The URL can be used to link to this page

2020-10-08 Planning Commission Special Meeting Agenda PacketAuxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2020 7:00 PM- Mendota Heights City Hall 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights MN 55118 1. Call to Order / Roll Call 2. Public Hearings a. Case No. 2020-15: Preliminary Plat, Critical Area Permit, Conditional Use Permit and Variances for new subdivision titled Valley View Oak 3rd Addition, generally located at the NW Quadrant of Victoria Curve and Glenhill Road. Michelle Culligan – Applicant (acting on behalf of Larry & Mary Culligan) TABLED from the July 28, 2020 Meeting 3. Adjourn Meeting PC Packet Pg. #1 Planning Staff Report (Supplemental) DATE: October 8, 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”. The plat would create eight new single-family building lots and one existing lot for the Culligan home. This preliminary plat includes a request for a critical area 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 roadway standards, retaining wall standards, structure setbacks and other standards related to proposed construction activities. This item is being presented as a public hearing item. Notices were mailed to all surrounding property owners within 350-feet of the site; and a notice was published in the local newspaper. BACKGROUND The subject plat is essentially a 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. PC Packet Pg. #2 Planning Case # 2020-15 (Supplemental Report) Page 2 of 20 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd The plat includes a new public roadway with a cul-de-sac configuration. The roadway opening will come off Victoria Curve, 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. On July 28, 2020, the plat and the related applications were presented to the Planning Commission under an initial public hearing. Staff presented the plat layout and information; the Commission heard from the Applicant and consultants; and listened to comments from the public. The Commission later tabled the hearing in order for staff to present this plat to the Parks and Recreation Commission for review and consideration. On August 12, 2020, this matter appeared before the Parks & Rec Commission under a general review process. The Applicant and public provided comments at that meeting, and these comments are noted in the attached 08/12/2020 Parks Comm. Meeting minutes. Staff had intended to bring this item back to the Planning Commission (with a continued public hearing) at the August 25 regular meeting. Shortly after the Parks Comm. meeting, staff met with the Applicant to discuss a number of the site issues, and the Applicant agreed to delay the upcoming Aug. 25th hearing in order to conduct and submit a soils/hydrology report of their site. The Applicant hired Braun Intertec to complete this report/study, appended to this report. As part of the recent meeting with city staff, and a result of this soils report, the Applicants have modified their plat and plans and offer the following changes or new information for the city to consider: • Removed the variance for public road R-O-W width from 50-feet to the required 60 feet. (Note: the proposed street width of 28-feet remains, as staff supported this design in other developments.) • Requesting front yard setbacks to the R-O-W from 30 feet to 20 feet for Lots 1-4 along the new road. The variance request will allow the project to maintain similar construction limits as the previous plan thus preserving grades and trees, without creating a precedence or endangering the public. • Replaced the single retaining wall design to a two and three-tiered wall design; reduced the variances to wall heights from 23-ft. to 10-feet, with an average height of just over 5-feet; and included an added request to reduce the required horizontal spacing between walls from 20-ft. to 12-ft. separations. • Providing a conservation easement to protect the bluff area on the western side of the site. • Completed soil borings and had a geotechnical review prepared for soil stability. UPDATED/REVISED PLANS  Proposed Lots The R-1 One Family Residential District requires minimum lot width of 100-feet and minimum lot area of 15,000 sq. ft. Due to the added ROW width on the public road, the proposed lots are slightly adjusted: • Lot 1, Block 1 = 18,851 +/- square feet or 0.43 +/- acres • Lot 2, Block 1 = 19,016 +/- square feet or 0.44 +/- acres • Lot 1, Block 2 = 54,250 +/- square feet or 1.24 +/- acres • Lot 2, Block 2 = 28,738 +/- square feet or 0.66 +/- acres • Lot 3, Block 2 = 25,801 +/- square feet or 0.59 +/- acres • Lot 4, Block 2 = 25,095 +/- square feet or 0.58 +/- 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 PC Packet Pg. #3 Planning Case # 2020-15 (Supplemental Report) Page 3 of 20 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd All lots meet (exceed) the minimum R-1 standards for width and area; and all lots remain identified as “FBWO” (full basement/walk-out) residential dwellings.  Proposed Roadway The revised plat continues to illustrate the new curvilinear public roadway 28-ft. in width, with an end cul-de- sac, but instead of a 50-ft. wide ROW as originally requested, this ROW has now been increased to 60-ft., which is per Subdivision Code. 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’ roadway radius and 60’ ROW radius (both meeting the above-referenced Code section). The street is 548.91 feet, measured along its centerline to the radius point of the turn-around. Even though the language (verbiage) “…shall normally not be longer than five hundred feet...” leaves some room for interpretation, city staff still requested the Applicant include this added length on the cul-de-sac with their variance applications. The city’s Fire Chief and Fire Marshal were presented the plans and asked to comment on the proposed roadway length. Both had no objections to the added 48+ feet of roadway; no issues with the full circle turn- around; and were pleased to see the developer intended to install three new hydrants (beginning/middle/end) along the roadway. Because of the roadway increasing to the 60-ft. ROW design, and in order to reduce or minimize additional construction activities or impacts along the back areas of the lot and against the bluff edge, the Applicant is requesting allowance of a reduced front-yard setback from 30-ft. to 20-ft. for Lots 1 through 4 of the development.  Proposed Retaining Walls The site plan still calls for retaining walls on the back areas of all new lots, but instead of a single wall system, the Applicant is now requesting approval of separated and tiered wall designs. 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 original plans called for a single retaining wall system situated along the back areas of the new lots, with heights ranging from 0-ft. up to 8.3 ft., 11.46-ft., 16.61 ft., 17.42 ft. and up to 23.2-ft. in height in some places. PC Packet Pg. #4 Planning Case # 2020-15 (Supplemental Report) Page 4 of 20 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd The updated plans now call for the walls to be installed in a tiered fashion, with at least 12-ft. of horizontal separation between the tiered walls. Because of this tiered design, the walls are now reduced, with heights ranging from approximately 5-feet+/- to no more than 10-ft. (max.) in areas. These walls are shown on the updated Site Plan - Sheet C2.1, and further detailed on the Grading Plan - Sheet C3-1. The City must approve a variance to allow these walls to exceed the 5-ft. height limit, and allow for the reduced 12-ft. (horizontal) spacing between wall systems, rather than the required 20-ft. standard. The walls are noted as “Block Retaining Walls”, and are planned to be similar in style as the new walls installed in the Orchard development (see wall image- right). Since this material is different from native stone or wood, the Planning Commission will need to make a determination or recommendation that this textured (concrete) block wall material is acceptable, and provide a finding that states, “such materials are necessary to preserve the stability of the slope; and the materials shall be designed with a natural color and texture.” Per the Applicant’s narrative: “The tiered system significantly reduces the height of the single wall system from the previous plan. Although the average height of the proposed walls is at around 5 feet, there are minor segments of the walls that rise to 10 feet. The taller segments are generally located behind Lot 5 and Lot 2 and the upper wall behind Lots 1 & 2 on Glenhill Road. We are using 12-foot horizontal spacing PC Packet Pg. #5 Planning Case # 2020-15 (Supplemental Report) Page 5 of 20 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd in lieu of the city standard 20-foot, due to the steep topography. The 12-foot spacing will provide the space needed for wall stabilization, mature plantings and maintenance access.” As reported in the July 28 Report, any wall over 4-ft. in height must be designed and approved by a licensed structural engineer. The walls will face outwards towards the roadway or bluff areas, which will remain heavily wooded and should provide an effective screen to the neighboring properties. The Planning Commission will need to make a determination or recommendation if the wall heights that exceed the 5-ft. maximum standards and the reduced horizontal spacing from 20-ft. to 12-ft. between wall systems is acceptable.  Stormwater Plans The July 28 Report provided a copy of the Stormwater Management Report on this development site from Loucks, Inc. As part of this update, the Developer has submitted a new Drainage Exhibit – Plan Sheet H1. This plan illustrates the before (existing) and after (proposed) drainage from the site. The plan shows virtually the entire 6.5-acre site draining westwards towards the bluff edge, as this is the natural shape and slope of the land as it exists today. The installation of the new roadway will help capture and funnel a large portion of stormwater drainage away from the bluff/hillside, and carry it down southward towards Victoria Curve and into the storm pond. According to the Applicant’s narrative: “Per this design, less overall water will be flowing down the slope than what occurs today as the acreage of drainage is reduced from 7 acres to 3.4 acres of land.. The concentration of flow will also be controlled by the construction and grading of the home sites to prevent the channeling of water down the slope. Additionally, subgrade drainage will be intercepted with draintile and drainage rock running behind the curb and parallel to the storm sewer and routed to stormwater pond. Subgrade drainage behind the retaining walls will be intercepted with draintile and drainage rock and routed around the walls.” The Drainage Exhibit Plan also provides Existing vs. Proposed Runoff tables at the bottom of the plan sheet, which provide comparisons of runoff rate and volume numbers based on a 2-Yr., 10-Yr. and 100-Yr. storm, and included 100-Yr. Snowmelt figures as well. From these tables, it appears the runoff/volume rates under these categorical storm events are slightly reduced in this development.  Soils/Geo-Technical Report Due to the number of issues and comments raised by neighboring residents on soils, drainage, natural springs and other potential impacts, the Developer hired Braun Intertec to complete some soil borings and testing, to help determine the global stability of this development site. According to this initial report and borings: “The existing soils are generally glacial clayey sand to sandy lean clay, underlain by poorly-graded sand to silty sand derived from sandstone. Borings did not encounter groundwater, but their analysis will account for seasonal and temporary perched groundwater as an additional precaution. The global slope stability analysis will be based on an industry standard factor of safety of 1.5.” The Applicant added: “When the Braun report is complete, we will use it to verify our current plan or make slight modifications as needed, which could include lowering street/pad grades and revising the shape of the house pads, but it would not affect the overall layout of the 8 lot subdivision.” The neighboring residents also had a separate hydro-geotechnical report completed by their own consultants. This report is appended to the planning supplemental report. The consultants for both the Developer and the neighbors will be available at the October 8 meeting to respond to any questions from the commission on the respective reports. PC Packet Pg. #6 Planning Case # 2020-15 (Supplemental Report) Page 6 of 20 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd  Grading Plan (Sheet C3-1) The Applicant has again provided a very detailed grading plan with the updated plan set. It appears most of the original designed grades around the home pad sites and storm pond are the same, except for some area to the rea of the lots with new double/tripe tiered wall designs. The slope gradients on the proposed roadway remain virtually the same with slopes varying from 1.6% to 7.8% to 4.4% along the upper main segment of the road, and 3.6% to 2.9% near the entry point. Code specifies roadways of 8% or less preferred. The Applicant re-submitted an updated Slope Analysis Plan. 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%. The Plan again shows the proposed work needed on Lot 5/Blk. 2 as one that may impact a small area of 40%+ sloped area, but the Slope Plan labels these as “man- made slopes” located around the perimeter of the old barn/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.  Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Plan (Sheet C4-1) The plans for these services appear to be same as presented earlier. No added comments provided.  Storm Sewer and Street Plan (Sheet C5-1) The plans for these storm water services appear to be same as presented earlier. No added comments provided.  Landscape Plan (Sheet L1-1 & L2-1) The landscape/tree plan is slightly modified due the proposed tiered wall systems. The walls behind the homes now support the adding new trees in the horizontal separation space. Plans still call for a planting of various deciduous and evergreen trees around the proposed stormwater pond near the southwest corner of the development. The original Landscape Plan and list of plantings were submitted to the city’s Natural Resources Technician for review, with comments/recommendations noted below: • Substitute White Pines instead of proposed Austrian Pines. • Substitute Northern Catalpa or Serviceberry for the Sienna Glen Maple. • Substitute Black-eyed Susan, Butterfly weed, or any other flowering native for Ruby Stella Daylily. • Remove any wire-baskets from root ball entirely before tree planting. • Remove at least top 1/3 of burlap and all twine from root ball before tree planting. PC Packet Pg. #7 Planning Case # 2020-15 (Supplemental Report) Page 7 of 20 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd The new plans still show Austrian Pine, Sienna Maples and Ruby Stella daylilies for plantings. Moving forward, this landscape plan will need to be revised per the recommendations of the city. The Applicant indicates in the updated narrative, that the existing property is not entirely wooded, and approximately half of the R-O-W will be built on an existing open grass area. While this may be true, it is important to replenish and replace trees and loss of vegetation due to new construction activities. As part of any additional removals or impacts caused by new home construction, a condition may be added that requires the builder to submit a detailed survey indicating all significant trees (6” or greater) on the new lot, with the variety/species of trees, and propose an individual tree replacement plan for each lot. Beyond the construction of the road and the specific home sites, the wooded nature of the property will be preserved. The Developer has also agreed to provide a “conservation easement” over the westerly hillside and bluff edges, in order to preserve and protect the woodlands and vegetation in this area. 