The URL can be used to link to this page

2018-08-21 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA August 21, 2018 – 7:00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Adopt Agenda 5. Consent Agenda a. Approval of August 7, 2018 City Council Minutes b. Approval of August 13, 2018 Council Work Session Minutes c. Approve Purchase Order for the Marie Park Basketball Improvements d. Approve Grading permit for 1840 Hunter Lane e. Approve the Building Activity Report f. Approve July 2018 Treasurer’s Report g. Approval of Claims List h. Approve Resolution 2018-57 Accepting Donation of a Tree to Parks i. Approve Resolution 2018-63 Accepting Donation of Golf Clubs to the Par 3 6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) *See guidelines below 7. Public Hearing - none 8. New and Unfinished Business a. Authorize Purchase Order for a Fence at the Rogers Lake Culvert b. Resolution 2018-64 Adopt the 2018 Mendota Heights Surface Water Management Plan c. Resolution 2018-65 Approving the Final Plat of THE ORCHARD and Approve the Developers Agreement for the Orchard Subdivision Development d. Approve Proposal of Arnt Construction to Prepare Site, and to Import and Fill Material on the Bourn Property 9. Community Announcements 10. Council Comments 11. Adjourn Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: “The Citizen Comments section of the agenda provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. All are welcome to speak. Comments should be directed to the Mayor. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per person and topic; presentations which are longer than five minutes will need to be scheduled with the City Clerk to appear on a future City Council agenda. Comments should not be repetitious. Citizen comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens, nor will any decisions be made at that presentation. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Citizen comments will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made, but rather for hearing the citizen for information only. If appropriate, the Mayor may assign staff for follow up to the issues raised.” CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, August 7, 2018 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 8:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. Councilors Duggan, Paper, Miller, and Petschel were also present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Petschel moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Petschel moved approval of the consent calendar as presented and authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein, pulling items p. Approve Retirement of Firefighter. a. Approval of July 17, 2018 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledge the June 26, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes c. Ordinance 529 Amending City Code Through Streets and Stop Streets d. Approve Resolution 2018-53 Final Payment-Acceptance of the 2017 Storm Sewer Improvements Project e. Approve Reimbursement to Kensington Townhomes Association f. Approve Collocation and Lease Agreement with Verizon Wireless g. Approve Natural Resources Technician Hire h. Resolution 2018-60 Accept Bids-Award Project for 2018 Sewer Cleaning-Televising Project i. Approve 2018 Street and Parking Lot Striping Project j. Approve a Temporary Liquor License to St. Thomas Academy for Reunion Weekend September 19- 21, 2018 k. Approve the June 2018 Par 3 Financial Report page 3 l. Approval of June 2018 Treasurer’s Report m. Approval of Claims List n. Approve Building Activity Report o. Resolution 2018-54 Approving Comcast Cable Franchise Extension p. Approve Retirement of Firefighter q. Approve the Promotion of Eric Hagelee to Police Officer r. Approve Resolution 2018-62 Formally Accepting Donation Of Equipment Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEM P) APPROVE RETIREMENT OF FIREFIGHTER Councilor Miller congratulated Firefighter Steve Abrahamson on his retirement from the Fire Department. When Councilor Miller became a fire fighter, Steve was one of the first guys that reached out to him and he became a friend and a mentor. Steve was a bridge builder in the department and we need more of those across every avenue of our lives. Councilor Miller expressed his best wishes. Councilor Duggan seconded the sentiments. Councilor Petschel moved to accept, and acknowledge with regret, the retirement of Firefighter Steve Abrahamson effective July 31, 2018. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Irene Cramer addressed a memo she sent to the Council about a loss she suffered because of an untenable situation. She asked if there was a City Attorney that could provide her some direction. Mayor Garlock stated that this is a civil matter and suggested she speak with City Attorney Andrew Pratt. PRESENTATIONS No items scheduled. PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) RESOLUTION 2018-55 APPROVE LOT SPLIT AND LOT COMBINATION FOR 1629 DODD ROAD & 694 WENTWORTH AVENUE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-18) page 4 Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Robbie and Courtney Bluhm have requested approval to subdivide their property at 1629 Dodd Road into two parcels, one of which to be combined with their adjacent lot located at 694 Wentworth Avenue. Mr. Benetti noted that the original lot is 1.62 acres, approximately 350 feet deep and has 101 feet of frontage. This lot contains a single family home with an attached three car garage. The square shaped parcel on the backside at 694 Wentworth is 121 feet wide and 150 feet in depth. A copy of a survey showing the proposed lot split was reviewed. The piece of the original parcel to be split off would create a potential nonconformity. The Bluhm’s have agreed to combine this with their abutting property, thereby eliminating this potential nonconformity. The 1629 Dodd Road lot would have 75 feet of setback from the front, well within the 30-foot standard; 47 feet from the south, 39 feet from the west line, and only 4.2 feet from the north side – an existing setback to the house. The 4.2 feet does not meet the required setback; however, since they are not making additions or changes to the house, the house would remain as a legal non-conforming structure. Also, the driveway does not appear to meet the 5-foot setback, but there are no changes or additions to be made with it. The applicants have agreed to provide 10 foot easements around all perimeters of the lots or parcels, which are typical drainage and utility easements. Staff also requested a 20-foot trail easement for future needs, separate from the drainage and utility easements. There is an existing shed on the original property, which will remain. Because there is a principal dwelling on that lot, staff either had to have them remove the shed or provide them a timeframe to either remove the shed or apply for a building permit for the new created lot. This has been addressed as Condition #5 in the resolution. Councilor Duggan, referencing the trail easements, asked if it was a 20-foot or 25-foot easement. Mr. Benetti replied that it is a 20-foot wide easement. Councilor Duggan then asked if the easement would allowed with a building sitting where technically that easement would be. Mr. Benetti replied that the easement would only be along the frontage of Dodd Road. The 4.2-foot easement along the north side is just for drainage and utility. Councilor Petschel moved to approve RESOLUTION 2018-55 APPROVING A LOT SPLIT (SUBDIVISION) AND LOT COMBINATION FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1629 DODD ROAD AND 694 WENTWORTH AVENUE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-18). Councilor Duggan, referencing the image shown with the new lot lines, asked for clarification on said lot lines. Mr. Benetti explained that the original lot would split off the back portion, but would retain the access off of Dodd Road. The back, or split off, portion would be combined with the 694 Wentworth property; having access from Wentworth only. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 page 5 B) ORDINANCE NO. 530 AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G TO ALLOW “DOG TRAINING FACILITY” AS A NEW CONDITIONAL USE IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-13) Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this was a continuation of discussions that were had previously regarding this dog training facility. The applicant, Ms. Kristin Elmquist, is the owner/operator of For the Love of Dogs, a training facility currently located in Hudson, WI. On June 26, 2018 this item was presented before the Planning Commission for their first iteration and their input and discussion. At that time they opted to have this item presented to the City Council for direction. On July 2, 2018 this item was presented to the City Council, who decided to focus only on the dog training facility. This item was returned to the Planning Commission on July 24, 2018 with the draft ordinance. The commission approved the draft ordinance by adding this dog training facility as a new definition under 12.1B-2; DOG TRAINING FACILITY; An indoor or outdoor facility utilized for the organized training and care of dogs. This would allow for a new Conditional Use, as part of the I- Industrial zone only; the dog training facility provided that the nine conditions are met. Councilor Duggan, referencing Condition E, asked if it should read ‘. . . enclosed area . . . ‘ rather than ‘. . . enclosed building . . .’. Mr. Benetti replied that it should be ‘area’ and agreed to make the change. Councilor Duggan asked how large the outdoor area is. Mr. Benetti replied that this would be described more clearly in the upcoming Conditional Use Permit request. However, the outdoor area is just a relief area for the dogs in a penned in area or on a leash at all times. Councilor Paper moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 530 AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G. INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO ALLOW DOG TRAINING FACILITY AS A CONDITIONAL USE with the changed wording to Condition E as proposed by Councilor Duggan. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 C) RESOLUTION 2018-56 APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A NEW DOG TRAINING FACILITY IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE, 1415 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-20) Council member Petschel stated that she was delighted with the way the Planning Commission handled this request. She liked the idea of someone who actually has a plan making a request to the city to accommodate them. This appears to be a good fit and she is supportive of this. Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2018-56 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW DOG TRAINING FACILITY IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 1415 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-20). Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Mr. Ron Berfelz, 688 Wentworth Avenue, asked where this is located in the Industrial Park and if there is any young pre-schools or anything like that located in the area. Also, he asked if pit bulls could be page 6 trained in this facility. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the property is located at the northwest corner of Mendota Heights Road and Pilot Knob Road and is fully within the Industrial Park area. There are no child care centers or schools nearby. The applicant, Ms. Kristin Elmquist, replied that they do train all breeds of dogs, pit bulls included. They will be teaching basic obedience, dock diving, barn hunt, dog ball, nose work – they do all of those things to keep a dog entertained, happy, and well behaved so that they can live in a family environment and be good pets, and that their owners can enjoy them. Councilor Duggan, referencing Condition #2, asked what types of events would be held there. Ms. Elmquist replied that they would hold canine obedience trials, dock diving trials, nose work trials, barn hunt trials – any sort of dog competition (except for field training). They are an AKC (American Kennel Club) based facility; meaning that most of what they do earns the dogs AKC titles. Councilor Duggan asked if anyone on the Council had any problem with deleting the work ‘enclosed’ from Condition #2. Councilor Petschel stated that she likes the idea of ‘enclosed building’ because her concern was about outdoor activities and competition. Councilor Duggan asked if Ms. Elmquist was comfortable with Condition #6, hours of operations. It seemed somewhat limiting to him. Ms. Elmquist replied that most classes begin at 8:00 a.m. and they would finish up around 9:30 p.m. Events may be a bit longer on a given weekend. Condition #7 reads, in part “. . . must ensure that all parking for clients and guests . . .” and Councilor Duggan asked if the word ‘all’ was necessary. Councilor Miller replied that his assessment would be that it would be all of the parking spaces that are contained within the parameters of that building site. Since no one voiced any objection it was determined that the word ‘all’ would remain. Councilor Paper asked for a description of a ‘barn hunt’. Ms. Elmquist replied that the dogs are trained to hunt rats, which are hidden in tubes amongst hay bales. Councilor Paper asked if they would be installing a swimming pool for dock diving. Ms. Elmquist replied in the affirmative. The pool would 21 feet wide by 40 feet long and the dock is 40 feet long, and the water would be approximately 3 feet deep. The water would be treated with the minimal amount of chlorine needed to keep the water safe for dogs. Mr. Ron Berfelz, 688 Wentworth Avenue, asked if there was a restriction as to how many animals can be placed at this facility. Mr. Benetti replied that there are no restrictions on this specific conditional use; however, the classes are limited to approximately 8 – 10 dogs per class. Managing the parking is a good indicator that management is taking place on the site. There is also a limit on the number of dogs allowed per handler (4 to 1). Councilor Paper asked if this facility would be a second location or if she was moving her current business to this location. Ms. Elmquist replied that this is both a second facility and a move. They have a facility in Hudson, Wisconsin, that will remain where they do their board and train program. They are not moving that program to Mendota Heights. They also do classes in the Hudson facility; so this is an additional place for them to hold classes. They also have a facility in Menomonie, Wisconsin, which page 7 holds the dock and pool. That facility will no longer exist in Menomonie, as it is being moved to the Mendota Heights facility. Councilor Paper asked how many employees she anticipates having. Mr. Elmquist replied that she has four contract trainers that teach classes for her. Councilor Duggan asked if the water in the pool would be tested and if so, how often. Ms. Elmquist replied that they take their water tests to a pool facility – a pool store – on a weekly basis for testing. They would make any necessary adjustments to the water themselves. There being no further questions, Mayor Garlock called for the vote: Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 D) AWARD CONTRACT FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES TO CNH ARCHITECTS, INC. FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AND REMODELING OF FIRE STATION City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that the Council had held a public hearing on July 2nd to consider whether or not to authorize direct issuance of General Obligation Bonds to construct an addition to, and a remodeling of the existing fire station. The amount of the bonds were to be approximately $6M. By doing that, the Council set in motion a 30-day time period in which time a petition could be submitted to call for a referendum. At the end of that 30-day period – August 1, 2018 – the city had not received any petitions. Therefore, the Council has the ability to proceed onward with the project. There are no specific votes to be taken currently financially to move that ahead; however, staff suggested that in order to commit to the project, the City should enter into a contract for the design of the building. He went on to say that for several months, the fire station building committee has been working with CNH Architects, Inc. of Apple Valley to do feasibility study estimates. Staff recommends continuing with that firm through construction. To do that, a proposed contract has been submitted to the City Council. The contract calls for a flat fee of $323,800 for the work to be done to move this through design, bidding, and construction inspection. Another alternative would be to go with a flat percentage rate; however, staff believes that the flat fee is more fair to both parties. Mr. McNeill stated that, if approved, the architect would start the design work immediately. The project could go to bid in January 2019. During that time, the city would not have the bond proceeds available; it is recommended that the city not issue those until the construction costs are known. The architect would be generating about $225,000 - $230,000 in fees. Staff recommends that this be paid in the interim with a loan from the reserves. Staff also recommended that the city use a construction manager for this project. This person would be on the job every day. Payment for the construction manager would be an additional cost; however, it is the recommendation of the architect that it would likely be offset by reducing the overall costs for the contractors. page 8 Councilor Petschel asked how long the gap would be between borrowing money from the reserves and the reimbursement. Mr. McNeill replied that staff would likely be selling bonds in January 2019, after it is known what the construction costs are. The architect has provided estimated progress payments so staff would know each month how much they would be expected to pay. Councilor Petschel asked what that would leave the reserve level at, in terms of percentage of the budget. Mr. McNeill replied that at this point, they have over 100% as a fund reserve. There is going to be another project staff will be recommending to come out of the reserves; and there are other Capital items which will be proposed to take out of the fund balances. Staff wants to make sure that the balance does not fall below 75%. Councilor Petschel stated that she is more comfortable with the fixed architectural fee because it almost becomes a not-to-exceed amount. She is unsure of hiring a construction manager. Mr. McNeill stated that this manager would be someone who would actually be working for the city. The standard AIA contract for the architect provides for them to visit the site usually once a week. With this sort of a project, because it is both a new construction and a remodel, it is expected that there will be things that come up on a regular basis that need to be addressed. Councilor Petschel asked, in regards to the salary for this person, if this salary would come out of the bonds. Mr. McNeill replied in the affirmative. In reply to Councilor Petschel’s question about vetting and hiring a construction manager, Architect Quinn Hutson stated that CNH Architects has done work in general contracting public works and in construction management. Construction Management is a company the city would hire to have someone on site, and it would also include the project manager. It is cost neutral in the sense that the city would be paying some of those same people working for the general contractor, as it would for a construction manager. With a construction manager, the city would have the opportunity to hire someone with experience. Councilor Duggan noted that Mr. McNeill had indicated that using this skilled person to supervise the construction would probably provide the city some savings equal to the cost of this person. Mr. Hutson agreed and stated that is because the city would still have the superintendent, who is the person working for the general contractor; and the construction manager, who is on the site every day and supervising. When going with a general contractor, the city would get whomever they assign; under a construction manager process, the city would be part of that selection process. Councilor Duggan asked if the construction manager provides the architect with their observations and analysis. Mr. Hutson replied that the construction manager provides daily field reports. Councilor Duggan asked, with all of the construction activities currently taking place on Dodd Road in front of the fire station, if there would be any impediments in relation to that and the proposed construction scheduling, etc. Administrator McNeill replied that the TH 149 project should be completed by this fall and the fire station construction would not start until April, 2019. Councilor Paper asked how many months this project is anticipated to take. Mr. Hutson replied that the construction phase would be somewhere in the 10 – 12 month range, plus a remodeling phase. This would be one of the responsibilities of a general contractor or the construction manager. Councilor Paper asked if they could be guaranteed that someone would be on-site running this project daily – taking into account vacation’s and sick days. Mr. Hutson replied in the affirmative – there would be someone there everyday. page 9 Mayor Garlock asked Mr. Hutson if, in his opinion, this construction manager gives the city the most control over the project. Mr. Hutson replied in the affirmative. Councilor Miller questioned the bid opening date of late January or early February. Mr. Huston replied that when speaking with other contractors, he received feedback that a bid opening in December has not yielded good results, so they have modified the bid opening date to late January or early February. This should not delay the spring start for construction. Mayor Garlock asked Assistant Fire Chief Scott Goldenstein if he was comfortable with what had been discussed so far. Mr. Goldenstein had no comments to add. Councilor Petschel moved to enter into a contract with CNH Architects, Inc. of Apple Valley, for architectural services for the addition and remodeling to the Mendota Heights Fire Station. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 E) RESOLUTION 2018-58 & 2018-59 ORDERING FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE MARIE AVENUE REHABILITATION AND WESLEY NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek reminded the Council that earlier this year they ordered a contract for the design and inspection of the 2019 project, which is proposed to be the Marie Avenue from Lexington Avenue to Dodd Road; and the Wesley Neighborhood. Major highlights of the Marie Avenue project are proposed to be a pavement replacement, curb and gutter repair, and improved layout of the street lane configurations. Currently, staff is focusing on the addition of bike lanes, replacement of a retaining wall at Marie and Victoria, and fencing to be replaced east of 35E bridge. Dakota County is proposing that the city replace the pedestrian underway that currently exists under Marie Avenue; there are improvements to the trail along Lexington Avenue, which are proposed to have a curb added and the trail reconfigured; a section of cast iron pipe watermain between Dodd and Sutton that is going to be replaced on St. Paul’s dollar; and they are looking at cleaning out two ponds located along this project. The Wesley Neighborhood would include a rehabilitation of Mager Court, Spring Creek Circle, Wesley Lane, Wesley Court, and South from Linden Street to the end. The major highlights would be pavement replacement; curb repair; some storm sewer extensions to alleviate drainage concerns; and staff is still looking at possible construction of the Dodd Road Trail from Maple to Marie Avenue. Councilor Miller, referring to the Dodd Road Trail, noted that the Council met with eight or nine residents on Dodd Road between Wesley and Marie around this time last summer and they were less than excited about that proposed path going in. It was not an issue of whether they wanted a trail or not, it was the type of trail that was being proposed with the amount of setback that was being taken. He recommended bringing all of the groups together to discuss trail options. page 10 Councilor Petschel echoed Councilor Miller’s sentiments as this is an issue that needs to be decided and solved before this project comes back to Council for final approval. Councilor Petschel asked, in regards to improvements to the Lexington Trail, if that was the one that was discussed at the Traffic Safety Committee. Mr. Ruzek replied that this is one of the three or four issues along the Lexington Trail. Yes, this will address what the committee agreed was a safety concern. Mayor Garlock noted that the width of Dodd Road was talked about several months ago. He then asked if the curb adjustment mentioned by Mr. Ruzek was this same topic. Mr. Ruzek replied yes; unfortunately, they only moved it in from Mager to Marie. They replaced the curb between Mager and Wesley, affecting two homes or approximately 200 feet of curb. Councilor Petschel suggested that staff review Highview being assessed here. Mr. Ruzek replied that the issue was that there are seven homes down in the Eagle Ridge Development that felt that they were paying more than their fair share as Highview was not being assessed. It was a decision of the Council that they felt that the Highview people have to pay 100% of the maintenance costs of their own private streets and they did not feel that they should be assessed for the public street. The Eagle Ridge properties made the opposite argument; but the Highview properties were never added to the assessment roll. Councilor Petschel asked that this be thoroughly researched. Councilor Duggan expressed concern for pedestrians using a trail along Dodd Road. Mr. Ruzek replied that the current situation is an eleven foot travel lane and a minimum of a five foot shoulder – up to 10 feet in some spots. Currently, the on-street trail is a side shoulder. Constructing this staff would also be required to have an approximate 5 foot boulevard plus the existing shoulder. The trail is a minimum of 10 feet off of the travel lane and there would be a barrier curb between that area. It would be very safe. Councilor Duggan then asked if it would be just a walking trail or a shared use trail (pedestrian and bicycle). Mr. Ruzek replied that it would be shared use trail. Councilor Duggan noted that the city spent quite a bit of money at the northeast intersection of Marie and Dodd. He asked with all of the construction going on if there had been any damage to all of the work that had been done. Mr. Ruzek replied that they dredged out that area and made more of a pond storage area. There are some wetland seed mixes there. Staff granted the state contractor permission to utilize that area as a staging area. Right now the area that was being mowed is being disturbed. He has asked that this area be restored with more of a pollinator friendly prairie type planting upon completion of the Dodd Road project. Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2018-58 ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE MARIE AVENUE REHABILITATION PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 201805). Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Councilor Paper asked if the trail along Marie Avenue would be an overlay. Mr. Ruzek replied that it would be a combination of overlay, replacement, or new construction. Councilor Paper asked if the entire segment along Marie Avenue from Dodd Road to Lexington is going to be replaced. Mr. Ruzek replied that it would be rehabilitated in one form or another. page 11 Councilor Paper asked about the north/south in that area that runs along 35E through Valley Park; has the County taken over responsibility for that yet. Mr. Ruzek replied that the first step of the County’s Mendota / Lebanon Greenway was the construction of the underpass under Highway 110. That is the only portion of that greenway that exists right now. They are slowly going to look at trying to acquire some of the portions of this trail through Mendota Heights; however, they do want the city to straighten out the trail north of the pedestrian underpass. Councilor Paper asked when the Council would find out the condition of the land bridge on Marie. Mr. Ruzek replied that if there is anything wrong there it would have a large impact on the budget. It may be that staff stops at those construction joints and come back and revisit the bridge at later date. Councilor Miller, referencing discussions started with Dakota County with respect to Valley Park, asked if it was the County’s overall objective to completely take over the maintenance of that park if they are going to be putting a greenway through there. Mr. Ruzek replied that this is identified as a goal for Dakota County. The Council will need to determine, at that time, if they are comfortable giving this asset to the county. There being no other discussions or questions, Mayor Garlock called the vote: Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2018-59 ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE WESLEY NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 201805). Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 F) RESOLUTION 2018-61 ACCEPT BIDS-AWARD CONTRACT FOR MARIE PARK TENNIS COURT IMPROVEMENTS Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that staff advertised for bids for the Marie Park Tennis Court Improvement Project and three bidders responded. The costs that came in were higher than the estimate of $60,000. Most of the costs that were higher were due to the chain link fencing. Staff is proposing that the existing 10-foot fence and cross basin be removed. The original plan was to salvage the vertical posts and put new wire mesh around there. The pavement is proposed to be removed and replaced with two new lifts of pavement and acrylic surfacing and striping. The low bid submitted by Bituminous Roadways was $81,669.45. Staff has had conversations with the USTA regarding a grant that the city applied for. They estimated that the grants are up to a maximum of $20,000 and most of the eligible projects do receive the maximum amount. However, the USTA does need the project awarded to a contractor before they can give out a letter of the grant award. The grant is also not reimbursed to the city until completion of the project and verification that the project was constructed to its specifications. Councilor Petschel asked where the funding would come from. Mr. Ruzek replied that this is proposed to be funded from the Special Parks fund. page 12 Councilor Paper asked if this was a complete rebuild. Mr. Ruzek replied that only the pavement, the gravel base underneath the asphalt, and the vertical fence posts are to remain. The chain link around the court would be replaced as it is showing signs of corrosion and it is wavy from being slammed with tennis balls for 30 years. The rebound board has not been assessed. If it is salvageable then it will be. Councilor Paper asked if the gate will be changed. Mr. Ruzek replied that currently this may not be addressed in this aspect, but it could be a small project done after the fact. Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2018-61 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE MARIE PARK TENNIS COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 G) APPROVE PURCHASE ORDER FOR RINK LIGHTING REPLACEMENT AT WENTWORTH PARK Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the lighting fixtures and wiring at Wentworth Park hockey rink are brittle and causing periodic outages. Staff has been told by an electrician that if another failure occurs they would not be able to repair it. Public Works staff spoke with three electrical contractors and received quotes for replacing the existing lighting with new LED fixtures, which would include new poles, wiring, as well as running an electric service for the next item, which would be the Warming House at Wentworth Park. The existing pole that has electric service coming in would be removed. They would also reconfigure where the practice rink lighting is aimed to provide better lighting to the practice rink area. The three quotes submitted were from: Mid Northern Services-$51,300; Wallraff Electric Company- $52,600; Merit Electric-$57,510. If approved the lighting would be installed sometime around Thanksgiving. Councilor Petschel asked if the funding for this project would come from the Special Parks fund. City Administrator Mark McNeill replied that the original recommendation was to be from the City Reserves. However, in speaking with Finance Director Schabacker, he was reminded that both the warming house and the rink lights at Friendly Hills was a Special Parks funded item. To be consistent Council could do that. Councilor Petschel moved that the funding for the Lighting Replacement of the Wentworth Park Hockey Rink come from the Special Parks Fund. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 page 13 Councilor Paper asked if there was a cost benefit to having LED lighting for the two months, 2 – 3 hours. Mr. Ruzek replied that the lights are on when it gets dark around 4:00 – 4:30 p.m. in the winter time. However, a cost benefit analysis has not been completed. He was also unable to answer if there was a large cost jump going to LED fixtures. Councilor Duggan, noting that LED lighting is brighter, asked if anyone had considered the impact to surrounding neighbors. Mr. Ruzek replied in the affirmative and noted that staff had to make adjustments to the Friendly Hills lighting. Typically LED lights do not bleed as much as other forms of lighting. It tends to stay pretty direct. Ms. Diane Berfelz, 688 W. Wentworth, noted that the park is on her street and lighting can be very invasive. She asked how many lights they intend to put up. Mr. Ruzek replied that there would be the same number of lights as there are currently. She asked if they would be on from dusk until dawn. Mr. Ruzek replied that these are hockey rink lights and would be on when the rinks are open – roughly 5:00 – 10:00 p.m. They may be on a little bit later than that if the flooders need to do some work. Councilor Duggan moved to authorize the purchase order for the lighting replacement to Mid Northern Services. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 H) AWARD PURCHASE ORDER FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WARMING HOUSE AT WENTWORTH PARK Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that an additional project at Wentworth park would be the replacement of the warming house. The warming houses were originally constructed in 1989. Since then the city did a complete replacement of the Marie Avenue Warming House and the Friendly Hills Warming House. This is the final warming house that has not had any major work done to it. It is currently is a state of disrepair. The three quotes submitted were from Kirchner Contracting-$46,250; Paper Brothers Construction-$48,910; D.T. Meisinger Dev, Inc.-$79,554. The low bidder, Kirchner Contracting, would be able to start and complete this work in 2018 and it would tie in with the rink lighting project. Councilor Miller assumed that these improvements would make the warming house ADA compliant. Mr. Ruzek replied that he is also looking at some other parking lot and trail improvements at Wentworth Park that is needed; so full ADA improvements may not happen with just a construction. He may need to get a trail and a pedestrian ramp from the parking lot to the structure. Where the warming house is currently located is a really convenient spot to make improvements. Councilor Paper asked if they were planning on installing a paved ramp from the parking lot now and then having to redo it. Mr. Ruzek replied that he did not believe that the trail was part of the quotes received. The door widths and everything inside would be ADA compliant. The access to it could be constructed in gravel or something onsite, which would be compliant for that surfacing. Pedestrian ramps are not needed off of a parking lot; they are only needed when crossing public street. page 14 Councilor Paper stated that his issue is that when he was on the Parks Commission they talked about replacing the warming houses, one very couple of years. They waited on Wentworth because it was the smallest and was going to require becoming ADA compliant. There was discussion along the way of doing something a little better; making a better improvement to it – not just replacing it as a shack. Mr. Ruzek replied that they could definitely look at that. However, adding these items to the project would raise it to approximately three times what the current quote is. Councilor Petschel, noting that the decisions and additions suggested by Councilor Paper could not be made this evening, recommended that this be sent back to the Parks Commission to come back with some kind of alternative recommendation that might address some of these concerns. Mr. Ruzek replied that due to the timing of the construction of this project, Councilor Paper’s proposal would be feasible. Councilor Petschel moved to table the ordering of the purchase order for the construction of the warming house until possible other upgrades to a warming house or some kind of structure and ADA improvements can be analyzed via staff working with Parks and Recreation Commission Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that Mendakota Country Club demolition is supposed to be completed within the next couple of weeks; then they have a contractor on board to start the restoration. Golf season is going well and they have been able to bring in food for their catering events. Vikings Training Camp traffic impacts on Mendota Heights have been negligible, which is a reflection of preplanning on behalf of the Vikings, the cities, and the counties surrounding that development. A third concert of the season – Kids Dance Event – is going to be on August 22, 2018 at Mendakota Park. A reminder to vote online for one of three movie options there are for the September 22, 2018 outdoor event at Mendakota Park COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Petschel recognized Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence and the USTA Youth Tennis Team that performed so very well at sections. Ms. Lawrence stated that it was a top six team. Councilor Petschel expressed congratulations to the ice rink at St. Thomas Academy for hosting the Stanley Cup. They had 700 youth hockey players there that day and a good time was had by all. Mayor Garlock, commented on Scott Patrick’s Memorial Dedication. It was very fitting and appropriate and they achieved their goal of honoring Officer Scott Patrick. page 15 Councilor Miller expressed his appreciation to all of the community members who put together a Night to Unite party in their neighborhood. It was a great evening and a lot of fun to see some familiar faces and meet some new ones. Councilor Paper expressed congratulations to two Mendota Heights Athletic Association baseball teams, both the 12 AA team and the 9 AA team won the state tournament. He also expressed appreciations to everyone who reached out to him. Ten weeks ago he was given a diagnosis of cancer and eight weeks ago it was all taken away from him. He was happy to report that he is now cancer-free. Councilor Duggan congratulated Chief of Police Kelly McCarthy on the hiring of a new police officer. He was amazed at the amount of young families that came to the Night to Unite events. He reminded everyone to mark their calendar for the August 22, 2018 Music in the Park event. He was impressed with the number of people that have signed up to run for City Council or for Mayor. He was also concerned about the number of letters and emails received regarding the Olin property. He wondered if this would be an appropriate time to address it or talk about outcomes. City Administrator Mark McNeill replied that staff has made the developer aware of the issues and he believes there may be a communication problem with some of the sub-contractors. Councilor Duggan noted that approximately 85 – 90 units have been rented at the At Home Apartments and they look terrific. ADJOURN Councilor Paper moved to adjourn. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 9:54 p.m. ____________________________________ Neil Garlock Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk page 16 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the City Council Work Session Held August 13, 2018 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at the City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 1:32 pm. Councilmembers Duggan, Miller, Petschel were present. Also present were: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator; Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director; Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director; Tim Benetti, Community Development Director; Terry Blum, Public Works Supervisor; Kelly McCarthy, Police Chief; Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator, and Resident John Bennett (arrived at 3:00 pm) DISCUSSION OF FY2019 PROPOSED BUDGET 1. Overview City Administrator McNeill provided an overview of the budget estimates. The current proposed budget includes $591,932 for the first year’s repayment of the 15 year bonds for fire station improvements, increasing the levy by 6.05 percent. The preliminary increase to the general fund levy is proposed at 3.46 percent, and assumes the use of general fund reserves for several “one-time” expenditures. McNeill noted that City Council may choose to spend down a portion of city fund reserves, which is at approximately 90 percent, but not drop below 75 percent in order to maintain the City’s AAA bond rating. Council could choose to spend down about $1 million and still be ok. McNeill noted that staff is recommending expenditures of about $318,000 to be taken from reserves. McNeill stated that the overall budget increase, which includes both the fire bonds and the proposed operating budget, is a little over 9.5 percent. One item that is not built into the budget is the use of athletic fields and charging fees. McNeill noted that charging for fields will help users narrow down reservations to what they really need. Councilor Duggan questioned whether there had been any push back from users. McNeill noted that this shouldn’t come as a surprise. Unresolved is the structure for charging users. Councilors commented that having a policy in place prior to January is preferred. Councilor Petschel expressed her desire to have Councilor Paper present to discuss the replacement of mowing equipment. Petschel stated that he had been helpful in terms of what is realistic and not realistic and that it is more his area of expertise. Fire Bonds, Series 1984-McNeill stated that the partner cities are still paying off the 1984 bonds. The payment on the new bonds has not been determined and the proposed budget does not include any increase for what those cities’ costs will be. Council will need to consider that the new bond payments are going page 17 to be amortized over 15 years. The City could provide the partner cities with a 10 percent increase for FY 2019, and then use the actual number for 2020. Police Services - McNeill noted that the Council should consider switching to a percentage based formula for police services fees. 2. Department Review City Council – McNeill noted that the budget included $14,000 for fireworks. Councilors stated that there was a period in time when that expense would not have been supported. Public events are important for the community and this is now viewed as an amenity. Administration –McNeill reviewed the Administration budget and included $1,500 to replace city hall furniture, such as chairs in conference room and breakroom. The contingency line item was reduced to $35,000, due to the completion of the pay study in 2018. Discussion was made regarding the last payment of the West St. Paul Ice Arena contribution. McNeill noted that the FY 19 amount is higher that in previous years, due to 2019 being the last payment. Councilor Duggan asked if the City had received a report of the arena’s condition and inquired if the City of Qwest St. Paul is asking for additional money. Councilor Duggan suggested that the City tour the arena. Councilor Miller noted that a large portion of the recently approved school referendum is going to sports facilities. Councilors asked questions about the miscellaneous category include in the Administration budget. Discussion regarding the City’s auto insurance provider was had. Councilor Petschel inquired whether or not insurance through the League is the best price. Petschel noted that Hermantown went out for bid and moved away from the League. It was noted that the City is not required to use the League, and Council questioned if the City is being best served by the League. The group suggested that at some point, other options should be looked at, and that an RFP should be conducted in the future. Councilor Duggan asked about the codifier budget and whether or not expenses are closer to the $600 or $1000. Public Works Director Ruzek noted that the city is looking at code revisions this year. Staff will research further. Administrative staffing was reviewed. Assistant City Administrator Jacobson confirmed that the Communications Coordinator position had been filled. Councilor Petschel suggested more analysis be done on the Volunteer Coordinator and what volunteers can be used for. Staff was asked to prepare an inventory of the possible volunteer opportunities within the City. The Council was in agreement to keep $10,500 in the budget for volunteer coordination. IT – Councilor Duggan asked about additional Laserfiche licenses. Jacobson stated that funding is for additional public licenses. Councilor Miller asked about how many public licenses a city should have for our size. Staff agreed to return with an answer. page 18 Police – McNeill reviewed the department budget and capital items. Councilor Petschel noted that it appears that Chief McCarthy wants two systems, body cameras and vehicle cameras on the same platform. It was noted that squad cameras are requested to be replaced. Councilor Petschel suggested looking at the City of Inver Grove Heights camera policy once it is written. Councilor Petschel asked about the fleet increase and the overlap in staffing during the day and with adding a vehicle would it allow for special details. Chief McCarthy was not present answer the question. Staff will return with an answer. Fire – McNeill explained that the overall fire budget is up by less than a half of a percent. Discussion was had regarding the replacement of the rescue truck totaling $350,000 and the ladder truck totaling $650,000. Members supported consolidating the two trucks into one truck based on need, and with a total expenditure of about $750,000 to $800,000. Councilor Duggan inquired about setting aside funds to pay for the equipment. McNeill advised that if there were six or seven years to save and pay cash it might make sense, but given the timing, either bonds will need to be sold, or more cash put aside. McNeill noted that the department’s budget request includes the replacement of a fire utility vehicle used by Chief 2. Councilors asked whether or not the $41,000 included any trade-in allowance. Mayor Garlock asked whether or not the lack of use contributed to the problems with the vehicle. Staff stated that the issues with the vehicle make it unsafe to drive. The purchase would come out of reserves. McNeill stated that again this year is a request for Fire Relief Association increase of $500 per member, for a total of $18,000. Councilor Duggan inquired about where the City is in comparison to others? Councilor Miller stated that the City is in the center of the bell curve as far as benefits. Over the last five or six years steady increases have been made. Miller noted that the Department is not trying to get to number one but wants to be somewhere above the middle, which provides more incentive for hiring. The item was supported by the Council. Councilor Duggan suggested that a list of all of the equipment and when it was acquired and its expiration date be compiled. Building Official – McNeill stated that this budget is up about four percent. The group had no comment. Streets – McNeill noted that the budget is up less than two percent overall. Included capital items are fence replacement at the Public Works building and pick up replacement. Public Works Supervisor Blum stated that the truck is used for blacktopping and snowplowing. Blum felt it was an important piece of equipment to replace. Councilor Duggan stated that a neighbor planted six boulevard trees and inquired about whether or not the City is paying for them. Staff is aware of the trees, but said that the City is not paying for them. page 19 Parks – McNeill reviewed the parks budget and noted a $10,000 increase in seasonal salaries. The budget for the eradication of invasive plants doubled. Councilor Miller agreed that additional staff time is needed with how much additional work is being assigned to Parks staff. Miller inquired if the City would have the funds to add a position permanently. Council members asked questions about the additional position and job duties. McNeill stated that funding for the position could come from the proposed field use fees. Staff agreed to look at the additional position and return with a recommendation. McNeill and Blum reviewed the parks capital items including mower replacements. Councilor Miller inquired about leasing instead of purchasing machines. Blum stated that leasing has been considered and costs end up being about the same. Councilor Duggan asked about maintenance when leasing equipment. Blum stated that the City would continue to maintain the equipment as if it was owned. Recreation – McNeill noted that proposed budget did not include funding for the summer concerts. Councilor Duggan suggested that poor marketing from a council standpoint contributed to the decline in attendance. Duggan suggested additional marketing such as signs and boards advertising the concerts be used. Additionally, finding a new location, potentially on The Reserve Apartments/Plaza open space area as a suggestion. The Council discussed tying the summer concert to another event, such as the Parks Celebration. Also discussed as an alternative was the Fire Department dance. Council Petschel supported leaving the $3,000 in the budget but develop a game plan for the concert series, talk to the Fire Department and At Home Apartments for potential joint efforts. McNeill noted that the Village annual tree lighting event not being planned for this year, but the Menorah has already been requested. McNeill highlighted new registration software is the one recreation capital item. Recreation Coordinator Lawrence noted the advantages of setup and invoicing with new software. Councilors agreed that new software is needed. Planning – McNeill noted that much of the cost of the Comp Plan update was included in this year’s budget, which resulted in a significant reduction in Planning’s consulting line item. Community Development Director Benetti stated that the City has an extension to submit the Comp Plan until March/April 2019. Councilor Duggan requested that a copy of the current draft of the Comp Plan be provided to council members for review and comment. Recycling - Ruzek explained that the $32,800 of funding is 100 percent County funded; this is not coming from the City’s levy. Animal Control – McNeill noted that a new contract may come in which could reduce costs by about 50 percent. page 20 Engineering – McNeill highlighted that the proposed budget includes fully funding the Natural Resources Technician position. Discussed was the increase in the clothing and equipment line item which was increased to cover additional staff needs such as boots and vests. Utilities – McNeil reviewed the budget which is down around one percent. McNeill highlighted the trunk sewer main reconstruction capital project totaling $315,000. Ruzek stated that staff has not been able to get a camera through the pipe in question, which would be subject to the reconstruction project. Councilor Petschel asked about how satisfied that City staff has been with the performance of contractors, and asked that council be updated at the end of the year with how contractors compared. Storm Water Utility - Ruzek reviewed the raingarden increase and stated that staff is trying to do more in addition to providing more tools for the Natural Resources Technician. Ruzek reviewed the capital projects. Councilor Petschel asked if there had been any success with finding grants for bank stabilization? Ruzek stated that two grants have been awarded for Augusta and Valley Creek erosion studies. Par 3 – McNeill reviewed the proposed capital item. Lawrence explained that the new rough mower is working very well, but that other pieces of equipment are in need of repair and replacement. The Council discussed the original intent of the golf course referendum and the City’s issuance of bonds. At the time major capital expenditures were not considered. The budget is now being be done to reflect the actual costs and the spending necessary. Consideration to whether or not the Par 3’s operation should be treated as a park, and not run as an enterprise fund was stated. McNeill stated that staff may be looking to Council for general fund assistance. Councilor Miller discussed leasing options on the mowing equipment. City Hall - McNeill noted that the budget is up three percent. The Capital items which have been proposed would come out of the City Hall Fund. He noted that the City Hall generator the original equipment. It is staff’s intent to bring a specific recommendation for replacement back to council this year. Councilor Duggan inquired whether or not the generator is connected to the solar panels. He was told that it was not. Lighting upgrades are includes as the current system is inefficient and the leveling and replacement of the lower level sidewalk is included. The group concurred. Special Parks Fund – McNeill noted a number of capital outlay items. The group questioned why there were items that were given extremely low priority included on the list. Police Department Capital Requests - Chief McCarthy arrived, and the group returned to the discussion regarding Police Department capital requests. Chief McCarthy explain that the body and squad camera costs includes the installation, hardware, software and storage of the data. She noted that data storage is extremely important. page 21 McCarthy noted that the body cameras will be worn on the officer’s chest. Other options were considered but not preferred. Councilor Petschel asked about the special areas to target and the addition of a squad car and shift overlap. McCarthy explained that the officers are responsible for special areas. When a new shift structure is implemented, officers will be able to better focus on special areas. Chief McCarthy reviewed the replacement of squad rifles. McCarthy stated that the department has tried to mount optics on current rifles. and found that that does not work. Optics on the weapons are important given different work situations. Councilor Duggan asked about changing to the proposed and the impact on training would be. McCarthy stated that training is consistent across a variety of weapons, and that officers have to meet qualifications which might mean shooting more. New weapons would not change the training being done now. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS Encroachments of City Properties - McNeill provided a summary of the discussion item relating to two properties on Upper Colonial Drive. The City At torney has opined that various options are to allow the encroachment to remain indefinitely; remove the items by a date certain; or allow the encroachments to stay in place until a set time under a sunset agreement. Councilor Petschel inquired as to who had initially issued the fence permit. Community Development Director Benetti stated that the City had issued a pool permit, and that a fence permit was issued later. Councilor Duggan suggested that upon selling the property to a new owner, the fence should be removed. Duggan restated that the owner was selling the property now, and the new owner should know that the fence is not on their property, and the new owner should take the fence down at the time of the next sale. Councilor Petschel stated concern about precedent setting. Resident John Bennett was present at the meeting and provide historical background on the purchase. He reported that they were not aware that the fence was on city property when originally purchased. The Council continued discussion on the presented options. Consensus was reached and staff was directed to submit to the City Attorney a request to draft a sunset agreement for the Bennett property to allow the fence to remain until the new owner sold the property, or when the fence was in need of replacement, The agreement should contain other considerations such as insurance, property taxes, and conditions of the fence. Staff would return with an agreement for council consideration at a future meeting. The agreement would be recorded on property records. Council discussed removal of the shed on the neighboring property, and agreed that it must be removed by November 1. Discussion of Problem Tree – Public Works Director Ruzek summarized the issue of a cottonwood tree in Victoria Highlands Park. The tree is at the furthest corner of the park property, and is not in a maintained page 22 area of the park. Ruzek noted that the City has previously removed four trees near the 916 property because they were not high quality. Council discussed the removal of the tree at the owner’s expense. The members agreed that the tree was an otherwise healthy tree and that there is no reason to remove it. If the tree is to be removed is should be done at the owner’s expense. Council concluded that the tree could be removed by the owner using a licensed and insured tree service contractor, but should be replaced with a 2.5” caliper balled and burlapped tree. Councilor Duggan suggested that the neighbors be polled about the removal. McNeill provided Councilor Paper’s opinion that the tree removal would be at the expense and that it should be replaced with a new tree. