The URL can be used to link to this page

2020-08-12 Parks and Rec Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Wednesday August 12, 2020- 6:30 P.M. Mendota Heights City Hall—City Council Chambers AGENDA 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3.Pledge of Allegiance 4.Approval of Agenda 5.Approval of Minutes a.March 10, 2020 Regular Meeting Minutes 6.Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) *See guidelines below 7.Review of Valley View Oak 3rd Addition 8.Acknowledgement of Reports a.Par 3 Update b.Recreation Update 9.New Business a.Rogers Lake Eagle Scout Service Project 10.Unfinished Business a.Work Session with City Council Review 11.Staff Announcements 12.Commission Comments and Park Updates 13.Adjourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hour s is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids. This may not, however, be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 651-452-1850. Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: The Citizen Comments section of the agenda provides an opportunity for the public to address the commission on items which are not on the agenda. All are welcome to speak. Comments should be directed to the Chair. 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 Recreation Program Coordinator to appear on a future Parks and Recreation commission 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 f or political campaign purposes. Commissioners will not enter into a dia logue with citizens, nor will any decisions be made at that presentation. Questions from the Commission 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 hearin g the citizen for information only. If appropriate, the Chair may assign staff for follow up to the issues raised. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING MARCH 10, 2020 The March meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on Tuesday, March 10, 2020, at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. 1. Call to Order – Chair Steve Goldade called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call – The following Commissioners were present: Chair Steve Goldade, Commissioners: Patrick Cotter, Pat Hinderscheid, Bob Klepperich, Stephanie Meyer, and Dan Sherer; absent: Commissioner Amy Smith and Student Representative Matthew Boland. Staff present: Recreation Program Coordinator, Meredith Lawrence, Assistant City Administrator, Cheryl Jacobson, Public Works Director, Ryan Ruzek, and City Administrator Mark McNeill. 3. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 4. Approval of Agenda Motion Klepperich/second Meyer, to approve the agenda AYES 6: NAYS 0 5.a Approval of Minutes from February 11, 2020 Regular Meeting Motion Klepperich/second Hinderscheid to approve the minutes of the February 11, 2020 Parks and Recreation Commission Regular Meeting. AYES 6: NAYS 0 6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) None. 7.Acknowledgement of Reports Chair Goldade read the titles of the two updates (Par 3 and Recreation Updates) and polled the Commissioners for questions. 7.a Par 3 Update Recreation Program Coordinator, Meredith Lawrence, briefly reviewed the unofficial 2019 financial report. Commissioner Hinderscheid asked if the current period will be a time of expenses without revenue. Ms. Lawrence confirmed that although she does not have 2020 financial reports for the group as of yet, the Par 3 would only have expens es and no revenue at this point for 2020. This report was for the financial year 2019. Commissioner Hinderscheid asked for details on the cost of the sprayer. Ms. Lawrence replied that cost was $63,000 but was purchased through the Public Works (Parks) department budget as it will be used for both the Par 3 and parks and therefore did not come from the Par 3 budget. She confirmed that the new irrigation system will provide more control over the amount of water used. She explained that she worked with the course’s turf 1 5a. consultant to develop weekly and month ly maintenance calendars for the course that will help to streamline course operations. 7.b Recreation Update Recreation Program Coordinator Ms. Meredith Lawrence reported that registration opened the previous week. She stated that there are a lot of new programs and about $30,000 has been generated in revenue through registrations thus far. She noted that a warming house update was also provided to the Commission that compared the 2019 season to the 2018 season. Motion Meyer/second Cotter to acknowledge the staff reports. AYES 6: NAYS 0 8.Unfinished Business 8.a Work Session with City Council City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that the City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission have held a joint meeting annually for the past t wo years. He reported that the meeting will take place at the Commission’s April 14th meeting with a focus on capital priorities and funding. He advised that the Council held a workshop in February to discuss many proposed park improvements. He noted that the joint meeting will be an opportunity to further discuss those topics. He explained that the City is at a crossroads a s much of the parks infrastructure is aging and as the City becomes fully developed, therefore funding will become a priority topic. He also reviewed some of the changing demands on the park system and believed that the Commission should look to the future to determine how those changing needs could be met through strategic planning for the parks system. Commissioner Hinderscheid stated that it seemed that during the February Council workshop it seemed that pickleball may not have support. Mr. McNeill explained that the issue was not whether there was support, but whether Valley Park would be the appropriate location. Commissioner Hinderscheid provided statistics on the number of tennis courts in Mendota Heights and the recommended ratio of courts to residents based on the United States Tennis Association. Commissioner Sherer asked for historical input on a parks referendum and whether that has been used as a funding source in the past. Mr. McNeill replied that to his knowledge there was one parks referendum which occurred 30 years ago. He explained that traditionally cities fund parks through levies and/or development fees. Commissioner Cotter stated that the Commission has been talking about setting up a capital improvement plan for each one of the parks on a set schedule. He stated that in terms of funding, the Commission has discussed fundraising and partnerships as addi tional options. He agreed that funding and structuring improvements are high priority items. He commented that the City needs to have a method in place to accept donations from those that wish to contribute. Chair Goldade asked for details on the financ ial parameters for the parks as discussed by the Council at its workshop. 2 Mr. McNeill emphasized that was a workshop and no official action was taken but there was consensus that the full balance should not be spent now. He explained that if the fund s are all spent in 2020, there would be a gap of years without funding. Chair Goldade referenced the list included in the packet from the July 2019 joint worksession between the City Council and Park Commission, which was a collaboration between the two groups. Commissioner Meyer referenced the West St. Paul Ice Arena and asked for information on contributions Mendota Heights has made. Mr. McNeill replied that the City has contributed to the ice arena in the past but 2019 was the last planned year that Mendota Heights contributed. Commissioner Hinderscheid acknowledged that revenue for parks improvements is a challenge and asked staff to research what would need to be done to allow donations for specific projects. Mr. McNeill replied that the intent was that donations would go through the Mendota Heights Foundation, assuming that the organization obtains its 501C3 status, which has been a challenge. He noted that the City can receive donations directly but was unsure that the contributor would receive the same tax credit. He stated that he can research the topic further. Chair Goldade suggested that staff provide an update on the options for donations at the May Commission meeting and noted that the Foundation could provide an update as well. Mr. McNeill agreed that he could provide a report on the mechanics of that for the April meeting work session with the City Council. Commissioner Meyer referenced the sport court used on some tennis courts and stated that the Commission has received mixed reviews on that surfacing. She stated that perhaps that could be included in a future survey. Chair Goldade asked the advantages and disadvantages of holding joint worksessions in different months of the year. Mr. McNeill replied that if something is intended to be included in the next year’s budget, the meeting should take place by April or May as the budget is further along by June. 8.b Schedule Spring Park Visits Recreation Program Coordinator Ms. Meredith L awrence reported that she met with the Chair and Vice Chair to discuss the proposed parks tour for the Spring. She asked which parks the Commission would like to visit and when the tour should occur. It was the consensus of the Commission to hold the parks tour on May 21st at 4:00 p.m. visiting Valley, Hagstrom King, and Victoria Highlands, and Marie parks. Commissioner Meyer asked if there would be interest from the Commission in doing a bike trail outing in addition to the parks tour. She agreed that she could develop a suggested route to review. 3 8.c Community Engagement Check In Recreation Program Coordinator Ms. Meredith Lawrence provided background information on the purpose of the community engagement check -ins. She reported that she attended the PTA meeting with Commissioners Meyer and Klepperich. Chair Goldade stated that he is excited that three of the five check -ins have been completed and there has been valuable information gained. Commissioner Meyer reported that roughly 20 to 25 people attended the PTA meeting and there was a lot of feedback received, including a desire for drinking fountains, dog waste dispensers, and gaga pits. She stated that positive response was heard related to the covered dugout improvements. She noted that comments were received regarding improvements at Hagstrom King and Wentworth. She advised that requests were made for a community pool and inquiries were made related to lighting for tennis courts. She stated that there was a desire for indoor play areas for children and people were happy to hear about the warming house updates. She commented that people liked the variety of uses provided in parks, such as Mendakota. She commented on some of the specific parks in other communities that were ment ioned and the trend for nature-based play areas. She stated that there was talk about the option of adding canoe and paddleboard rentals to Rogers Lake. Commissioner Klepperich stated that many compliments were received in regard to what Mendota Heights has done for its citizens in terms of recreation and the parks facilities. 8.d Student Representative Position Recreation Program Coordinator Ms. Meredith Lawrence reported that the Student Representative position has been posted on the website and ot her platforms. She reported that the current term will expire at the end of May and reviewed the available term which would be open to sophomore or junior high school student s who reside in Mendota Heights. Chair Goldade encouraged that may be interested to apply. 9. New Business 9.a Marie Avenue Street Improvements Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided background details on the plans for the Marie Avenue Street Improvements, noting that the Council will be asked to approve these plans at its meeting on March 17th. Commissioner Sherer referenced the segment of new trail across from Marie Park, noting that would be a helpful addition but noted that there are trees in that location that provide shade for the tennis court. Mr. Ruzek commented that unfortunately there is too much shade provided that cause the court to stay wet. He commented that the Master Gardeners will walk the site to assist with marking trees for removal. Chair Goldade referenced an informal trail used at Marie Park betwee n the tennis court and hockey rink and asked if there is a thought to formalizing that with a stairway. Mr. Ruzek commented that a stairway is out of the scope of this project. He stated that the Council did approve $10,000 of native planting s in the budget this year, which will be focused on 4 Marie Park. He stated that will include a woodchip trail and perhaps that could be an option for that informal trail area. Commissioner Sherer asked if there would be pavement markings included for Valley Park. Mr. Ruzek commented that was not included in the current plan but noted that he met with the consultant the previous week to discuss the striping plan. He provided a brief update on those plans. Commissioner Cotter commented that it would seem that thi s would be the time for the Valley Park improvement recommended by the Commission along with this construction but realized that was not accepted by the Council. Commissioner Sherer asked the timing of the project, noting the baseball season. Mr. Ruzek commented that he is not concerned with the parking being gravel during the baseball season. He stated that the timing of the baseball season is being considered for the road closure that will be necessary for a portion of the project. Commissioner Klepperich asked the ideal construction timeline, if the plans are approved by the Council the following week. Mr. Ruzek reviewed the proposed project schedule, noting that construction would most likely occur from May to October. Commissioner Meyer asked if a trail segment would remain. Mr. Ruzek confirmed that all the existing trails would remain and be upgraded to “like-new” condition. Commissioner Meyer asked if the speed limit would be changed throughout Marie, as the width is changed. Mr. Ruzek reviewed the existing speed limits on the different segments of the road. He agreed that it would be nice to have a consistent speed limit but that has not yet been decided. Chair Goldade asked if there would be a ramp at the Eagle Ridge intersection. Mr. Ruzek confirmed that there would be a ramp to access the trail. Chair Goldade referenced the decision to remove the crosswalks at two intersections and asked if bump outs were considered. Mr. Ruzek commented that cost is an element for the project and ex plained that those were not included as there does not appear to be a high volume of people crossing at the locations. 