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 affect 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 PC Packet Pg. #8 Planning Case # 2020-15 (Supplemental Report) Page 8 of 20 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd 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. 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 noted in the previous July 28 Report, “…the city provide some mechanism or responsibility upon the Developer to save and preserve as many significant trees as possible on this site” – and it was suggested the Developer provide a protective (conservation) easement, which she has agreed to do as part of nay approvals. 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 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 preliminary Braun Report (09/28/2020) does not specifically declare if the soils noted in the boring tests are suitable for development. When a full report is presented, it should indicate or provide an accurate and fair assessment that this site will support the installation and development of all improvements planned for this site. Should the report declare anything differently, then the city may need to make its findings, recommendations or conditions of approval accordingly. 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; PC Packet Pg. #9 Planning Case # 2020-15 (Supplemental Report) Page 9 of 20 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd 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; 5. Fill is established to accepted engineering standards. 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. The clear-cutting needed for the new roadway appears appropriate and allowed under this section. The Developer is requesting reduced structure setbacks to help minimize or reduce any additional impacts caused by the removal of trees and vegetation along the backside of the new homes. 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 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 Report. PC Packet Pg. #10 Planning Case # 2020-15 (Supplemental Report) Page 10 of 20 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd 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 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%). As presented on the updated plans, 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 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. PC Packet Pg. #11 Planning Case # 2020-15 (Supplemental Report) Page 11 of 20 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd 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. 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. VARIANCES REVIEW Critical Area Overlay District Standards: 12-3-15 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-ft. max. Up to 10-ft. Retaining wall materials 12-3-9(A)(2)(d)(3) Native stone or wood. segmental block (concrete) Retaining wall spacing (horizontal) 12-3-9(A)(2)(d)(4) 20-ft. max. 12-ft. separation Construction on slopes 40%+ 12-3-14(C) No construction on slopes over 40% Construction on “man-made” slopes near Lot 5/Blk. 2 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. PC Packet Pg. #12 Planning Case # 2020-15 (Supplemental Report) Page 12 of 20 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd Retaining wall structures are a useful and essential means of keeping built-up areas safe and secure around new homes, 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 previous plans included requests to have retaining walls ranging in height from 8.3 ft. to 23.2-ft. in some areas. After the July 28 hearing, the Developer met with city staff and we suggested exploring ways to reducing these excessive wall heights. The Developer submitted the attached revised plans showing two or three tiered wall systems with a tapered or “eyebrow” appearance, and ranging in height form zero (ground-level) up to 10-ft. in height. In order to meet this reduced height limits and avoid increased impacts into the bluff setback, the Developer is proposing a reduced horizontal spacing from the required 20-ft. to 12-ft. The walls on the backsides of Lots 1 thru 6 will face out towards the bluff and City of Mendota. The residential properties in Mendota sit much farther down in the bluff valley, and during most times of the yea, as the trees and vegetation leaf/bloom out, it is unlikely these neighboring properties will see or notice the walls. The walls will not impact sight lines or views to the rivers; the walls should provide a safe environment or conditions for the new residences; 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 proposed wall heights and reduced spacing warrant the approval of such a variance in the Critical Area District. The commission should also determine or recommend if the proposed segmental block wall material is acceptable, with a finding that “these materials are necessary to preserve the stability of the slope, and the materials are of an approved color and texture. 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. 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 District. Street Design Standards – Sect. 12-1L-5: 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. 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. 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'). PC Packet Pg. #13 Planning Case # 2020-15 (Supplemental Report) Page 13 of 20 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd The cul-de-sac roadway measures 548.91-ft. along its centerline, from the north ROW line of Victoria Curve to the center-point of the turn-around. The turnaround has a 49-ft. radius; and a ROW radius of 60-ft., both of which meet Code. As noted previously, the city’s Fire Chief and Fire Marshal were presented the plans and asked to comment on the proposed roadway length. Both representatives had no objections to the added 48+ feet of roadway; no issues with the full circle turn-around; and supported the Developer’s plans to install three new hydrants along the roadway. No other conditions of approval were provided. Setback Standards – Sect. 12-1E-3.D Developer is requesting reduced front yard setbacks for Lots 1 -4 in the development. Per the Applicant’s narrative: “The setback variance is requested to allow the project to maintain similar construction limits as the previous plan thus preserving grades and trees, without creating a precedence or endangering the public.” As previously stated, a primary objective for this development is to provide new housing in an environmentally sensitive design that meets the purpose and intent of the city zoning codes and critical area. The 20-foot setback prevents the removal of more trees, additional grading and does not create a public hazard. Twenty- foot setbacks are common with many single-family developments, especially ones that consist of few homes and a dead-end street as the residents are well aware of their surroundings.” OVERALL VARIANCE ANALYSIS The variances presented under this subdivision request are somewhat complex, but critical to the overall design and working success of this development. 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. PC Packet Pg. #14 Planning Case # 2020-15 (Supplemental Report) Page 14 of 20 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd The Developer has provided a summary of additional findings and supporting statements within their Project Narrative; and staff is once again presenting their original responses (noted in the 07/28/2020 Planning Report): 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. 4. Restrictions on Granting Variances. The following restrictions should be considered when reviewing a variance: a) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. When weighing the economic factor(s) of a variance, economic considerations alone should not be the reason for either denying or approving variances. In this case, the Developer is requesting a number of variances to reduced setbacks, retaining wall and roadway standards. Although one may conclude these variances only benefit the Developer; and provide specific relief from required infrastructure and and/or structure standards that may benefit them economically, the Applicant has a right to present other evidence that other practical difficulties may exist in this case; and some reasonableness may be present when considering all these variances. It is not clear how economic considerations alone may affect the outcome of this variance requests such as these, but they do not appear to be the sole reason for rejecting these variances. b) Variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. The City must find these variances, which in effect reinforce the success and design of this development, are all in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the R-1 One Family Residence district and Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is designated as LR-Low Density Residential in the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and the same is called for proposed 2040 Plan. No changes in this land use category are being requested. Certain land use goals and policies are noted below: • LUG #1: Maintain and enrich the mature, fully developed residential environment and character of the community. • LUG #2. Enhance and protect the natural and living environment. • LUP #1 Develop in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan for land use, housing, transportation, parks and other community facilities • .LUP #5: Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level in community development and building. PC Packet Pg. #15 Planning Case # 2020-15 (Supplemental Report) Page 15 of 20 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd • LUP #2.2.2: Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level in community development and building. Under the proposed 2040 Comp Plan, the city included a section titled “Focus Areas”, and one of those areas (#8 – see map image – below) identified this 6.3-acre Culligan land located at Victoria Curve and Glenhill. These focus areas are noted as: “…vacant, under-developed, under-utilized or …. potential infill or redevelopment areas. Infill means that the property has the opportunity to develop or redevelop beyond its current level. The City is not recommending any land use or rezoning changes on these sites at this time or as part of this plan.” The Applicant has provide for additional reasonings, justifications and supporting statements on the variances, critical area permit and conditional use permit in the new Project Narrative – 09/28.2020. The Commission should review this narrative carefully, and take into consideration these added comments as aprt of your decision in this planning case. The Commission must make a determination if these responses from the Applicant are adequate or justify the granting of the variances requested under this subdivision development. PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW Fire Chief and Fire Marshal were presented the plans and asked to comment on the proposed roadway length. Both representatives had no objections to the added 48+ feet of roadway; no issues with the full circle turn- around; and supported the Developer’s plans to install three new hydrants along the roadway. No other conditions of approval were provided. 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 Notices of the July 28th public hearing along with a location map and subdivision layout map was mailed (07/14/2020) to the City Clerk of Mendota; and similar notices were mailed or email to the Mayor and City Clerk of Mendota for this continued hearing/meeting. Mendota Mayor Brian Mielke has been in frequent contact with the City of Mendota Heights and shared a number of concerns with city staff PC Packet Pg. #16 Planning Case # 2020-15 (Supplemental Report) Page 16 of 20 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd regarding this proposed development and potential impacts upon the neighboring residents of their community. Mayor Mielke has also provided a City of Mendota Resolution No. 20-09 (adopted 09/08/2020) that provides his community’s opposition, concerns and objections to the proposed development of the subject property (resolution included in the Public Letters/Emails section of packet). • City’s Parks and Recreation Commission 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…” The Parks Commission at the August 12 meeting reviewed the original plan. The P & R. Commission asked some general questions on trail connections and other site issues, but did not provide any recommendations, conditions or concerns for the Planning Commission (or City Council) to consider. Minutes from that meeting are included with this report. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION In forming a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission is asked to determine if the proposed preliminary plat/development plan requested herein is reasonable and fits with the general character of the existing developments in and around the adjacent neighborhoods. The Commission must also give careful consideration to the variances requested under this development proposal, and if the applicant has meet the criterion in the granting of a conditional use permit and critical are permit. Following the continued public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission must select one of the three alternatives for the recommendation: 1. Recommend APPROVAL of the Preliminary Plat of Valley View Oak 3rd Addition”, along with a Critical Area Permit, a Conditional Use Permit and Variances for the property generally located NW Quadrant of Victoria Curve & Glenhill Road, based on the following findings-of-fact that support such approvals, with conditions of approval noted as follows: A. The proposed subdivision meets the general purpose and intent of Zoning Code and Subdivision Codes of the City. B. The proposed subdivision plat is consistent with the city’s Comprehensive Plan. C. The proposed lots to be platted under the subdivision all meet or exceed the minimum design standards required under the R-1 One Family Residential District. D. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” E. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variances, which include the reduced front-yard setback of 30-ft. to 20-ft. for Lots 1 – 4, Block 2; retaining walls up to 10-ft. in height, allow the tiered wall systems with reduced horizontal spacing from 20-ft. to 12-ft., and allow segmental block (CMU) as wall materials; and a cul-de-sac roadway length to exceed the 500-ft. standard up to 548.91 ft., and allow for construction activity on slopes 40% or more on proposed Lot 5, Block 2 of the plat, with the following findings: PC Packet Pg. #17 Planning Case # 2020-15 (Supplemental Report) Page 17 of 20 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd i.) The proposed subdivision is considered generally consistent with most and all other applicable Zoning Code and Subdivision Code requirements; and therefore the requested variances are considered reasonable under this proposed development plan for the subject site; ii.) The Applicant has demonstrated a reasonable justification and support of these variances due to some unique characteristics and topography of the land to be developed, which in turn provide some unique circumstances to the granting of these variances; iii.) Approving these variances will not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as the neighboring properties and residential areas will not be affected or negatively impacted by the addition of new single-family dwellings in the underlying R-1 One Family Residential District and L-R Low Density Land Use category; and iv.) This new subdivision plat and related variances are all considered in harmony with the general purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans for the community. F. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the variances on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance needed for this Plat will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. G. Approval of these variances noted herein are for the Culligan family properties (Parcel ID Nos. 27- 81251-00-010 and 27-81251-01-010) only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other requested (future) subdivision plat or properties located in the city. All variances must include a project narrative and reasonable justification for the city to approve variances; and all variance requests must be reviewed independently by city staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. This review has been performed and is deemed complete. H. The City hereby approves the requested Conditional Use Permit and Critical Area Permit for the subdivision plat and allowance for certain construction activities in the Critical Area Overlay District based on the following added findings: i.) The proposed subdivision plat and related improvements are consistent with the intent of the critical area district and the comprehensive plan; ii.) The proposed subdivision plat is compatible with uses in the immediate vicinity; iii.) The proposed subdivision plat is allowed under the applicable ordinances of the city of Mendota Heights. iv.) The proposed subdivision plat 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; v.) the proposed subdivision plat 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; vi.) the proposed subdivision plat 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 PC Packet Pg. #18 Planning Case # 2020-15 (Supplemental Report) Page 18 of 20 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd vii.) the proposed subdivision plat is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan - the proposed use meets the R-1 zoning standards for the property. I. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2020-15, dated and presented July 28, 2020 and the Supplemental Planning Staff Report, dated October 8, 2020 (both on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2020- ____. (final number to be assigned later) J. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to this Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit, Critical Area Permit and Variances, as long as those conditions are directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the plat and/or the variance. Conditions related to this planning application are as follows: 1) The Applicant/Developer shall pay a park dedication fee 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 Public Works Director 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) The City approves the 28-ft. wide (curb-to curb) street width as presented under this plan. All final roadway improvement plans must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director prior to start of any construction. 7) A SWPPP shall be developed for the project. Protected bluffs shall have a double silt fence installed for added protection in these areas. 8) A NPDES permit is required. 9) 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. 10) 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. 11) 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. 12) 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. PC Packet Pg. #19 Planning Case # 2020-15 (Supplemental Report) Page 19 of 20 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd 13) All new water service plans and related utility line installation shall be reviewed and inspected by St. Paul Regional Water Service. 14) The proposed monument sign near the front entry must be reviewed and approved under separate sign permit application to the city. 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) Each new home residential site must submit an “as-built” survey upon completion of each individual dwelling construction to ensure all structures, grades, driveways, retaining walls and other improvements were built according to approved plans. 17) 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. 18) 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. 19) Future construction on the newly-created parcels will be compliant with all applicable City Code and Building Code provisions 20) Construction hours are 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on weekends. These work hours shall be strictly enforced and adhered to by the Developer and all contractors working on the subject property. 21) A Developer’s Agreement will be prepared by the city attorney and executed between the Applicant (Developer) and the City of Mendota Heights. 2. Recommend DENIAL of the Preliminary Plat of Valley View Oak 3rd Addition”, along with a Critical Area Permit, a Conditional Use Permit and Variances for the property generally located NW Quadrant of Victoria Curve & Glenhill Road, based on the following findings-of-fact that confirm the Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards required in granting of the variances and other applications requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The City hereby finds the Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the requested Variances noted herein; and the City further hereby deems the request for the reduced front-yard setback of 30-ft. to 20-ft.; retaining walls up to 10-ft. in height, the tiered wall systems with reduced horizontal spacing from 20-ft. to 12-ft., and allowance for segmental block (CMU) as wall materials; the cul-de-sac roadway length to exceed the 500-ft. standard up to 548.91 ft., and the allowance for construction activity on slopes 40% or more, PC Packet Pg. #20 Planning Case # 2020-15 (Supplemental Report) Page 20 of 20 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd are not considered a reasonable request and use to the property, and do not meet the overall spirit and intent of the city’s Zoning Code or Subdivision Code standards and requirements. . C. The City further finds that there may be options to either reducing or eliminating a number (or all) of these variances; and because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). 3. TABLE the request to an agreed upon meeting date, and direct the Applicant to provide additional information as requested by the city. [Please note: the Applicant’s Statutory Review period for this subdivision request officially expires on October 27, 2020. If the Applicant chooses or is unwilling to provide an extension, the Planning Commission will be directed to formulate a recommendation, and have that forwarded/presented to the City Council for the October 20, 2020 meeting.] RECOMMENDED ACTION / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS In forming a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission is asked to determine if the proposed subdivision plat, plans and related applications, are 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 criterion for granting the related Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit for certain activities. The Planning Commission must re-open the public hearing on this matter; allow for additional public comments; then make a motion afterwards to on either Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 noted above. The Planning Commission has the right to add or modify the suggested findings contained in this report if needed. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Aerial/Location Map 2. Developer’s Letter of Intent/Project Narrative – UPDATED 09/28/20200 3. Culligan Property Development Plans – UPDATED 09/28/20200 4. Slope Analysis Plan – UPDATED 09/28/20200 5. Preliminary Geotechnical/Soils Report – Braun Intertec 09/28/20200 6. Stormwater Management Report – Loucks 06/29/2020 7. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – 07/28/2020 8. Parks & Rec Commission Meeting Minutes – 08/14/2020 9. Letters/Emails from Public PC Packet Pg. #21 666666666666666666666666666666 6666666666666666666 6 6 66666666666FMF M FM FM F M F M F M FMFM FM FMFMFM370 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 H W Y 6 2G STV I C T O R I A C U R GLENHILL RDCULLIGAN LN CENTRE POINTE CUR4TH S T3 R D S T H W Y 6 2 0' 360'249'226'205'217'187'175'151'95'128'80' 351 ' 295'62'58' Culligan Property Valley View Oak 3rd Addition NW Quad Glenhill Rd. & Victoria Curve City of Mendota Heights0200 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 contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 7/2/2020 PC Packet Pg. #22 September 28, 2020 City of Mendota Heights extension Planning Commission 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Attn: Tim Benetti timb@mendota-heights.com Re: Culligan Property - Glenhill Road/Victoria Curve Tim, as you recall, we presented initially to the Planning Commission on July 27th, tabling an action on our application to allow for the Parks & Recreation Committee to review it at the meet- ing on August 12th. Based on feedback we received from those meetings, as well as our meet- ings and discussions with you, Ryan Ruzek and Mark McNeill, we extended the time for pre- senting our application formally to allow us to conduct additional soils, hydrology, and stability testing, and to adjust the proposed plan accordingly. As such, the following changes were made to the plan as reﬂected in the submitted plans and restated narrative for our application: •Replaced the single retaining wall design to a two and three-tiered wall design. Although this increased the construction limits, we still remain well within the 40-foot structure setback. •Reduced the wall heights from a maximum height of 23 feet to a maximum height of 10 feet with an average height of just over 5 feet. •Removed the variance for Road R-O-W width. We will have the required width of 60 feet. •We continue to propose a street width of 28 feet, as a measure to reduce grading and hard surface. This reduction was supported by the city staff in the previous staff report. •Requesting front yard setbacks to the R-O-W from 30 feet to 20 feet for Lots 1-4 along the new road. The variance request will allow the project to maintain similar construction limits as the previous plan thus preserving grades and trees, without creating a precedence or en- dangering the public. •Providing a conservation easement to protect the bluff area on the western side of the site. •Completed soil borings and had a geotechnical review prepared for soil stability. Preliminary Plat Letter of Intent. The following is the Applicant’s 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 con- struction of Victoria Curve, but elected to hold off developing the property until Victoria Curve PC Packet Pg. #23 was constructed. The family has determined that now is the appropriate time to submit to the City for approval of 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 applica- tion. Throughout the woods, there are a variety of trees, with a dense underbrush of scrub trees, weed trees, and buckthorn that has 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 home’s sites around 1/2 acre in size. The expected out- come 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 along Glenhill Road and at the cul-de-sac, 20’ setback for the internal lots 1-4 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 for 2 lots, and then by a new public road off of Victoria Curve with a cul-de-sac at the north end serving 6 lots. The new road layout travers- es the slope of the property and generally matching grade on the uphill side of the road, with terraced retaining walls built where needed on the downhill side of the road. As shown on the plans, this road will be 544.57 feet long, and 28 feet wide. The reduction in road width from the standard 32’ will minimize disruption to the wooded area. The road will include the standard R- O-W of 60’ as reﬂected on the updated plans. 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 complete the planned development for the Valley View Oaks neighborhood. The development is consistent with the city’s zoning and comprehensive plan property as a low-density residential project. The site is speciﬁcally noted as an inﬁll site within the Focus Area of the Comprehensive Plan. (attached) As the site plan illustrates, the location of the home sites will have minimal impact on the exist- ing homes, and they will be tucked into the wooded areas in a way that will enhance the aggre- gate property. A signiﬁcant portion of the existing woods, particularly along Victoria Curve, are scrub brush and weed trees, such as buckthorn (see pictures attached). The development will aesthetically enhance and compliment the surrounding area by removing a portion of the dense, overgrown underbrush, and preserving healthy signiﬁcant trees plus adding the landscaping re- ﬂected on the accompanying landscape plan. Furthermore, in response to the request of the PC Packet Pg. #24 City, the portion of the Property that lies on the western portion of the property adjacent to the bluff, limits to be determined, will be subject to a conservation easement to preserve a signiﬁ- cant portion of the existing wooded nature of the property. Per the city’s direction we have conducted a count of the number and types of trees impacted by the construction of the proposed road from Victoria Curve to the end of the cul de sac. The chart identifying the number and type of trees that exceed the 6” diameter “signiﬁcant” standard is attached, together with some illustrative pictures of the location of the proposed R-O-W. This does not include the number of oaks and other trees that are currently dead or clearly dying, which will be removed from the R-O-W area and home sites during the construction activities. As the landscape plan indicates, we have planned for tree replacement and improved landscap- ing along Victoria Curve to ensure that the wooded nature of the property is maintained. Also, keep in mind that the portion of the property that will become subject to the conservation ease- ment is thickly wooded and will not be disturbed during construction. Critical Area Permit Letter of Intent The property lies within the Mississippi River Critical Area, (MRCCA) as does all of the adjoining area, such as the Valley View Oaks 2nd Addition. It is in the CA-SR (Separated from River) Dis- trict and like this area, most of the city areas inside the MRCCA boundary are predominantly developed with single-family housing. The city zoning requires development within the MRCCA obtain a Critical Area Permit. As described in the Preliminary Plat Letter of Intent, the proposed site plan has been intentional- ly 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 set- backs. We have shared the slope analysis and a draft of the proposed development with Daniel Petrik with DNR Critical Area, and received a positive response conﬁrming that the plan appears to be consistent with the city standards. The city is the reviewing agency for the Critical Area. We retained the services of Braun Intertec to perform soil borings and provide a stability analy- sis to provide additional due diligence to support the proposed development, including the ter- raced retaining walls. Braun performed three soil borings on the site where they could gain ac- cess without tree removal. Those borings are being used for their initial analysis of the global stability of the slopes (See below). The analysis is on-going and is tentatively planned to be completed before the Planning Commission meeting on 10/8/20. The proposed plan meets the applicable Development Standards: 1. Setback from Bluff Line: No structure will be constructed less than forty feet (40') landward from the bluff line of the river. In fact, we are proposing to signiﬁcantly exceed this setback re- quirement from the homes. In addition, we have agreed to provide the City with a conservation easement for property beyond the 40’ setback from the bluff line. 2. Setback from Normal High-Water Mark: No structure or road shall be constructed less than one hundred feet (100') from the normal high-water mark of any water body - not applicable PC Packet Pg. #25 3. Height of Structures will not exceed the 35’ restriction. 