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 4:21 p.m. Neil Garlock Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 23 page 24 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 21, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Authorize Purchase Order for the Marie Park Basketball Improvements COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to authorize a purchase order to expand the basketball court at Marie Park. BACKGROUND The existing court at Marie Park is measures approximately 40 x 50 feet (2000 sq. ft.) with a hoop at one end. The surface striping has also faded. The court was installed with the park referendum in 1989. DISCUSSION The city striped the hockey rink to include a full court playing surface but the hoops were never installed. The Parks and Recreation Commission has expressed concerns that the hockey rink basketball court provides challenges in that users would need to jump the boards around the rink or have a long distance to walk to retrieve balls. Staff received two quotes to expand the existing half court by adding 1200 sq. ft. of concrete, installing city supplied adjustable basketball hoops on both ends, and restriping the court. The quotes are as follows: Kirchner Contracting, Inc. $11,700 JWS Construction $12,600 The new Basketball hoops will be purchased from BSN Sports for $1500 each. BUDGET IMPACT The costs of this replacement and installation are proposed to be paid for out of the Special Park Fund. RECOMMENDATION I recommend that the Council authorize the purchase order for the Marie Park Basketball Improvements to Kirchner Contracting, Inc. ACTION REQUIRED If Council agrees with the staff recommendation, authorize staff to execute a purchase order to Kirchner Contracting Inc. for $11,700. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 25 page 26 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 5, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Grading Permit for 1840 Hunter Lane COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve a grading permit for 1840 Hunter Lane. BACKGROUND City Ordinance 14-1 requires that properties proposing any land disturbance activity in excess of 5,000 square feet apply for a grading permit if not part a separate approval process. DISCUSSION The property at 1840 Hunter Lane has a legal platted lot between the existing home and Hunter Lane. The existing home will essentially become a flag lot through an egress easement over the parcel closest to the street. This is not a subdivision of a parcel. The owner of 1840 Hunter Lane is desiring to sell off their second lot for the construction of a new single family home. The second undeveloped lot is much lower than the street and will need some fill material to grade the lot so that a home can be constructed. The owner has negotiated to receive fill from the neighboring Orchard Heights Development. BUDGET IMPACT The Mendota Heights fee schedule identifies a $200 fee for this activity to cover staff time in reviewing and inspecting the improvements. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the council approve the grading permit for 1840 Hunter Lane. ACTION REQUIRED If Council wishes to implement the staff recommendations, pass a motion authorizing staff to issue the Grading Permit for 1840 Hunter Lane. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 27 !(!(!(!(!(!((G!.666666666666666666 6 6 ³ ³ ³ " ""666666666!!2 329 171 157 221150149131129111115110100902016 455 408 155150 157 171 157 1491311850 1140 1154 1840 1836 1830 1860 1835 1845 1855HUNTER LN375'269'8'''' Dakota County GIS 1840 Hunter Lane City ofMendotaHeights060 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 8/16/2018 page 28 page 29 page 30 8/6/2018 Mendota Heights Building Activity Report Mike Andrejka, Building Official July 1, 2018 thru July 31, 2018 January 1, 2018 thru July 31, 2018 January 1, 2017 thru July 31, 2017 January 1, 2016 thru July 31, 2016 Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected SFD 0 -$ $0.00 SFD 7 3,738,348.00$ $41,844.43 SFD 6 2,894,201.34$ $32,332.59 SFD 4 1,822,850.00$ 20,971.81$ Apartment 1 9,466,820.00$ $65,710.84 Apartment 1 9,466,820.00$ $65,710.84 Apartment 2 23,022,000.00$ $158,402.65 Apartment 0 -$ -$ Townhouse 2 559,090.00$ $5,341.88 Townhouse 14 3,127,455.00$ $32,879.63 Townhouse 6 1,340,000.00$ $13,475.51 Townhouse 14 3,255,000.00$ 34,159.81$ Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ -$ Misc 50 501,610.78$ 7,509.60$ Misc 321 4,204,237.51$ 62,592.81$ Misc 357 5,193,519.09$ 72,337.77$ Misc 359 4,687,401.03$ 67,192.63$ Commercial 3 306,350.00$ $10,563.50 Commercial 12 6,719,309.00$ $58,126.14 Commercial 20 5,008,347.00$ $50,937.73 Commercial 14 1,896,714.00$ 18,829.34$ Sub Total 56 10,833,870.78$ 89,125.82$ Sub Total 355 27,256,169.51$ 261,153.85$ Sub Total 391 37,458,067.43$ 327,486.25$ Sub Total 391 11,661,965.03$ 141,153.59$ Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Plumbing 15 $2,652.00 Plumbing 140 $19,711.55 Plumbing 106 $24,077.69 Plumbing 140 12,179.53$ Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 2 20.00$ Sewer 3 $225.00 Sewer 31 $2,325.00 Sewer 21 $1,588.00 Sewer 20 1,500.00$ Mechanical 34 $3,082.59 Mechanical 305 397.00$ $30,342.66 Mechanical 216 $30,345.87 Mechanical 219 22,639.46$ Sub Total 52 5,959.59$ Sub Total 476 52,379.21$ Sub Total 343 $56,011.56 Sub Total 381 36,338.99$ License No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Contractor 14 $700.00 Contractor 259 $12,950.00 Contractor 264 $13,200.00 Contractor 259 12,950.00$ Total 122 10,833,870.78$ 95,785.41$ Total 1090 27,256,169.51$ 326,483.06$ Total 998 37,458,067.43$ 396,697.81$ Total 1031 11,661,965.03$ 190,442.58$ NOTE: All fee amounts exclude SAC, WAC and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan review fee and valuation totals page 31 page 32 page 33 page 34 page 35 page 36 page 37 page 38 page 39 page 40 page 41 page 42 page 43 page 44 Request for City Council Action DATE: August 21, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Donations COMMENT: Introduction The City Council is asked to formally accept donations which were received from the MOMS Club of Mendota Heights, MN and Sally Ehlers. Background By state law, all donations to the City must be accepted by the City Council by means of a resolution. The MOMS Club of Mendota Heights, MN has donated money to collectively plant a tree in one of the Mendota Heights Parks. Their $150.00 cash donation is put towards the cost of the tree. Sally Ehlers has graciously donated a gently used set of golf clubs for use at the Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course. The City is grateful for the generosity of all donors. Budget Impact There is no budget impact. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve Resolution 2018-57 and Resolution 2018-63. Action Required If the Council concurs, it should, by motion adopt the following resolutions 2018-57 and 2018-63 accepting donations. page 45 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2018-57 RESOLUTION FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF THE GIFTS TO THE CITY WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to follow Minnesota Statute 465.03 “Gifts to municipalities”; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Statute requires a resolution to accept gifts to municipalities; and WHEREAS, the City has previously acknowledged gifts with a resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights have duly considered this matter and wish to acknowledge the civic mindedness of citizens and officially recognize their donations. NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights accepts a donation of $150.00 from the MOMS Club of Mendota Heights to go towards the planting of a tree in a Mendota Heights park. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 21st day of August, 2018. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 46 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2018-63 RESOLUTION FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF THE GIFTS TO THE CITY WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to follow Minnesota Statute 465.03 “Gifts to municipalities”; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Statute requires a resolution to accept gifts to municipalities; and WHEREAS, the City has previously acknowledged gifts with a resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights have duly considered this matter and wish to acknowledge the civic mindedness of citizens and officially recognize their donations. NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights accepts a donation of golf clubs by Sally Ehlers for the Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 21st day of August, 2018. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 47 page 48 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 7, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Authorize Purchase Order for a Fence at the Rogers Lake Culvert COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to authorize a purchase order to install at fence at the Rogers Lake Culvert. BACKGROUND For many years the city has received calls regarding the fishing around the culvert that connects north and south Rogers Lake. The calls express concerns regarding safety of fishing in this area due to the proximity to the “S” curve on Wagon Wheel Trail and no off street access to the south culvert location. Other concerns are erosion due to trampling of vegetation. A neighborhood group installed a small garden style fence a couple of years ago in an attempt to quarantine and revegetate the area on the south side near the culvert outlet, but that effort was unsuccessful. The DNR encourages fishing in Minnesota lakes, but also recognizes the need for public safety. The DNR monitored the site during working hours of a typical weekday but did not observe any concerns. It would like to see the ability for anglers to use this area as it is very popular. The DNR then did state that if fishing in this area cannot be accommodated in a safe manor, they will defer to the city to install whatever measures it deems appropriate. The DNR prefers that a trail and fishing dock be installed, but understands the feasibility of this improvement may not match the resources of the city and constraints of the site. The DNR is also requesting signage that directs anglers to the fishing pier at Rogers Lake Park. DISCUSSION Staff reached out to three fence contractors to solicit a quote to install a 4 foot tall black vinyl chain link fence, two responded. The fence is proposed to be 450 feet long installed 6 feet from the back of the curb. The post will be grade SS40 which is the highest rated strength and installed 48 inches deep, 10 feet on center. The fence is proposed to have a tension wire installed in lieu of a top rail to make climbing more difficult. The quotes are as follows: Midwest Fence & Mfg. $8,391 Town & Country Fence $8,795 page 49 BUDGET IMPACT The costs of this replacement and installation are proposed to be paid from the Parks operating budget. The fence installation was not budgeted for this year, so it the rest of the Parks expenditures are totally spent as planned, it will result in a deficit for that division. RECOMMENDATION I recommend that the Council authorize the purchase order for the lighting replacement to Mid Northern Services. ACTION REQUIRED If Council agrees with the staff recommendation, authorize staff to execute a purchase order to Mid Northern Services. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 50 !(66 66666666666666! * " " ³" ""6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6!!2!!2 !!2 745 735 426316 743 259 23720 3 177 1499897 12 9 868280 120175 16996 69 65 6361 58 54 53 515049 12 8 464442 39 38 3734 33 144 31 30 110 29100 28 272524 232221 201918 17168157 141211641644 12 23110 34 17502 1 30 50 20 2017 17730 30 34 23 232150181542 29 23 2217 44122247 2301 945 900 2301 900 907 945 940 940 901 2239 2247 940 901 945 901 2239 907 WAGON WHEEL TRL 20 2 ' 121'8'' Dakota County GIS Rogers Lake Fence City ofMendotaHeights0100 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 7/18/2018 page 51 page 52 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 21, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2018-64 Adopt the 2018 Mendota Heights Surface Water Management Plan COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve Resolution 2018-64 adopting the 2018 Mendota Heights Surface Water Management Plan. BACKGROUND The City of Mendota Heights Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP) was last updated in 2006. The Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), the State regulatory agency that oversees surface water management, requires these municipal plans be updated every 10 years. The plan is required to provide the following: 1. The plan must meet the regulatory requirements of the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) 2. The plan must include the goals, objectives, and requirements of the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization (LMRWMO) management plan, as adopted in August 2015 3. The plan must include necessary updates to be compliant with the Metropolitan Council’s requirements for the City’s Comprehensive Plan update to take place in 2018 4. The plan must update our surface water flow quantity model (including maps and figures) to account for increased rainfall intensity data as identified by the Atlas-14 rainfall intensity data 5. The Plan must include a full water quality model in P8 format that will become the property of the City of Mendota Heights upon completion. The model shall be modifiable so that the City can update the model in the future The City of Mendota Heights awarded this project to WSB & Associates on February 2, 2016 for their not to exceed price of $54,486. DISCUSSION WSB & Associates has updated the plan with the above criteria and has had the plan reviewed and approved by the LMRWMO and the Met Council. Attached are the review comments and responses, and the final approval letter from the LMRWMO. The report excluding the modeling page 53 provided in the appendix (350 pages) is included for your review. A summary of the plan updates will be provided ahead of the meeting on Tuesday August 21st. BUDGET IMPACT This project was funded through the City Storm Water Utility Fund. RECOMMENDATION I recommend that the Council adopt the 2018 Surface Water Management Plan. ACTION REQUIRED If Council agrees with the staff recommendation, make a motion adopting “RESOLUTION 2018-64 APPROVING THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 54 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2018-64 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, a stake holder comment period was conducted and all comment were addressed; and WHEREAS, The City of Mendota Heights is committed to protecting its water resources through prudent planning and implementation of modern rules; and WHEREAS, All complete planning applications submitted after the approval must comply with the rules and standards laid out in the Surface Water Management Plan; and NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the Mendota Heights Surface Water Management Plan is hereby approved. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 21st day of August 2018. ATTEST CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BY____________________________ BY___________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Neil Garlock, Mayor page 55 June 14, 2018 Mr. Ryan Ruzek City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re: LMRWMO Review of the City of Mendota Heights Draft Surface Water Management Plan Dear Mr. Ruzek: The Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization (LMRWMO) has reviewed the City of Mendota Heights’ response to LMRWMO comments and the revised draft of the City’s Surface Water Management Plan (City Plan), which were received on May 29, 2018. The revised City Plan addresses all of the LMRWMO’s comments and suggestions. Therefore, the LMRWMO Board of Managers approved the City of Mendota Heights’ Surface Water Management Plan on June 13, 2018. When the final version of the City Plan is ready, please provide digital copies of the City Plan to the LMRWMO– one to Joe Barten at the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District and one to me. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-832-2945 or gwilliams@barr.com. Sincerely, Greg Williams, P.E. Barr Engineering Company Engineers for the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization c: Madison Rogers, WSB & Associates, Inc. Joe Barten, LMRWMO Administrator Sam Paske, Metropolitan Council page 56 May 25, 2018 Mr. Greg Williams Barr Engineering 4300 MarketPointe Drive Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55435 Re: LMRWMO Review of the City of Mendota Heights draft Surface Water Management Plan WSB Project No. 01735-040 Dear Mr. Williams: Thank you for your review and comments. On behalf of the City of Mendota Heights, please see the response to each comment below. An item that has been updated that is not included in your comments directly is Appendix E, which now includes the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document rather tha n Design Standards. The Land Disturbance Guidance Document will act as a tool for those looking to submit a City permit, and follows all design standards previously as a separate Appendix, as well as all the policies discussed in Section 5. The Land Disturbance Guidance Document is referenced within the City’s updated ordinance. General Comment 1: The City Plan notes that the City will be developing and updating several ordinances in the near future, including its erosion and sediment control ordinance. Timely updates of these ordinances will be critical to implementing and enforcing the policies and performance standards included in the LMRWMO and adopted by the City. Response: The City has updated their ordinance prior to the implementation of this plan. Please see updates to Section 6.6 and Section 5.3.7 within the plan. General Comment 2: Amounts from Atlas 14 used by the City for project review and stormwater design in either the inventory or Section 4 when discussing water quantity issues. Response: A Table has been added in Section 4 and the Land Disturbance Guidance Document in Appendix E to provide clarity. Comment – Page 1-1: Section 1.2 of the SWMP notes that the LMRWMO is the local governmental unit (LGU) responsible for administering the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) within the City, citing an agreement between the City and LMRWMO. This is in conflict with the LMRWMO Plan; Policy 5.5.3.A of the LMRWMO Plan states that the member cities are the LGUs responsible for adminis tering WCA. The SWMP should be revised to reflect the City’s role as LGU for administering WCA (consistent with SWMP Policy 5.3.6.2-1). Response: Section 1.2 has been revised to state that the City is the LGU. Comment – Page 2-3: Section 2.5 of the SWMP identifies several key waters as part of the state’s “Protected Water Inventory (PWI)” and provides the corresponding PWI identification number. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources no longer uses the term “protected water” or “protected water inventory.” These waters are now referred to as “public waters” and the inventory is referred to as the “Public Waters Inventory (PWI).” Also, consider providing the PWI identification numbers in their six digit format as they are most commonly reported and shown on PWI maps (e.g., “19-0078” versus “78”). Response: “Protected” has been revised to “Public”, and the extended ID number, as found on the MNDNR website, is now provided (e.g. “19-78” vs “78”). page 57 Comment - Page 2-4/Page 4-2: Table 2.3 Summary of Impaired Water Bodies does not include the unnamed creek (ID 07010206-542) that is impaired for E. coli. This creek should be included in the table. This section also notes that the City may be required to implement a TMDL plan for Pickerel Lake once complete. Pickerel Lake has been removed from the impaired waters list. Consider removing the reference to Pickerel Lake or revising this section to note that the City may be required to implement TMDL plans for other impaired waters located downstream of the City as future TMDLs are completed. The unnamed creek should be included in Table 4.1 also. Response: Unnamed Creek has been added to Table 2.3 and Table 4.1. Noting of Pickerel Lake TMDL has been removed. Comment – Page 2-6: Consider adding a figure showing the four major watershed areas described in Section 2.8. If added, this figure could also identify the boundaries of the LMRWMO and LMRWD within the city. Response: Figure 5 is a 22x34 inch map that is intended to be included in a pocket of the document. This hard copy map can be used or the electronic version of Figure 5 can be viewed by zooming into the area of interest. Shading for the drainage areas and the LMRWMO and LMRWD boundaries were added to the figure, as suggested. Comment – Page 2-6: The discussion of the City’s Phase II NPDES SWPPP and 2006 self-assessment is out of date. The MPCA issued a new general permit in 2013. Discussion of City actions relevant to its SWPPP responsibilities in this and other sections should reference the most recent permit and current SWPPP. Response: Language has been updated to refer to the 2013 general permit. Comment – Page 2-6: Section 2.10 directs readers to the City website for more information about the City’s stormwater management ordinance. Consider adding a link. Response: The City uses a third party to host their ordinances, therefore no link will be added. Comment – Page 4-3: Section 4.1.2 notes that portions of the Mississippi River upstream of Mendota Heights are impaired and cites reach ID 07010206-509. This reach ID appears to be no longer used (replaced with ID07010206-805). It is unclear why this section is referencing impairments upstream of the City, as waste load allocations from TMDLs would be unlikely to include the City. Inclusion of impaired Mississippi River reaches downstream of the City would be more relevant, as TMDL plans developed for those reaches may affect the City. Response: Concur – downstream reach of Mississippi has been listed and impairments updated. Comment – Page 4-4: Policy 5.4.3-B of the LMRWMO Plan requires that member cities prioritize shoreland areas for restoration. The SWMP generally notes that soil erosion along bluffs is a source of pollution, identifies erosion as an issue along Interstate Valley Creek in Table 4.2, and notes erosion along Ivy Falls in Section 4.3.2. Repairs to Interstate Valley Creek and Cherokee Heights culvert are included in Table 6.1 as items 17 and 17, respectively. The SMWP should include a list, tabl e, or similar format identifying and prioritizing areas for shoreland restoration within Section 4, even if such areas are not specifically included within the 10-year implementation timeframe (although issues addressed within the City’s implementation table should be identified as such with a cross reference). Response: Section 4.2 now references Table 6.1 which allocates significant funds for projects on Interstate Valley Creek for stabilization projects for 9 out of the 10 years of the plan. Interstate Valley Creek is the City’s priority for shoreland restoration. Comment – Page 5-1: Policy 5.2.3-A of the LMRWMO Plan requires that member cities reduce the amount of impervious areas through the use of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques to the gre atest extent reasonable for development and redevelopment projects. Section 5.3.1.2 of the SWMP must page 58 include a policy requiring the consideration or evaluation of LID practices in development and redevelopment projects. Response: Concur – Section 5.3.1.2 policy 8 has been added to address LID techniques. This has also been added to the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Comment – Page 5-2: Policies in Section 5.3.1.2 do not explicitly include the requirement that peak discharge rate from developed sites must not exceed the existing peak discharge rate for the 5 - or 10- year event and the 100-year event (LMRWMO Plan Policy 5.2.2-M). SWMP Policy 5.3.1.2-4 notes that detention basins should be designed for this criteria. This policy must be strengthened to require this level of rate control and be broadened in scope to apply beyond detention basins. Response: Concur – Section 5.3.1.2 policy 4 has been added to address no increase in peak discharge rates. Additionally, this standard is included in Section 3.2 of the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Comment – Page 5-2: Policy 5.3.1.2-5 states that an SCS Type II distribution be used in hydrologic analysis. Current standard practice by MnDOT and other state agencies is to use the Midwe st and Southeast 3 (or MSE3) distribution published by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) for such analysis. Consider revising the policy to allow, recommend, or require use of the MSE3 distribution. Response: Concur, MSE3 distribution is recommended for Policy 5.3.1.2-6 Comment – Page 5-3: Policy 5.3.1.2-13 states that new storm sewers and open channels shall be designed using the Rational Method or other technical method approved by the City. Consider removing the specific reference to the Rational Method as there are many widely accessible modeling approaches available to developers and the City. Response: Concur, all methods approved in the MPCA Stormwater Manual are a proved for use of design. Comment – Page 5-4: Policy 5.3.2.2-2 states that all new developments must endeavor to infiltrate 1.1 inches of runoff following the MIDS guidance. However, this performance standard is not binding, and water quality performance standards for development and redevelopment are not explicitly described in the SWMP. Policy 5.3.3-A of the LMRWMO Plan requires member cities to require 50% total phosphorus reduction from new development and redevelopment sites exceeding one acre of land. The SWMP must clearly indicate how the City meets this requirem ent within the SWMP policies, design standards, or City ordinance. The City’s current stormwater management ordinance (Title 14) does not address total phosphorus. Response: 5.3.2.2 -2b has been added to include the requirement of 50% total phosphorus reduction. Comment – Page 5-4: Section 5.3.1.2 of the SWMP should include a policy noting that the City requires proposed development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects be designed so as not to exceed the capacity of the downstream drainage system, consistent with Policy 5.2.3-G of the LMRWMO Plan. Response: Concur - Section 5.3.1.2 policy 4 now includes this requirement. Comment – Page 5-4: Policy 5.3.1.2-16 of the SWMP state that drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over newly constructed stormwater management features. This policy must be expanded to include redeveloped stormwater features and existing stormwater management features on redevelopment sites, consistent with Policy 5.2.3-I of the LMRWMO Plan. Response: Concur – Policy 5.3.1-16 now includes this condition. page 59 Comment – Page 5-5: The LMRWMO requires cities to report progress towards implementing their local water plans (LMRWMO Policy 5.9.3-B). Section 5.3.4.2 must include a policy noting that the City will report progress to the LMRWMO. Response: Policy has been added to report progress annually. Comment – Page 5-6: Policy 5.5.3-B of the LMRWMO Plan requires a vegetated buffer averaging 15 feet adjacent to lakes, streams, and wetlands be implemented for new or redevelopment projects exceeding one acre. The SWMP must be revised to include a policy at least as stringent as the LMRWMO buffer requirement in Section 5.3.6.2. Response: Concur – Section 5.3.6.2 has been updated. Comment – Page 5-7: Policies 5.3.7.2-1 and 5.3.7.2-2 both reference the adoption of a City Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and appear to be redundant. Consider combining these into one policy. Response: Concur – Policy 5.3.7.2 was updated. Comment – Page 6-6: Section 6.4 of the SWMP describes the City’s education and outreach efforts. There does not seem to be a corresponding item in the City’s implementation table (Table 6.1). These costs may be implicitly included among NPDES compliance activities listed under the “Annual O&M” item. A line item in Table 6.1 should be added for education and outreach, or it should be noted that those costs are included among another existing line item. Response: A line item in Table 6.1 has been added for education and outreach Comment – Page 6-9: Section 6.6 of the SWMP notes the ordinance that the City has developed (or intends to develop) to address storm water management. This section should note that the City requ ires submittal of a Runoff Control Plan (see Policy 5.2.3-M of the LMRWMO Plan) or similar document as part of project review. This section should also include reference to Appendix D which includes the design standards and required contents for project submittals. Response: The requirement of a runoff control plan as a part of project review has been added to the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document, which is referenced within the City’s updated ordinance (see general comment 1) Comment – Page 6-10/Table 6.1: Section 6.7.1 of the SWMP notes the implementation priorities of the LMRWMO. This list does not include stormwater BMPs or education to improve stormwater management upstream of Rogers Lake (item 8 in Table 6.1 of the LMRWMO Plan). This project should be included in Section 6.7.1; consider including this project as a line item in Table 6.1 of the SWMP. Response: Concur – Section 6.7.1 was updated to include stormwater management upstream of Rogers Lake. Items 17 and 20 have been added to the implementation plan to address this priority. Comment – Table 6.1: The SWMP implementation table (Table 6.1) covers the period from 2017 through 2023. Per MN Rules 8410, the implementation program must cover a ten year period. Table 6.1 must be revised to cover the period through 2018 through 2027 (2017 may be omitted at the City’s discretion). Response: Table 6.1 has been revised to cover 2018-2027. Metropolitan Council Comments/Recommendations (by City SWMP Section number): Comment – Executive Summary, Section 1.3: The SWMP reference to the “Metropolitan Council’s 2030 Water Resources Management Plan…” is out of date. The Metropolitan Council adopted its 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan in May 2015. It is available on the Metropolitan Council’s website: www.metrocouncil.org. Response: Concur – reference has been updated. page 60 Comment – Section 4.3, System Description/Figure 5: The City should consider including separate maps of the topographic watersheds and the drainage districts they were divided into; the scale of Figure 5 makes this map nearly unreadable. Response: Figure 5 is a 22x34 inch map that is intended for hardcopy use and included in a pocket of the report as a folded map. This figure can also be viewed electronically, zooming in and out to see the desired level of detail. The map was updated to show the drainage districts and watershed district boundaries. Comment – Table 6.1: This table also functions as the required table for the capital improvements program. However, the table only covers 2017 through 2023; when approved, the plan will extend for ten years. MN Rules Chapter 8410 requires a capital improvement program that sets forth, by year, the details of necessary capital improvements. While we realizes it is difficult to project projects and expenses so far into the futures, the plan is still technically required to do so. Response: Table 6.1 has been revised to cover 2018-2027. Comment – Section 6.5, Financing and the Stormwater Utility: This section is confusing. Subsection 6.5.1 states that the current quarterly residential charge is $12.75 per unit, expected to rise to $16.50 per unit in 2017. Subsection 6.5.2 states that the current residential rate is $14 per unit per year. T hese discrepancies should be better explained in the text. Response: Subsection 6.5.2 has been updated to state that the current quarterly residential charge is $12.00 per unit per City resolution 2018-16 Storm Water Utility Rate Adjustment. Comment – Section 6.6, Ordinance Implementation: This section states that according to the City’s MS4 permit, an erosion and sediment control (ESC) ordinance was to be completed in year 2 of the current permit (2015), but the City delayed implementation of the ordinance until the SWMP could be completed. The City’s previous plan stated that an ESC ordinance was to be completed in year 2 of the (then) current permit (2002), but the City delayed implementation of the ordinance until the (previous) SWMP could be completed. This ESC ordinance, along with ordinances regulating illicit discharges, stormwater management, and shoreland management should be implemented and enforced. Response: The City has updated their ordinance prior to the implementation of this plan. Please see updates to Section 6.6 and Section 5.3.7 within the plan. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Madison Rogers Graduate Engineer Attachments Mendota Heights Surface Water Management Plan cc: Bob Barth, P.E. WSB Ryan Ruzek, P.E. City of Mendota Heights page 61 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN July 2018 Prepared for: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 WSB PROJECT NO. 1735-04 page 62 Surface Water Management Plan City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA July 2018 Prepared By: WSB & Associates, Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 763-541-4800 763-541-1700 (Fax) page 63 TABLE OF CONTENTS Surface Water Management Plan Table of Contents City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Title Page Table of Contents Glossary of Terms SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SECTION 2: LAND AND WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY SECTION 3: AGENCY COOPERATION SECTION 4: ASSESSMENT OF ISSUES SECTION 5: GOALS AND POLICIES SECTION 6: IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM Appendix A – Figures Figure 1: Land Use Map Figure 2: Watershed Boundary Map Figure 3: Impaired Waters Map Figure 4: Wetland Locations Map Figure 5: Drainage System Map Figure 6: DNR Protected Waters Map Appendix B – MS4 SWPPP Application for Reauthorization and BMP Sheets Appendix C – System Design Guidelines Appendix D – Land Disturbance Guidance Appendix E – Stormwater Modeling Development and Results Appendix F – Wetland Management Plan – 2006 Local Surface Water Management Plan page 64 GLOSSARY OF TERMS Surface Water Management Plan Glossary of Terms City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 DEFINITIONS 100-year Flood: A flood that statistically has a one percent (1%) chance of occurring in any given year. 1-year, 10-year, and 100-year Rainfall: A rainfall event that has a 100 percent, ten percent (10%), and one percent (1%) chance respectively, of happening in any given year. Alluvial: Made up of the material—such as sand, silt, or clay—deposited on land by streams. Aquatic Macrophyte: A plant that grows in or near water. Bounce: The elevation difference between the normal water level (NWL) and the water level after a particular storm event. Buffer Strip: An area of permanent vegetation that helps to control air, soil, and water quality along with other environmental problems. Calcareous Seepage Fen: A rare and distinctive wetland characterized by a substrate of non-acidic peat and dependent on a constant supply of cold, oxygen-poor groundwater that is rich in calcium and magnesium bicarbonates. (Source: http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/Calc_fen-factsheet.pdf) Dredge: Removal of sediments and debris from the bottom of a waterbody. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Fen: A low and marshy or frequently flooded area of land. Floatables: Solid water-borne litter and debris, mainly from street litter. Floodplain: Any land area susceptible to being inundated by floodwaters from any source. Floodway: The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height. Freeboard: The vertical separation between the high water level (HWL) of the simulated rainfall or runoff event and the lowest ground elevation adjacent to a structure. Hydraulic: Related to the conveyance of liquids through pipes and channels. Hydrologic: Related to the occurrence, circulation, distribution, and effects of water on the earth’s surface, in the soil and underlying rocks, as well as in the atmosphere. Illicit Discharge: Any direct or indirect non-stormwater discharge to the storm drain system. Impaired Waters: A body of water that is too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet the water quality standards set by the State of Minnesota. Infiltration: Wter passing through a substance (generally soil) by filtering or permeating. Inlet: A place of entry into a waterbody. Land Locked Basin: Basins where no outlet exists below the proposed or existing structures. page 65 GLOSSARY OF TERMS Surface Water Management Plan Glossary of Terms City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4): The system of conveyances (including sidewalks, roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit: A permit issued by the EPA that authorizes the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States, whether the permit is applicable on an individual, group, or general area. Noxious: Harmful, poisonous, or very unpleasant. Outfall: A place where a river, drain, or sewer empties. Overland Drainage: Flow of water over the land, downslope toward a waterbody. Ponding: The pooling of runoff in flat areas or depressions from which it cannot drain out. Riprap: Loose stone used to form a foundation for a breakwater or other structure. Runoff: Precipitation and other surface drainage that is not infiltrated into or otherwise retained by the soil, concrete, asphalt, or other surface upon which it falls. Skimmers: Structures that confine floatables that may otherwise enter a downstream pond or lake. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP): A document which describes the best management practices and activities to be implemented by a person or business to identify sources of pollution or contamination at a site, and the actions to eliminate or reduce pollutant discharges to stormwater, stormwater conveyance systems, and/or receiving waters to the maximum extent practicable. Stormwater: Any surface flow, runoff, and drainage consisting entirely of water from any form of natural precipitation. Surficial Geology: Unconsolidated deposits of variable content and texture that overlie the bedrock surface. Major textural categories include alluvium, terraced sands and gravels, loess, till, and outwash. Swale: A graded, shallow trench along the land’s contour, used to manage stormwater runoff and increase infiltration. Turbulence: Unsteady movement of air, water, or other fluid. Watershed: All lands which are enclosed by a continuous hydrologic drainage divide and lay upslope from a specified outlet point. page 66 GLOSSARY OF TERMS Surface Water Management Plan Glossary of Terms City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 ACRONYMS BMP – Best Management Practice BWSR – Board of Water and Soil Resources cfs – cubic feet per second CMP – Corrugated Metal Pipe DNR – Department of Natural Resources DWSMA - Drinking Water Supply Management Area EOF – Emergency Overflow ESC – Erosion and Sediment Control FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency fps – feet per second GIS – Geographical Information System HWL – High Water Level HSG – Hydrologic Soil Group ISTS – Individual Sewage Treatment Systems LGU – Local Governmental Unit LID – Low Impact Development LIDAR – Light Detection and Ranging LMRWD – Lower Minnesota River Watershed District LMRWMO – Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization LSWMP – Local Surface Water Management Plan MDH – Minnesota Department of Health MIDS – Minimal Impact Design Standards MLCCS – Minnesota Land Cover Classification System MnDOT – Minnesota Department of Transportation MnRAM – Minnesota Routine Assessment Method MNRRA – Mississippi National River and Recreation Area MPCA – Minnesota Pollution Control Agency page 67 GLOSSARY OF TERMS Surface Water Management Plan Glossary of Terms City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 MS4 – Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System NOAA – National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NURP – Nationwide Urban Runoff Program NWI – National Wetlands Inventory NWL – Normal Water Level OHWL – Ordinary High Water Level P8 – Program for Predicting Polluting Particle Passage through Pits, Puddles, and Ponds ppb – parts per billion PWI – Protected Waters Inventory RCP – Reinforced Concrete Pipe SWCD – Soil and Water Conservation District SWMP – Surface Water Management Plan SWPPP – Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWU – Stormwater Utility TCMACMP - Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Chloride Management Plan TMDL – Total Maximum Daily Load USACE – US Army Corps of Engineers USEPA – US Environmental Protection Agency WCA – Wetland Conservation Act WHEP – Wetland Health Evaluation Program WHPP – Wellhead Protection Plan WMAt – Winter Maintenance Assessment tool WRMP – Water Resources Management Plan page 68 SECTION 1 Surface Water Management Plan Section 1 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-1 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this plan is to describe how the current Surface Water Management Plan when combined with the City policy and procedures meets statutory, rule, and Metropolitan Council requirements. The purpose of this Surface Water Management Plan is broad and the goal is to guide the City in managing its surface and groundwater resources. This will enable the City to develop drainage facilities in a cost-effective manner, while maintaining or improving the quality of its water resources. 1.1. Purposes The City of Mendota Heights’ Surface Water Management Plan (also referred to as the plan, SWMP, City plan, local plan) is a local management plan that meets the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 103B.235, Minnesota Rules 8410, the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization Third Generation Watershed Management Plan (dated August 2011, as amended August 2015) and the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District’s Third Generation Watershed Management Plan (dated November 2011, as amended June 2015). The purpose of the SWMP is to serve as a guide in conserving, protecting, and managing the City’s surface water resources. This plan is an update to the 2006 Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP) and includes updates to the City’s HydroCAD Model as well as the incorporation of a P8 Urban Catchment water quality model. The City submits its SWMP to the Metropolitan Council, the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization, and the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District for their review. The watershed organizations have 60 days for their review after written receipt of the City SWMP. Metropolitan Council provides comments within 45 days. Metropolitan Council directs its comments to the watershed organizations which then consider these comments in formulating their own. 1.2. Surface Water Management Responsibilities and Related Agreements The City of Mendota Heights is party to two separate joint powers agreements related to surface water management: 1. With the cities of St. Paul, Lilydale, Mendota, Mendota Heights, Sunfish Lake, West St. Paul, South St. Paul, and Inver Grove Heights establishing the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization (LMRWMO). 2. With the cities of Bloomington, Burnsville, Carver, Chanhassen, Chaska, Eagan, Eden Prairie, Lilydale, Mendota, Mendota Heights, Minneapolis, Savage, and Shakopee establishing the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District (LMRWD). The City also has an agreement with both the LMRWMO and LMRWD establishing the City as the Local Government Unit for administering the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) within the City. Upon approval of this SWMP by the two watersheds with jurisdiction over the City, it is the City’s intent to maintain its current permitting powers through its Permit for Land Disturbing Activities. Currently, the LMRWMO and LMRWD do not issue permits, so no impact to these organizations would occur. The watersheds would continue in their role as project review agencies. The City of Mendota Heights is responsible for construction, maintenance, and operation of the City's stormwater management systems (e.g., ponds, BMP, mechanical structures, sump manholes, pipes, channels) in accordance with its MS4 Permit. page 69 SECTION 1 Surface Water Management Plan Section 1 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-2 1.3. Metropolitan Council Requirements Metropolitan Council’s 2040 Water Resources Management Plan expands upon the requirements of Rule 8410 as follows: 1. Communities must commit to a goal of no adverse impacts (non-degradation) for area water resources. 2. The assessment of problems and corrective actions must include Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) considerations. 3. Require infiltration of the first half inch of runoff from impervious areas created by projects where there are A and B soils. 4. Require infiltration in wellhead protection areas be based on City’s wellhead protection plan. 5. Communities with trout streams must identify actions to reduce thermal pollution. 6. Communities must meet state requirements for development near outstanding resource value waters. 7. Communities must consider stormwater management practices that promote infiltration and filtration including the reduction of impervious surface. 8. Include information of types of Best Management Practices (BMPs) used to improve stormwater quality and quantity including maintenance schedules. 1.4. Plan Structure The Mendota Heights SWMP is divided into six sections: x Section 1 Executive Summary provides background information and summarizes the plan contents. x Section 2 Land and Water Resource Inventory presents information about the topography, geology, groundwater, soils, land use, public utilities, surface waters, hydrologic system and data, and the drainage system. x Section 3 Agency Cooperation outlines other governmental controls and programs that affect stormwater management. x Section 4 Assessment of Problems and Issues presents the City's water management related problems and issues. x Section 5 Goals and Policies outlines the City's goals and policies pertaining to water management. x Section 6 Implementation Program presents the implementation program for the City, which includes defining responsibilities, prioritizing, and listing the program elements. 1.4.1. Background This report provides the City of Mendota Heights with a SWMP that serves as a guide to managing the City’s surface water system, and brings the City into compliance with Minnesota Statutes. This plan is an update to the 2006 LSWMP. The plan will guide stormwater activities in the City for the next 10 years (2018-2027). Periodic amendment to the SWMP will likely occur in the intervening 10 years so that the SWMP remains current to watershed plan amendments and Metropolitan Council requirements. The City of Mendota Heights (population 11,172) is located in northern Dakota County at the confluence of the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers (Figure 1). Mendota Heights is a well-established community that is fully developed. The City has put emphasis on high quality residential neighborhoods, open space and parks, and well-planned commercial and industrial areas. page 70 SECTION 1 Surface Water Management Plan Section 1 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-3 The Township of Mendota was organized in 1858. After World War II, the area experiencing rapid growth and the need for community planning and services prompted a portion of the original township to incorporate as the Village of Mendota Heights in 1956. The Village of Mendota Heights became the City of Mendota Heights in 1974. Mendota Heights is a first-ring suburb located between the City of West St. Paul and Sunfish Lake to the east, Minneapolis – St. Paul International Airport and Fort Snelling to the West, City of Eagan to the south, and City of St. Paul to the north. Mendota Heights falls within two watershed districts: Lower Mississippi Watershed Management Organization and the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District. This plan addresses the rules and regulations put forth by the both. The City of Mendota Heights is considered fully developed. Section 2.3 of this plan discusses land use in the City. 1.4.2. Summary of Implementation Section Section 6 of this plan presents the implementation program for the City of Mendota Heights, which includes defining responsibilities, prioritizing, and listing the program elements. Table 6.1, outlines the projects, programs, studies, and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) activities that have been identified as a priority to address water resource needs and problem areas within the City. page 71 SECTION 2 Surface Water Management Plan Section 2 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-1 2. LAND AND WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY 2.1. Land Use Figure 1 provides the land use classifications for the City of Mendota Heights, and comes directly from the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan). The Comprehensive Plan states that the City of Mendota Heights is predominantly developed. However, the City has maintained substantial areas of public open space, wetlands, lakes, bluffs and wooded areas that give the impression of a lower density of development. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the City will strive to maintain and enrich the mature, fully developed residential environment by preserving natural features and the environment while promoting high quality and well-functioning developments. The Comprehensive Plan provides a significant amount of narrative and statistical detail on existing and proposed land use and the reader is referred to that document for more information on land use planning. There are a few areas of note that relate to surface water management, one of which is the concentrated industrial area between Highway 13, Highway 55, and Interstate 494. Having a concentrated area of impervious area can be opportunity for regional stormwater treatment when new development occurs, but it can also be a potential hotspot for stormwater pollution and management issues. The Comprehensive Plan references “focus” areas, or areas remaining to be developed. The focus areas in the Comprehensive Plan are Pilot Knob and Acacia Site, Somerset Area, St. Thomas/Visitation Campuses, Dodd/Highway 110, Furlong District, and “Infill” Sites (any property that has the opportunity to develop, or redevelop, beyond its current level). These focus areas have the potential to play an important role in the management of surface water during the next ten years. As the sites develop and potentially impact water quality and public safety, it will be essential that guidelines and best management practices, as outlined in this SWMP, are followed by developers. The hydrologic modeling that supports the SWMP used the land use that was used in the 2006 Local Surface Water Management Plan hydrologic model. A combination of aerial photos, the land use classification map, and as-built drawings were used to determine hydrologic characteristics of the full development landscape. Changes from undeveloped land uses—such as natural and agricultural—to more heavily developed land uses —such as low, medium and high density residential and commercial—have a pronounced effect on hydrology. The increased impervious surface associated with the urban land uses leads to higher runoff peak flows and increased runoff volumes. The City is unique in that although it is mostly developed, the land use consists of large areas of institutional land, resulting in less impervious area and more green and open space. 2.2. Topography and Watersheds The surficial geology of Mendota Heights consists of the glacial and alluvial (outwash) deposits which cover most of the City. Most of Mendota Heights is rolling to hilly terrain interspersed with poorly drained depressions that form many ponds and small lakes. The Comprehensive Plan provides additional detail on the general topography of the City. The City of Mendota Heights is located near the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers in northern Dakota County. Steep slopes occur along the Minnesota and Mississippi river bluffs along the west and north border of the City. Elevation in the City ranges from approximately 690 feet along the Minnesota River to approximately 1,030 feet along the City’s border with West St. Paul. The steep slopes along the river bluffs often result in challenges during hydrologic design and planning to prevent erosion. Additionally, at the bottom of the Minnesota River Bluff adjacent to page 72 SECTION 2 Surface Water Management Plan Section 2 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-2 Highway 13 is the Gun Club Lake Fen, a calcareous fen with rare and important indicator vegetation for the ecosystem. There has been significant work by LMRWD to improve and protect this resource, which includes special considerations when managing stormwater discharge into the area. The City’s hydrologic system is part of both the Mississippi River and Minnesota River watersheds. The City resides within one watershed management organization and one watershed district. The southwestern portion of the City resides in the LMRWD. The remaining portion of the City lies within the LMRWMO. Figure 2 shows jurisdictional boundaries for the two watershed organizations within the City. The City of Mendota Heights has contour data that cover the entire City and is based on 2011 LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) data. Information regarding the City’s surficial and bedrock geology and aquifers is available in the Dakota County Geologic Atlas from the Minnesota Geological Survey. 2.3. Soils Soils of the Mendota Heights area are classified into three associations of multiple soil series: x Kingsley-Mahtomedi Association x Waukegan-Wadena Hawick Association x Colo-Algansee-Minneiska Association Information about each of the soils in these associations area available from the Soil Survey of Dakota County (SCS 1983). Table 2.1 shows the drainage characteristics of each soil series from the above associations. The drainage nature of the soil is important for determining surface water runoff from a given area. If the soil is well-drained, a significant portion of the precipitation will be infiltrated into the ground, whereas if a soil is very poorly drained much more precipitation becomes runoff. The Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) defines a soil’s propensity to generate runoff for a given runoff event. More information about HSG and their properties can be found in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) Minnesota Stormwater Manual (http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/). Table 2.1 Soil Series Characteristics Soil Series Drainage Characteristic Hydrologic Soil Group Kingsley Deep, well drained B Mahtomedi Deep, excessively drained A Waukegan Deep, well drained B Wadena Deep, well drained B Hawick Deep, excessively drained A Colo-Algansee-Minneiska (alluvial soils) Poor to moderately well drained B/D When development or redevelopment occurs within areas of well-drained soils, infiltration shall be considered on a case by case basis. Section 5.3.2 discusses the City’s approach to infiltration. page 73 SECTION 2 Surface Water Management Plan Section 2 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-3 2.4. Existing Flood Insurance Studies A search of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) website showed no flood insurance studies for the City of Mendota Heights, other than those for the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers. The Flood Insurance Rate Map for Mendota Heights is effective as of December 2, 2011. Mendota Heights is community number 270110. 