10.Staff Announcements Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence shared the following announcements: Field permits were sent out the previous week to user groups Registration is open for recreation programs online and at City Hall 5 Park Celebration donations are being accepted at this time for the June 6 th event Family Kickball Tournament on May 16 th; registration is available on the School District website “Touch a Truck” event on May 9th at Public Works Earth and Arbor Day Planting on April 25 th at 1 p.m.; additional volunteers are needed Other events can be found on the city’s website 11. Student Representative Update None. 12. Commission Comments and Park Updates Commissioner Hinderscheid Visited the dog park and spoke with some users The pop-up encouraging residents to sign -up for updates is a great addition to the website Inver Grove Heights will be offering an archery program Commissioner Meyer Marie Park has had a lot of user activity Commissioner Klepperich The City does a great job with the Heights Highlights publication mailed to residents Opportunity to purchase trees starting the following day, information is available on the City website Commissioner Sherer Excited at the possibility that the golf course could open in March Noted a lot of activity at Hagstrom King There is a stockpile at Hagstrom King that needs to be removed by the contractor Asked for an update on the basketball court Mr. Ruzek stated that he has spoken with the contractor and with road restrictions it is possible that construction season may not begin until May. Commissioner Cotter Looking forward to meeting with representatives from the Rogers Lake Association that reached out to him Excited to get back into the parks as Spring begins Chair Goldade Thanked citizens that provided input related to the baseball and softball fields and clarified the improvements that have been approved by the City Council for this year so far: backstop replacement at Friendly Hills and dugout covers at Hagstrom King with additional discussion for Mendakota and Victoria Highlands Attended the worksession the previous month and was pleased to hear the updates for the warming house at Wentworth 13. Adjourn 6 Motion Klepperich/Second Hinderscheid to adjourn the meeting at 7:58 PM AYES 6: NAYS 0 Minutes drafted by: Amanda Staple TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 7 DATE: August 12, 2020 TO: Chair Steve Goldade and Parks & Recreation Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director THROUGH: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: New Single-Family Residential Subdivision – Valley View Oak 3rd Addition INTRODUCTION The Parks and Recreation Commission is being asked to review and provide comments on a proposed subdivision, generally located near the NW quadrant of Victoria Curve and Glenhill Road. This subdivision would create eight (8) new single family lots for future development. BACKGROUND The subject property is approximately 6.3 acres in area; is heavily wooded with some considerable slopes and bluffs; and is currently owned by Larry and Mary Culligan, 1941 Glenhill Road. The property is also situated in the Critical Area Overlay District , which is an officially mapped area primarily located along the westerly edges of the city . The city finds this critical area to be “…a unique and valuable local, state, regional and national resource …”; therefore, the city has adopted a separate ordinance that provides for certain rules, allowances and standards within this overlay district. City Code Title 12-3-1 (Critical Area District) provides for specific rules and standards regulating construction activities or developing property within this critical area, including subdivisions. Title 11-2-1 (Subdivision Regulations) also includes a provision that for any new plat (subdivision) located within the critical area overlay district, it must be submitted to the parks and recreation commission for review and comments. This plat was originally presented to the city’s planning commission at the July 23 regular meeting, whereby a public hearing was properly noticed; public comments were given; and the planning application item (and hearing) were tabled, in order to allow for this added and separate consideration by the Parks and Recreation Commission. A copy of the July 23, 2020 Planning Staff Report, along with plat plans and illustrations (reduced for content) is being provide d for the commissioners’ review in this packet. 8 7. At the August 12 meeting, planning staff will provide a brief introduction and presentation of this subdivision request item, and be prepared to answer questions or address any issues related to this proposed plat. Commissioners may also direct questions to the applicant or their consultants. ACTION REQUIRED The city is not noticing or conducting a public hearing on this planning application item ; and there is no official action or recommendation required by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Staff simply requests the Parks & Recreation Commission provide comments, concerns, or suggestions (if any), which staff will forward back to the planning commission and the developer/applicant for subsequent consideration. This plat item is scheduled to be presented back to the Planning Commission at the August 25, 2020 regular meeting. 9 Planning Staff Report DATE: July 28, 2020 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2020-15 PRELIMINARY PLAT / CRITICAL AREA PERMIT / CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / VARIANCES for VALLEY VIEW OAK 3rd ADDITION APPLICANT: Michelle Culligan (acting on behalf of Larry & Mary Culligan) PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A (NW Quadrant of Victoria Curve & Glenhill Road) ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: October 27, 2020 INTRODUCTION Michelle Culligan, acting on behalf of her parents and property owners Larry and Mary Culligan, is seeking to subdivide an existing vacant parcel into nine (9) new lots, to be titled “Valley View Oak 3rd Addition” to Mendota Heights. This preliminary plat includes a request for a critical are permit (CAP) due to the location of this site in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to develop and disturb areas on slopes between 18% - 40% throughout the site; and variances to certain public roadway, wall improvements and other standards related to proposed construction activities within the critical area. This item is being presented as a public hearing item. Notices were mailed to all surrounding property owners within 350-feet of the site; and a notice was published in the local newspaper. DESCRIPTION of REQUEST The subject plat is essentially a re-platting of Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A, all in Valley View 2nd Addition. Lot 1/Blk. 1 is 0.48 acres in size and is the parcel for Mr. & Mrs. Culligan’s existing single-family dwelling. Outlot A is 6.28 acres in size, and is the vacant remnant parcel created under the previous platting of Valley View Oak 2nd in 1984. •The combined area of the subject properties is 6.76 acres in area. •The property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the City’s Land Use Plan; and is currently zoned R-1 One Family Residential. •The density of the new plat is 1.34 units/acre, which is less than the Comprehensive Plan maximum of 2.9 units/acres for low density residential land uses. •No change in land use or zoning are being proposed. •The dilapidated garage structure and brick BBQ will be removed as part of this development. 10 7b. Planning Case # 2020-15 Page 2 of 16 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd The plat includes a new public roadway in a cul-de-sac configuration. The roadway opening will come off Victoria Curve only, and this opening will be situated approximately 346-ft. west of the centerline of Glenhill Road (to the east). Two of the new lots will have access directly onto Glenhill Road only; and the other six new lots will have direct access onto the proposed public road. ANALYSIS 1)Site Plan (Sheet C2-1) The plan calls for eight new lots, with six of them spread out along the new public roadway system, and two fronting on Glenhill Road. The “ninth” lot is the owners existing lot of record, which is being included in this plat. City assumes this parcel will remain as is and left in its existing condition. The R-1 One Family Residential District requires minimum lot width of 100-feet and minimum lot area of 15,000 sq. ft. All eight new lots and the existing Culligan parcel will meet or exceed these minimums. •Lot 1, Block 1 = 19,586 +/- square feet or 0.45 +/- acres •Lot 2, Block 1 = 20,790 +/- square feet or 0.48 +/- acres •Lot 1, Block 2 = 54,217 +/- square feet or 1.24 +/- acres •Lot 2, Block 2 = 29,205 +/- square feet or 0.67 +/- acres •Lot 3, Block 2 = 26,798 +/- square feet or 0.62 +/- acres •Lot 4, Block 2 = 25,883 +/- square feet or 0.59 +/- acres •Lot 5, Block 2 = 31,743 +/- square feet or 0.73 +/- acres •Lot 6, Block 2 = 27,952 +/- square feet or 0.64 +/- acres •Lot 7, Block 2 = 21,189 +/- square feet or 0.49 +/- acres (existing Culligan residence parcel) All eight lots are identified as “FBWO” (full basement/walk-out) residential dwellings. Lots 1 and 2/Blk. 1 are noted with asterisks in front of the FBWO notations. The Developer’s design engineers indicated the asterisk means the basements for these two lots will only be 8-feet below the finished grade versus the other lots that have a 10-foot grade difference between floors. [“FBWO” is the type of style of home, whereas the LO with elevation behind is the lowest opening of the proposed home.] Below is a detail explaining these markings: 11 Planning Case # 2020-15 Page 3 of 16 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd The plat includes a new slight curvilinear public road that dead-ends into a cul-de-sac. The proposed road is planned to be built with a 50-ft. wide right-of-way instead of 60-ft. (as per Title 11 Subdivision Regulations); with a physical roadway surface of 28-ft. in width, instead of 33-ft., as per the City’s Street Design Standard Policy. Pursuant to Subdivision Regs. Section 11-3-3 Streets and Alleys, Subpart D: Dead End and Cul-De-Sac Streets: Dead end streets are prohibited, but cul-de-sacs will be permitted only where topography or other conditions justify their use. Cul-de-sacs shall normally not be longer than five hundred feet (500'), including a terminal turnaround which shall be provided at the closed end, with an outside curb radius of at least forty-nine feet (49') and a right of way radius of not less than sixty feet (60'). The proposed cul-de-sac end is designed with both the 49’ radius and 60’ ROW radius. The street is approximately 545-feet in length, measured from the northerly edge of Victoria Curve ROW line, up to the center-point of the cul-de-sac. From the curb-line off Victoria Curve, it measures approx. 575-feet. These reduced roadway standards and over-length cul-de-sac will be addressed later in this report. The Site Plan identifies the bluff edge/line along the westerly edge of the plat. The plan also includes a secondary delineated 40-ft. bluff edge setback line along this identified bluff. No structures are allowed in this 40-ft. bluff setback area. The plan calls for retaining walls on the back-side of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, with a desire to keep or maintain as much trees/vegetation as a buffer between the wall and new roadway. Walls are also planned for the back areas of Lots 1 through 6/Blk. 2 along the adjacent bluff edges. All walls are identified to be installed outside or away from the 40-foot bluff setback area. More information will be addressed under the following Grading Plan analysis. 2)Grading Plan (Sheet C3-1) The Applicant has provided a very detailed and very well-designed and engineered grading plan for this proposed development. The plan calls for starting grades near the intersection with Victoria Curve at 876’, and moving northward along the roadway gradually slopes (2.9%) down to a low point of 872.9’ in front of Lot 1/Blk. 2. Near the opening of cul-de-sac, the grades begin at 892’ and gradually decrease in two-foot increments southward and down to the same low point, which calculates to an approximate 20-ft. drop in elevations along this roadway. The slope gradients however, remain manageable (typically 8% or less is preferred) from 7.9% to 4.5% along this main roadway section. Per Critical Area Code Section 12-3-11.B. Public and Private Roads: New roads crossing the critical area corridor or routed within the critical area corridor shall meet the following standards: 1. Roads shall be constructed to minimize impacts on the natural terrain and natural landscape. 2. Cuts and fills are to be avoided. 3. All roads shall be subject to the site planning requirements set forth in this chapter. 4.New roads shall not utilize the river corridor as a convenient ROW for new arterials or main lines. 5.New roads shall be restricted to those facilities needed to access existing and planned residential, commercial and industrial uses. 6.All new roads shall provide safe pedestrian crossing points to allow access to the river front. Rest areas, vistas and waysides shall be provided. 7.The grades of any streets shall not exceed ten percent (10%). 8.The public's ability to view the river and river corridor from existing public streets shall not be further degraded by the proposed activity. 12 Planning Case # 2020-15 Page 4 of 16 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd Staff has determined that some of these standards are not applicable under this particular plat request; but feel most, if not all of the relevant standards for a new roadway have been met under this plat submittal. The plat includes a new stormwater/sedimentation pond near the entry (south of Lot 1/Blk. 2). Some significant grading is scheduled to take place along this westerly edge of the pond, and areas down towards the bluff edge. As was noted earlier, the development includes some extensive retaining walls for some of these new lots. There are no details or material call-outs noted on the plans; however, City Code 12-3-9(A)(2)(d) states: All structures other than buildings and roadway surfaces, but including retaining walls, shall meet the following design requirements: (1) Retaining walls or terrace contours shall not exceed five feet (5') in height. (2) Construction shall be of native stone or wood. Other materials may be permitted by the city where such materials are necessary to preserve the stability of the slope, and where the materials are designed with a natural color and texture. (3) The use of gabbions, pilings, tiebacks, metal retaining walls and precast or cast in place concrete retaining walls is specifically prohibited. (4) The minimum horizontal spacing between terraces and retaining walls shall be twenty feet (20'). The proposed retaining walls behind Lot 1/Blk. 1 range in height from 15.58 to 16.48 feet in height; while Lot 2/Blk. 1 wall ranges from 8.3 to 15-ft. in height (see plan image below-left). The wall situated behind Lots 1 & 2, Blk. 2 range from 11.46 to 17.42 ft. in height; and 16.61 to 23.2-ft. behind Lots 4 & 5/Blk. 2 (see plan image – above right). As was noted in the previous Critical Area Ordinance section (above), these walls do not meet the 5-foot-high limits standards. Moreover, it does not appear that the developer could make the 20-ft. horizontal spacing with terraces, unless they impacted (remove) more of the existing site vegetation, or increased the impacts to the critical bluff areas. If allowed to keep or install these walls under this development request (with a variance), retaining walls over 4-feet in height must be designed by a professional structural engineer. The Applicants have indicated they need or requests these walls in order to provide a level, maintainable and suitable pad site for the new homes along this west edge of the roadway; and these higher walls will reduce or minimize any added construction impacts near the bluff setback areas, which city staff supports. Since most of these walls will be screened by leaving the existing trees and vegetation (Lots 1 and 2 Blk. 1) and the fact the walls face out towards the bluff edge, which is heavily wooded and provides an effective screen, the heights of these walls (provided they are property engineered and built correctly) should pose no threat or harm to the bluffs or neighboring properties. 13 Planning Case # 2020-15 Page 5 of 16 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd The proposed retaining wall materials are not noted. Code requires they be built of “native stone or wood”; however, “…other materials may be permitted by the city where such materials are necessary to preserve the stability of the slope, and where the materials are designed with a natural color and texture.” The Planning Commission should discuss with the Developer what materials they intend to use for these walls, and what, if any alternatives (such as concrete/poured wall panels) are to be used, and how they intend to meet these wall standards and allowances – to the satisfaction of the city. The Applicant/Developer has also provided for the city’s review a very detailed Slope Analysis Plan, which includes a very colorful, but easily readable illustration of the slopes throughout this site. Per City Code Section 12-3-14.B, a conditional use permit is required for any activity or construction work on slopes greater than 18% but less than 40% in grades. As illustrated on the Slope Analysis, a majority of the new (8) lots appear to have slopes that have a combination of 0% - 18% grades (green shaded areas) with 18% - 40% range (yellow shaded areas). City Code Section 12-3-14.C further states: “No construction shall be permitted on slopes greater than 40%, nor within 40’ of any bluff line where sloes exceed 40%. It appears one lot (Lot 5/Blk. 2) is the only parcel that may impact a small segment of the 40% or more slope gradients, but according to the Slope Plan, these are labeled as “man-made slopes” located around the perimeter of the garage (which will be removed). Even though these may be man-made slopes, the Critical Area Code does not provide an exemption or discount to these types of un-natural slopes, and consideration of a variance may still be in order. City Code Section 12-3-14.E. states: “For new subdivisions approved after September 1, 2006, the subdivider shall be required to demonstrate that any newly created parcel will be able to support a buildable area consistent with the underlying zoning regulations, on grades less than eighteen percent (18%).” From examining or performing some rough calculations on some of the immediate and adjacent grade elevations for the proposed house pads, it appears some of these grades are approaching 20% or so. In order to satisfy this 18% standard, staff would recommend the Developer provide an After-Grading Slope Analysis plan for all new pad sites, or a table that confirms all grades will be met under this development plan. The standard and findings for the required CUP (activity in steep slopes) and Variances for the wall heights and construction activity in the 40% or more areas will be provided later in this report. 