order to gain safe access for repairs, and would likely impact and disturb abutting residential lots and yard spaces). Due to the complicated topography of this existing site, and the Developers wish to minimize as much grading and reshaping the site for this area, the City Engineer is electing to have the City Council approve these new utility line depths. Should the City Council disapprove of these utility plans, the Developer will Planning Case 2017-14 Page 7 of 12 be required to re -submit new grading/drainage and utility plans which must be acceptable to the City Engineer and City Council. Three fire hydrants are being installed along the new Orchard Heights Drive roadway, which we assume meets all required Fire Department's needs. Final locations and details of these hydrants will be approved by the Fire Chief prior to issuance of any grading and/or utility permits. Drainage and utility easements on the perimeters of all lots are show as 10 -foot along the front lot; 5 -foot along the shared side lot lines, and 25 feet along the back lot lines. The larger rear yard easements are to ensure the larger drainage swale and infrastructure improvements necessary under this development plat. These easements will be provided or officially dedicated under the final plat approval and recording. Street Design & Variances City Code Title 11 — General Subdivision Provision provides for all the required standards related to new subdivisions, including streets, utilities, easement, drainage, etc. As illustrated on the preliminary plat maps and grading/utility plans, the subdivision will be served by a single access, two-way traffic cul-de-sac roadway. The developer intends to dedicate the road back to the City, which will then become a public road once completed and accepted by the City Engineer. The road meets the minimum 60 -foot wide platted width, but is only shown with a 30 -foot wide curb -to -curb width, whereas a 33 - foot width is required. Pursuant to City Code Title 11-3-3, Streets may not exceed 6% in grade, unless the city engineer recommends or allows excess street grades should the topography warrant a greater maximum. The grading/drainage plan shows street grades in certain areas range from 1% up to 8% along the length of the roadway. The City Engineer is allowing the Developer to exceed the 6% street grades in certain (limited) areas of this development; and accepts the 3 -foot difference (down to 30 -feet) in street width. The cul-de-sac however, measures well over 950 feet from the beginning point off Orchard Place to the center - point of the end circle. Pursuant to Title 11-3-3 Streets and Alleys, the following standard applies to cul-de- sacs type roadways: D. Dead End and Cul -De -Sac Streets: Dead end streets are prohibited, but cul-de-sacs will be permitted only where topography or other conditions justify their use. Cul-de-sacs shall normally not be longer than five hundred feet (500'), including a terminal turnaround which shall be provided at the closed end, with an outside curb radius of at least forty nine feet (49') and a right of way radius of not less than sixty feet (60'). When city staff initially met with the Developers on this plat layout, we indicated the concerns of having a roadway that length, and suggested they explore options of providing a secondary access into the site, either off Veronica Lane or the undeveloped segment of Mallard Road, both located near the south end of the subdivision site and directly off Hunter Lane (see highlighted image below). Planning Case 2017-14 Page 8 of 12 It was determined (and later supported by city staff) that having a roadway extension through these right-of- way segments would likely upset abutting homeowners; the grades coming off these short roadway segments do not work well and would be challenging; an enormous amount of fill would be needed to bring roadway connection grades back into the development; and impacts to the wetlands would be significant. There are no available road connections to the east. (Note: there is however, anecdotal statements and evidence of a video-taped discussion from a 1995(?) City Council meeting, while considering the adjacent Swansons 2"d Addition plat, that a road connection or ROW extension was recommended to be platted over to the Olin property. However, the council elected not to enjoin the developer to provide said right-of-way connection at that time, thereby excluding any possible road connections to the east). Because there are no real viable alternatives in providing a secondary access to the subdivision, Staff allowed the Developer to present a request for the single access and longer cul-de-sac roadway. Pursuant to Title 11-1-9, Variances from the strict application of the provisions of this title (i.e. Title 11 — General Subdivision Provision) can be requested under the requirements of section 12-1L-5 of the City Code. To approve this over -length cul-de-sac, a variance to this standard is in order. Under section 12-1L-5 of City Code: "The council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of this chapter and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted in cases where there are practical difficulties in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of this chapter." Practical difficulties", as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. " Staff is forgoing a full -breadth analysis on this variance request, due to the simple fact that the City currently has a number of other residential subdivisions with single -access cul-de-sacs that either exceed 500 -feet throughout the city; and there does not appear to be any reasons given (other than general city council approval) that these longer cul-de-sacs were given less or more favorable considerations than what is being asked under this application. For all intents and purposes, the variance can be supported based on the following statements: 1) Practical difficulties are evident in this proposed development area, so the longer cul-de-sac seems a reasonable request and will be used in a reasonable manner; 2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, especially the difficulties of not having a secondary access point connection provided when surrounding properties were beingplatted; and 3) The variance to allow this longer roadway system will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. When the initial concept plan of this plat was presented to the Fire Dept. for review, the initial statement was they wanted to see a roadway no more than 500 feet, due to safety concerns and lack of secondary access for emergency situations. When the Developer met with the city's Fire Chief and Fire Marshal afterwards, a reasonable alternative (and solution) was negotiated, in that the Developer has agreed to require all new homes in this development will have automatic fire sprinkling systems, which although can prove expensive, will hopefully provide added fire safeguards and response times if needed. Staff does not object or have any concerns with the length of the proposed cul-de-sac as designed. Wetland Impacts A wetland delineation report is currently underway and was not yet completed as the preparation of this report. Once the report is finished and submitted to the city for review, staff will be able to gage any impacts or assess any mitigation measures (if needed) in order to complete any work in or around the wetlands. The initial Planning Case 2017-14 Page 9 of 12 grading pans show that most of the new ponding and grading work will be done within the confines of the newly developed lots. For any work within 100 feet of this wetland and ponds, a wetlands permit is required for approval. As stated previously, staff will ensure that all elements of the wetland report are investigated and studied; the wetland boundaries will be clearly marked and protected during all phases of construction, and no part of the wetlands will be negatively impacts by this development. Since the properties located at the end of the cul-de-sac (Lots 9, 10 and 11) extend into or will encompass part of the pond and wetland areas, Staff is also providing a condition that the developer should provide a 25 -foot wide natural vegetation buffer strip, with no mowing requirements from all delineated edges of wetlands, to ensure any runoff or pollutants are trapped or impeded as much as possible prior to reaching the wetlands. REQUESTED ACTION Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights, based on the attached findings of fact with conditions. OR 2. Recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights, with findings of fact as determined by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. OR 3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or others. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council to approve the Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights, with the following conditions: 1. The existing single family dwellings and detached accessory buildings must be removed prior to the Final Plat being recorded by Dakota County. 