4. Sewage Disposal System - the residences will tie into the City sewer system, including a pro- posed lift station east of the proposed street. 5. Suitability of the land for subdivision - the soil borings and preliminary stability analysis report provided by Braun, together with the hydrology report prepared by Loucks, indicate that the land is suitable for the proposed development, and in fact the grading and drainage systems pro- posed will improve the stormwater situation for the property. Furthermore, the existing Valley View Oaks, with homes built on similar soils and some of which are on greater than 18% slopes and closer to the bluff line, have not experienced concerns or issues over the past 30 years due to unsuitability, reinforcing that the land is suitable for the proposed development. Soil Stability Based on Braun’s borings, the existing soils are generally glacial clayey sand to sandy lean clay, underlain by poorly-graded sand to silty sand derived from sandstone. The Braun borings did not encounter groundwater, but their analysis will account for seasonal and temporary perched groundwater as an additional precaution. The global slope stability analysis will be based on an industry standard factor of safety of 1.5. When the Braun report is complete, we will use it to verify our current plan or make slight modiﬁcations as needed, which could include lowering street/pad grades and revising the shape of the house pads, but it would not affect the overall layout of the 8 lot subdivision. We are working with Hardscapes Construction on the retaining walls, as they have an extremely strong reputation and can provide insights from over 25 years of building retaining walls in numerous challenging sites throughout Minnesota and Wisconsin. Stormwater The design of the proposed development will capture, slow down and pond the stormwater in a way that minimizes slope erosion and excessive downhill ﬂows. Currently, any rain water falling on the site property runs westerly down the slope, except for the existing home where it is grad- ed to ﬂow toward Glenhill Road and into the city storm system. The proposed development will capture all of the rain water that falls east of the new road, on the new road, and the front of the homes west of the street. The only water running down hill will be the areas west of the pro- posed homes. The house design will be typical, with half the roof and all of the driveway and front yard draining to the street. For the houses on the proposed street, the back half of the house and the back yard will drain west down the existing slope. For the two houses on Glenhill, the rear yards will be picked up by the street and ﬂow to the pond. Thus, water landing on the new hard surface areas will be directed to the new street and channeled to the south where it is collected in a pond that holds and inﬁltrates the water to prevent it from washing down the slope. Per this design, less overall water will be ﬂowing down the slope than what occurs today as the acreage of drainage is reduced from 7 acres to 3.4 acres of land.. The concentration of ﬂow will also be controlled by the construction and grading of the home sites to prevent the channeling of water down the slope. Additionally, subgrade drainage will be intercepted with draintile and drainage rock running behind the curb and parallel to the storm sewer and routed to stormwater pond. Subgrade drainage behind the retaining walls will be intercepted with drain- tile and drainage rock and routed around the walls. PC Packet Pg. #26 6. Protection of natural features - as the attached picture reﬂects, the existing property is not entirely wooded, and approximately half of the R-O-W will be built on an existing open grass area. Other than for the construction of the road and the speciﬁc home sites, the wooded na- ture of the property will be preserved. In particular, a signiﬁcant portion of the wooded land, in- cluding all of the wooded area that lies west of the Bluff Line will not be disturbed and will be preserved pursuant to the conservation easement. 7. Retaining walls or terraces not to exceed 5’ and minimum horizontal spacing between ter- races and retaining walls is 20’ - the attached retaining wall plan indicates the various proposed heights and distances of the terraces and retaining walls, as well as the materials proposed for such walls, which will meet the materials requirement to be natural color and texture, and ter- race landscaping. The plan now incorporates a tiered wall system utilizing two walls behind the southerly lots while using three walls behind the northerly lots. The tiered system signiﬁcantly reduces the height of the single wall system from the previous plan. Although the average height of the proposed walls is at around 5 feet there are minor segments of the walls that rise to 10 feet. The taller segments are generally located behind Lot 5 and Lot 2 and the upper wall behind Lots 1 & 2 on Glenhill Road. We are using 12-foot horizontal spacings in lieu of the city standard 20-foot, due to the steep topography. The 12-foot spacing will provide the space needed for wall stabilization, mature plantings and maintenance access. 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 condi- tional 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: Within the July 28, 2020 staff report it is stated that, “For all intent 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 nat- ural vegetative state, this new subdivision development plan appears to meet the four ﬁndings required above to issue a conditional use permit in this case.” a) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community -The road and home sites will be built to city development standards. Ensuring slope stability is addressed in our geological analysis and engineering design. The development of the site is no different than the development of similar neighborhoods adjacent and near the site and throughout the metropolitan area. b) the proposed use will not cause serious trafﬁc congestion nor hazards - with only be six homes served by a new public road, there will not be any trafﬁc congestion or hazards in con- nection with the road due to the requested CUP. This condition was supported by the city staff within the July 28, 2020 staff report; c) the proposed use will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value - the proposed de- velopment will offer eight new homes which will be high end custom homes that will be situated at elevations below the existing adjacent homes (not directly behind them at the same eleva- tions), increasing property values and the respective property taxes payable to the City; PC Packet Pg. #27 d) the few locations that include slopes in excess of 18% include a manmade sloped area at the location of the old barn, and otherwise in very minimal locations, and will involve less sloped area than some of the neighboring homes on Culligan Lane, which are part of the Valley View Oaks development that has been a stable development for over 30 years without incidents to the bluff or critical area. e) 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 and low density designation of the comprehensive plan. Staff ﬁndings in the July 28th report note that the development appears to be in general conformance with the spirit and intent of the critical area district and comprehensive plan. Variances Based on the comments we have received at and since the July 28, 2020 Planning Commission hearing we have modiﬁed the site plan and minimized our variance requests. Our variance ap- plication is amended to reﬂect the following variances with supporting language provided throughout the narrative: •Front yard setback from 30 feet to 20 feet for Lots 1-4 Block 2 •Retaining wall height over 5 feet in the critical area, to a height not to exceed 10 feet •Retaining wall horizontal spacing in the critical area from 20 feet to 12 feet •Cul-de-sac length exceeding 500 feet to 545 feet The front yard setback variance is requested to allow the project to maintain similar construction limits as the previous plan thus preserving grades and trees, without creating a precedence or endangering the public. As previously stated, a primary objective for this development is to pro- vide new housing in an environmentally sensitive design that meets the purpose and intent of the city zoning codes and critical area. The 20-foot setback prevents the removal of more trees, additional grading and does not create a public hazard. Twenty-foot setbacks, are common with many single-family developments, especially ones that consist of few homes and a dead-end street as the residents are well aware of their surroundings. The initial preliminary plat request included a variance request to reduce the R-O-W from 60’ to 50’ but upon further discussion with the City development team, we have modiﬁed our request to include the 60’ R-O-W. The plans still include the 28-foot street width from the typical city pol- icy of 32 feet. In addition to the request to minimize the width of the road by 4 feet, the length of the road is proposed to be 544.57 feet. Chapter 11 of the city code states cul-de-sacs shall normally not be longer than 500 feet. As part of the variance request related to the road, we are also request- ing conﬁrmation that the additional 44.57 feet of roadway length to a public cul-de-sac will be approved. The subject site has a rolling topography. The road was designed to work with the existing topography unique to this property, which required some curvature in the road that extended the road length. The minimal extension of 44.57 feet, and the road being within a wooded area, the PC Packet Pg. #28 minor extension will be unnoticeable to the neighborhood and does not create a safety concern for emergency services. The proposed retaining walls are built into the downslope of the site and thus will not be visible from an easterly view with little visibility from the west due to the extensive tree and foliage cov- erage. The walls will be in the rear yards of the proposed homes creating a ﬂat and safe yard area, with landscaped terraces, and will help in reducing the ﬂow of runoff. Parks & Recreation Meeting Per City requirements, on August 18th we presented our proposed project to the Parks & Recreation Board, and discussed various questions raised during the meeting, such as: tree preservation, disease management, conservation easement, wall heights, plantings around pond, trees on proposed lots. They asked about adding a trail up to Glenhill Road, but grades are too steep. The Park Board did not require any new conditions beyond what was noted in the Planning Report. Neighbor Comments/Communications On behalf of my parents and family, I want to take the opportunity to respond brieﬂy to the vari- ous emails and communications submitted to the City, and dispel various misstatements and inaccuracies set forth in such communications: a) there is no “implied privacy and value” that the neighbors have in property they do not own, and to suggest otherwise is overreaching. b) as stated at the July Planning Commission meeting, we elected not to gather the neighbors for a meeting prior to our July submittal due to concerns of Covid-19, particularly to protect the health of my parents and other elderly neighbors. This does not mean we’ve been unavailable for discussions with neighbors. I spoke personally with Norb Krebsbach, and with Jane Lowell, but have not been contacted by any of the other neighbors. Apparently, they chose to have a meeting among themselves, but did not ask whether I would be available to attend so we could discuss their questions and dispel some of the misinformation. If their true concern had been to understand the project, ensure that we have been working with the necessary civil engineers and geologists, and ask questions to ensure we are fully considering the critical overly require- ments, they could have contacted me. Notwithstanding, we have continued to perform our planned soil borings and stability analysis with Braun Intertec, and the in depth analysis of the impact of the proposed development of the property by the Loucks engineering team, and we look forward to communicating this at the Planning Commission meeting to ensure that con- cerns and questions raised are addressed. c) in my conversations with Norb (who said he was speaking for himself and Mark Hunt) we discussed whether they could purchase a portion of the property adjacent to their lots, and I told him we would certainly entertain any offers that are based on the market value. We have not heard anything further to explore the potential. d) there have not been landslides or mudslides or any similar issues related to this particular property, including from the construction and maintenance of the neighbors’ homes along the steeper portions of the bluff built 30 years ago with Valley View Oaks 2nd Addition. That’s not to say that we take any potential of this lightly. Throughout the process we have worked with the Loucks engineering team, speciﬁcally because of their experience working on slopes and PC Packet Pg. #29 the critical area, and we have retained the services of Braun Intertec to perform the necessary soil borings and slope stability analysis to assist us in developing the optimal design for stability of the land, including the retaining walls and terraces. Although retained by us, these are highly regarded professional ﬁrms that are not going to prepare biased reports and analyses, nor de- sign a project that is not based on the facts and analysis performed, speciﬁc to this property. Referencing Hennepin County properties, or the Lilydale bluffs, while interesting are not indica- tive of how this speciﬁc property can be developed. There are many examples of solidly con- structed retaining walls in the area and single family homes in the critical area. For example, although not technically in the critical area, there are signiﬁcant retaining walls constructed at the Orchard Hill development, and we are all familiar with Central Park Commons, which is de- signed around a number of signiﬁcant walls, and is certainly not seen as a danger to pedestri- ans and customers. (Pictures attached). e) the retaining walls were never proposed as a constant height of 23’, despite what the neigh- bors have attempted to portray, and they will not be visible from the neighborhood. But again, based on feedback from our meetings with you, and the noted concerns of neighbors, and in- corporating the geological study and soils report from Braun, the proposed retaining walls have been modiﬁed as reﬂected with the current set of plans provided to you. The terrace/wall layout reduces the height of the walls and will be built to meet the 1.5 safety factor required. f) we are not removing 4 acres of trees, nor did we ever suggest that we were removing this many tree. As noted above and reﬂected in the attached pictures, the R-O-W has been de- signed to utilize the existing open area, and as the rendering of the proposed development clearly reﬂects, the trees on the hillside, from the Bluff line west, will not be disturbed. Conclusion In conclusion, the attached proposed Preliminary Plat Application, together with accompanying applications for Critical Area Permit, Variance, and Conditional Use Permit are hereby submit- ted. We look forward to working with the Planning Commission and the City Council of Mendo- ta Heights to discuss any questions or concerns regarding the proposed platting of the property. Best Regards, Michelle Culligan, Esq cc Mike St. Martin Tom Goodrum PC Packet Pg. #30 RETAINING WALL EXAMPLES Orchard Hill PC Packet Pg. #31 Central Park Commons 9/25/2020 Central Pkwy - Google Maps https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8344606,-93.1725408,3a,30y,84.71h,87.