3)Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Plan (Sheet C4-1) Sanitary sewer main extension and water main extensions for all lots will come from the existing systems under Glenhill Road to the east. Each main service line will be tied into the Glenhill Rd. mains, and feed between Lots 1 and 2/Blk. 1. The water main is scheduled to be a combination 6” ductile iron pipes (DIP), which will provide main water services (stubs) to each lot, and services to three fire hydrants equally spaced along the roadway. The sanitary sewer main will consist of new 10” PVC pipes, along with an additional lift station near the back corners of Lots 1 and 2/Blk. 1. The lift station will take any effluent discharged to the system, and pump it up to the sanitary line extension over into the connecting system underneath Glenhill Road. Drainage and utility easements are proposed along the perimeters of all lots, as either 10-15 feet along the front; and 5-feet along shared side lot lines. Due to the running of the utility lines between Lots 1-2/Blk. 1, the Developer is proposing to dedicated 20-feet from each lot (40-feet in total width) for these city services. A large area of Lot 1/Blk. 2 is also being dedicated under D &U easement due to the location of the storm pond to the south. 14 Planning Case # 2020-15 Page 6 of 16 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd 4)Storm Sewer and Street Plan (Sheet C5-1) The storm sewer plan indicates the development will provide a catch basin near the upper northwest corner of the cul-de-sac turn around, which feeds into a new underground 12” reinforced concrete pipe (RCP). This system eventually runs southward and along the westerly edge of the roadway system, tying into the new catch basin/manhole structure approximately 140-ft. from the road entry point. The stormwater runoff from the main roadway surface (south of the cul-de-sac) will be captured by the same catch basin/manhole (identified as CBMH 4 and 5 on the plan), which is then tied into a new outlet pipe over to the new storm/sedimentation pond near the southwest corner of the development. The pond is to be equipped with an outflow system, which will be connected to the existing stormwater system along adjacent Victoria Curve. 5)Landscape Plan (Sheet L1-1 & L2-1) Most of the new plantings for this development are taking place near the south edge of the site, around the storm pond and the areas to be disturbed in the rear area of Lot 1/Blk. 2. Plans call for a dense planting of various deciduous trees and evergreen trees in these areas; along with a few ornamental trees, grasses and perennials. The area around the pond will be re-established with turf-seed mixes; and the pond basin will be provided with a Stormwater MnDOT Seed Mixture. The Landscape Plan was submitted to the city’s Natural Resources Technician for review, with comments/recommendations noted below: •Substitute White Pines instead of proposed Austrian Pines with. Austrian Pines are susceptible to several pests and diseases, and are no longer being recommended for planting in this area. •Substitute Northern Catalpa or Serviceberry for the Sienna Glen Maple. The city is trying to avoid planting additional maples because they already make up a large part of the City’s canopy, and would have to be removed if Asian Long-horned Beetle were to make it to Minnesota (similar to EAB situation). •Substitute Black-eyed Susan, Butterfly weed, or any other flowering native for the Ruby Stella Daylily. •If wire baskets are used, they should be removed from root ball entirely before tree planting. •At least top 1/3 of burlap and all twine must be removed from root ball before tree planting. The plan calls for the preservation of as many trees along the back side of Lots 1 & 2/Blk. 1, with a Woodland MnDOT Seed Mix to replenish any disturbed areas. Since this is a heavily wooded parcel, the Applicant/Developer intends to protect and preserve as much of the existing trees throughout the site, especially along the outer bluff edges. What is not shown however, is the identification (or numbers) of significant trees that will be need to be removed or cleared for the new roadway and future lot pads. It is unclear if the Developer intends to remove/clear cut the trees and vegetation for the new lots immediately or as part of the overall pre-development construction activities (i.e. street, grading, utilities installation, etc.), or if they intend to defer this clearing activity to the respective home builders once the new lot sites are ready for construction. As part of any approvals, staff would suggest the city implement a condition that as part of any new home construction permit on a lot, the builder will need to submit a separate survey indicating all significant trees (6” or greater) on the individual lot, with the variety/species of tree identified; and provide an individual tree replacement plan for each new lot that helps replenish some of the older trees that may be lost or cleared as part of new home construction activity. 15 Planning Case # 2020-15 Page 7 of 16 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd CRITICAL AREA PERMIT REVIEW Understanding the purpose of the Critical Area regulations is important to this application. Pursuant to City Code Title 12-3-2, the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is to: •To prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource; •To promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas; and •To preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems According to City Code Sect. 12-3-8-A: The objectives of dimensional standards are to maintain the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi River corridor critical area. These standards are designed to protect and enhance the shoreline and bluff areas, as well as provide sufficient setback for on-site sanitary facilities, to prevent erosion of bluffs, to minimize flood damage and to prevent pollution of surface and ground water. The proposed development meets these objectives since it does not impact any shoreline or bluff areas, does not involve an on-site septic system, provides adequate erosion protection, and provides adequate pollution prevention measures. 12-3-8: Development Standards. There are a number of specific ordinance requirements that come together on this application: Subpart B. Setback from Bluff Line: No structure shall be constructed less than forty feet (40’) landward from the bluff line of the river. The purpose of the standard is to prevent structures being built close to the bluff, for erosion and aesthetic reasons. In this case, the buildable lot areas (proposed house pads) are all shown to be away from the delineated bluff line, and even outside of the 40-foot offset/setback buffer illustrated on the submitted plans. Therefore, the above standard does not apply in this case. Subpart F. Subdivision of Property for Residential, Commercial and Industrial Development: 1.No land shall be subdivided which is found to be unsuitable for reason of flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, unfavorable topography, inadequate water supply or sewer disposal capabilities or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision or the community. The planning commission, in applying the provisions of this section, shall in writing cite the particular features upon which it bases its conclusions that the land is not suitable for the proposed use and afford the subdivider an opportunity to present evidence regarding such suitability. Thereafter, the commission may affirm, modify or withdraw its determination of unsuitability. 2.All subdivisions shall comply with the applicable provisions of Title 11, "Subdivision Regulations", of this code. To the best of staff’s knowledge, this proposed subdivision site has not experienced any flooding or wash- outs, inadequate drainage, or evidence of poor soils, unstable rock formations, or unfavorable topography (except for the bluff area) that was observed or noticed by staff during a recent on-site field inspection with the Developer. Water supply and sewage disposal to be provided in this development has been initially determined to be suitable or feasible under this plan, with no harmful effects upon the health, safety or welfare of future residents and/or adjacent neighboring properties. 16 Planning Case # 2020-15 Page 8 of 16 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd Subpart G. Protection of Natural Features: The governing body may require the preservation of natural features such as large trees, watercourses, scenic points, historical sites and similar community assets and may decline approval of a subdivision or other development if provision is not made for preservation of these assets. Staff is encouraging the planning commission (the City) provide some mechanism or responsibility upon the Developer to save and preserve as many significant trees as possible on this site. Realizing that some trees and vegetation needs to be removed as part of the proposed pre-construction activity, it is important that trees be preserved and protected throughout the site. The plans note most of the area in the bluff edges will be protected, which is commendable. The city would recommend this bluff edge be (at the 40-ft. bluff setback line) be covered under a protection or conservation easement. For any new lots that experience new home construction, the city would require that future development provide a survey identifying all significant trees (6” or greater) to be removed and a replacement plan for such removals. Staff will assure the commission and council that all new home building permits will be carefully reviewed and analyzed for individual site landscaping requirements prior to any future permit approval or issuance. 12-3-9: NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT A.Soil Erosion Control Comment: The Code prohibits development on slopes greater than 18% and applies additional conditions to development on 12-18% slopes to mitigate potential soil erosion issues. Grading/filling standards are intended to limit exposed soils and ensure appropriate erosion control measures are implemented. This new subdivision request includes a conditional use permit and variance requests that address this issue, based on additional standards that may be requested and granted to Developers (developments) located in the Critical Area Overlay District. All appropriate erosion control measures will be required as part of any pre-construction activities (refer to the SWPPP Plans – Sheet C3-1, 2 and 3) and any future building permit applications will need to follow the City’s Land Disturbance Guidelines, to ensure compliance with all applicable construction standards and conditions. B.Standards for Development on Restrictive Soils Comment: Code prohibits development on site soils in the corridor which are deemed to be unsuitable for development due to specific conditions, which increase the probability of pollution of ground water, erosion or other problems detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The Stormwater Management Report prepared by Loucks (Developer’s consultants) stated: “Soil borings have not been done yet but soil map information shows likely sandy soils… The infiltration rate used is currently based on sandy soils, it will be adjusted as needed when soil borings are done.” As part of any conditional approval, the city will require the Developer to provide a completed soils report (with boring analysis) prior to any final plat approvals, to ensure that the soils in this development are suitable for roadway and new home construction developments. E.Standards for Grading and Filling: Grading, filling, excavating or otherwise changing the topography landward of the ordinary high water mark shall not be conducted without a permit. A permit may be issued only if: 1. Earth moving, erosion, vegetative cutting and the destruction of natural amenities is minimized; 2. The smallest amount of ground is exposed for as short a time as feasible; 3. Temporary ground cover (mulch) is used and permanent ground cover, such as sod, is planted; 4.Methods to prevent erosion and trap sediment are employed; 17 Planning Case # 2020-15 Page 9 of 16 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd 5. Fill is established to accepted engineering standards. Comment: To reiterate, all appropriate erosion control measures will be required as part of any pre- construction activities (refer to the SWPPP Plans – Sheet C3-1, 2 and 3) and any future building permit applications will need to follow the City’s Land Disturbance Guidelines, to ensure compliance with all applicable construction standards and conditions. F.Standards for Vegetation Management 2. On all other lands, clearcutting shall be allowed only by conditional use permit and be guided by the following provisions: a. The applicant shall demonstrate that there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to cutting trees on the site. b. Clearcutting shall not be used where soil, slope or other watershed conditions are fragile and subject to injury. c. Clearcutting shall be conducted only where clear cut blocks, patches or strips are, in all cases, shaped and blended with the natural terrain. d.The size of clear cut blocks, patches or strips shall be kept at the minimum necessary. e. Where feasible, all clear cuts shall be conducted between September 15 and May 15. If natural regeneration will not result in adequate vegetable cover, areas in which clearcutting is conducted shall be replanted to prevent erosion and to maintain the aesthetic quality of the area where feasible; replanting shall be performed in the same spring or the following spring. 3.The selective cutting of trees greater than six inches (6") in diameter measured at a point two feet (2') above ground level shall be allowed by permit when the cutting is appropriately spaced and staged so that a continuous natural cover is maintained. 4. These vegetative management standards shall not prevent the pruning and cutting of vegetation to the minimum amount necessary for the construction of bridges and roadways and for the safe installation, maintenance and operation of essential services and utility transmission services which are permitted uses. Comment: The clear-cutting needed for the new roadway appears appropriate and allowed under this section. The Developer is requesting a reduced roadway design to help minimize or reduce any additional impacts caused by the removal of trees and vegetation in this development. As a result, staff does not anticipate any negative impacts to the wildlife habitat or natural vegetation on the subject property. G.Standards for Surface Water Runoff Management Comment: No raw sewage or seepage from on-site sewage disposal systems will occur due the development is planned to be completely served by a new neighborhood sanitary sewer system, which will be connected into the city’s existing sanitary system. Storm water runoff is planned to be directed into a new man-made sedimentation/detention pond inside the development, which will help reduce silt, debris and chemical pollutants from entering any nearby drainage ways or the city’s own storm water systems. All new development shall not increase the runoff rate or decrease the natural rate of absorption of storm water, as indicated in the Stormwater Management Report. 