2. In lies of land dedication, the Developer/Applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of $4,000 per unit (19 lots — 2 existing dwellings = 17 x $4,000/unit, or $68,000) is collected after City Council approval and before the Final Plat is recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any permits. 3. All new homes within this development shall have an automatic fire sprinkler/fire suppression system, reviewed and approved by the City Building Official. 4. Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 5. The final grading plan must be submitted to the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or land disturbance permit. 6. Full erosion control plans and measures, including silt fence, bales and/or bio -filtration rolls must be in place prior to any construction and maintained throughout the duration of project. 7. Streets and utilities shall have approved profiles showing final street grades, horizontal curves, pipe lengths, pipe slopes, pipe materials, and elevations. Planning Case 2017-14 Page 10 of 12 8. Street grades in excess of 6% - but no more than 8% are hereby allowed in certain locations as shown on the submitted Plans. In the event the Plans are revised in the future, the Developer must make every effort to meet the 6% grade standard along this roadway section. Any changes to the Plans must be resubmitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 9. The City Engineer recommends the city allow the 30 -ft. face-to-face street width as proposed. 10. Plans must be revised on the pond with a 10 -ft. depth, whereby City Code permits only an 8 -ft. maximum depth; and the top of the berm around pond shall be 1.5 feet above HWL. All revisions and new elevations to the plans must be approved by the City Engineer. 11. A SWPPP shall be developed for the project. Protected waters shall have a double silt fence/redundant BMP per MPCA rules, and a separate NPDES permit is required. 12. The Developer/Applicant shall submit a wetland delineation report to the City for review. Any impacts or mitigation measures (if needed) in order to complete construction work in or around the wetlands must be approved by the City prior to issuance of any permits. 13. No disturbances shall occur within a 25 -foot wide wetland buffer, which shall include provisions for no cutting (non -mowing) and a natural vegetation buffer area around the delineated edges of the wetland. The buffer strip shall be shown and dedicated on the final plat. 14. Provide treatment from structures 301, 302, 303, 304. The proposed "Rain Guardian" is not an approved BMP. 15. Final drainage structure along streets shall have a minimum of 3 -foot sump (301, 103). 16. Any utilities greater than 20 feet in depth will require council approval. 17. The Developer/Applicant shall provide subsurface drainage, per geotechnical report. 18. Temporary sediment basins will be required during construction. 19. Any proposed retaining wall(s) greater than 4 feet in height require engineered drawings. 20. All Plans shall be reviewed by St. Paul Regional Water Service. 21. The Developer/Applicant shall submit final grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with associated easements, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department and Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 22. All grading and construction activity as part of the proposed development 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. 23. Future construction on the newly -created parcels will be compliant with all applicable City Code and Building Code provisions MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Aerial Site Map 2. Planning Applications, including supporting materials 3. Existing Conditions (Survey) Map 4. Preliminary Plat Map of Orchard Heights 5. Grading & Drainage Plan Map 6. Storm Sewer Plan Map 7. Sanitary Sewer & Water Plan Map Planning Case 2017-14 Page 11 of 12 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Preliminary Plat, Variance and Wetlands Permit for Orchard Heights 1136 and 1140 Orchard Place 1. The proposed plat generally meets the purpose and intent of the Title 11 - Subdivision Code; and meets the general policies and goals of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan regarding LR -Low Density Residential areas. 2. The proposed lots meet the minimum standards in the R-1 Zoning District. 3. The City Council accepts the depths of the utility service lines presented under this preliminary plat request. 4. The Variance for an elongated cul-de-sac roadway section is approved based on the following added findings: a. practical difficulties are evident in this proposed development area, so a longer cul-de-sac is a reasonable request and will be used in a reasonable manner; b. the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, especially the difficulties of not having a secondary access point connection provided when surrounding properties were being platted; and c. the variance to allow this longer roadway system will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 4) Any impacts to the wetlands will be determined upon submittal and review of a wetland delineation report; whereby city staff will ensure any mitigation measures (if needed) to complete work under this development in or around the wetlands will be done in accordance with State Laws and City Ordinances. Planning Case 2017-14 Page 12 of 12 Il I I �l� [�1:7_� ►►�I �l �Ji � I TO: MENDOTA HEIGHTS — CITY STAFF FROM: ADAM GINKEL — PLOWE ENGINEERING, INC. MARCEL EIBENSTEINER — ROYAL OAKS REALTY SUBJECT: ORCHARD HEIGHTS ROAD CONNECTION TO HUNTER VIA MALLARD DATE: JULY 21, 2017 PLOWS ENGINEERING, INC. 6776 Lake Drive, Suite 110 Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 Office (651) 361-8210 Fax (651) 361-8701 We have reviewed a road extension from the proposed cul-de-sac to Hunter Lane via Mallard Road. Based on site observations, lidar topography, and a grading and drainage analysis, this connection is not feasible for the following reason: Acquisition of private property— Given the significant elevation change from the proposed cul-de-sac (Elev 920) down to the existing wetland (Elev 894) and back up to Hunter Lane (Elev 920), significant grading and fill is required. The grading limits for this connection would extend beyond the existing Mallard right-of-way into private property. The cooperation of adjacent property owners would be required. 2. Tree impacts on private property — The existing Mallard right-of-way is flanked by significant mature trees and landscaping. This includes 8-10 fifty (50) foot tall evergreens on the Bartush property. These trees would be impacted by this construction. Wetland fill & impacts — Approximately 0.35 acres of wetland fill would be required. This number is approximate and could increase as the private properties have not been flagged for wetlands. Please also see the attached for a concept grading analysis of this street connection and an aerial image from Dakota County GIS showing existing trees and landscaping adjacent to Mallard Road. Dakota County, MN July 21, 2017 1:600 25 50 100 ft 10 20 m Basemap Survey 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. Facts about home fire sprinklers Automatic sprinklers are highly effective and reliable elements of total system designs for fire protection in buildings. According to an American Housing Survey, 4.6% of occupied homes (including multi -unit) had sprinklers in 2009, up from 3.9% in 2007, and 18.5% of occupied home built in the previous four years had sprinklers. Source: U.S. Experience with Sprinklers • 85% of all U.S. fire deaths occur in the home. • Home fire sprinklers can control and may even extinguish a fire in less time than it would take the fire department to arrive on the scene. • Only the sprinkler closest to the fire will activate, spraying water directly on the fire. In 84% of home fires where the sprinklers operate, just one sprinkler operates. • If you have a fire in your home, the risk of dying is cut by about one-third when smoke alarms are present (or about half if the smoke alarms are working), while automatic fire sprinkler systems cut the risk of dying by about 80%. • In a home with sprinklers, the average property loss per fire is cut by about 70% (compared to fires where sprinklers are not present.) • The cost of installing home fire sprinklers averages $1.35 per sprinklered square foot. Olin Property Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report Prepared for DuPont Holdings by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc. (KES Project No. 2017-064) May 22, 2017 Olin Property Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page 1. WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY.........................................................................1 2. OVERVIEW........................................................................................................................... 2 3. METHODS............................................................................................................................. 