2.5. Key Water Resources Surface waters throughout the City are available for the use and enjoyment of its residents. Many of surface waters that provide an aesthetic amenity to the community also double as a means of access for stormwater to wind its way towards its outfall. These major water resources tend to be State of Minnesota public waters. Below is a brief summary of the major surface water resources. The public waters are labeled with their Public Waters Inventory (PWI) number. Augusta Lake (PWI #19-81P) Lake Augusta is a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) public water. It is a deep lake with a maximum depth of 33 feet, and an area of 44 acres. The area of its watershed is 410 acres. LeMay Lake (PWI #19-82W) This lake is considered a public water wetland by the Minnesota DNR. It is a shallow lake and drains to an outlet under Highway 55. LeMay Lake is next to a residential neighborhood. Gun Club Lake (PWI #19-78P) Gun Club Lake and the stream it discharges to are both public waters. The lake is located along the Minnesota River within its floodplain. This lake discharges to an unnamed stream that flows to the Minnesota River, and although it is located in the City, it is managed by Fort Snelling State Park. Rogers Lake (PWI #19-80P) A shallow lake with a maximum depth of eight feet, Rogers Lake covers a surface area of approximately 114 acres. It discharges to a storm sewer pipe along Wagon Wheel Trail. Interstate Valley Creek This creek is an intermittent stream that begins near the intersection of Highway 110 and Highway 149 (Dodd Road) at the outflow point of Friendly Marsh. The creek flows northward, generally parallels Interstate 35E. Interstate Valley Creek is the single largest watershed within the City of Mendota Heights, and includes areas within the cities of Inver Grove Heights, Sunfish Lake, and West St. Paul. Ivy Falls Creek Ivy Falls Creek is an intermittent stream that begins at the Somerset Golf Course. The gradient of the stream is steep, it drops down 180 feet in the 3,000 feet from Dodd Road to Highway 13, including a 50-foot drop at Ivy Falls. The steep gradient has allowed erosion problems to occur. The creek eventually discharges to Pickerel Lake in the City of Lilydale. Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers Both of these rivers are Minnesota public waters. Shorelines of both of these rivers are found within city limits, but these shorelines are also in Fort Snelling State Park. The Minnesota and Mississippi River shorelines that are within the City’s limits are managed by Fort Snelling State Park and the St. Paul Parks and Recreation Department. page 74 SECTION 2 Surface Water Management Plan Section 2 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-4 Impaired Waters The MPCA lists the following water bodies located within or near the City as being impaired, meaning that the waters are too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet the water quality standards set by governing bodies: Table 2.3 Summary of Impaired Water Bodies Impaired Water Body Impairment Minnesota River (ID 07020012-505) x Turbidity (1996) x Dissolved Oxygen (1998) x Mercury in water column and fish tissue (1998) x Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) in fish tissue (1998) Mississippi River (ID 07010206-509) x Fecal Coliform (1998) x PCB in fish tissue (2006) Augusta Lake (ID 19-0081-00) x Nutrient/eutrophication biological indicators (2010) Unnamed Creek (ID 07010206-542) x E.Coli The locations of these impaired water bodies are shown on the water resource problem areas map (Figure 3, Appendix A). For more information on impaired waters and TMDL Plans visit the MPCA website http://www.pca.state.mn.us/. The MPCA website contains an Impaired Waters Viewer, an interactive map that can be used to view impaired waters and their updated water quality data, as well as their updated TMDL Plans. In addition to the water bodies listed above, the City is upstream of other reaches of the Mississippi River. The City may be required to implement the TMDL plans for these water bodies once complete. 2.6. Natural Communities and Rare Species A Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) search was performed for the areas below the bluffs, where land cover is divided into levels of importance and type. The bluffs themselves are upland areas. Table 2.2 shows a listing of the land cover types below the bluffs and the area of each type that falls within the Mendota Heights City limits. Of special note is the presence of calcareous seepage fen prairie. The LMRWD and the MLCCS consider calcareous fens to be high priority areas for wetland preservation and restoration. Table 2.2 MLSS Summary of Areas Below the Bluffs City of Mendota Heights Land Cover Description Total Area (acres) Oak (forest or woodland) with 11-25% impervious cover 1.9 51% to 75% impervious cover with deciduous trees 18.0 Pavement with 91-100% impervious cover 2.5 Short grasses with sparse tree cover on upland soils 10.2 Short grasses on upland soils 5.5 Oak forest 3.9 Floodplain forest 209.8 Lowland hardwood forest 6.1 Aspen forest - temporarily flooded 1.5 Mixed hardwood swamp - seasonally flooded 7.2 page 75 SECTION 2 Surface Water Management Plan Section 2 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-5 Altered/non-native deciduous woodland 2.8 Altered/non-native dominated temporarily flooded shrubland 0.8 Willow swamp 3.3 Medium-tall grass altered/non-native dominated grassland 12.8 Temporarily flooded altered/non-native dominated grassland 2.0 Calcareous seepage fen prairie subtype 37.0 Mixed emergent marsh - seasonally flooded 62.5 Mixed emergent marsh 106.4 Mixed emergent marsh - intermittently exposed 57.2 Mixed emergent marsh - permanently flooded 22.1 Grassland with sparse deciduous trees - altered/non-native dominated vegetation 3.4 River mud flats 3.6 Slow moving linear open water habitat 139.3 Limnetic open water 145.1 Palustrine open water 41.6 Water Quality Data Water quality data for the City can be obtained from the MPCA’s Environmental Data Access site and up to date information is located on their website. This data provides a snapshot of overall water quality and health of local waterbodies. This database is utilized by participating agencies to compile water quality testing data and is almost entirely used for the storage of water quality parameters. This water quality monitoring information/data and monitoring locations can be found at the MPCA’s Environmental Data Access site at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/water-monitoring-and-reporting. The LMRWD and LMRWMO also monitor creeks and lakes within Mendota Heights. Citizens can visit the respective websites for the most recent monitoring report. 2.7. Groundwater and Water Supply Various agencies are responsible for groundwater management and protection. The DNR regulates groundwater usage rate and volume as part of its charge to conserve and use the waters of the state. Suppliers of domestic water to more than 25 people or applicants proposing a use that exceeds 10,000 gallons per day or 1,000,000 gallons per year must obtain a water appropriation permit from the DNR. Many of the agencies charged with regulating water usage are currently involved in assessing and addressing concerns of water usage. When and where feasible, the City of Mendota Heights will work with the associated agencies to be good stewards of water resources. The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) is the official state agency responsible for addressing all environmental health matters, including groundwater protection. For example, the MDH administers the well abandonment program, and along with the Minnesota DNR, regulates installation of new wells. The MPCA administers and enforces laws relating to pollution of the state's waters, including groundwater. The Minnesota Geological Survey provides a complete account of the state's groundwater resources. Dakota County has statutory responsibilities for groundwater management contained in its Environment and Natural Resource Management Policy Plan (adopted and approved in 2006). Dakota County is currently revising the county comprehensive plan, which is scheduled to be submitted for the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) approval in 2018. At this time the City of Mendota Heights is not aware of any Drinking Water Supply Management Areas (DWSMAs) within the City’s boundaries. However, parts of the City have been fl agged as significantly vulnerable to groundwater contamination. Refer to the Dakota County Comprehensive Plan for the most up to date information on DWSMAs and groundwater status. page 76 SECTION 2 Surface Water Management Plan Section 2 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-6 2.8. Hydrologic System and Data The City has been divided into four major watershed areas: Gun Club Lake, Ivy Falls Creek, Mississippi Bluffs, and Interstate Valley Creek. Each of these four watershed areas have HydroCAD models that were updated from the 2006 LSWMP for the 2018 SWMP to include the new NOAA Atlas 14 Precipitation Frequency Estimates. The updated HydroCAD Models were used to develop a P8 Urban Catchment Model. Modeling results and discussion can be found in Appendix E, and narrative on the City’s Hydrologic System can be found in Section 4.3. 2.9. NPDES MS4 Permit The City is holder of an NPDES MS4 Permit, which includes a SWPPP. The City completed a reauthorization in 2013, that included an evaluation of the City’s stormwater system, resulting in a final SWPPP that includes existing and proposed BMPs, responsible persons, measurable goals, and timelines for implementation. 2.10. Water Resource Management Ordinances and Policies The City Ordinance for Mendota Heights includes Stormwater Management, Illicit Discharge, . The City Ordinance can be found online at the City of Mendota Heights website, and includes sections on construction site management stormwater, illicit discharge and storm sewer connection regulations, and post-construction stormwater runoff regulations. page 77 SECTION 3 Stormwater Management Plan Section 3 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-1 3. AGENCY COOPERATION There are several local, state, and federal agencies that have rules and regulations related to local water management. The City recognizes the roles of these other agencies and will cooperate, coordinate, and partner when possible with these agencies. This SWMP is in conformance with, but does not restate, all other agency rules that are applicable to water resource management. The following agencies deal with or regulate water resources throughout the City: Minnesota Department of Health (www.health.state.mn.us) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency( www.pca.state.mn.us) Board of Water and Soil Resources (www.bwsr.state.mn.us) and the Wetland Conservation Act (www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/wca/index.html) Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (www.dnr.state.mn.us) US Army Corps of Engineers (www.mvp.usace.army.mi) Minnesota Department of Agriculture (www.mda.state.mn.us) US Fish and Wildlife Service (www.fws.gov) Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (http://www.dakotaswcd.org/) Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization (http://www.dakotaswcd.org/watersheds/lowermisswmo/) Lower Minnesota River Watershed District (http://www.watersheddistrict.org/) Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (www.eqb.state.mn.us) Metropolitan Council (www.metrocouncil.org) While these other agencies’ rules, policies, and guidelines are not all restated in this SWMP, they are applicable to projects, programs, and planning within the City. The MPCA Minnesota Stormwater Manual, which is a document intended to be frequently updated, is also incorporated by reference into this SWMP and can be found at www.pca.state.mn.us/water/stormwater/stormwater-manual.html. 3.1. County, State, and Federal Agency Requirements This section of the SWMP presents a synopsis of the current agency requirements while acknowledging the existence of other requirements that may be applicable. The City is committed to the preservation and enhancement of its wetlands and water resources through full compliance with local, state, and federal wetland regulations. 3.1.1. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Types 3, 4, and 5 wetlands are protected by statute at the state level. These are areas typically recognized as wetlands and are generally characterized by open water and emergent vegetation throughout most of the year. The state has jurisdiction over only those wetlands appearing on the State’s inventory of protected waters. Further, wetlands in the inventory are generally those in excess of ten acres in rural areas or in excess of two and a half acres in municipalities and incorporated areas. Figure 6 shows the DNR protected waters within the Mendota Heights SWMP study area. If an area meets the jurisdictional criteria but is not on the State’s inventory, it is not regulated by the DNR. If it does not meet the statutory criteria but is listed on the inventory, it still is subject to DNR regulation. There is currently no mechanism for adding wetlands to or deleting wetlands from the inventory. The inventory was begun in the late 1970s and all state inventories were completed during the early 1980s. The DNR rules specify that permits may not be issued for any project except those that provide for public health, safety, and welfare. Any private development projects are effectively excluded from permit consideration by this requirement. page 78 SECTION 3 Stormwater Management Plan Section 3 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-2 The western portions of the City abutting the Minnesota River are located in the Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor. According to the DNR: The purposes of designating the Mississippi River and this portion of the Minnesota River as a state critical area include the following: a) protecting and preserving a unique and valuable state and regional resource for the benefit of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens for the state, region, and nation; b) preventing and mitigating irreversible damage to this resource; c) preserving and enhancing its natural, aesthetic, cultural, and historical value for public use; d) protecting and preserving the river as an essential element in the national, state, and regional transportation, sewer and water, and recreational systems; and protecting and preserving the biological and ecological functions of the corridor. The DNR has three primary roles for the Mississippi River Critical Area Program. The DNR has undertaken the mandate of reviewing existing ordinances that affect lands within the Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor for their compliance with state critical area standards and guidelines. Technical assistance for ordinance development will be provided to local communities to ensure adoption and approval of a compliant state critical area ordinance or any ordinance amendments. DNR will also provide individualized technical assistance for amending existing ordinances or developing proposed ordinances that will be consistent with the voluntary Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) Comprehensive Management Plan policies. In addition, adoption or amendment of plans and ordinances affecting lands within the Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor and relating to Executive Order 79-19 purposes and standards are effective only after approval by the DNR. The DNR reviews the plans and ordinances to ensure their consistency with the provisions of Executive Order 79-19, following an evaluation by the Metropolitan Council. In communities where critical area plans and ordinances have become effective, the local governmental unit also must notify the DNR area hydrologist at least 30 days before action is taken for all development applications or variances requiring a public hearing or discretionary action. In communities where plans and regulations have not been adopted or approved, the DNR is also to be notified about additional types of projects listed in the Interim Regulations. DNR will review and comment on the project's compliance with critical area and state requirements and MNRRA policies, as well as provide technical assistance as requested. Notice of the final action is to be sent to the DNR. The City of Mendota Heights has adopted appropriate rules and ordinance to serve as the local government unit (LGU) conducting critical area review and implementation. As the Minnesota DNR adopts new rules the City will in turn revise its rules and ordinance to remain the LGU. In cases where a large subdivision of land might occur within the Critical Area, the City would transfer its review authority to the Minnesota DNR. The other powers and duties of this Minnesota state agency and its commissioner are wide- ranging. As they affect surface water management within the City they include: Regulation of all public waters inventory waterbodies within the City – to the extent of page 79 SECTION 3 Stormwater Management Plan Section 3 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-3 their ordinary high water level (OHWL). Regulation of certified floodplains around rivers, creeks, lakes and wetlands. Management of the Flood Hazard Mitigation program. Shoreland Management. 3.1.2. US Army Corps of Engineer (USACE) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE regulate the placement of fill into all wetlands of the U.S. In 1993, the definition of "discharge of dredged material” was modified to include incidental discharges associated with excavation. This modification of the “discharge of dredged material” definition meant that any excavation done within a wetland required the applicant to go through Section 404 permitting procedures. In 1998, however, this decision was modified so that excavation in wetlands is now regulated by the USACE only when it is associated with a fill action. 3.1.3. Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) The local and regional wetland rules are governed by the WCA. The WCA, passed in 1991, extends protection to all wetlands unless they fall under one of the exemptions. The WCA follows a “no net loss” policy. The wetlands covered under the WCA must not be drained or filled, wholly or partially, unless replaced by restoring or creating wetland of at least equal public value under an approved replacement plan. Replacement ratio is typically two acres created for every one acre filled for wetland impacts. A designated LGU is responsible for making exemption and no-loss determinations as well as approving replacement plans. Currently, Mendota Heights acts as the LGU for the WCA within the City’s subdivision authority. The powers and duties of BWSR include: Coordination of water and soil resources planning among counties, watersheds, and local units of government. Facilitation of communication among state agencies in cooperation with the Environmental Quality Board. Approval of watershed management plans. 3.1.4. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) The MPCA implements provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act with guidance from the EPA through a permitting process. The Section 404 permit also requires a Section 401 water quality certification before it is valid. The EPA has given Section 401 certification authority to the MPCA. The powers and duties MPCA and its commissioner include: Fulfilling mandates from the EPA, particularly in regard to the Clean Water Act. Administration of Mendota Heights’ NPDES Phase II MS4 permit. Administration of the NPDES construction site permit program. Administration of the NPDES industrial site discharge permit program. Development of TMDLs for waterbodies and watercourses in Minnesota (often in conjunction with other agencies or joint powers organizations such as watersheds). 3.1.5. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) page 80 SECTION 3 Stormwater Management Plan Section 3 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-4 As it relates to surface water management within Mendota Heights, the EPA is charged with interpreting and applying aspects of the Clean Water Act. This has led to the City’s need for its NPDES MS4 permit. Total maximum daily load limits, a new initiative mandated by the EPA, also stem from the EPA’s role as steward of the Clean Water Act. 3.1.6. Lower Minnesota River Watershed District (LMRWD) and Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization (LMRWMO) The powers and duties of these Minnesota statutory authorities include: Approval authority over local water management plans. Ability to develop rules regarding management of the surface water system. Ability to determine a budget and raise revenue for the purpose of covering administrative and capital improvement costs. Regulation of land use and development when one or more of the following apply: o The City does not have an approved local plan in place. o The City is in violation of their approved local plan. o The City authorizes the watershed toward such regulation. Other powers and duties as given in statute and joint powers agreements. 3.1.7. State and Federal Jurisdictional Boundaries for Public Wetlands and Waters Wetlands are delineated in accordance with the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (1987). Wetlands must have a predominance of hydric soils. Hydric soils by definition are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, under normal circumstances, a prevalence of hydrophytic (water tolerant) vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. The USACE and the BWSR regulate wetlands as defined by a jurisdictional delineation. For wetlands that fall under the Minnesota DNR jurisdiction, the OHWL determines the boundary of the Minnesota DNR’s jurisdiction. The OHWL is established by the DNR. 3.1.8. Dakota County Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) sits on the Technical Evaluation Panel for administration of the WCA. 3.1.9. Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Council, through Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, serves as a review agency for local surface water management plans. They also review and approve municipal comprehensive plans and have a prominent role in the Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor as described on the DNR website: “The Metropolitan Council reviews existing plans that affect lands within the Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor. Technical assistance is provided to assist communities in amending or adopting plans to become consistent with Executive Order 79-19 standards and guidelines and any voluntary MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan policies. The council reviews all critical area plans and ordinances and makes an evaluation to DNR prior to the approval decision. In addition, the council administers the pass-through funds from the National Park Service to provide financial assistance to communities wishing to revise their plans and ordinances. The council is also involved with oversight of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act.” page 81 SECTION 4 Stormwater Management Plan Section 4 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-1 4. ASSESSMENT OF ISSUES Section 4 is an assessment of existing and potential local water resource-related issues that are known as of 2018. These issues have been identified based on an analysis of the land and water resource data collected during the preparation of this SWMP and through information provided by the City, its residents, and the watershed organizations. A description of any existing or potential issue within the City has been listed and potential future corrective actions have been incorporated into an implementation plan in Section 6. Refer to Figure 5 for the location of many of the issues discussed below. 4.1. Water Quality Assessments 4.1.1. City Assessment The City investigated the location of stormwater discharge into a fen that is located near the southwest part of the City. The assumption was that the stormwater was discharging to the Fort Snelling State Park Fen, which is a Restricted Discharge Water under the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. But the investigation determined that the stormwater discharge flowed to the Gun Club Lake Fen, which is not a Restricted Discharge Water. The City prepared a self-assessment as part of developing its SWPPP. In that self- assessment, a list of potential sources or types of pollution was developed. The City does not know of a particular source or type of pollution that is prevalent within the City. Although it is not a list of actual pollution occurrences, the list repeated below does provide information for consideration and management.. At Ivy Park Pond, there appears to be a problem where skimmers are collecting excessive floatables. A significant portion of stormwater entering the pond comes from West St. Paul. Increased maintenance attention is paid to this location. Lawn and landscape fertilizers are a potential source of pollution. The City purchases and uses only phosphorous-free products. The application of fertilizers containing phosphorus is currently prohibited by state law unless the results of a soil test show that phosphorus is indeed the limiting nutrient for turf growth. A typical salt is used on the streets. The City recognizes chloride pollution as a water quality issue, and is looking at alternative deicing products to reduce salt and sediment in stormwater and reduce street sweeping costs. Additionally, the City is looking to incorporate the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Chloride Management Plan to reduce salt use during winter applications. Emergency fuel dumping from aircraft flying into the Minneapolis-St. Paul International airport is a potential source of pollution. In the past, citizens have reported strong jet fuel odors believed to be from fuel dumping. Fuel dumping is not known to be a frequent problem. Pet waste is recognized as a nuisance and a pollution source. Signs in parks instruct pet owners to clean up after their pets, as required by ordinance. Waste from geese is considered a serious problem. Geese use the City’s lakes and ponds throughout the year. Failing septic systems are a potential source of pollution, although not currently perceived to be a problem. Approximately 40 septic systems exist in the City. City ordinance requires inspections of the systems. The Mendota Heights ordinance that regulates septic systems is identical to that of Dakota County and meets all Metropolitan Council and MPCA requirements. Soil erosion along the bluffs and at construction sites is a potential source of pollution. The storm sewer system contains some hanging outfalls, and there is scour around some outfalls. page 82 SECTION 4 Stormwater Management Plan Section 4 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-2 4.1.2. Clean Water Act Assessments The Impaired Waters List, also known as the 303(d) list from the applicable section of the federal Clean Water Act, records waters that do not currently meet their designated use due to the impact of a particular pollutant or stressor. If monitoring and assessment indicate that a water body is impaired by one or more pollutants, it is placed on the list. At some point after being added to the list, a strategy would be developed that would lead to attainment of the applicable water quality standard. The process of developing this strategy is commonly known as the TMDL process and involves the following phases: 1. Assessment and listing 2. TMDL study 3. Implementation plan development and implementation 4. Monitoring of the effectiveness of implementation efforts Responsibility for implementing the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act falls to the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). In Minnesota, the USEPA delegates much of the program responsibility to the MPCA. Information on the MPCA program can be obtained at the following web address: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/total-maximum-daily-load-tmdl-projects A map of impaired waters in Mendota Heights and TMDL’s can be found at the following web address: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/impaired-waters-viewer-iwav Table 4.1 Lists the 303(d) impaired waters within the City of Mendota Heights Table 4.1 303(d) 2016 Final List of Impaired Waters Within the City of Mendota Heights Water Body Year First Listed Assessment Unit ID # Affected Use Pollutant or Stressor TMDL start/TMDL complete Minnesota River 1998 07020012-505 Aquatic life Dissolved oxygen 2004*/- Minnesota River 1998 07020012-505 Aquatic consumption Mercury in water column 2008*/- Minnesota River 1998 07020012-505 Aquatic consumption Mercury in fish tissue 2008*/- Minnesota River 1998 07020012-505 Aquatic consumption PCB in fish tissue 1998/2025 Minnesota River 1996 07020012-505 Aquatic life Turbidity 2014/2019 Augusta Lake 2010 07010206-506 Aquatic Recreation Nutrient/Eutrophicatio n Biological Indicators 2010/2014 *TMDL Plan has been approved but has not been started. page 83 SECTION 4 Stormwater Management Plan Section 4 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-3 Upstream from the Mendota Heights city limits, the Mississippi River is also listed as impaired (assessment unit ID 07010206-509). This listing could potentially affect management of drainage that directly discharges to the river. The river’s affected uses are aquatic consumption and aquatic recreation. The pollutants or stressors that have been identified as causing these impairments are: Mercury in fish tissue PCB in fish tissue Fecal Coliform The absence of a waterbody from the 303(d) list does not necessarily mean the waterbody is meeting its designated uses. It may be that it has either not been sampled or there is not enough data to make an impairment determination. Additionally, where mercury is identified as a stressor, the TMDL approach will be regional in nature as mercury is most commonly an air-borne pollutant. City of Mendota Heights Actions: It remains to be seen how the TMDL issues will be resolved for the Minnesota River and the Mississippi River. Each river’s basin encompasses a significant portion of the state of Minnesota. It remains to be seen whether the TMDLs for the rivers will be implemented basin-wide or along specific reaches 4.1.3. Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization (LMRWMO) The LMRWMO has assessed the water quality of select lakes and ponds within its jurisdiction. It was noted in the LMRWMO Watershed Management Plan (WMP) that, generally, additional water quality data needs to be collected. The LMRWMO WMP noted that water quality assessments should be performed on Roger’s Lake in Mendota Heights. According to the WMP, this lake formerly supported a public swimming beach and is popular among local residents for panfish fishing. Water quality monitoring data should be collected to classify the lake and watch trends. Interstate Valley Creek and Augusta Lake are also noted as a resource of concern for water quality problems. In 2014, LMRWMO completed a Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) Report that includes water quality data for Lake Augusta and Rogers Lake, a TMDL for Lake Augusta. The WRAPS Report can be found at LMRWMO’s website. 4.1.4. Lower Minnesota River Watershed District (LMRWD) Within the LMRWD’s WMP, there is an emphasis on assessing water quality within the Minnesota River. Water quality assessment data is available for the Minnesota River and many of its tributary streams within the WMP. 4.2. Water Quantity Assessments 4.2.1. City Assessments Since the City prepared its 2006 Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP), no new water quantity assessments have been conducted. This does not mean that the City has not been addressing new water quantity issues, only that these have not been significant enough in scope to warrant mention in this SWMP. 4.2.2. Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization (LMRWMO) page 84 SECTION 4 Stormwater Management Plan Section 4 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-4 In its WMP, the LMRWMO assessed intercommunity surface water management issues that the watershed should resolve. In addition, the LMRWMO Plan requires that member cities prioritize shoreland areas for restoration. Item 4 in Table 6.1 shows that the City plans to allocate funds to address issues of shoreland erosion along Interstate Valley Creek, the priority area, for bank stabilization projects. Table 4.2 summarizes these issues, which are related to flooding and erosion. Table 4.2 Erosion and Flooding Issues Related to the City of Mendota Heights 4.2.3. Lower Minnesota River Watershed District (LMRWD) Figure 5 shows the Mendota Heights drainage system in some detail. One of the primary discharges from this system occurs through a 54-inch pipe into the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) system adjacent to and under Trunk Highway 13. The highway system carries MnDOT and Mendota Heights runoff water into the Quarry Island fen, as indicated by the flow arrows on Figure 5. The Quarry Island fen lies within the jurisdiction of the LMRWD and the district is considering whether to pursue a detailed assessment and monitoring program for this fen. Regardless of what the watershed does toward studying the area, it is highly likely that the LMRWD and DNR will pursue a project to reroute this drainage around the fen and into Gun Club Lake. The City and MnDOT are likely to be financial participants in this project when it becomes a reality. The City’s share of the project cost could be substantial. Given this, the implementation section of this SWMP includes an item for the Quarry Island fen storm drainage project with an unknown date for implementation 4.3. System Description This subsection describes the surface water management system for the City of Mendota Heights. The SWMP area was organized into four major topographic watersheds: Interstate Valley Creek Watershed Ivy Falls Creek Watershed Mississippi River Bluffs Watershed Gun Club Lake Watershed The Interstate Valley, Ivy Falls Creek, Mississippi River Bluff, and Gun Club Lake topographic watersheds generally lie within the LMRWMO jurisdiction. Each major watershed was divided into drainage districts. The drainage districts are generally drawn to encompass all drainage to a particular pond, wetland, or lake. The City’s 1993 Plan identified 14 major drainage districts. To simplify the modeling nomenclature and allow easier cross referencing between the model and Figure 5, drainage districts within this SWMP carry the Name Location Issue Status Interstate Valley Creek Watershed Interstate Valley Creek north of Marie Avenue. Watershed includes Inver Grove Heights, Sunfish Lake, Mendota Heights, and West St. Paul Erosion Ongoing issue which has been addressed in some select locations. Additional stream bank stabilization projects will likely be needed. page 85 SECTION 4 Stormwater Management Plan Section 4 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-5 suffix of one of the four major topographic watersheds. Table 4.3 provides a summary of the cross references between the 1993 Plan’s districts and the major watershed suffix used in this SWMP. Table 4.3 Drainage Districts and Areas within the City of Mendota Heights Drainage District Abbreviation Acres Rogers Lake IV 475 Southeast IV 506 Friendly Marsh IV 654 East Marie IV 331 West Marie IV 209 Lower Interstate Valley IV 829 Ivy Falls Creek IF 434 East Highway 13 MB 35 Central Highway 13 MB 121 West Highway 13 MB 228 Augusta Lake GC 442 Minnesota River Bluffs GC 176 Industrial Park IP 473 I-494 GC 285 Highway 110 MB 206 South Highway 13 GC 131 The following sections describe each drainage district in detail. Figure 5 in Appendix A includes areas for the subwatersheds within each major watershed. Appendix E includes the pond data. 4.3.1. Interstate Valley Creek Watershed (IV) The Interstate Valley Creek Watershed consists of all areas that drain to the point where Trunk Highway (TH) 13 crosses Interstate Valley Creek. The watershed’s total area is approximately 4,224 acres, of which 3,004 acres are in Mendota Heights, 414 acres are in West St. Paul, 676 acres are in the City of Sunfish Lake (including the 234-acre Sunfish Lake Watershed, which is landlocked), and 130 acres are in Inver Grove Heights. Interstate Valley Creek is an intermittent stream that begins near the intersection of TH 110 and TH 149 (Dodd Road) at the outflow point of a large wetland (Friendly Marsh). The creek flows northward under TH 110 through a 72-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) culvert. From TH 110 the creek flows 1.9 miles through Valley Park before discharging to the Mississippi River. The creek flows through culverts at Marie Avenue, at a bicycle path crossing downstream of Marie Avenue, and at Lilydale Road. Because of its relatively large size, the portion of the Interstate Valley Creek Watershed within Mendota Heights is divided into six drainage districts. Rogers Lake Drainage Subwatershed The Rogers Lake Drainage Subwatershed is nearly fully developed. This district consists of Rogers Lake and the area that drains to the lake. Rogers Lake is the district’s major hydrologic feature. The lake consists of two basins which are divided by Wagon Wheel Trail. A 73-inch span arch pipe culvert connects the two basins. The outlet of Rogers Lake is via a 30-inch RCP that connects to a storm sewer system that discharges to the Friendly Marsh District, as shown on Figure 5. page 86 SECTION 4 Stormwater Management Plan Section 4 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-6 West of I-35E, the land use is predominantly single-family residential, while east of I-35E a large part of the upland in this area consists of the Mendakota Country Club golf course. Single-family homes and schools exist in the district south and east of Rogers Lake. A small area south of the lake and adjacent to I-35E is undeveloped but planned as office/industrial land use. Southeast Drainage Subwatershed The Southeast Drainage Subwatershed mostly consists of single-family homes. Within Sunfish Lake and Inver Grove Heights, 693 acres are tributary to the Southeast Drainage Subwatershed though 234 acres of this tributary area is actually landlocked by Sunfish Lake. This drainage flows from the City of Sunfish Lake into the Southeast Drainage Subwatershed through two separate culverts under County Road 63 (Delaware Avenue). Drainage from this district flows to the Friendly Marsh Drainage Subwatershed. Friendly Marsh Drainage Subwatershed The Friendly Marsh Drainage Subwatershed is generally located south of TH 110 and west of Delaware Avenue. Open space is a significant land use in this district due to the presence of the Dodge Nature Center. Single-family residential is the other predominant land use. This district receives drainage from approximately 301 acres in the cities of Sunfish Lake and West St. Paul via two culverts under Delaware Avenue. Water from the Rogers Lake and the Southeast Drainage Subwatershed also discharges into the Friendly Marsh Drainage Subwatershed. The subwatershed discharges to the Lower Interstate Valley Drainage Subwatershed. Friendly Marsh is a ditched wetland that serves as the headwaters to Interstate Valley Creek. West Marie Avenue Drainage Subwatershed This watershed is located along Marie Avenue, generally west of I-35E. The predominant land use is single- and multiple-family residential. This watershed discharges to the Lower Interstate Valley Drainage Subwatershed. East Marie Avenue Drainage Subwatershed The East Marie Avenue Drainage Subwatershed is located along Marie Avenue east of Interstate Valley Creek. Marie Creek flows through this district. The predominant land use is single-family residential. Drainage from approximately 169 acres in West St. Paul is tributary to this drainage subwatershed. The stormwater runoff from the East Marie Avenue Drainage Subwatershed discharges to the Lower Interstate Valley Drainage Subwatershed. Lower Interstate Valley Drainage Subwatershed Significant open areas exist along Interstate Valley Creek and at two golf courses located in this subwatershed. Drainage from 57 acres in West St. Paul enters this subwatershed as well as from the Friendly Marsh, West Marie Avenue, and East Marie Avenue Drainage Subwatersheds. The predominant drainage feature in this district is Interstate Valley Creek, which runs northward adjacent to I-35E. Interstate Valley Creek discharges to the City of Lilydale and then to the Mississippi River. 4.3.2. Ivy Falls Creek Watershed (IF) The Ivy Falls Creek Watershed resides within the cities of Mendota Heights and West St. Paul. The City of West Paul has approximately 274 acres tributary to Ivy Falls Creek. The page 87 SECTION 4 Stormwater Management Plan Section 4 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-7 predominant land use is single-family residential. The northern portion of the Somerset Country Club golf course lies in this watershed. Ivy Falls Creek is an intermittent stream that begins in Somerset Golf Course. The streambed drops approximately 180 feet along its 3,000-foot length from Dodd Road to TH 13, including a 50-foot drop at Ivy Falls. Because of this steep gradient, erosion has occurred along the creek. 4.3.3. Mississippi River Bluffs Watershed (MB) This watershed consists of the various small drainage routes along the Mississippi River bluffs. These drainage routes discharge water to culverts under TH 13 to the City of Lilydale. Areas that drain to either Interstate Valley Creek or to Ivy Falls Creek are not included in this watershed. The drainages in this watershed have similar features; they all include a small area above the bluffs which then drains down the bluffs to ditches and culverts along TH 13. Because of the steep slopes in this watershed, the water flows quickly and erosion and flooding problems exist in some of these drainage routes. The watershed is divided into four drainage subwatersheds. West Highway 13 Drainage Subwatershed The West Highway 13 Drainage Subwatershed runs along the south side of TH 13 from the City of Mendota Heights border with the City of Mendota east to I-35E. The drainage discharges through six culverts beneath TH 13 to Lilydale. Approximately 20 acres of this drainage subwatershed are in Lilydale. Central Highway 13 Drainage Subwatershed The Central Highway 13 Drainage Subwatershed is located between the Ivy Falls Creek and Interstate Valley Creek watersheds, south of TH 13. Discharge from this subwatershed occurs through two culverts beneath TH 13. East Highway 13 Drainage Subwatershed The East Highway 13 Drainage Subwatershed is located at the northern tip of Mendota Heights. Approximately 25 acres of West St. Paul is tributary to the district. The drainage from this subwatershed discharges to Lilydale through an 18-inch culvert under TH 13. Highway 110 Drainage Subwatershed The Highway 110 Drainage Subwatershed drains through a series of ditches and ponds before discharging to the Mississippi River via a culvert that passes through the City of Mendota. The eastern extent of this drainage subwatershed is approximately at the intersection of Highway 110 and Victoria Road. 4.3.4. Gun Club Lake Watershed (GC) This watershed is in the west part of the City and includes all of the area in Mendota Heights that is within the LMRWMO and part of the area which is within the LMRWD. This watershed has five drainage subwatersheds. page 88 SECTION 4 Stormwater Management Plan Section 4 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-8 Lake Augusta Drainage Subwatershed This subwatershed consists of land that drains to Lake Augusta. Open space is the predominant land use because of the presence of Resurrection Cemetery. Industrial/office and single-family land uses are also present. Lake Augusta is landlocked, so no surface discharge occurs from the lake. Mendota Heights and the LMRWMO will work toward determining whether an outlet to Lake Augusta is necessary Industrial Park Drainage Subwatershed Most of the Industrial Park Drainage Subwatershed is zoned for industrial/office land use. The 30-acre Lake LeMay is the subwatershed’s only major water body and is located in the northwest portion. Lake LeMay discharges to the Industrial Park storm sewer system via a 30-inch pipe that crosses under Highway 55. The outlet pipe is designed such that when water levels in Lake LeMay are below the normal water level (NWL), runoff collected by the 30-inch outlet pipe flows to Lake LeMay and not to the Industrial Park. When water levels are above the NWL, flows are routed to the Industrial Park. The water from the drainage subwatersheds discharges through a 54-inch storm sewer to an open channel in a ditch. The ditch drains to a 66-inch culvert under TH 13 where it again flows in an open channel, and ultimately discharges to Gun Club Lake. With the exception of Lake LeMay, little stormwater storage is available in the Industrial Park Drainage Subwatershed. Interstate 494 Drainage Subwatershed This subwatershed district is the stretch of I-35E south of Wagon Wheel Trail. The major land use in the subwatershed is industrial/office. The runoff from this drainage subwatershed flows to the I-494 drainage system that ultimately discharges to the Minnesota River. Minnesota River Bluff Drainage Subwatershed This subwatershed consists of land with several drainage routes that discharge into the Minnesota River. All surface drainage in this subwatershed discharges to culverts under the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company railroad tracks. There are approximately 22 culverts under the 1.5 miles of railroad track bordering the subwatershed. Land use in this drainage subwatershed includes open space within Fort Snelling State Park, wooded bluff slope, industrial/office, highway, cemetery, and single- family residential. South Highway 13 Drainage Subwatershed This subwatershed is generally located along TH 13 and Highway 55, between the Minnesota River Bluff and Industrial Park Drainage Subwatersheds. This subwatershed combines its discharge flow with flows from the Industrial Park Drainage Subwatershed at the MnDOT pond located near the intersection of TH 13 and I-494. The discharge ultimately flows to Gun Club Lake. 4.4. Hydrologic Modeling Discussion There was a modeling effort completed for the 2006 LSWMP that consisted of converting the 1993 WRMP model to the more user friendly HydroCAD modeling software, and to update the model to current conditions of the City. page 89 SECTION 4 Stormwater Management Plan Section 4 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-9 The 2006 HydroCAD model was updated for this 2018 SWMP to accommodate for the new National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 14 Precipitation Frequency Estimates by defining additional stage/area and overflow routes so that the 100-year Atlas 14 rainfall can be run within the model without exceeding defined storage or outlets. Table 4.3 shows the Atlas 14 rainfall depths that shall be used for project reviews and stormwater design. Additionally, drainage areas and land use descriptions were reviewed and corrected when discrepancies appeared. The updated hydrologic model is summarized in Appendix E. HydroCAD stormwater runoff hydrographs are calculated in accordance with SCS TR-20 methodology. Hydrograph routing through channels and detention basins is performed using the Dynamic-Storage-Indication method. For compliance with the MS4 permit, the City is required to develop a method to ensure that its water quality ponds function according to design. A P8 Urban Catchment Model was created and the results can be found in Appendix E. Table 4.3 Atlas 14 Rainfall Depths Storm Event Rainfall Depth (Inches) 2-year, 24-hour 2.81 10-year, 24-hour 4.19 100-year, 24-hour 7.47 page 90 SECTION 5 Surface Water Management Plan Section 5 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-1 5. GOALS AND POLICIES 5.1. Purpose The primary goal of Mendota Heights’ SWMP is to bring the City into statutory compliance and provide a framework for effective stormwater management. This includes guiding redevelopment activities and identifying and implementing retrofits to the existing system. These retrofits consist of both projects and programs. Additionally, the plan provides clear guidance on how Mendota Heights intends to manage surface water in terms of both quantity and quality. The goals of Mendota Heights’ SWMP are consistent with the goals of the LMRWMO and the LMRWD, while addressing the more specific and changing needs of the City. This plan is an update to the 2006 Water Management Plan and the goals of this plan were established in accordance with the guidelines contained in Minnesota Statutes 103B and Minnesota Rules 8410. A general priority of the City is to cooperate, collaborate, and partner with other entities, such as LMRWMO, LMRWD, and the MPCA as much as possible as the City implements this plan. Cooperation, collaboration, and partnering results in projects that are less likely to conflict with the goals of the affected entities, are better able to meet long-term goals, and are generally more cost-effective. In addition to the goals and policies contained in this section, the City will annually review and update its SWPPP to effectively manage its stormwater system and be in conformance with the NPDES MS4 Program. Refer to Appendix B for the most recent version of the City SWPPP. 5.2. Background The City completed its first comprehensive plan in 1960. The City has most recently updated its comprehensive plan in 2010 with its 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan reiterated the goals of the previous plan, while also strengthening the City’s traditions and development philosophy. Open spaces and parks are deeply ingrained in the City of Mendota Heights and its comprehensive plan, and surface waters play a large role in many of those assets. Specific to the goals and policies of this SWMP is the following policy statement from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: “Work with local and regional partners to conserve, protect and enhance the region’s vital natural resources.” The 2018 Mendota Heights SWMP expands upon the goals and objectives provided in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the 2006 LSWMP, and the updated Third Generation LMRWD and LMRWMO Water Management Plan. 5.3. City of Mendota Heights SWMP Goals and Policies 5.3.1.Water Quantity 5.3.1.1. Goal Prevent flooding from surface flows while reducing, to the greatest extent practicable, the public capital expenditures necessary to control excessive volumes and rates of runoff. 5.3.1.2. Policies 1. All designs must use NOAA Atlas 14 Precipitation Frequency Data in stormwater design calculations and modeling. page 91 SECTION 5 Surface Water Management Plan Section 5 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-2 2. Trunk storm sewers shall be designed with capacity for 100-year ponded outflows plus 10-year directly connected flows. 3. In addition to the 10-year and 100-year ponded flow primary capacity, the conveyance system shall provide capacity in excess of the 100-year event in the form of overland overflow routes or adequate surface storage volume. This surface storage volume consists of storage in street low points, within ditches, or in other transient ponding areas. 4. Proposed runoff from development and redevelopment projects shall meet or decrease peak discharge rates for the 10-year and 100-year storm events. Additionally, capacity of downstream drainage systems must be considered, and shall not exceed existing capacities. 5. Detention basins shall be designed with capacity for the critical 100-year event. At a minimum, detention basins should maintain existing flow rates for the 2-, 10- , and 100-year 24-hour rainfalls. 6. The maximum duration for rainfall critical event analysis shall be 24 hours except in cases where basins are landlocked, where back-to-back 24-hour events and the 10-day, 7.2-inch runoff event shall also be used. In all cases a hydrograph method of analysis should be used. For the 24-hour rainfall event or back-to- back 24-hour rainfall events, the Midwest and Southeast 3 (MSE3) distribution, published by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, is recommended. For shorter duration critical events, other distributions may be used with the approval of the City Engineer. Regarding Water Quantity policies 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5—for systems designed and implemented prior to the 1993 WRMP, conveyance capacity and storage requirements may not meet these requirements. These policy statements in no way imply that the City intends to unilaterally upgrade these systems. 7. All drainage system analyses and designs shall be based on proposed full development land use patterns. 8. The amount of impervious surface increase on projects shall be reduced to the greatest extent possible for development and redevelopment projects in accordance with Low Impact Development (LID) techniques. A narrative shall be provided that addresses the consideration of LID techniques in development and redevelopment impervious surface design. 9. Intercommunity water resources issues planning shall consider alternative solutions: a) All drainage studies or feasibility studies, whether by a watershed organization or municipality, leading to projects in a subwatershed with an intercommunity drainage issue shall consider the impact of the project on the drainage issue and shall consider the total intercommunity project cost. b) Except in emergencies, no solutions or partial solutions to intercommunity drainage issues shall be implemented without prior completion of a feasibility study of options and adoption of a preferred option by the applicable watershed organization. page 92 SECTION 5 Surface Water Management Plan Section 5 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-3 10. The following items shall be considered in the management of landlocked basins: a) The flood levels established for landlocked basins shall take into consideration the effects of water level fluctuations on trees, vegetation, erosion, and property values. Steeply sloped shorelines subject to slope failure and shoreline damage should not be in contact with floodwaters for extended periods of time. b) The capacity of proposed outlets to formerly landlocked basins should not be so small as to cause extended duration of High Water Levels (HWLs) that would result in damage to upland vegetation. c) Only the existing tributary area may discharge to a landlocked basin, unless a provision has been made for an outlet from the basin or the right to augmented storage within the basin has been secured through purchase or easement, except in cases where adverse impacts to vegetation would occur. The form of outlet may range from temporary pumps to gravity storm sewers. The outlet shall be implemented before increased water levels are likely to affect vegetation, slope stability, or property values. d) Critical event analysis of landlocked basins shall include the 10-day, 7.2- inch runoff event and back to back 24-hour, 100-year events. 11. When development occurs adjacent to a landlocked basin and the basin is not provided an outlet, freeboard should be determined based on one of three methods (whichever provides for the highest freeboard elevation): a) Three feet above the HWL determined by modeling back to back 100- year, 24-hour events; b) Three feet above the highest known water level; or c) Five feet above the HWL determined by modeling a single 100-year, 24- hour event. When modeling landlocked basins, the starting water surface elevation should be the basins Ordinary High Water elevation, which can be determined through hydrologic modeling or, in the case of a DNR regulated basin, from a DNR survey. Additionally, a continuous simulation of average annual rainfall conditions will also provide insight into whether significant, adverse impact to vegetation would occur due to development around the landlocked basin. 12. For basins with a suitable outlet, freeboard will be two feet above the HWL determined by modeling the 100-year critical event. Emergency overflows that are a minimum of one and a half feet below the lowest ground elevation adjacent to a structure should also be provided. 13. Adjacent to channels, creeks, and ravines freeboard will also be two feet from the 100-year critical event elevation. 14. Work with the DNR and watershed organizations on cooperative and collaborative projects in the public lands below the river bluffs. page 93 SECTION 5 Surface Water Management Plan Section 5 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-4 Discussion: This policy is essentially a blanket policy covering the many subject areas for which goals have been developed. The City of Mendota Heights understands that its drainage system has the potential to damage ecologically sensitive areas below the bluffs in Fort Snelling State Park. The City envisions the State or watershed organizations as the lead on such projects. 15. New storm sewers and open channels shall be designed using a technical method approved by the MPCA Stormwater Manual such as the Rational Method or HydroCAD . Runoff Coefficient “C” shall be in accordance with the guidelines provided in the MnDOT’s Drainage Manual. 16. A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory shall be used to analyze runoff rates and high water levels for proposed development and redevelopment projects. 17. Water quality treatment ponds (wet ponds) shall be designed in accordance with National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. 18. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over newly constructed stormwater management features (volume, rate control, and water quality treatment infrastructure) including but not limited to ponds, infiltration basis, rain gardens, underground storage and treatment devices, and tree trenches. Additionally, drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated for redeveloped stormwater management features and existing stormwater management features on redevelopment sites. Refer to the most up to date LMRWD and LMRWMO Rules on their websites. 