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN9pj3pM2aYy4uokpfPwLRQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 1/1 Image capture: Jun 2019 © 2020 Google Street View Eagan, Minnesota Google Central Pkwy PC Packet Pg. #32 Existing Wooded Area (near retaining wall for lots 5-6) PC Packet Pg. #33 Existing Open Area Located in Proposed R-O-W PC Packet Pg. #34 Existing Woods in proposed R-O-W PC Packet Pg. #35 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan June 2019 Land Use 2-19 FOCUS AREAS In the City’s previous comprehensive plans, a number of specific properties in the City were mapped that were either vacant, under-developed, under-utilized or identified as either potential infill or redevelopment areas. Infill means that the property has the opportunity to develop or redevelop beyond its current level. The City is not recommending any land use or rezoning changes on these sites at this time or as part of this plan. A summary of these sites are provided below, along with the Focus Area Map – FIGURE 2-7. 1) SE Quadrant of Highway 55 and Acacia Boulevard: This 9.1-acre city-owned site is bounded by Pilot Knob Road on the west, Acacia Boulevard on the north, and Highway 55 on the east. The site was approved under an interim use permit in 2015 as an off-leash dog park for a five year period, but is located in the industrial park and guided for future Industrial use. 2) 2359 Pilot Knob Road. This area consists of a 3.1-acre property currently used as a single family residence plus a 0.4-acre site owned by the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Both are guided for Industrial use. 3) NW Quadrant of Pilot Knob Rd. & Mendota Heights Road: This vacant 5-acre site is bounded by Highway 13 on the west, and an unnamed extension of Perron Road right-of-way to the north. The property is owned and adjacent to Lloyd’s BBQ business to the south. Site is guided for industrial use. 4) Highway 55 and Northland Drive. This 2.2-acre site is vacant and guided industrial. 5) Bourn Lane Site (city-owned properties). This 14.8-acre area on Bourn Lane and Lemay Lake Road consists of nine separate parcels, all owned by the City. The site is guided for Business use. 6) 1179 Centre Pointe Circle. This 3.6-acre site is one of two vacant parcels in the Centre Pointe Business Park. The site is guided for Limited Business. 7) Centre Pointe Curve & Lexington. This 2.1-acre site is currently vacant and located on the south frontage road to Highway 62. The site is guided Limited Business. 8) Victoria Curve & Glenhill Road. This 6.3-acre site is vacant and guided Low Density Residential. 9) Lexington & Highway 13. Three single family parcels totaling 3.1 acres are surrounded on three sides by multi-family development. The site is guided for LR-Low Density Residential use. PC Packet Pg. #36 MENDOTA LILYDALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERMINNESOTA RI VE R ROGERS LAKE LAKE AUGUS TA L A K E L E M A Y GUN CLUB LAKE DODD RD1 2 3 4 5 6 8 7 9 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 21 20 22 10 11 17 DODD RDDELAWARE AVESIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYMARIE AVE W MENDOTA HEIGHTS RDLEXINGTON AVELILYDALE RDPILOT KNOB RDHUBER DR S I B L E Y MEMORIALNORTHLAND DR WENTWORTH AVE WWACHTLER AVEWAGON WHEEL TRL MENDOTA RDHUNTER LNORCHARD PL VICTORIA RD SIVY FALLS AVE Focus Areas Map µ0 3,000 6,000 Feet Infill Sites Somerset "Super-Block" Area Dakota County CDA Lands City Boundary Infill Sites and/or Redevelopment Areas City of Mendota Heights Source: Dakota County, 2016 City of Mendota Heights, 2018 June 2019FIGURE 2-7 PC Packet Pg. #37 ROW TREE COUNT Number Type Diameter Inches 1Pine 15 2Oak 12 3Oak 12 4Pine 7 5Pine 8 6Oak 23 7Oak 7 8Poplar 12 9Poplar 8 10 Poplar 8 11 Basswood 10 12 Elm 18 13 Elm 12 14 Elm 12 15 Poplar 15 16 Basswood 8 17 Poplar 14 18 Basswood 12 19 Poplar 8 20 Elm 16 21 Basswood Cluster 12 Inch Average 22 Oak 17 23 24 Oak 17 25 Oak 11 26 Oak 12 27 Oak 32 28 Basswood 8 29 Oak 21 30 Elm 9 31 Basswood 11 32 Poplar 13 33 Basswood 14 34 Oak 23 35 Elm 10 36 Oak 12 PC Packet Pg. #38 AA/EOE Braun Intertec Corporation 11001 Hampshire Avenue S Minneapolis, MN 55438 Phone: 952.995.2000 Fax: 952.995.2020 Web: braunintertec.com September 28, 2020 Project B2007530 Mr. Larry Culligan 1949 Glen Hill Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Valley View Oak Third Addition Mendota Heights, Minnesota Dear Mr. Culligan: Braun Intertec (Braun) respectfully submits this preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the global stability of several block wall alternatives for the proposed development in Mendota Heights, Minnesota. A. Our Understanding of Project We understand that the Third Addition for the Valley View Oak Residential Development is proposed at the northwest quadrant of Glenhill Road and Victoria Curve. In order to develop the property of single- family residential homes, several block wall retaining structures are proposed. The wall configurations are being considered. It is our task to determine the global stability of such walls in order to assist Loucks, Inc. to determine the arrangement of the houses and corresponding housing density. A.1. Purpose The purpose of our work was to drill a limited number of borings and conducting a limited testing program and thereby use this data to determine the global stability of up to three wall configurations. For this report, we are only presenting the borings logs and the interpretation of the soil stratigraphy. Our analysis of the global slope stability is currently ongoing. A.2. Scope of Services The following tasks were completed for this phase of work to help achieve the stated purpose.  Staking and clearing the exploration location of underground utilities. We acquired the locations with respect to existing features  A topographic survey was provided by Loucks, Inc. for the development. PC Packet Pg. #39 Mr. Larry Culligan Project B2007530 September 28, 2020 Page 2  Performing three standard penetration test (SPT) borings, denoted as ST-1, ST-2 and ST-3 to the nominal depths of 26 feet below grade.  Performing laboratory testing on select samples to aid in soil classification and engineering analyses.  Perform engineering analysis including global stability analyses, which results will be presented later.  Preparing this report containing a boring location sketch, logs of soil borings, a summary of the soils encountered and results of laboratory tests. A report presenting the results of our stability analyses and recommendations for walls downslope of the houses will be presented later. Our scope of services did not include environmental services or testing, and we did not train the personnel performing this evaluation to provide environmental services or testing. We can provide these additional services or testing at your request. B. Results B.1. Geologic Overview Based on the soils encountered in the borings, the site is underlain by glacial clayey sand to sandy lean clay, which, in turn, was underlain by poorly-graded sand to silty sand derived from sandstone. We based the geologic origins used in this report on the soil types, in-situ and laboratory testing, and available common knowledge of the geological history of the site. Because of the complex depositional history, geologic origins can be difficult to ascertain. We did not perform a detailed investigation of the geologic history for the site. B.2. Boring Results At the surface of all the borings, 0.6 to 1-foot of dark brown poorly graded sand to silty sand topsoil with roots was found. Underling this surface strata, loose to medium dense, moist, reddish brown clayey sand was found and extended to depths of 14 to 18 feet. Within this clayey sand in Boring ST-2, we found limestone fragments from 14 to 16 feet. Underlying this clayey sand in Boring ST-3, we found PC Packet Pg. #40 Mr. Larry Culligan Project B2007530 September 28, 2020 Page 3 approximately 5 feet of medium, moist, brown, sandy lean clay. These soils are interpreted to be of glacial origin. For the remaining depths of the borings, we found medium dense to dense, moist, brown, poorly-graded sand to silty sand with sandstone fragments; this stratum is thought to be the result of weathering sandstone bedrock. B.3. Groundwater Free groundwater was not found in any of the 3 borings during drilling or before backfilling. Based on the water level observations and the moisture contents of the soil encountered, hydrostatic water levels exist at some level below the termination depths of the soil borings. B.4. Laboratory Test Results The boring logs show the results of the geotechnical testing we performed, next to the tested sample depth for moisture content and passing #200 sieve. Further, the results of our sieve analyses on selected samples are also presented in the appendix. C. Slope Stability Analyses As mentioned earlier, we are currently analyzing the global stability of the slopes, but the results are not yet finalized. For the analyses, we are using the following soil parameters: Table 1. Material Properties Material USCS Density (pounds per cubic foot) Effective Friction (degrees) Effective Cohesion (pounds per square foot) Engineered Sand Fill SP 110 36 0 Glacial Clayey Sand SC 130 34 0 Sand from Weathered Sandstone SP 110 36 0 For global stability, we are using Slide, version 2018 8.010, a limit equilibrium analysis software. For the wall configurations or ground modifications, if necessary, we will set the minimum Factor of Safety (F.o.S.) threshold of 1.5. Although hydrostatic groundwater appears to be below the depths explored, we anticipate inputting seasonal or temporary perched groundwater conditions in the models. The results will be presented in a subsequent report. PC Packet Pg. #41 Mr. Larry Culligan Project B2007530 September 28, 2020 Page 4 D. Recommendations Once we have completed our stability analyses, we will present geotechnical recommendations pertaining to the global stability of the houses and walls. These recommendations will be presented in a subsequent report. E. Procedures E.1. Penetration Test Boring We drilled penetration test borings with a track mounted core and auger drill equipped with hollow-stem auger. We performed the borings in general accordance with ASTM D6151 taking penetration test samples at 2 1/2- or 5-foot intervals in general accordance to ASTM D1586. The boring logs show the actual sample intervals and corresponding depths. We sealed penetration test boreholes meeting the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Environmental Borehole criteria with an MDH-approved grout. We will forward/forwarded a sealing record (or sealing records) for those boreholes to the Minnesota Department of Health Well Management Section. E.2. Exploration Logs E.2.a. Log of Boring Sheets The Appendix includes Log of Boring sheets for our penetration test borings. The logs identify and describe the penetrated geologic materials and present the results of penetration resistance and other in-situ tests performed. We inferred strata boundaries from changes in the penetration test samples and the auger cuttings. Because we did not perform continuous sampling, the strata boundary depths are only approximate. The boundary depths likely vary away from the boring locations, and the boundaries themselves may occur as gradual rather than abrupt transitions. E.2.b. Geologic Origins We assigned geologic origins to the materials shown on the logs and referenced within this report, based on: (1) visual classification of the various geologic material samples retrieved during the course of our subsurface exploration, (2) penetration resistance and other in-situ testing performed for the project, PC Packet Pg. #42 Mr. Larry Culligan Project B2007530 September 28, 2020 Page 5 (3) laboratory test results, and (4) available common knowledge of the geologic processes and environments that have impacted the site and surrounding area in the past. E.3. Material Classification and Testing E.3.a. Visual and Manual Classification We visually and manually classified the geologic materials encountered based on ASTM D2488. When we performed laboratory classification tests, we used the results to classify the geologic materials in accordance with ASTM D2487. The Appendix includes a chart explaining the classification system we used. E.3.b. Laboratory Testing The exploration logs in the Appendix note most of the results of the laboratory tests performed on geologic material samples. The remaining laboratory test results follow the exploration logs. We performed the tests in general accordance with ASTM or AASHTO procedures. E.4. Groundwater Measurements The drillers checked for groundwater while advancing the penetration test borings, and again after auger withdrawal. We then filled the SPT borehole, as noted on the boring logs. F. Qualifications F.1. Variations in Subsurface Conditions F.1.a. Material Strata We developed our evaluation, analyses and recommendations from a limited amount of site and subsurface information. It is not standard engineering practice to retrieve material samples from exploration locations continuously with depth. Therefore, we must infer strata boundaries and thicknesses to some extent. Strata boundaries may also be gradual transitions, and project planning should expect the strata to vary in depth, elevation and thickness, away from the exploration locations. Variations in subsurface conditions present between exploration locations may not be revealed until performing additional exploration work or starting construction. If future activity for this project reveals any such variations, you should notify us so that we may reevaluate our recommendations. Such PC Packet Pg. #43 Mr. Larry Culligan Project B2007530 September 28, 2020 Page 6 variations could increase construction costs, and we recommend including a contingency to accommodate them. F.1.b. Groundwater Levels We made groundwater measurements under the conditions reported herein and shown on the exploration logs and interpreted in the text of this report. Note that the observation periods were relatively short, and project planning can expect groundwater levels to fluctuate in response to rainfall, flooding, irrigation, seasonal freezing and thawing, surface drainage modifications and other seasonal and annual factors. F.2. Use of Report This report is for the exclusive use of the addressed parties. Without written approval, we assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. Our evaluation, analyses and recommendations may not be appropriate for other parties or projects. F.3. Standard of Care In performing its services, Braun Intertec used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable members of its profession currently practicing in the same locality. No warranty, express or implied, is made. PC Packet Pg. #44 Mr. Larry Culligan Project B2007530 September 28, 2020 Page 7 To have questions answered or schedule a time to meet and discuss our approach to this project further, please call Bob Jansen at 612.865.8786, or Bryan Ripp at 612.845.4475. Sincerely, BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION Bryan J. Ripp, PE, CFM Senior Engineer Robert J. Janssen, PE President, Principal Engineer Attachments: Soil Boring Location Sketch Boring Logs (ST-1, ST-2, and ST-3) Descriptive Terminology of Soil PC Packet Pg. #45 PC Packet Pg. #46 Elev./ Depth ft 1.0 7.0 14.0 23.0 26.