2 4. RESULTS............................................................................................................................... 3 4.1 Review of NWI, Soils, Public Waters, and NHD Information ......................................... 3 4.2 Wetland Determinations and Delineations........................................................................ 4 4.3 Other Areas....................................................................................................................... 4 4.4 Request for Wetland Boundary and Jurisdictional Determination ................................... 5 5. CERTIFICATION OF DELINEATION............................................................................. 6 TABLES Table 1. Summary of Delineated Wetlands........................................................................... 1 Table 2. Soil types mapped on the Olin Property.................................................................. 3 FIGURES 1. Site Location 2. Existing Conditions 3. National Wetlands Inventory 4. Soil Survey 5. DNR Public Waters Inventory 6. National Hydrography Dataset APPENDICES A. Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota B. Supporting Information C. Wetland Delineation Data Forms Olin Property Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report 1. WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY The 13.45 -acre Olin Property was inspected on May 4, 2017 for the presence and extent of wetland. The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map showed two wetlands within the property boundaries. The soil survey showed Quam as the hydric soil type within site boundaries. The DNR Public Waters Inventory showed DNR Public Wetlands 19-105W and 19- 106W within site boundaries. The National Hydrography Dataset showed one Lake/Pond feature within site boundaries. The one wetland delineated within the site boundary is summarized below. Table 1. Summary of Delineated Wetlands Wetland ID Wetland Type Dominant Vegetation Circular 39 Cowardin Eggers and Reed PUBG/PEM1F/ Shallow open water, Water, cattail purple loosestrife, 1 5/4/3/2 PEMC/PEM1B deep marsh, shallow reed canary grass marsh, and wet meadow Olin Property, Mendota Heights 2. OVERVIEW Wetland Delineation Report The 13.45 -acre Olin Property was inspected on May 4, 2017 for the presence and extent of wetland. The property was located in Section 27, Township 28 North, Range 23 West, City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota. The site was situated between Orchard Place and Victoria Curve (Figure 1). The property corresponded to Dakota County PIDs 275415001020 and 275415001010, 1140 Orchard Place and 1136 Orchard Place, respectively. The site was comprised of one, small single family home/home lot (0.42 -acre) in the northeast portion, and a second larger single-family home -home lot (13.03 -acres) in the remainder. Homes were surrounded by mowed Kentucky bluegrass laws and planted/landscape trees/shrubs. An apple orchard was located between the two homes. The larger parcel was primarily mowed lawn with some wooded canopy comprised of Siberian elm, cottonwood, green ash, boxelder, pines/spruce, cedar, and Norway maple trees with common buckthorn shrubs, except for wooded area bordering wetlands as described below. The property was bordered by single-family homes to the north, west, and east, and by a church and City properties to the south. One wetland is located within the site boundary. The delineated wetland boundary and existing conditions are shown on Figure 2. Appendix A of this report includes a Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota, which is submitted in request for: (1) a wetland boundary and type determination under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), and (2) a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) for the wetland under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. 3. METHODS Wetlands were identified using the Routine Determination method described in the Corps of En ineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Waterways Experiment Station, 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Version 2.0) as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Wetland boundaries were identified as the upper -most extent of wetland that met criteria for hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology. Wetland -upland boundaries were marked with pin flags that were located by land surveyors from E.G. Rud & Sons, Inc. Soils, vegetation, and hydrology were documented at a representative location along the wetland - upland boundary. Plant species dominance was estimated based on the percent aerial or basal coverage visually estimated within a 30 -foot radius for trees and vines, a 15 -foot radius for the shrub layer, and a 5 -foot radius for the herbaceous layer within the community type sampled. Olin Property, Mendota Heights Wetland Delineation Report Soils were characterized to a minimum depth of 24 inches (unless otherwise noted) using a Munsell Soil Color Book and standard soil texturing methodology. Hydric soil indicators used are from Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Version 7, 2010). Figure 4 displays the mapped soils located within the property boundaries. Mapped soils are separated into five classes based on the percent composition of hydric components and the Hydric Rating by Map Unit color classes utilized on Web Soil Survey. The five classes include Hydric (100 percent hydric components), Predominantly Hydric (66 to 99 percent hydric components), Partially Hydric (33 to 65 percent hydric components), Predominantly Non -Hydric (1 to 32 percent hydric components), and Non -Hydric (less than one percent hydric components). Plants were identified using standard regional plant keys. Taxonomy and indicator status of plant species was taken from the 2016 National Wetland Plant List (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2016. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.3, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH). 4. RESULTS 4.1 Review of NWI, Soils, Public Waters, and NHD Information The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (Minnesota Geospatial Commons 2009-2014 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) showed two wetlands within the property boundaries (Figure 3). The Soil Survey (USDA NRCS 2015) showed Quam as the hydric soil type mapped within site boundaries. Soil types mapped on the property are listed in Table 2 and a map showing soil types is included in Figure 4. The Report—Hydric Soil List - All Components is included in Appendix B. Table 2. Soil types mapped on the Olin Property Symbol Soil Name c Acres Hydric Category Ratn Area 7D Hubbard loamy sand, 12 to 18 0 1.8 12.20% Non -Hydric percent slopes 39B2 Wadena loam, 2 to 6 percent 0 2.5 16.60% Non -Hydric slopes, eroded 129 Cylinder loam, 0 to 2 percent 15 0 0.20% Predominantly Non -Hydric slopes 250 Kennebec silt loam 0 0.2 1.50% Non -Hydric 415B Kanaranzi loam, 2 to 6 percent 0 2.1 13.70% Non -Hydric slopes 415C Kanaranzi loam, 6 to 12 percent 0 4 26.90% Non -Hydric slopes Olin Property, Mendota Heights Table 2. Soil types mapped on the Olin Property Wetland Delineation Report Symbol Soil Name c Acres Hydric Category Ratn Area 449B Crystal Lake silt loam, 1 to 8 0 0.8 5.20% Non -Hydric percent slopes 1824 Quam silt loam, ponded 100 3.6 23.80% Hydric The Minnesota DNR Public Waters Inventory (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2015) showed DNR Public Wetlands 19-105W and 19-106W within site boundaries. (Figure 5). The National Hydrography Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey 2015) showed one Lake/Pond feature located within the property boundaries (Figure 6). 4.2 Wetland Determinations and Delineations Potential wetlands were evaluated during field observations on May 4, 2017. One wetland was identified and delineated on the property (Figure 2). Corresponding data forms are included in Appendix C. The following description of the wetland and adjacent upland reflects conditions observed at the time of the field visit. Herbaceous vegetation was actively growing at the time of the wetland delineation. Precipitation conditions were typical (normal) based on three-month antecedent precipitation (gridded database method) data (Appendix B). Wetland 1 was a Type 5/4/3/2 (PUBG/PEM I F/PEMC/PEM I B) shallow open water and deep marsh in the east portion, and shallow marsh and wet meadow in the west portion. The east and west wetland basins were connected to each other by a ditch feature which was flowing at the time of the site visit. Water flowed from west to east. Inundation exceeding more than 6 inches was observed in both east and west wetland areas. Adjacent upland consisted of green ash, red oak, American plum, chokecherry, nannyberry, gray dogwood, common buckthorn, honeysuckle, and amur maple with an understory of gooseberry, Pennsylvania sedge, Canada goldenrod, daisy fleabane, raspberry, motherwort, creeping Charlie, common burdock, and quackgrass. Primary and secondary hydrology indicators were not observed in the upland. The wetland boundary corresponded to topographic rise that coincided with a transition to an upland plant community. The wetland corresponded to NWI mapped PEM IC and PUBG/PEMIF wetlands, and was located in an area mapped as hydric soil (Quam) on the soil survey. The wetland extended outside property boundaries, and the presence or absence of an outlet is not known. 