5.3.2.Water Quality 5.3.2.1. Goal Work with LMRWMO, LMRWD, and neighboring communities to maintain and/or enhance the water quality of Mendota Heights’ lakes, wetlands, streams, and other water resources. 5.3.2.2. Policies 1. Given that the soils underlying the City have higher than typical infiltration capacity, infiltration is the preferred means of protecting water quality. Mendota Heights requires that stormwater infiltration facilities include sufficient water quality pretreatment (to NPDES and watershed standards) to preserve the function of these facilities. Wellhead protection areas must also be reviewed when considering infiltration. 2. Apply the MPCA’s Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS) to new developments within the City. a) All new developments that create new impervious surfaces shall endeavor to retain 1.1 inches of runoff from the net increase of impervious area. The City of Mendota Heights recommends consideration of the Flexible Treatment Options Approach through MIDS. However, the City does not adopt MIDS. As an MS4, the City of Mendota Heights is required to achieve no net increase in loadings for TSS, TP, and water volume as a result of development and redevelopment activities. The City does not believe it can uniformly expect these results on individual developments and would rather manage this responsibility across the entirety of the MS4 and not on an individual page 94 SECTION 5 Surface Water Management Plan Section 5 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-5 development basis. This is why practical implementation and not adoption of MIDS is preferred. b) If a development or redevelopment site exceeds 1 acre of disturbance and is not able to retain 1.1 inches of runoff, they shall be required to meet a 50% phosphorus reduction based on existing conditions. 3. Utilize, where feasible and possible, regional stormwater detention facilities to enhance water quality by removing sediment and nutrients from runoff. 4. Support water quality monitoring efforts being undertaken by the LMRWMO and LMRWD. 5. Wherever practical, new water quality ponds will be designed and constructed to provide a water quality treatment volume equivalent to the runoff from a 2.5-inch rainfall event, or the requirements of the NPDES construction site permit, whichever leads to higher treatment capacity. In some cases, other BMPs will be used in conjunction with water quality ponds. In such cases performance of the water quality system shall be no less than the performance of a single pond designed under the 2.5-inch criterion. 6. Newly constructed ponds shall include an outlet design allowing for extended detention of the 1- to 5-year rainfall event. The hydrograph duration for pond discharge should extend a minimum of 24 hours for events within the 1- to 5-year range. 7. Outlet skimming will be required in all ponds. Skimming shall occur for up to the 5- year, 24-hour event. 8. Utilize the MPCA’s Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Chloride Management Plan to reduce chloride pollution by effectively managing salt use. Refer to LMRWD and LMRWMO Rules on the watersheds’ websites for the most up to date version. 5.3.3.Recreation and Fish and Wildlife 5.3.3.1. Goal Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitats, water recreational facilities, and water resource aesthetics. 5.3.3.2. Policies 1. The neighborhood and regional benefits of wildlife habitat and aesthetics should be considered in any proposal to alter or eliminate wetlands, understanding that wetland elimination without mitigation is precluded by state law and understanding that even mitigated wetland impacts must meet strict sequencing guidelines. 2. The City will review inlets and outlets for aesthetics. 3. Mendota Heights shall seek to coordinate with the DNR regarding development of DNR public waters and public water wetlands. Notwithstanding ordinance provisions both existing and future that control development of shoreland areas, the City will seek DNR comments on development proposals adjacent to DNR public waters and public water wetlands. As part of its implementation plan the City will adopt a shoreland protection ordinance. page 95 SECTION 5 Surface Water Management Plan Section 5 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-6 4. Water resources shall be maintained in such a manner as to preserve or restore their intrinsic aesthetic qualities and wildlife habitat. 5.3.4.Enhancement of Public Participation; Information and Education 5.3.4.1. Goal Inform and educate the public concerning urban stormwater management and the problems pollutants cause if allowed to enter into water resources. 5.3.4.2. Policies 1. Enact a public education program based on the following objectives to reduce stormwater pollution: Raise awareness of the problem and solutions Promote community ownership of the all surface water features Recognize responsible parties and actions to date Merge public feedback into program execution 2. Enact a public education program to satisfy the minimum control measures identified in the City’s NPDES permit. 3. Coordinate education efforts with the watershed organizations so that redundant efforts are avoided. 4. Report progress of meeting SWMP goals to LMRWMO and LMRWD annually. 5.3.5.Groundwater 5.3.5.1. Goal Maintain and improve groundwater quality and promote groundwater recharge. 5.3.5.2. Policies 1. To the extent that Wellhead Protection Plans (WHPPs) identify areas of groundwater recharge that require protection, the City shall work with the MDH and neighboring communities in developing adequate protection measures 2. Surface water management improvements in likely recharge areas and areas of high vulnerability to chemical or petroleum spills shall be designed to assist groundwater protection. Practically, this means infiltration shall not be considered in developments that include the potential for these types of spills. Note: The City of Mendota Heights obtains its potable water from the St. Paul Water Utility. The neighboring communities of Eagan and Inver Grove Heights have separate municipal water systems, but neither community has identified a 10-year well capture zone that overlaps into Mendota Heights. Inver Grove Heights has yet to prepare a WHPP so it remains to be seen whether Mendota Heights will be affected by a 10-year capture zone for Inver Grove Heights’ wells. Since Mendota Heights is not an active participant in the MDH Wellhead Protection Program, the City will have to rely on MDH and neighboring communities to identify 10-year capture areas. To the extent that future analyses identify these areas within Mendota Heights, the City will then use its subdivision authority to properly regulate these areas. 5.3.6.Wetlands 5.3.6.1. Goal page 96 SECTION 5 Surface Water Management Plan Section 5 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-7 Protect and preserve wetlands through administration of the WCA. 5.3.6.2. Policies 1. Act as the local government unit responsible for enforcing the WCA enacted in1991. 2. Discourage wetland disturbance. Wetlands must not be drained or filled, wholly or partially, unless replaced by restoring or creating wetland areas of equal public value, as permitted by the WCA. 3. Up to one-half acre of “debit” wetland (filled or drained) will be allowed to be replaced through wetland “credit” in a bank which is located outside of Mendota Heights’ city limits, but State and County governments are exempt from this policy (M.S. 103G.222 (e)). 4. Restrict clearing and grading within close proximity of the wetland boundary to provide for a protective buffer strip of natural vegetation to promote infiltration of sediment and nutrients. In the event that grading occurs close to the wetland boundary, native plant materials shall be reestablished as a buffer strip. 5. Require that a wetland assessment be prepared for any project that includes a wetland. Minnesota Routine Assessment Methodology for evaluating wetland function (current version 3.0 but as updated in the future) is the required method of assessment. 6. Runoff shall not be discharged directly into wetlands without pretreatment of the runoff. 7. Require an average 15-foot buffer of natural vegetation above the 100-year HWL or NWL around lakes, streams and wetlands. Refer to LMRWMO and LMRWD Rules and Standards on their websites for Wetland Management Policies within the City. The 2006 LSWMP included a Wetland Management Plan. The Wetland Management Plan was not updated as a part of this SWMP, but the 2006 version can be found in Appendix F. 5.3.7.Erosion and Sediment Control 5.3.7.1. Goal Prevent, to the extent possible, sediment from construction sites from entering the City’s surface water resources and control the erosion from drainage ways within the City. 5.3.7.2. Policies The City’s Stormwater Management, Illicit Discharge, Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Ordinance includes temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control standards that meets or exceeds standards contained in the NPDES construction site permit and watershed organization plans. 5.3.8.Floodplains 5.3.8.1. Goal Control development in floodplains and floodways including those subject to FEMA studies (Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers) and those that are not regulated by FEMA studies like ponds, wetlands, lakes, and channels within the City limits. page 97 SECTION 5 Surface Water Management Plan Section 5 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-8 Note: Title 12, Chapter 1, Article D, Section 11 (12-1D-11) of the Mendota Heights City Code defines permitted uses within Floodway and Floodplain Districts. Chapter 2 controls development adjacent to wetlands lakes and channels that are not a FEMA-designated floodplain or floodway. Additionally, the City will be preparing a shoreland ordinance, similar to the Minnesota DNR model ordinance that will further define limitations to development along shoreland and non-federally regulated floodplain areas. 5.3.9.Mendota Heights NPDES Permit 5.3.9.1. Goal Operate and manage the City’s surface water system consistent with best current practices and the City’s NPDES Permit. 5.3.9.2. Policies 1. Projects to correct existing deficiencies, to the extent they are identified, will be prioritized as follows: Projects intended to reduce or eliminate flooding of structures in known problem areas. Projects intended to improve water quality in the City’s lakes. Projects intended to retrofit water quality treatment into developed areas. Projects intended to reduce maintenance costs. Projects intended to restore wetlands and habitat. 2. The City will actively inspect and properly operate, maintain, and repair its stormwater system. The City will follow a regular inspection, cleaning, and repair schedule. Frequency of maintenance will be event-based and informed by experience and inspection history. The City’s SWPPP outlines the frequency of these activities. Section 5 of this Plan provides some guidelines on pond maintenance and inspection cycles, but the SWPPP will remain the definitive source on the City’s intended maintenance and inspection schedules 3. The City will follow best management practices on its own lands and for its own projects including street reconstruction projects in accordance with the NPDES construction site permit and the City’s NPDES MS4 Permit. 5.3.10.Financial Management 5.3.10.1. Goal Ensure that the costs of the surface water system are equitably distributed. 5.3.10.2. Policies 1. The City will periodically update its stormwater utility rate structure to accomplish the following: Meet the requirements of its NPDES permit. Provide for the maintenance of ponds and outfall structures. Conduct repairs to the system. Update its system planning efforts. Implement rainwater gardens or other water quality retrofits. 2. Use other funding sources including land sale proceeds, partner with watershed organizations, State Aid funds, grants, among other things to pay for the implementation activities, when available and appropriate. page 98 SECTION 5 Surface Water Management Plan Section 5 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-9 5.3.11.Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS) 5.3.11.1. Goal Ensure that ISTS that remain in the City do not constitute an environmental hazard. 5.3.11.2. Policy Where ISTS are known to be failing and pose an imminent environmental hazard, the City will take the necessary steps to see that these systems are repaired or eliminated. Background: Within Mendota Heights are approximately 40 ISTS. The City has an ISTS ordinance equivalent to that of Dakota County whereby property owners provide pump and inspection records to the City. page 99 SECTION 6 Surface Water Management Plan Section 6 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-1 6. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM 6.1. General The Implementation Plan section of the Mendota Heights SWMP describes those activities and programs the City might develop to improve its surface water management program. Since Mendota Heights is largely developed, capital outlay for the trunk sewer system has already occurred so future outlay will be for upgrades and replacement. Typically, costs for upgrade and replacement would be borne by either the stormwater utility fund or would be recovered through direct assessment. Given this, a typical financing mechanism developed in most SWMPs, an area charge, is not a part of the Mendota Heights SWMP. Table 6.1 contains a comprehensive list of the MS4 activities and projects, programs, and studies that make up the City of Mendota Heights implementation program for the next seven years (2017-2023). The program was developed by evaluating the requirements in the MS4 permit (see MS4 SWPPP Application for Reauthorization in Appendix B), reviewing existing information (Section 2), identifying potential and existing problems (Section 4), reviewing goals and policies (Section 5), and then assessing the need for programs, studies, maintenance, or projects. Costs were estimated, possible funding sources were identified, and a schedule was developed to complete the implementation activities. It is anticipated these tables will be updated/revised on a yearly basis. This section also includes: An overview of the City’s NPDES permit A discussion of operation and maintenance procedures and strategies An outline of an education program Financial considerations for the stormwater utility A section referencing applicable design standards for stormwater management A section on watershed implementation priorities Implementation priorities for the City 6.2. Implementation Priorities The implementation components listed in Table 6.1 were prioritized to make the best use of available local funding, meet MS4 Permit requirements, address existing stormwater management problems, and prevent future stormwater management problems from occurring. The City's implementation plan reflects its responsibility to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizens by addressing problems and issues that are specific to the City of Mendota Heights. 6.3. Operation and Maintenance 6.3.1.Activities A stormwater system is a major investment for the City of Mendota Heights—both in terms of initial capital cost and in terms of ongoing maintenance costs—with meeting ongoing maintenance costs being the City’s current challenge. Typically, system maintenance is funded by the City’s stormwater utility and through the general fund. The City’s stormwater system maintenance responsibilities include the following: Street sweeping Cleaning of sump manholes and catch basins page 100 SECTION 6 Surface Water Management Plan Section 6 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-2 Repair of catch basins and manholes Assessing pipe condition (typically by televising) Inspection of storm sewer inlet and outlet structures Pond mowing and other vegetation maintenance Excavation of accumulated sediments from ponds The City has maintained its pipe system for decades and staff has a strong grasp on the costs associated with this. As new development brings more ponds (and other BMPs) into the system, the City will find that maintenance becomes an increasingly large portion of both staff time and the overall maintenance budget. It is important to quantify the extent of this future commitment so that the funds necessary for pond maintenance activities can be collected via the storm water utility. The management of stormwater ponds is facilitated by creation of a geographical information system (GIS) database for all stormwater system infrastructure. The City is continuing to map its system in this software by providing data for all pipes 12 inches and larger, most private and government pipes, and pond numbering. This move to GIS to track stormwater system infrastructure represents a strong step toward an interactive mapping system. Ultimately, via its stormwater management database the City could reference its maintenance records, videotapes, and maintenance costs for the stormwater system using interactive mapping. The City’s NPDES permit calls for an incremental approach to mapping the existing storm sewer system. 6.3.2.Stormwater Basins Stormwater basins represent a sizable investment in the City's drainage system. General maintenance of these facilities helps ensure proper performance and reduces the need for major repairs. Periodic inspections are performed to identify possible problems in and around the basin. Inspection and maintenance cover the following: Basin outlets Basin inlets Side slopes Illicit dumping and discharges Sediment buildup Basin Outlets A key issue with stormwater basins is ensuring that the outlets perform at design capacity. Inspection and maintenance of basin outlets address the following: The area around outlets is kept free and clear of debris, litter, and heavy vegetation. Trash guards are installed and maintained over all inlets to prevent clogging of the downstream storm sewer. Trash guards are inspected at least once a year, typically in the spring, to remove debris that may clog the outlet. Problem areas are addressed more frequently, as required. Emergency overflow outlets are provided for all ponds when possible. These are kept clear of debris, equipment, and other materials and properly protected against erosion Basin Inlets Inspection and maintenance of basin inlets address the following: page 101 SECTION 6 Surface Water Management Plan Section 6 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-3 Inlets are inspected for erosion. o Where erosion occurs near an inlet, energy dissipaters or riprap are installed. Inlets are inspected for sediment deposits, which can form at the inlets due to poor erosion practices upstream. o Where sediment deposits occur, these are removed to ensure design capacities of storm sewers entering the basin are maintained. Side Slopes Inspection and maintenance of basin side slopes address the following: Side slopes are kept well-vegetated to prevent erosion and sediment deposition into the basin. Severe erosion alongside slopes can reduce the quality of water discharging from the basin and require the dredging of sediments from the basin. Noxious weeds are periodically removed from around basins. Some basins located in highly developed areas require mowing. If mowing is performed, a buffer strip of 25 feet or more adjacent to the NWL is typically maintained. This provides filtration of runoff and protects wildlife habitat. Illicit Dumping and Discharges Inspection for and maintenance because of illicit dumping and discharges into basins address the following: Basins are periodically inspected for evidence of illicit dumping or discharges. The most common of these is dumping of yard waste into the basin. Where found, illicit material is removed, and signs are posted as needed prohibiting the dumping of yard waste. Water surfaces are inspected for oil sheens. These can be present when waste motor oil is dumped into upstream storm sewers. Skimmer structures are installed as needed at outlet structures to prevent oil spills and other floatable material from being carried downstream. Skimmer structures are periodically inspected for damage, particularly from freeze- thaw cycles. Sediment Buildup Inspection for and maintenance because of sediment buildup in basins address the following: Basins are inspected to determine if sediment buildup is causing significant loss of storage capacity from design levels. Excessive sediment buildup significantly reduces the stormwater treatment efficiency of water quality ponds. Sediment removal is performed where excessive sediment buildup has occurred. As a general guideline, ponds require dredging every 15 to 20 years. When effective, forebays are provided these may require more frequent cleaning (approximately five to seven year cycles) but tend to produce less material and have the effect of extending the maintenance cycle of ponds to as much as every 30 years. 6.3.3.Sump Manholes and Sump Catch Basins Sump manholes and sump catch basins are included in storm sewer systems to collect sediments before they are transported to downstream waterbodies. These structures page 102 SECTION 6 Surface Water Management Plan Section 6 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-4 keep sediments from degrading downstream waterbodies. Once sediments are transported to a lake or pond, they become much more expensive to remove. Sediments originate primarily from road sanding operations, although construction activity and erosion can also contribute. Since these structures are designed to collect these sediments, they are routinely cleaned to provide capacity for future sedimentation. Suction vacuum equipment is typically used to clean out the structure. 6.3.4.Storm Sewer Inlet Structures To fully utilize storm sewer capacity, inlet structures are kept operational in order to get runoff into the system. All efforts are made to keep catch basins and inlet flared ends free of debris and sediments so as not to restrict inflow and cause flood damage. Leaf and lawn litter are the most frequent cause of inlet obstructions. On a routine basis, City staff visually inspects inlet structures to ensure they are operational. 6.3.5.Open Channels and Ravines Overland flow routes constitute an important part of the surface water drainage system. Open channels are typically vegetated and occasionally lined with more substantial materials. The lined channels typically require little or no maintenance. Vegetated channels are periodically inspected and maintained, as high flows can create erosion within the channel. Eroded channels can contribute to water quality problems in downstream waterbodies as the soil is continually swept away. If not maintained, the erosion of open channels would accelerate and repairs would become increasingly costlier. The erosion of channels is accelerated when the channels are at steep gradients and are used for conveying urban stormwater. 6.3.6.Piping System The storm sewer piping system constitutes a multimillion dollar investment for the City. The City performs a comprehensive maintenance program to maximize the life of the facilities and optimize capital expenditures. The following periodic inspection and maintenance procedures are followed: Catch basin and manhole castings are inspected and are cleaned and replaced as necessary. Catch basin and manhole rings are inspected and are replaced and/or re-grouted as necessary. Catch basin and manhole structures are inspected and are repaired or replaced as needed. Pipe inverts, benches, steps (verifying integrity for safety), and walls are checked. Cracked, deteriorated, and spalled areas are grouted, patched, or replaced. Storm sewer piping is inspected either manually or by television to assess pipe condition. Items looked for include root damage, deteriorated joints, leaky joints, excessive spalling, and sediment buildup. The piping system is programmed for cleaning, repair, or replacement as needed to ensure the integrity of the system. 6.3.7.De-Icing Practices Minnesota receives approximately 54 inches of snow during a typical year. This requires a large amount of de-icing chemicals (primarily salt) to be applied to roads and sidewalks each winter. page 103 SECTION 6 Surface Water Management Plan Section 6 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-5 Estimates indicate that 80 percent of the environmental damage caused from de-icing chemicals is a result of inadequate storage of the material (MPCA 1989). Improper storage as well as overuse of salt increases the risk of high chloride concentrations in runoff and groundwater. High chloride concentrations can be toxic to fish, wildlife, and vegetation. The following procedures are used for storing de-icing chemicals in the City: 1. De-icing material and sand is stored in waterproof sheds. When and where this is not possible, stockpiles are covered with polyethylene and placed on impervious surfaces. No salty runoff water shall leave salt sheds 2. Road de-icing stockpiles are not located near municipal well areas or in other sensitive groundwater areas. The City shall encourage businesses within the City to apply the MPCA’s Twin Cities Area Chloride Management Plan, particularly the following procedures: Promote businesses using the Winter Maintenance Assessment tool (WMAt), a web- based tool maintained by the MPCA that helps identify opportunities to reduce salt use and save money Encourage businesses to use contracts that do not bill by the weight of salt used in order to reduce over-use. Re-use winter truck wash water for brine making, and reduce the amount of salt on a truck prior to entering the wash Create a chart of items to investigate that may reduce salt use/waste. 6.3.8.Street Sweeping Street sweeping is an integral part of the City’s effective surface water management system. It greatly reduces the volume of sediments that have to be cleaned out of sump structures and downstream waterbodies. The City has a street sweeping policy that includes at least one sweeping operation per year. Spring sweeping begins in either late March or early April after the risk of later snowfall has passed and targets sand left from winter sanding operations. Occasional fall sweeping occurs after leaf fall. Mendota Heights does not allow residents to rake leaves into the street for municipal pick up. Dakota County and the City encourage residents toward composting their yard waste. If residents desire to have yard waste removed by their private hauler, then compostable bags or reusable containers are required. Alternately, there are composting sites within Dakota County where yard waste can be brought for a fee. Overall the City’s approach to minimizing organic matter entering its stormwater system greatly reduces the incidence of inlet blockages and protects the water quality of downstream waterbodies. The objective of the City’s street sweeping and de-icing programs is to minimize impacts from leaf litter, sand, salt, and other debris on the surface waters of the City. 6.3.9.Detection of Illicit Connections Mendota Heights has modified its ordinance to prohibit the dumping of hazardous material into the stormwater system. During routine inspection for inlet grates, outfalls, and other portions of the stormwater system, City staff also look for evidence of illicit discharge, dry weather flow (indicating possible sanitary sewer connections), sedimentation, and other non-point source pollution problems. page 104 SECTION 6 Surface Water Management Plan Section 6 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-6 The City has started the process of mapping its storm sewer outfalls and integrating this mapping with inspection data. This effort will be concurrent with the overall storm sewer mapping effort required by the City’s NPDES permit. 6.4. Education and Outreach 6.4.1.General Education can play an important role in any effort to implement a surface water management program like the one outlined in this SWMP. The objectives of an education effort are different, depending on the target audience. In general, the target audience for this education program is City staff, residents, and the development community. The following sections describe why education of each of these groups is important and presents educational methods that may be used for each audience. One of the more important aspects of education and outreach is close coordination with watershed organizations so that redundant efforts are avoided. The City should also work to raise the profile of its watershed organizations by including articles on watershed activities in its informational materials. One simple step toward stronger city/watershed partnership is providing a link to each watersheds website on the city website. 6.4.2.City Staff City staff have a wide range of responsibilities for implementing this plan. These include: Implementing street sweeping and spill response programs. Implementing deicing education and outreach for residents and business owners, and by encouraging involvement in the MPCA’s Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Chloride Management Plan by using their WMAt. Maintaining detention basin/stormwater management pond performance and system operability. Planning for and managing of projects to enhance pollutant removal performance, wetland quality, among other items. Carrying out grounds maintenance of City-owned lands/facilities in a way that sets a good example for residents. Utilizing BMPs in application of ice control material. Application of BMP policies and regulations to new and redevelopment projects. Planning and delivering education programs. Working out cooperative arrangements with regulatory and non-regulatory organizations to achieve SWMP objectives. Assisting the City Council in the application of the SWMP policies. Because these responsibilities involve many different levels, City staff members are trained to have a basic understanding of the SWMP, including: A description of the major stormwater management issues (including known stormwater management problem areas, stormwater management expectations for new and re-development projects, incorporation of stormwater mitigation into capital improvement projects, and regulatory jurisdictions). The objectives and the general approach outlined in the SWMP for resolution of these issues. The responsibilities of the different work units in implementing the SWMP. The information the SWMP provides. page 105 SECTION 6 Surface Water Management Plan Section 6 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-7 Identification of in-house experts. This information is disseminated in presentations at staff meetings, internal newsletters, and internal memos. As part of its NPDES permit, the City has also made a commitment to continuing education for staff in stormwater management. This will take the form of attendance at conferences and workshops. As part of the SWMP effort, staff will also be trained in the use of the City’s stormwater management model. 6.4.3.City Residents In order to obtain the necessary political and economic support for a successful SWMP implementation, it is vital to inform City residents about basic stormwater management and water quality concepts, policies and recommendations in the SWMP, and the progress of stormwater management efforts. Through the City’s quarterly newsletter, the Heights Highlites, the City keeps residents informed of stormwater and other environmental issues particularly regarding volunteer opportunities, proper lawn care practices, and recycling and hazardous waste management information. The City website is a clearing house for information on stormwater management and will be updated to provide stormwater management articles, contact numbers for reporting illicit discharges, and other stormwater related complaints. In the near term, the City will also be providing educational brochures for residents in the City Hall lobby. These brochures will most often be from other organizations but may also be produced by the City. The City has incorporated innovative stormwater management practices into both municipal and private development projects. In the future, the City will use these projects to highlight the benefit of certain stormwater management practices. It is important that residents know about these projects (including how they were funded) so that they have an awareness that the City is working for the public interest in protecting high priority resources and that dedicated financial resources such as revenue from the stormwater utility are being put to work. The City and Dakota County co-sponsor a Wetland Health Evaluation Program which samples and documents the plant, frog, and invertebrate communities found in local wetlands following techniques developed by the MPCA. Information from this survey is available to City residents on the MPCA website. The City partners with the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Lake Monitoring and Citizen-Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) program, in which residents voluntarily monitor lakes, contributing to a comprehensive database that allows cities, counties, and watershed management organization to better manage and protect these lakes. 6.4.4.Developers The SWMP is designed to provide the official policy direction that City staff and the City Council desire to guide stormwater mitigation for new and redevelopment projects. New construction in Mendota Heights is limited since there is limited land left to develop. Redevelopment, though, will likely occur on a regular basis. The information contained within this plan is disseminated to developers and their page 106 SECTION 6 Surface Water Management Plan Section 6 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-8 consulting engineers as early as possible in the development review process. In this way, developers know what is expected of them and can consider the requirements in their initial assessments of the site as well as incorporate the necessary BMPs in any subsequent designs. Much of the necessary information is disseminated to the developers in an information packet as part of the development submittal information they receive from the City. While dissemination of information is valuable, there is no substitute for a meeting between key City staff and the developer as early as possible in the review process. This helps define expectations for submittals, clarify regulatory compliance issues, and provide additional detailed guidance. Developers are encouraged to do this as soon as possible after they have reviewed the SWMP information and thought about how it applies to their site. 6.5. Financing and the Stormwater Utility 6.5.1.Current Status – Summary The City of Mendota Heights implemented a stormwater utility in 1993. The current quarterly residential charge is $12.00 per residential unit and according to Table 6.2 for other land uses. The quarterly residential charge is expected to increase to $16.50 per residential unit in 2018. Table 6.2 Storm Water Utility Rates Property Type Current Rate $/Acre Business/Industrial $121.80 E 1 acre $60.90 < 1 acre Cemetery/Golf $10.15 Institutional $40.60 6.5.2.The Stormwater Utility into the Future To ensure that Storm Water Utility (SWU) funding keeps pace with increase in municipal maintenance responsibilities, the City should plan for the costs to conduct periodic pond maintenance. Limited data on maintenance activities has been developed by watershed management organizations. A review of this data suggests an annual maintenance budget of $1,250 per acre-foot of wet volume or $4,350 per acre of surface at NWL. Either parameter is relatively easy to track. This $1,250 per acre-foot maintenance item can be translated into a per household cost by virtue of the fact that one acre-foot is sufficient pond wet volume for 20 acres of residential development. Assuming two and a half units per gross acre, then $1,250 per year is spread among 50 units or $25 per unit per year. Maintenance activities that involve the disposal of stormwater pond sediment have become a high cost project due to the presence of chemicals such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (otherwise known as PAHs) in stormwater runoff. The City will continue to follow guidance from the MPCA on this issue, but it is anticipated that costs for stormwater pond maintenance activities will increase in the future. The current residential rate is $12.00 per unit per year. The current charges provide approximately $150,000 per year in revenue of which only a fraction has been used for page 107 SECTION 6 Surface Water Management Plan Section 6 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-9 pond maintenance. As the City’s maintenance responsibilities grow the stormwater utility funding also needs to grow to keep pace. Mendota Heights is a regulated MS4 under the Phase II NPDES Permit. There is a cost associated with preparing an NPDES permit and the associated SWPPP. Some estimate cities the size of Mendota Heights will spend $50,000 every five years for permit preparation. For Mendota Heights, it is reasonable to assume that $10 per household will be spent every five years – adding $2 per year to the individual household’s stormwater utility bill. The NPDES permit and SWPPP commit the City to certain activities, including capital projects, for the purpose of improving the quality of the City’s stormwater discharge. The USEPA has estimated that the financial commitments that City’s will make may total $10 per household per year while others place this figure at $20. Since many of the activities identified by the SWPPP may already be funded (like street sweeping and pond maintenance) the $20 figure is probably too high. For the purposes of planning increases in SWU collection, Table 6.3 summarizes the additional stormwater utility charges identified above. Table 6.3 Future Storm Water Utility Funding Item Annual Charge to Single Residential Unit Quarterly Charge to Single Residential Unit Current commitments $18.20 $4.50 Future pond maintenance $32.50 $8.10 NPDES permit and SWPPP $2.60 $0.65 NPDES permit compliance $13.00 $3.25 Total $66.30 $16.50 6.6. Ordinance Implementation The City of Mendota Heights has updated their ordinance to include: Stormwater Management Illicit Discharge Soil Erosion and Sedimentation This will be the City’s method of instituting their site review and permitting process, and includes the submission requirements, review procedure, and enforcement policies. By incorporating site review and comments on temporary and permanent erosion control along with illicit discharge and stormwater management, there is no need to have a separate grading permit and/or stormwater management permit. Grading and erosion control review can occur in the context of the stormwater management review and permitting process. The ordinance references the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document (Appendix D), which defines the technical erosion control, sediment control, and stormwater management guidelines required to be met. 6.7. Watershed Implementation Priorities 6.7.1.Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization page 108 SECTION 6 Surface Water Management Plan Section 6 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-10 Gun Club Lake Watershed Key Scope Items: Lake Augusta Alum Treatment 1. Continue to monitor Lake Augusta alum treatment from 2017. Ivy Falls Creek, Interstate Valley Creek, and West/Central/East Highway 13 Watersheds Key scope items: Ivy Hills Pond, Golf Course Pond, diversion to wetlands at Ivy Falls Creek and Interstate Valley Creek mouths, Dodge Nature Center wetland modifications, erosion problems north of Marie Avenue, Highway 110 and Dodd Road redevelopment, include benefits of Mayfield Heights diversion. 1. Water quality modeling was completed in 2003. 2. Feasibility study was completed in 2004. 3. Design and construction, based on results of feasibility study; start 2018-2032. Interstate Valley Creek Key scope item: Baseflow restoration and channel stabilization. Some work was completed on streambank erosion in 2006, but additional work is needed. 1. Feasibility study; start in 2018. 2. Design and construction, based on results of feasibility study; start in 2018 or later. Key scope item: Address erosion problems in Interstate Valley Creek, north of Marie Avenue. 1. Feasibility study; start in 2018. 2. Design and construction, based on results of feasibility study; start in 2018 or later. Rogers Lake 1. Stormwater BMPs upstream of Rogers Lake; part of the 2014 WRAPS study; anticipated to start in 2020. 2. Education and outreach; part of the 2014 WRAPS study; anticipated to start in 2020. 6.7.2.Lower Minnesota River Watershed District In its 2011 Third Generation Watershed Management Plan, the District currently has no Capital Involvement Projects (CIP) directly partnering with the City, however their Gully Erosion Projects encompasses all LGUs, and will be aimed at constructing bluff stabilization projects in areas identified as having severe erosion, which could include portions of the City’s bluffs. 6.8. City of Mendota Heights Implementation Priorities Table 6.1 lists the implementation priorities for the City of Mendota Heights. A tentative timetable is included with the table. Many of the City’s priorities revolve around improvements to existing stormwater infrastructure. 6.9. NPDES Permit In 2003, the MPCA required the City to submit an NPDES Permit Application to minimize the discharge of stormwater runoff pollutants and authorize stormwater discharge from the City’s MS4. The City will use funds generated from its SWU as the primary funding mechanism for its page 109 SECTION 6 Surface Water Management Plan Section 6 City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 Page-11 implementation program including; maintenance, repairs, capital projects, studies, etc. It is anticipated that the SWU will generate approximately $400,000 per year. If funds from this utility fee do not cover necessary costs, the City will consider adjusting the SWU fee to cover the costs associated with the implementation program. The City will continue to review the stormwater utility fee annually and adjust based on the stormwater related needs of the City and other available funding mechanisms. The City will also take advantage of grant or loan programs to offset project costs where appropriate and cost-effective. 6.10. Plan Revision and Amendments The City may need to revise this SWMP to keep it current. Any significant amendments that are made to the plan must be submitted to the LMRWD and LMRWMO for review and approval before adoption by the City. The City anticipates updating the Implementation Plan annually. These changes will be submitted to the Watershed Commissions for their record but not for review and approval. The City may amend this plan at any time in response to a petition by a resident or business. Written petitions for plan amendments must be submitted to the City Administrator. The petition must state the reason for the requested amendment, and provide supporting information for the City to consider the request. The City may reject the petition, delay action on the petition until the next full plan revision, or accept the petition as an urgent issue that requires immediate amendment of the plan. The City of Mendota Heights may also revise/amend the plan in response to City-identified needs. This SWMP is intended to be in effect for 10 years (implementation program outlines cost/activities for seven years) per state statute. The SWMP will be revised/updated at that time, to the extent necessary. page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page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page 112 Stormwater Management Plan Appendix A City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 APPENDIX A Figures page 113 %&f(%&f(%&c(%&c(?ØA@?ØA@?ØA@?ÞA@?±A@?±A@?cA@?©A@?©A@MinnesotaRiverMississippi RiverMinnehahaC reekGun ClubPickerelSnellingRogersSunfishCrosbyU.S. Lock & Dam #2 Pool (main channel)AugustaLemayHornbeanU.S. Lock & Dam #1 PoolUpperMudPike Island MarshCemetery PondFigure 1: Land UseMendota Heights SWMPMendota Heights, MNDocument Path: K:\01735-040\GIS\Maps\SWMP Figures\Figure1_LandUseMap.mxd Ü03,200FeetCity BoundaryLand UseSingle FamilyDetachedSingle FamilyAttachedMultifamilyOfficeRetail and OtherCommercialMixed UseResidentialMixed UseIndustrialIndustrial andUtilityInstitutionalPark,Recreational orPreserveGolf CourseMajor HighwayUndevelopedWaterpage 114 %&f(%&f(%&c(%&c(?ØA@?ØA@?ØA@?ÞA@?±A@?±A@?cA@?©A@?©A@LOWER MISSISSIPPIRIVER WATERSHEDMANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONEAGAN-INVER GROVEWATERSHED DISTRICTMISSISSIPPIWATERSHEDDISTRICTMISSISSIPPIWATERSHEDDISTRICTMISSISSIPPIWATERSHEDDISTRICTMINNEHAHACREEK WATERSHEDDISTRICTLOWER MINNESOTARIVER WATERSHEDDISTRICTCAPITOL REGIONWATERSHEDDISTRICTRogersU.S. Lock &Dam #1 PoolPickerelSunfishSnellingCemeteryPondGun ClubMudAugustaCrosbyU.S. Lock &Dam #2 Pool(main channel)PikeIslandMarshUpperHorseshoeHornbeanLemayM inn e sota R ive rMinnesotaRiverMississippiRiver BloomingtonEaganFortSnellingInver Grove HeightsLilydaleMendotaMendotaHeightsMinneapolisSaintPaulSunfishLakeWestSaintPaulFigure 2: Watershed BoundariesMendota Heights SWMPMendota Heights, MNDocument Path: K:\01735-040\GIS\Maps\SWMP Figures\Figure2_WatershedBoundaryMap.mxd Ü03,200FeetWMO_BoundariesPWICity BoundaryParcelspage 115 %&f(%&f(%&c(%&c(?ØA@?ØA@?ØA@?ÞA@?±A@?±A@?cA@?©A@?©A@Mendota HeightsSaint PaulFort SnellingMinneapolisLilydaleMendotaWest Saint PaulEaganSunfish LakeBloomingtonInver Grove HeightsMinnesotaRiverMississippi RiverMinnehahaCre ekGun ClubPickerelSnellingRogersSunfishCrosbyU.S. Lock & Dam #2 Pool (main channel)AugustaLemayHornbeanU.S. Lock & Dam #1 PoolUpperMudPike Island MarshCemetery PondFigure 3: Impaired WatersMendota Heights SWMPMendota Heights, MNDocument Path: K:\01735-040\GIS\Maps\SWMP Figures\Figure3_ImpairedWatersMap.mxd Ü03,200FeetImpaired StreamsImpaired LakesParcelsCity Boundarypage 116 !5%&f(%&f(%&c(%&c(?ØA@?ØA@?ØA@?ÞA@?±A@?±A@?cA@?©A@?©A@Gun Club Lake North FenMendota HeightsSaint PaulFort SnellingMinneapolisLilydaleMendotaWest Saint PaulEaganSunfish LakeBloomingtonInver Grove HeightsMinnesotaRiverMississippi RiverMinnehahaCre ekGun ClubPickerelSnellingRogersSunfishCrosbyU.S. Lock & Dam #2 Pool (main channel)AugustaLemayHornbeanU.S. Lock & Dam #1 PoolUpperMudPike Island MarshCemetery PondFigure 4: Wetland LocationsMendota Heights SWMPMendota Heights, MNDocument Path: K:\01735-040\GIS\Maps\SWMP Figures\Figure4_WetlandLocationsMap.mxd Ü03,200Feet!5Calcareous FenFreshwaterEmergent WetlandFreshwaterForested/ShrubWetlandFreshwater PondLakeRiverineCity Boundarypage 117 %&f( ?±A@ StateHwy149State Hwy 149SibleyMemorialHwyCounty Hwy 31County Hwy 31State Hwy 13 County Hwy 26 County Hwy 43County Hwy 26 County Hwy 63SibleyMemorialHwyCountyRd43County Hwy 43County Hwy 26StateHwy913ASibleyMemorialHwyMSAS 107County Hwy 26 County Rd 4SibleyMemorialHwy County Rd 8 County Rd 31ACounty Hwy 45Eagan Fort Snelling Inver Grove Heights Lilydale Mendota Mendota Heights Saint Paul Sunfish Lake West Saint Paul Lemay Hornbean Gun Club Sunfish Pickerel Pike Island Marsh Upper Crosby U.S. Lock & Dam #2 Pool (main channel) Augusta Lemay Rogers Rogers O'Neil Pond Minne sota River Mississippi River MB-1C IF-15 IF-16C IF-13C IF-18 IF-2C IF-1 IF-24C MB-21 IF-28 IF-12C IF-7C IF-6C MB-5 IF-25 MB-3C IV-126 IV-139 IV-140 MB-6 MB-7 IV-125 IV-113IV-114 IV-119C IV-111 IV-124 IV-115C IV-88C IV-100 IV-98 IV-94C IV-116 IV-92C IV-138 IV-135C MB-8 MB-9C MB-10MB-12C IV-134 IV-133 IV-76C IV-132 IV-129C IV-129a IV-128 MB-16 MB-17 IV-127 IV-104 IV-82C IV-81 IV-91 IV-51 IV-52C IV-17 IV-16 IV-15 IV-12C IV-11 IV-9 IV-8 IV-7 IV-5 GC-60C IV-19 IV-18 IV-10C IV-21-22 IV-23C IV-4 IV-6 IV-21a IV-1C IV-3 IV-75 IV-74 IV-26 IV-30 IV-69C IV-43C GC-57 GC-58GC-59 GC-62 GC-56a GC-56 IV-33 IV-35 IV-32 IV-32 IV-27C GC-5C GC-9 GC-8 IV-34C IV-36 GC-51 GC-11 GC-12 GC-13 GC-10C IP-17 IP-4a IP-12 GC-15 MB-34 MB-34m GC-39C GC-41 GC-43 GC-42 IP-18 IV-64 IP-4b IP-6 IP-8 IP-9 IP-10 IP-11 IP-5a IV-44C IV-58C GC-1 IV-61C IV-79C IV-84C IV-96 IV-67C MB_14C MB-18 MB-35 IP-1 GC-50C IP-3 IP-7 IP-19a IP-13 IP-19b IP-14 GC-49b IP-2 IP-20 GC-49a MB-32 MB-31 IP-5b MB-33 IP-15 IP-16 IV-90 IV-112 LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT EAGAN-INVER GROVE WATERSHED DISTRICT LOWER MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT . 0 1,000Feet WMO Boundary Drainage Area #*Inlet/Outlet/Apron ")Catch Basin !(Manhole Structure Storm Sewer Updated Wetland Pond Gun Club Lake Ivy Falls Industrial Park Interstate Valley Creek Mississippi River Bluffs %&c( ?cA@ Figure 5: Drainage Systems Mendota Heights SWMP Mendota Heights, MN page 118 %&f(%&f(%&c(%&c(?ØA@?ØA@?ØA@?ÞA@?±A@?±A@?cA@?©A@?©A@RogersU.S. Lock& Dam#1 PoolPickerelSunfishSnellingCemeteryPondGun ClubMudAugustaCrosbyU.S. Lock& Dam #2 Pool(main channel)PikeIslandMarshUpperLemayMinnehahaCreekMinnesotaRiverMississippiRiverBloomingtonEaganFortSnellingInverGroveHeightsLilydaleMendotaMendotaHeightsMinneapolisSaintPaulSunfishLakeWestSaintPaulFigure 6: DNR Protected WatersMendota Heights SWMPMendota Heights, MNDocument Path: K:\01735-040\GIS\Maps\SWMP Figures\Figure6_DnrProtectedWatersMap.mxd Ü03,200FeetPWIParcelsCity Boundarypage 119 Stormwater Management Plan Appendix B City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 APPENDIX B MS4 SWPPP Application for Reauthorization and BMP Sheets page 120 www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 1 of 15 MS4 SWPPP Application for Reauthorization for the NPDES/SDS General Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit MNR040000 reissued with an effective date of August 1, 2013 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) Document Doc Type: Permit Application Instructions:This application is for authorization to discharge stormwater associated with Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Permit Program. No fee is required with the submittal of this application. Please refer to “Example” for detailed instructions found on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) MS4 website at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/ms4. Submittal:This MS4 SWPPP Application for Reauthorization form must be submitted electronically via e-mail to the MPCA at ms4permitprogram.pca@state.mn.us from the person that is duly authorized to certify this form. All questions with an asterisk (*) are required fields. All applications will be returned if required fields are not completed. Questions: Contact Claudia Hochstein at 651-757-2881 or claudia.hochstein@state.mn.us, Dan Miller at 651-757-2246 or daniel.miller@state.mn.us, or call toll-free at 800-657-3864. General Contact Information (*Required fields) MS4 Owner (with ownership or operational responsibility, or control of the MS4) *MS4 permittee name: Mendota Heights *County: Dakota (city, county, municipality, government agency or other entity) *Mailing address: 1101 Victoria Curve *City: Mendota Heights *State: MN *Zip code: 55118 *Phone (including area code): 651-452-1850 *E-mail: permits@mendota-heights.com MS4 General contact (with Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program [SWPPP] implementation responsibility) *Last name: Ruzek *First name: Ryan (department head, MS4 coordinator, consultant, etc.) *Title: Assistant City Engineer *Mailing address: 1101 Victoria Curve *City: Mendota Heights *State: MN *Zip code: 55118 *Phone (including area code): 651-452-1850 *E-mail: ryanr@mendota-heights.com Preparer information (complete if SWPPP application is prepared by a party other than MS4 General contact) Last name: First name: (department head, MS4 coordinator, consultant, etc.) Title: Mailing address: City: State: Zip code: Phone (including area code): E-mail: Verification 1. I seek to continue discharging stormwater associated with a small MS4 after the effective date of this Permit, and shall submit this MS4 SWPPP Application for Reauthorization form, in accordance with the schedule in Appendix A, Table 1, with the SWPPP document completed in accordance with the Permit (Part II.D.). Yes 2. I have read and understand the NPDES/SDS MS4 General Permit and certify that we intend to comply with all requirements of the Permit. Yes page 121 www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 2 of 15 Certification (All fields are required) Yes - I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. I certify that based on my inquiry of the person, or persons, who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of civil and criminal penalties. This certification is required by Minn. Stat. §§ 7001.0070 and 7001.0540. The authorized person with overall, MS4 legal responsibility must certify the application (principal executive officer or a ranking elected official). By typing my name in the following box, I certify the above statements to be true and correct, to the best of my knowledge, and that this information can be used for the purpose of processing my application. Name: John Mazzitello (This document has been electronically signed) Title: Public Works Director/City Engineer Date (mm/dd/yyyy): 12/30/2013 Mailing address: 1101 Victoria Curve City: Mendota Heights State: MN Zip code: 55118 Phone (including area code): 651-452-1850 E-mail: johnrm@mendota-heights.com Note: The application will not be processed without certification. page 122 www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 3 of 15 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Document I. Partnerships: (Part II.D.1) A.List the regulated small MS4(s) with which you have established a partnership in order to satisfy one or more requirements of this Permit. Indicate which Minimum Control Measure (MCM) requirements or other program components that each partnership helps to accomplish (List all that apply). Check the box below if you currently have no established partnerships with other regulated MS4s. If you have more than five partnerships, hit the tab key after the last line to generate a new row. No partnerships with regulated small MS4s Name and description of partnership MCM/Other permit requirements involved Lower Mississippi River WMO, JPA Provides Cablecast program, etc. 1,2,3,4,5 Gun Club Lake WMO (recently abolished JPA which included Eagan and Inver Grove Heights) 1,2,3,4,5 City of West St. Paul – Joint Staff training on Good House Keeping Practices 3,6 Dakota County SWCD, cooperative relationship, blue thumb, etc. 1,2,3,4,5 B. If you have additional information that you would like to communicate about your partnerships with other regulated small MS4(s), provide it in the space below, or include an attachment to the SWPPP Document, with the following file naming convention: MS4NameHere_Partnerships. Also see our website @ www.mendota-heights.com. Under "Engineering" & "Storm Water Management" there are links to non-MS4partners and other sotrm water information. II. Description of Regulatory Mechanisms: (Part II.D.2) Illicit discharges A. Do you have a regulatory mechanism(s) that effectively prohibits non-stormwater discharges into your small MS4, except those non-stormwater discharges authorized under the Permit (Part III.D.3.b.)? Yes No 1. If yes: a. Check which type of regulatory mechanism(s) your organization has (check all that apply): Ordinance Contract language Policy/Standards Permits Rules Other, explain: b. Provide either a direct link to the mechanism selected above or attach it as an electronic document to this form; or if your regulatory mechanism is either an Ordinance or a Rule, you may provide a citation: Citation: Mendota Heights City Code, Title11, Chapter 6, Section 7 Direct link: http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=668 Check here if attaching an electronic copy of your regulatory mechanism, with the following file naming convention: MS4NameHere_IDDEreg. 2. If no: Describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date page 123 www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 4 of 15 permit coverage is extended, this permit requirement is met: Construction site stormwater runoff control A. Do you have a regulatory mechanism(s) that establishes requirements for erosion and sediment controls and waste controls? Yes No 1. If yes: a. Check which type of regulatory mechanism(s) your organization has (check all that apply): Ordinance Contract language Policy/Standards Permits Rules Other, explain: b. Provide either a direct link to the mechanism selected above or attach it as an electronic document to this form; or if your regulatory mechanism is either an Ordinance or a Rule, you may provide a citation: Citation: Mendota Heights City Code Tittle 11, Chapter 6, Section 6 Direct link: http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=668 Check here if attaching an electronic copy of your regulatory mechanism, with the following file naming convention: MS4NameHere_CSWreg. B. Is your regulatory mechanism at least as stringent as the MPCA general permit to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity (as of the effective date of the MS4 Permit)? Yes No If you answered yes to the above question, proceed to C. If you answered no to either of the above permit requirements listed in A. or B., describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met: City code cannot fully be enforced without the adopted supplemental documents including the "Land Disturbance Guidance Document", "Surface Water Management Plan" and project specific approved SWPPP. C.Answer yes or no to indicate whether your regulatory mechanism(s) requires owners and operators of construction activity to develop site plans that incorporate the following erosion and sediment controls and waste controls as described in the Permit (Part III.D.4.a.