12-3-14: PROCESS FOR CONSTRUCTION ON PROPERTY WITHIN THE CRITICAL AREA A.Critical Area Permit: The construction of any building or structure, or the alteration of any land consisting of more than one hundred (100) cubic yards of fill or excavation, shall require a critical area permit from the city council. B.Conditional Use Permit: Any affected activity requiring a critical area permit on slopes greater than eighteen percent (18%) but less than forty percent (40%) shall require a conditional use permit, and 18 Planning Case # 2020-15 Page 10 of 16 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd shall be required to meet the procedural and performance requirements of this section. Conditional use permits under this chapter shall be considered as follows: 1. On lots of record where no principal building exists as of September 1, 2006, a property shall be allowed to construct a principal building that is in conformance with all other performance standards of this chapter. Every effort shall be made to place the building on slopes of less than eighteen percent (18%). C.No Construction On Certain Slopes: No construction shall be permitted on slopes greater than forty percent (40%), nor within forty feet (40') of any bluff line where slopes exceed forty percent (40%). E.New Subdivision: For new subdivisions approved after September 1, 2006, the subdivider shall be required to demonstrate that any newly created parcel will be able to support a buildable area consistent with the underlying zoning regulations, on grades less than eighteen percent (18%). Comment: As presented and evident on the Slope Analysis Plan submitted by the Developer, the construction activities proposed to complete this subdivision development will disturb slopes between 18% and 40% in certain areas; therefore, a conditional use permit is required as part of this application. In addition, Title 12-3-16 of the City Code requires the following findings for conditional use permit approval in the Critical Area: A conditional use permit may be granted only when the following findings are made, in addition to those conditions listed in this zoning ordinance: A.The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the critical area district and the comprehensive plan; B.The proposed use is compatible with uses in the immediate vicinity; and C.The proposed use is allowed under the applicable ordinances of the city of Mendota Heights. D.Any request for a conditional use permit shall include, in addition to other required public notice, a notification to the appropriate MN-DNR staff for review and comment. The slopes in question are almost all natural or currently existing on the site. The Slope Plan indicates almost one-half of the proposed roadway will impact slopes between 18% - 40% in certain areas; and the new home pad sites and installation of the proposed retaining walls also appear to impact similar sloped areas. As part of the Letter of Intent/Project Narrative submitted by the Developer, they provide the following statements of support for consideration related to this CUP application: a)The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community - the road and the home sites meet city standards and requirements; b)the proposed use will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards - there will only be six homes served by this new public road, so there will not be any traffic congestion or hazards in connection with the road due to the requested CUP; c) the proposed use will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value - the proposed development will offer eight new homes which will be high end custom homes, increasing property values and the respective property taxes payable to the City; and d)the proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan - the proposed use meets the R1 zoning standards for the property. The new development appears to be in general conformance with the spirit and intent of the critical area district and comprehensive plan; and the proposed residential uses will all need to meet or exceed the current R-1 District standards. 19 Planning Case # 2020-15 Page 11 of 16 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd The City provided the plans and notice of this proposed development to the Minn. Dept. of Natural Resources, as per City Code. The Developer’s consultants met directly with State MN Dept. of Natural Resources officials to present and review these proposed subdivision plans, including the Slope Analysis Map. DNR officials (Dan Petrik and Taylor Huinker) later provided a written response to city staff stating: “…the plans and the proposal appears to be consistent with the city’s current ordinance (Critical Area District).” For all intents and purposes, and due to the fact the critical area standards do not expressly prohibit the development or creation of a new subdivision in this overlay district, and despite the site being heavily wooded and in a very natural vegetative state, this new subdivision development plan appears to meet the four findings required above to issue a conditional use permit in this case. 12-3-15: VARIANCES (from Critical Area Overlay District Standards) Due to the proposed scope of the project, there are a number of separate variance requests included as part of this new subdivision application package: Variance Request Code Section Standard Proposed Retaining wall height 12-3-9(A)(2)(d)(1)5 feet 15.58 - 16.48 ft. 8.3 - 15-ft. 11.46 - 17.42 ft. 16.61 - 23.2-ft. Retaining wall materials 12-3-9(A)(2)(d)(3) Native stone or wood. Other materials may be permitted where materials are necessary to preserve the stability of the slope, and where the materials are designed with a natural color and texture (unknown) Construction on slopes over 40% 12-3-14(C)No construction on slopes over 40% Construction on slopes over 40% Variances from strict compliance under the rules and standards of Title 12-3-1 Critical Are Overlay District, may be issued by the city following a procedure as required by section 12-1L-5: Variances. When considering a proposal for a variance or other applications within the Mississippi River corridor critical area, the planning commission and city council shall address the following items in making their decision, in addition to those conditions listed in this zoning ordinance: 1.Preserving the scenic and recreational resources of the river corridor, especially in regard to the view from and use of the river. 2.The maintenance of safe and healthful conditions. 3.The prevention and control of water pollution, including sedimentation. 4.The location of the site with respect to floodways, floodplains, slopes and bluff lines. 5.The erosion potential of the site based on degree and direction of slope, soil type and vegetative cover. 6.Potential impact on game and fish habitat. 7.Location of the site with respect to existing or future access roads. 8.The amount of wastes to be generated and the adequacy of the proposed disposal systems. 9.The anticipated demand for police, fire, medical and school services and facilities. 10.The compatibility of the proposed development with uses on adjacent land. 20 Planning Case # 2020-15 Page 12 of 16 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd Regarding the height and materials for the proposed retaining wall, the following information should be considered. As noted earlier in the report, these new walls are fairly massive and greatly exceed the 5’ limitation placed on such structures in this district. The contouring or terracing of walls does not appear to be feasible, as this would push the walls/terraces farther out towards the bluff edge and setback area. Retaining wall structures can be considered a useful and essential means for keeping built-up areas safe and secure around new homes and structures; especially in areas where naturally sloped areas may inhibit or limit the ability to provide usable and valuable yard spaces typically desired by residential uses. The two larger walls on the back-yard areas of Lots 1 thru 6/Blk. 2 will be facing out towards the bluff edge and towards the adjacent community of Mendota. The residential properties in Mendota sit much farther down in the bluff valley, and during most times of the year, as the trees and vegetation leaf/bloom out, and even with the heavily wooded vegetation that will not be removed or affected as part of this project, it is highly unlikely these neighboring residents will even see or notice these walls. The walls will not impact any sight lines or views to the rivers; the walls should provide a safe environment or conditions for the new residences; the walls are being strategically placed as far away from the bluff lines as possible; and the walls should not be visible from Mendota, therefore making them compatible with adjacent uses. The Commission will need to make a determination if these excessive high walls warrant the approval of such a variance in the Critical Area; and the commission should also determine or ascertain from the Developer what type of materials they plan to construct these walls. Regarding the proposed construction, including soil disturbance, on slopes over 40%, the following information should be considered. As was noted earlier, there appears to be certain, minimal areas which appear to be impacted by these slopes greater than 40%, as per the Slope Analysis Map provided by the Developer. Near the front entry to the development, there are two small and narrow strips of lands that are noted in Red, which seem minimal in the overall improvements planned in this area. The narrow strip is located in the area of the proposed sedimentation pond, and this small area does not cause any concerns for staff at this time. The other 40% sloped areas are noted on new Lot 5/Blk. 2, where the existing (dilapidated) garage/barn is located. The Slope Map however, classifies these as “manmade” slopes. The new house pad for this new lot appears reasonable, and again city staff does not have any concerns with impacting or developing this new pad site in this area. All the other areas identified in the red shading which indicate slopes of 40% or more do not appear to be affected by any other new construction, grading or retaining wall work. Again, the Commission will need to make a determination if the proposal to work in these sloped areas of 40% warrant the approval of such a variance in the Critical Area. 12-1L-5: VARIANCES (from Street Design Standards) As illustrated on the preliminary plat maps and grading/utility plans, the subdivision will be served by a single access, two-way traffic cul-de-sac roadway. The developer intends to dedicate this as a public roadway to the city. The road right-of-way is being asked to be platted with a 50-ft. width instead of the standard 60-ft. width. The road surface is being proposed with a 28-ft. curb-to-curb width, when 32-33 feet is typically the norm (per city street design policy - not ordinance). Pursuant to City Code Title 11-3-3, Streets may not exceed 6% in grade, unless the city engineer recommends or allows excess street grades should the topography warrant a greater maximum. The grading/drainage plan shows street grades in certain areas range from 1% up to approximately 8% along the length of the roadway. 21 Planning Case # 2020-15 Page 13 of 16 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd The Public Works Director (acting as city engineer as well) is allowing the Developer to exceed the 6% street grades as part of this plan. Pursuant to Title 11-3-3 Streets and Alleys, the following standard applies to cul-de-sacs type roadways: D.Dead End and Cul-De-Sac Streets: Dead end streets are prohibited, but cul-de-sacs will be permitted only where topography or other conditions justify their use. Cul-de-sacs shall normally not be longer than five hundred feet (500'), including a terminal turnaround which shall be provided at the closed end, with an outside curb radius of at least forty-nine feet (49') and a right of way radius of not less than sixty feet (60'). The cul-de-sac roadway is approximately 545-feet in length, measured from the north ROW line of Victoria Curve to the center-point of the end turn-around. (Note: 585-ft. measured from the north curb line of Victoria Curve to center-point). The turnaround has a 49-ft. radius; and a ROW radius of 60-ft. is being provided. When staff initially met with the Developers on this plat layout, we informed them of this 500-ft. length rule, and requested they do what they can to meet or minimize any request to go beyond this point. As the proposed cul-de-sac measures out on the plans, staff has determined a variance to this 500-ft. length is in order. City Code Section 11-1-9 allows for application of variances for new subdivisions or plats from the strict application of the provisions of this title (Subdivision Regulations), provided the request is made under the general requirements and process of Section 12-1L-5 of Zoning Code. City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variances. The city must consider a number of variables when recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i) practical difficulties; and (ii) impact to the community. The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality or neighborhood. It is also noted that economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. In addition, variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further provides other issues the city may consider when granting or denying a variance, noted as follows: •Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community. •Existing and anticipated traffic conditions. •Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. •Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan. •Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate undue hardship or difficulty. When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have been met in granting a variance, and provide findings of facts to support such a recommendation to the City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to meet these standards, or has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings of fact supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined. The Applicant/Developer has provided the following responses to these variance questions: “We are requesting a variance ROW width reducing from 60 feet to 50 feet and the street width is reduced from 32 feet to 28 feet. The purpose of this Variance request is to preserve and 22 Planning Case # 2020-15 Page 14 of 16 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd minimize impacts to trees and to reduce grading.” 1.The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance. Applicant’s Response: The practical difficulty is wanting to meet the desire of the city and community in minimizing the impacts of a development within the critical area. Although the project can be developed in conformance to zoning codes the requested variances will minimize the loss of trees and reduce grading. The subject site has a rolling topography. The road was designed to work with the existing topography which required some curvature in the road that extended the road length. 