4.3 Other Areas No other areas with hydrophytic vegetation or wetland hydrology were observed on the site. No other areas were shown as hydric soil on the soil survey or as wetland on the NWI map. 4 Olin Property, Mendota Heights Wetland Delineation Report 4.4 Request for Wetland Boundary and Jurisdictional Determination Appendix A of this report includes a Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota, which is submitted in request for: (1) a wetland boundary and type determination under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), and (2) a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) for all wetlands under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. Olin Property, Mendota Heights Wetland Delineation Report 5. CERTIFICATION OF DELINEATION The procedures utilized in the described delineation are based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. This wetland delineation and report were prepared in compliance with the regulatory standards in place at the time the work was performed. Site boundaries indicated on figures within this report are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. Delineation and report completed by: Melissa Lauterbach-Barrett MN Certified Wetland Delineator No. 1085 Licensed Professional Soil Scientist No.45067 Report reviewed by: Date: May 22, 2017 Mark Kjolhaug, Professional Wetland Scientist No. 000845 Olin Property Wetland Delineation Report FIGURES 1. Site Location 2. Existing Conditions 3. National Wetlands Inventory 4. Soil Survey 5. DNR Protected Waters Inventory 6. National Hydrography Dataset r -AN 13 Y Z i' ❑-D-R.�, / /F kk V. _s'�hSiy Ptit'YS---.... a--_--_------M—A--Wn[ ■ I 3 � CR 41 P f f � �Grcm C¢rrc } X/ �anf Hill � CR• ----• Q R� CWIii9 �anp ^ Ye[l Onw � a � . T ¢R•ytc� � ,y rry Arm.ip • , • 3 _ _ _ - _ _ •:,,mia p„�5o,nn.. • IRA 8 y r :ESMIla: r l 33 wary Ad pAvenue 135E ! i YyI MN 13 �S P.M. OrMe 0 MN 55 a 1,a MN ss 'IIS Legend Project Boundary • o n �©OpenStreet�Map (and) contributors, CC -BY -SA Figure 1 - Site Location N 0 1,000 Olin Property (KES 2017-064) 6mmmm==:� Feet Mendota Heights, Minnesota - Note: Boundaries indicated �(' �1 T u A TI r on this figure are approximate 1 LJIJi HA G F.NVJRONMENTA1. SF.RVI C ES COMPANY and do not constitute an official survey product. '�'r Source: ESRI Streets Basemap Figure 2 - Existing Conditions (2016 MnGEO Photo) N 0 250 6==u===� Feet KjoLHAuGF.NVJRONMF.NTA1. SF. RVI CES COMPANY -ter Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap Olin Property (KES 2017-064) Mendota Heights, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. Figure 3 - National Wetlands Inventory N 0 500 Feet KjoLHAuGF.NVJRONMF.NTA1. SF. RVI CES COMPANt`Y -ter Source: Minnesota DNR (2013), USFWS Olin Property (KES 2017-064) Mendota Heights, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. *896F 7D 3982 415C '1 41 250 3962 I 129 611C Legend Project Boundary Hydric/Predominantly Non -Hydric C Prdominantly Non-Hydric/Non-Hydric 344 Figure 4 - Soil Survey 411A � �39B2 3982 1 344 t ZM _ 250/ - { N 0 500 Olin Property (KES 2017-064) I I Mendota Heights, Minnesota Feet Note: Boundaries indicated pTy,+ r H u T/ rVG on this figure are approximate 1 LjoLF.NVJRONMF.NTA1. SF. RVI C:F.S COMPANY and do not constitute an Source: USDA, NRCS official survey product. -ter A Figure 6 - National Hydrography Dataset I 500 6==K====J Feet KjoLHAuGF.NVJRONMF.NTA1. SF. RVI CES COMPA NY Source. USGS Olin Property (KES 2017-064) Mendota Heights, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. "••. ......... 0a01 ......... ... aLO 97 56 0 ... a ..... 89 o o t ... n.m.A.... O.. 0 EC14 Lo 0 U o o t M {F 898.37 w, ^ a . ••. 898.0 '" Z 0 ° N� �; ••�•'• PIN N. 270270009040 for ROYAL OAKS REALTY Z �Q z OWner:sRog3 &Nona Mosvlck n o res ar ace Address. 1151 Orchard Circle PIN No. 2 7 81 2 7501 03 0 Owner Scott &Jean Cottingto Z o a d RIM s9 0.10 o Add t" 3 Arch d PI RIM: 899.23 0 899.28 I V: 4:0 "••i' B --of-- ORCHARD HEIGHTS `:. `: ': 899.6 - tj 56 9 R 90 a2.........._...._...... ...... ...._ - - - - RIM: 900.11 I INV' 895,93 79 sOp� .....899.9.3 899.82 o '- OHW OHW OHW �OHW OH 90,.00 9St'.81" 9ozs5 OH�o3, 8 904.72 OHW90.6.. "''• ••"• 896 •. •••.., INV: PRELIMINARY PLAT H W.. 0 W OFiW....... OHW OHW 9 OH o0 89 .66 _0 900.3 OHW I I I I i ." •. 10" CSP > > 12" RCP'--. > 12" RCP > D .-NE1 CSPGENERAL NOTES - - . 9 CP 9 6y. 906.8...... 18" RCP ,.•••''• 18" RCP 18 R •• 21'$ RC O 3 90 ..... 90 •'so1. "b 902. 4 Q� 00� p0 3 6� 0� >''�"» •. 09' 913430 91' :27..., ••. O .. .. �- CO'°' CS • 91.455 •~"�- 8 4 0 S8 .47`20 W • " •• : .5 �" ...................... Fee ownership is vested in David Olin Lot 1 Block 1 so2.10 . �� ° - - .. '9,2.98 " ........... sol 7s .•FNDIPI P ( ) - - - 9o2.s7x ' ", RIM: 899.13 p`L ti '''"".""� FND1/2" p FNDROD: o...o.. 1I........ RIM: FND1 2„ Parcel ID Number: 27-54150-010-10 [1136 Orchard Place] •......... �"" /........................................... so/.S x > NV: $93.43 :` 10:' x I •. RIM: 899.96 V 8go,�s5 INV: 895.25-E 6 .. r0 IN INV: 896.18-N 901.77 02. �° .� ��� 4'D58e`i-�1� .' 916..29 n I ... I..... Fee ownershipis vested In Marilyn Olin & Michael Kula Lot 2 FND1 2" :' w g�� ............•......... Y ( : 90 / 3D RIM.899.10 �h ddies: 1130. Orchard Place'" FNDANGLEIRON ... IN V: 895.44-N �$°�° •••••• Block 1), Parcel ID Number. 27-54150-010-20 [1140 Orchard INV: ss4. - 7s g°...� " .• ��� Zn o Place] :. 498 . 9,...... o:m 3 ... \ 9145 \ ti LOT 1....�"'• o � .......... i -- 514. - + o i0 4ACRES)- -- I _ �� . 303.98 ef+ ... z ACRES) .. ... 1. Surveyed remises shown on this survey ma is in Flood w P1N••No. 277360101050 ,.•''' ,363 ' Y P Y p : SB -1 g �' 110 viFrg" ••.. Zone X (Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual : PIN No. 270270008010 rens•Orchard ' `• - :'9 ry5;: \I it �`•. Owner Arthur &Diana Mulvil it o chance flood lain. according to Flood Insurance Rate Ma Address: 1154 Orchard Place.' _ - - 91 �? - IIS P ) 9 P - - m : :�7 " 913,8.7......... . �I . � ���� � Add 1851 Hill •• No. 27037C0019E by the Federal Emergency Management "'' o S89°47 W o o "..... m 2 c I ' •. 0 Agency, effective date December 02, 2011. ''•.... 9 .........906 ` :�q 's1s.3z.'� : '141.25 osB :•• }� ""' 06' 0 �Q' .......... : 47'20"DI 2. Bearings shown hereon are based on the Dakota Count 0 -- .. .......... Coordinate System. : 90a LOT 18 ..''' I . ' 60 91 0 \. 4 908 0 ...' "' 3. Boundary area of the surveyed premises: 13.449± acres. 910' (.0-7 RES) o" o " 6 . ... 92p•'' I 7 AC o LOT 2 , I "..�""��� ''•I �`L'� I ...I•' 15,114 S.F. 4. A zoning endorsement letter was not furnished to the ti' 935 ACRES) 1 I_ - - - -I '•. l0 g1 0 surveyor. A search of the City of Mendota Height's web site 924 Indicates that the surveyed remises shown on this survey�..� J_.._' " �.�. Z 0 89 47'20"W _ ., ......i ;1 is currently zoned R1 -(One Family Residential District). ? 92s ........ :• o 0 o S o :. :` Under the applicable zoning regulations, the current 14 � P p 9 9 L........... setbacks are. : : �, 928 ,K �� Building: Front = 30 feet :�� � �: •'•'• � �•J • cfl .�•�� .... � ......930 .... oo m I m o0 :• I :: Side yard adjacent to street = 30 feet `.. 3 - CV o0 co PIN•.No. 270270'008640 LOT 17.,...•"'' I of I r0 Side - 10 feet or (2 Height building) �., Q Ouvner:"'Julia M. Weisfzedker 1 �� S.F.I "" LOT rn : :' 5,11"� 93 15,114i......... ... Rear = 30 feet or 20% Ave. lot depth) °' Address. 1540 Hunter Lane :. ) I) 1 ( P ) (0.35 " ACRES { (0.35 " ;A,CRES Minimum Lot Area: 15,000 sq.ft. 5- I minimum Lot Width is 100 feet. :�, �..''" 934Q ......�....... ..... , For additional Information contact the Planningand Zoning 936J 5-141.25"W 9 - �, - --- - -� _ . T" B Department at the City of Mendota Heights. DSB" 25 .............. I 93 I 5. The surveyed remises has access to Orchard Lane, a .......... Y P 4.. J J OAddressBr185 �OrA 9ardeHiRea UbIC street. :PIN No. 277330001010 1 ?an p f I " ........... :Owner: Choii'8c•KirsSen Abbott � 07 O � m m � o Address: ;1850 Hunter" L'drrz .................... �:' r I O •••• OI I I o O LOT .16 940.. LOT 4 ori"I .. I .15,114 S. F. '',. I I .. ��b (0 351 ACRES) 1 m I (0.35.. ACRES) ~I'•{... SITE STATISTICS: 94 o r 25 I Total Boundary Area 585,843 sq. ft. 13.45 acres o,'`� CD cD---�_Dss 89°47 00- - - - rn N � S N N ? 944 . - - ...... _... Wetland 153,560 sq. ft. 3.53 acres. �� ti N89°47'20°E�: -' 916. 141.25LDSB- �^� 46 U .. }. L... 9 125 LOT 1 18,363 sq. ft. °�,.•: 48 O �•...• 1, o :: m to s OI mI o LOT 2 15,114 sq. ft. � o LOT 15 :►� of OT 5... I a co o 15 114 s ft. 1.5,114: S.F. : I :: I 5, 4 S. F. ` . I LOT 3 q ;' �'. �` (D.35 ACRES) 1 ` (0. 5 CRES) rn LOT 4 15,114 sq. ft. I I I ��� �� fah wI 1 1 0� °ti• ti. LOT 5 15,114 sq. ft. W - -- - - - - - - DSB 48:8 z cO 141:25 S89°47'20"W' J PIN No. 270270002041 r-.,N89'47'20"E' -2SLD .': _ Owher: Stephen Rolf __9s .