(1)-(8)), and as listed below: 1. Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize erosion. Yes No 2. BMPs to minimize the discharge of sediment and other pollutants. Yes No 3. BMPs for dewatering activities. Yes No 4. Site inspections and records of rainfall events Yes No 5. BMP maintenance Yes No 6. Management of solid and hazardous wastes on each project site. Yes No 7. Final stabilization upon the completion of construction activity, including the use of perennial vegetative cover on all exposed soils or other equivalent means. Yes No 8. Criteria for the use of temporary sediment basins. Yes No If you answered no to any of the above permit requirements, describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met: The city will update its Land Disturbance Guidance Document and Surface Water Management Plan to be as stringent as identified in the NPDES Permit within 12 months of permit coverage. Post-construction stormwater management A. Do you have a regulatory mechanism(s) to address post-construction stormwater management activities? Yes No 1. If yes: a. Check which type of regulatory mechanism(s) your organization has (check all that apply): page 124 www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 5 of 15 Ordinance Contract language Policy/Standards Permits Rules Other, explain: b. Provide either a direct link to the mechanism selected above or attach it as an electronic document to this form; or if your regulatory mechanism is either an Ordinance or a Rule, you may provide a citation: Citation: Mendota Heights City Code Title 11, Chapter 6, Section 8 Direct link: http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=668 Check here if attaching an electronic copy of your regulatory mechanism, with the following file naming convention: MS4NameHere_PostCSWreg. B.Answer yes or no below to indicate whether you have a regulatory mechanism(s) in place that meets the following requirements as described in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a.): 1.Site plan review: Requirements that owners and/or operators of construction activity submit site plans with post-construction stormwater management BMPs to the permittee for review and approval, prior to start of construction activity. Yes No 2.Conditions for post construction stormwater management: Requires the use of any combination of BMPs, with highest preference given to Green Infrastructure techniques and practices (e.g., infiltration, evapotranspiration, reuse/harvesting, conservation design, urban forestry, green roofs, etc.), necessary to meet the following conditions on the site of a construction activity to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP): a. For new development projects – no net increase from pre-project conditions (on an annual average basis) of: 1) Stormwater discharge volume, unless precluded by the stormwater management limitations in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(3)(a)). 2) Stormwater discharges of Total Suspended Solids (TSS). 3) Stormwater discharges of Total Phosphorus (TP). Yes No b. For redevelopment projects – a net reduction from pre-project conditions (on an annual average basis) of: 1) Stormwater discharge volume, unless precluded by the stormwater management limitations in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(3)(a)). 2) Stormwater discharges of TSS. 3) Stormwater discharges of TP. Yes No 3.Stormwater management limitations and exceptions: a. Limitations 1) Prohibit the use of infiltration techniques to achieve the conditions for post-construction stormwater management in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(2)) when the infiltration structural stormwater BMP will receive discharges from, or be constructed in areas: a) Where industrial facilities are not authorized to infiltrate industrial stormwater under an NPDES/SDS Industrial Stormwater Permit issued by the MPCA. b) Where vehicle fueling and maintenance occur. c) With less than three (3) feet of separation distance from the bottom of the infiltration system to the elevation of the seasonally saturated soils or the top of bedrock. d) Where high levels of contaminants in soil or groundwater will be mobilized by the infiltrating stormwater. Yes No 2) Restrict the use of infiltration techniques to achieve the conditions for post-construction stormwater management in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(2)), without higher engineering review, sufficient to provide a functioning treatment system and prevent adverse impacts to groundwater, when the infiltration device will be constructed in areas: a) With predominately Hydrologic Soil Group D (clay) soils. b) Within 1,000 feet up-gradient, or 100 feet down-gradient of active karst features. c) Within a Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) as defined in Minn. R. 4720.5100, subp. 13. d) Where soil infiltration rates are more than 8.3 inches per hour. Yes No 3) For linear projects where the lack of right-of-way precludes the installation of volume control practices that meet the conditions for post-construction stormwater management Yes No page 125 www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 6 of 15 in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(2)), the permittee’s regulatory mechanism(s) may allow exceptions as described in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(3)(b)). The permittee’s regulatory mechanism(s) shall ensure that a reasonable attempt be made to obtain right-of-way during the project planning process. 4.Mitigation provisions: The permittee’s regulatory mechanism(s) shall ensure that any stormwater discharges of TSS and/or TP not addressed on the site of the original construction activity are addressed through mitigation and, at a minimum, shall ensure the following requirements are met: a. Mitigation project areas are selected in the following order of preference: 1) Locations that yield benefits to the same receiving water that receives runoff from the original construction activity. 2) Locations within the same Minnesota Department of Natural Resource (DNR) catchment area as the original construction activity. 3) Locations in the next adjacent DNR catchment area upǦstream 4) Locations anywhere within the permittee’s jurisdiction. Yes No b. Mitigation projects must involve the creation of new structural stormwater BMPs or the retrofit of existing structural stormwater BMPs, or the use of a properly designed regional structural stormwater BMP. Yes No c. Routine maintenance of structural stormwater BMPs already required by this permit cannot be used to meet mitigation requirements of this part. Yes No d. Mitigation projects shall be completed within 24 months after the start of the original construction activity. e. The permittee shall determine, and document, who will be responsible for long-term maintenance on all mitigation projects of this part. f. If the permittee receives payment from the owner and/or operator of a construction activity for mitigation purposes in lieu of the owner or operator of that construction activity meeting the conditions for post-construction stormwater management in Part III.D.5.a(2), the permittee shall apply any such payment received to a public stormwater project, and all projects must be in compliance with Part III.D.5.a(4)(a)-(e). Yes No Yes No Yes No 5.Long-term maintenance of structural stormwater BMPs: The permittee’s regulatory mechanism(s) shall provide for the establishment of legal mechanisms between the permittee and owners or operators responsible for the long-term maintenance of structural stormwater BMPs not owned or operated by the permittee, that have been implemented to meet the conditions for post-construction stormwater management in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(2)). This only includes structural stormwater BMPs constructed after the effective date of this permit and that are directly connected to the permittee’s MS4, and that are in the permittee’s jurisdiction. The legal mechanism shall include provisions that, at a minimum: a. Allow the permittee to conduct inspections of structural stormwater BMPs not owned or operated by the permittee, perform necessary maintenance, and assess costs for those structural stormwater BMPs when the permittee determines that the owner and/or operator of that structural stormwater BMP has not conducted maintenance. Yes No b. Include conditions that are designed to preserve the permittee’s right to ensure maintenance responsibility, for structural stormwater BMPs not owned or operated by the permittee, when those responsibilities are legally transferred to another party. Yes No c. Include conditions that are designed to protect/preserve structural stormwater BMPs and site features that are implemented to comply with the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(2)). If site configurations or structural stormwater BMPs change, causing decreased structural stormwater BMP effectiveness, new or improved structural stormwater BMPs must be implemented to ensure the conditions for post-construction stormwater management in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(2)) continue to be met. Yes No If you answered no to any of the above permit requirements, describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within twelve (12) months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met: Mendota Heights is currently in the process of revising its Surface Water Management Plan to comply with the expanded areas of the city that will now be within the Lower Mississippi River WMO. The city intends to complete this update by 12/31/2014. It is undetermined if mitigation standards will be allowed. Items checked "no" as outlined in B.2 and B.3 will be updated for compliance with the MS4 permit within 12 months of permit coverage. III. Enforcement Response Procedures (ERPs): (Part II.D.3) A. Do you have existing ERPs that satisfy the requirements of the Permit (Part III.B.)? Yes No page 126 www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 7 of 15 1. If yes, attach them to this form as an electronic document, with the following file naming convention: MS4NameHere_ERPs. 2. If no, describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, with twelve (12) months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met: The city will develop/adopt written Enforcement Response Procedures within 12 months of permit coverage. B. Describe your ERPs: In general practice the citys intent to to achieve compliance without having to initiate ERP Procedures. The first step is typically a verbal conversation about the issue. If this first step is not enough a Notice of Violation and potential stop work order is issued. Depending on the severity, frequency and urgency of the violation the city may issue a fine, perform the corrective work ourselves or if necessary pursue criminal or civil actions. IV. Storm Sewer System Map and Inventory: (Part II.D.4.) A. Describe how you manage your storm sewer system map and inventory: The Mendota Heights Storm Sewer System is available in CAD, PDF, and GIS formats. The electronic database is updated annualy at a minimum. B.Answer yes or no to indicate whether your storm sewer system map addresses the following requirements from the Permit (Part III.C.1.a-d), as listed below: 1. The permittee’s entire small MS4 as a goal, but at a minimum, all pipes 12 inches or greater in diameter, including stormwater flow direction in those pipes. Yes No 2. Outfalls, including a unique identification (ID) number assigned by the permittee, and an associated geographic coordinate. Yes No 3. Structural stormwater BMPs that are part of the permittee’s small MS4. Yes No 4. All receiving waters. Yes No If you answered no to any of the above permit requirements, describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met: C.Answer yes or no to indicate whether you have completed the requirements of 2009 Minnesota Session Law, Ch. 172. Sec. 28: with the following inventories, according to the specifications of the Permit (Part III.C.2.a.-b.), including: 1. All ponds within the permittee’s jurisdiction that are constructed and operated for purposes of water quality treatment, stormwater detention, and flood control, and that are used for the collection of stormwater via constructed conveyances. Yes No 2. All wetlands and lakes, within the permittee’s jurisdiction, that collect stormwater via constructed conveyances. Yes No D.Answer yes or no to indicate whether you have completed the following information for each feature inventoried. 1. A unique identification (ID) number assigned by the permittee. 2. A geographic coordinate. 3. Type of feature (e.g., pond, wetland, or lake). This may be determined by using best professional judgment. Yes No Yes No Yes No If you have answered yes to all above requirements, and you have already submitted the Pond Inventory Form to the MPCA, then you do not need to resubmit the inventory form below. If you answered no to any of the above permit requirements, describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met: E.Answer yes or no to indicate if you are attaching your pond, wetland and lake inventory to the MPCA on the form provided on the MPCA website at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/ms4 , according to the specifications of Permit (Part III.C.2.b.(1)-(3)). Attach with the following file naming convention: MS4NameHere_inventory. Yes No If you answered no, the inventory form must be submitted to the MPCA MS4 Permit Program within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended. page 127 www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 8 of 15 V. Minimum Control Measures (MCMs) (Part II.D.5) A. MCM1: Public education and outreach 1. The Permit requires that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, existing permittees revise their education and outreach program that focuses on illicit discharge recognition and reporting, as well as other specifically selected stormwater-related issue(s) of high priority to the permittee during this permit term. Describe your current educational program, including any high-priority topics included: The City’s educational program consists of a wide range of activities to educated city residents, community groups, business owners, city staff, elected officials, developers, and contractors on a wide range of water resources and stormwater management topics. The city will evaluate its education program annually and make updates as needed. The city does not anticipate the need for new BMPs, rather current BMPs will be refined and update as necessary to meet permit requirements. 2. List the categories of BMPs that address your public education and outreach program, including the distribution of educational materials and a program implementation plan. Use the first table for categories of BMPs that you have established and the second table for categories of BMPs that you plan to implement over the course of the permit term. Include the measurable goals with appropriate timeframes that each BMP category will be implemented and completed. In addition, provide interim milestones and the frequency of action in which the permittee will implement and/or maintain the BMPs. Refer to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Measurable Goals Guidance for Phase II Small MS4s (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/measurablegoals.pdf). If you have more than five categories, hit the tab key after the last line to generate a new row. Established BMP categories Measurable goals and timeframes Quarterly Newsletter – Heights Highlights Number of articles, number mailed City Website – Storm water page Implement tracking feature Educational Brochures Number Distributed Annual Public Meeting Number attended Storm Drain Stenciling Number Stenciled Pagel Pond Signs Number Posted Water Quality Monitoring Program Met Council CAMP, Dakota County WHEP Public Input on Capital Improvements Number attended to meetings Cable access programs Supported through LMRWMO, number times aired BMP categories to be implemented Measurable goals and timeframes 3. Provide the name or the position title of the individual(s) who is responsible for implementing and/or coordinating this MCM: Public Works Director/City Engineer B. MCM2: Public participation and involvement 1. The Permit (Part III.D.2.a.) requires that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, existing permittees shall revise their current program, as necessary, and continue to implement a public participation/involvement program to solicit public input on the SWPPP. Describe your current program: The city holds an annual public meeting to review program details and program progress with the public. The meeting also provides an opportunity for the public to give input and/or ask questions. The meeting is noticed in the local paper following applicable public notice requirements and broadcast on the local cable access station. The city takes into consideration both written and verbal forms of public input at the meeting and throughout the year. The city maintains a phone line for use by the public to report illicit discharges, report stormwater noncompliance concerns, and/or provide input, give comments, and/or ask questions about the MS4 program. 2. List the categories of BMPs that address your public participation/involvement program, including solicitation and documentation of public input on the SWPPP. Use the first table for categories of BMPs that you have established and the second table for categories of BMPs that you plan to implement over the course of the permit term. page 128 www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 9 of 15 Include the measurable goals with appropriate timeframes that each BMP category will be implemented and completed. In addition, provide interim milestones and the frequency of action in which the permittee will implement and/or maintain the BMPs. Refer to the EPA’s Measurable Goals Guidance for Phase II Small MS4s (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/measurablegoals.pdf). If you have more than five categories, hit the tab key after the last line to generate a new row. Established BMP categories Measurable goals and timeframes Telephone and email hotline Track number of issues reported, respond accordingly Volunteer opportunities Post opportunities on the city website, newsletter, etc. Annual meeting Number attended, comments received Local cable Broadcast public meetings, run storm water related programs SWPPP availability Available online and at city hall BMP categories to be implemented Measurable goals and timeframes 3.Do you have a process for receiving and documenting citizen input? Yes No If you answered no to the above permit requirement, describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, this permit requirement is met: Citzen input can be generated through phone, email, fax, meetings, mail, etc…The communication is typically logged in an Xcel file for future reference. Input submitted at public meetings will be recorded on the permanent minutes. 4. Provide the name or the position title of the individual(s) who is responsible for implementing and/or coordinating this MCM: Public Works Director/City Engineer C. MCM 3: Illicit discharge detection and elimination 1. The Permit (Part III.D.3.) requires that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, existing permittees revise their current program as necessary, and continue to implement and enforce a program to detect and eliminate illicit discharges into the small MS4. Describe your current program: The City of Mendota Heights has personnel available on a normal working day basis and voice mail and email for residents to report illicit discharges, construction site sedimentation and erosion violations, other storm water related issues and to provide comments on the SWPPP. City staff keeps records of these complaints, and responds to the calls as needed. The City has an illicit discharge detection and enforcement ordinance in place that outlines in more detail the City's approach to identifying, addressing, and preventing these discharges to storm sewer. In general, when a complaint comes in, City staff will review the site, take photographs, and leave a notice or send a letter giving the owner a certain number of days to correct the problem. More urgent steps are taken if the violation is serious and/or needs immediate attention. Violators are advised that if they fail to comply, the City will correct the problem and they will be charged. The City maintains and annually updates a storm water system and inventory map. The map is currently maintained in AutoCAD and GIS formats and includes storm water conveyance system, ponds, water bodies, wetlands, structural pollution control devices, and outfalls. The City conducts regular inspections of its storm water system and conducts site specific inspections as reports are received. The city completes dry weather inspections of, at a minimum, 20% of the storm sewer system outfalls, as well as pond inlets and outlets each year. City staff is watchful for signs of illicit discharges while conducting daily activities. The city addresses ISTS inspections through the Dakota County Program. 2. Does your Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program meet the following requirements, as found in the Permit (Part III.D.3.c.-g.)? a. Incorporation of illicit discharge detection into all inspection and maintenance activities conducted under the Permit (Part III.D.6.e.-f.)Where feasible, illicit discharge inspections shall be conducted during dry-weather conditions (e.g., periods of 72 or more hours of no precipitation). Yes No b. Detecting and tracking the source of illicit discharges using visual inspections. The permittee may also include use of mobile cameras, collecting and analyzing water samples, and/or other detailed procedures that may be effective investigative tools. Yes No c. Training of all field staff, in accordance with the requirements of the Permit (Part III.D.6.g.(2)), in illicit discharge recognition (including conditions which could cause illicit discharges), and Yes No page 129 www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 10 of 15 reporting illicit discharges for further investigation. d. Identification of priority areas likely to have illicit discharges, including at a minimum, evaluating land use associated with business/industrial activities, areas where illicit discharges have been identified in the past, and areas with storage of large quantities of significant materials that could result in an illicit discharge. Yes No e. Procedures for the timely response to known, suspected, and reported illicit discharges. Yes No f. Procedures for investigating, locating, and eliminating the source of illicit discharges. Yes No g. Procedures for responding to spills, including emergency response procedures to prevent spills from entering the small MS4. The procedures shall also include the immediate notification of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Duty Officer, if the source of the illicit discharge is a spill or leak as defined in Minn. Stat. § 115.061. Yes No h. When the source of the illicit discharge is found, the permittee shall use the ERPs required by the Permit (Part III.B.) to eliminate the illicit discharge and require any needed corrective action(s). Yes No If you answered no to any of the above permit requirements, describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met: In several cases the procedures are in place but may not be entirely written, or may involve written policies and procedures from multiple departments/documents. For example, spills are typically incorporated into the city Emergency Response Plan as it would be redundant to include under the storm water ordinance. The various relevant procedures will be brought together into one place and included within the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Procedures will be completed within 12 months of coverage. If it is considered necessary, changes will be incorporated into the City ordinance. 3. List the categories of BMPs that address your illicit discharge, detection and elimination program. Use the first table for categories of BMPs that you have established and the second table for categories of BMPs that you plan to implement over the course of the permit term. Include the measurable goals with appropriate timeframes that each BMP category will be implemented and completed. In addition, provide interim milestones and the frequency of action in which the permittee will implement and/or maintain the BMPs. Refer to the EPA’s Measurable Goals Guidance for Phase II Small MS4s (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/measurablegoals.pdf). If you have more than five categories, hit the tab key after the last line to generate a new row. Established BMP categories Measurable goals and timeframes Storm Sewer Map Continually update, ongoing Ordinance Update and enforce, number of permits/sites Site Inspections Track the source and enforce as necessary, number inspected. Site plan review Ensure safe guards and hazardous are in place prior to construction Training Annual staff training to assist in identification of hazards. Reporting hotline Maintain accessibility to the public and other agencies to report issues. BMP categories to be implemented Measurable goals and timeframes Receipt and consideration of Noncompliance reports Develop written procedures 4. Do you have procedures for record-keeping within your Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) program as specified within the Permit (Part III.D.3.h.)? Yes No If you answered no, indicate how you will develop procedures for record-keeping of your Illicit Discharge, Detection and Elimination Program, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended: An electronic and hard-copy list of illicit discharges is kept up to date. It needs to be modified to ensure that it includes all the information required by the Permit. Record-keeping procedures and modified forms will be developed in accordance with the Permit requirements. 5. Provide the name or the position title of the individual(s) who is responsible for implementing and/or coordinating this MCM: page 130 www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 11 of 15 Public Works Director/City Engineer D. MCM 4: Construction site stormwater runoff control 1. The Permit (Part III.D.4) requires that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, existing permittees shall revise their current program, as necessary, and continue to implement and enforce a construction site stormwater runoff control program. Describe your current program: The City of Mendota Heights has an established program and policies that effectively control construction site stormwater and provide for the necessary inspection and enforcement measures. The city’s procedures for site plan review include review and approval by city staff and/or consultant. The city currently inspects construction sites to review compliance with code and permit requirements. The city’s ordinance also requires contractors to conduct regular site and rainfall inspections. The city maintains a phone number (business hours but has voicemail) and email on their website for the public to provide input, report noncompliance and/or other construction site stormwater information 24 hours a day. 2. Does your program address the following BMPs for construction stormwater erosion and sediment control as required in the Permit (Part III.D.4.b.): a. Have you established written procedures for site plan reviews that you conduct prior to the start of construction activity? Yes No b. Does the site plan review procedure include notification to owners and operators proposing construction activity that they need to apply for and obtain coverage under the MPCA’s general permit to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity No. MN R100001? Yes No c. Does your program include written procedures for receipt and consideration of reports of noncompliance or other stormwater related information on construction activity submitted by the public to the permittee? Yes No d. Have you included written procedures for the following aspects of site inspections to determine compliance with your regulatory mechanism(s): 1) Does your program include procedures for identifying priority sites for inspection? Yes No 2) Does your program identify a frequency at which you will conduct construction site inspections? Yes No 3) Does your program identify the names of individual(s) or position titles of those responsible for conducting construction site inspections? Yes No 4) Does your program include a checklist or other written means to document construction site inspections when determining compliance? Yes No e. Does your program document and retain construction project name, location, total acreage to be disturbed, and owner/operator information? Yes No f. Does your program document stormwater-related comments and/or supporting information used to determine project approval or denial? Yes No g. Does your program retain construction site inspection checklists or other written materials used to document site inspections? Yes No If you answered no to any of the above permit requirements, describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met. City ordinance states coverage must be obtained through the MPCA but does not specify the specific permit number. The city has a site plan review process; however, there are currently no written procedures for this process. The City will update its site plan review process to include written procedures, notifications, and documentation requirements in accordance with permit requirements. This effort will be completed within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended. The city has a process for the receipt and consideration of construction site noncompliance reports and other stormwater related input; however, there are currently no written procedures for this process. The city will update its program for receipt and consideration of pubic stormwater reports to include written procedures in accordance with permit requirements. This effort will be completed within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended. The city has a process for site inspections; however, there are currently no written procedures for this process. The city will update its current site inspection process to include written procedures and documentation requirements inaccordance with permit requirements. 3. List the categories of BMPs that address your construction site stormwater runoff control program. Use the first table for categories of BMPs that you have established and the second table for categories of BMPs that you plan to implement over the course of the permit term. Include the measurable goals with appropriate timeframes that each BMP category will be implemented and completed. In addition, provide interim milestones and the frequency of action in which the permittee will implement and/or maintain the BMPs. Refer to the EPA’s Measurable Goals Guidance for Phase II Small MS4s page 131 www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 12 of 15 (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/measurablegoals.pdf).If you have more than five categories, hit the tab key after the last line to generate a new row. Established BMP categories Measurable goals and timeframes Ordinance Enforce, Review and Update as needed Site plan Review Number reviewed, comments issued. Ongoing. Site Inspections Number inspected, number in violation. Hot line/Email reporting Maintain log and follow up actions Education Distribute Land Disturbance guidance document to builders and non-exempt building permits. Wetland Permit Program Number issued BMP categories to be implemented Measurable goals and timeframes Noncompliance standards Number received 4. Provide the name or the position title of the individual(s) who is responsible for implementing and/or coordinating this MCM: Public Works Director/City Engineer E. MCM 5: Post-construction stormwater management 1. The Permit (Part III.D.5.) requires that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, existing permittees shall revise their current program, as necessary, and continue to implement and enforce a post-construction stormwater management program. Describe your current program: The City has ordinances which establish requirements for post construction stormwater management. The City currently requires that drainage design and stormwater management meet the standards and specifications within the Surface Water Management Plan, Land Disturbance Guidance document and city ordinance and be approved by the City Engineer. The city’s procedures for site plan review include review and approval by city staff and/or consultant. 2. Have you established written procedures for site plan reviews that you will conduct prior to the start of construction activity? Yes No 3.Answer yes or no to indicate whether you have the following listed procedures for documentation of post-construction stormwater management according to the specifications of Permit (Part III.D.5.c.): a. Any supporting documentation that you use to determine compliance with the Permit (Part III.D.5.a), including the project name, location, owner and operator of the construction activity, any checklists used for conducting site plan reviews, and any calculations used to determine compliance? Yes No b. All supporting documentation associated with mitigation projects that you authorize? Yes No c. Payments received and used in accordance with Permit (Part III.D.5.a.(4)(f))? Yes No d. All legal mechanisms drafted in accordance with the Permit (Part III.D.5.a.(5)), including date(s) of the agreement(s) and names of all responsible parties involved? Yes No If you answered no to any of the above permit requirements, describe the steps that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met. The city has a site plan review process; however, there are currently no written procedures for this process. The City will update its site plan review process to include written procedures in accordance with permit requirements. This effort will be completed within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended. The city currently does not allow for mitigation provisions to meet post construction stormwater requirements. The city will review its current requirements and assess whether or not to add mitigation provisions in accordance with permit requirements. This effort will be completed within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended. The city will develop or update existing regulatory mechanisms to provide for the establishment of legal mechanisms between the city and owners and operators responsible for long-term maintenance of privately owned and operated structural BMPs in accordance with permit requirements. This effort will be completed within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended. page 132 www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 13 of 15 4. List the categories of BMPs that address your post-construction stormwater management program. Use the first table for categories of BMPs that you have established and the second table for categories of BMPs that you plan to implement over the course of the permit term. Include the measurable goals with appropriate timeframes that each BMP category will be implemented and completed. In addition, provide interim milestones and the frequency of action in which the permittee will implement and/or maintain the BMPs. Refer to the EPA’s Measurable Goals Guidance for Phase II Small MS4s (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/measurablegoals.pdf).If you have more than five categories, hit the tab key after the last line to generate a new row. Established BMP categories Measurable goals and timeframes Ordinance Update as necessary Site Plan Review Review for compliance with city regulations Educational materials Distribute Land Disturbance guidance document with building permits and to developers Wetland permit Program Number issued Structural/Non-structural BMP’s Number/type constructed BMP categories to be implemented Measurable goals and timeframes 5. Provide the name or the position title of the individual(s) who is responsible for implementing and/or coordinating this MCM: Public Works Director/City Engineer F. MCM 6: Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations 1. The Permit (Part III.D.6.) requires that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, existing permittees shall revise their current program, as necessary, and continue to implement an operations and maintenance program that prevents or reduces the discharge of pollutants from the permittee owned/operated facilities and operations to the small MS4. Describe your current program: The following practices are implemented throughout the City facilities: Storage of salt under shelter roofs Recycling of used oil Readily accessible materials for spill and accident clean up at facilities Conduct vehicle maintenance in covered garages. The city conducts regular inspections of its storm water system. Staff inspects, at a minimum, 20% of the storm sewer system outfalls, as well as pond inlets and outlets each year. The city conducts regular inspections and maintenance on the entire storm sewer system as needed. The city currently inspects material stockpiles and handling areas on an annual basis. The city implements a street sweeping program for vehicle safety, pedestrian safety, water quality, and environmental reasons. Street sweeping is conducted twice annually. The city currently records system inspection and significant maintenance efforts in a paper format. The city is exploring options to purchase an asset management system for developing a detailed for tracking BMPs, condition of system components, and inspection and maintenance efforts 2. Do you have a facilities inventory as outlined in the Permit (Part III.D.6.a.)? Yes No 3.If you answered no to the above permit requirement in question 2, describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, this permit requirement is met: The City will develop a facilities inventory to include city-owned facilities which contribute pollutants to stormwater discharges in accordance with permit requirements . This effort will be completed within 12 months of the date permit page 133 www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 14 of 15 coverage is extended. 4. List the categories of BMPs that address your pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations program. Use the first table for categories of BMPs that you have established and the second table for categories of BMPs that you plan to implement over the course of the permit term. Include the measurable goals with appropriate timeframes that each BMP category will be implemented and completed. In addition, provide interim milestones and the frequency of action in which the permittee will implement and/or maintain the BMPs. For an explanation of measurable goals, refer to the EPA’s Measurable Goals Guidance for Phase II Small MS4s (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/measurablegoals.pdf). If you have more than five categories, hit the tab key after the last line to generate a new row. Established BMP categories Measurable goals and timeframes Training Complete annual training effort generally in conjunction with the City of West St. Paul. Street Sweeping Spring and fall sweeping. Track hours & miles. Inspection Inspect 20% of ponds and outfalls annually. Sump Manholes Cleaned annually Equipment maintenance program Number trained, number vehicles inspected Lawn Maintenance Program Improved buffer strips in city parks, mow clippings into lawn, etc. BMP categories to be implemented Measurable goals and timeframes Asset Management Software The city is currently talking to several vendors on purchasing a software program. 5. Does discharge from your MS4 affect a Source Water Protection Area (Permit Part III.D.6.c.)? a.If no, continue to 6. Yes No b.If yes, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) is in the process of mapping the following items. Maps are available at http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/water/swp/maps/index.htm. Is a map including the following items available for your MS4: 1) Wells and source waters for drinking water supply management areas identified as vulnerable under Minn. R. 4720.5205, 4720.5210, and 4720.5330? Yes No 2) Source water protection areas for surface intakes identified in the source water assessments conducted by or for the Minnesota Department of Health under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, U.S.C. §§ 300j –13? Yes No c.Have you developed and implemented BMPs to protect any of the above drinking water sources? Yes No 6. Have you developed procedures and a schedule for the purpose of determining the TSS and TP treatment effectiveness of all permittee owned/operated ponds constructed and used for the collection and treatment of stormwater, according to the Permit (Part III.D.6.d.)? Yes No 7. Do you have inspection procedures that meet the requirements of the Permit (Part III.D.6.e.(1)- (3)) for structural stormwater BMPs, ponds and outfalls, and stockpile, storage and material handling areas? Yes No 8. Have you developed and implemented a stormwater management training program commensurate with each employee’s job duties that: a. Addresses the importance of protecting water quality? Yes No b. Covers the requirements of the permit relevant to the duties of the employee? Yes No page 134 www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 15 of 15 c. Includes a schedule that establishes initial training for new and/or seasonal employees and recurring training intervals for existing employees to address changes in procedures, practices, techniques, or requirements? Yes No 9. Do you keep documentation of inspections, maintenance, and training as required by the Permit (Part III.D.6.h.(1)-(5))? Yes No If you answered no to any of the above permit requirements listed in Questions 5 – 9, then describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met: Within 12 months of extendeded permit coverage, inspection procedures and the training program/schedule already in place will be updated to reflect new Permit requirements. Within the same time frame, procedures and a schedule for determining TP and TSS treatment effectiveness of stormwater ponds will be developed. These will be documented in the Surface Water Management Plan which the City will be updating. 10. Provide the name or the position title of the individual(s) who is responsible for implementing and/or coordinating this MCM: Public Works Director/City Engineer VI. Compliance Schedule for an Approved Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) with an Applicable Waste Load Allocation (WLA) (Part II.D.6.) A. Do you have an approved TMDL with a Waste Load Allocation (WLA) prior to the effective date of the Permit? Yes No 1. If no, continue to section VII. 2. If yes, fill out and attach the MS4 Permit TMDL Attachment Spreadsheet with the following naming convention:MS4NameHere_TMDL. This form is found on the MPCA MS4 website: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/ms4. VII. Alum or Ferric Chloride Phosphorus Treatment Systems (Part II.D.7.) A. Do you own and/or operate any Alum or Ferric Chloride Phosphorus Treatment Systems which are regulated by this Permit (Part III.F.)? Yes No 1. If no, this section requires no further information. 2. If yes, you own and/or operate an Alum or Ferric Chloride Phosphorus Treatment System within your small MS4, then you must submit the Alum or Ferric Chloride Phosphorus Treatment Systems Form supplement to this document, with the following naming convention: MS4NameHere_TreatmentSystem. This form is found on the MPCA MS4 website: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/ms4. VIII. Add any Additional Comments to Describe Your Program page 135 11-6-7: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION: A. Objectives: The objectives prevent the introduction of pollutants to the stormwater system by any user, to prohibit illicit connections and discharges to the stormwater system, and to establish authority to carry out all inspection, surveillance and monitoring procedures necessary to ensure compliance with this chapter. B. Discharge Prohibitions: 1. Prohibition Of Illegal Disposal And Dumping Of Substances And Materials: No person shall throw, deposit, place, leave, maintain, or store any substance upon any street, alley, sidewalk, storm drain, inlet, catch basin conduit or drainage structure, business place or upon any public or private plot of land, so that the same might be or become a pollutant, except if secured within a container or bag or contained within a lawfully established waste disposal facility. No person shall intentionally dispose of grass, leaves, dirt or landscape material into a water resource, buffer, street, road, alley, catch basin, culvert, curb, gutter, inlet, ditch, natural watercourse, flood control channel, canal, storm drain or any fabricated natural channel. 2. Prohibition Of Illicit Discharges: No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged into the stormwater system or watercourses any materials, including, but not limited to, pollutants or waters containing any pollutants that cause or contribute to a violation of applicable water quality standards, other than stormwater. a. The commencement, execution or continuance of discharge of pollutants to the stormwater system is prohibited except as follows: water line flushing or other potable water sources, landscape irrigation or lawn watering, diverted stream flows, groundwater infiltration to storm drains, uncontaminated pumped groundwater, foundation or footing drains (not including active groundwater dewatering systems), crawl space pumps, air conditioning condensation, springs, noncommercial washing of vehicles, natural riparian habitat or wetland flows, firefighting activities, and any other water source not containing pollutants. b. Discharges specified in writing by the authorized enforcement agency as being necessary to protect public health and safety are allowed. c. Dye testing is an allowable discharge, but requires a verbal notification to the authorized enforcement agency prior to the time of the test. d. The prohibition shall not apply to any nonstormwater discharge permitted under an NPDES permit, waiver, or waste discharge order issued to the discharger and administered under the authority of the federal environmental protection agency, Minnesota pollution control agency, or other agency, provided that the discharger is in full compliance with all requirements of the permit, waiver, or order and other applicable laws and regulations, and provided that written approval has been granted for any discharge to the stormwater system. 3. Prohibition Of Illicit Connections: The construction, use, maintenance, or continued existence of such connections that intentionally convey nonstormwater to the stormwater system is prohibited. This prohibition expressly includes, without limitation, illicit connections made in the past, regardless of page 136 whether the connection was permissible under law or practices applicable or prevailing at the time of connection. A person is considered to be in violation of this chapter if the person connects a line conveying wastewater to the stormwater system, or allows such a connection to continue. No person shall connect or convey water from floor drains to the storm sewer system. C. Discharge Prevention: 1. Discharge Prevention Requirements: Any property owner within the city shall comply with the following requirements to prevent discharges: a. No person shall leave, deposit, discharge, dump, or otherwise expose any chemical or septic waste in an area where discharge to a street, storm sewer system, or surface water body may occur. This prohibition shall apply to actual discharges as well as the potential for discharge from, for example, a septic system in a location where emergency overflow could discharge to a street, surface water body, or storm sewer system. b. Individual sewage treatment systems must be maintained in order to prevent failure. No part of any individual sewage treatment system requiring on land or inground disposal of waste shall be located in an area where effluent could immediately or gradually reach a body of water due to the existing physical characteristics of the site or the system. c. Recreational vehicle sewage shall be disposed of at a proper sanitary waste facility. Waste must not be discharged in an area where drainage to streets or storm sewer system may occur. d. Water in swimming pools must sit for seven (7) days without the addition of any chlorine to allow for evaporation of the chlorine before it is discharged. e. Runoff of water from residential properties shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Paved areas must be swept prior to wash down activity. Runoff water from the washing down of paved areas on commercial or industrial properties is prohibited unless necessary for health or safety purposes and is not in violation of any other applicable regulations. f. Mobile washing companies, such as carpet cleaning and mobile vehicle washing services, shall dispose of any wastewater to the sanitary sewer system. Wastewater shall not be discharged to the streets or storm sewer system. g. Objects such as motor vehicle parts that contain grease, oil or other hazardous substances and unsealed receptacles containing hazardous materials shall not be stored in areas susceptible to runoff. Any machinery or equipment that is to be repaired or maintained in areas susceptible to runoff shall be placed in a confined area to contain any leaks, spills, or discharges. h. Debris and residue shall be removed, as required below: (1) All motor vehicle parking lots and private streets shall be swept, at a minimum of once a year in the spring, to remove debris. Such debris shall be collected and disposed of properly. page 137 (2) Fuel and chemical residue or other types of potentially harmful material, such as animal waste, garbage or batteries shall be removed as soon as possible and disposed of properly. Household hazardous waste must be disposed of through the county collection program or at any other authorized disposal site. Household hazardous waste shall not be placed in a trash container. D. Industrial Activity Discharges To The Storm Sewer System: 1. Any person subject to an industrial activity NPDES stormwater discharge permit shall comply with all provisions of such permit. Proof of compliance with said permit may be required in a form acceptable to the city prior to allowing of discharge to the storm sewer system. 2. All facilities that have stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity must adhere to the following requirements: Any person responsible for a property or premises, which is, or may be, the source of an illicit discharge may be required to implement, at said person's expense, additional structural and nonstructural BMPs to prevent the further discharge of pollutants to the storm sewer system. These BMPs shall be part of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) as necessary for compliance with requirements of the NPDES permit. E. Suspension Of Stormwater System Access: 1. Suspension Due To Illicit Discharges In Emergency Situations: The city may, without prior notice, suspend stormwater system discharge access to a person when such suspension is necessary to stop an actual or threatened discharge which presents or may present imminent or substantial danger to the environment, or to the health or welfare of persons, or to the stormwater system or waters of the United States. If the violator fails to comply with a suspension order issued in an emergency, the authorized enforcement agency may take such steps as deemed necessary to prevent or minimize damage to the stormwater system or waters of the United States, or to minimize danger to persons. If authorized enforcement agency takes steps to prevent or minimize damage to the stormwater system or waters of the United States, or to minimize danger to persons, the city may bill the property owner and/or operator, or lien the subject property for the cost of the action. 2. Suspension Due To The Detection Of Illicit Discharge: Any person discharging to the stormwater system in violation of this chapter may have their stormwater system access terminated if such termination would abate or reduce an illicit discharge. The city will notify a violator of the proposed termination of the violator's stormwater system access. The violator may petition the city for a reconsideration and hearing. A person is committing an offense and is subject to misdemeanor enforcement if the person reinstates stormwater system access to premises terminated pursuant to this chapter without the prior approval of the city. F. Monitoring Of Discharges: 1. The city shall be allowed to enter and inspect facilities and properties subject to regulation under this chapter as often as may be necessary to determine compliance with this chapter and for the purposes of inspection, sampling, examination, and the performance of any additional duties as defined by state and federal law that relate to the discharge of stormwater. If a person does not wish page 138 to allow the city to enter a building to conduct the required activity, he or she may retain a private inspector to conduct the activity. The private inspector must have credentials that are acceptable to the city. The private inspector shall provide the city with the relevant samples, test results, reports or any other information that is being requested. 2. The city shall have the right to establish on any permitted facility such devices as are necessary in the opinion of the authorized enforcement agency solely to conduct monitoring and/or sampling of the facility's stormwater discharge. 3. The city has the right to require the discharger to install monitoring equipment to ensure discharge is in compliance with MPCA standards. The facility's sampling and monitoring equipment shall be maintained at all times in a safe and proper operating condition by the discharger at its own expense. 4. Any temporary or permanent obstruction to safe and easy access to the facility to be inspected and/or sampled shall be promptly removed by the owner or operator at the written or oral request of the city and shall not be replaced. The costs of clearing such access shall be borne by the owner or operator. 5. Unreasonable delays in allowing the city access to a permitted facility is a violation of a stormwater discharge permit and of this chapter. A person who is the owner and/or operator of a facility with an NPDES permit to discharge stormwater associated with industrial activity commits an offense if the person denies the city reasonable access to the permitted facility for the purpose of conducting any activity authorized or required by this chapter. G. Requirement To Prevent, Reduce, And Control Stormwater Pollutants By The Use Of Best Management Practices: 1. Owner Responsibility: The owner or operator of any property shall provide, at owner/operator's expense, reasonable protection from accidental discharge of prohibited materials or other wastes into the municipal stormwater system or watercourses through the use of structural and nonstructural best management practices (BMPs). Further any person responsible for a property or premises, which is, or may be, the source of an illicit discharge, may be required to implement, at said person's expense, additional structural and nonstructural BMPs to prevent the further discharge of pollutants to the stormwater system. These BMPs are listed in the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and the Minnesota pollution control agency's current BMPs, and are necessary for compliance with requirements of the NPDES permit and chapter 6 of the city's surface water management plan (SWMP). H. Watercourse Protection: 1. Owner Responsibility: Every owner of a property through which a watercourse passes, or such person's lessee, shall keep and maintain that part of the watercourse within their property free of trash, debris, excessive vegetation, and other obstacles that would pollute, contaminate, or significantly impact the flow of water through the watercourse. All owners or lessees shall maintain existing privately owned structures within or adjacent to a watercourse, so that such structures will not become a hazard to the use, function, or physical integrity of the watercourse. page 139 I. Notification Of Spills: 1. Notwithstanding other requirements of law, as soon as any person responsible for a facility, vehicle or operation, or responsible for emergency response for a facility or operation has knowledge of any known or suspected release of materials of any amount which are resulting or may result in illicit discharges or pollutants discharging into the stormwater system, watercourse, or waters of the United States, said person shall take all necessary steps to ensure the discovery, containment, and cleanup of such release. In the event of such a release of hazardous materials said person shall immediately notify the city and other emergency response agencies of the occurrence via emergency dispatch services. In the event of a release of nonhazardous materials, said person shall notify the city in person or by phone no later than the beginning of the next business day. If the discharge of prohibited materials emanates from a commercial or industrial establishment or vehicle, the owner or operator of such establishment or vehicle shall also retain a written record of the discharge and the actions taken to prevent its recurrence. Such records shall be retained for at least ten (10) years, or longer if required by other regulatory authority. (Ord. 421, 2-3-2009) page 140 11-6-6: CONSTRUCTION SITE STORMWATER RUNOFF AND EROSION CONTROL: A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to establish regulation of land disturbing activities, preservation and enhancement of the natural environment by reducing sedimentation in streams, lakes, stormwater systems and other waterways, protection of the quality of surface water resources, preserve and protection of wildlife habitat, restore sites to reduce the negative environmental effects of land disturbing activities, provide effective practices for erosion and sedimentation control, and to comply with local, state and federal regulations. B. Scope: Except where an exemption applies, any person proposing a land disturbing activity or whose land constitutes a land disturbing activity within the city shall apply to the city for the approval of a stormwater pollution prevention plan. No land shall be disturbed until the plan is approved by the city and conforms to the standards set forth herein. C. Stormwater Management Permit Required: 1. Review And Approval: No person shall grade, fill, excavate, store, dispose of soil and earth materials, or perform any other land disturbing or land filling activity without first submitting a stormwater pollution prevention plan for review and approval by the city and obtaining a permit as required in this section and the requirements of section 11-6-8, "Postconstruction Stormwater Runoff", of this chapter. If the applicability requirements of this section or section 11-6-8 of this chapter apply the stormwater pollution prevention plan submittal needs only to meet the requirements of that section. The stormwater management permit is not a replacement for a conditional use permit as required in this code or a wetlands permit as required in section 12-2-6 of this code, or the requirements of the critical area district as required in title 12, chapter 3 of this code nor is it a replacement for a watershed district permit or a state NPDES permit. 