2.The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. Applicant’s Response: The topography of the site. 3.The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Applicant’s Response: No, the minimal extension of 44.57 feet and the road being within a wooded area the minor extension will be unnoticeable to the neighborhood and does not create a safety concern for emergency services. The Commission will need to make a determination if these responses are adequate enough or justly the granting of the variances requested for the proposed roadway standards, including the reduced right-of-way width from 60-ft. to 50-ft.; reduced road width to 28-ft.; and if the proposed cul-de-sac length of 545-ft. (or 585-ft.) warrants approval of said variances. PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW Fire Department staff were presented the plans for review. The Fire Chief indicated his approval of the plans, but deferred full review and comments to the city’s Fire Marshal. (Note: due to some limited availability of the fire marshal, planning/engineering staff have not yet heard or received any comments or recommendations as of the preparation of this report). Staff intends to provide any review comments/conditions (if any) at a later meeting date. INTERAGENCY REVIEW In addition to the public and private property owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel, public hearing notices and application materials were sent to the following agencies for review and comment: •Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) Acknowledged receipt of the subdivision application request and responded with the following comments: “…The plans and the proposal appears to be consistent with the city’s current ordinance [Critical Area District].” •City of Mendota A notice of this July 28, 2020 public hearing along with a location map and subdivision layout map was mailed (07/14/2020) to the City Clerk of Mendota. As of July 21st, no comments have been received from the City of Mendota on this subdivision request. •City’s Parks and Recreation Commission 23 Planning Case # 2020-15 Page 15 of 16 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd Pursuant to City Code Section 11-2-1, a preliminary plat “…shall be distributed to the parks and recreation commission… for their review and comment when appropriate, when the proposed plat is within the critical area overlay district…” Since the Parks Commission met previously this month with the city council at a special-joint meeting (07/14/2020), the regular meeting was not held, and this item was not able to be presented. Staff will be presenting this subdivision to the P & R Commission at their August 12th meeting; and will bring this matter back to the Planning Commission at the August 25th regular meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS In forming a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission is asked to determine if the proposed Preliminary Plat is reasonable and acceptable; and must find that it fits in with the general character of the existing developments in and around the adjacent neighborhood. The Commission must also give careful consideration to the Variances requested under this subdivision plat request, and if they have met the criterial for granting the related Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit for certain activities. The Planning Commission should listen to the presentation of this item by city staff and the Developer; open the official public hearing on this matter; allow for public comments; then make a motion afterwards to TABLE the public hearing to the August 25, 2020 regular meeting; and direct staff to bring this land use request item back to the Planning Commission on this same date. As noted previously, staff will be introducing and presenting this proposed subdivision to the Parks and Recreation Commission for comment on August 12th; and will bring those comments back to the commission for further consideration at the next regular August meeting. Staff will provide an updated staff report prior to this August meeting, with additional findings, recommendations and conditions as needed. If the Planning Commission wishes to provide any initial findings of facts, conditions or recommendations as part of this first discussion, city staff will welcome those and provide those for final consideration at the later (August) meeting date. In conjunction with what Staff has presented in this current report, staff has tentatively prepared some conditions for the Planning Commission to initially consider in your discussions related to this plat: 1.In lies of land dedication, the Developer/Applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of $4,000 per unit (8 lots x $4,000/unit = $32,000) to be collected prior to Final Plat being recorded with Dakota County. 2.Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 3.The final grading plan must be submitted to the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or land disturbance permit. 4.Full erosion control plans and measures, including silt fence, bales and/or bio-filtration rolls must be in place prior to any construction and maintained throughout the duration of project. 5.Streets and utilities shall have approved profiles showing final street grades, horizontal curves, pipe lengths, pipe slopes, pipe materials, and elevations to the satisfaction and approval of the Public Works Director. 6.Street grades of no more than 8% are hereby allowed in certain locations as shown on the submitted Preliminary Plat plans. Any changes to the plans must be resubmitted to the Public Works Director and for final review and approval. 24 Planning Case # 2020-15 Page 16 of 16 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd 7.The City approves the 28-ft. wide (curb-to curb) street width as presented under this plan. 8.A SWPPP shall be developed for the project. Protected bluffs shall have a double silt fence installed for added protection in these areas. 9. A NPDES permit is required. 10.No structures, hard-surfaced improvements, or tree and vegetation removals will be allowed within the 40-foot bluff impact zone buffer from the delineated bluff edge. Minimal construction, removals or grading activity may be permitted inside the buffer by city staff if needed to safely complete any new retaining wall or drainage work. 11.The Developer shall provide for a permanent easement (conservation easement) or similar over and across the bluff area. Small and discreet “NOTICE - Bluff Protection Area” or similar signs will be installed along the bluff edge to the rear yard areas of Lots 1 through 6, Block 2 of the plat. 12. The Developer/Applicant shall provide a full soil report with boring analysis for city staff to review prior to final plat submittal and approvals. If the soils are deemed unsuitable, per the Critical Area District ordinances, the city will present such findings back to the Planning Commission and City Council for final determinations or approvals. 13.All retaining walls will be designed by a professional structural engineer and inspected by a separate engineering testing firm to ensure all walls are built to specifications and approved design. 14.All new water service plans and related utility line installation shall be reviewed and inspected by St. Paul Regional Water Service. 15. The contractor or builder of each new lot shall be required to submit an individual survey for each new home to be built on each lot; which provides the final grading elevations, utility connections, dimensioned site plan, and a landscape plan illustrating existing significant trees of 6” or more, any removals and replanting of new trees. 16.The Developer shall submit a revised final (overall) landscape plan with suitable trees or pollinator friendly plantings, per the direction or recommendations of the Master Gardeners and city staff. 17.All grading and construction activity as part of the proposed development will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 18. Future construction on the newly-created parcels will be compliant with all applicable City Code and Building Code provisions [Note: City Staff reserves the right to add or modify these initial conditions as part of the follow-up report to the Planning Commission at the August 25, 2020 meeting] MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1.Aerial/Location Map 2.Developer’s Letter of Intent/Project Narrative 3.Culligan Property Development Plans (Full Set) 4.Slope Analysis Plan 5.Illustrative (colored) Grading/Utility/Site Plan 6.Stormwater Management Report (except only) 7.Letters from Neighboring Residents 25 666666666666666666666666666666 6666666666666666666 6 6 66666666666FMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFM370 1310 390 1215 1948 1903 330 1308 1290 1901 1949 1248 1242 1954 1199 1936 1219 1942 12001206 1205 1300 1310 1941 1921 1902 1230 1224 1920 1290 1235 1908 1935 1914 1200 280 1264 1905 2025 1254 1247 1329 1296 1310 HWY 62G S T VICTORIA CUR GLENHILL RDCULLIGAN LN CENTRE POINTE CUR4TH ST3RD ST HWY 62 0' 360'249'226'205'217'187'175'151'95'128'80' 351' 295'62'5 8 ' Culligan PropertyValley View Oak 3rd AdditionNW Quad Glenhill Rd. & Victoria Curve City ofMendotaHeights0200 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. 7/2/2020 26 June 29, 2020 City of Mendota Heights Planning Commission 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Attn: Tim Benetti timb@mendota-heights.com Re: Culligan Property - Glenhill Road/Victoria Curve Tim, the following serves as our requires Letters of Intent in connection with the proposed platting of the property: Preliminary Plat Letter of Intent. The Applicant’s letter must include a detailed narrative describing the properties to be platted, and what the expected outcome or beneﬁts an approved plat will provide to the community. Narrative of the Proposed Development The Culligan family has owned this property for over 90 years. Originally, Larry Culligan had worked with a surveyor in connection with the platting of this property in 1981, prior to the construction of Victoria Curve, but elected to hold off developing the property until Victoria Curve was constructed. The family has determined that now is the appropriate time to submit to the City for approval the preliminary/ﬁnal plat of the property. The property is a mix of open grassy areas and woods, with an old barn located in the woods. The site consists of a rolling topography with gradual slopes on the east and steeper slopes on the west, detailed in the accompanying slope analysis. The property lies within the Mississippi Critical Overlay area, and as such we have incorporated into the site plan compliance with the Overlay requirements, as described more fully in the accompanying Critical Area Permit application. Throughout the woods, there are a variety of trees, with a dense underbrush of scrub trees and weed trees that have become more and more overgrown over the years. The total platted area is comprised of 6.75 acres, and includes the existing home of Larry and Mary Culligan at 1941 Glenhill Road (Lot 7, Block 2). The proposed lot sizes will range from .45 acres to 1.24 acres, with most of the homes sites around 1/2 acre in size. The expected outcome for the property will be: 8 new lots and 1 existing lot (Culligan home) 15,000 SF minimum lot area 100’ minimum lot width 30’ front setback 27 10’ & 15’ side setbacks Typical house pads are shown at 75’ wide x 40’ deep (each pad will be custom graded for a site speciﬁc designed home) Access to the home sites will be from Glenhill Road (2 lots), and then by a new public road off of Victoria Curve with a cul de sac at the north end. The road layout traverses the slope of the property and generally matching grade on the uphill side of the road, with retaining walls built where needed on the downhill side of the road. As shown on the plans, this road will be 633 feet long, and 28 feet wide. The reduction in width from the standard 32’ (requested pursuant to the accompanying ROW variance) will minimize disruption to the wooded area. The Culligan family was responsible for the platting and development of the current Glenhill Road/Culligan Road property (Valley View Oaks 2nd Addition), which has proven to be a stable, high-end, and desirable neighborhood in Mendota Heights. We believe the addition of eight comparable high-end homes to this neighborhood, while preserving the woods and consistent with the critical area standards, will further enhance the entire Valley View Oaks neighborhood. As the site plan illustrates, the location of the home sites will have minimal impact on the existing homes, and they will be tucked into the wooded areas in a way that will enhance the aggregate property. A signiﬁcant portion of the existing woods, particularly along Victoria Curve, are scrub brush and weed trees. Removing a portion of the dense, overgrown underbrush, and preserving healthy signiﬁcant trees plus adding the landscaping reﬂected on the accompanying landscape plan, will be an improvement aesthetically. Critical Area Permit Letter of Intent The property lies within the Critical Area, as does all of the adjoining area, such as the Valley View Oaks 2nd Addition. As such, to develop the property, we need to obtain a Critical Area Permit. As described in the Preliminary Plat Letter of Intent, the proposed site plan has been intentionally designed within the requirements of the Mississippi River Corridor to preserve the existing natural environment as much as feasible, in a manner consistent with its natural characteristics. The site plan includes the required bluff analysis and respects the bluff line and meets all setbacks. We have shared the slope analysis and a rough draft of the proposed development with Daniel Petrik with DNR Critical Area, and based on his response that the plan appears consistent with city rules, we expect to be in compliance with the DNR’s regulatory review. 28 Conditional Use Permit Letter of Intent The proposed preliminary plat includes building on slopes that exceed 18%, as shown in the accompanying plans, and detailed slope analysis. Accordingly, we will be requesting a conditional use permit to the extent there are any buildings or potions of the road on slopes in excess of 18%. In support of our CUP request, please consider the following: a) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community -the road and the home sites meet city standards and requirements; b) the proposed use will not cause serious trafﬁc congestion nor hazards - there will only be six homes served by this new public road, so there will not be any trafﬁc congestion or hazards in connection with the road due to the requested CUP; c) the proposed use will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value - the proposed development will offer eight new homes which will be high end custom homes, increasing property values and the respective property taxes payable to the City; and d) the proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan - the proposed use meets the R1 zoning standards for the property. Variance for Right-of-Way We are requesting a variance ROW width reducing from 60 feet to 50 feet and the street width is reduced from 32 feet to 28 feet. The purpose of this Variance request is to preserve and minimize impacts to trees and to reduce grading. In conclusion, the attached proposed Preliminary Plat Application, together with accompanying applications for Critical Area Permit, Conditional Use Permit and Variance for ROW, are hereby submitted. We look forward to working with the Planning Commission and the City Council of Mendota Heights to discuss any questions or concerns regarding the proposed platting of the property. Best Regards, Michelle Culligan /s/ Michelle Culligan, Esq. 29 Review DateSHEET INDEXLicense No.DateI hereby certify that this plan, specification or report wasprepared by me or under my direct supervision and thatI am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under thelaws of the State of Minnesota.Michael J. St. Martin - PE24440Project LeadDrawn ByChecked ByLoucks Project No.018524MJSMJSMJS06/29/2020 CITY SUBMITTALC0-1COVER SHEETC1-1EXISTING CONDITIONS &DEMOLITION PLANCADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project areinstruments of the Consultant professional services for use solelywith respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be usedon other projects, for additions to this project, or for completionof this project by others without written approval by theConsultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may bepermitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files forinformation and reference only. All intentional or unintentionalrevisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall bemade at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additionsor deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify theConsultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.PLANNINGCIVIL ENGINEERINGLAND SURVEYINGLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREENVIRONMENTAL7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300Maple Grove, MN 55369763.424.5505www.loucksinc.comPlotted: 06 /29 / 2020 2:50 PMW:\2018\18524\CADD DATA\CIVIL\_dwg Sheet Files\C0-1 COVER SHEETOUCKSLCADD QUALIFICATIONQUALITY CONTROLPROFESSIONAL SIGNATURESUBMITTAL/REVISIONSVALLEY VIEWOAK 3RDADDITIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNLARRY & MARYCULLIGAN1941 GLENHILL ROADMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118C2-1C3-1C3-2C3-3C4-1SITE PLANGRADING PLANSWPPPSWPPP NOTESSANITARY & WATER PLANC5-1C8-1C8-2L2-1STREET & STORM SEWER PLANCIVIL DETAILSCIVIL DETAILSLANDSCAPE DETAILSC8-3 CIVIL DETAILSL1-1LANDSCAPE PLANC6-1PRELIMINARY PLATC4-2 SANITARY & WATER PLANCOVER SHEETC0-1WARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALLEXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES INMAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 ATLEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES,CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFOREDIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGEDDURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.23CIVIL LEGENDMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTASHEET INDEXPERMIT SET:STORM SEWER, STREETS, LANDSCAPING,VICINITY MAPGRADING, SANITARY SEWER, WATERMAIN,CONTACTSOWNER - LARRY AND MARY CULLIGANMAPLE GROVE, MN 55369SUITE 3007200 HEMLOCK LANEENGINEER - LOUCKSTEL: 763-496-6713MIKE ST. MARTIN P.E.EMAIL: MSTMARTIN@LOUCKSINC.COMSURVEYOR -LOUCKSTEL: 763-496-6762 MAX STANISLOWSKI P.L.S.EMAIL: MSTANISLOWSKI@LOUCKSINC.COMCULLIGAN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTMAPLE GROVE, MN 55369SUITE 3007200 HEMLOCK LANELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT - LOUCKSTEL: 763-496-6725CHAD FEIGUM P.L.A.EMAIL: CFEIGUM@LOUCKSINC.COMMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 551181941 GLENHILL RDTEL: 651-452-1410LARRY & MARY CULLIGANEMAIL: CULLEY934@AOL.COMPROJECT BENCHMARKTOP NUT OF HYDRANT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE THESITE ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF GLENHILL ROAD.ELEVATION = 913.22 (NGVD29)06/29/20---DRAWING INDEX LEGENDSHEET TITLE#XX/XX/XXFILLED CIRCLE INDICATES DRAWING INCLUDED WITHIN THIS ISSUEMOST RECENT REVISION NUMBERMOST RECENT ISSUE OR REVISION DATE-06/29/2006/29/20------06/29/2006/29/2006/29/2006/29/2006/29/2006/29/2006/29/20--06/29/20C0-1C1-1C2-1C3-1C3-2C3-3C4-1C4-2C5-1C6-1C8-1C8-2C8-3L1-1L1-2COVER SHEETEXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION PLANSITE PLANGRADING PLANSTORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANSWPPP NOTES & DETAILSSANITARY SEWER & WATER PLANSANITARY SEWER & WATER PLANSTORM SEWER & STREET PLANPRELIMINARY PLATCIVIL DETAILSCIVIL DETAILSCIVIL DETAILSLANDSCAPE PLANLANDSCAPE DETAILSMAPLE GROVE, MN 55369SUITE 3007200 HEMLOCK LANESITE& PRELIMINARY PLAT06/29/20-06/29/20-- 06/29/20-06/29/2030 NSCALE IN FEET040 80Review DateSHEET INDEXLicense No.DateI hereby certify that this plan, specification or report wasprepared by me or under my direct supervision and thatI am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under thelaws of the State of Minnesota.Michael J. St. Martin - PE24440Project LeadDrawn ByChecked ByLoucks Project No.018524MJSMJSMJS06/29/2020 CITY SUBMITTALC0-1COVER SHEETC1-1EXISTING CONDITIONS &DEMOLITION PLANCADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project areinstruments of the Consultant professional services for use solelywith respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be usedon other projects, for additions to this project, or for completionof this project by others without written approval by theConsultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may bepermitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files forinformation and reference only. All intentional or unintentionalrevisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall bemade at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additionsor deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify theConsultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.PLANNINGCIVIL ENGINEERINGLAND SURVEYINGLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREENVIRONMENTAL7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300Maple Grove, MN 55369763.424.5505www.loucksinc.comPlotted: 06 /29 / 2020 3:46 PMW:\2018\18524\CADD DATA\CIVIL\_dwg Sheet Files\C1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DEMO PLANOUCKSLCADD QUALIFICATIONQUALITY CONTROLPROFESSIONAL SIGNATURESUBMITTAL/REVISIONSVALLEY VIEWOAK 3RDADDITIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNLARRY & MARYCULLIGAN1941 GLENHILL ROADMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118C2-1C3-1C3-2C3-3C4-1SITE PLANGRADING PLANSWPPPSWPPP NOTESSANITARY & WATER PLANC5-1C8-1C8-2L2-1STREET & STORM SEWER PLANCIVIL DETAILSCIVIL DETAILSLANDSCAPE DETAILSC8-3 CIVIL DETAILSL1-1LANDSCAPE PLANC6-1PRELIMINARY PLATC4-2 SANITARY & WATER PLANEXISTINGCONDITIONS &DEMOLITIONPLANC1-1MILL AND OVERLAY EXISTING PARKING LOTREMOVE EXISTING CURB & GUTTER,RETAINING WALLS, FENCE, ETC.REMOVE EXISTING MANHOLES, POWERPOLES, LIGHT POLES, BOLLARDS, PARKINGMETERS, SIGNS, ETC.REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE PAVING,SIDEWALKS, ETC.REMOVE EXISTING TREESREMOVE EXISTING UTILITIESREMOVE EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVINGDEMOLITION LEGEND:REMOVE EXISTING BUILDINGREMOVE EXISTING TREES/WOODSREMOVE EXISTING GRAVEL PAVEMENT1. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE AND/OR RELOCATEEXISTING PRIVATE UTILITIES AS NECESSARY. CONTRACTORTO COORDINATE ACTIVITIES WITH UTILITY COMPANIES.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT SURFACE ANDSUBSURFACE FEATURES NOT NOTED FOR REMOVAL.3. CONTRACTOR TO CLEAR AND GRUB EXISTINGVEGETATION WITHIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS, STRIP TOPSOIL, AND STOCKPILE ON-SITE. REFER TO GRADING PLANAND SWPPP FOR SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROLREQUIREMENTS.4. CLEAR AND GRUB AND REMOVE ALL TREES, VEGETATIONAND SITE DEBRIS PRIOR TO GRADING. ALL REMOVEDMATERIAL SHALL BE HAULED FROM THE SITE DAILY.EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IMMEDIATELYESTABLISHED UPON REMOVAL. SEE THE STORMWATERPOLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP).5. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL SITE SURFACEFEATURES WITHIN REMOVAL LIMITS UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED.6. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT REMOVALS ARE TO BE MADE TOA VERTICAL SAW CUT OR TO A NEAT MILLED EDGE.7. CONCRETE PAVEMENT, SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER ANDOTHER POURED CONCRETE ITEMS ARE TO BE REMOVEDTO AN EXISTING EXPANSION OR CONTRACTION JOINT.SAW CUT AS NECESSARY FOR A NEAT EDGE OF REMOVAL.8. ALL REMOVAL ITEMS SHALL BECOME THE PROPERTY OFTHE CONTRACTOR UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE ANDSHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF-SITE IN A MANNER MEETINGALL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS.9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEREMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF ALL SIGNS, MAILBOXES,ETC.10. ANY DAMAGE TO ITEMS NOT NOTED TO BE REMOVEDSHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR ANDSHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED TO ORIGINALCONDITION WITH NO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION.11. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH UTILITYCOMPANIES PRIOR TO REMOVAL, RELOCATION ORPROTECTING EXISTING UTILITY LINES, POLE, ETC.WARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALLEXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES INMAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 ATLEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES,CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFOREDIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGEDDURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.SITE DEMOLITION SPECIFICATIONSPARKING STALL COUNTDISABLED PARKING STALLSCHEDULE B NUMBERS01MAPLETREE (GEN)ASH2LEGENDCATCH BASINSTORM SEWERSANITARY SEWERWATERMAINSTORM MANHOLESANITARY MANHOLEHYDRANTGATE VALVESET 1/2 INCH X 14 INCH IRONMONUMENT, MARKED "LS 48988"FOUND OPEN IRON MONUMENTUNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISESPOT ELEVATIONSIGNLIGHT POLEPOWER POLEWATER MANHOLE / WELLCONTOURCONCRETE CURBUNDERGROUND ELECTRICCONCRETETELEPHONE PEDESTALUNDERGROUND TELEPHONEUNDERGROUND GASOVERHEAD UTILITYCHAIN LINK FENCEEXISTING BUILDINGRETAINING WALLNO PARKINGUNDERGROUND FIBER OPTICSANITARY SEWER SERVICEWATER SERVICEELECTRIC METERGAS METERCONIFEROUS TREETREE LINEPINEDECIDUOUS TREE31 NSCALE IN FEET040 80Review DateSHEET INDEXLicense No.DateI hereby certify that this plan, specification or report wasprepared by me or under my direct supervision and thatI am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under thelaws of the State of Minnesota.Michael J. St. Martin - PE24440Project LeadDrawn ByChecked ByLoucks Project No.018524MJSMJSMJS06/29/2020 CITY SUBMITTALC0-1COVER SHEETC1-1EXISTING CONDITIONS &DEMOLITION PLANCADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project areinstruments of the Consultant professional services for use solelywith respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be usedon other projects, for additions to this project, or for completionof this project by others without written approval by theConsultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may bepermitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files forinformation and reference only. All intentional or unintentionalrevisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall bemade at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additionsor deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify theConsultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.PLANNINGCIVIL ENGINEERINGLAND SURVEYINGLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREENVIRONMENTAL7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300Maple Grove, MN 55369763.424.5505www.loucksinc.comPlotted: 06 /29 / 2020 2:52 PMW:\2018\18524\CADD DATA\CIVIL\_dwg Sheet Files\C2-1 SITE PLANOUCKSLCADD QUALIFICATIONQUALITY CONTROLPROFESSIONAL SIGNATURESUBMITTAL/REVISIONSVALLEY VIEWOAK 3RDADDITIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNLARRY & MARYCULLIGAN1941 GLENHILL ROADMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118C2-1C3-1C3-2C3-3C4-1SITE PLANGRADING PLANSWPPPSWPPP NOTESSANITARY & WATER PLANC5-1C8-1C8-2L2-1STREET & STORM SEWER PLANCIVIL DETAILSCIVIL DETAILSLANDSCAPE DETAILSC8-3 CIVIL DETAILSL1-1LANDSCAPE PLANC6-1PRELIMINARY PLATC4-2 SANITARY & WATER PLANSITE PLANC2-1WARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALLEXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES INMAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 ATLEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES,CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFOREDIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGEDDURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.PARKING STALL COUNTACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL2LEGENDCATCH BASINSTORM SEWERSANITARY SEWERWATERMAINSTORM MANHOLESANITARY MANHOLEHYDRANTGATE VALVESPOT ELEVATIONSIGNLIGHT POLEPOWER POLEWATER MANHOLE / WELLCONTOURCONCRETE CURBUNDERGROUND ELECTRICCONCRETETELEPHONE PEDESTALUNDERGROUND TELEPHONEUNDERGROUND GASOVERHEAD UTILITYCHAIN LINK FENCEBUILDINGRETAINING WALLNO PARKINGUNDERGROUND FIBER OPTICSANITARY SEWER SERVICEWATER SERVICEELECTRIC METERGAS METERTREE LINEEXISTINGPROPOSED972DRAINTILEFORCEMAINPARKING SETBACK LINEBUILDING SETBACK LINE2FENCEFLARED END SECTIONPOST INDICATOR VALVEBENCHMARKSOIL BORINGDIRECTION OF FLOW1.0%972.5CURRENT ZONING: ZONE R1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIALPROPERTY AREA: 6.75± ACDISTURBED AREA: 3.90 ACEXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA: 0.18 AC (2.7%)PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA: 1.06 AC (15.6%)1. MINNESOTA STATE STATUTE REQUIRES NOTIFICATION PER"GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANYGRADING, EXCAVATION OR UNDERGROUND WORK.2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY LOCATIONS ANDELEVATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHICFEATURES PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTIONACTIVITY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEEROF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM THE PLANS.3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONSNECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENTPROPERTIES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THISPROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLEFOR ANY DAMAGES TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES OCCURRINGDURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS PROJECT.4. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDINGAND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH ASBARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS,FLAGMEN AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OFTRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. PLACEMENT OF THESEDEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TOPLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORMTO THE APPROPRIATE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION STANDARDS.5. IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTEDCONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, THE CONTRACTOR WILL BESOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONSON THE JOB SITE, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS ANDPROPERTY DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK.THIS REQUIREMENT WILL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOTBE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS.6. THE DUTY OF THE ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER TOCONDUCT CONSTRUCTION REVIEW OF THE CONTRACTORSPERFORMANCE IS NOT INTENDED TO INCLUDE REVIEW OFTHE ADEQUACY OF THE CONTRACTORS SAFETY MEASURESIN, OR NEAR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.7. BEFORE BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION THE CONTRACTORSHALL INSTALL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROLMEASURES IN ACCORDANCE WITH NPDES PERMITREQUIREMENTS, BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, STATEAND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS AND THE DETAILS SHOWN ONTHE DETAIL SHEET(S) OF THE PROJECT PLANS.8. ALL CONSTRUCTION PERMITS, APPLICATIONS AND FEES ARETHE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.9. ALL ENTRANCES AND CONNECTIONS TO CITY STREETSSHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THESTATE AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS. THE CONTRACTORSHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PERMITS ANDNOTIFICATIONS AS REQUIRED.10.ALL STREET REPAIRS AND PATCHING SHALL BE PERFORMEDPER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. ALL TRAFFICCONTROL SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR ANDSHALL BE ESTABLISHED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THEMINNESOTA MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROLDEVICES (MUTCD) AND THE CITY. THIS SHALL INCLUDEALL SIGNAGE, BARRICADES, FLASHERS AND FLAGGERS ASNEEDED. ALL PUBLIC STREETS SHALL BE OPEN TO TRAFFICAT ALL TIMES.11.ADJUST ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES, BOTH PUBLIC ANDPRIVATE TO THE PROPOSED GRADES WHERE DISTURBEDAND COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE UTILITYOWNERS. STRUCTURES BEING RESET TO PAVED AREASMUST MEET OWNERS REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAFFICLOADING.12.EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY LOUCKSASSOCIATES, TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY DATED XX/XX/20.13.THE CONTRACTOR MUST HAVE A CITY LICENSE.14.A CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TOWORKING WITHIN CITY ROW.GENERAL NOTESSITE DATA- UNLESS NOTED, BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION FOR FULL BASEMENT IS 10.0 FEET BELOW THE GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION.- MINIMUM BASEMENT ELEVATION REFLECTS LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATIONSSTREETNOTES:SETBACK REQUIREMENTSCONSTRUCTED HOUSE PAD LIMITS10' SIDE HOUSE30' REAR HOUSELOT NUMBER30' SIDE HOUSE ABUTTING STREETGARAGE FLOOR ELEVATIONCURB OR EDGE OF PAVEMENTCATCH BASINSTREET FBWO FULL BASEMENT WALK-OUTLOT CORNERHOUSE TYPELOWEST FLOORBSMT.913.0*FBWO913.0917.0GRADE AT REAR OF HOUSE PAD(LOWEST OPENING)LOT EASEMENTS 5' MIN. SIDE/REAR HOUSE10' MIN. FRONT- * DENOTES FULL BASEMENT IS 8.00 FEET BELOW THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONDENOTES 8.00 FOOT BASEMENT132 CULLIGAN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT Mendota Heights, Minnesota JULY, 2020 18524.00 north 0 30 60 60 SCALE ILLUSTRATIVE GRADING & UTILITY PLAN GLENHILL ROAD FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY - SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH FINAL PLANS.VICTORIA CURVECULLIGAN LANEDAVID & MARY JANISCH JANE MCKAY MARK & JULIE HUNT NORBERT & SANDRA KREBSACH CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MICHAEL & RUTH SETHNA EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO BE REMOVED SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION WATER CONNECTION LIFT STATION EXISTING RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN EXISTING TREES TO BE PRESERVED EXISTING TREES TO BE PRESERVED EXISTING TREES TO BE PRESERVED RETAINING WALLS (TYP.) WOODLAND RESTORATION AND LANDSCAPE AREA STORMWATER POND ENTRANCE MONUMENT 908.0 911.8909.0 910.0 901.0 891.9 891.9 894.0 889.5 881.5 876.6 907.0 906.5 FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION - TYP. 33 NSCALE IN FEET040 80Review DateSHEET INDEXLicense No.DateI hereby certify that this plan, specification or report wasprepared by me or under my direct supervision and thatI am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under thelaws of the State of Minnesota.Michael J. St. Martin - PE24440Project LeadDrawn ByChecked ByLoucks Project No.018524MJSMJSMJS06/29/2020 CITY SUBMITTALC0-1COVER SHEETC1-1EXISTING CONDITIONS &DEMOLITION PLANCADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project areinstruments of the Consultant professional services for use solelywith respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be usedon other projects, for additions to this project, or for completionof this project by others without written approval by theConsultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may bepermitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files forinformation and reference only. All intentional or unintentionalrevisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall bemade at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additionsor deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify theConsultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.PLANNINGCIVIL ENGINEERINGLAND SURVEYINGLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREENVIRONMENTAL7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300Maple Grove, MN 55369763.424.5505www.loucksinc.comPlotted: 06 /29 / 2020 2:53 PMW:\2018\18524\CADD DATA\CIVIL\_dwg Sheet Files\C3-1 GRADING PLANOUCKSLCADD QUALIFICATIONQUALITY CONTROLPROFESSIONAL SIGNATURESUBMITTAL/REVISIONSVALLEY VIEWOAK 3RDADDITIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNLARRY & MARYCULLIGAN1941 GLENHILL ROADMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118C2-1C3-1C3-2C3-3C4-1SITE PLANGRADING PLANSWPPPSWPPP NOTESSANITARY & WATER PLANC5-1C8-1C8-2L2-1STREET & STORM SEWER PLANCIVIL DETAILSCIVIL DETAILSLANDSCAPE DETAILSC8-3 CIVIL DETAILSL1-1LANDSCAPE PLANC6-1PRELIMINARY PLATC4-2 SANITARY & WATER PLANGRADINGPLANC3-1WARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALLEXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES INMAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 ATLEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES,CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFOREDIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGEDDURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.PARKING STALL COUNTACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL2LEGENDCATCH BASINSTORM SEWERSANITARY SEWERWATERMAINSTORM MANHOLESANITARY MANHOLEHYDRANTGATE VALVESPOT ELEVATIONSIGNLIGHT POLEPOWER POLEWATER MANHOLE / WELLCONTOURCONCRETE CURBUNDERGROUND ELECTRICCONCRETETELEPHONE PEDESTALUNDERGROUND TELEPHONEUNDERGROUND GASOVERHEAD UTILITYCHAIN LINK FENCEBUILDINGRETAINING WALLNO PARKINGUNDERGROUND FIBER OPTICSANITARY SEWER SERVICEWATER SERVICEELECTRIC METERGAS METERTREE LINEEXISTINGPROPOSED972DRAINTILEFORCEMAINPARKING SETBACK LINEBUILDING SETBACK LINE2FENCEFLARED END SECTIONPOST INDICATOR VALVEBENCHMARKSOIL BORINGDIRECTION OF FLOW1.0%972.51. SPOT ELEVATIONS REPRESENT FINISHED SURFACE GRADES, GUTTER/FLOW LINE,FACE OF BUILDING, OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.2. ALL DISTURBED UNPAVED AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES OFPREMIUM TOP SOIL AND SEED/MULCH OR SOD. THESE AREAS SHALL BEWATERED/MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR UNTIL VEGETATION ISESTABLISHED. VERIFY WITH LANDSCAPE PLAN.3. FOR SITE RETAINING WALLS "TW" EQUALS SURFACE GRADE AT TOP FACE OFWALL (NOT TOP OF WALL), "GW" EQUALS SURFACE GRADE AT BOTTOM FACEOF WALL (NOT BOTTOM OF BURIED WALL COURSES).4. REFER TO THE REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND REVIEW(REPORT NO. XX), DATED MARCH XX, 2020 AS PREPARED BY BRAUN INTERTECFOR AN EXISTING SUBSURFACE SITE CONDITION ANALYSIS ANDCONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS.5. STREETS MUST BE CLEANED AND SWEPT WHENEVER TRACKING OF SEDIMENTSOCCURS AND BEFORE SITES ARE LEFT IDLE FOR WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAYS, ORAS DIRECTED BY CITY. A REGULAR SWEEPING SCHEDULE MUST BEESTABLISHED.6. DUST MUST BE ADEQUATELY CONTROLLED.7. SEE SWPPP FOR ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL NOTES AND REQUIREMENTS.8. SEE UTILITY PLAN FOR WATER, STORM AND SANITARY SEWER INFORMATION.9. SEE SITE PLAN FOR CURB AND BITUMINOUS TAPER LOCATIONS.10. A STREET SWEEPER MUST BE AVAILABLE WITHIN 3 HOURS UPON NOTICE FR11. OM THE CITY THAT THE STREETS NEED TO BE SWEPT.12. THE CONTRACTOR ALONG WITH THE OWNER SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARYPERMITS AND APPROVALS FROM GOVERNING AUTHORITIES, INCLUDING ANYCITY PERMITS AND THE NPDES PERMIT FROM THE MPCA.13. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL AND TREE PROTECTION MEASURES BEFOREBEGINNING SITE GRADING ACTIVITIES. SOME EROSION CONTROLS SUCH ASBALE CHECKS AND TEMPORARY SILT PONDS MAY BE INSTALLED AS GRADINGOCCURS IN SPECIFIC AREAS. MAINTAIN EROSION CONTROLS THROUGHOUTTHE GRADING PROCESS AND REMOVE WHEN TURF HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ADHERE TO ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE MPCANPDES PERMIT. THE AREA TO BE DISTURBED SHALL BE MINIMIZED AND TURFSHALL BE ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE TIME REQUIRED.15. GRADES SHOWN ARE FINISHED GRADES.16. FINAL GRADING TOLERANCES ARE +/-0.1 FEET TO FINISH GRADES.GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL NOTES34 APPROX. FORMER ACCESS ROAD TO BARNLINE OF TRANSITION FROM LiDAR TO FIELD VERIFIED TOPOAPPROX . T O P O F 4 0 % B L U F F 40 FT. SETBACK FROM TOP OF BLUFFMANMADESLOPESSLOPES TABLEMIN. SLOPE0.0%18.0%40.0%MAX. SLOPE18.0%40.0%100.0%COLORCADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project areinstruments of the Consultant professional services for use solelywith respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be usedon other projects, for additions to this project, or for completionof this project by others without written approval by theConsultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may bepermitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files forinformation and reference only. All intentional or unintentionalrevisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall bemade at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additionsor deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify theConsultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.PLANNINGCIVIL ENGINEERINGLAND SURVEYINGLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREENVIRONMENTAL7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300Maple Grove, MN 55369763.424.5505www.loucksinc.comPlotted: 06 /29 / 2020 1:36 PM\\10.0.1.10\projects\2018\18524\CADD DATA\CIVIL\_dwg Working Files\SLOPE ANALYSISOUCKSLCADD QUALIFICATIONQUALITY CONTROLPROFESSIONAL SIGNATURESUBMITTAL/REVISIONSVALLEY VIEWOAK 3RDADDITION1941 GLENHILL ROADMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118LARRY & MARYCULLIGAN1941 GLENHILL ROADMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118NSLOPEANALYSISEX-1(Per Dakota County Tax records)Lot 1, Block 1, and OUTLOT A, VALLEY VIEW OAK 2ND ADDITION, DakotaCounty, Minnesota.DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYEDSURVEY REPORT1. This survey was prepared without the benefit of a Title Commitment.There may or may not be easements of record encumbering this property.2. Benchmark: MnDOT monument "1918H" (GSID Station 101785). Analuminum alloy rod located at the southwest corner of Trunk Highway No.110 and Lexington Ave. S.Elevation = 921.70 (NGVD29)Site Benchmark: Top nut of hydrant located at the northeast corner of thethe site along the west side of Glenhill Road.Elevation = 913.22 (NGVD29)3. The contours and features shown hereon within the heavy gray polygonare from a Boundary and Topographic Survey by Loucks Associates, datedMarch 13, 2020. The contours shown hereon lying outside of the heavygray polygon is information obtained from LiDAR.SCALE IN FEET040SPOT ELEVATIONSIGNLIGHT POLEPOWER POLECATCH BASINCONTOURCONCRETE CURBSTORM SEWERSANITARY SEWERBARBED WIRE FENCEWATERMAINUNDERGROUND ELECTRICCONCRETEELECTRIC TRANSFORMERTELEPHONE PEDESTALUTILITY PEDESTALELECTRIC METERGAS METERHAND HOLEUNDERGROUND TELEPHONEUNDERGROUND GASSANITARY SEWER SERVICEWATER SERVICEGUY WIRECULVERTOVERHEAD UTILITYGUARDRAILROOF DRAINCURB STOPFLARED END SECTIONSET 1/2 INCH X 14 INCH IRONMONUMENT, MARKED "LS 48988"FOUND 1/2 INCH X 14 INCH IRON PAVERSAIR CONDITIONING UNITIRON FENCEWOOD FENCEEXISTING BUILDINGRETAINING WALLSTORM MANHOLESANITARY MANHOLEHYDRANTGATE VALVEUNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISEMAPPED STORM SEWERMAPPED SANITARY SEWERMAPPED WATERMAINLIGHT POLEGUY POLELEGENDMONUMENT, MARKED "LS 10943"YARD LIGHT06/29/20CITY SUBMITTALReview DateSHEET INDEXLicense No.Date I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report wasprepared by me or under my direct supervision and thatI am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under thelaws of the State of Minnesota.Michael J. St. Martin - PEProject LeadDrawn ByChecked ByLoucks Project No.2444018-524MJSSFH/SFM/MJSMJS06/29/2006/29/20VICINITY MAPSITE35 CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project areinstruments of the Consultant professional services for use solelywith respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be usedon other projects, for additions to this project, or for completionof this project by others without written approval by theConsultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may bepermitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files forinformation and reference only. All intentional or unintentionalrevisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall bemade at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additionsor deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify theConsultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.PLANNINGCIVIL ENGINEERINGLAND SURVEYINGLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREENVIRONMENTAL7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300Maple Grove, MN 55369763.424.5505www.loucksinc.comPlotted: 06 /29 / 2020 6:53 AMW:\2018\18524\CADD DATA\SURVEY\_dwg Sheet Files\18524A-PrePlatOUCKSLCADD QUALIFICATIONQUALITY CONTROLPROFESSIONAL SIGNATURESUBMITTAL/REVISIONSVALLEY VIEWOAK 3RDADDITIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNLARRY & MARYCULLIGAN1941 GLENHILL ROADMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118NSCALE IN FEET040 8006/29/20CITY SUBMITTALPRELIMINARYPLATC6-1SPOT ELEVATIONSIGNLIGHT POLEPOWER POLECATCH BASINCONTOURCONCRETE CURBSTORM SEWERSANITARY SEWERBARBED WIRE FENCEWATERMAINUNDERGROUND ELECTRICCONCRETEELECTRIC TRANSFORMERTELEPHONE PEDESTALUTILITY PEDESTALELECTRIC METERGAS METERHAND HOLEUNDERGROUND TELEPHONEUNDERGROUND GASSANITARY SEWER SERVICEWATER SERVICEGUY WIRECULVERTOVERHEAD UTILITYELEV @ THRESHOLDGUARDRAILROOF DRAINCURB STOPFLARED END SECTIONTOP OF CURBSET 1/2 INCH X 14 INCH IRONMONUMENT, MARKED "LS 48988"FOUND 1/2 INCH X 14 INCH IRON FOUND CAST IRON MONUMENTALUMINUM DISCPER PLANPAVERSFOUND PK NAILAIR CONDITIONING UNITTOP NUT HYDRANTIRON FENCEWOOD FENCEEXISTING BUILDINGRETAINING WALLSTORM MANHOLESANITARY MANHOLEHYDRANTGATE VALVEUNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISESANITARY MANHOLESTORM MANHOLECATCH BASINSTRUCTURE RIM & INVERTMAPPED STORM SEWERMAPPED SANITARY SEWERMAPPED WATERMAINRECORD DIMENSION PER PLATRECORD DIMENSION PERDEED DESCRIPTION(P)(D)INFORMATION AS SHOWN ON PLANSNOT FIELD VERIFIEDLIGHT POLEGUY POLELEGENDMONUMENT, MARKED "LS 10943"YARD LIGHT(Per Dakota County Tax records)Lot 1, Block 1, and OUTLOT A, VALLEY VIEW OAK 2ND ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota.LEGAL DESCRIPTIONGENERAL NOTESSURVEYOR:Loucks7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300Maple Grove, MN 55330763-424-55051. Prepared June 18, 2020.2. The address, if disclosed in documents provided to or obtained by the surveyor, or observed while conductingthe fieldwork is 1941 Glenhill Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55118.3. The bearings for this survey are based on the Dakota County Coordinate System NAD 83 (1986 Adjust).4. Benchmark: MnDOT monument "1918H" (GSID Station 101785).An aluminum alloy rod located at the southwest corner of Trunk Highway No. 110 and Lexington Ave. S.Elevation = 921.70 (NGVD29)Site Benchmark:Top nut of hydrant located at the northeast corner of the the site along the west side of Glenhill Road.Elevation = 913.22 (NGVD29)5. This property is contained in Zone X (areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) perFlood Insurance Rate Map No. 270370018E, Community Panel No. 270110 0018 E, and Flood Insurance RateMap No. 270370019E, Community Panel No. 270110 0019 E effective date of December 2, 2011.6. The field work was completed on March 5, 2020.OWNER/DEVELOPER:Larry & Mary Culligan1941 Glenhill RoadMendota Heights, MN 55118612-308-0874Current Zoning: R-1 (One Family Residential District)Any zoning classification, setback requirements, height and floor space area restrictions, and parking requirements,shown hereon, was researched to the best of our ability and is open to interpretation. Per the City of MendotaHeights Zoning Map and City Code, on June 8, 2020, information for the subject property is as follows:Current Setbacks:Front 30 feetSide 10 feet or 1/2 the height of the structure contiguous to side yardRear 30 feet or 20% of the average lot depth, whichever is greaterHeight 2 stories or 25 feet, whichever is lesser in heightWidth 100 feetProposed Zoning: R-1 (One Family Residential District)Proposed Setbacks:Front 30 feetSide 10 feetRear 30 feetZONING INFORMATIONAreasLot 1, Block 1 = 19,586 +/- square feet or 0.45 +/- acresLot 2, Block 1 = 20,790 +/- square feet or 0.48 +/- acresLot 1, Block 2 = 54,217 +/- square feet or 1.24 +/- acresLot 2, Block 2 = 29,205 +/- square feet or 0.67 +/- acresLot 3, Block 2 = 26,798 +/- square feet or 0.62 +/- acresLot 4, Block 2 = 25,883 +/- square feet or 0.59 +/- acresLot 5, Block 2 = 31,743 +/- square feet or 0.73 +/- acresLot 6, Block 2 = 27,952 +/- square feet or 0.64 +/- acresLot 7, Block 2 = 21,189 +/- square feet or 0.49 +/- acresGlenhill Road = 1,449 +/- square feet or 0.03 +/- acresPublic Road= 36,495 +/- square feet or 0.84 +/- acresTotal Plat Area = 295,307 +/- square feet or 6.75 +/- acresSITE DATALicense No.DateI hereby certify that this survey, plan or report wasprepared by me or under my direct supervision and thatI am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws ofthe State of Minnesota.VICINITY MAPField CrewMax L. Stanislowski - PLS48988Project LeadDrawn ByChecked ByLoucks Project No.18-524MLSSFH/SFMMLS06/26/20SITEBEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISEINDICATED AND ADJOINING LOT LINES, ANDBEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISEINDICATED, AND ADJOINING RIGHT-OF-WAYLINES, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT.DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARESHOWN THUS: (NOT TO SCALE)36 DECIDUOUS TREESQTY COMMON NAME1 ACCOLADE ELM10 COMMON HACKBERRY1 KENTUCKY COFFEETREE ESPRESSO10 NORTHERN PIN OAK3 SIENNA GLEN MAPLE3SWAMP WHITE OAKEVERGREEN TREES QTY COMMON NAME1AUSTRIAN PINEFULL FORM7BLACK HILLS SPRUCEFULL FORMORNAMENTAL TREES QTY COMMON NAME4FOX VALLEY BIRCH1 PAGODA DOGWOODGRASSES QTY COMMON NAME4 SHENANDOAH SWITCH GRASSPERENNIALS QTY COMMON NAME12 RUBY STELLA DAYLILYPLANT SCHEDULENSCALE IN FEET040 8006/29/2020 CITY SUBMITTALC0-1COVER SHEETC1-1EXISTING CONDITIONS &DEMOLITION PLANCADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project areinstruments of the Consultant professional services for use solelywith respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be usedon other projects, for additions to this project, or for completionof this project by others without written approval by theConsultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may bepermitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files forinformation and reference only. All intentional or unintentionalrevisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall bemade at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additionsor deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify theConsultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.PLANNINGCIVIL ENGINEERINGLAND SURVEYINGLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREENVIRONMENTAL7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300Maple Grove, MN 55369763.424.5505www.loucksinc.comPlotted: 06 /29 / 2020 3:3 PMW:\2018\18524\CADD DATA\LANDSCAPE\_dwg Sheet Files\L1-1 LANDSCAPE PLANOUCKSLCADD QUALIFICATIONQUALITY CONTROLPROFESSIONAL SIGNATURESUBMITTAL/REVISIONSVALLEY VIEWOAK 3RDADDITIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNLARRY & MARYCULLIGAN1941 GLENHILL ROADMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118Review DateSHEET INDEXLicense No.DateI hereby certify that this plan, specification or report wasprepared by me or under my direct supervision and thatI am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the lawsof the State of Minnesota.Project LeadDrawn ByChecked ByLoucks Project No.Chad E. Feigum - LA4650818524.0MJSCEFCEF06/29/2006/29/20C2-1C3-1C3-2C3-3C4-1SITE PLANGRADING PLANSWPPPSWPPP NOTESSANITARY & WATER PLANC5-1C8-1C8-2L2-1STREET & STORM SEWER PLANCIVIL DETAILSCIVIL DETAILSLANDSCAPE DETAILSC8-3 CIVIL DETAILSL1-1LANDSCAPE PLANC6-1PRELIMINARY PLATC4-2 SANITARY & WATER PLANLANDSCAPEPLANL1-1WARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALLEXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES INMAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 ATLEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES,CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFOREDIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGEDDURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GENERAL NOTES:CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT SITE PRIOR TO SUBMITTING BID. CONTRACTOR TO INSPECTSITE AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE NATUREAND SCOPE OF WORK.VERIFY LAYOUT AND ANY DIMENSIONS SHOWN AND BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ANY DISCREPANCIES WHICH MAY COMPROMISE THE DESIGNAND / OR INTENT OF THE PROJECT'S LAYOUT.ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THEWORK OR MATERIALS SUPPLIED.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTING ROADS, CURBS / GUTTERS, TRAILS, TREES,LAWNS AND SITE ELEMENTS DURING PLANTING OPERATIONS. ANY DAMAGE TO SAMESHALL BE REPAIRED AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALIGNMENT AND LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND ANDABOVE GRADE UTILITIES AND PROVIDE THE NECESSARY PROTECTION FOR SAME BEFORECONSTRUCTION / MATERIAL INSTALLATION BEGINS (MINIMUM 10' - 0" CLEARANCE).ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE LAID SO THAT TRENCHES DO NOT CUTTHROUGH ROOT SYSTEMS OF ANY EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN.EXISTING CONTOURS, TRAILS, VEGETATION, CURB / GUTTER AND OTHER EXISTINGELEMENTS BASED UPON INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY OTHERS.CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ANY AND ALL DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTIONAND NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF SAME.THE ALIGNMENT AND GRADES OF THE PROPOSED WALKS, TRAILS AND / OR ROADWAYSARE SUBJECT TO FIELD ADJUSTMENT REQUIRED TO CONFORM TO LOCALIZEDTOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS AND TO MINIMIZE TREE REMOVAL AND GRADING. ANYCHANGE IN ALIGNMENT MUST BE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.THE EXISTING VEGETATION ON SITE CONSISTS MOSTLY OF UNDERSTORY BRUSH WITH ASCATTERING OF OVERSTORY DECIDUOUS TREES. THE UNDERSTORY VEGETATIONCONSISTS OF BUCKTHORN THAT IS DOMINATING THE GROUND COVER IN THEWOODED AREAS. OVERSTORY TREES ARE PRIMARILY ASH AND A FEW OAKS.REFER TO SHEET L2-1 FOR FULL PLANT SCHEDULE, LANDSCAPE NOTES, LANDSCAPEDETAILS, AND IRRIGATION NOTES.37 DATE: August 12, 2020 TO: Parks & Recreation Commission FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Par 3 Update The Mendota Heights Par 3 officially opened for the season on April 27, in compliance with the Governor’s executive order that allowed golf courses to open with restrictions due to COVID -19. The course has made specific modifications to ensure the safety of residents, customers, and city staff. Included in your packet is the signage that staff has been using this season based on COVID - 19. The course has been busy and staff feels state -wide there is a renewed interest in the sport of golf. Staff will provide the commissioners with a financial report for the 2020 season. Staff will also provide an update on the COVID-19 modifications, course operations, maintenance challenges due to the large volume of golfers , and the City’s most up-to-date COVID-19 plan for the course. 38 8a. MH GO THE EXTRA MILE Wear your mask over your smile. PREPARE TO HOOF IT Bring your own clubs & pull cart; the course is walking only (electric carts, pull carts, & club rentals are NOT available). BYOS Bring Your Own Stuff such as snacks, beverages, balls, tees, hand sanitizer, sun protection, etc. (items will NOT be sold at the Clubhouse). TAKE THE SIX-FOOT GIMME It is recommended that you pick up your ball on the green six feet before the hole; cup risers or inserts will be in place; do not touch cups or pull pins. Additionally, rakes, ball washers, and benches are NOT available. MIND THE SOCIAL DISTANCE GAP Stay at least six feet away from anyone outside of your household (roughly two club lengths) at all times. KEEP THE COURSE GREEN & CLEAN Contain and manage your own garbage & recycling; waste receptacles are only available at the Clubhouse. WE ❤ YOU, BUT DON’T LINGER Depart promptly when finished with play. PACK A SCORE KEEPER Use a phone app, calculator, clicker, your cranium, or old-school pencil & paper to keep score (scorecards and pencils will NOT be available). YOUR CASH ISN’T GOOD HERE Prepare to pay with credit/debit card only; limited to one payment transaction per each group. TEE TIMES REQUIRED 651-454-9822 Groups will be spaced with extra time in between; limit of four players per group. Note that the Clubhouse is staffed but closed to the public. SKIP TO THE LOO NEAR HOLE #4 Only one portable restroom will be available near hole #4; the Clubhouse is closed to the public. Mendota Heights Par 3 | 1695 Dodd Road | Mendota Heights | www.mendota-heights.com STAY HOME IF YOU’RE ILL If you’re feeling sick, have symptoms of COVID-19, or are under quarantine for a known exposure to COVID-19, do not come to the course; putt-putt around the house until you recover. Info & Tee Times 651-454-9822 PRACTICE GOOD HAND HYGIENE Bring along hand sanitizer or disinfectant hand wipes and avoid touching eyes, nose, and mouth with unwashed hands. Before you leave home Suit up upon arrival ARRIVE TEN MINUTES EARLY Arrive just ten minutes before your tee time; warm up prior to arrival if helpful or use lack of warm-up time as an excuse later on during play. Show care during play Additional Rules for Play During the COVID-19 Pandemic In order to provide a safe environment for all of our customers and staff, Mendota Heights Par 3 has established additional guidelines and safety measures based on CDC recommendations and the Minnesota COVID-19 Outdoor Recreation, Facilities and Public Guidelines. We are pleased to be able to open the Mendota Heights Par 3 and ask that everyone respect this privilege, so we may continue to enjoy the game of golf in the months ahead. Thank you for your cooperation. 39 8a2. DATE: August 12, 2020 TO: Parks & Recreation Commission FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Recreation Update Since the commission’s last regularly scheduled meeting in March, the City’s recreation programs were heavily impacted due to COVID-19. Many events and city-run programs were cancelled in order to ensure the safety of residents. The City has followed the Governor’s executive orders and guidance and recommendations from the Minnesota Department of Health and Centers for Disease Control when making decisions regarding programming and park amenity availability to users. Throughout the last few months staff has produced a COVID -19 Park and Facility Preparedness Plan that outlines what is being done and expectations of users to keep people safe within our parks. Staff has worked with local user groups to review COVID -19 plans and proper documentation in order to get youth sports and a ctivities running again. Adult softball leagues, outdoor movie and concert gatherings, and special events have resumed with staff preparing COVID-19 plans to meet each unique park and recreation activity, specifically. Staff will provide the commission with a COVID-19 report and answer any questions regarding plans for moving forward. 40 8b. DATE: August 12, 2020 TO: Parks & Recreation Commission FROM: Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician SUBJECT: Rogers Lake Eagle Scout Service Project BACKGROUND Thomas Lawder, a Mendota Heights resident and member of Boy Scout Troop #9067, approached the City with a proposal to complete a service project as part of the requirements of becoming an Eagle Scout. Eagle Scout Service Projects must utilize planning, development, and leadership skills to benefit a religious institution, school, or community. Thomas expressed interest in potential service projects that would benefit Rogers Lake. After discussing several options with City Staff, he chose to create a lakeshore buffer near the fishing pier at Rogers Lake Park. The lakeshore buffer will be an extension of the native vegetative buffer that already exists at Rogers Lake Park. The process of creating the lakeshore buffer will include removing existing non-native and invasive vegetation, and then restoring the area with native vegetation adapted to lakeshore conditions. The buffer will benefit Rogers Lake in several ways, including: Filtering pollutants contained in stormwater runoff, such as extra nutrients from grass clippings, leaves, and lawn care products. These extra nutrients lead to excessive algal growth and depleted oxygen levels, as well as fish kills. Providing valuable habitat for pollinators, birds, amphibians, and other wildlife. Protecting the shoreline from erosion due to wave action and ice movement. Providing beauty and color to the landscape. Thomas Lawder, Eagle Scout Candidate, will attend and present the project to the Parks and Recreation Commission at a later date, when the project is complete. ACTION REQUIRED None – for informational purposes only, although comments are welcomed. 41 9a. DATE: August 12, 2020 TO: Parks & Recreation Commission FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Work Session Review INTRODUCTION: The City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission met on July 14, 2020 for a work session to discuss park improvement projects for the next two years. The following park project items were discussed: Wentworth grant requirements for completion, Wentworth tennis court replacement, pickleball court location, basketball expansion at Hagstrom King, Mendakota dugouts, playground replacement at Marie Park, the future of the Dog Park and Skateboard Park. Since the meeting was a work session, no official action was take n. Staff will provide a more in- depth review of the work session at the August 12 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. The minutes from the meeting are also included in the packet. ACTION REQUESTED: Based on guidance from the City Council, staff will be working with the Parks and Recreation Commission to update the City’s Capital Improvement Plan. 42 10a. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Joint City Council – Parks Recreation Commission Work Session Held July 14, 2020 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the City Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, was held at the Fire Station, 2121 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. TOUR OF FIRE STATION Members present took a tour of the new Fire Station facilities. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. Councilors Duggan, Miller, Paper, and Petschel were also present. Parks and Recreation Commission members present included Cotter, Klepperich, Meyer, and Sherer. City staff present included Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director; Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator; Meredith Lawrence, Recr eation Program Coordinator; and Lorri Smith, City Clerk. TWO YEAR PROJECT DISCUSSION City Administrator Mark McNeill gave an overview of the Special Parks Fund, stating that the fund currently has a balance of $626,000. An additional amount of $192,000 is anticipated when the development of The Villag e vacant lots occurs later this year. These funds can be used for acquisition of park property, development of a park, or improvements to our parks. The money cannot be used for operation costs or maintenance costs. Recreation Program Coordinator Mered ith Lawrence and Mr. McNeill informed the group that the Par 3 Fund is no longer an enterprise fund. The Par 3 Fund is now classified as a Special Revenue Fund. Councilor Petschel noted that the Par 3 bonds will be paid in full in the year 2023. After that, some or all of this money could go to the Special Parks Fund and be available to help sustain the parks. The Mayor agreed with that statement. Councilor Paper suggested that the City may have to look at another referendum in the future to help maintain the parks. Councilor Duggan stated that the Par 3 funds are all city monies and maybe only a portion should be used for parks. Administrator McNeill said that the use of the amount of property tax levy for parks would be a decision which would b e made by the City Council which is in office at that time. 43 10a2. July 14, 2020 Joint City Council-Parks Rec Commission Work Session page 2 of 3 The following parks projects were discussed: 1.Wentworth Grant Requirements. The warming house replacement is estimated to cost $169,000, which does not include utilities or concrete costs. The Wentworth parking lot improvements are estimated to cost $90,000. It was noted that the playground was completed in 2019. It is anticipated that the warming house and parking lot will be completed in 2021. If received, the grant will reimburse the city $180,000 for these expenditures. 2.Wentworth Tennis Court Replacement. Public Works Director Ruzek stated that after the Parks tour, it was unanimous that this tennis court should be replaced. The city is hopeful to receive a USTA grant, which is typically $20,000. The project would be completed in 2021, and is estimated to cost $80,000. There was consensus to move this project forward. 3.Replace tennis courts with pickle ball courts at Valley Park, or construct new pickle ball courts at another area. The Valley Park tennis courts could be turned into 2 pickle ball courts at a cost estimated to be $80,000. There was concern about the noise this may cause for the Valley Park neighborhood. Another option being considered is to construct new pickle ball courts at the current skate park, Hagstrom King Park, or at Mendakota Park. Friendly Hills Hockey rink should also be considered to be used for pickle ball courts. This is estimated to cost $120,000. There was consensus to look for other areas for the pickle ball courts due to the noise they may cause at Valley Park. It was noted that the Marie Park pickle balls courts see a lot of use. Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator, noted that the users of the Marie Avenue pickle ball courts would like to see an area dedicated specifically for pickle ball courts. Mayor Garlock stated he would like to see the city expand the pickle ball options. Councilor Petschel recommended that the Friendly Hills hockey rink be striped for pickle ball courts, and to see how much use these courts receive, then to discuss this item again in the future. The Council and Commission members agreed. 4.Basketball court expansion at Hagstrom King. This basketball court would be expand to almost a full court at a cost of $16,000. There was consensus to move this project forward. 5.Mendakota Dugouts. Mr. Ruzek stated he received one quote for $96,000 to construct dugouts at the ballfields in Mendakota Park. There was consensus that Mr. Ruzek should get one more quote, then the Council would be asked to approve proceeding with the project. 6.Playground Replacement at Marie Park. It is proposed to replace this playground equipment estimated to cost $160,000. This project would be completed in 2021. Mr. Ruzek suggested that this be bid out as a whole design bid. This would allow the bidders to be creative, keeping the current equipment if they can fit it into the plan. Commissioner Cotter stressed that the Parks and Recreation Commission needs to have consistency in budgeting, and then a park could be updated every year. Mayor Garlock agreed and suggested that a 10 or 20 year long-term improvement plan be developed. 7.Determine future of Dog Park. Five years ago, the off leash dog area was designated as being an interim use at its current location, near Pilot Knob Hill. The designation is scheduled to expire this year. Since that time, some improvements have been made to improve this use as an off-leash dog park. There was consensus to continue the off leash dog area designation for another five years at its current location. 44 July 14, 2020 Joint City Council-Parks Rec Commission Work Session page 3 of 3 8.Determine Future of Skate Park. Issues with the skate park were discussed. It was noted that if this is to continue to be used as a skate park, then improvements will be needed. $10,000 has been budgeted this year to make improvements in the park features. For safety purposes, the entire base surface of the park will need to be replaced in the coming years. Councilor Paper stated that he does not think the city should eliminate this park. He suggested the city figure out a better way to maintain it. There was consensus to hold off on spending the $10,000 that was budgeted for this year to improve the features, and to put that money towards the replacement of the base surface in the coming years. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 pm. ___________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk 45