•.. 141.LOT 6 15,114 s ft. r"° q• Address: 1861 Lexington Ave. J34 "" R n y LOT 7 15,114 s ft. o "5 q 30 um I 50.44 'x ^' No. '2.7 7 3 3 0001 020 �� 9�2 LOT 8 16,485 sq. ft. i er: Joo A Mathisrud o. I m. O O m °" m o W [Atress: 1860 Hunter }ane O 95010 9 42 O I 11 LOT 6 �' O LOT 9 41,694 sq. ft. f LOT 14 949.47 15,114 S.F. 15,.114 S. F. 9 I� �I �0 LOT 10 175,169 s ft. i, 3 (0.35..ACRES) 4g1 •••.. 0.35 ACRES) 9 q 1 948 I 49.4 5 '� B-4 LOT 11 63,413 sq. ft. 938.,3 946........... ' - ---PI_DSB 9°47'i6 2 2 '. P03T '' 15 114 8 . ft. _ _ LOT 12 .. ., •.. •'''•••.......... 141:2.5 •..�..... ...1-.. .. S8W LOT 13 15,114 s ft. - N89°47'20"E .-" 46 •..-141,25"'g28.. 94 I 9444... �5 LOT 14 15,114 sq. ft. C :' 926 PIN No. '277330001030 mm m Owner: Scott &. Jennifer Van'•. in ••' ••".I, Addreps: 14870 Hunter 9 LOT 15 15,114 sq. ft. 9�0 r. o' m 10 ... o{" .....m....... c'• o '. IO 942 oI .�a2 i 31 do LOT 13 1 LOT 16 15,114 sq. ft. 15,114 S.F. ^h I 15,114 SF } 92 v' (0.35 ACRES) m I �.i .........1........ (0:35 ACRES) LOT 17 15,114 sq. ft. r' ' 25... .. �\..922... s 4 a 8 0 LOT 18 33 476 s ft. RI DS6 i `• i : - - - - - - - - 89°47 N No.,"?76270.002650 9 2 .....''�., �. 141:25 � S '20 W:......,�I •2:` P! 0 ....... - - - - - -141.25- - Awner•:' Jam, Mgrcin "Illetschko''' r 81 g e • J � :................ -- DSB a Lex'n ton Av ..� J '•., •..., .. .. ................... N$4l<1 ss ,.}8 ''• ... `9� � ...918.. "." ., .......... ......... '' �20j`E �� .... � o-�•• .'' • A T A i.... ..:::::::f :................. ............y32.. �,.... 30 938.7 4 u. ' 9 2 LJ" 16 C\2 9 o _." o 60. :` o . O.T 12" 9 :.: :�:' �.. s_ o LOT 8 : :: O ^� �A.15;1.14"S:F... '' •.. Imo• �6 16,485 S.F..•` o -914. - o. ;y 92 p 3 l e+ .. 5.. ACRES) ' •.. i'' •. '9 +I. 19��8 ACRES '` .: ' 8 ... EL IN No:" 27733000.1040 " • ;�'.• Owner: MAcelline KegfeP" "" - $9647' - ' 0 1$$ ane �E3.. 93 " .. Address: .. Q" Hunter L ... �O -- - `: N 20' ............ �.:.. "''. k,.. '•.•• �'••��`'lo ..•�"�'....••'•`••. �osg9°47'20"W.:�".�.'�•`. / 9 Q ::. 10.......... 83.7 _ i ' .. . ' 00 • � � � X10 �.��•''� .........'�.. ...... LOT 11 :j fi3, 413 S.F. ' ..4. s� �� ... : '�.0 gp0 o�\I 1 46 ACRE_• o do o r, o ' sa'� ,�� ' - T I ... OJ o ) I cn NO .. ......:::. 906 ...................... :PIN No. 77330001050 m. 1 Owner: Tim & Nancy,.'Bdrtusc ti' lb `i o 4i Address: 1890 Hunter Lane o \ J % c� �' : r'• I :' �` 9 r- - -- - m )39'10" 0 20'�..•'' �:'` ;.I o,� gp4 LEGEND 8 PIN No270270003010 g9, if . . ., eRey.. .. • 5 �- -•• �'••. 4 • o ' �'•' �orO . . •9�.�.., m -_ �-�,_- Owner: Doreen K, • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND AS LABELED14q m Address: 1905''Lexington Ave:''"90 \ �" O co DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET, MARKED RLS '""2534.4 " -1� �rV N o ; 896'' 93.88 '• g16r•. /..'"{ ; •' �Oq' 10 O� N O 893.88 L35.893.78•, \.� ` I { /"' �.�.... 9oQ................. ........... ❑ DENOTES CATCH BASIN -LO T494 aN '.• . WL o wL3s •'. ''� � �% � .....g1 L. '�i •' •C .••L 69�...$.F; � �JI 9� I © DENOTES CABLE PEDESTAL orna, a� \ m L T o v I N q C"(OiJ6. "ACRES) :`ag8"..... rng4•....,.. I 91 I.. X 952.36 i i i i r r C§:? O $ 893.77' :� : '• 8 DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONo, �o 00 1 I .. m •.17,169"SF.:' 20' .20,•'1 8 95 o i I ". (•4.02 ACRES) 91 C� ...... DENOTES GUY WIRE :' w o, {. ::. " 893.43 :` 1 V '�. 'a DENOTES HYDRANT896....... "' I".. DENOTES POWER POLE -� Ili - 9 6 I•: WL3 ."' sos.ss -�: •... OS SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE :'�; .'"' wL32 : I ,o 894 - DENOTES .. O DENOTES SOIL BORING. (BY NTI) s III 1POAD O 3.99 .:' 893 DENOTES SOIL BORING. BY CARL ANDERSOf L . a, 89WL31; \ : X47 I " :1V1,4 LAID / DENOTES STORM SEWER APRON 7� I - OD DENOTES STORM SEWER MANHOLE a ' ': m : 894.36 iJ l D4 DENOTES WATER VALVE o .; wls / DENOTES TREE LINE :w�o9 ;I� N`• i90 1 Zia . 904.66: DENOTES RETAINING WALL p 1 WL641 ; N.9 :.•' SB wET DENOTES EDGE OF WETLAND 894.82 `'' BLDSB DENOTES BUILDING SETBACK LINE WL29- > DENOTES SANITARY SEWER pw No. City of Mendota �• _ :__wL7 Owner: City of Mendota Hghts 1; 894.14 y / O Address: Unassigned poo » DENOTES STORM SEWER I DENOTES WATERMAIN I __ _ �1 �. ��•. •.• �,�, Gj�� ;•• ' 894.15WL8 } sw�28 .. P��• k.P .°� / b��\� •. ......DENOTES EXISTING N _ d- c� _o DENOTES BITUMINOUS SURFACE ... °' °' °' co Sao, 0 Co 0 -- _ .94.92 P 4. 00 8943 A �W2 00 107. DENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE L -----=J 00 00 Owner: City of X PIN No. 17-119-22-14-0008 DENOTES ADJACENT PARCEL OWNER INFORMATION 00 Address: Unassigned (PER DAKOTA COUNTY TAX INFORMATION) % / 894.013 WL26 :894.66 / L10 VICINITY MAP - T 25.5 ^/ u - Address. 1159 V ca Lane WL11 7 PIN No. 2729'20001020 I 894.E 894.3 u) Owner City of'Pdendota Hghts I WL2 LO -_ i r./ eroni I PIN No 2 7541 5001 02 0 '• � p - � Owne • Marilyn Olin;(Michael Kula S�`9e •'. O a 898 53 I Address: 1140 Orchard Place <�` 'ELECT -PUMP I\ ►� o 09 •� \ 894.$1 i tr) ': 0 1NL��,''4 x87.7.6 \ �. '96 \ � r/ \ 894.i s". s 828.5 ' .. ' xgs7:a3 \ WL23 LIFT. : \ WETLAND" �- 93.85 897:84 97.63 x89 fi"67 \\ i / i• NL12 897}j8 897.24 \ !! - ` I RIM:895.99 \ W Q `� '". INV: 892.05 \ 894.45 n �". - .- ............ 897.1 6 _ ES -INV -261N s a 89 aa., FES -I i•89S•04 897.53 0� 896 95 _ RIM: 896.78 RIM: 897.10 I 894.16 O IN V: 890.78 INV: 884.81. 1 WL13 VERONICA LANE:: C14. I D o�� I LARD RD 897.96 897.20 1893.98 WL21 . b I! 64.46 I " 0 0,.......::R4M:' 961•.....-'.....- ..... I F� W IMV: 893.16 I 8 3.88 / -20 PIN No. 272920002030 I �ERONICA LN / - A Owner: Gary & Toni Genz I 893.87 - \ / Address: 1158 V.&U1ica Lane I IWL.19... : ... 99 - - - - • I X :''" 893.67 WL15 LTI-4 .:893.41' <� 893.71 WJ?6v/ WL18 I'•, 894.16 FN 893.90 T 899.92 ''•. WL1 I FNDIPI/2" . �� •". 159.00 LEGAL DESCRIPTION:: �. ....•' 898.98 '.. N89056'I.5 "E 342.5.0 FNDIPI-1/4"•., PlN' NQ. 271370001010 Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, OLIN ADDITION, Owner: B'eth••laoob:'Congregation Address: 1179 Victoria Curve Dakota County, Minnesota. r. r -I- I I•: I ••'••.A ;;. /\ "•r•\... ,� \ , I. I A /\ /\ \ I I I-- •• .................................... F G F- H : I P-1 I I 1 1-1 Y I\ F- I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the ws of the State of Minnesota. J 60 0 DANIEL W. OBERMILLER Date: 7/14/17 License No. 25341 NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE 30 60 120 1 INCH = 60 FEET 240 DRAWN BY: BPN JOB NO: 17091PP DATE: 5/30/17 CHECK BY: DWO SCANNED ❑ 1 7/14/17 REMOVED LOT 19 BPN 2 3 NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY 0� Q PIN No. 270270004010 Owner: City of Mendota Hghts Address: Unassigned TYPICAL EASEMENTS BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH ADJOINING RIGHT OF WAY AND REAR LOT LINES AND 5 FEET IN WIDTH ADJOINING LOT LINES UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN. .PIN No. 270270004020: Owner: City of MeridetU' Hghts Address: 1101 Victoria Curve EST.19n Professional Lend Surveyors www.egrud.com 6776 Lake Drive NE, Suite 110 Lino Lakes, MIV 55014 Tel. (051) 301-0200 Fax (051) 301-0701 17091 PP ORCHARD HEIGHTS GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN Know what's below. Call before you dig. GENERAL NOTES 1) THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS CONCERNING TYPE AND LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES IS NOT GUARANTEED TO BE ACCURATE OR ALL INCLUSIVE. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING HIS OWN DETERMINATION AS TO TYPE AND LOCATION OF UTILITIES AS NECESSARY TO AVOID DAMAGE TO THESE UTILITIES. 2) CALL "811" FOR EXISTING UTILITIES LOCATIONS PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATIONS. 3) INSTALLATIONS SHALL CONFORM TO THE CITY STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAIL PLATES. 4) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY CITY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT A MINIMUM OF 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE INTERRUPTION OF ANY SEWER OR WATER SERVICES TO EXISTING HOMES OR BUSINESSES. 5) STORAGE OF MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED ON PUBLIC STREETS OR WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. 6) NOTIFY CITY A MINIMUM OF 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. 7) ALL MATERIALS AND INSTALLATIONS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S 2016 GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARD DETAIL PLATES. CURB & BITUMINOUS NOTES 1) REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF EXISTING STREET MATERIALS AS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION IS CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL. 2) SAW -CUT EXISTING BITUMINOUS AND CONCRETE CURB TO PROVIDE BUTT -JOINT. 3) RESTORE DISTURBED STREET TO EXISTING OR BETTER SECTION. GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1) PRIOR TO ANY GRADING OPERATIONS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE (LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED - COORDINATE WITH OWNER) AND PERIMETER SILT FENCE AS SHOWN ON PLAN. ADDITIONAL SILT FENCE MAY BE NECESSARY IF LOCAL CONDITIONS REQUIRE. 