2. General Exemptions: Land disturbing activities, which meet all the following criteria are exempt from the requirements of this section: a. The disturbed or filled area is five thousand (5,000) square feet or less in area; and b. The volume of soil or earth material stored or moved is fifty (50) cubic yards or less; and c. No drainageway is blocked or has its stormwater carrying capacities or characteristics modified; and d. The activity does not take place within one hundred feet (100') by horizontal measurement from the top of the bank of a watercourse, the ordinary high water mark of a water body, or the ordinary high water mark of a wetland associated with a watercourse or water body. The activity does not take place within an established 100-year floodplain; and e. Not considered part of a larger common plan of development. page 141 3. Categorical Exemptions: Notwithstanding the requirements of this code, the following activities are exempt from the permit requirements: a. Emergency activities necessary to prevent or alleviate immediate dangers to life or property. b. Activities that are under the regulatory jurisdiction of an authorized state or federal agency. c. General farming, gardening and nursery activities. d. Residential construction activity limited to: (1) Additions to the existing structure, (2) Landscaping and landscaping structures, and (3) Construction of a garage. (Ord. 421, 2-3-2009) D. Submission Requirements For A Stormwater Management Permit: 1. Application Items: Application for a stormwater management permit shall include submittal of stormwater pollution prevention plan which shall include: a. Application form and fee. b. Narrative describing temporary erosion and sediment control, permanent stabilization, pollution prevention and permanent stormwater management. c. Site map and grading plan. d. Temporary erosion and sediment control plan meeting the requirements of the city's land disturbance guidance document. e. Permanent stabilization plan meeting the requirements of the city's land disturbance guidance document. f. Permanent stormwater management measures meeting the requirements outlined in section 11-6-8 of this chapter and the city's land disturbance guidance document. g. Work schedule. h. Cost estimate. i. Landscape plan showing proposed landscape improvements (plantings, seeding, sod, etc.) if applicable to the project application. j. Lighting/photometric plan displaying proposed exterior lighting, to include light fixture type, height, and foot-candle coverage if applicable to the project application. page 142 k. The city may require the applicant to submit additional information or data it determines necessary to complete its review. Submittals determined by the city to be incomplete or otherwise unacceptable for the purposes of this chapter shall be returned to the applicant for correction and resubmittal. (Ord. 431, 2-1-2011) 2. Fees: All applications shall be accompanied by a permit fee. Fees for permits shall be fixed and determined by the city council, adopted by ordinance and uniformly enforced. Such permit fees may, from time to time, be amended by city council ordinance. A copy of the ordinance setting forth currently in effect permit fees shall be kept on file by the city and shall be open to inspection during regular business hours. E. Review Procedure: 1. Process: City staff will review each complete application for a stormwater management permit to determine its conformance with the provisions of this chapter. Within ten (10) working days of receiving an application, city staff will identify if additional materials are required to complete a permit application and within sixty (60) days of receiving an application, city staff shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a stormwater management permit application. 2. Appeal: An applicant may appeal a decision of denial of a permit under this section which shall be made under the manner prescribed in section 11-6-11 of this chapter. 3. Site Review: Once a permit is granted, city staff shall inspect the property for: a. Erosion control compliance with this code; b. Permit conditions and site plans prior to the onset of construction; and c. Permit conditions and site plans throughout project construction. 4. Stop Work Order: The city reserves the right to issue a stop work order for any violation of this chapter, or noncompliance with permit conditions, observed during site inspection. Stop work order shall remain in effect until identified violations or noncompliant issues have been corrected. F. Form Of Security: Before a permit is issued, the city may require the permittee to post security in a form acceptable to the city equal to one hundred twenty five percent (125%) of the cost estimate stated in the application and agreed by the city to be the cost of the work to be done under the permit. The security may take the form of cash in United States currency or an irrevocable letter of credit issued by a financial institution in a form acceptable to the city. 1. Release Of Security: a. Provided no action has been taken by the city to recover all or a part of the security before that determination has been made, any security deposited with the city to guarantee performance of the grading and erosion control work shall be released to the person holding the permit upon determination by the city that the conditions of the permit have been satisfactorily performed. page 143 b. Provided no action has been taken by the city to recover all or part of the security filed by the permittee before that date, securities held to ensure the successful completion of an interim or final plan shall be released to the permittee either one year after termination of the permit or when a final plan is submitted for the unimproved site, whichever is later. G. Suspension Of Permit: In enforcing the permit: 1. The city may suspend the permit and issue a stop work order as provided under subsection E4 of this section. Upon receipt of a stop work order, the permittee shall cease all work on the work site except for work necessary to remedy the cause of the suspension. 2. The permittee may request a reinstatement of a suspended permit upon correction of the causes for suspension and, if the conditions of the permit have been complied with in full, the city shall reinstate the permit. 3. If the permittee fails or refuses to cease work as required under subsection E4 of this section, the city shall revoke the permit. 4. The city shall not reinstate a revoked permit but shall proceed to act against the security as provided in subsection H of this section. 5. Work performed without a permit is a violation of this chapter and is subject to misdemeanor enforcement. H. Action Against Security: The city may act against the appropriate security if any of the following conditions exist: 1. The permittee stops performing the land disturbing activities or filling, and abandons the work site prior to completion of permanent site stabilization. 2. The permittee fails to conform to the stormwater pollution prevention plan as approved, and has had its permit revoked as provided in subsection G of this section. 3. The techniques utilized for temporary or permanent stabilization fail within one year of installation or before the final plan is implemented for the site or portion of the site, whichever comes later. 4. The city determines that its actions are necessary to prevent excessive erosion from occurring on the site, or to prevent nuisance conditions from occurring on adjacent or nearby properties. The city shall use funds recovered from the security to reimburse the city for all direct and indirect costs incurred in doing the remedial work undertaken by the city or private contractor under contract with the city. (Ord. 421, 2-3-2009) page 144 11-6-8: POSTCONSTRUCTION STORMWATER RUNOFF: A. Objectives: The objectives of this section are to establish minimum stormwater management requirements and controls to protect and safeguard the general health, safety, and welfare of the public residing in watersheds within this jurisdiction. This section seeks to meet that purpose through the following objectives: 1. Reduce stormwater runoff rates and volumes, soil erosion and nonpoint source pollution, wherever possible, through stormwater management controls and to ensure that these management controls are properly maintained and pose no threat to public safety; 2. Control stormwater runoff from development and redevelopment to reduce flooding, silt deposits and stream bank erosion, and maintain the integrity of stream channels; 3. Control nonpoint source pollution caused by stormwater runoff from development; and 4. Control the total annual volume of surface water runoff which flows from any specific site following development. B. Applicability: The rules of applicability are as set forth in section 11-6-6, "Construction Site Stormwater Runoff And Erosion Control", of this chapter. C. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: 1. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Required For All New Developments And Redevelopments: No application for development or redevelopment will be approved unless it includes a stormwater pollution prevention plan detailing how runoff and associated water quality impacts resulting from the development will be controlled or managed and contains the submission materials identified in subsection 11-6-6D of this chapter. This plan must indicate whether stormwater will be managed on site or off site and, if on site, the general location and type of practices. The stormwater pollution prevention plan(s) shall be referred for comment to interested agencies, and any comments must be addressed in a final stormwater pollution prevention plan. This final plan must be signed by a licensed professional engineer (PE) of the state of Minnesota. 2. Design Of Stormwater Facilities: The stormwater pollution prevention plan shall meet the design requirements outlined in the city's land disturbance guidance document. 3. Maintenance Of Existing Stormwater Facilities: Any stormwater facility in existence prior to the adoption date hereof shall be maintained by the owner of the stormwater facility and in a manner to conform to design standards for that facility. Any redevelopment of the stormwater facility shall require that the facility meet current stormwater design standards as set forth in the city's land disturbance guidance document. The thresholds for maintenance are triggered once sediment deposits reach a point greater than is page 145 allowed under the design standard criteria, or such deposits begin to have a substantial effect on the water quality or holding capacity of the pond. 4. Inspection Of Stormwater Facilities: Inspection programs shall be established on a regular basis, including, but not limited to, an inspection in accordance with the schedule defined in the MPCA MS4 permit section V, part 6.b or more often if deemed necessary to ensure proper functioning of the stormwater management facility. Inspections are the responsibility of the owner of the stormwater facility and must be completed by a certified erosion control specialist in the state of Minnesota hired for that purpose. Inspection results must be completed and submitted to the city in accordance with the schedule defined in the MPCA MS4 permit section V, part 6.b from the completion of development or from the adoption date hereof for a preexisting stormwater facility. Inspections may include, but are not limited to: reviewing maintenance and repair records; sampling discharges, surface water, groundwater, and material or water in drainage control facilities; and evaluating the condition of drainage control facilities and other stormwater treatment practices. All new and existing stormwater management facilities must undergo, at a minimum, an inspection in accordance with the schedule defined in the MPCA MS4 permit section V, part 6.b to document maintenance and repair needs and ensure compliance with the requirements of this chapter and accomplishment of its purposes. This maintenance may include: removal of silt, litter and other debris from all catch basins, inlets and drainage pipes; grass cutting and vegetation removal; and necessary replacement of landscape vegetation. Any maintenance needs found must be addressed in a timely manner, as determined by the city. The inspection and maintenance requirement may be increased as deemed necessary to ensure proper functioning of the stormwater management facility. D. Maintenance Covenants: Maintenance of all stormwater management facilities shall be ensured through the creation of a formal maintenance covenant that must be approved by the city and recorded at the Dakota County recorder's office prior to final plan approval. As part of the covenant, a schedule shall be developed for when and how often maintenance will occur to ensure proper function of the stormwater management facility. The covenant shall also include plans for periodic inspections to ensure proper performance of the facility between scheduled cleanouts. The owner/operator shall show in the maintenance covenant how it will utilize best management practices (BMPs) to prevent discharge of pollutants into the stormwater system. These BMPs are listed in the city's stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and the most current Minnesota pollution control agency BMP standards, the state of Minnesota stormwater manual and are necessary for compliance with requirements of the NPDES permit and the city's local surface water management plan. The threshold for maintenance is triggered once sediment deposition reaches a point greater than is allowed under the design standard criteria, or such deposition begins to have a substantial effect on the water quality or holding capacity of the pond. E. Right Of Entry For Inspection: When any new drainage control facility is installed on private property, or when any new connection is made between private property and a public stormwater system, the property owner shall grant to the city the right to enter the property at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner for the purpose of inspection. This includes the right to enter a property when the city has a reasonable basis to believe that a violation of this chapter is page 146 occurring or has occurred, and to enter when necessary for abatement of a public nuisance or correction of an ordinance violation. F. Records Of Installation And Maintenance Activities: Parties responsible for the operation and maintenance of a stormwater management facility shall make records of the installation, inspections, and of all maintenance and repairs, and shall retain the records for at least ten (10) years. These records shall be made available to the city during inspection of the facility and at other reasonable times upon request. (Ord. 421, 2-3-2009) page 147 11-6-10: ENFORCEMENT: A. Violation: Any action, failure to act or land use practice that would impair water quality if allowed to continue, shall constitute a public nuisance condition and be treated as a misdemeanor under this code. B. Notice Of Violation: Whenever the city finds that a person has violated any section of this chapter or failed to meet a requirement of this chapter, the city shall order compliance by written notice of violation to the responsible person. Such notice may require: 1. Monitoring, analyses and reporting; 2. Elimination of illicit discharges or connections; 3. Abatement of pollution and hazards; 4. Restoration of affected property; 5. Remediation of violation; 6. Payment of a fine to cover administrative and remediation costs; 7. Loss of any posted securities; 8. Implementation of source control or treatment BMPs; and 9. Other actions as deemed necessary by the city. If abatement of a violation and/or restoration of affected property is required, the notice shall set forth a deadline within which such remediation or restoration must be completed. The notice shall further advise that, should the violator fail to remediate or restore within the established deadline, the work will be done by the city or other local governmental unit or a contractor and the expense thereof shall be charged to the violator. C. Failure To Maintain Practices: If a responsible party fails or refuses to meet the requirements of the maintenance covenant, the city, after reasonable notice, may correct a violation of the design standards or maintenance needs by performing all necessary work to place the facility in proper working condition. In the event that the stormwater management facility becomes a danger to public safety or public health, the city shall notify the party responsible for maintenance of the stormwater management facility in writing. Upon receipt of that notice, the responsible person shall have thirty (30) days to effect maintenance and repair of the facility in an approved manner. After proper notice, the city may assess the owner(s) of the facility for the cost of repair work, and any penalties and the cost of the work shall be a lien on the property, or prorated against the beneficial users of the property, and may be placed on the tax bill and collected as ordinary taxes by the county. (Ord. 421, 2-3-2009) page 148 11-6-11: APPEAL OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION: Any person receiving a notice of violation may appeal the determination of the city. The notice of appeal must be received within five (5) days from the date of the notice of violation. Hearing on the appeal before the appropriate authority or designee shall take place within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the notice of appeal. The decision of the city or the local government unit or designee shall be final. (Ord. 421, 2-3-2009) 11-6-12: ENFORCEMENT MEASURES AFTER APPEAL: If the violation has not been corrected pursuant to the requirements set forth in the notice of violation, or, in the event of an appeal, within five (5) working days of the decision of the city or local government unit upholding the decision of the authorized enforcement agency, then representatives of the authorized enforcement agency shall enter upon the subject private property and are authorized to take any and all measures necessary to abate the violation and/or restore the property. It shall be unlawful for any person, owner, agent or person in possession of any premises to refuse to allow the government agency or designated contractor to enter upon the premises for the purposes set forth above. (Ord. 421, 2-3-2009) 11-6-13: COST OF ABATEMENT OF THE VIOLATION: Within thirty (30) days after abatement of the violation, the owner of the property will be notified of the cost of abatement, including administrative costs. The property owner must file any objection to the amount of the assessment in writing with the city within thirty (30) days. If the amount due is not paid within a timely manner, as determined by the decision of the city, or by the expiration of the time in which to file an appeal, the costs shall become a special assessment against the property and shall constitute a lien on the property for the amount of the assessment. Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall become liable to the city by reason of such violation. (Ord. 421, 2- 3-2009) 11-6-14: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision or fail to comply with any of the requirements of this chapter. If a person has violated or continues to violate the provisions of this chapter, the authorized enforcement agency may petition for a preliminary or permanent injunction restraining the person from activities which would create further violations or compelling the person to perform abatement or remediation of the violation. (Ord. 421, 2-3-2009) 11-6-15: COMPENSATORY ACTION: In lieu of enforcement proceedings, penalties, and remedies authorized by this chapter, the authorized enforcement agency may impose upon a violator alternative compensatory action, such as storm drain stenciling, attendance at compliance workshops, creek cleanup, and similar programs. (Ord. 421, 2-3-2009) 11-6-16: VIOLATIONS DEEMED A PUBLIC NUISANCE: In addition to the enforcement processes and penalties provided, any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter is a threat to public health, safety, and welfare, and is declared and deemed a nuisance, and may be summarily abated or restored at the page 149 violator's expense, and/or a civil action to abate, enjoin, or otherwise compel the cessation of such nuisance may be taken. (Ord. 421, 2-3-2009) 11-6-17: CRIMINAL PROSECUTION: Any person who has violated or continues to violate this chapter shall be liable to criminal prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. The authorized enforcement agency may recover all attorney fees, court costs, and other expenses associated with enforcement of this chapter, including sampling and monitoring expenses. (Ord. 421, 2-3-2009) 11-6-18: REMEDIES NOT EXCLUSIVE: The remedies listed in this chapter are not exclusive of any other remedies available under any applicable federal, state or local law and it is within the discretion of the authorized enforcement agency to seek cumulative remedies. (Ord. 421, 2-3-2009) page 150 Name of MS4 PermitteeDate form completedUnique ID NumberType of Feature (Pond, Wetland or Lake)Feature Common Name (If Applicable)Y Coordinate (Latitude) Decimal DegreesX Coordinate (Longitude) Decimal DegreesCity of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013GC-P1aWetland City Hall Pond West44.8863-93.1488City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013GC-P1bPondCity Hall Pond East44.8863-93.1488City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013GC-P5PondYorkton Pond 44.8824-93.1547City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013GC-P8PondLexington Apartment Pond 44.8722-93.1465City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013GC-P9PondCemetery Pond44.8732-93.1465City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013GC-P10LakeLake Augusta44.8785-93.1568City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013GC - P11PondCity of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013GC-P15PondGC-P1544.8803-93.1619City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013GC-P41PondCommerce Drive Pond #2 & 344.8715-93.1706City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013GC-P43PondBitminous Roadways44.8744-93.1728City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013GC-P49dPondMNDOT Pond "D"44.8715-93.1681City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013GC-P49cPondCommerce Drive Pond #144.8733-93.1680City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013GC-P49bPondSouth Acacia44.8765-93.1649City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013GC-P50CPondHillside Gables44.8690-93.1457City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013GC-P51PondFreeway Interchange44.8646-93.1486City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013GC-P56PondTowsignant Pond44.8649-93.1391City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013GC-P56aPondIce Arena44.8649-93.1383City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013GC-P57WetlandVisitation P5744.8691-93.1302City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013GC-P58WetlandVisitation P5844.8679-93.1313City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013GC-P59WetlandVisitation Pond44.8671-93.1330City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013GC-P62Pond GC - P6244.8637-93.1390City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IF-P1PondSomerset #144.9045-93.1078City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IF-P1aPondSomerset CC44.9042-93.1069City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IF-P4PondSommerset #244.9039-93.1127City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IF-P21PondIvy Park Pond44.9101-93.1152City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IF-P15PondSutcliff Pond44.9163-93.1135MS4 Pond, Wetland, and Lake Inventory Form Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Program 'RF7\SH3ODQV6SHFLILFDWLRQV0DSVZTVWUPZZZSFDVWDWHPQXV$YDLODEOHLQDOWHUQDWLYHIRUPDWV77<RU3DJHRIpage 151 Name of MS4 PermitteeDate form completedUnique ID NumberType of Feature (Pond, Wetland or Lake)Feature Common Name (If Applicable)Y Coordinate (Latitude) Decimal DegreesX Coordinate (Longitude) Decimal DegreesCity of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IF-P16PondMnDOT 13 Pond44.9137-93.1171City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IF-P18PondBurr Oak Pond44.9102-93.1096City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IP-P1LakeLemay Lake44.873-93.1574City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IP-P1bPondAugusta Shores44.8789-93.1609City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IP-P1cPondLemay Lake Road44.8688-93.1547City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IP-P1dWetland Lemay Lake Wetland44.8701-93.1556City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IP-P2PondWaters Drive44.8688-93.1588City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IP-P4PondCordon Blue44.866-93.1616City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IP-P5PondWarehouse Pond44.8719-93.1658City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IP-P12PondJES Pond44.8669-93.1661City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IP-P16PondBusiness Park44.8652-93.1633City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IP-17aPondVet Pond44.8645-93.1546City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IP-17bPondRadiology Pond44.8645-93.1582City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IP-17CPondNorthland Ponds44.8634-93.1577City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P2PondWestview Pond44.8668-93.1288City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P3PondHazel Pond44.8676-93.1280City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P4PondPagel Pond44.8681-93.1238City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P5PondMonet Pond44.8651-93.1251City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P6PondBridgeview Pond44.8668-93.1212City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P7PondArbor Pond44.8642-93.1227City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P8PondBrookfield Pond44.8639-93.1204City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P9PondLockwood Pond44.8656-93.1184City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P11PondKensington Park44.8664-93.1165City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P12PondSoutheast Ponds44.8636-93.1108City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P12bWetlandSoutheast Ponds44.8623-93.1071City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P12cWetlandSoutheast Ponds44.8635-93.1079City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P15PondOwens Pond44.8659-93.1109City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P16PondKing Pond44.8690-93.1095City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P17PondDelaware Pond 1 44.8710-93.1084City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P18PondCopperfield Pond 44.8729-93.1137City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P19PondHagstrom Pond44.8690-93.1126City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P21aPondISD 197 Friendly Hills44.8687-93.1199City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P22PondFriendly Hills44.8711-93.119City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P24PondDarsow Pond44.8738-93.1149ZTVWUPZZZSFDVWDWHPQXV$YDLODEOHLQDOWHUQDWLYHIRUPDWV77<RU3DJHRIpage 152 Name of MS4 PermitteeDate form completedUnique ID NumberType of Feature (Pond, Wetland or Lake)Feature Common Name (If Applicable)Y Coordinate (Latitude) Decimal DegreesX Coordinate (Longitude) Decimal DegreesCity of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P26Pond35E/110 MNDOT44.8840-93.1375City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P32Pond Golf Course 44.8776-93.1385City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P33PondN. Wagon Wheel44.8759-93.1380City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P39LakeN. Rogers Lake (IV-P39) 44.8769-93.1353City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013LakeS. Rogers Lake (IV - P39) 44.871-93.1392City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P39cPondGolf Course44.8806-93.1371City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P39dPondS. Wagon Wheel44.8746-93.1375City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P39eWetlandRogers L. Marsh44.8733-93.1422City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P39fPondI.O.S. Pond44.8733-93.1421City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P35PondRogers Park44.8745-93.1407City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P36Pond35-E Pond44.8721-93.1436City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P44PondMendakota Pond44.8795-93.1287City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P50PondF.M. Pond44.8759-93.1214City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P51PondSibley H.S. Pond 44.884-93.1094City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P57PondDodge N.C. Pond44.8793-93.1142City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P57bPondDelaware Pond 244.8809-93.1074City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P57cPondGlen Toro44.8779-93.1078City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P57dPondGlen Toro 244.8767-93.1077City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P63PondMNDOT POND44.884593.1235City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P63bPondVillage Pond44.885893.1204City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P64PondMcDonalds Pond 44.8826-93.1234City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P64bPondPlaza Pond44.8819-93.1225City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P68WetlandFriendly Marsh44.8786-93.1191City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P74PondLower Crown Point 44.8859-93.1296City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P75PondUpper Crown Point 44.8878-93.1309City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P110PondValley Marsh44.8903-93.1292City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P81Pond Warrior Pond 44.8881 -93.1134City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P83Pond44.8867-93.1214City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P109Pond44.8908-93.1273City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P89WetlandMarie Marsh44.8976-93.1099City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P90WetlandMarie Marsh44.8915-93.1076City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P91PondKern Pond44.8931-93.1106ZTVWUPZZZSFDVWDWHPQXV$YDLODEOHLQDOWHUQDWLYHIRUPDWV77<RU3DJHRIpage 153 Name of MS4 PermitteeDate form completedUnique ID NumberType of Feature (Pond, Wetland or Lake)Feature Common Name (If Applicable)Y Coordinate (Latitude) Decimal DegreesX Coordinate (Longitude) Decimal DegreesCity of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P93WetlandMarie Marsh 44.8951-93.1133City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P93bPond44.8935-93.1128City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P96aPondMarie/Dodd44.892-93.1161City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P96bPondHidden Creek #244.8911-93.1199City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P98Wetland44.8951-93.1183City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P100PondHidden Creek #144.8927-93.1178City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P104PondSutton/Marie Pond44.8913-93.1242City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P111PondBachelor Ave Pond/Par 344.8952-93.1244City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P112PondValley Park Pond44.8922-93.1271City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013PondThompson Pond44.9018-93.1078City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P114PondSomerset #344.9016-93.1104City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P115PondWentworth Park44.8995-93.1219City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P116PondWentworth Pond44.8975-93.1151City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P125Pond Park Place Pond 44.9001 -93.1283City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P126PondCherry Hills Pond44.9041-93.1296City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P128PondLex./Marie Ave.44.8903-93.1463City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P129aPondFaro Pond44.8907-93.1436City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P132PondBurrows Pond44.8887-93.1386City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P132bPondBurrow Storm Pond44.8878-93.1378City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P133PondMarie Pond44.8918-93.1384City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P134PondVictoria Pond44.8937-93.1360City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013IV-P139PondRavine Pond44.9020-93.1335City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013MB-P3CaPondSummit #144.9062-93.1279City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013MB-P3CbPondSummit #244.9064-93.1293City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013MB-P8PondLilac Lane Pond44.8974-93.1383City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013MB-P10PondMayfield Heights44.8948-93.1435City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013MB-P16PondKingsley Pond44.8919-93.1504City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013MB-P17PondVal's Addition44.8910-93.1509City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013MB-P31Pond44.8835-93.1606City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013MB-P31bPond44.8845-93.1474City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013MB-P32Pond44.8826-93.1605City of Mendota Heights 12/30/2013MB-P33Pond44.8828-93.1716ZTVWUPZZZSFDVWDWHPQXV$YDLODEOHLQDOWHUQDWLYHIRUPDWV77<RU3DJHRIpage 154 Stormwater Management Plan Appendix C City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 APPENDIX C System Design Guidelines page 155 Appendix C: System Design Guidelines 1. CONVEYANCE AND STORAGE SYSTEM CONCEPTS 1.1. Storm Sewer and Channels In the Mendota Heights SWMP stormwater model, a combination of storm sewer and channels has been used to transport simulated stormwater runoff. A complete system consists of a complex web of trunks, manholes, lateral lines, overland drainage ways, catch basin leads, catch basins, pond inlets and outlets, and many other items. Proper design of a storm sewer system requires that all sewer lines be provided with access through manholes for maintenance and repair operations. Generally, spacing of manholes should be no greater than 400 feet. Intervals on larger diameter lines can be increased when the pipes are sufficiently large for a person to physically enter the storm sewer pipe for maintenance operations. Regardless of sewer size, manholes should normally be provided at all junction points and at points of abrupt alignment or grade changes. Although lateral systems are designed for the 10-year storm event, their performance must be analyzed for storms exceeding the design storm. Lateral and trunk pipes will surcharge when the design storm is exceeded. During surcharging, the pipes operate as closed conduits and become pressurized with different pressure heads throughout the system. Low areas that are commonly provided with catch basins become small detention ponds often performing like pressure relief valves with water gushing out of some locations. For this reason, it is extremely important to ensure that these low areas have an acceptable overland drainage route with proper transfer capacity. At a minimum, ponding on streets must meet all of the requirements of the 100-year design criteria. For safety reasons, the maximum depth should not exceed two feet at the deepest point and the lowest ground at adjacent building elevation should be at least one and a half feet above the elevation to which water could rise before overflowing through adjacent overland routes. All storm sewer facilities, especially those conveying large quantities of water at high velocities, should be designed with efficient hydraulic characteristics. Manholes and other structures at points of transition should be designed and constructed to provide gradual changes in alignment and grade. Pond outlet control structures should be designed to allow water movement in natural flow line patterns, to minimize turbulence, to provide good self-cleaning characteristics, and to prevent damage from erosion. Intake structures should be liberally provided at all low points where stormwater collects and at points where overland flow is to be intercepted. Inlet structures are of special importance, since it is a poor investment to have an expensive storm sewer line flowing partially full while property is being flooded due to inadequate inlet capacity. Intake grates and opening should be self-cleaning and designed to minimize capacity reduction when clogged with twigs, leaves, and other debris. Effective energy dissipation devices or stilling basins to prevent stream bank or channel erosion at all stormwater outfalls should be provided. The following recommendations should be kept in mind when designing an outlet: Inlet and outlet pipes of stormwater ponds should be extended to the pond NWL whenever possible. Outfalls with velocities of less than four feet per second (fps) that project flows page 156 downstream into the channel in a direction 30 degrees or less from the normal channel axis generally do not require energy dissipaters or stilling basins, but do require riprap protection. Where an energy dissipater is used, it should be sized to provide an average outlet velocity of less than four fps, unless riprap is also used. In the latter case, or when discharge occurs at NWL of a pond, the average outlet velocity should not exceed six fps. Where outlet velocities exceed six fps, the design should be based on the unique site conditions present. Submergence of the outlet or installation of a stilling basin approved by the City is required when excessive outlet velocities are experienced. In the case of discharge to channels, riprap should be provided on all outlets to an adequate depth below the channel grade and to a height above the outfall or channel bottom. It should be placed over a suitably graded filter material and filter fabric to ensure that soil particles do not migrate through the riprap and reduce its stability. Riprap should be placed to a thickness at least two and a half times the mean rock diameter so as to ensure that it will not be undermined or rendered ineffective by displacement. If riprap is used as protection for overland drainage routes, grouting may be recommended. Overland drainage routes where velocities exceed six fps should be reviewed by the City Engineer and approved only when suitable stabilization measures are proposed. Open channels and swales are recommended where flows and small grade differences prohibit the economical construction of an underground conduit and in areas where open channel type drainage will enhance the aesthetic qualities of a development. Whenever possible, a minimum slope of two percent should be maintained in unlined open channels and overland drainage routes. Slopes less than two percent and greater than one percent are difficult to construct and maintain and may require an underdrain system. Slopes less than one percent should not be allowed. Side slopes should be a maximum of 4:1 (horizontal to vertical) with gentler slopes being desirable. Where space permits, slopes should be cut back to match existing grade. In general, the flatter the channel side slopes and the more meandering the channel alignment the more natural the channel will appear. Natural looking channels use significantly more space than common ditches. One method of providing this space is to incorporate greenway corridors over the channel area. Rock riprap should be provided at all points of juncture between two open channels and where storm sewer pipes discharge into a channel. The design velocity of an open channel should be sufficiently low to prevent erosion of the bottom. Riprap or concrete liners should be provided in areas where high velocities cannot be avoided. Periodic cleaning of an open channel is required to ensure that the design capacity is maintained. Therefore, all channels should be designed to allow easy access for equipment. Sanitary sewer manholes that could be subject to temporary inundation, due to their proximity to ponds, channels, or roadway low points, should be equipped with watertight castings. Precautions should be taken during construction to prevent the entrance of stormwater into the sanitary sewer. When access is required at all times, sanitary manholes located near ponding areas should be raised above the 100-year HWL. If access is not required, water tight castings should be installed. Future storm drainage construction should include provisions for improving the water tightness of nearby sanitary sewer manholes. All newly constructed sanitary manholes in the vicinity of ponding areas and open channels described in this report should be waterproof. 1.2. Ponds Stormwater ponding areas are an essential part of any storm drainage system. These page 157 areas provide locations where stormwater flows can be reduced to provide flood protection for downstream areas. The effective use of ponding areas enables the installation of outflow storm sewers and channels with reduced capacities, since the duration of the design storm is effectively increased over the total time required to fill and empty ponds. Smaller capacity trunk storm sewer and channels provide a cost savings to the City. The use of ponds to control stormwater runoff rates is a recent phenomenon. Historically, older cities have piped stormwater directly to the nearest large receiving water or river. Continued use of this practice has both cost and regulatory implications. In terms of cost, few cities have the funds necessary to build pipes that provide 100-year protection to properties. In fact, the older cities that have historically piped all their stormwater find that the systems they constructed provide nowhere near the 100-year protection found in newer cities that have used ponds. In terms of the regulatory control, many direct discharges (without ponding) to waters of the state are precluded. At present, even direct discharges to wetlands that are not considered waters of the state are regulated through the NPDES construction permit. Cost and regulatory considerations aside, well designed ponds: 1. Improve water quality 2. Recharge the groundwater table 3. Provide aesthetic, recreational and wildlife benefits Ponds improve stormwater quality by allowing nutrients and sediments carried by runoff to settle before discharge to important receiving waters. Groundwater recharge is increased by restricting the outflow rate from a pond, thus allowing more water to infiltrate into the soil. Careful planning of ponds can enhance a development’s appeal and still provide efficient stormwater management. In fact, lots with pond frontage command a higher price than lots without. To provide proper protection for adjacent property, the design storm for ponding areas is the maximum flood elevation obtained from analyzing 100-year critical events of different duration. Regardless the duration of the critical event, a Type II, 24-hour, 100-year rainfall event must also be analyzed. The lowest exposed elevations of structures that are adjacent to ponds should be certified by the builder during basement construction to ensure adequate freeboard. Runoff determinations for pond design vary from those for storm sewer calculations. The critical storm for storm sewer design is the short, high intensity storm, whereas the critical storm for pond design is often of longer duration, since water is being stored for longer periods of time and released at a slower rate. The use of HydroCAD computer modeling in the analysis of the ponding system has allowed for the efficient review of complicated routing patterns, each comprised of several ponds. The pond storage and outflow rates, adjusted by lag time, were determined by the HydroCAD program for all the ponds identified in this Plan. The lag time is significant as it represents the attenuation of peak flows at each pond and generally shows that the peaks are not occurring at the same time. This implies that the direct runoff to a pond has generally passed through to the downstream trunk system before the inflow of large volumes of runoff from upstream ponds. 2. WATER QUALITY SYSTEM CONCEPTS The only effective way to maintain high quality water bodies is to prevent sediment, nutrients and other materials from entering the storm drainage system. Complete interception of stormwater for treatment at the point of discharge is not currently feasible, though the City encourages the implementation of techniques such as rainwater gardens, page 158 infiltration areas, and filtration swales that capture a portion of runoff at the point of generation. Application of these small-scale techniques should be on a site specific basis. 2.1. Pollutant Control The three main sources for degradation of water quality are: 1. Solids and associated chemicals (including calcium chloride and salt) from erosion and street sanding, 2. Composted decay around ponds, and 3. Fertilizers and other chemicals from farming practices, impervious surfaces, or lawn care. Identification of the source and implementation of reasonable control measures can minimize the degradation of Mendota Heights’ waterbodies. In areas where development is taking place, stormwater runoff frequently contains substantial quantities of solids. Most commonly, these sediments are carried by runoff into the storm sewer from large grading sites, though fully developed areas also generate sediment loads particularly from winter sanding operations and in areas of structurally failing pipes. For developing areas, strict on-site erosion control practices are required to prevent sediments from entering downstream water bodies. Inspections should be conducted by the City to verify that the erosion control practices have been installed and maintained properly. Even with extensive erosion control practices, sediment and airborne particulates will continue to enter surface waters of the City. The importance of erosion control measures during construction cannot be overemphasized. The BMPs recommended in the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas should be followed for all developments. The Minnesota general NPDES stormwater permit for construction activity requires a permit for construction activities that disturb one or more acres. When disturbing 10 or more acres, developers are required to provide temporary settling ponds to treat the runoff from their grading sites. These ponds are intended to prevent the introduction of sediment and its associated pollution into the storm sewer system and are required to function, in their various forms, until grading has ceased and adequate cover has been established. At a minimum, these temporary sedimentation basins should meet the requirements set forth in the NPDES general permit for construction activities. When the outlet for a siltation basin, either permanent or temporary, is located below the normal water surface, the basin can also serve to confine floating solids that may otherwise enter a downstream pond or lake. This practice is typically referred to as skimming. If a hazardous material such as fuel oil were to spill, a skimmer structure would retain it within the basin and thus isolate it for easy access and prompt cleanup. Skimmer structures should be used for all constructed ponds upstream of wetlands, lakes, rivers and streams. For constructed ponds that discharge into other constructed ponds, skimmer structures are not as important. Ideally, some sort of solids removal system should be installed wherever a storm sewer outlets into a pond. In certain cases, settling chamber (sump) type catch basins or manholes can be provided for storm sewers that discharge into ponds. These can provide effective removal of sand and gravel, which may be flushed into the storm sewer from streets and highways, but are ineffective in the removal of finer particles such as silts and clays. Use of this type of catch basin or manhole should be limited to those areas where regular maintenance is practical and to where the sump can be realistically expected to intercept sand from winter sanding operations and gravel from driveways and construction sites. page 159 Of late a concern regarding West Nile virus and mosquito breeding habitat has called into question the use of sump manholes. The latest data suggests that many different breeding environments exist for the mosquitoes that carry the virus including ponds, wetlands, catch basins, and manholes. Obviously, eliminating these elements of the system is not feasible. Though they should be used sparingly, sump manholes should not be prohibited due to a concern over West Nile virus. It bears repetition that a solids removal structure must be regularly maintained if it is to remain effective. Since maintenance is the controlling factor in the long term performance of sediment control measures, ponds are recommended over sump manholes. Sump manholes, if numerous, often go without maintenance. An individual pond requires more maintenance time than a sump, but system maintenance time goes down when ponds are the preferred method of sediment removal as long as pond slopes and benching allow access by maintenance equipment. For this reason sump manholes should be limited to storm sewer lines discharging directly to wetlands, lakes, rivers, streams, ravines, and constructed channels and should be avoided upstream of constructed ponds. In all cases, the location, type, and number of sediment control structures must be established at the time of final design of that portion of the storm sewer system. Maintenance of the system is discussed further in Section 6. Even with the best and most expensive solids removal system, contamination of ponds and lakes will occur unless particular attention is paid to those activities that occur after development of a site. Developers must utilize the BMPs to minimize erosion during the mass grading phase of construction. But property owners must also use care in the development and maintenance of their lawns and open areas. Debris is frequently raked from lawns into gutters; from there, if it is not removed, it washes into the storm sewer system. Generally speaking, water quality ponding within a development has to treat storm water to the level required by the downstream receiving water body and its attendant management strategy. This SWMP calls for detention pond design according to the design program developed by William Walker. At a minimum, though, detention ponds should contain wet volume equivalent to the runoff from a 2.5-inch rainfall over their tributary area. Occasionally, with small plats (of five acres of less), water quality ponding cannot be constructed to the extent required by the SWMP without severely hampering the site development or destroying other habitat such as upland grasslands and forests. In such cases, it is within the City’s discretion to reduce the required water quality ponding and/or require other methods such as filtration swales or filter beds. page 160 Stormwater Management Plan Appendix D City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 APPENDIX D Land Disturbance Guidance Document page 161 Land Disturbance Guidance Document Mendota Heights, Minnesota May 10, 2018 Project Number: 1735-04 page 162 Land Disturbance Guidance Document Title Sheet Table of Contents 1.0 Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control ...................................................................................1 1.1 Erosion Control and Prevention Practices....................................................................................1 1.2 Sediment Control Practices...........................................................................................................2 1.3 Temporary Sediment Basins.........................................................................................................3 1.4 Dewatering and Basin Draining.....................................................................................................4 1.5 Inspections and Maintenance........................................................................................................4 1.6 Pollution Management Measures/Construction Site Waste Control..............................................5 1.7 Final Stabilization..........................................................................................................................5 1.8 Training:........................................................................................................................................6 2.0 Stormwater Management Design Standards.....................................................................................7 2.1 Storm Sewer.................................................................................................................................7 2.2 Outlet and Inlet Pipes....................................................................................................................8 2.3 Channels and Overland Drainage.................................................................................................8 2.4 Ponds............................................................................................................................................8 3.0 Stormwater Management Performance Measures..........................................................................10 3.1 Volume Management .................................................................................................................10 3.2 Water Quantity............................................................................................................................11 3.3 Water Quality ..............................................................................................................................12 4.0 Submittal Requirements .................................................................................................................13 page 163 LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT City of Mendota Heights, MN WSB Project No. 1734-04 Page 1 The following requirements shall be considered as the Land Disturbance Guidance Document as defined in Title 14 Chapter 1 of the Mendota Heights City code: Stormwater Management, Illicit Discharge, Soil Erosion, and Sedimentation. The requirements below are meant to serve as a general guideline and do not account for all possible site conditions or situations. Additional measures may be necessary to meet the intent of the Mendota Heights city code. It is the obligation of the owner and designer to consider all factors contributing to erosion, flooding, and water quality impairments on the project site and include appropriate Best Management Practices for minimizing erosion and providing permanent stormwater runoff management. 