2) CONTACT MARTY ASLESON, CITY ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR, FOR INSPECTION OF ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES PRIOR TO ANY GRADING. 3) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM SITE GRADING ON AN AREA -BY -AREA BASIS TO MINIMIZE UNSTABILIZED AREAS. ALL EXPOSED SOILS MUST HAVE TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL PROTECTION OR PERMANENT COVER WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS OF COMPLETION OF GRADING OR INACTIVITY. 4) SEE SHEET C2.1 AND C2.2, STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) FOR ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL NOTES AND SITE SEQUENCING. 5) EXISTING WELL AND SEPTIC SYSTEM TO BE FIELD LOCATED. WELL TO BE ABANDONED PER ALL LOCAL AND STATE REQUIREMENTS. SEPTIC SYSTEM TO BE REMOVED PER ALL LOCAL AND STATE REQUIREMENTS. Uj 1 o \ 1 /, o I A 0� `_ X _ - I I I \ v A V �' , V A A V A I V 1 I \ -- I / ----- /'-- - PROVIDE INLET\SEDFME\IdT CON )FOR\ EI,XI$TING r / -- STORMvI SEWER INLETSv THAT WILL EtEIVE' r� of%//,--- CONSTRUCTION RbN-OAFv PRIORT ANY I � LvPMd 1 DISTURBANCE (TYP) \ -------- m/ 11 J ---/ I `\ \ vvv HECKA \DA\V(T ROCK CO TRUCTIOv jv o�ENTRANCEI --------------------- `v vI I vi � � �A V A\ V I IAV �� `� A `� \I // /� v v I H.P.,,_ --- \ \ W -_ 2.D% ��� 2.0% �� - - - - / 9 92 93 _93 -0 9-3 g32 93 - 92 �� 4 9 1 A I V A 92 9 \ 92 92 93 132 / 934 0 , � 9? g3 4 ° \ - 9� M o �� M Myo MI M4° r "�6 M ' ` vV -� �v w I � M o 91 -M o 1 - - -- L --- -� i'-� v ��- -- `� - - �� U C65 - /V 91 - - - - - - � I I �x \V d0 / / 912 i 8Sa�8--- - I 8pa18 I � 8 - �� I III 11 My m � I i o o o I � I �I /lo �I 0 v / m m m _ 907.0 1 909.1 914.0 923.0 931.0 937.5 J 940.0 939.5 I _ v v LOW FL=899.3 ` LO i S , L�3W FL=915 k/� / LOW/FL=923.3// COW FL=929.8 L� � I LOT 6 B LO v . OW OPEN =907.bv LOW OPEN=93.0 ' I � � I LOW OPEN=931.0 I ,LOW OPEN=937.5 I LOW fL=9-3t3 � I � Ivv LOW FL=9311v 8 1 1 LOW FL=926.3 #4 N ` \ LOW FL�906.3 / / / ` o i I LOT 1 \ \ LOT / LOT 4,p LOT 5 � LOW OPEN=940.0 \ LOW\ OPEN=934.6 � LOW OPEN=926.3 a °' \ `\ m ` I ` LOW OPEN,=914.0 o '� / / \ \ x---- LOT` F FB Fe ,' - FB LOT 7 I Iv wo v' v I� � / 1 r � I I' � I rn l I I I � � v v 914.0 i 923.0 ;� G 1 931.0 937.5 940.0 m C 939.5 OI G v v G G O G v v 1\\1i`' I I i I I I ��940_ v v` z d \ I \\ �. \ \ \` \\ I I rn T I I I / QS�� !� I / �� - � iii L 1 L� _ 938 - I - TOP OF BERM 1 --�-- T ---- T--- ' ELEV 902.2 rn \ \ Gattis 0) ac / I ` v 914.0 v G v 923.0 G'\ �v 931.0 Gam` 937.5 G 940.0 d 939.5 I 933.0 00 (0 t0 A V A v00 AV A V \V A A\ `� `� �`� i'� / '� 1 / `- -- cO'� I I �rn v v ��T v FBv �g v �� FB FB // / LO / Vd� / 01NS > I m A \ \ \ 1 \ m I I m V A m t I ` ` cQ m I 1. ' m I / I m / I I m / / / / / 0 o z ` ` LOW 'FL= LOW F X932.3 LOA FL=931.8 // LOW FL�92�i.3/ / rn I �OW� FL--9�6.3V LOW FL=915.3 0 0 vLOW FL�923.3 v o o o �- o o / OPEN=914.6\ \ \ m LOW OPEN�931.0 \ �J LOW OPEN�937.5 `� m LOW OPEN=940.0 m C LOA OPEN=934.1 m / Lq�/V OPF��1=92y5.3/ , LOW OPEN=914.(1 LOW \ OPEN 2923.0 \ 00 � �� 1 v vI SOT 16 v�• - / / 1 LOT 15 - - LOT 14 'LOT 13 COST 12 / r- v 00 w I o0 0 c� 0°°0 Icn n� I I v L6 v �v v OT 1�v� v - / / , �v a �3 I co rnw c0 0 ) / �� �' // 925.3 / � 0) °� - I co `U' IJ 1 909.1 914.0 v v ` 923.0 \ 931.0 937.5 0 940.0 Y / 934.6 / �� / 00 co �° ��t0o ,Y i t0 tD (0 1 / 931.0 v 937.0 O/RCHARD j NC3 -4p 11 A v v �� 41 �� vvv 216 � , ��� / -�� -��/ ��� vC I FCff v - �� \ \ , / I \V - v � v � i o ; moi° �� 9v� 912 g14 g 1� g2 922 �g2 �g2 X92 �g3 X32 g34 93 v 938 ,---- 94' 93 , \ t rna - Cg \� \ \\� \� \� �� ��\ `��I �`�� �� \\��� % ��6 �� fl�_�� �V SII n • O O I n , �' �` 0 6 ----------- _ / L T 28.0 / // T 23,6 O O z 91 cI� p� c'6 �6, 6v �� v - - ' W 5.0 / / / B J:19.0 ' PROPOSED POND 6 6 -------------- ---- / I o� \ - T / / 4 -FT I 9 / W 810-FILTR TION HELF \ \ `� \ \----------------- /'_ --- HWL 900.7 `v v \ \-------------------- N i O LEGEND °hW EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC >> PROPOSED STORM SEWER PIPE ❑D EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL J LUY PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER © EXISTING ELECTRICAL PEDESTAL Q PROPOSED WATER MAIN 71, EXISTING UTILITY POLE tiYa PROPOSED HYDRANT -a U� o J OO PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE » EXISTING STORM SEWER ® PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE I EXISTING WATER MAIN PROPOSED CATCH BASIN -�� EXISTING SANITARY SEWER Q PROPOSED FLARED -END SECTION EXISTING STORM MANHOLE 938 PROPOSED CONTOUR 14 EXISTING FLARED -END SECTION 940 PROPOSED SILT FENCE �g EXISTING GATE VALVE EXISTING HYDRANT - 4.0% PROPOSED DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE �S EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE PROPOSED RIP -RAP -938 EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED FILTRATION MEDIA -----940---- 920.99 x GE EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION 0 PROPOSED INLET PROTECTION x EXISTING FENCE 901,7 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION (GUTTERLINE, BITUMINOUS SURFACE, OR GROUND wet DELINEATED WETLAND EDGE SURFACE UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED) (DELINEATED BY KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL) PROPOSED RETAINING WALL ws WETLAND SYSTEM SETBACK 0949.44 SOIL BORINGS BY NTI SB -4 I / Q0 N G - PROVIDE INLET /ED14ENT CONTROL'FOR NEW STbII RM' SEWER IIZETS�`1MTHIN 24 FOURS OF \f•.Tk. I/1-1 I-- I,A.-- A . "I- A --\.. /�\ \ / DNR �ROTECTED WAI ER 105W RIP -RAP W/ FABRIC (TYP) (W/ INFILTRATION SHELF) NWL 900.0 ELEV 11903.8 M 0: (0 \ 0°0 = COO LL -7 00 00 001 4 3:1 00S8 509 603-- (--� --�8 -_BqB ( } �( - 00_ 00, Z904 ' J eSWe0) -Q� --� 1 I I / / / DRAWN BY: DESIGN BY: A.G. A.G. CHCKD BY: PROD. NO. C.W. P. 17-1694 ORIGINAL DATE: MAY 30, 2017 O _L FE 0 N W 13 z O Ir W Q p m W a M W j 0 N Z 0 mW z a M p wz O aigz� z U =W-ZLL �a Lu J LUY aD�QP �Z Q ~ O Z O N jR V WQ0W H Q Z0 LLI mN0LL O Q a 0 U � aaW� Ix a o =�NW LU W2 Q -a U� o J Z W V Z W a: 2 p H � p z Z p W 0 PREPARED FOR: ROYAL OAKS REALTY SITE PLANNING & ENGINEERING PLOWE ENGINEERING, INC. 6776 LAKE DRIVE SUITE 110 LINO LAKES, MN 55014 y'_ \/I- ivy: "'v ' IVY. � M DNR PROTECTED PHONE: (651) 361-8210 L / BW: 09.0/ BW: FAX: (651) 361-8701 TW: 20.0 W:16.0 / 6 -FT / 5 -FT ``� BW:13.o wo8.o 1 I I WATER 106W 7 -FT- T TW: 15.0\ BW: 06.0 8 -FT vv I 09 O _ o RETAI%ING WALL (YP) I Z 0 25 50 \------968---- �06-I----- 1 INCH = 50 FEET r96� ---- -- ---- 906-----__- \��� 06 '� _ \\� ■ o_7_1111111111 VERTICAL 0 25 50 HORIZONTAL EXISTING 21" RCP STORM (APPROX. INV 894.0 - NOT FIELD VERIFIED} CONNECT TO EXISTING 8" DIP W/ - TAPPING VALVE AND SLEEVE (FIELD VERIFY EXISTING WATERMAIN LOCATION) CONNECT TO EXISTING 10 VCSP SANTIARY SEWER WITH NEW-MAWOL-E (APPROX. INVERT OF EXISTING SANITARY = 884.0 - FIELD VERIFY) n+�4 1 �+7- L14 0-0. L > O O III ' III r r ----------I IIII > IIII V i Illiiil�, ll��l I IIII III I II I IIII << < I Ijll Illl�j I � IIII j I I I I! II I I I I 1 0, (I (I I I I II 1 I I SI ;doIQpp ��'� 00 I�Cul (vi 11 KID ii I I I I I I LOW FL=899.3 I LOW OPEN=907.0 LOT 1 I I I I SAN F_ I— — 8"X6"TEEI I L 6"DIP — — J L HYD & VALVE I I I I LOT 6 LOW FL=932.3 LOW OPEN=940.0 I I I LOT 8 LOW FL=926.3 LOW OPEN=926.3 / I I I I I I I I I $"X6"TEE / I LOW FL=910.0 LOW OPEN=910.0 L_ LOT ---J--6—DIP ----- i L----- / I I ORCHA HEIGHTS DRIV HYD & VALVE IF cx 1 s+ol I16+00 1 777!-1-1-77-771-1 i 1v of 1 1;+77 I 1 .-370 I 1 4+00 1 ORCHARD C I RC-LE­�W ---1 �-- I I LOT18 LOW FL=906.3 LOW OPEN=914.0 I L�__ ---- 1iiI L--- --I L-- - I I I -T-1 - —,- I I I I I I I I -_1 L---------- L- - — RN ---1 F--- ----I F 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I LOW FL=929.8 I I LOW FL=932.3 I I LOW OPEN=937.5 I I LOW OPEN=940.0 I I LOT 15 1 1 LOT 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I __J L _ _- L ORCHARD HEIGHTS DRIVE —tQ �E� IIz J LLI d / �O O ?0- --------- F— -----7 F-6' REDUCER— ----------- 4 F�YD &VALVE----------- O I I I I -- I L-- -- LOTS 9, 10 AND 11 I TO BE PROVIDE WIff�17 SEWER SERVjCE- V19,7 LOW FL=9213 INDIVIDUAL -GR R PUMPS LOW OPEN=921.3 LOT 11 / ' .77 I I / I - L----� DRAWN BY: DESIGN BY: A.G. A.G. CHCKD BY: PROD. NO. C.W.P. 17-1694 ORIGINAL DATE: MAY 30, 2017 Z O _a N Lu 13z N Ir W a 0 m W QW c, n a N Z D w z M Qwz O aigz- cAo[QF�� z � a Lu 0 _U �C J aD�Q� Z Q ~OZON M wQNw H Q ZW�l LU 0 O Q N O 0 }°w>aam W m Ill CL Lu a o I I I I I I I I I o I I I I I I LOT 6 LOW FL=932.3 LOW OPEN=940.0 I I I LOT 8 LOW FL=926.3 LOW OPEN=926.3 / I I I I I I I I I $"X6"TEE / I LOW FL=910.0 LOW OPEN=910.0 L_ LOT ---J--6—DIP ----- i L----- / I I ORCHA HEIGHTS DRIV HYD & VALVE IF cx 1 s+ol I16+00 1 777!-1-1-77-771-1 i 1v of 1 1;+77 I 1 .-370 I 1 4+00 1 ORCHARD C I RC-LE­�W ---1 �-- I I LOT18 LOW FL=906.3 LOW OPEN=914.0 I L�__ ---- 1iiI L--- --I L-- - I I I -T-1 - —,- I I I I I I I I -_1 L---------- L- - — RN ---1 F--- ----I F 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I LOW FL=929.8 I I LOW FL=932.3 I I LOW OPEN=937.5 I I LOW OPEN=940.0 I I LOT 15 1 1 LOT 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I __J L _ _- L ORCHARD HEIGHTS DRIVE —tQ �E� IIz J LLI d / �O O ?0- --------- F— -----7 F-6' REDUCER— ----------- 4 F�YD &VALVE----------- O I I I I -- I L-- -- LOTS 9, 10 AND 11 I TO BE PROVIDE WIff�17 SEWER SERVjCE- V19,7 LOW FL=9213 INDIVIDUAL -GR R PUMPS LOW OPEN=921.3 LOT 11 / ' .77 I I / I - L----� DRAWN BY: DESIGN BY: A.G. A.G. CHCKD BY: PROD. NO. C.W.P. 17-1694 ORIGINAL DATE: MAY 30, 2017 Z O _a N Lu 13z N Ir W a 0 m W QW c, n a N Z D w z M Qwz O aigz- cAo[QF�� z � a Lu 0 _U �C J aD�Q� Z Q ~OZON M wQNw H Q ZW�l LU 0 O Q N O 0 }°w>aam W m Ill CL Lu a o =MNW2 CL Q -a VI o J m Z W 2 :J i coLL 0 o Lu Z _ 5w aN OLm C JQ Z p ~ Q PREPARED FOR: ROYAL OAKS REALTY SITE PLANNING & ENGINEERING PLOWE ENGINEERING, INC. 6776 LAKE DRIVE SUITE 110 LINO LAKES, MN 55014 PHONE: (651) 361-8210 FAX: (651) 361-8701 C2. 1 O-7-1111111111 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER MANHOLE (PROPOSED INV = 896.0) VERTICAL 0 25 50 HORIZONTAL 4. o o� _ ORCHARD CIRCLEI I I I I I II I ST 205 LOT LOT 2 1 I I I I I ST I I--- 03 �--- —- sT o 208 I I I I I I � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LOT 6 I I LOT 3 1 1 LOT 4 1 1 LOT 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I® I I sT I I I I I I � I I 2D7 -----� L ---------J — —- ---J L— ORCHARD HEIGHTS DRIV 3+0b I 1 4+00 I I 5+0b 1 6+00 I �_ ST ----� — ST -- 1 l r-- --_-20 11 I `I I I I 204 206 _ iii V I Illlr - LOT 18 1� � IIII > ; ; . .. I 1''�LOT f �VIboW0 I I I LL I I I I L__— ---- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LOT 16 I I I I ---1 L— -------I L— I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LOT 15 1 1 LOT 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I ORCHARD HEIGHTS DRIVE LOT 7 — --� I I I 1 3 I I I \ I I I 1 LOT 8 J L — �3 LOT 9 goo' I , />> > �» I I / I --J L---- /-- ----- — ST +0b I I8+00 I - 7r I I I I I I I I LOT 13 LOT 12 I I I I I I ------- I L-- — DRAWN BY: DESIGN BY: A.G. A.G. CHCKD BY: PROD. NO. C.W.P. 17-1694 ORIGINAL DATE: MAY 30, 2017 104 LOT 10 / z O ST ------ w 1 O o I I jam' y I I LOT 11 3 /����T m — I I I W ---J L----�//� o . . . N . .......- ......- - - - - - - - - 00 I ................................................... CO - - N O O O O N O MN IOdcM N ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ......... a,...�..............o,.O............mO....0...mO.....0...�.0............m.�,............�,�............ap.�............m.N...........m.N.0). 1`0 ....m.l)......Ir....�.M......M�.M�,. )�.M......M....o,.1r).�.o.�............a,.N....... ....m.N............rn.N.........�N_ I ............... ................ .............................. ... O O O Cn O O O O O O Cn >7 O O C>7 0) O O O CA C>O O C>7 0) O O) O Cl O N M N I ............................................... C2m2 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 9+50 I ............. ui W >-z ............................................................. R/W R /W ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... _j n M D W Z°°xw 60' RIGHT-OF-WAY 950 ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............y . �.�... HIPOINT ............................... ............... ............... ELEV _ 937:15 ............... ............... ............... . ......................................................................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... 950 5>-QWZ a M Lo M 4 Q 33.33 BACK OF CURB TO BACK OF CURB ni 1 rl^V A I T e --r w c n n c un rv�v 1 3 1 h = OtL0.6 = w- Z U. ° I- w O _ Z Q D 16.67' TO BACK OF CURB 16.67' TO BACK OF CURB 14.83 14.83 ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... / ............... / ............... ... — . — . ............... ............... PVI ELEV - 94S.00 ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... H Q 2 Z � ° 16' TO FACE OF CURB 16' TO FACE OF CURB f A.U.--13.75- \ 0 O N O �wQNw S.i ` 945 ............... ............... ............... ...j./.......... ............... .........K..= ..2 5:45......... \ ...�.......... ............... .............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. 45 - x O U. 3.1 AL 5-.AjYp\X g. o I I w m _O LL J U N / 3.00% 3.00% loc cn LU } ............... ............... ...... .� .............. \ .. ......... ............. ....... . . Ill Lou w Q a w IX ............... ............... ............... ............... J ....... �..... ............... ............... ........... ........ \ .............. .............. .............. ¢a w N N Z LU CL 940 ...`.......� ...... O ................. ............. ............. ............. ............. 940 a SOD BOULEVARD 8618 CONRETE 1.5" BITUMINOUS WEAR / — N J W/ 4" TOPSOIL CURB & GUTTER TACK COAT /..... ....... ....... ............... ............... �............ ............. 2.5" BITUMINOUS BASE ............... ............... ............... / ............... / ....... ....... ............... ........J. N .0Ld .... ....... .............. 6" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE (VIRGIN. 100% CRUSHED) ............... ............... ............... / O ....�. .O .... ............... ....... ....... ............. ... ... .... ....Lv. .> .... � ........ �. APPROVED GRANULAR SUBBASE 935 ............. .... +. .�.... N ............... ... ........... .. Ld ....... . ..... ........... \ . ............... ............... ............... ............... 9 3 5 (TO BE DETERMINED BY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER) C—L TO T/C = —0.03 / O Z .................................... ...... ............... / ............... �. �Nj. C — L TO GUT = — 0.53/ ORCHARD HEIGHTS DRIVE-TYP.SECTIONC—L TO C.B. RIM = —0.68 .w .... ....Ej > ............... ........ N.T.S. ............... ............... .../........... ............... .... M. . m .... .......... .... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...... ...... ............... ....\.......... ............... ............... .............. N ui ............... ............... .............. ............... . 930 �./ ................ ...................................................................................................................................\.� . * - —......................................... 930 = 0 LU ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... /......... ....EXIST: C..L..GRADE..... ...... ..............\. .............. ............. ............. 2 ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... .............. FI.NISHED..0-L .G.RADE . ... ........... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... .. ........... .... — "-..r ...�.......... ............... Q ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............/.. ............... .............. ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ........ S.)s9 �. _ ............... ......\ ...... ............... L 925....................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................ \ 925 o Z f 31 W ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ... ...... .. ............... ............... .............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............... ....... RIM 926165. .. .... ........... ...... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... . . . .PVI STA = 1+ 00. ... . .......... ............. ............. ............. ............. ............... . .... . . .INV. ..... .... ........... ... ............. O .............. PVI ELEV- 903.00 ... ............../ ............... ............... .......... ... n'n A. � _�,, ............... ............... ............... ...... .............. ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... .............................. .... ............... nen . . . N . .......- ......- - - - - - - - - 00 I ................................................... CO - - N O O O O N O MN IOdcM N ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ......... a,...�..............o,.O............mO....0...mO.....0...�.0............m.�,............�,�............ap.�............m.N...........m.N.0). 1`0 ....m.l)......Ir....�.M......M�.M�,. )�.M......M....o,.1r).�.o.�............a,.N....... ....m.N............rn.N.........�N_ I ............... ................ .............................. ... O O O Cn O O O O O O Cn >7 O O C>7 0) O O O CA C>O O C>7 0) O O) O Cl O N M N I ............................................... C2m2 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 9+50 � I 01 O \\ /.77 VERTICAL 077 0 25 50 .OT 11 HORIZONTAL ST 105 I I rr--46- -----1 j 11 I I II I I ill ____ -- I I --__=----J 1111 I I 1 1111 1 1 1 1 I 1 111 I I I► , I 1 I 11 11 ________ ------ .