1.0 Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control 1.1 Erosion Control and Prevention Practices a.The Permittee must plan for and implement appropriate construction phasing vegetative buffer strips, horizontal slope grading, and other construction practices to minimize erosion. All areas not to be disturbed shall be marked (e.g. with flags, stakes, signs, silt fence etc.) on the project site before any work begins. The Permittee must minimize the need for disturbance of portions of the project that have steep slopes. For those sloped areas which must be disturbed, the Permittee must use techniques such as phasing and stabilization practices designed for steep slopes (e.g., slope draining and terracing). b.All exposed soil areas (including stockpiles) must be stabilized as soon as possible to limit soil erosion but in no case later than 14 days after the construction activity in that portion of the site has temporarily or permanently ceased. For Public Waters that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has promulgated “work in water restrictions” during specified fish spawning time frames, all soil areas that are within 200 feet of the water’s edge, and drain to these waters must complete the stabilization activities within 24 hours during the restriction period. c.Additional BMPs together with enhanced runoff controls are required for discharges to special waters and impaired waters. The BMPs identified for each special or impaired water are required for those areas of the project draining to a discharge point on the project that is within one mile of a special or impaired water and flows to that water. d.The normal wetted perimeter of a temporary or permanent drainage ditch that drains water for the project site or diverts water around the project must be stabilized 200 lineal feet from the property edge or from a discharge point to a surface water. Stabilization must occur within 24 hours of connection to surface waters. Applying mulch, hydromulch, tackifier, polyacrylamide or similar erosion prevention practices is not acceptable stabilization in any part of a temporary or permanent drainage ditch or swale. e.Pipe outlet must have temporary or permanent energy dissipation within 24 hours before connecting to surface water. f.When possible, all slopes must be graded in such a fashion so that tracking marks made from heavy equipment are perpendicular to the slope. g.All areas disturbed during construction must be restored as detailed in these requirements. The type of permanent restoration shall be clearly shown on the plans including but not limited to sod, seed, impervious cover and structures. A minimum of 6 inches of topsoil must be installed prior to permanent restoration. Areas in which the top soil has been placed and finish graded or areas that have been disturbed and other grading or site building construction operations are not actively underway must be temporary or permanently restored as set forth in the following requirements: i)Areas with slopes that area less than 3:1 must be seeded and mulched within 14 days of the area not being actively worked. ii)Areas with slopes that area greater or equal to 3:1 must be seeded and erosion control blanket placed within 14 days of the area not being actively worked. iii)All seeded area must be either mulched and disc anchored, hydro- mulched, or covered by erosion control blanket to reduced erosion and protect the seed. Temporary or permanent mulch must be disc anchored and applied at a uniform rate page 164 LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT City of Mendota Heights, MN WSB Project No. 1734-04 Page 2 of 2 tons per acre and have 90% coverage. iv)If the disturbed area will be re-disturbed within a six month period, temporary vegetative cover shall be required consisting of an approved seed mixture and application rate. v)If the disturbed area will not be re-disturbed within a six month period, permanent vegetative cover shall be required consisting of an approved seed mixture and application rate. vi)All areas that will not have maintenance done such as mowing as part of the final design shall be permanently restored using an approved seed mixture and application rate. vii)Restoration of disturbed wetland areas shall be accomplished using an approved seed mixture and application rate. h.All erosion control measures must be maintained for the duration of the project until final stabilization has been achieved in accordance with Section 1.7. If construction operations or natural events damage or interfere with any erosion control measures, they shall be restored to serve their intended function. i.Additional erosion control measures shall be added as necessary to effectively protect the natural resources of the City. The temporary and permanent erosion control plans shall be revised as needed based on current site conditions and to comply with all applicable requirements. 1.2 Sediment Control Practices a.Sediment control practices must be established on all down gradient perimeters before any upgradient land disturbing activities begin. These practices must remain in place until final stabilization has been achieved in accordance with Section 1.7. b.If down gradient treatment system is overloaded additional up gradient sediment control practices must be installed to eliminate overloading. The SWPPP must be amended to identify the additional practices. c.There shall be no unbroken slope length greater than 75 feet with a grade of 3:1 or steeper. d.All storm drain inlets must be protected by approved BMPs during construction until all potential sources for discharge have been stabilized. These devices must be maintained until final stabilization is achieved. Inlet protection may be removed if a specific safety concern (street flooding/freezing) has been identified. e.Temporary stockpiles must have silt fence or other effective sediment controls on the down gradient side of the stockpile and shall not be placed at least twenty five (25) feet from any road, wetland, protected water, drainage channel, or storm water inlets. Stockpile left for more than fourteen (14) days must be stabilized with mulch, vegetation, tarps or other approved means. f.A 50-ft natural buffer or (if a buffer is infeasible on the site) provide redundant sediment controls when a surface water is located within 50 feet of the project’s earth disturbances and stormwater flows to the surface water. Natural buffers are not required adjacent to road ditches, judicial ditches, county ditches, stormwater conveyance channels, storm drain inlets, and sediment basins. g.Vehicle tracking of sediment from project shall be minimized by approved BMPs. These shall be installed and maintained at the City approved entrances. Individual lots shall each be required to install and maintained entrances throughout the construction building until a paved driveway is install. h.Sediment that has washed or tracked from site by motor vehicles or equipment shall be cleaned from paved surfaces throughout the duration of construction. i.Silt fence or other approved sediment control devices must be installed in all areas as shown on the SWPPP. j.Silt fence or other approved sediment control devices shall be required along the entire curb line, except for approved opening where construction entrance will be installed or drainage flows away from curb. This device must be maintained until final stabilization is achieved. k.Ditch checks shall be required in ditch bottoms. Spacing for the check must be as page 165 LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT City of Mendota Heights, MN WSB Project No. 1734-04 Page 3 followed:[Height in feet (of the sediment device used)] X 100 / Slope Gradient l.Dust control measures, such as application of water must be performed periodically due to weather, construction activity, and/or as directed by the City. m.Flows from diversion channels or pipes (temporary or permanent) must be routed to sedimentation basins or appropriate energy dissipaters to prevent the transport of sediment to outflow or lateral conveyors and to prevent erosion and sediment buildup when runoff flows into the conveyors. n.A concrete washout shall be installed on projects that require the use of concrete. All liquid and solid wastes generated by concrete washout operations must be contained in a leak-proof containment facility or impermeable liner. A sign must be installed adjacent to each washout facility to inform operators to utilize the proper facilities. o.All sediment control measures shall be used and maintained for the duration of the project until final stabilization has been achieved accordance with Section 1.7. If construction operations or natural events damage or interfere with any erosion control measures, they must be restored to serve their intended function. p.Additional sediment control measures shall be added as necessary to effectively protect the natural resources of the City. The temporary and permanent erosion control plans shall be revised as needed based on current site conditions and to comply with all applicable requirements. q.Restrict clearing and grading within 20 feet of an existing wetland, lake, or stream boundary to provide for a protective buffer strip of natural vegetation. 1.3 Temporary Sediment Basins a.A temporary sediment basin (or permanent) shall be provided when 10 or more acres of disturbed soil drain to a common location prior to the runoff leaving the site or entering surface waters. The Permittee is also encouraged, but not required to install temporary sediment basins in areas with steep slope or highly erodible soils even if the area is less than 10 acres and it drains to one common area. The basins shall be designed and constructed according to the following requirements: i)The basins must provide storage below the outlet pipe for a calculated volume of runoff from a 2 year, 24 hour storm from each acre drained to the basin, except that in no case shall the basin provide less than 1800 cubic feet of storage below the outlet pipe from each acre drained to the basin. ii)Where no such calculation has been performed, a temporary (or permanent) sediment basin providing 3,600 cubic feet of storage below the outlet pipe per acre drained to the basin shall be provided where attainable until final stabilization of the site. iii)Temporary basin outlets will be designed to prevent short-circuiting and the discharge of floating debris. The basin must be designed with the ability to allow complete basin drawdown (e.g., perforated riser pipe wrapped with filter fabric and covered with crushed gravel, pumps or other means) for maintenance activities, and provide a stabilized emergency overflow to prevent failure of pond integrity. Energy dissipation must be provided for the basin outlet. iv)Temporary (or permanent) basins must be constructed and made operational concurrent with the start of soil disturbance that is up gradient of the area and contributes runoff to the pond. v)Where the temporary sediment basin is not attainable due to site limitations, equivalent sediment controls such as smaller sediment basins, and/or sediment traps, silt fences, vegetative buffer strips or any appropriate combination of measures are required for all down slope boundaries of the construction area and for those side slope boundaries deemed appropriate as dictated by individual site conditions. In determining whether installing a sediment basin is attainable, the Permittee must consider public safety and may consider factors such as site soils, slope, and available area on site. This determination must be documented in the SWPPP. page 166 LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT City of Mendota Heights, MN WSB Project No. 1734-04 Page 4 vi)The Permittee shall maintain the sedimentation basins and will remain functional until an acceptable vegetative cover is restored to the site, resulting in a pre- development level rate of erosion. The city will not issue building permits for lots containing sediment basins until they have been removed or relocated based on the projects restoration progress. vii)Basins designed to be used for permanent stormwater management shall be brought back to their original design contours as defined in Section 1.7. 1.4 Dewatering and Basin Draining a.If water cannot be discharged into a sedimentation basin before entering a surface water it must be treated with the appropriate BMPs, such that the discharge does not adversely affect the receiving water or downstream landowners. The Permittee must make sure discharge points are appropriately protected from erosion and scour. The discharge must be dispersed over riprap, sand bags, plastic sheeting or other acceptable energy dissipation measures. Adequate sediment control measures are required for discharging water that contains suspended soils. b.All water from dewatering or basin draining must discharge in a manner that does not cause nuisance conditions, erosion in receiving channels, on down slope properties, or inundation in wetlands causing significant adverse impact to wetlands. 1.5 Inspections and Maintenance a.The Permittee shall be responsible for inspecting and maintenance of the BMPs b.The Permittee must routinely inspect the construction project once every 7 days during active construction and within 24 hours of a rainfall event of 0.5 inches or greater in 24 hours. c.All inspections and maintenance conducted during construction must be recorded in writing and must be retained with the SWPPP. Records of each inspection and maintenance activity shall include i)Date and time of inspection. ii)Name of person(s) conducting the inspections. iii)Findings of inspections, including recommendations for corrective actions. iv)Corrective actions taken (including dates, times, and the party completing the maintenance activities). v)Date and amount of all rainfall events 0.5 inches or greater in 24 hours. vi)Documentation of changes made to SWPPP. d.Parts of the construction site that have achieved final stabilization, but work continues on other parts of the site, inspections of the stabilized areas can be reduced to once a month. If work has been suspended due to frozen ground conditions, the required inspections and maintenance must take place as soon as runoff occurs or prior to resuming construction, which ever happens first. e.All erosion and sediment BMPs shall be inspected to ensure integrity and effectiveness. All nonfunctional BMPs shall be repaired, replaced or supplemented with a functional BMP. The Permittee shall investigate and comply with the following inspection and maintenance requirements. f.All silt fences must be repaired, replaced, or supplemented when they become nonfunctional or the sediment reaches 1/3 of the height of the fence. These repairs shall be made within 24 hours of discovery, or as soon as field conditions allow access. g.Temporary and permanent sedimentation basins must be drained and the sediment removed when the depth of sediment collected in the basin reaches 1/2 the storage volume. Drainage and removal must be completed within 72 hours of discovery, or as soon as field conditions allow access. h.Surface waters, including drainage ditches and conveyance systems, must be inspected for evidence of sediment being deposited by erosion. The Permittee shall remove all deltas and sediment deposited in surface waters, including drainage ways, catch basins, and other drainage systems, and re-stabilize the areas where sediment removal results in exposed page 167 LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT City of Mendota Heights, MN WSB Project No. 1734-04 Page 5 soil. The removal and stabilization shall take place within 7 days of discovery unless precluded by legal, regulatory, or physical access constraints. The Permittee shall use all reasonable efforts to obtain access. If precluded, removal and stabilization shall take place within 7 calendar days of obtaining access. The Permittee is responsible for contacting all local, regional, state and federal authorities and receiving any applicable permits, prior to conducting any work. i.Construction site vehicle exit locations shall be inspected for evidence of off-site sediment tracking onto paved surfaces. Tracked sediment shall be removed from all off-site paved surfaces, within 24 hours of discovery, or if applicable, within a shorter time. j.The Permittee is responsible for the operation and maintenance of temporary and permanent water quality management BMPs, as well as all erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs, for the duration of the construction work at the site. The Permittee is responsible until another Permittee has assumed control over all areas of the site that have not been finally stabilized or the site has undergone final stabilization, and a NOT has been submitted to the MPCA. k.If sediment escapes the construction site, off-site accumulations of sediment shall be removed in a manner and at a frequency sufficient to minimize off-site impacts (e.g., fugitive sediment in streets could be washed into storm sewers by the next rain and/or pose a safety hazard to users of public streets). l. All infiltration areas shall be inspected to ensure that no sediment from ongoing construction activities is reaching the infiltration area and these areas are protected from compaction due to construction equipment driving across the infiltration area. 1.6 Pollution Management Measures/Construction Site Waste Control a.The Permittee must implement the following pollution prevention management measures on the site. i)Solid Waste- Collected sediment, asphalt and concrete millings, floating debris, paper, plastic, fabric, construction and demolition debris and other wastes must be disposed of properly and must comply with MPCA disposal requirements. ii)Hazardous Materials such as oil, gasoline, paint and any hazardous substances must be properly stored, including secondary containment, to prevent spills, leaks or other discharge. Restricted access to storage areas shall be provided to prevent vandalism. Storage and disposal of hazardous waste shall be in compliance with MPCA regulations. iii)External washing of trucks and other construction vehicles must be limited to a defined area of the site. Runoff shall be contained and waste properly disposed of. No engine degreasing is allowed on site. iv)The City of Mendota Heights prohibits discharges of any material other than storm water, and discharges from dewatering or basin draining activities. Prohibited discharges include but are not limited to vehicle and equipment washing, maintenance spills, wash water, and discharges of oil and other hazardous substances. 1.7 Final Stabilization a.The Permittee must ensure final stabilization of the project. Final stabilization can be achieved in one of the following ways. b.All soil disturbing activities at the site have been completed and all soils will be stabilized by a uniform perennial vegetative cover with a density of at least 70 percent over the entire pervious surface area, or other equivalent means necessary to prevent soil failure under erosive conditions and; i)All drainage ditches, constructed to drain water from the site after construction is complete, must be stabilized to preclude erosion; and ii)All temporary synthetic, and structural erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs (such as silt fence) must be removed as part of the site final stabilization; page 168 LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT City of Mendota Heights, MN WSB Project No. 1734-04 Page 6 and iii)The Permittee must clean out all sediment from conveyances and from temporary sedimentation basins that are to be used as permanent water quality management basins. Sediment must be stabilized to prevent it from washing back into the basin, conveyances or drainage ways discharging off-site or to surface waters. The cleanout of permanent basins must be sufficient to return the basin to design capacity. c.For residential construction only, final stabilization has been achieved when: i)Temporary erosion protection and down gradient perimeter control for individual lots has been completed and the residence has been transferred to the homeowner. ii)The Permittee must distribute the MPCA “homeowner factsheet” to the homeowner so the homeowner is informed for the need, and benefits, of final stabilization. 1.8 Training: Training is required for those that are responsible for preparation of the SWPPP, management of the construction site and inspections. a.The SWPPP must provide a chain of command showing who prepared the SWPPP, who is responsible for the management of the construction site and inspections. b.The training shall consist of a course developed by a local, state or federal agency, professional organization, water management organization, or soil and water conservation district and must contain information that is related to erosion prevention, sediment control, or permanent stormwater management and must relate to the work that you are responsible for managing. page 169 LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT City of Mendota Heights, MN WSB Project No. 1734-04 Page 7 2.0 Stormwater Management Design Standards 2.1 Storm Sewer a.Provide for overflow routes to drain low points along streets or lot lines to ensure a freeboard of 2’ from the lowest ground adjacent to building and the calculated 100-year storm HWL elevation. Design criteria verifying the adequacy of the overland drainage route capacity is required calculated 100-year storm HWL elevation. Design criteria verifying the adequacy of the overland drainage route capacity is required. b.The storm sewer alignment shall follow the sanitary sewer and watermain alignment where practical with a minimum of 10’ of separation. Storm sewer placed along the curb alignment shall be along the curb opposite the watermain to maintain the 10’ separation. c.Catch basins shall be located on the tangent section of the curb at a point 3’ from the point of curve. Mid-radius catch basins will not be allowed. Also, catch basins shall be designed to collect drainage on the upstream side of the intersection. d.The maximum spacing between manholes is 400’. e.Manhole steps will be aligned and over the downstream side of the manhole. Steps within manholes will be: i)1” +/- Horizontal Alignment ii)1” +/- Vertical Alignment per latest OSHA Standards f.Any connections to existing manholes or catch basins shall be core drilled or the opening cut out with a concrete saw. No jack hammering or breaking the structure with a maul is permitted. Also, all connections to an existing system will require a manhole for access. g.To the greatest extent possible, manholes shall be placed in paved surfaces outside of wheel paths, (3’ and 9’ off centerline) or other readily accessible areas. h.Minimum pipe size shall be 12” diameter. i.Aprons or flared end sections shall be placed at all locations where the storm sewer outlets a ponding area. All inlet/outlet flared end sections shall be furnished with hot dipped galvanized trash guards. All trash guard installations will be subject to approval by the City Engineer. The last three pipe joints from the flared end section shall be tied together. j.Riprap and filter blanket shall be placed at all outlet flared end sections. k.The placement of the riprap shall be by hand. The minimum class of riprap shall be MnDOT 3601.2, Class III. A design criterion justifying the size and amount of riprap is required. Geotextile material is not allowed for filter aggregate where ice action along the shore line may tear the geotextile. l.The invert elevations of the pond inlet flared end sections shall match the NWL of the pond. Submerged outlets will only be allowed at the discretion of the City Engineer. m.If the storm sewer is to be installed less than 10’ deep within private property, the easement shall be a minimum of 20’ wide with the pipe centered in the easement. If the storm sewer is 10’ deep or greater, then the easement shall be twice as wide as the depth or as required by the City. n.Junction manholes should be designed to limit the hydraulic head increase by matching hydraulic flow lines and by providing smooth transition angles. o.In the development of any subdivision or ponding area, the developer and/or property owner is responsible for the removal of all significant vegetation (trees, stumps, brush, debris, etc.) from any and all areas which would be inundated by the designated controlled Normal Water elevation (NWL) of any required ponding easement as well as the removal of all dead trees, vegetation, etc., to the High Water Level (HWL) of the pond. p.Outlet control structures from ponding areas are required as directed by the City. Location and appearance of outlet structures shall be subject to City approval and may require landscape screening. q.Sump manholes with 3-foot sumps shall be constructed as the last structure that is roadway accessible prior to discharge to any waterbody. r.Inlets should be placed and located to eliminate overland flow in excess of 1,000 feet on minor streets, or a combination of minor streets and swales, and 600 feet on collector page 170 LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT City of Mendota Heights, MN WSB Project No. 1734-04 Page 8 streets and arterials. Additionally, inlets should be located such that 3 cfs is the maximum flow at the inlet for the 10-year design storm. 2.2 Outlet and Inlet Pipes a.Inlet and outlet pipes of stormwater ponds should be extended to the pond normal water level whenever possible. b.Outfalls with velocities less than 4 feet per second (fps) that project flows downstream into the channel in a direction 30 degrees or less from the normal channel axis generally do not require energy dissipaters or stilling basins, but do require riprap protection. c.Where an energy dissipater is used, it should be sized to provide an average outlet velocity of less than 4 fps, unless rip rap is also used. In the latter case, or when discharge occurs at NWL of a pond, the average outlet velocity should not exceed 6 fps. d.Where outlet velocities exceed 6 fps, the design should be based on the unique site conditions present. Submergence of the outlet or installation of a stilling basin approved by the City is required when excessive outlet velocities are experienced. e.In the case of discharge to channels, rip rap should be provided on all outlets to an adequate depth below the channel grade and to a height above the outfall or channel bottom. It should be placed over a suitably graded filter material and filter fabric to ensure that soil particles do not migrate through the rip rap and reduce its stability. Rip rap should be placed to a thickness at least 2.5 times the mean rock diameter so as to ensure that it will not be undermined or rendered ineffective by displacement. If rip rap is used as protection for overland drainage routes, grouting may be recommended. 2.3 Channels and Overland Drainage a.Overland drainage routes where velocities exceed 6 fps should be reviewed by the City Engineer and approved only when suitable stabilization measures are proposed. b.Open channels and swales are recommended where flows and small grade differences prohibit the economical construction of an underground conduit. Open channels and swales can provide infiltration and filtration benefits not provided by pipe. c.Whenever possible, a minimum slope of 2% should be maintained in unlined open channels and overland drainage routes. Slopes less than 2% and greater than 1% are difficult to construct and maintain and may require an underdrain system. Slopes less than 1% are not allowed for lot drainage and channels designed primarily for conveyance. d.Minimum grade for lot drainage swales and lot grading shall be 2% or greater. e.Maximum length for drainage swales shall be 300 feet or a total of eight lots draining to a point, or as approved by the City Engineer. f.Channel side slopes should be a maximum of 4:1 (horizontal to vertical) with gentler slopes being desirable. Where space permits, slopes should be cut back to match existing grade. g.Rock rip rap should be provided at all points of juncture between two open channels and where storm sewer pipes discharge into a channel. h.The design velocity of an open channel should be sufficiently low to prevent erosion of the bottom. Rip rap or concrete liners should be provided in areas where high velocities cannot be avoided. i.Periodic cleaning of an open channel is required to ensure that the design capacity is maintained. Therefore, all channels should be designed to allow easy access for equipment. 2.4 Ponds a. Maximum allowed pond slopes are 3:1, though 4:1 slopes are preferred. Pond slopes steeper than 4:1 shall have erosion control blanket installed immediately after finish grading. In residential areas slopes no steeper than 4:1 shall be allowed. 3:1 slopes may be allowed in “maintained” areas as approved by the City Engineer. 3:1 slopes are not allowed for road fill sections adjacent to water bodies. b. All constructed ponds and wetland mitigation areas shall have an aquatic or safety bench around their entire perimeter. The aquatic bench is defined as follows: i)Cross slope no steeper than 10:1 page 171 LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT City of Mendota Heights, MN WSB Project No. 1734-04 Page 9 ii)Minimum width 10 feet iii)Located from pond NWL to one foot below pond NWL c. All constructed ponds and wetland mitigation areas shall have a maintenance access bench around sufficient perimeter to provide access to all inlets and outlets. At a minimum the maintenance bench should extend around 50% of the basin perimeter. d. Elevation separations of buildings with respect to ponds, lakes, streams, and storm water features shall be designed as follows: i)The lowest ground elevation adjacent to homes and buildings must be a minimum of two feet above the calculated 100-yr HWL or 1.5 feet above the EOF, whichever criteria leads to the higher elevation. ii)Landlocked lakes and wetlands require either 1) a five-foot separation between basin HWL and lowest ground elevation adjacent to building or 2) a three-foot separation between basin HWL for back to back 100- year storms and the lowest ground elevation adjacent to building or 3) three-foot separation between the highest known or recorded basin elevation in the case of large wetlands and lakes and lowest ground elevation adjacent to building. Whichever of the three methods yields the highest allowable ground at building elevation should be the one used. e. Drainage easements for ponds, lakes, wetlands, streams etc. shall encompass an area to one foot (vertical) above the calculated 100-year HWL. f. Maximum pond wet volume depth is 8 feet; minimum wet volume depth is 3 feet. g. Flood bounce is defined as the vertical difference between pond NWL and pond HWL. Flood bounce shall not exceed 6 feet except in the case of regional basins, as defined by the City Engineer. h. All ponds shall have outlet skimming for up to the 5-year event. i. All ponds shall be graded to one-foot below design bottom elevation. This “hold down” allows sediment storage until such time as site restoration is complete. j. The top berm elevation of ponds shall be a minimum of 1.5 feet above the 100- year pond HWL. k. Grading shall not block or raise emergency overflows from adjoining properties unless some provision has been made for the runoff that may be blocked behind such an embankment. l. Seeding around ponds should be MnDOT standard mix 33-261 or BWSR equivalent. page 172 LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT City of Mendota Heights, MN WSB Project No. 1734-04 Page 10 3.0 Stormwater Management Performance Measures 3.1 Volume Management a. For development and redevelopment projects, the performance benchmark for runoff volume reduction, otherwise known as abstraction, is a volume equivalent to 1.1 inches of runoff off all new impervious surfaces. Allowable BMPs for abstracting runoff volume and methods for calculating abstraction are: i) Infiltration benches adjacent to constructed ponds ii) Rainwater gardens or infiltration areas separate from ponds such as depressed medians or grassed areas adjacent to parking lots and buildings iii) Pervious pavement or pavers iv) Vegetated swales v) Constructed wetlands vi) Underground storage with infiltration vii) Underground storage with water recycling for irrigation viii) Green roofs b. For public linear projects these standards shall apply only to newly created impervious surfaces that exceed 10,000 square feet. c. The amount of impervious surface increase on projects shall be reduced to the greatest extent possible for development and redevelopment projects in accordance with Low Impact Development (LID) techniques. A narrative shall be provided that addresses the consideration of LID techniques in development and redevelopment impervious surface extents. d. For all infiltration calculations the infiltration rates in Table 3.1 shall be assumed. As an alternative, percolation tests can be conducted and submitted to determine the actual rate of infiltration after subgrading is complete. Table 3.1 Infiltration Rates (Source: Minnesota Stormwater Manual) Hydrologic SilG Soil Tt Corresponding Unified Soil Cl ifi ti Infiltration RtGW - Well-graded gravel or well-graded gravel with sand GP - Poorly graded gravel or poorly graded gravel with sand GM – silty gravels, silty sandy gravels SW – well-graded gravelly sands 1.63AGravel, sand, sandy gravel, silty gravel, loamy sand, sandy loam SP – gap-graded or uniform sands, gravelly sands 0.8 SM - Silty sand or silty sand with gravel 0.45BLoam, silt loam ML - Silts, very fine sands, silty or vlayey fine sands 0.3 C Sandy clay loam ML – silts, very fine sands, silty or clayey fine sands 0.2 D Clay, clay loam, silt clay loam, sandy clay, silt clay GC – clayey gravels, clayey sandy gravels SC – clayey sands, clayey gravelly sands CL - Low plasticity clays, sandy or silty clays OL – organic silts and clays of low plasticity CH - Fat clay or fat clay with sand or gravel or gravelly fat clay OH - Organic clay or organic clay with sand or gravel or gravelly organic clay .06 e. Infiltration areas shall be designed to infiltrate water in 48 hours. page 173 LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT City of Mendota Heights, MN WSB Project No. 1734-04 Page 11 f. Infiltration areas shall not be constructed in karst or fractured bedrock areas, nor should they be constructed adjacent to steep slopes. g. Infiltration practices shall be left off-line until the upgradient drainage areas are stabilized. h. The volume management standard is waived in areas of known soil contamination or for developments where the potential for spills makes infiltration inadvisable. i. Infiltration areas shall not have a 100-year design storm flood bounce that exceeds 3 feet. j. Pretreatment, in the form of forebays or filter strips, shall be considered for all infiltration areas. k. For infiltration benches adjacent to ponds the following standards apply: i) Benches shall have slopes no steeper than 6:1 over the proposed infiltration zone. A slope of 10:1 is preferred. ii) Benches may be excavated and backfilled with sand or sandy topsoil to provide additional storage volume for infiltration without violating the 3 foot flood bounce requirement. l. Porous pavement or pavers shall be considered pervious surface for the purposes of infiltration calculations. m. Porous pavement or pavers are considered sufficient to infiltrate water off impermeable surfaces at a ratio of 5:1 (impermeable surface area to porous pavement area). 3.2 Water Quantity a. At a minimum, proposed peak runoff rate from development and redevelopment project shall maintain or decrease existing flow rates for the 2, 10, and 100-year 24-hour rainfalls. Table 3.2. Storm Events Event Rainfall/Snowmelt depth (inches) 2-year, 24 hour 2.81 10-year, 24 hour 4.19 100-year, 24 hour 7.47 100-year, 10 day snowmelt 7.2 b. A Rate Control Plan shall be developed for projects that disturb one or more acre of land. Public Linear Projects shall be exempt from developing a Rate Control Plan unless the project creates 10,000 square feet or more of new impervious surface. Rate Control Plan shall include the following items: i) Delineation of the subwatersheds contributing runoff from off-site, and proposed and existing watersheds on-site. ii) Delineation of existing on-site wetlands, shoreland, and/or floodplain areas. Any removal or disturbance of streambank and shoreland vegetation should be identified and avoided. Any unavoidable removal or disturbance to this vegetation must be addressed and mitigated iii) Stormwater runoff volume and rate analyses for existing and proposed conditions iv) Administrative items included in Section 4.0 v) A narrative describing existing and proposed rate control for the site. Detention basins shall be designed with capacity for the critical 100-year event, which is defined as the 100-year event that produces the highest water level among a 2-hour, 6-hour, 12-hour, or 24 hour rainfall events or the 10-day, 7.2- inch snowmelt runoff event. c. The maximum duration for rainfall critical event analysis shall be 24 hours except in cases where basins are landlocked, where back to back 24-hour events and the 10-day 7.2-inch snowmelt runoff event shall also be used. In all cases a hydrograph method of analysis page 174 LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT City of Mendota Heights, MN WSB Project No. 1734-04 Page 12 should be used. For the 24-hour rainfall event, or back to back 24-hour rainfall events, an MSE 3 distribution should be used. For shorter duration critical events other distributions may be used with the approval of the City Engineer. d. All drainage system analyses and designs shall be based on proposed full development land use patterns. e. Development adjacent to a landlocked basin and the basin is not provided an outlet, freeboard should be determined based on one of three methods (whichever provides for the highest freeboard elevation): i) Three feet above the HWL determined by modeling back to back 100- year, 24- hour events, ii) Three feet above the highest known water level, or iii) Five feet above the HWL determined by modeling a single 100-year, 24- hour event. f. When modeling landlocked basins, the starting water surface elevation should be the basins Ordinary High Water elevation, which can be determined through hydrologic modeling or, in the case of a DNR regulated basin, from a DNR survey. g. For basins with a suitable outlet, freeboard will be 2-feet above the HWL determined by modeling the 100-year critical event. Emergency overflows a minimum of 1.5 feet below lowest ground elevation adjacent to a structure should also be provided. h. Adjacent to channels, creeks, and ravines freeboard will also be 2 feet to the 100-year critical event elevation. 3.3 Water Quality a. Storm water treatment facilities constructed in Mendota Heights shall be designed according to the standards reflected in the MPCA publication Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas, the State of Minnesota Stormwater Manual, and the design criteria from the National Urban Runoff Program. b. A 50% reduction in total phosphorous based on existing conditions must be shown for all development, redevelopment and public linear projects that exceed 1 acre of disturbed land, unless the requirements in Table 3.3 call for increased treatment capacity. Reduction in total phosphorus can be achieved using methods approved by the State of Minnesota Stormwater Manual, including but not limited to: infiltration, biofiltration/filtration, or stormwater ponds. c. In any case, the standard identified above that leads to the highest treatment capacity is the one required of any specific development. page 175 LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT City of Mendota Heights, MN WSB Project No. 1734-04 Page 13 4.0 Submittal Requirements All grading, erosion control, and site restoration work should be done in accordance with the most recent additions of the MnDOT Standard Specifications for Highway Construction and the MPCA’s Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas. All projects within the City that disturb 5,000 square feet or more of land and are not exempt by the City’s ordinance are required to show the following: 1. The developer shall obtain all regulatory agency permits and approvals including those from the MPCA for “General Storm Water Permit for Construction Activity.” 2. Contact information for the engineering firm, developer, and owner. 3. Show City of Mendota Heights’ project number on the Plan. 4. Signature of company responsible for erosion and sediment control plan preparation, implementation, and maintenance. 5. Show all erosion prevention and sediment control measures are compliant with Section 1. 6. Show first floor and basement walkout elevations. 7. A location map indicating the vicinity of the site. 8. Two-foot contour information extending a minimum of 200 feet beyond the property boundary that shows features such as buildings, structures, walls, trees, or fences and any hydrologic features such as wetlands, ponds, lakes, and streams that are wholly or partially encompassed by the project perimeter. 9. Two-foot contour information shall include the following: a. Existing contours b. Proposed contours c. Contour labeling 10. Directional arrows to indicate the site and lot drainage directions. 11. Details on existing wetlands, lakes, streams etc. a. NWL and 100-year design storm HWL b. Ordinary high water level, if available, for wetlands within the site c. Whether waterbodies are DNR protected d. Wetland delineations for wetlands on the site 12. Information on individual lots including: a. Type of structure (i.e. walkout or rambler) b. Lowest ground elevation adjacent to building walkout and lookout window elevations c. Existing and proposed lot corner spot elevations d. Proposed mid-point side lot spot elevations e. Proposed spot elevations at any high points or drainage breaks f. Proposed spot elevations where drainage swales intersect lot lines g. Proposed spot elevations where drainage and utility easements intersect with lot lines h. The benchmark utilized for elevation determination. 13. All easements and outlots, existing and proposed 14. If retaining walls are needed, submit detailed plans and specifications that show type and height of retaining wall. Retaining walls will not be allowed within the City’s easements, unless approved with the overall subdivision grading plan. 15. All adjacent plats, parcels, property lines, section lines, streets, existing storm drains and appurtenances, and underground utilities (public and private). 16. Grading and clearing limits: details of topsoil removal, topsoil stockpiling, and topsoil re- spreading. All development or redevelopment projects that disturb one acre or more of land or increase net impervious surface must submit the following: 1. A narrative description of existing and proposed conditions and stormwater management performance criteria evaluated for the project. 2. Drawings showing existing and proposed drainage boundaries, including watersheds contributing runoff from off-site. 3. EOF elevations and directions of flow for all street and rear yard catch basins, parking areas, page 176 LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT City of Mendota Heights, MN WSB Project No. 1734-04 Page 14 ponds, wetlands, lakes, streams, swales, etc. 4. Hydrologic and hydraulic calculations for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year 24- hour (MSE3distribution) rainfall event and the critical 100-year event. 5. Provide detailed hydrologic/hydraulic calculations verifying location and capacity adequacy of all overland drainage routes. 6. Show removal of all trees and brush below the controlled water level that will be impacted from existing and newly created ponding areas. 7. Show or define access routes for maintenance purposes to all inlets or outlets at ponding areas (must be no more than 10 percent grade at two percent cross slope and no less than 10-feet- wide). 8. A note for all silt fence to be installed by the contractor and inspected by the City prior to any site work. 9. A Rate Control Plan if required by Section 3.2.b Projects that include storm sewer and water quality treatment facilities are required to show the following: 1. The developer shall obtain all regulatory agency permits and approvals necessary for the proposed construction such as DNR, USACE, or MPCA. 2. Drainage calculations shall be submitted to show the sizing of pipe, ponds, emergency overflow spillways, and catch basin interception analysis. 3. Show or define access routes for maintenance purposes to all manholes outside the public right- of-way and inlets or outlets at ponding areas (eight percent maximum grade, two percent cross slope, and ten-feet-wide). Access easements shall be dedicated at the time of final platting to provide this access. 4. The developer and/or engineer upon the completion of the construction of a designated ponding area is required to submit an as-built record plan of the ponding area certifying that the pond constructed meets all design parameters as set forth in this SWMP and its updates. page 177 Stormwater Management Plan Appendix E City of Mendota Heights WSB Project No. 1735-04 APPENDIX E Stormwater Modeling Development and Results page 178 Appendix E Stormwater Modeling Development and Results 1. PURPOSE AND GOALS The purpose of updating the City’s stormwater models to Atlas 14 is to determine the threshold of concern regarding Atlas 14 high water levels and policies to guide the City’s response to areas where flooding has been identified. Another priority for the City is to have a P8 Urban Catchment water quality model. 2. PROCEDURES AND METHODS The 2006 HydroCAD model was updated for this 2017 Surface Water Management Plan to accommodate for the new National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 14 Precipitation Frequency Estimates. The updated HydroCAD model was used to develop a P8 Urban Catchment Model. 3. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS 3.1 HydroCAD The City of Mendota Heights provided the following HydroCAD models: Gun Club Lake Watershed (includes 42 subwatersheds and 22 stormwater ponds) Ivy Falls Creek and Mississippi Bluffs Watershed (44 subwatersheds and 16 stormwater ponds) Interstate Valley Creek Watershed (includes 118 subwatersheds and 66 stormwater ponds) The models include unique subwatershed IDs that correspond to a unique pond name. Figure 1 shows each of the subwatershed areas and corresponding ponds. The overall modeled drainage and stormsewer network is also represented. The City also provided a GIS database containing stormsewer information that was used to update the model. Pond outlet data, where available, was incorporated into the HydroCAD model. The following Atlas 14 storm events were used for the HydroCAD modeling effort: 2 year, 24 hour storm event = 2.81 inches 10 year, 24 hour storm event = 4.19 inches 100 year, 24 hour storm event = 7.47 inches The storm events were obtained from NOAA and use an MSE Type 3 distribution. Drainage areas, CN values and Tc values were included in the models provided. The updated model included reviewing and correcting drainage area boundaries and land use information when discrepancies were found between the model and on-the-ground conditions. There were very few areas that were modified. The primary objective of modifying the HydroCAD model was to have the ability to model the larger Atlas 14 storm events. This included updating pond page 179 stage/volume rating curves, along with adding overflow elevations and routing. GIS software and Lidar data were used for determining this information. 3.2 P8 The updated HydroCAD model was used to develop a corresponding P8 model for each of the drainage areas. A discussion of the parameters used in the P8 model is provided below. P8 parameters not discussed were left at the default setting. P8 version 3.5 was used for the modeling. Time Steps Per Hour (Integer) – 4. Selection was based upon the number of time steps required to reduce the continuity errors greater than two percent. Minimum Inter-Event Time (Hours) – 10. The selection of this parameter was based upon evaluation of storm hydrographs to determine which storms should be combined and which storms should be separated to accurately depict runoff from the pond’s watershed. It should be noted that the average minimum inter-event time for the Minneapolis area is 6. Snowmelt Factors—Melt Coef (Inches/Day-Deg-F) – 0.06. This coefficient is within the lower end of the recommended range and was selected to minimize the disparity between observed and predicted snowmelt (i.e., the coefficient lessens the number of inches of snow melted per day and increases the number of snowmelt runoff days). Snowmelt Factors – Scale Factor for Max Abstraction – 1. This factor controls the quantity of snowmelt runoff (i.e., controls losses due to infiltration ). Selection was based upon the factor that resulted in the closest fit between modeled and observed runoff volumes. Particle File Selection – NURP50.PAR. The NURP 50 particle files was found to most accurately predict phosphorus loading. Air Temperature File Selection – MSP4999.tmp. The temperature file was comprised of temperature data from the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport during the period from 1949 through 1999. Depression Storage – 0.02 inches (assumed, based on average watershed slope). The surface area and dead storage volume of each detention pond was determined using GIS software and Lidar data. Pond outlet and stage/discharge information was taken from the updated HydroCAD model. Infiltration was assumed only for ponds that appear to be dry, or are known to have a normal water level lower than the outlet elevation. GIS software was used to determine the directly connected and indirectly connected impervious areas for each of the modeled ponds (devices). WinSLAMM land use descriptions and the associated watershed fractions were applied to each of the subwatershed areas to determine a composite area for indirectly and directly connected impervious areas. Pervious area curve number values were taken from the updated HydroCAD model. An impervious runoff coefficient of 98 was used in the model. The water surface area for each of the ponds was routed to each device separately, assuming that the entire water area was directly connected with zero loading to each pond. It was assumed that all of the directly connected impervious areas were not swept. 4 Results HydroCAD and P8 results are summarized in Table E.1 included in this appendix. Output data is grouped by drainage area and tabulated for each individual subwatershed. page 180 PondDirect Ponded TOTAL NWL(ft)OutletUpdatedOutlet 2year 10year 100year100ͲyearHWL(ft) Name/PWI?PondType(drybasinorwetpond)TP(lb/yr)TSS(lb/yr)TP(lb/yr)TSS(lb/yr)TP(lb/ac/yr)TSS(lb/ac/yr)GCͲP180.9 0.0 80.9 891.718"rcp0.7 2.8 8.3 894.1Unnamedwet 107.1 33200.2 68.5 97.4 0.91 399.7GCͲP544.3 80.9 125.2 875.0userdefinedaddedEOF 18.4 59.4 176.4 882.4nowet 69.6 21572.3 22.8 64.5 0.13 111.1GCͲP10183.0 232.5 415.6 832.5none0.0 0.0 0.0 835.7 LakeAugustawet 135.0 41896.7 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0GCͲP812.7 0.0 12.7 880.0 userdefinedandweiraddedEOF 21.1 41.8 84.5 881.2nowet 11.5 3559.4 39.2 70.6 0.35 197.9GCͲP986.3 12.7 99 85912"rcpandweiryes 19.6 85.2 327.0 861.8nowet 53.5 16633.2 54.6 86.4 0.30 145.2GCͲP1121.0 0.0 21.0 862* userdefinedandweir6.6 19.1 48.8 867.6nodry 23.7 7357.5 25.0 58.0 0.28 203.6GCͲP125.1 21.0 26.1 862*userdefined0.0 0.0 0.0 867.6nodry 6.5 2014.9 88.7 94.3 0.22 72.9GCͲP138.30.0 8.3 858*12''rcpandweiryes 3.2 3.7 4.8 861.9nodry 10.2 3153.7 34.9 67.1 0.43 255.0GCͲP579.4 0.0 9.4 894.4weir1.0 4.5 20.4 895.4nowet 13.3 4138.8 58.1 88.0 0.82 387.9GCͲP586.3 9.4 15.7 896.0weir0.0 0.0 0.0 895.4nowet 8.8 2725.7 32.9 71.2 0.18 123.8GCͲP5915.28 15.68 30.96 881.54 userdefinedandweiraddedEOF 5.5 12.6 31.1 886.7Unnamedwet 23.1 7197.7 51.4 89.8 0.38 208.8GCͲP5656.5 5.9 62.4 858.024''rcpandweir33.9 35.9 44.0 873.1Unnamedwet 11.0 3412.3 48.8 81.4 0.09 44.5GCͲP6212.89 62.4 75.29 852* userdefinedandweiraddedEOF 39.4 53.0 72.5 857.1Unnameddry 18.8 5821.4 19.4 53.2 0.05 41.1GCͲP5147.2 0.0 47.2 852.0 userdefinedandweir4.7 17.8 38.3 857.7nowet 64.1 19881.9 55.2 86.1 0.75 362.4GCͲP439.3 0.0 9.3 824.018"rcp1.5 6.2 14.1 827.5nowet 12.9 4012.0 54.6 84.9 0.76 366.3GCͲP4119.3 0.0 19.3 842.012''rcp6.5 8.2 10.7 847.6nowet 27.4 8487.2 34.3 67.2 0.49 294.9GCͲP56a5.9 0.0 5.9 873.512''rcpandweir6.2 7.6 34.1 879.2nowet 7.7 2393.4 31.8 64.0 0.42 259.6GCͲP156.5 0.0 6.5 838* userdefinedandweir0.0 0.0 0.0 840.5nodry 9.9 3057.7 97.2 100.0 1.48 470.4GCͲP49a72.0 0.0 72.0 841.018''rcpandweiryes;addedEOF 7.9 12.2 187.5 849.7nowet 105.5 32711.7 41.1 73.7 0.60 334.8IV211.0 0.0 11.0 892.0412"rcpyes 1.1 3.4 4.5 894.19nowet 76.6 24706.5 73.4 42 5.11 943.3IV38.9 11.0 19.9 891.5015"rcpyes 0.6 2.9 7.0 893.02nowet 13.1 4232.2 72.7 40.6 0.48 86.3IV436.8 29.6 66.4 873.0515"rcpyes0.2 1.2 4.2 875.10Unnamedwet 47.1 15212.4 91.9 50.4 0.65 115.5IV59.7 0.0 9.7 894.4018"rcpyes 0.2 1.0 6.1 895.49nowet 7.7 2484.4 38.5 69.2 0.31 177.2IV618.3 66.4 87.4 872.2324"rcpyes 0.2 1.1 5.2 873.26Unnamedwet 29.9 9654.6 88.2 31.8 0.30 35.1IV711.1 0.0 11.1 877.2018"rcpyes 0.1 0.7 4.5 878.42nowet 9.6 3093.8 96.1 69.6 0.83 194.0IV816.2 11.1 27.3 875.0021"rcpyes 0.4 1.5 7.5 876.65Unnamedwet 21.1 6820.6 96.6 63.7 0.75 159.1IV916.3 0.0 16.3 878.8018"rcpyes 0.5 2.5 10.3 880.48nowet 13.3 4270.4 97.4 71.2 0.79 186.5IV1130.0 0.0 30.0 865.5624"rcpyes 1.7 8.3 23.8 869.03nowet 17.1 5501.7 87.1 58.7 0.50 107.6IV18100.7 764.6 865.3 842weiryes 8.42 37.98 158.19 842.86Unnamedwet 34.7 11174.2 91.3 24.5 0.04 3.2IV1225.0 0.0 25.0 863.7515"rcp14.7 14.8 15.1 872.44Unnamedwet 55.7 17922.4 83.6 61.7 1.86 442.3IV1531.7 25.0 56.7 854.7018"rcp0.4 1.9 6.3 857.26Unnamedwet 21.4 6885.6 96.4 60.8 0.36 73.8IV1634.0 77.6 111.6 854.2018"rcpyes 0.5 2.2 9.1 855.68Unnamedwet 25.2 8105 95 43.6 0.21 31.7IV1920.9 0.0 20.9 854.8018"rcp0.0 0.0 1.0 855.73Unnamedwet 5.8 1873.9 99.9 74 0.28 66.3IV1735.4 522.5 557.9 850.5924"rcpyes 2.2 5.2 14.5 852.35Unnamedwet 32.4 10386.1 90.7 38.7 0.05 7.2IV240 965.4 965.4 8372Ͳ59x36rcpayes 7.65 35.43 150.02 840.85Unnamedwet00 51.9 2.4 0.00 0.0IV5182.3 0 82.3 900.15*2Ͳ42"rcpandweiryes 42.06 103.2 202.87 906.69nodry 111.4 35968.8 52.6 19.8 0.71 86.5IV2263.9 16.4 80.3 845.00userdefined5.8 21.6 88.2 847.19nowet 27.8 8985 97.6 71.6 0.34 80.148"Huber19.8 80.3 100.1 840.00userdefined22.6 51.0 115.7 845.75noNA000 0 0.00 0.0IV2633.1 0.0 33.1 804.00userdefined5.4 15.0 40.6 891.78nowet 62.9 20318.7 99.4 73.9 1.89 453.6IV57154.6 390.0 544.6 850.00userdefined65.9 180.2 518.6 850.88Unnamedwet 159.7 51463.6 90.5 62.2 0.27 58.8IV3318.1 0.0 18.1 875.00userdefined3.7 12.8 40.3 875.38Unnamedwet 21.6 6972.4 98.5 72.7 1.18 280.165"I35E58.8 0.0 58.8 888.00userdefined29.0 72.9 175.7 893.17noNA 103.1 33288.90 0 0.00 0.0IV61C0.0 91.7 91.7 864.0024"rcp newpondaddedtomodel 0.0 0.0 4.0 865.15nodry00 20.9 5.7 0.00 0.0IV39152.2 322.9 475.1 872.2030"rcpyes 0.7 2.4 8.8 873.76RogersLakewet00 94.1 23.6 0.00 0.0IV326.5 0.0 6.5 874.50userdefined0.6 3.9 16.0 874.57nowet 2.2 703.4 98.9 72.6 0.33 78.6IV6341.3 50.4 91.7 846.6636''rcp40.1 94.1 264.7 858.61nowet 50.5 16297.1 45.2 15.2 0.25 27.0IV8117.3 0.0 17.3 926.4012"rcpyes 0.1 0.6 2.4 927.34Unnamedwet 168.9 54585.2 94.1 67.9 9.19 2142.4IV3647.4 0.0 47.4 872.8824"rcp3.8 13.6 24.8 878.06nowet 88.5 28593 86.3 57.8 1.61 348.7IV68263.6 2137.5 2401.1 824.80 userdefinedandweir138.4184.4 247.9 837.43Unnamedwet 278.3 89803 92.1 40 0.11 15.0IV4440.4 0.0 40.4 879.00userdefined2.5 3.2 4.4 884.55nowet 39.5 12747.8 90.4 62.6 0.88 197.5IV3514.1 0.0 14.1 874.00userdefined1.3 6.1 28.4 874.74nowet 23.7 7640.2 96.5 70.3 1.62 380.9IV5095.3 515.5 610.8 832.00userdefined28.8 72.5 238.2 834.49Unnamedwet 130.4 42085.5 75.5 32.2 0.16 22.2IV110139.3 2578.8 2718.1 809.60255x88arches217.8 419.0 658.9 817.61nodry 221.5 71463 20.2 2.4 0.02 0.6IV8333.1 17.3 50.4 862.3030''rcp,2weirs13.6 41.4 116.3 869.58nodry 51.3 16577.6 38 6.7 0.39 22.0IV21A16.4 0.0 16.4 863.2*18"rcp9.5 14.8 22.6 861.80nodry 17.4 5616.8 60 27.8 0.64 95.2IV746.2 0.0 6.2 820.5*12"rcp2.4 5.3 8.8 826.42nodry 8.1 2611.4 53 20.7 0.69 87.2IV7516.9 0.0 16.9 820.5*12"rcp,weir4.4 13.1 79.6 824.43nodry 25.5 8224.8 55.8 22.7 0.84 110.5IV10424.3 0 24.3 824.70userdefined3.37 10.09 73.02 827.71nowet 37.5 12122.5 84.7 56 1.31 279.4IV1125.2 34.7 39.9 806.0*weir2.7 9.0 37.7 807.06Unnameddry 16 5156.3 48.4 17 0.19 22.0IV8917.8 0.0 17.8 941.0*userdefined0.7 2.1 5.2 943.58nowet4 1260.7 99.3 72.8 0.22 51.6IV9115.5 169.3 184.8 952.8224"rcpyes 16.2 25.0 39.1 958.40nowet 13 4189.4 76.8 47.7 0.05 10.8IV10997.0 402.9 499.9 810.10 60''rcpanduserdefined54.2 198.6 662.4 816.60nowet138.7 44783.1 70.9 36.7 0.20 32.9IV9037.1 184.8 221.9 932.0*weiryes 8.7 40.9 111.0 932.55nodry 8.6 2755.8 54 22.5 0.02 2.8*drybasinbottomelevationIVCREEKGUNCLUBLAKEPondData&ModelingResultsRemovalDischargeRate(cfs)AnnualLoading%RemovalDrainageArea(ac)page 181 PondDirect Ponded TOTAL NWL(ft)OutletUpdatedOutlet 2year 10year 100year100ͲyearHWL(ft) Name/PWI?PondType(drybasinorwetpond)TP(lb/yr)TSS(lb/yr)TP(lb/yr)TSS(lb/yr)TP(lb/ac/yr)TSS(lb/ac/yr)IV11134.7 0.0 34.7 857.4012"rcpyes 1.0 4.2 5.8 861.97nowet 32.5 10477.2 84.1 55.1 0.79 166.4IV1008.1 0.0 8.1 896.0012''rcpandweir0.6 2.6 6.0 898.98nowet 10.9 3507.5 89.2 61.4 1.19 264.6IV9357.9 17.8 75.7 931.00userdefined1.0 2.5 4.6 934.08nowet 73.7 23781.9 96.5 69.7 0.94 219.0IV11312.2 56.6 68.8 954.8036''rcp2.2 4.2 43.8 959.46nowet 2.5 793.8 98.6 72 0.04 8.3MARIECREEKCULVERT49.4 329.24 378.64 870.62Ͳ36''rcpsyes 23.44 90.92 287.45 874.76nowet 47.2 15209.3 26.9 3.7 0.03 1.5IV11425.3 68.8 94.1 938.2536"rcpandweiryes 2.97 12.84 74.75 939.46nowet 5.7 1827.4 91.7 58.4 0.06 11.3IV9811.8 0.0 11.8 911.0*userdefined0.4 1.7 5.9 912.81nodry 17.3 5587.8 96.1 88.8 1.41 420.5IV118134.8 106.6 241.4 876.50 userdefinedandweir0.0 22.2 294.8 880.93nowet 128 41297 85.4 56.4 0.45 96.5IV11612.5 0.0 12.5 926.00 userdefinedandweir0.4 1.5 4.2 927.61nowet 2.4 755.5 99.2 72.4 0.19 43.8IV12516.1 0.0 16.1 845.0015''rcpandweiryes4.7 8.8 14.7 849.96nowet 37.9 12226.1 70.9 40.1 1.67 304.5IV12623.8 16.1 39.9 804.0*8''cmpandweiryes 0.8 3.3 52.8 810.39nodry 64.6 20874.6 78.5 56.6 1.27 296.1IV1390.0 3742.9 3742.9 723.0* userdefinedandweir318.7 605.4 1520.8 766.59nodry 254.7 82200.5 6.9 0.6 0.00 0.1IV6417.7 0.0 17.7 828.606''rcpandweir1.8 43.4 132.1 837.60nowet 15.4 4956.9 90.3 62.4 0.79 174.8IF473.7 226.4 300.1 917 userdefinedandweiryes 35.0 141.8 393.8 921.47nowet 76 23596.4 44.2 78.8 0.11 61.96IF127 199.4 226.4 957.35 userdefinedandweiryes 57.1 97.6 147.3 964.38nowet 28.3 8782.8 59.2 89.4 0.07 34.68IF21107.7 126.6 234.3 892 userdefinedandweiryes 75.9 175.1 631.8 903.91nowet 157.3 48786.6 25.1 56.3 0.17 117.23IF1510.7 0 10.7 941.63*12''rcpandweiryes 4.6 11.1 50.0 946.61nodry 16.5 5117.5 7.8 35.2 0.12 168.35IF1619.3 10.7 30 925.0*12"rcpandweiryes 6.5 22.7 117.1 930.38nodry 30.3 9395.2 7.7 31.5 0.08 98.65IF1822 0 22 968.7*12''cmpandweiryes 2.4 6.1 119.6 973.65nodry 34.3 10645.4 57.4 78.4 0.89 379.36MB834.2 0 34.2 835.4* userdefinedandweir0.0 0.0 17.5 845.35nodry 53.1 16469 96.1 99.3 1.49 478.18MB1022.2 0 22.2 847.936''cmpandweiryes 0.5 0.7 2.5 856.06nowet 34.9 10833.2 42.4 74.9 0.67 365.50MB1715.6 0 15.612''rcpandweiryes2.9 6.7 67.4 893.43nodry 24.3 7548.6 14.5 45.8 0.23 221.62MB164.1 0 4.16''rcpandweiryes 1.8 2.1 19.8 890.20nodry 2.3 724 42.6 51.5 0.24 90.94MB3162.6 0 62.6 860*24''rcpandweir3.4 13.0 23.3 866.40nodry 113.7 35243.4 89.4 97 1.62 546.10MB327.2 62.6 69.8 860*24''rcp3.4 12.7 23.1 863.33nodry 12.7 3945 95.4 99.4 0.17 56.18MB3360.9 69.8 130.7 78830''rcp4.1 16.8 38.4 793.12nowet 84.2 26120.4 53.5 84.4 0.34 168.67DrainageArea(ac)IVCREEKIvyFallsandMissBluffsDischargeRate(cfs)AnnualLoading%RemovalRemovalpage 182 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: August 21, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Final Plat for “The Orchard” and Developers Agreement Orchard Heights, LLC Introduction The City Council is asked to consider and approve the Final Plat of The Orchard, the new subdivision of the former Olin family properties located at 1136 – 1140 Orchard Place; along with the final Developers Agreement between Orchard Heights, LLC and the City of Mendota Heights. Background & Discussion On August 15, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-57, a resolution that denied the Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights, along with a variance and wetlands permit needed for said plat. Due to a subsequent Dakota County District Court ruling, on April 17, 2018 the City Council was directed to adopt Resolution No. 2018-32, which approved the Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights. Since that meeting, the original developer, Mr. Marcel Eibensteiner has passed away, and his son Keith Eibensteiner stepped in to head the project. However, the project management and construction responsibilities are now being handled by Mr. Tim Thone, of TMT Land Holdings of Woodbury, MN. The subdivision’s title has also been re-named to “The Orchard” by order of Dakota County Surveyors due to a similar “Orchard Heights” plat title in Eagan. This final plat documents and developer’s agreement have been reviewed by the Developer’s attorney and city attorney; and all parties found the plat and the agreement to be acceptable. Budget Impact There are no impacts to the city budget. Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council adopt a motion to approve the RESOLUTION 2018-65, A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF THE ORCHARD; and ACCEPT AND APPROVE THE DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT FOR THE ORCHARD SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT, located at 1136 – 1140 Orchard Place, and authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to execute said developers agreement on behalf of the City of Mendota Heights. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote for both items. page 183 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2018-65 RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR THE ORCHARD 1136 AND 1140 ORCHARD PLACE WHEREAS, Orchard Heights, LLC, (the “Developer”) is requesting consideration and approval of the Final Plat of THE ORCHARD, a new subdivision of properties located at 1136 and 1140 Orchard Place (the “Subject Property”), and legally described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, on June 27, 2017 and July 25, 2017, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the applications of a proposed preliminary plat, variance and wetlands permit of a new subdivision to be titled “Orchard Heights”, whereby the commission offered a motion to recommend approval of the plat, variance and wetlands permit, but said motion failed and therefore constituted a recommendation of denial; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 2017, the City Council received the recommendation of denial from the Planning Commission, and City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-57, a resolution denying the preliminary plat, variance and wetlands permit for Orchard Heights, with certain findings of denial; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 2017, the case of Royal Oaks Realty, Inc., etal vs. the City of Mendota Heights came before Dakota County District Court, whereby the Roya Oaks motion for summary judgment against the City was granted (on March 8, 2018), and the City was ordered by said Court to “unconditionally approve the Orchard Heights Preliminary Plat under the City’s standard subdivision ordinance, including the variance for the proposed cul-de-sac…”; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-32, a resolution approving the preliminary plat, variance and wetlands permit for Orchard Heights subdivision. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Final Plat of THE ORCHARD (formerly titled “Orchard Heights”) as presented herein and a preliminary copy of which is attached as Exhibit B, is hereby approved, based on the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed final plat is consistent with the general layout and overall design illustrated on the original and previously approved preliminary plat. 2. The proposed final plat meets the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code, including the proposed and approved planned use of the site as new single-family residential development. page 184 3. The proposed final plat meets the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Code, including layout, grading, drainage, easements and lot arrangements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Final Plat of THE ORCHARD, related to the original plat application made under Planning Case No. 2017- 14, is hereby approved; and the Developers Agreement between Orchard Heights, LLC and the City of Mendota Heights is also acceptable and approved, and hereby authorizes the Mayor and City Administrator to execute said developers agreement on behalf of the City. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 21st day of August, 2018. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 185 EXHIBIT A Legal Description – 1136 Orchard Place PID: 27-54150-01-010 Lot 1, Block 1, Olin Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota AND Legal Description – 1140 Orchard Place PID: 27-54150-01-020 Lot 2, Block 1, Olin Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota page 186 EXHIBIT B page 187 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT THE ORCHARD SUBDIVISION THIS DEVELOPER’S AGREEMENT (The Orchard Subdivision), is made and entered into this ______ day of ________________, 2018, by and between the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, a municipal corporation and political subdivision under the laws of the State of Minnesota, having its principal office at 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118-4167 (the “City”) and Orchard Heights, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, its successors and assigns as permitted herein, having its principal office at 2242 Cottage Grove Alcove, Woodbury, MN 55129 (the “Developer”). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the subject property consists of approximately 13.45 acres in area; and is generally located in the mid-central area of the City lying west of Lexington Avenue, east of Hunter Lane and directly south of Orchard Place, addressed as 1136 and 1140 Orchard Place, and is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Property is guided as “LR Low-Density Residential” in the City’s current 2030 Comprehensive Plan and is zoned R-1 One Family Residential; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 2018, the City Council of the City granted approval of the Preliminary Final Plat of Orchard Heights (the “Development”), which is the planned re-subdivision of the Property described herein, by adopting Resolution No. 2018-32, which is attached as Exhibit B and is made a part of this Agreement (the “Resolution”); and WHEREAS, the Resolution also approved a variance for a cul-de-sac and a wetlands permit in the Development; and WHEREAS, the Developer has prepared and intends to record a final plat of the new subdivision consisting of eighteen (18) new single–family dwelling lots (the “Project”), to be platted and known as “Orchard Heights” (the “Final Plat”) attached hereto as Exhibit C; and page 188 WHEREAS, the Developer shall prepare and submit for approval to the City the final grading and drainage plans, which shall include any and all related specifications, drawings and related documents with respect to all Infrastructure Improvements (herein defined) as contained in the final Grading and Drainage Plans (the “Final Plans”), approved by the Public Works Director, and which plans were also considered and approved by City Council under a general grading permit approval on June 5, 2018, and which are attached hereto as Exhibit D. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual promises and conditions hereinafter contained, it is hereby agreed as follows: SECTION 1 - Representations and Warranties 1. Representations by the City. The City represents, warrants, and covenants to the following: a) The City is a municipal corporation and political subdivision duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota. The City is authorized and has the requisite power to enter into this Agreement and perform its obligations hereunder. b) The City shall use reasonable efforts to cooperate and work with the Developer in connection with: i. further applications, agreements, amendments and approvals relating to, among other things, site plan, planned unit developments, subdivision, utility and other development matters to permit the development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement and the Final Plans; ii. any requirements of local, state or federal governments or agencies thereof relating to the development of the Project; and iii. coordinating the sequencing, commencement and completion of the Infrastructure Improvements. 2. Representations, Covenants and Warranties by the Developer. The Developer represents, warrants, and covenants to the following: a) The Developer is a duly and legally formed Minnesota limited liability company, and is not in violation of any the laws of local, state or federal government, and has all necessary power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to carry out its obligations hereunder. b) All Infrastructure Improvements constructed by the Developer will be constructed, operated and maintained (to the extent retained by it) in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the Final Plans and all local, state and federal laws and regulations (including, but not limited to, environmental, zoning, building code, energy conservation, and public health laws and regulations). c) The Developer has received no notice or communication from any local, state or federal official that the activities of the Developer in the Property may be or will be in violation of any known state or federal environmental laws. The Developer has no knowledge of any facts, the existence of which would cause it or any of its projects to be in violation of any environmental laws, or which would give any person a valid claim under any such environmental laws. page 189 d) The Developer shall use its reasonable efforts to pursue and obtain, in a diligent and timely manner, all required permits, licenses and approvals, and will seek to meet, in a timely manner, all requirements of all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations which must be obtained or met before the Infrastructure Improvements may be lawfully constructed. e) Neither the execution nor the delivery of this Agreement by the Developer, nor the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, nor the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement is prevented, materially limited by, or materially conflicts with or results in a material breach of the terms, conditions or provisions of any restriction or any evidences of indebtedness, agreement or instrument of whatever nature to which the Developer is now a party or by which it is bound, or constitutes a default under any of the foregoing. f) The Developer shall cooperate and use its reasonable efforts with the City, in a reasonable, timely and diligent manner, in connection with (a) applications, agreements, amendments and approvals relating to, among other things, site plan, planned unit developments, subdivision, utility installation, submittal for approval of Final Plans and other development matters to permit the development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement and the Final Plans, (b) any requirements of local, state or federal governments or agencies thereof relating to the development of the Project, and (c) coordinating the sequencing, commencement and completion of the Infrastructure Improvements. SECTION 2 - Infrastructure Improvements 1. Final Plans. The Developer will install and construct at its sole expense the following improvements, according to and as shown on the Final Plans, which shall include or provide for at a minimum, specifications for the following, which collectively upon approval as provided for herein shall be known as the “Infrastructure Improvements,” and per the following terms and conditions: (a) Grading and compacting of the Property as necessary for the installation of Infrastructure Improvements set forth herein and as shown on a specific Final Plans for the Property; (b) Installation of the public roadway system, tentatively identified on the Final Plat as Orchard Heights Lane (the “Public Road”) in compliance with all City requirements; plus all of the following when located within the Public Road: curbs, gutters, fire hydrants, and related fire safety items meeting the requirements of the Fire Chief, public street signs, non- mechanical traffic controls, landscaping, trees, ground cover or plantings; (c) Installation of necessary utilities within the Public Road including without limitation: 1) electric, 2) telephone, 3) natural gas, 4) water, 5) sanitary sewer, 6) cable, and 7) storm sewer; (d) All landscaping and erosion control measures necessary for the Development as shown on the Erosion Control Plan and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (the “SWPPP”) as contained in the Final Plans; (e) St. Paul Regional Water Services. Installation of water mains shall be in accordance with the Final Plans and shall conform with the St. Paul Regional Water Services (the “RWS”) specifications; and page 190 (f) Sanitary Sewer and Water Easements. All easements and public right-of-ways shall be dedicated to the City, as shown on the Final Plat, for all sanitary sewer and water utilities. 2. Developer Requirements. The Developer shall be financially responsible for the completion of the Infrastructure Improvements in compliance with the Final Plans. Additionally, the Developer shall be solely responsible for completion of the following: a) Demolition. Demolition and removal of all existing structures, foundations, un-useable septic systems, utilities and un-useable driveways or roadways. b) Access During Development. During the period from commencement of construction of any single-family residential unit until the final sale of all of the single-family residential units by the Developer, the Developer shall install and maintain an access road serving each single-family residential unit under construction that satisfies the following requirements: presence of all-weather gravel base, with a gravel or pavement surface that accommodates City inspection vehicles and emergency vehicles; a looped access road, which may utilize a reasonable combination of portions of the Public Road, the private streets and the paved drives currently existing on the Property, and which loop may be reconfigured from time to time as phases advance but shall be accessible to City emergency vehicles at all times; the provision of reasonable and customary snowplowing of such access road; the location of such access road may not be more than 200 feet from each of the single-family residential units under construction. c) Erosion Control. Prior to initiating any Infrastructure Improvements or site grading, the erosion control measures depicted on the Final Plans, the Erosion Control Plan, and the SWPPP shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved in writing by the City. The City may, in its sole discretion, impose at no cost to the City, reasonable, additional erosion control requirements on the Developer if the City determines that such additional measures are necessary to meet the erosion control requirements as described in the Final Plans. All areas disturbed by grading shall be reasonably reseeded in a timely fashion to meet the erosion control requirements as described in the Final Plans. All seeded areas shall be mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. If the Developer does not comply with the Erosion Control Plan and the SWPPP or supplementary conditions imposed by the City, the City may take such reasonable action as is necessary to control erosion. The City will notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action. The Developer shall be solely responsible for any costs properly incurred by the City for erosion control measures. If the Developer does not reimburse the City for any cost the City properly incurred for such work within thirty (30) days of invoice, the City shall be allowed to recover its cost by execution securities contained in the Escrow Agreement (hereafter defined). No Infrastructure Improvement or paving construction will be allowed unless the Project is in compliance with the erosion control requirements. d) Storm Sewer Maintenance. The Developer shall be responsible for maintenance of the storm water ponds shown on the Final Plans during the construction of the Project. The Developer shall provide the City with an inspection report and as-built grading plan verifying the ponds are constructed and operating in accordance with the Final Plans. Subsequent maintenance, as required by any federal, state or local governmental entity or regulation shall be provided by the City. page 191 e) Easement and Right-of-Way Dedications. The Final Plat recorded in Dakota County for the Project shall include, at no cost to the City, any and all required utility, drainage, public and access easements as identified on the Final Plat and within this Agreement. f) Plantings in Easement Areas. Any plantings or landscaping in the aforementioned easements or right-of-ways shall be as provided in the Final Plans and any new landscape plan submitted for each new single-family building lot. g) Utility Locations. Delivery of an as-built survey of all utilities that fall with the aforementioned easements or right-of-ways to the City based on the Dakota County coordinate system and within two (2) feet of the horizontal, including: i. Top nut of hydrants, catch basin and manhole rims and inverts, ii. Sanitary sewers at the wye, property line and where it enters the single-family residential unit or other structure, iii. Water services at the corporation stop, curb box and where it enters the single-family residential unit or other structure, iv. Flared end sections, v. Drain tile within the right-of-way, and vi. Any other information or utility work necessary, as determined by the Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety, necessary for the City to conform to the requirements of Minnesota Administrative Rule 7560. h. Park Dedication Fee. Pursuant to the provisions of the City Code, Section 11-5-1 and this Agreement, the Developer shall pay to the City a Park Dedication Fee of Sixty-Four Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($64,000.00) prior to the City signing the Final Plat. i. Pre-Construction Meeting. The Developer agrees to hold one or more pre-construction meetings prior to the initiation of the Infrastructure Improvements, which meetings shall include the Developer, its engineers and contractors, the Public Works Director and other City staff, Dakota County, MnDOT (if necessary), RWS representatives, and representatives from all other private utility providers serving the Development. j. Quality of Work. The Developer agrees that all the Infrastructure Improvements, including all labor, materials and supplies, shall be done and performed in a good and workmanlike manner and in conformance with the Final Plans as approved by the City, and on file with the City Clerk. k. Engineering and Location Services. The Developer shall furnish all engineering services for the Infrastructure Improvements, including: i. Preparation of complete plans and specifications by a professional engineer; ii. Geotechnical testing for design and during construction of the Infrastructure Improvements; page 192 iii. Determination, by a professional excavator or land surveyor, of the precise location of underground utility facilities, without damage, prior to excavating within two feet on either side of the marked location of said facilities; and iv. Unless the Public Works Director makes a written determination that technology is not currently available, installation of a locating wire that effectively marks the location of each nonconductive underground facility installed after December 31, 2005 within a public right-of-way. l. Hours of Operation. Developer will not permit any grading, construction, mobilization, equipment maintenance, fueling or other physical work to be conducted on the site outside of the specified working hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Permission from the Mendota Heights City Council is required for work on Sundays or Holidays. m. Staking and Inspection. It is further agreed that the Developer shall provide any staking or surveying services as required by the Public Works Director. The Developer agrees to reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of a written request, for the cost of the City to provide a City inspector for any required or requested inspection of any Infrastructure Improvements in order to assure that the completed Infrastructure Improvements conform to the Final Plans. The City and RWS will provide for general and final inspection and shall be notified of all tests to be performed. The Developer shall use reasonable efforts to coordinate its inspector, the City Inspector and RWS inspectors’ inspections at various times to check the condition of water stop boxes and other utility extensions. n. Emergency Access. At all times prior to sale of all of the single-family residential units, the Developer shall provide maintain emergency access to the Development as all time. o. Building Permits. As part of the building permit application process, the City shall promptly review plans prepared by the Developer and/or its contractors, and shall use good faith efforts to review the plans and approve or disapprove within twenty-one (21) business days. The City’s approval of the plans shall not be unreasonably withheld and the Developer will promptly reply to requests for additional information or clarification on items requested by the City in order to ensure an efficient review process. The plans for the Infrastructure Improvements shall be consistent with standard City practices. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Agreement, the written terms of the plans approved by the City shall control. p. Certificate of Occupancy. No Certificate of Occupancy for any new single-family residential unit shall be issued by the City unless and until all Infrastructure Improvements serving the Project and all residential units have been installed, inspected and accepted by the City and by RWS and are available for use, and to the reasonable satisfaction of the City and so long as no Event of Default exists under this Agreement, remains uncured by the Developer. Furthermore, the Developer shall maintain reasonable access to any occupied units, including necessary street maintenance such as grading and graveling and snow removal prior to permanent street surfacing of the Public Road. q. Final Inspection. Upon completion of all Infrastructure Improvements except the final paving lift to the Public Road, and written notice from the Developer to the Public Works Director, the Public Works Director or a designated representative, a representative of the Developer, its contractor, and its engineer will make a final inspection of the Infrastructure page 193 Improvements. Before final payment is made to any contractor responsible for the Infrastructure Improvements by the Developer, the Public Works Director shall give the Developer written notice that the Public Works Director is satisfied that all Infrastructure Improvements except the final paving lift were satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved Final Plans, as indicated in writing by the Public Works Director, and the Developer shall submit to the City a written statement attesting to the same along with a certificate, attested to by a Registered Land Surveyor, that all property corners and survey control points have been properly installed. Upon completion of the Infrastructure Improvements except the final paving lift to the Public Road, the Developer shall cause to be provided to the Public Works Director an electronic copy of the Final Plans and the as- built survey, both in a form acceptable to the Public Works Director. Such electronic copies of Final Plans shall include survey control points. These electronic Final Plans shall also include the locations, elevations and ties to all sanitary sewer and water main services. The Developer shall remain obligated at its expense to complete the final paving lift as weather permits. SECTION 3 – Financial Commitments and Warranties 1. Escrow Agreement. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Agreement, the Developer has agreed to provide a separate Escrow Agreement (the “Escrow Agreement”), dated as of the date hereof, among the Developer, the City and a specified title services company (the “Title Company”) to pay for and disburse funds for the payment of completed an accepted Infrastructure Improvement work as part of the Development. The Developer shall furnish the City with a signed Escrow Agreement, specifying a deposit of money and securities in an amount equal to 125% of the cost of the Infrastructure Improvements. The amount of the Escrow Agreement shall be as determined by the Developer’s engineer’s estimate, as further described in the Escrow Agreement. The amount of the Escrow Agreement shall be $500,000.00. The Title Company shall be subject to the approval of the City; shall be authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota, and with a principal branch located within the seven-county Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The Escrow Agreement shall remain in full force and effect until the Development has been completed or this Agreement has been terminated. 2. No Warranty; Changes to Infrastructure Improvements. Approval of the Final Plans, any portion thereof or any changes thereto by the City is not intended, nor shall it be construed to be a warranty or representation by the City as to: (i) the compliance of the Project with any federal, state, or local statutes, regulations, or ordinances; (ii) the structural soundness of the proposed Project; (iii) quality of materials; (iv) workmanship; or (v) the fitness of the Infrastructure Improvements for their proposed uses. a) The Developer shall submit to the Public Works Director for approval any changes in the Final Plans. The City shall approve changes in the Final Plans in writing if, in the reasonable judgment of the City the changed Final Plans: (i) conform to the terms and conditions of this Agreement; (ii) conform to the specifications established by the City or Public Works Director; (iii) conform to all applicable local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations; and (iv) the construction sequencing is such that the City will be able to comply with its obligations set forth herein. No approval by the City of changes to the Final Plans shall relieve the Developer of the obligation to comply with the terms of this Agreement. Any rejection of any change requested shall set forth the reasons therefor. b) For any changes in the Infrastructure Improvements, said improvements shall not be constructed until the City has issued a written approval of any such requested change to page 194 the Final Plans. c) The City may choose to waive this procedure in the future as to any change, however, no such waiver shall be construed as a waiver of the City’s rights pursuant to this Agreement or this section with respect to further changes subsequent to any such waiver. 3. City Expenses. The Developer agrees to reimburse the City for reasonable costs, fees, charges or expenses of the City, related to legal costs, (not related to fees incurred in past litigation between the parties), planning, and engineering services, including without limitation inspection, surveying, supervision and administration costs and fees (collectively, the “City Expenses”) within thirty (30) days of a receipt of a detailed invoice from the City. If such payments are not received by the City within said thirty (30) days, all approvals of the City and the Public Works Director detailed in this Agreement shall be suspended and have no effect until such time as the Developer has paid the City for all City Expenses. Such lack of payment shall also constitute an Event of Default as described in Section 5 of this Agreement. 4. Warranty. The Developer warrants all Infrastructure Improvements required to be constructed by it pursuant to this Agreement against poor material and faulty workmanship. The warranty period for streets is one year. The warranty period for underground utilities is two years. The warranty period on Infrastructure Improvements installed by the Developer shall commence on the date the Public Works Director issues written acceptance of such improvements. The Developer shall post warranty bonds as security. The City shall retain twenty-five (25%) of the security posted by the Developer until the Public Works Director accepts the Infrastructure Improvements installed by the Developer. All punch list items must be completed and “as-built” drawings received prior to the commencement of the warranty period. The retained security may be used by the City to pay for warranty work within the above-referenced warranty time periods. The City standard specifications for utilities and street construction identify the procedures for final acceptance of streets and utilities. These standards are set out in the Public Works Design Manual. 5. City’s Right to Complete Improvements. The Developer is not required by this Agreement to commence any Infrastructure Improvements, and the Developer may suspend or terminate its work at any time; provided that all Infrastructure Improvements that have been commenced shall be completed in a manner complying with applicable legal requirements and provided further that upon final inspection the Developer shall be required to complete the final paving lift on the Public Road in accordance with this Agreement. If the Developer fails to diligently prosecute in a timely manner completion of any Infrastructure Improvements that have been commenced, in compliance with and pursuant to the Final Plans, and fails to resume diligent prosecution of the same within ten (10) days after receipt of notice of failure to diligently prosecute from the City, the City shall be free to exercise its option to complete any of the Infrastructure Improvements required of the Developer. The Developer agrees to be and shall be financially responsible for payment to the City for correction of the non-conforming or abandoned work within thirty (30) days of formal billing by the City. If the City has not been paid within 30 days of billing for this work, City may obtain reimbursement through execution on securities contained in the Escrow Agreement, as further described in this Agreement. 6. Infrastructure Improvement Acceptance by the City. Following acceptance of the Infrastructure Improvements by the City and Public Works Director as described in this Agreement, the City shall, in conjunction with other public entities as necessary, including but not limited to RWS, be responsible to maintain and repair all Infrastructure Improvements located in the public easements and rights-of-way of the Development. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and regardless of when the Infrastructure Improvements are actually accepted by the City, the Developer is responsible to page 195 complete the final paving lift of the Public Road. 7. Maintenance Prior to City Acceptance. Until acceptance by the City of the Infrastructure Improvements, the Developer shall be solely responsible for all maintenance and repair of the Infrastructure Improvements. Prior to acceptance of the Infrastructure Improvements by the City, the Developer shall cause warning signs and established detour routes to be placed on and around such streets and other improvements whenever any dangerous or hazardous condition exists on the Property, as necessary, to prevent public travel on and over such property. If and when streets become impassable, such streets shall be barricaded and closed. Streets within the Development may not otherwise be closed without the written approval of the Public Works Director. The Developer shall be responsible for keeping paved streets within the Development swept clean of dirt and debris that may spill or wash onto the street from this operation and shall conduct any additional sweeping as reasonably requested by the City, at the Developer’s cost. The Developer shall keep all the paved streets and access roads within the Development open during the winter months by plowing snow from said streets prior to final acceptance of said streets by the City. SECTION 4 - Indemnification, Release and Insurance 1. Indemnity. The Developer, the Developer’s contractors or subcontractors, materialmen, and laborers, release and waive any claims of liability or responsibility in any way against the City, the City Council, and its agents, consultants or employees, arising out of the performance and completion of the Project provided for herein, except for any (i) breach by the City of its obligations hereunder and (ii) gross negligence or intentional misconduct of the City. Additionally, the Developer will unconditionally indemnify and hold the City harmless from all such claims, demands, damages, actions or causes of actions or the cost of disbursement, and expenses of defending the same, specifically including, without intending to limit the categories of said costs, costs and expenses for City administrative time and labor, costs of consulting engineering services and costs of legal services rendered in connection with defending such claims as may be brought against the City. 2. Release and Waiver. The Developer agrees to rely entirely upon its own property insurance for coverage with respect to any damage, loss or injury to the property interests of the Developer in the Project or interests which may be exposed to damage, loss or injury in connection therewith. The Developer hereby releases the City, its officers, employees, agents, and others acting on its behalf from all liability or responsibility to the Developer, and to anyone claiming through or under the Developer, by way of subrogation or otherwise, for any loss of or damage to the Developer’s business or property caused by fire or other peril or event to the extent that such fire or other peril or event was covered by any type of real or personal property insurance, including any indirect property insurance (such as business interruption coverage) in effect on the date of the loss, even if such fire or other peril or event was caused in whole or in part by the negligence or other act or omission of the City or other party who is to be released by the terms hereof; or by anyone for whom such party may be responsible. 3. Insurance. Except as is specifically provided to the contrary in the following provisions of this Section, the Developer agrees to provide and maintain at all times the insurance coverage set forth in this Section, and to otherwise comply with the provisions that follow. a) Builders’ Risk. Builders’ Risk Insurance, written on a Completed Value coverage form (non-reporting), in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the insurable value of the Infrastructure Improvements at the date of completion. Such coverage shall become effective concurrent with the beginning of the process of construction, and shall continue page 196 until replaced by the permanent all risk Property Insurance described below. Coverage shall be provided on an “all risk” basis. b) Workers’ Compensation. Workers’ Compensation insurance in compliance with all applicable statutes. Such policy shall include Employer’s Liability coverage in at least such amount(s) as are customarily provided in workers’ compensation policies issued in Minnesota. c) General Liability. Occurrence-Based Commercial General Liability insurance, providing coverage on an “occurrence”, rather than on a “claims made” basis, which policy shall include coverage for the Completed Operations Hazard, and which shall also include a Broad Form General Liability Endorsement GL 0404 (Insurance Services Office form designation), or an equivalent form (or forms), so long as such equivalent form (or forms) affords coverage which is in all material respects at least as broad. The Developer agrees to maintain total liability policy limits of at least $2,000,000, applying to liability for Bodily Injury, Personal Injury, and Property Damage, which total limits may be satisfied by the limits afforded under its Occurrence-Based Commercial General Liability Policy (which Policy is to include the Broad Form Endorsement coverage specified above), or by such Policy in combination with the limits afforded by an Umbrella Liability Policy (or policies); provided, however, that the coverage afforded under any such Umbrella Liability Policy shall be at least as broad as that afforded by the underlying Occurrence-Based Commercial General Liability Policy (including Broad Form coverage). Such Occurrence-Based Commercial General Liability Policy and Umbrella Liability Policy (or policies) may provide aggregate limits for some or all of the coverages afforded thereunder, so long as such aggregate limits have not, as of the date of the Developer’s possession of the Property, been reduced to less than the total required limits stated above, and further, that the Umbrella Liability Policy provides coverage from the point that such aggregate limits in the underlying Occurrence-Based Commercial General Liability Policy become reduced or exhausted. An Umbrella Policy which “drops down” to respond immediately over reduced underlying limits, or in place of exhausted underlying limits, but subject to a deductible amount, shall be acceptable in this regard so long as such deductible amount does not cause the Developer’s total deductible for each occurrence to exceed the amount shown in the provision immediately below. All such policies described in this Section shall also name the City as an additional insured and permit waiver of claims in favor of the City. Copies of all policy certificates must be provided to the City. d) Property Insurance. All risk property insurance in an amount not less than the full insurable replacement value of the Infrastructure Improvements. The term “full insurable replacement value” shall mean the actual replacement cost of the Infrastructure Improvements (excluding foundation and excavation costs and costs of underground flues, pipes, drains, and other items customarily omitted from replacement cost valuation for insurance purposes), without deduction for depreciation. e) Insurers. All policies of insurance required under this Agreement shall be maintained with financially sound and reputable insurers licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota and as reasonably acceptable to the City. All policies of insurance required under this page 197 Agreement shall be in form and content, and in all other respects reasonably satisfactory to the City. f) Non-Imputation. All covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the City or the City contained herein shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the City and not of any governing body member, officer, agent, consultant or employee of the City, in their individual capacity. SECTION 5 - Events of Default 1. Defined. The term “Event of Default” shall mean any failure by the Developer or the City to observe or perform any covenant, condition, obligation or agreement on its part to be observed or performed under this Agreement 2. Remedies. Whenever any party becomes aware of the occurrence of an Event of Default, the non- defaulting party may, after providing twenty (20) days’ written notice to the defaulting party of the Event of Default, but only if the Event of Default has not been cured within said twenty (20) days or, if the Event of Default is by its nature incurable within twenty days and the defaulting party does not provide assurances reasonably satisfactory to the non-defaulting party that the Event of Default will be cured as soon as reasonably possible, take whatever other action permitted by law, including the termination of this Agreement and any other legal, equitable or administrative action, which may appear necessary or desirable to cure any such Event of Default or to enforce performance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant under this Agreement. 3. No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to either party is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies. Each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute. No delay or omission to exercise any remedy or power accruing upon any Event of Default shall impair any such remedy or power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof. Any such remedy and power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. In order to entitle either party to exercise any remedy reserved to it, it shall not be necessary to give notice, other than such notice as may be required in this Section. 4. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver. In the event any Event of Default is waived by the non-defaulting party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular Event of Default so waived and shall not be deemed to waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent Event of Default hereunder. SECTION 6 - Expiration or Termination of Agreement 1. Automatic Expiration. This Agreement shall automatically expire upon: a) Completion of the Infrastructure Improvements in accordance with the Final Plans; and b) Acceptance of the Infrastructure Improvements by the City (not including the final paving lift of the Public Road by the Developer). In the case of any single-family housing unit sold to a third party that is not an affiliate of the Developer, such unit shall be automatically released from this Agreement upon such sale so long as a final Certificate of Occupancy for such unit has been issued by the City. page 198 2. Option to Terminate. Except as otherwise provided herein, the City or the Developer may terminate this Agreement if there occurs an Event of Default pursuant to this Agreement that is not cured within the applicable cure period. 3. Effect of Termination. Following the termination or expiration of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be null and void and of no effect. 4. Evidence of Termination. If requested by the Developer, the City will provide the Developer with a certification recordable among the public land records certifying that this Agreement has been terminated or has expired and, if true, that the Developer was not in default of its obligations hereunder at the time of such termination or expiration. [The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.] page 199 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Developer have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on the date and year first above written. ORCHARD HEIGHTS LLC Date: By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ___________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of __________________, 2018, by ______________________________, the Chief Manager of Orchard Heights, LLC a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of such company. Notary Public page 200 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA Neil Garlock, Mayor Date: Lorri Smith, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of __________________, 2018, by Neil Garlock and Lorri Smith, the Mayor and the City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Mendota Heights, a Minnesota municipal corporation and political subdivision, on behalf of such city. Notary Public page 201 EXHIBIT A Legal Description – 1136 Orchard Place PID: 27-54150-01-010 Lot 1, Block 1, Olin Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota AND Legal Description – 1140 Orchard Place PID: 27-54150-01-020 Lot 2, Block 1, Olin Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota page 202 EXHIBIT B Resolution No. 2018-32 page 203 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2018-32 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ORCHARD HEIGHTS AND A VARIANCE AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1136 & 1140 ORCHARD PLACE WHEREAS, Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oaks Realty (the "Developer"), acting on behalf of Marilyn Olin and David Olin (the "Property Owners") has applied for a preliminary plat to be titled "Orchard Heights", along with a related variance to exceed the normal length of a cul- de-sac roadway and wetlands permit for work in and around an established water feature, as proposed under Planning Case 2017-14, located at 1136 and 1140 Orchard Place (the "Subject Property"), and legally described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, on June 27, 2017, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held an initial public hearing on this plat, variance and wetlands permit applications, whereby a planning staff report was presented and received by the commission, comments from the general public and Developer were received and noted for the record, and upon closing the hearing the Planning Commission recommended to table this matter to the July 25, 2017 meeting; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 2017, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission received a supplemental planning staff report and an updated presentation regarding this new subdivision plat matter, re -opened the public hearing and allowed additional comments from the general public and Developer, and upon closing the hearing the Planning Commission offered a motion to recommend approval of the plat, variance and wetlands permit, but said motion failed 2 votes for and 3 against said adoption, which thereby constituted a recommendation of denial; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 2017, the City Council received the recommendation of denial from the Planning Commission, and after discussion between city staff, city council and the Developer, the council elected to adopt Resolution No. 2018-57, a resolution denying a preliminary plat of Orchard Heights and its related variance and wetlands permit for property located at 1136 and 1140 Orchard Place, with certain findings of denial; and WHEREAS, the case of Royal Oaks Realty, Inc., David J. Olin, James OlinMarital Family Trusts (the "Plaintiffs") vs. the City of Mendota Heights (the "Defendant") came before the Honorable Karen J. Asphaug, Judge of District Court, on December 14, 201 7 at the Dakota County Judicial Center, in Hastings, Minnesota, whereby the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against the Defendant was granted on March 8, 2018, and the City was ordered by said Court to unconditionally approve the Orchard Heights Preliminary Plat under the City's standard subdivision ordinance, including the variance for the proposed cul-de-sac; and page 204 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council, that the Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights, along with its related Variance and Wetlands Permit as originally proposed under Planning Case 2017-14, are all hereby approved with the following amended 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 lieu of land dedication, the Developer/Applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of $4,000 per unit (18 lots — 2 existing lots = 16 x $4,000/unit, or 64,000) 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. The final grading plan must be submitted and approved by the Public Works Director prior to any grading or land disturbance operations, pursuant to Mendota Heights Ordinance §12-1-E-2. 5. 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. 6. The cul-de-sac roadway is allowed to be constructed with no less than a 30 -ft. face- to-face street width. 7. A SWPPP shall be developed for the project as required by Mendota Heights Ordinance. § 14-1-6. Protected waters shall have a double silt fence/redundant BMP, and a separate NPDES permit is required, per MPCA rules. 8. No disturbances shall occur within a 20 -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. 9. No utilities may be buried at a depth greater than 20 feet. 10. Any proposed retaining walls) greater than 4 feet in height require engineered drawings. 11. All Plans shall be reviewed and approved by St. Paul Regional Water Service SPRWS). SPRWS requires inspection of the public utilities and water supply to the fixtures. Res. 2018-32 Page 2 of 4 page 205 12. The Developer/Applicant shall submit a lot survey as part of any building permit application as required by Mendota Heights Ordinance §11-2-3(B). 13. Future construction on the newly -created parcels will be compliant with all applicable City Code and Building Code provisions Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 17th day of April, 2018. OC,F Ric_;iti CITY COUNCIL y.r•• 4 •.• o i y CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS cid or Neil Garlock, -Mayor Lorri Smith, City Clerk Res. 2018-32 Page 3 of 4 page 206 EXHIBIT A Legal Description —1136 Orchard Place PID: 27-54150-01-010 Lot 1, Block 1, Olin Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota AND Legal Description —1140 Orchard Place PID: 27-54150-01-020 Lot 2, Block 1, Olin Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota Res. 2018-32 Page 4 of 4 page 207 EXHIBIT C Final Plat – Orchard Heights page 208 page 209 EXHIBIT D Final Grading and Drainage Plans page 210 page 211 WATER LOT CURB STOP ELEV WYE STATION (A) RISER AT MAIN SERVICE PIPE SLOPE (%) SERVICE INVERT (B) 1 902.5 92 2.0 892.1 2 910.2 69 2.0 897.2 3 920.1 174 2.5 2.0 907.0 4 928.2 281 3.5 2.0 915.5 5 934.9 18 5.0 2.0 923.5 6 937.7 126 8.0 2.0 926.9 7 936.4 269 5.0 2.0 924.5 8 930.8 354 2.0 919.8 9 922.0 372 (C) (C)(C) 10 922.6 370 (C) (C)(C) 11 925.9 368 (C) (C)(C) 12 930.8 357 2.0 919.8 13 936.6 263 7.0 2.0 926.4 14 937.6 120 8.0 2.0 926.9 15 934.8 12 6.0 2.0 924.4 16 928.2 275 6.0 2.0 917.6 17 919.6 168 5.0 2.0 909.1 18 910.1 63 3.0 2.0 899.8 (A) DISTANCE TO DOWNSTREAM M.H. (B) ADD RISER AT END OF SERVICE TO BRING TO NORMAL DEPTH. (C) SERVICES FROM GRINDER PUMPS LOT SEWER & WATER SERVICE INFORMATION SANITARY SEWER page 212 page 213 page 214 page 215 page 216 page 217 page 218 page 219 page 220 page 221 page 222 DATE: August 21, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Bourn Lane – Filling and Site Grading COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve the importation and grading of dirt to the Bourn Lane site, to take advantage of available fill material. BACKGROUND The City of Mendota Heights has been acquiring the Bourn Lane property since the 1990’s for future development. The last parcel was acquired in 2016. The intent has been to use the site for redevelopment, although the end use has not been determined. The Council has discussed alternatives ranging from Light Commercial/Industrial to multiple family housing, to a soccer complex. Regardless of what end use is chosen, it is evident that large amounts of soils corrections will be needed in order to develop the site. There will be a need to import a large amount of quality fill. DISCUSSION With the Orchard Heights project currently underway, there is an opportunity for the city to acquire the fill at no cost. However, in order to utilize this material, the site will need preparation work, including the clearing and grubbing of approximately 2 acres (the entire Bourn site is 14.7 acres.) A contractor will then need to spread and compact the material. Staff became aware of this opportunity very recently. The city received a single quote to clear the vegetation/trees, strip the topsoil, and place and compact the imported borrow material. The quote and a map of the affected area is attached. It should be noted that this is the same contractor that is doing the dirt work for the Orchard property. Because of the timing of the availability of the fill material, there are no other alternatives for pricing. The contractor is waiting for an answer. For a comparison, the current market for a cubic yard of fill material hauled in and compacted would be in the $15.00 per yard range. The quote is $4.98 per cubic yard. page 223 It should be noted that this alone will not make the Bourn site “shovel-ready”. However, it will make it closer to being ready for development. The cost of doing this work should be made up in the form of a higher selling price. This is obviously a long-term investment in the site. All applicable soil erosion and water protection measures would be followed. BUDGET IMPACT The quote submitted by Arnt Construction Company is $86,526.80. This is obviously not a budgeted item. However, if it is of interest, the City could use the “Pre- 98 Non-Increment Fund” to pay for this. This is the same fund which paid for acquisition of the Bourn properties since the 1990’s. It is replenished by revenue from the City-owned cell tower on Northland Drive. The fund balance at the end of 2017 was $50,882, and another $34,000 will be generated in 2018. Together, almost the entire Bourn quote could be paid for, without impacting the operating budget or general reserves. Again, this is a single quote. State law allows for direct negotiation of prices for projects between $25,000 and $175,000. However, the City’s purchasing policy requires multiple bids for projects in excess of $50,000, and so there would have to be an exception made for this. The applicable section summarizing state law (found in the League of MN Cities handbook) is: Contracts below the competitive bidding threshold, but above $25,000. As an alternative to competitive bidding, contracts that are estimated to cost more than $25,000, but not more than $175,000, may be made by direct negotiation. If direct negotiation is used, the council must seek at least two quotations when possible and keep them on file for at least one year after receipt. The phrase in question is “when possible”. Staff will discuss this further with the City Attorney prior to the August 21st meeting. RECOMMENDATION Pending other advice from the City Attorney, it is staff’s recommendation is to have the City Council approve the work to take advantage of the available fill material, and accept the quote of Arnt Construction in the amount of $86,526.80. This would be to prepare the Bourn site, and to import and place approximately 14,000 cubic yards of material. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, accept the proposal of Arnt Construction to prepare the Bourn site, and to import approximately 14,000 yards of fill material, at the price of $86,526.80. page 224 EUEUEUEUEU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU E U E U EUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU((G!. G!.6666666 6 6 6 66 66 66666666666666666666* !* !! ³ "³ (] 80 1 5581272 72 40 503625193 19 4 65 H W Y 5 5 LE M A Y L A K E R D H W Y 5 5 854 856 85 885285086 0848 862846864 8668448688708 4 2 872854856868862862864 86 4 860856 85 6 860 860 866 86 2 84 6 8 6 6 858 868870 8''6''Dakota County GIS Bourn Lane Site Improvments City ofMendotaHeights080 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 8/17/2018 page 225 page 226