-9Fi8 o • i lI I I aD�QP I I I I I — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ` �► ST O 20 - � I N I0 ----------- — I _ ST O 206 I c, 3 I c� � I► o I I o I J _U �C J aD�QP I I I I I WMaj0o 3 I — — — — — — — — — — - — F -------- I I 3 I o r S O 2 5 I � I N I 3 I ° I I L- -----J r — — — — — - o I I I I ST I� C20 207 3 ca ° I I I NORTH 0 950 945 940 DRAWN BY: DESIGN BY: A.G. A.G. CHCKD BY: PROD. NO. C.W.P. 17-1694 ORIGINAL DATE: MAY 30, 2017 O a V w z 13N Ir W Q 13 m W aW_j c, O ZDDmW c� � 5 awz O aigz— Lo Z z U. � a ui0 J _U �C J aD�QP Z Q M }O [LWNW Q H�ZW1 n Q WMaj0o O Q N 0 }°w>aN W m Ill 0. Lu a o =MNW2 CL Q -a VI o J Z W m J LL ~ Ow M aw Zy 2 � � a o� oO c JN Z H W 2 PREPARED FOR: ROYAL OAKS REALTY SITE PLANNING & ENGINEERING PLOWE ENGINEERING, INC. 6776 LAKE DRIVE SUITE 110 LINO LAKES, MN 55014 PHONE: (651) 361-8210 FAX: (651) 361-8701 C2m3l ORCHARD HEIGHTS DETAILS MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN c� w a 0 M DIRECTION OFRUNOFF EXTEND WIRE MESH INTO TRENCH SUPPORT POST ANCHORAGE IN-SITU SOIL SILT FENCE N.T.S. HIGH-FLOW FABRIC MIRAFI FF101 2" X 2" WOOD OR STEEL POST 7'-7" O.C. WIRE MESH REINFORCEMENT, STD. FIELD FENCE. MIN. 30" HIGH, MAX. MESH SPACING OF 6" AND MIN. 14-1/2" GAUGE WIRE IS OPTIONAL. GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC - OVERLAP 6" AND FASTEN AT 2' INTERVALS. LAY FABRIC IN TRENCH. FABRIC ANCHORAGE TRENCH. BACKFILL TRENCH WITH TAMPED NATURAL SOIL. z w • (D.. 0 m N Zw �~ 0 6 NOTES: MIN. 1) WIRE MESH IS NOT REQUIRED. 2) CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVAL OF ALL EROSION CONTROL MATERIALS FOLLOWING TURF ESTABLISHMENT. DEFLECTOR PLATE OVERFLOW 1@ - CENTER OF FILTER ASSEMBLY OVERFLOW O2 - TOP OF CURB BOX X10” FILTER ASSEMBLY CURB NEENAH R -3067-V WI MCO INLET PROTECTION N.T.S. 6" MINIMUM 1-1/2" - 3" CLEAN WASHED ROCK ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE N.T.S. CATEGORY 3 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET (SPEC. 3885) 4" x 4" TRENCH BACKFILLED OVER EROSION CONTROL BLANKET (SPEC. 3885) � POINT v1 STRAW OR WOOD FIBER 6" OR 12" DIA. ROLL ENCLOSED IN PLASTIC OR POLYESTER NETTING POINT "A" MUST BE HIGHER THAN POINT "B" TO ENSURE THAT WATER FLOWS OVER THE DIKE AND NOT AROUND THE ENDS. BIO -ROLL BLANKET N.T.S. POINT C 8", 11 GA/ STAPLES �\ PLACED 1'-0" ON CENTER 2" X 2" X 18" LONG WOODED STAKES AT 2'-0" SPACING. DRIVE THROUGH NETTING AND FIBER ROLL. NOTES: RIP—RAP SHALL BE HAND PLACED. FILTER LAYER AND FABRIC ARE INCIDENTAL TO RIP—RAP. I I USE EQQ UIV. D 1' FOR ARCH PIPE 2' DITCH OR BASIN GRADE 2' 1 6" GRANULAR FILTER LAYER GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC SECTION A -A PIP—PAP (N IANTITIFC (r Y ) PIPE DIA. RIP—RAP PIPE DIA. RIP—RAP PIPE DIA. RIP—RAP 12" 4 24" 10 42" 23 15" 5 27" 12 48" 29 18" 6 30" 14 54" 34 21 8 36" 19 60" 39 RIP -RAP AT PIPE OUTLETS N.T.S. DRAWN BY: DESIGN BY: A.G. A.G. CHCKD BY: PROD. NO. C.W.P. 17-1694 ORIGINAL DATE: MAY 30, 2017 Z O a V W 13 O N m W Q 0 It W aw_jZO M D ZpDmW M q* Z O aigz- N¢aa2 Z �a ui0 _- Y aD�QP Z Q O }} [LWQNW Momn HmZUJ Q O a N 0 �Maj0 }°w>0,0 W M M 0. Lu 1 aco) o =MNW2 CL Q -a U� o J ENKAMAT OVERFLOW (POND TO INFILTRATION BASIN) N.T.S. TOP OF BERM 10' EOF ELEV SIDE SLOPES 4:1 SODDED OVERFLOW N.T.S. 3"-6" RIP -RAP 1 2 o•o, �O o�'oo �,p°n�a �oD� o„Q. O V ► V o a Qy`;n ec°eo 4e °�•°e1v.o•d e° �O aQ °e �D'• oQ a A L THE DISTANCE SUCH THAT POINTS A AND B ARE OF EQUAL ELEVATION (MAX. 300 FEET) a, 6" c o�.•dif v .o d:s seo • ° 0.p .00 .�D.� �'p a n�v0• De a ; l�V � ° ce D �• O V C Oo S9 .owe v•p m•� .O e ROCK CHECK DAM 0 LIaf 2 0.'4, 4! O.va 1 \ � 2 1' SUMP OPTIONAL SPACING BETWEEN CHECK DAMS ROCK CHECK DAM N.T.S. Z 2 N H ru 2 2 H 0 a Z W co J H W PREPARED FOR: ROYAL OAKS REALTY SITE PLANNING & ENGINEERING PLOWE ENGINEERING, INC. 6776 LAKE DRIVE SUITE 110 LINO LAKES, MN 55014 PHONE: (651) 361-8210 FAX: (651) 361-8701 ORCHARD HEIGHTS DETAILS MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 1. USE LOW -IMPACT, EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENT (WIDE TRACK OR MARSH TRACK EQUIPMENT, OR LIGHT -EQUIPMENT WITH TURF -TYPE TIRES) IN SHELF AREA 2. NO MINING OF SANDY SOILS ALLOWED IN SHELF AREA. 3. FINAL GRADE ONLY UPON STABILIZATION OF UPSTREAM AREAS. 4. SHELF TO REMAIN UNLINED. 5. PROTECT SHELF FROM RUN-OFF DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. EXCAVATE FINAL GRADE ONLY UPON STABILIZATION OF CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREAS. OO EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SUITABLE FOR SEEDING (E.G. STRAW—COCONUT BLANKET) ** TOPSOIL/SAND MIX MIN. 50% GRANULAR DRAINTILE IN ROCK BED (SEE DETAILS TO RIGHT) POND #2 - BIO -FILTRATION SHELF N.T.S. 1. USE LOW -IMPACT, EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENT (WIDE TRACK OR MARSH TRACK EQUIPMENT, OR LIGHT -EQUIPMENT WITH TURF -TYPE TIRES) IN SHELF AREA 2. NO MINING OF SANDY SOILS ALLOWED IN SHELF AREA. 3. FINAL GRADE ONLY UPON STABILIZATION OF UPSTREAM AREAS. 4. SHELF TO REMAIN UNLINED. 5. PROTECT SHELF FROM RUN-OFF DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. EXCAVATE FINAL GRADE ONLY UPON STABILIZATION OF CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREAS. BIO -FILTRATION SHELF PLANTING SUGGESTIONS BOTTOM OF BASIN I SIDE SLOPES NATIVE PLANTINGS GIANT BUR -REED WOOL GRASS SEDGE CORD GRASS BLUE FLAG IRIS SWAMP MILKWEED TAMARACK JOE—PYE WEED NEW ENGLAND ASTER PRAIRIE BLAZINGSTAR BONESET BLACK WILLOW NATIVE PLANTINGS BIG BLUESTEM BLUE JOINT GRASS SWITCH GRASS BLUE VERVAIN PRAIRIE BLAZINGSTAR TAMARACK NEW ENGLAND ASTER RED—OSIER DOGWOOD SANDBAR WILLOW BLACK CHOKECHERRY BLACK WILLOW PLANT MATERIAL TOLERANT OF INUNDATION AND DROUGHT (NATIVE PLANS RECOMMENDED—SEE "BIO—FILTRATION SHELF PLANTING SUGGESTIONS" (ABOVE) OR USE MnDOT SEED MIX 33-261 (APPLICATION RATE=35 LBS/ACRE) 10:1 ** ALLEVIATE COMPACTED SOILS (BY USING A PRIMARY TILLING OPERATION SUCH AS A CHISEL PLOW, RIPPER OR SUBSOILER) TO 6" MIN. DEPTH PRIOR TO PLACING TOPSOIL/SAND MIX PVC SCREW CAP (2 INCHES ABOVE GRADE) SOLID STANDPIPE (MIN 4" NON—PERFORATED SCHEDULE 40 PVC) USE 45 DEGREE WYE AND FITTING OR EQUIVALENT TO CONNECT UNDERDRAIN TO STANDPIPE WATERTIGHT PVC CAP ON UPSTREAM END OF UNDERDRAIN INFILTRATION SHELF PLANTING SUGGESTIONS BOTTOM OF BASIN I SIDE SLOPES NATIVE PLANTINGS GIANT BUR -REED WOOL GRASS SEDGE CORD GRASS BLUE FLAG IRIS SWAMP MILKWEED TAMARACK JOE-PYE WEED NEW ENGLAND ASTER PRAIRIE BLAZINGSTAR BONESET NATIVE PLANTINGS SOLID PIPE J PERFORATED PIPE DRAIN TILE CLEAN-OUT NOT TO SCALE ** TOPSOIL/SAND MIX MIN. 50% GRANULAR 2" CHOKER COURSE (#8, #78 OR #89 STONE) 6" PERFORATED DRAINTILE (NO SOCK) #57 STONE (AROUND AND ABOVE PIPE) 0 NON—WOVEN GEOTEXTILE (MnDOT f- 18" _1 TYPE 1) OVER AGGREGATE NOTE: OUTSIDE OF BIO—FILTRATION BASIN, USE SOLID PIPE WITHOUT ROCK AND FABRIC DRAINTILE NOT TO SCALE POND HWL BIG BLUESTEM POND NWL BLUE JOINT GRASS SWITCH GRASS BLUE VERVAIN PRAIRIE BLAZINGSTAR TAMARACK NEW ENGLAND ASTER BOTTOM� RED -OSIER DOGWOOD 777777/5-i' SANDBAR WILLOW BLACK CHOKECHERRY PLANT MATERIAL TOLERANT OF INUNDATION AND DROUGHT (NATIVE PLANS RECOMMENDED—SEE "INFILTRATION SHELF PLANTING SUGGESTIONS" (ABOVE) OR USE MnDOT SEED MIX 33-261 (APPLICATION RATE=35 LBS/ACRE) 10:1 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SUITABLE FOR SEEDING (E.G. STRAW—COCONUT BLANKET) ** ALLEVIATE COMPACTED SOILS (BY USING A PRIMARY TILLING OPERATION SUCH AS A CHISEL ** TOPSOIL/SAND MIX PLOW, RIPPER OR SUBSOILER) TO 6" MIN. DEPTH MIN. 50% GRANULAR PRIOR TO PLACING TOPSOIL/SAND MIX IN-SITU SOILS NOTES: 1) NO MINING OF SANDY SOILS IN BASIN AREA 2) NO BURYING OF SILTY MATERIALS IN BASIN AREA 3) DO NO OVER -EXCAVATE BASIN AREA POND #1 - INFILTRATION SHELF N.T.S. 10: B SAFETY �P USE ON—SITE CLAYEY MATERIALS TO LINE POND (MIN. 12") FROM BOTTOM TO NWL POND DETAIL N.T.S. GALVANIZED GRATE ELEV=901.70 ELEV=900.70 TOP WALL=899.50 ORIFICE 1 > 13"W x 15"T ORIFICE INV 898.25 OUTLET Li POND NWL=897.50 TO ORCHARD LN s ': STORM SEWER ' INV 897.00 •j t . .h INLET SUBMERGED WEIR WALL (FRONT VIEW) INV 894.00 POND OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE #2 TO ORCHARD LANE STORM SEWRE N.T.S. .o GALVANIZED GRATE ELEV=903.30 ELEV=902.30TOP WALL=902.30 ORIFICE 1 6" DIA. ORIFICE INV 900.60 OUTLET TO DNR PROT. WETLAND105W POND NWL=900.00 INV 900.00 ------- `s INLET SUBMERGED '; '.•,'' WEIR WALL (FRONT VIEW) INV 896.00 POND OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE #1 TO DNR 105W N.T.S. ORIFICE 1 ORIFICE 1 DRAWN BY: DESIGN BY: A.G. A.G. CHCKD BY: PROD. NO. C.W.P. 17-1694 ORIGINAL DATE: MAY 30, 2017 W Q O � w to aw_jZp M D ZpDmW M � O 11 z aig- N¢Q�� Z yw0 J _U Lu Y QZ�Q� Z Q aOtoV jR }0 III < Lu Mom H�ZW�_ Q ILL O Q N O _0 UmN0 }W>aN W �aaW� a o =�NW2 ILI Q -a o J N J H W PREPARED FOR: ROYAL OAKS REALTY SITE PLANNING & ENGINEERING PLOWE ENGINEERING, INC. 6776 LAKE DRIVE SUITE 110 LINO LAKES, MN 55014 PHONE: (651) 361-8210 FAX: (651) 361-8701 V2 e fIlk • -t �w�ra=na4w-� — \ ' f &1 a. r... %1822 J r 823• i825 - �� ��,ti-• '1830 r,. a „2g } 1831r f 83 e A 183 183 1840 837 .� .� sF} . 4 r 184 �' y 1846 t. 1848 C) r 1845 " 1858 1856 i 8 00 Wl'- I . .7, q IPIFT r. I ir I P IF —. dL ITCO W8 MW 7Z, .1ev _-awl Ak�.gb Vvm.qrw 91m; ILI' -k MLLE! P"K r; - i01 _� G'oppar�a}J Pvr+J F r.* L i��f�.l�l irr Y 1055 ; 1. a445 ��min ; . � �=�R°-•.- .�, -' 2054 2049 ;;ww�2048 } 'f 995 s 2458 • y , r , - lr' 1 ' 20591a�, 2056 fda3 � 2066 2464 1447 2069 yrs JO 1 .. I ,- 2076 m pre* +' 2078 24.77 l * J1013 j 2486 r' i - * ? 019 Ilk' 2094 f 2095 f _ s. { - 1025 ., 2098+� 3 0 3 .� � X101 ki 2-i:02 r I Y ` 4 C2109 2105 210;8 t37i. ' ,y' � _ : 1043 + .2122 2 -k040 i.�i i� 1 s •�: r J 2125 3056 f. _2132 �-�' .x .213 0 Y 1309 s° IZ95 " 1305 ° + - w Y1;i�j�L � S � +,ra1.. �,• 1 N' •� yam. � •_ ;�.T .. 1310 16 ' •�. "rte ''.1. ;�y't: . PA Aw ''- 1307 �9 •13 03 •'r 1300" 96 � E ', 1288, Y 1280 _ r~ 4.1