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), with roots, reddish brown, derived from Sandstone weathering (TOPSOIL) CLAYEY SAND (SC), reddish brown (GLACIAL TILL) CLAYEY SAND (SC), with Sandstone fragments, reddish brown (GLACIAL TILL) SILTY SAND (SM), with Sandstone fragments, light brown, (WEATHERED SANDSTONE) CLAYEY SAND (SC), brown, (WEATHERED SANDSTONE) END OF BORING 5 10 15 20 25 30 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 8-6-7 (13) 15" 16-13-15 (28) 17" 13-10-12 (22) 16" 13-9-12 (21) 18" 18-11-11 (22) 18" 7-6-7 (13) 18" 6-7-10 (17) 18" 7-8-10 (18) 18" 6-6-7 (13) 18" 6-7-8 (15) 18" qₚ tsf MC % 7 5 6 11 3 10 Tests or Remarks LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B2007530 Geotechnical Evaluation Valley View Oak, Third Addition NW of Glenhill Road and Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, Minnesota BORING:ST-1 LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:EASTING: DRILLER:A. Holmbo LOGGED BY:B. Ripp START DATE:08/28/20 END DATE:08/28/20 SURFACE ELEVATION:RIG:GP-3 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Wood & debris WEATHER:70's, clear B2007530 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-1 page 1 of 1 PC Packet Pg. #47 Elev./ Depth ft 0.6 19.0 26.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) SILTY SAND (SM), dark brown, Derived from weathering Sandstone (TOPSOIL) CLAYEY SAND (SC), reddish brown (GLACIAL TILL) With Limestone fragments from 14 to 16 feet POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine-grained, with Sandstone fragments, brown, (WEATHERED SANDSTONE) END OF BORING 5 10 15 20 25 30 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 3-3-6 (9) 18" 3-3-4 (7) 18" 3-2-2 (4) 18" 6-7-8 (15) 18" 6-5-6 (11) 18" 8-8-8 (16) 18" 7-6-8 (14) 18" 7-7-8 (15) 18" 6-7-9 (16) 18" 3-4-5 (9) 16" qₚ tsf MC % 11 14 12 12 6 9 Tests or Remarks LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B2007530 Geotechnical Evaluation Valley View Oak, Third Addition NW of Glenhill Road and Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, Minnesota BORING:ST-2 LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:EASTING: DRILLER:A. Holmbo LOGGED BY:B. Ripp START DATE:08/28/20 END DATE:08/28/20 SURFACE ELEVATION:RIG:GP-3 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Wood/rock fall WEATHER:70's, mostly clear B2007530 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-2 page 1 of 1 PC Packet Pg. #48 Elev./ Depth ft 0.8 18.0 23.0 26.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) SILTY SAND (SM), brown (TOPSOIL) CLAYEY SAND (SC), reddish brown (GLACIAL TILL) SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), medium-grained, brown (GLACIAL TILL) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to medium-grained, brown, (WEATHERED SANDSTONE) END OF BORING 5 10 15 20 25 30 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 2-2-2 (4) 16" 2-3-3 (6) 18" 4-4-4 (8) 18" 6-8-8 (16) 18" 7-7-8 (15) 18" 7-5-6 (11) 18" TW 6-8-9 (17) 15" qₚ tsf MC % 15 12 Tests or Remarks DD=130 pcf LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B2007530 Geotechnical Evaluation Valley View Oak, Third Addition NW of Glenhill Road and Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, Minnesota BORING:ST-3 LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:EASTING: DRILLER:A. Holmbo LOGGED BY:B. Ripp START DATE:08/28/20 END DATE:08/28/20 SURFACE ELEVATION:RIG:GP-3 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Rock fall/dark topsoil WEATHER:70's, mostly clear B2007530 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-3 page 1 of 1 PC Packet Pg. #49 Descriptive Terminology of Soil Based on Standards ASTM D2487/2488 (Unified Soil Classification System) Group Symbol Group NameB Cu ≥ 4 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3D GW Well-graded gravelE Cu < 4 and/or (Cc < 1 or Cc > 3)D GP Poorly graded gravelE Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravelE F G Fines Classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravelE F G Cu ≥ 6 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3D SW Well-graded sandI Cu < 6 and/or (Cc < 1 or Cc > 3)D SP Poorly graded sandI Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandF G I Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sandF G I CL Lean clayK L M PI < 4 or plots below "A" lineJ ML SiltK L M Organic OL CH Fat clayK L M MH Elastic siltK L M Organic OH PT Peat Highly Organic Soils Silts and Clays (Liquid limit less than 50) Silts and Clays (Liquid limit 50 or more) Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor Inorganic Inorganic PI > 7 and plots on or above "A" lineJ PI plots on or above "A" line PI plots below "A" line Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA Soil Classification Coarse-grained Soils (more than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve)Fine-grained Soils (50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve) Sands (50% or more coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve) Clean Gravels (Less than 5% finesC) Gravels with Fines (More than 12% finesC) Clean Sands (Less than 5% finesH) Sands with Fines (More than 12% finesH) Gravels (More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve) Liquid Limit −oven dried Liquid Limit −not dried <0.75 Organic clay K L M N Organic silt K L M O Liquid Limit −oven dried Liquid Limit −not dried <0.75 Organic clay K L M P Organic silt K L M Q Particle Size Identification Boulders.............. over 12" Cobbles................ 3" to 12" Gravel Coarse............. 3/4" to 3" (19.00 mm to 75.00 mm) Fine................. No. 4 to 3/4" (4.75 mm to 19.00 mm) Sand Coarse.............. No. 10 to No. 4 (2.00 mm to 4.75 mm) Medium........... No. 40 to No. 10 (0.425 mm to 2.00 mm) Fine.................. No. 200 to No. 40 (0.075 mm to 0.425 mm) Silt........................ No. 200 (0.075 mm) to .005 mm Clay...................... < .005 mm Relative ProportionsL, M trace............................. 0 to 5% little.............................. 6 to 14% with.............................. ≥ 15% Inclusion Thicknesses lens............................... 0 to 1/8" seam............................. 1/8" to 1" layer.............................. over 1" Apparent Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils Very loose ..................... 0 to 4 BPF Loose ............................ 5 to 10 BPF Medium dense.............. 11 to 30 BPF Dense............................ 31 to 50 BPF Very dense.................... over 50 BPF A.Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve. B.If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders, or both" to group name. C. Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay D.Cu = D60 / D10 Cc = 𝐷30 2 / (𝐷10 𝑥𝐷60) E.If soil contains ≥ 15% sand, add "with sand" to group name. F.If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM or SC-SM. G. If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name. H. Sands with 5 to 12%fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt SW-SC well-graded sand with clay SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay I.If soil contains ≥ 15% gravel, add "with gravel" to group name. J. If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is CL-ML, silty clay. K.If soil contains 15 to < 30% plus No. 200, add "with sand" or "with gravel", whichever is predominant. L. If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name. M. If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200 predominantly gravel, add “gravelly” to group name. N. PI ≥ 4 and plots on or above “A” line. O. PI < 4 or plots below “A” line. P. PI plots on or above “A” line. Q.PI plots below “A” line. Laboratory Tests DD Dry density,pcf OC Organic content, %LL Liquid limit WD Wet density, pcf qp Pocket penetrometer strength, tsf PL Plastic limit P200 % Passing #200 sieve MC Moisture content, %PI Plasticity index qU Unconfined compression test, tsf Consistency of Blows Approximate Unconfined Cohesive Soils Per Foot Compressive Strength Very soft................... 0 to 1 BPF................... < 0.25 tsf Soft........................... 2 to 4 BPF................... 0.25 to 0.5 tsf Medium.................... 5 to 8 BPF .................. 0.5 to 1 tsf Stiff........................... 9 to 15 BPF................. 1 to 2 tsf Very Stiff................... 16 to 30 BPF............... 2 to 4 tsf Hard.......................... over 30 BPF................ > 4 tsf Drilling Notes: Blows/N-value: Blows indicate the driving resistance recorded for each 6-inch interval. The reported N-value is the blows per foot recorded by summing the second and third interval in accordance with the Standard Penetration Test, ASTM D1586. Partial Penetration:If the sampler could not be driven through a full 6-inch interval, the number of blows for that partial penetration is shown as #/x" (i.e. 50/2"). The N-value is reported as "REF" indicating refusal. Recovery: Indicates the inches of sample recovered from the sampled interval. For a standard penetration test, full recovery is 18", and is 24" for a thinwall/shelby tube sample. WOH: Indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of hammer and rods alone; driving not required. WOR: Indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of rods alone; hammer weight and driving not required. Water Level: Indicates the water level measured by the drillers either while drilling ( ), at the end of drilling ( ), or at some time after drilling ( ). Moisture Content: Dry:Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch. Moist: Damp but no visible water. Wet: Visible free water, usually soil is below water table. 3/2019 PC Packet Pg. #50 Review 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 - PE24440Project LeadDrawn ByChecked ByLoucks Project No.018524MJSMJSMJS06/29/2020 CITY SUBMITTAL09/28/2020 REV. 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: 09 /28 / 2020 6:7 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-- 06/29/20-06/29/20PC Packet Pg. #51 NSCALE IN FEET040 80Review 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 - PE24440Project LeadDrawn ByChecked ByLoucks Project No.018524MJSMJSMJS06/29/2020 CITY SUBMITTAL09/28/2020 REV. 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: 09 /28 / 2020 6:7 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 TREEPC Packet Pg. #52 NSCALE IN FEET040 80Review 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 - PE24440Project LeadDrawn ByChecked ByLoucks Project No.018524MJSMJSMJS06/29/2020 CITY SUBMITTAL09/28/2020 REV. 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: 09 /28 / 2020 6:8 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 BASEMENT1PC Packet Pg. #53 CULLIGAN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT Mendota Heights, Minnesota SEPTEMBER, 2020 18524.00 north 0 30 60 60 SCALE ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN DAVID & MARY JANISCH GLENHILL ROAD FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY - SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH FINAL PLANS.VICTORIA CURVECULLIGAN LANEJANE MCKAY MARK & JULIE HUNT NORBERT & SANDRA KREBSACH CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MICHAEL & RUTH SETHNA EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO BE REMOVED 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 PC Packet Pg. #54 NSCALE IN FEET040 80Review 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 - PE24440Project LeadDrawn ByChecked ByLoucks Project No.018524MJSMJSMJS06/29/2020 CITY SUBMITTAL09/28/2020 REV. 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: 09 /28 / 2020 6:9 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 NOTESPC Packet Pg. #55 CULLIGAN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT Mendota Heights, Minnesota SEPTEMBER, 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 PC Packet Pg. #56 NSCALE IN FEET040 80Review 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 - PE24440Project LeadDrawn ByChecked ByLoucks Project No.018524MJSMJSMJS06/29/2020 CITY SUBMITTAL09/28/2020 REV. 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: 09 /28 / 2020 6:10 PMW:\2018\18524\CADD DATA\CIVIL\_dwg Sheet Files\C3-2 SWPPPOUCKSLCADD 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 PLANSWPPPC3-2WARNING: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%972.5ESTIMATED QUANTITIESDESCRIPTIONUNITTEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCEEAPREFABRICATED CONCRETE WASHOUTEASILT FENCE (STANDARD)LFEROSION CONTROL BLANKETSYINLET PROTECTIONEAQUANTITY1NA1,52048048BIO-ROLLLF NATRENCH DRAIN INLET PROTECTIONLF NASWPPP LEGENDINLET PROTECTIONSILT FENCEEXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNPROPOSED DRAINAGE PATTERNBIO ROLLSEROSION CONTROL BLANKETSITE VICINITY MAP*PROJECT SITEPC Packet Pg. #57 Review 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 - PE24440Project LeadDrawn ByChecked ByLoucks Project No.018524MJSMJSMJS06/29/2020 CITY SUBMITTAL09/28/2020 REV. 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: 09 /28 / 2020 6:11 PMW:\2018\18524\CADD DATA\CIVIL\_dwg Sheet Files\C3-3 SWPPP NOTESOUCKSLCADD 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 PLANSWPPP NOTESC3-3THE INTENDED SEQUENCING OF MAJOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ARE AS FOLLOWS:1. INSTALL VEHICLE TRACKING BMP2. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL3. CLEAR AND GRUB SITE4. STRIP AND STOCKPILE TOPSOIL5. REMOVE PAVEMENTS AND UTILITIES6. ROUGH GRADE SITE7. IMPORT CLEAN FILL FOR REPLACEMENT AND BALANCE8. INSTALL UTILITIES9. INSTALL BUILDING FOUNDATIONS10. INSTALL CURB AND GUTTER11. INSTALL PAVEMENTS AND WALKS12. FINAL GRADE SITE13. REMOVE ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT FROM STORMWATER SYSTEMS14. SEED AND MULCH15. WHEN ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS COMPLETE AND THE SITE IS STABILIZED, REMOVE SILTFENCE AND RESEED ANY AREAS DISTURBED BY THE REMOVAL.3. SITE DATA:AREA OF DISTURBANCE: 4.45 ACPRE-CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS AREA: 0.18 ACPOST-CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS AREA: 1.06 AC4. THE LOCATION OF AREAS NOT TO BE DISTURBED MUST BE IDENTIFIED WITH FLAGS, STAKES,SIGNS, SILT FENCE, ETC. BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS.5. ALL DISTURBED GROUND LEFT INACTIVE FOR SEVEN (7) OR MORE DAYS SHALL BE STABILIZED BYSEEDING OR SODDING (ONLY AVAILABLE PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 15) OR BY MULCHING ORCOVERING OR OTHER EQUIVALENT CONTROL MEASURE. 6. ON SLOPES 3:1 OR GREATER MAINTAIN SHEET FLOW AND MINIMIZE RILLS AND/OR GULLIES,SLOPE LENGTHS CAN NOT BE GREATER THAN 75 FEET.DENOTES SLOPES GREATER THAN 3:1. ALL 3:1 SLOPES TO BE STABILIZED WITH EROSION CONTROL BLANKET7. ALL STORM DRAINS AND INLETS MUST BE PROTECTED UNTIL ALL SOURCES OF POTENTIALDISCHARGE ARE STABILIZED.8. NO DEWATERING IS EXPECTED TO OCCUR ONSITE.9. TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILES MUST HAVE EFFECTIVE SEDIMENT CONTROL AND CAN NOT BEPLACED IN SURFACE WATERS OR STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS. TEMPORARYSTOCKPILES WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF SILT, CLAY, OR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS AREEXEPMT EX: CLEAN AGGREGATE STOCK PILES, DEMOLITION CONCRETE STOCKPILES, SANDSTOCKPILES.10. SEDIMENT LADEN WATER MUST BE DISCHARGED TO A SEDIMENTATION BASIN WHENEVERPOSSIBLE. IF NOT POSSIBLE, IT MUST BE TREATED WITH THE APPROPRIATE BMP'S.11. SOLID WASTE MUST BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND MUST COMPLY WITH MPCA DISPOSALREQUIREMENTS.12. EXTERNAL WASHING OF CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES MUST BE LIMITED TO A DEFINED AREA OF THESITE. RUNOFF MUST BE PROPERLY CONTAINED.13. NO ENGINE DEGREASING IS ALLOWED ON SITE.14. THE OWNER WHO SIGNS THE NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION IS A PERMITTEE AND IS RESPONSIBLEFOR COMPLIANCE WITH ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE PERMIT. THE OPERATOR(CONTRACTOR) WHO SIGNS THE NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION IS A PERMITTEE FOR PARTS II.B.,PART II.C, PART II.B-F, PART V, PART IV AND APPLICABLE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITYREQUIREMENTS FOUND IN APPENDIX A, PART C. OF THE NPDES PERMIT AND IS JOINTLYRESPONSIBLE WITH THE OWNER FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE PORTIONS OF THE PERMIT.15.TERMINATION OF COVERAGE-PERMITTEE(S) WISHING TO TERMINATE COVERAGE MUST SUBMIT ANOTICE OF TERMINATION (NOT) TO THE MPCA. ALL PERMITTEE(S) MUST SUBMIT A NOT WITHIN30 DAYS AFTER ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN MET:A. FINAL STABILIZATION, PER NPDES PERMIT PART IV.G. HAS BEEN ACHIEVED ON ALLPORTIONS OF THE SITE FOR WHICH THE PERMITTEE IS RESPONSIBLE.B. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP AS DESCRIBED IN THE PERMIT.15. INSPECTIONSA. INITIAL INSPECTION FOLLOWING SILT FENCE INSTALLATION BY CITY REPRESENTATIVE ISREQUIRED.B. EXPOSED SOIL AREAS: ONCE EVERY 7 DAYS AND WITHIN 24 HOURS FOLLOWING A 0.5"OVER 24 HOUR RAIN EVENT.C. STABILIZED AREAS: ONCE EVERY 30 DAYSD. FROZEN GROUND: AS SOON AS RUNOFF OCCURS OR PRIOR TO RESUMINGCONSTRUCTION.E. INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE RECORDS MUST BE RETAINED FOR 3 YEARS AFTER FILINGOF THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION AND MUST INCLUDE: DATE AND TIME OF ACTION, NAMEOF PERSON(S) CONDUCTING WORK, FINDING OF INSPECTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSFOR CORRECTIVE ACTION, DATE AND AMOUNT OF RAINFALL EVENTS GREATER THAN 0.5INCHES IN A 24 HOUR PERIOD. 16. MINIMUM MAINTENANCEA. SILT FENCE TO BE REPAIRED, REPLACED, SUPPLEMENTED WHEN NONFUNCTIONAL, OR 1/3FULL; WITHIN 24 HOURSB. SEDIMENT BASINS DRAINED AND SEDIMENT REMOVED WHEN REACHES 1/2 STORAGEVOLUME. REMOVAL MUST BE COMPLETE WITHIN 72 HOURS OF DISCOVERY.C. SEDIMENT REMOVED FROM SURFACE WATERS WITHIN (7)SEVEN DAYSD. CONSTRUCTION SITE EXITS INSPECTED, TRACKED SEDIMENT REMOVED WITH 24 HOURS.E. PROVIDE COPIES OF EROSION INSPECTION RESULTS TO CITY ENGINEER FOR ALL EVENTSGREATER THAN 12" IN 24 HOURS17. THE SWPPP, INCLUDING ALL CHANGES TO IT, AND INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE RECORDSMUST BE KEPT AT THE SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY BY THE PERMITTEE(S) WHO HAVEOPERATIONAL CONTROL OF THE SITE.18. OWNER MUST KEEP RECORDS OF ALL PERMITS REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT, THE SWPPP, ALLINSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE, PERMANENT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS,AND REQUIRED CALCULATIONS FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT STORM WATERMANAGEMENT SYSTEMS. THESE RECORDS MUST BE RETAINED FOR THREE YEARS AFTER FILINGNPDES NOTICE OF TERMINATION.19. SWPPP MUST BE AMENDED WHEN:A. THERE IS A CHANGE IN DESIGN, OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, WEATHER OR SEASONALCONDITIONS THAT HAS A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON DISCHARGEB. INSPECTIONS INDICATE THAT THE SWPPP IS NOT EFFECTIVE AND DISCHARGE IS EXCEEDINGWATER QUALITY STANDARDS.C. THE BMP'S IN THE SWPPP ARE NOT CONTROLLING POLLUTANTS IN DISCHARGES OR IS NOTCONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE PERMIT.19. CONCRETE WASHOUT AREAA. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE PREFABRICATED CONCRETE WASH-OUT CONTAINER WITH RAINPROTECTION PER PLAN.B. CONCRETE WASH-OUT TO BE IDENTIFIED WITH SIGNAGE STATING "CONCRETE WASHOUTAREA DO NOT OVERFILL".C. CONCRETE WASHOUT WATER NEEDS TO BE PUMPED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF STANDINGWATER IN WASHOUT AREA.20. IN THE EVENT OF ENCOUNTERING A WELL OR SPRING DURING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORTO CEASE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND NOTIFY ENGINEER.21. PIPE OULTETS MUST BE PROVIDED WITH TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT ENERGY DISSIPATIONWITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER CONNECTION TO A SURFACE WATER.22. FINAL STABILIZATIONFINAL STABILIZATION REQUIRES THAT ALL SOIL DISTURBING ACVTIVITIES HAVE BEEN COMPLETEDAND THAT DISTURBED AREAS ARE STABILIZED BY A UNIFORM PERENNIAL VEGETATIVE COVERWITH 70% OF THE EXPECTED FINAL DENSITY, AND THAT ALL PERMANENT PAVEMENTS HAVE BEENINSTALLED. ALL TEMPORARY BMP'S SHALL BE REMOVED, DITCHES STABILIZED, AND SEDIMENTSHALL BE REMOVED FROM PERMANENT CONVEYANCES AND SEDIMENTATION BASINS IN ORDERTO RETURN THE POND TO DESIGN CAPACITY.23. RESPONSIBILITIESA. THE OWNER MUST IDENTIFY A PERSON WHO WILL OVERSEE THE SWPPP IMPLEMENTATIONAND THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE:CONTACT: __________________________________ COMPANY: __________________________________PHONE: __________________________________B. THE OWNER MUST IDENTIFY THE A PERSON WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LONG TERMOPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PERMANENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENTSYSTEM:CONTACT: __________________________________COMPANY: __________________________________PHONE: __________________________________24. THE WATERSHED DISTRICT OR THE CITY MAY HAVE REQUIREMENTS FOR INSPECTIONS ORAS-BUILT DRAWINGS VERIFYING PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE BMPS.SILT FENCE6"6"NOTES:1. PLACE BOTTOM EDGE OF FENCE INTO 6 IN DEEP TRENCHAND BACKFILL IMMEDIATELY.2. POSTS SHALL BE:x6 FT MAX. SPACING.x2 IN X 2IN HARDWOOD, OR STANDARD STEEL T-TYPEFENCE POSTS.x5' MIN. LENGTH POSTS, DRIVEN 2 FT INTO THEGROUND.3. ATTACH FABRIC TO WOOD POST WITH A MIN. OF 5, 1INCH LONG STAPLES.4. ATTACH FABRIC TO STEEL POST WITH A MIN. OF 3 ZIPTIES IN TOP 8 INCHES OF FABRIC.GEOTEXTILE FABRICPER MNDOT 3886GEOTEXTILEFABRIC PERMNDOT 3886DRAWN 2/2016LOUCKS PLATE NO.3000LOUCKSBIO-ROLL ORROCK LOGNOTES:1. PLACE BOTTOM EDGE OF WIRE FENCE INTO 6 IN DEEP TRENCH.2. POSTS SHALL BE:x6 FT MAX. SPACING.xSTANDARD STEEL T-TYPE POSTS.x5' MIN. LENGTH POSTS, DRIVEN 2 FT INTO THE GROUND.3. ATTACH WIRE FENCE TO STEEL POSTS WITH NO. 9 GA. ALUMINUM WIRE OR NO. 9GALVANIZED STEEL PRE-FORMED CLIPS.4. ATTACH FABRIC TO WIRE FENCING WITH WIRE OR ZIP TIES. A MIN. OF 3 ZIP TIESPER POST. EXTEND BOTTOM OF FABRIC INTO TRENCH.5. BACKFILL TRENCH & COMPACT.6. STRAW, WOOD CHIP, COMPOST OR ROCK LOGS PER MNDOT SPECS 3890, 3897.DRAWN 11/2016LOUCKS PLATE NO.3002LOUCKS2'' X 2'' X 18'' LONG WOODENSTAKES AT 2'-0'' SPACING. DRIVETHROUGH NETTING, NOTPENETRATING FIBER LOG.STRAW OR WOOD FIBER 9"OR 12'' DIA. SEDIMENTLOG ROLL ENCLOSED INPOLYPROPYLENE NETTINGTRENCH IF LOOSE SOILSENDS SECURELY CLOSED TO PREVENTLOSS OF OPEN GRADED AGGREGATEFILL. SECURED WITH 50 PSI. ZIP TIE1NOTES:SEE SPECS. 2573, 3137, 3890 & 3897.MANUFACTURED ALTERNATIVES LISTED ON Mn/DOT'S APPROVEDPRODUCTS LIST MAY BE SUBSTITUTED.1. GEOTEXTILE SOCK BETWEEN 4-10 FEET LONG AND 4-6 INCHDIAMETER. SEAM TO BE JOINED BY TWO ROWS OF STITCHINGWITH A PLASTIC MESH BACKING OR PROVIDE A HEAT BONDEDSEAM (OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT). FILL ROCK LOG WITHOPEN GRADED AGGREGATE CONSISTING OF SOUNDDURABLE PARTICLES OF COARSE AGGREGATE CONFORMINGTO SPEC. 3137 TABLE 3137-1; CA-3 GRADATION.HARD SURFACE PUBLIC ROAD2' MINIMUM1" TO 2" WASHED ROCK6" MINIMUMROCK ENTRANCE TOCONSTRUCTION SITENOTES:1. ROCK SIZE SHOULD BE 1" TO 2" IN SIZE SUCH AS MN/DOT CA-1 ORCA-2 COURSE AGGREGATE. (WASHED)2. A GEOTEXTILE FABRIC MAY BE USED UNDER THE ROCK TO PREVENTMIGRATION OF THE UNDERLYING SOIL INTO THE STONE.DRAWN 2/2016LOUCKS PLATE NO.3004LOUCKSINLET PROTECTION -EXISTING STORM STRUCTURESHIGH-FLOWFABRICCURBDEFLECTOR PLATEOVERFLOW 1-CENTEROF FILTER ASSEMBLYOVERFLOW 2 - TOPOF CURB BOXPOLYESTERSLEEVEMANHOLECOVER ASSEMBLYFILTERASSEMBLY27"27" SEDIMENT CONTROL BARRIER2'X3' SEDIMENT CONTROL BARRIERROAD DRAIN HIGH-FLOWINLET PROTECTION CURBAND GUTTER MODELWIMCO ROAD DRAIN, OR APPROVED EQUALDRAWN 2/2016LOUCKS PLATE NO.3011LOUCKSEROSION CONTROL BLANKET6"6"1' TO 3'ANCHOR TRENCH1. DIG 6"X6" TRENCH2. LAY BLANKETS IN TRENCH3. STAPLE AT 1.5' INTERVALS4. BACKFILL WITH NATURAL SOILAND COMPACT.5. BLANKET LENGTH SHALL NOTEXCEED 100' WITHOUT ANANCHOR TRENCHNOTE:SLOPE SURFACE SHALL BE FREE OF ROCKS, SOILCLUMPS, STICKS, VEHICLE IMPRINTS, AND GRASS.BLANKETS SHALL HAVE GOOD SOIL CONTACT.ANCHOR TRENCH(SEE DETAIL AND NOTES BELOW)OVERLAP END JOINTS MINIMUMOF 6" AND STAPLE OVERLAP AT1.5' INTERVALS.OVERLAP LONGITUDINALJOINTS MINIMUM OF 6"STAPLE PATTERN/DENSITYSHALL FOLLOWMANUFACTURERSSPECIFICATIONS.STAGGER JOINTSDRAWN 2/2016LOUCKS PLATE NO.3016LOUCKSCONSTRUCTION STORMWATER SPECIAL WATERS SEARCH MAP*PROJECT SITEPC Packet Pg. #58 855860865870875880885890895900855860865870875880885890895900-0+50876.80876.80+00875.21872.8873.75870.71+00872.88869.1873.79872.82+00875.94873.7877.93872.93+00881.25874.9885.13882.94+00889.01890.8892.51891.65+00893.81891.4892.69888.86+00885.37+00MH 7RIM=890.48INV=877.90 (8") SEMH 6RIM=893.06INV=877.61 (8") NWINV=877.60 (8") S74 LF 8"@ 0.39%MH 5RIM=883.62INV=873.61 (8") NINV=873.61 (8") S167 LF 8"@ 2.39%MH 3RIM=875.95INV=867.40 (8") NINV=860.22 (8") SINV=860.12 (8") SE128 LF 8"@ 4.85%MH 4RIM=872.92INV=860.66 (8") N87 LF 8"@ 0.51%7.5' MIN. COVERTO TOP OF PIPEFIRE HYDRANT & 6" GV(OUTSIDE DROP)274 LF 6" DIP6" TEE.7 LF 6" DIP, FIREHYDRANT, & 6" GVFIRE HYDRANT & 6" GV114 LF 6" DIP98 LF 6" DIP6" GVNSCALE IN FEET040 80Review 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 - PE24440Project LeadDrawn ByChecked ByLoucks Project No.018524MJSMJSMJS06/29/2020 CITY SUBMITTAL09/28/2020 REV. 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: 09 /28 / 2020 6:12 PMW:\2018\18524\CADD DATA\CIVIL\_dwg Sheet Files\C4-1 SANITARY AND WATER 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 PLANSANITARYSEWER &WATERMAINPLANC4-1WARNING: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. ALL SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER AND WATERMAIN UTILITIES SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED PER THEREQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS,THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, AND THE STANDARD UTILITIESSPECIFICATION OF THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA (CEAM), 2013 EDITION.2. ALL UTILITY PIPE BEDDING SHALL BE COMPACTED SAND OR FINE GRANULAR MATERIAL. ALL COMPACTION SHALL BEPERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CEAM SPECIFICATION AND THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.3. ALL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE AND LOCALJURISDICTIONS. THE CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT AND THECONSTRUCTION ENGINEER MUST BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHTOF WAY, OR WORK IMPACTING PUBLIC UTILITIES.4. A MINIMUM OF 18 INCHES OF VERTICAL SEPARATION AND 10 FEET OF HORIZONTAL SEPARATION IS REQUIRED FORALL UTILITIES FROM THE WATERMAIN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.5. ALL NEW WATERMAIN AND SERVICES MUST HAVE A MINIMUM OF 7.5 FEET OF COVER. EXTRA DEPTH MAY BEREQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION TO SANITARY OR STORM SEWER LINES. THECONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD ADJUST WATERMAIN TO AVOID CONFLICTS WITH SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER, ANDSERVICES AS REQUIRED. INSULATION OF WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LINES SHALL BE PROVIDED WHERE 7.5 FEETMINIMUM DEPTH CAN NOT BE ATTAINED.6. ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE LOCATED 5 FEET BEHIND BACK OF CURB OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED.7. PROPOSED PIPE MATERIALS:WATERMAIN DIP 6" DIAMETERSANITARY SEWER PVC SDR 35 10" DIAMETERFORCEMAIN PE 6" DIAMETER8. CONTRACTOR AND MANHOLE FABRICATOR SHALL SUMP (LOWER) ALL STORM SEWER CATCH BASIN CASTINGSWITHIN PAVED AREAS 0.16 FEET OR 2-INCHES BELOW THE RIM ELEVATION DEPICTED ON THE UTILITY PLAN.9. ALL STREET REPAIRS AND PATCHING SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. ALL TRAFFICCONTROL SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE ESTABLISHED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THEMINNESOTA MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MMUTCD) AND THE CITY. THIS SHALL INCLUDE ALLSIGNAGE, BARRICADES, FLASHERS AND FLAGGERS AS NEEDED. ALL PUBLIC STREETS SHALL BE OPEN TO TRAFFIC ATALL TIMES. NO ROAD CLOSURES SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED AUTHORITY OF OF THE CITY.10.THE CITY SHALL OPERATE ALL GATE VALVES.11.PIPE LENGTHS SHOWN ON THE PLAN DO NOT INCLUDE THE APRON SECTION.UTILITY NOTESPC Packet Pg. #59 850855860865870875880885890895900905910850855860865870875880885890895900905910-0+50876.51867.50+00876.90876.9900.01886.21+00904.24896.6902.32+003+00MH 3RIM=875.95INV=867.40 (8") NINV=860.22 (8") SINV=860.12 (8") SE26 LF 8"@ 0.46%MH 2RIM=904.41INV=894.48 (8") E90 LF 8"@ 0.43%MH 1RIM=901.80INV=894.09 (8") W87 LF 6" FORCEMAINLIFT STATIONRIM=877.30INV=860.00BUILD OVER EXISTINGSEWER LINE6" GVWET-TAP CONNECTIONTO EXISTING 6" DIPWATERMAINFIELD VERIFY LOCATION6" GV162 LF 6" DIPReview 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 - PE24440Project LeadDrawn ByChecked ByLoucks Project No.018524MJSMJSMJS06/29/2020 CITY SUBMITTAL09/28/2020 REV. 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: 09 /28 / 2020 6:12 PMW:\2018\18524\CADD DATA\CIVIL\_dwg Sheet Files\C4-1 SANITARY AND WATER 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 PLANSANITARYSEWER &WATERMAINPLANC4-2NSCALE IN FEET040 80WARNING: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. SEE SHEET C4-1 FOR UTILITY NOTES.UTILITY NOTESPC Packet Pg. #60 855860865870875880885890895900855860865870875880885890895900-0+876.80876.80+00875.21872.8873.75870.71+00872.88869.1873.79872.82+00875.94873.7877.93872.93+00881.25874.9885.13882.94+00889.01890.8892.51891.65+00893.81891.4892.69888.86+00885.37+00PVI STA = 1+60.00PVI ELEV = 872.00LOW PT. STA=1+49.97LOW PT. ELEV=872.88A.D. = 7.30K = 13.7100' VCBVCS: 1+10.00BVCE: 873.46EVCS: 2+10.00EVCE: 874.19PVI STA = 3+04.26PVI ELEV = 877.70LOW PT. STA=2+64.26LOW PT. ELEV=876.42A.D. = 4.55K = 17.680' VCBVCS: 2+64.26BVCE: 876.42EVCS: 3+44.26EVCE: 880.804.38%3.21%-3.24%-2.92%7.76%-5.36%PVI: 0+00.00EL: 876.80PVI: 0+40.00EL: 875.50PVI: 2+51.26EL: 876.00PVI: 6+20.57EL: 891.61HIGH PT. ELEV=893.81A.D. = 13.12K = 10.3135' VCBVCS: 4BVCE:EVCS: 6EVCE: 105 LF 12"@ 0.94%CBMH 9RIM=889.42INV=885.30 (12") SEINV=885.28 (12") SEMH 8RIM=893.28INV=884.29 (12") NWINV=884.29 (12") S154 LF 12"@ 3.46%MH 7RIM=883.29INV=878.96 (12") NINV=878.96 (12") S124 LF 12"@ 5.89%MH 6RIM=876.28INV=871.65 (12") NINV=871.65 (12") S94 LF 12"@ 4.24%CBMH 4RIM=872.57INV=865.65 (12") EINV=867.65 (12") NINV=865.65 (15") SWNSCALE IN FEET040 80Review 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 - PE24440Project LeadDrawn ByChecked ByLoucks Project No.018524MJSMJSMJS06/29/2020 CITY SUBMITTAL09/28/2020 REV. 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: 09 /28 / 2020 6:13 PMW:\2018\18524\CADD DATA\CIVIL\_dwg Sheet Files\C5-1 STREET AND STORM 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 PLANSTORM SEWER& STREET PLANC5-1WARNING: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. ALL SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER AND WATERMAIN UTILITIES SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED PER THEREQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS,THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, AND THE STANDARD UTILITIESSPECIFICATION OF THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA (CEAM), 2013 EDITION.2. ALL UTILITY PIPE BEDDING SHALL BE COMPACTED SAND OR FINE GRANULAR MATERIAL. ALL COMPACTION SHALL BEPERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CEAM SPECIFICATION AND THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.3. ALL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE AND LOCALJURISDICTIONS. THE CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT AND THECONSTRUCTION ENGINEER MUST BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHTOF WAY, OR WORK IMPACTING PUBLIC UTILITIES.4. A MINIMUM OF 18 INCHES OF VERTICAL SEPARATION AND 10 FEET OF HORIZONTAL SEPARATION IS REQUIRED FORALL UTILITIES FROM THE WATERMAIN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.5. ALL NEW WATERMAIN AND SERVICES MUST HAVE A MINIMUM OF 7.5 FEET OF COVER. EXTRA DEPTH MAY BEREQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION TO SANITARY OR STORM SEWER LINES. THECONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD ADJUST WATERMAIN TO AVOID CONFLICTS WITH SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER, ANDSERVICES AS REQUIRED. INSULATION OF WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LINES SHALL BE PROVIDED WHERE 7.5 FEETMINIMUM DEPTH CAN NOT BE ATTAINED.6. ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE LOCATED 5 FEET BEHIND BACK OF CURB OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED.7. PROPOSED PIPE MATERIALS:STORM SEWER RCP 12" TO 18" DIAMETER8. CONTRACTOR AND MANHOLE FABRICATOR SHALL SUMP (LOWER) ALL STORM SEWER CATCH BASIN CASTINGSWITHIN PAVED AREAS 0.16 FEET OR 2-INCHES BELOW THE RIM ELEVATION DEPICTED ON THE UTILITY PLAN.9. ALL STREET REPAIRS AND PATCHING SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. ALL TRAFFICCONTROL SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE ESTABLISHED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THEMINNESOTA MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MMUTCD) AND THE CITY. THIS SHALL INCLUDE ALLSIGNAGE, BARRICADES, FLASHERS AND FLAGGERS AS NEEDED. ALL PUBLIC STREETS SHALL BE OPEN TO TRAFFIC ATALL TIMES. NO ROAD CLOSURES SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED AUTHORITY OF OF THE CITY.10.THE CITY SHALL OPERATE ALL GATE VALVES.11.PIPE LENGTHS SHOWN ON THE PLAN DO NOT INCLUDE THE APRON SECTION.UTILITY NOTESPC Packet Pg. #61 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: 08 /26 / 2020 8:47 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 SUBMITTAL08/26/20CITY COMMENTSPRELIMINARYPLATC6-1SPOT 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 = 18,851 +/- square feet or 0.43 +/- acresLot 2, Block 1 = 19,016 +/- square feet or 0.44 +/- acresLot 1, Block 2 = 54,250 +/- square feet or 1.24 +/- acresLot 2, Block 2 = 28,738 +/- square feet or 0.66 +/- acresLot 3, Block 2 = 25,801 +/- square feet or 0.59 +/- acresLot 4, Block 2 = 25,095 +/- square feet or 0.58 +/- 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= 41,223 +/- square feet or 0.95 +/- acresTotal Plat Area = 295,307 +/- square feet or 6.78 +/- acresSITE DATALicense No.Date I 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)PC Packet Pg. #62 DECIDUOUS TREESQTY COMMON NAME1ACCOLADE ELM10COMMON HACKBERRY1KENTUCKY COFFEETREE ESPRESSO10NORTHERN PIN OAK3 SIENNA GLEN MAPLE3 SWAMP WHITE OAKEVERGREEN TREES QTY COMMON NAME1 AUSTRIAN PINEFULL FORM7 BLACK HILLS SPRUCEFULL FORMORNAMENTAL TREES QTY COMMON NAME20 AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY4 FOX VALLEY BIRCH1PAGODA DOGWOOD21THORNLESS HAWTHORNGRASSES QTY COMMON NAME4SHENANDOAH SWITCH GRASSPERENNIALS QTY COMMON NAME12RUBY STELLA DAYLILYPLANT SCHEDULENSCALE IN FEET040 8006/29/2020 CITY SUBMITTAL09/28/2020 REV. 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: 09 /28 / 2020 6:11 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.Date I 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.PC Packet Pg. #63 DECIDUOUS TREESCODE QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME CONT SIZEAE1ACCOLADE ELMUlmus `Morton`B & B 2.5"CalCH 10COMMON HACKBERRYCeltis occidentalisB & B 2.5"CalGD2 1KENTUCKY COFFEETREE ESPRESSO Gymnocladus dioica `Espresso`B & B 2.5"CalNP 10NORTHERN PIN OAKQuercus ellipsoidalisB & B 2.5"CalSGM 3SIENNA GLEN MAPLEAcer freemanii `Sienna Glen`B & B 2.5"CalQB 3SWAMP WHITE OAKQuercus bicolorB & B 2.5"CalEVERGREEN TREES CODE QTYCOMMON NAMEBOTANICAL NAMECONT SIZEAP 1AUSTRIAN PINEFULL FORMPinus nigraB & B 6` HGTBS 7BLACK HILLS SPRUCEFULL FORMPicea glauca `Densata`B & B 6` HGTORNAMENTAL TREES CODE QTYCOMMON NAMEBOTANICAL NAMECONT SIZEABS 20AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY Amelanchier x grandiflora `Autumn Brilliance` B & B 1.5"CalFVB 4FOX VALLEY BIRCHBetula nigra `Little King` TMB & B 1.5"CalPD 1PAGODA DOGWOODCornus alternifoliaB & B 1.5"CalTH 21THORNLESS HAWTHORNCrataegus crus-galli `Inermis`B & B 1.5"CalGRASSESCODE QTYCOMMON NAMEBOTANICAL NAMEMIN CONT MIN SIZE SPACINGSSG 4SHENANDOAH SWITCH GRASSPanicum virgatum `Shenendoah`1 gal36" o.c.PERENNIALSCODE QTYCOMMON NAMEBOTANICAL NAMEMIN CONT MIN SIZE SPACINGRSD 12RUBY STELLA DAYLILYHemerocallis x `Ruby Stella`1 gal24" o.c.GROUND COVERS CODE COMMON NAMEBOTANICAL NAMESEED 3 BASIN SEED MIXMNDOT SEED MIX 33-261STORMWATER SOUTH & WESTSM 1 STONE MULCHCRUSHED GRAY ROCK1/4" MINUS 3" DEPTHSEED TURF SEEDSEED 2 WOODLAND SEED MIXMNDOT SEED MIX 36-211WOODLAND EDGE SOUTH & WESTPLANT SCHEDULE06/29/2020 CITY SUBMITTAL09/28/2020 REV. 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: 09 /28 / 2020 6:12 PMW:\2018\18524\CADD DATA\LANDSCAPE\_dwg Sheet Files\L2-1 LANDSCAPE DETAILSOUCKSLCADD QUALIFICATIONQUALITY CONTROLPROFESSIONAL SIGNATURESUBMITTAL/REVISIONSVALLEY VIEWOAK 3RDADDITIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNLARRY & MARYCULLIGAN1941 GLENHILL ROADMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118Review 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 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 PLANLANDSCAPEDETAILSL2-1LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION:COORDINATE THE PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTINGINSTALLATION WITH OTHER CONTRACTORS WORKING ON SITE.NO PLANTING WILL BE INSTALLED UNTIL COMPLETE GRADING ANDCONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.WHERE SOD / SEED ABUTS PAVED SURFACES, FINISHED GRADE OF SOD /SEED SHALL BE HELD 1" BELOW SURFACE ELEVATION OF TRAIL, SLAB,CURB, ETC.SEED ALL AREAS DISTURBED DUE TO GRADING OTHER THAN THOSEAREAS NOTED TO RECEIVE SOD. SEED SHALL BE INSTALLED ANDMULCHED AS PER MNDOT SPECS.SOD ALL DESIGNATED AREAS DISTURBED DUE TO GRADING. SOD SHALLBE LAID PARALLEL TO THE CONTOURS AND SHALL HAVE STAGGEREDJOINTS. ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 OR IN DRAINAGE SWALES, THE SODSHALL BE STAKED TO THE GROUND.ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF THEAMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OFNURSERYMEN. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL SHRUBS SHALL HAVE ATLEAST 5 CANES AT THE SPECIFIED MINIMUM SHRUB HEIGHT OR WIDTH.ORNAMENTAL TREES SHALL HAVE NO V CROTCHES AND SHALL BEGINBRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 3' ABOVE ROOT BALL. STREET ANDBOULEVARD TREES SHALL BEGIN BRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 5' ABOVEFINISHED GRADE.ANY CONIFEROUS TREE PREVIOUSLY PRUNED FOR CHRISTMAS TREE SALESSHALL NOT BE USED. ALL CONIFEROUS TREES SHALL BE FULL FORM,NATURAL TO THE SPECIES, WITHOUT PRUNING.PLAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER PLANT SCHEDULE IF DISCREPANCIES INQUANTITIES EXIST. SPECIFICATIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER NOTES.NO PLANT MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED UNLESSAPPROVAL IS REQUESTED OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY THELANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF A BID AND / ORQUOTATION.ALL PROPOSED PLANTS SHALL BE LOCATED AND STAKED AS SHOWN ONPLAN. ADJUSTMENTS IN LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLANT MATERIALS MAYBE NEEDED IN FIELD. SHOULD AN ADJUSTMENT BE ADVISED, THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST BE NOTIFIED.ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE FERTILIZED UPON INSTALLATION WITH A27-3-3 SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZER MIXED IN WITH THE PLANTING SOIL PERTHE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. PLANTS MAY BE TREATED FORSUMMER AND FALL INSTALLATION WITH AN APPLICATION OF GRANULAR27-3-3 AT 6 OZ PER 2.5" CALIPER PER TREE AND 3 OZ PER SHRUB WITH ANADDITIONAL APPLICATION OF 27-3-3 THE FOLLOWING SPRING IN THETREE SAUCER.ALL PLANTING AREAS RECEIVING PERENNIALS, GROUND COVER,ANNUALS, AND / OR VINES SHALL RECEIVE A MINIMUM OF 12" DEPTH OFPLANTING SOIL CONSISTING OF 5 PARTS CLEAN TOPSOIL AND 1 PARTPEAT. SHRUBS AND TREES TO BE BACKFILLED WITH SAME PLANTING SOIL.ALL PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED AS PER PLANTING DETAILS. REMOVE ALLFLAGGING AND LABELS FROM PLANTS.WRAPPING MATERIAL SHALL BE CORRUGATED PVC PIPING 1" GREATER INCALIPER THAN THE TREE BEING PROTECTED OR QUALITY, HEAVY,WATERPROOF CREPE PAPER MANUFACTURED FOR THIS PURPOSE. WRAPALL DECIDUOUS TREES PLANTED IN THE FALL PRIOR TO 12-1 AND REMOVEALL WRAPPING AFTER 5-1.BLACK POLY EDGER TO BE USED TO CONTAIN SHRUBS, PERENNIALS, ANDANNUALS WHERE BED MEETS SOD / SEED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.ALL ANNUAL AND PERENNIAL PLANTING BEDS TO RECEIVE 3" DEEPSHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH WITH NO WEED BARRIER. ALL SHRUBBED MASSINGS TO RECEIVE 3" DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH ANDFIBER MAT WEED BARRIER. ALL TREES TO RECEIVE 4" DEEP SHREDDEDHARDWOOD MULCH WITH NO MULCH IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH TREETRUNK.SPREAD GRANULAR PRE EMERGENT HERBICIDE (PREEN OR EQUAL) PERMANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS UNDER ALL MULCHED AREAS.MAINTENANCE STRIPS TO HAVE EDGER AND MULCH AS SPECIFIED /INDICATED ON DRAWING OR IN SPECIFICATION.IF THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS CONCERNED OR PERCEIVES ANYDEFICIENCIES IN THE PLANT SELECTIONS, SOIL CONDITIONS OR ANYOTHER SITE CONDITION WHICH MIGHT NEGATIVELY AFFECT PLANTESTABLISHMENT, SURVIVAL OR GUARANTEE, HE MUST BRING THESEDEFICIENCIES TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIORTO PROCUREMENT AND / OR INSTALLATION.CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR THE OWNERACCEPTANCE INSPECTION OF ALL LANDSCAPE AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ON-GOING MAINTENANCE OF ALLNEWLY INSTALLED MATERIALS UNTIL TIME OF OWNER ACCEPTANCE. ANYACTS OF VANDALISM OR DAMAGE WHICH MAY OCCUR PRIOR TO OWNERACCEPTANCE SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH A MAINTENANCEPROGRAM INCLUDING, BUT NOT NECESSARILY LIMITED TO, PRUNING,FERTILIZATION AND DISEASE / PEST CONTROL.CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE NEW PLANT MATERIAL THROUGH ONECALENDAR YEAR FROM THE DATE OF OWNER ACCEPTANCE.WARRANTY (ONE FULL GROWING SEASON) FOR LANDSCAPE MATERIALSSHALL BEGIN ON THE DATE OF ACCEPTANCE BY THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT AFTER THE COMPLETION OF PLANTING OF ALL LANDSCAPEMATERIALS. NO PARTIAL ACCEPTANCE WILL BE CONSIDERED.UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE THE APPROPRIATE DATES FOR SPRING PLANTMATERIAL INSTALLATION AND SEED / SOD PLACEMENT IS FROM THE TIMEGROUND HAS THAWED TO JUNE 15.FALL SODDING IS GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE FROM AUGUST 15 - NOVEMBER1. FALL SEEDING FROM AUGUST 15 - SEPTEMBER 15; DORMANT SEEDINGIN THE FALL SHALL NOT OCCUR PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 1. FALLCONIFEROUS PLANTING MAY OCCUR FROM AUGUST 15 - OCTOBER 1AND DECIDUOUS PLANTING FROM THE FIRST FROST UNTIL NOVEMBER 15.PLANTING OUTSIDE THESE DATES IS NOT RECOMMENDED. ANYADJUSTMENT MUST BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT.PROTECT ALL EXISTING OAKS ON SITE SCHEDULED TO REMAIN. IFEXISTING OAKS ARE DAMAGED IN ANY MANNER, ABOVE OR BELOWGROUND IN THE ROOT SYSTEM, AN ASPHALTIC TREE PRUNING PAINTSHOULD BE APPLIED IMMEDIATELY AFTER WOUNDING. OAKS ARE NOT TOBE PRUNED, REMOVED OR TRANSPLANTED BETWEEN APRIL 15 AND JULY 1.NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IF THESE DATES ARE UNAVOIDABLE.LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL ESTABLISH TO HIS SATISFACTION THATSOIL AND COMPACTION CONDITIONS ARE ADEQUATE TO ALLOW FORPROPER DRAINAGE AT AND AROUND THE BUILDING SITE.REFER TO SHEET L1-1 FOR LANDSCAPE PLAN AND GENERAL NOTES.IRRIGATION NOTES:VERIFY EXISTING / PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEM LAYOUT ANDCONFIRM COMPLETE LIMITS OF IRRIGATION PRIOR TO SUPPLYINGSHOP DRAWINGS.LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDINGAN IRRIGATION LAYOUT PLAN AND SPECIFICATION AS A PART OF THESCOPE OF WORK WHEN BIDDING. THESE SHALL BE APPROVED BY THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO ORDER AND / OR INSTALLATION. ITSHALL BE THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO INSURETHAT ALL SODDED / SEEDED AND PLANTED AREAS ARE IRRIGATEDPROPERLY, INCLUDING THOSE AREAS DIRECTLY AROUND ANDABUTTING BUILDING FOUNDATION.THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH ANIRRIGATION SCHEDULE APPROPRIATE TO THE PROJECT SITECONDITIONS AND TO PLANT MATERIAL GROWTH REQUIREMENTS.IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS NOT TO SPRINKLE ACROSS PAVEMENT. THESYSTEM SHALL INCORPORATE A RAIN SENSOR INTO IRRIGATIONSYSTEM.PLANTINGS OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF IRRIGATION ARE TO BE WATEREDREGULARLY UNTIL PLANTING / SOD / SEED HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.PC Packet Pg. #64 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: 09 /30 / 2020 2:2 PMW:\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 SUBMITTAL09/28/20 REV. CITY 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 MAPSITEPC Packet Pg. #65 NSCALE IN FEET040 80Review 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 - PE24440Project LeadDrawn ByChecked ByLoucks Project No.018524MJSMJSMJS06/29/2020 CITY SUBMITTAL09/28/2020 REV. 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: 09 /28 / 2020 7:54 PMW:\2018\18524\CADD DATA\CIVIL\_dwg Working Files\Section View ConceptsOUCKSLCADD 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 PLANSECTION VIEWLOCATIONMAPEX-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%972.5SECTION VIEW LOCATION MAPPC Packet Pg. #66 PC Packet Pg. #67 PC Packet Pg. #68 PC Packet Pg. #69 GLENHILLDRAINAGESLOPEDRAINAGENSCALE IN FEET050 100Review 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 - PE24440Project LeadDrawn ByChecked ByLoucks Project No.018524MJSMJSMJS06/29/2020 CITY SUBMITTAL09/28/2020 REV. 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: 09 /28 / 2020 9:10 PMW:\2018\18524\CADD DATA\CIVIL\_dwg Working Files\EXISTING DRAINAGE 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 PLANDRAINAGEEXHIBITH1889.4890.9893.0TW=880.90TW=880.96TW=880.90TW=874.78TW=880.72TW=881.13TW=878.50TW=865.40TW=868.36GW=881.15GW=871.74GW=870.90GW=870.90GW=871.85GW=874.60GW=878.50GW=861.22GW=865.40TW=894.68TW=897.50TW=897.50TW=897.67TW=897.98TW=898.00TW=898.09GW=894.54GW=887.50GW=887.50GW=887.67GW=888.91GW=890.69GW=898.34876.4±EX878.1±EX874.6±EX875.7872.9872.6872.6875.9878.3893.4883.6123456127TW=874.54GW=868.68TW=873.61GW=868.36TW=871.42GW=871.42865.0EOFTW=865.60GW=857.97TW=898.00GW=890.15TW=856.10GW=850.84TW=857.13GW=849.55TW=859.73GW=854.23TW=870.00GW=860.00TW=868.54GW=861.33TW=867.56GW=858.70TW=856.40GW=851.14TW=866.25GW=856.25TW=858.64GW=848.72TW=885.10TW=885.59GW=878.96GW=880.80TW=889.33GW=886.83GLENHILLDRAINAGESLOPEDRAINAGEPONDDRAINAGENSCALE IN FEET050 100y/^d/E'ZhEK&& ϮͲzZ^ƚŽƌŵǀĞŶƚϭϬͲzZ^ƚŽƌŵǀĞŶƚϭϬϬͲzZ^ƚŽƌŵǀĞŶƚϭϬϬͲzZ^ŶŽǁŵĞůƚƌĞĂĂĐƌĞƐZĂƚĞĐĨƐsŽůƵŵĞĂĐͲĨƚZĂƚĞĐĨƐsŽůƵŵĞĂĐͲĨƚZĂƚĞĐĨƐsŽůƵŵĞĂĐͲĨƚZĂƚĞĐĨƐsŽůƵŵĞĂĐͲĨƚ^ůŽƉĞ ϳ͘ϰϬϭ Ϭ͘ϴ Ϭ͘ϭϭϴ ϰ͘ϳϴ Ϭ͘ϰϮϵ Ϯϭ͘Ϭϵ ϭ͘ϱϵϮ ϴ͘ϴϮ ϰ͘Ϯϵϯ'ůĞŶŚŝůů Ϭ͘ϭϴϮ Ϭ͘Ϯϱ Ϭ͘ϬϭϮ Ϭ͘ϱϱ Ϭ͘ϬϮϲ ϭ͘ϯϳ Ϭ͘Ϭϲϳ Ϭ͘ϮϮ Ϭ͘ϭϬϲdŽƚĂů ϳ͘ϱϴϯ Ϭ͘ϴϲ Ϭ͘ϭϯ ϰ͘ϵϲ Ϭ͘ϰϱϱ Ϯϭ͘ϲ ϭ͘ϲϱϴ ϵ͘Ϭϯ ϰ͘ϯϵϵWZKWK^ZhEK&& ϮͲzZ^ƚŽƌŵǀĞŶƚϭϬͲzZ^ƚŽƌŵǀĞŶƚϭϬϬͲzZ^ƚŽƌŵǀĞŶƚϭϬϬͲzZ^ŶŽǁŵĞůƚƌĞĂĂĐƌĞƐZĂƚĞĐĨƐsŽůƵŵĞĂĐͲĨƚZĂƚĞĐĨƐsŽůƵŵĞĂĐͲĨƚZĂƚĞĐĨƐsŽůƵŵĞĂĐͲĨƚZĂƚĞĐĨƐsŽůƵŵĞĂĐͲĨƚ^ůŽƉĞ ϯ͘ϵϯϮ Ϭ͘ϳ Ϭ͘Ϭϵϳ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ͘Ϯϵϴ ϭϭ͘ϵϰ Ϭ͘ϵϵϴ ϰ͘ϲϳ ϭ͘ϵϱϰ'ůĞŶŚŝůů Ϭ͘ϭϴϭ Ϭ͘ϯϮ Ϭ͘Ϭϭϵ Ϭ͘ϱϴ Ϭ͘Ϭϯϰ ϭ͘ϯϮ Ϭ͘Ϭϳϯ Ϭ͘ϮϮ Ϭ͘ϬϵWŽŶĚ ϯ͘ϰϳϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ Ϭ͘Ϭϵϵ ϭ͘ϳϰ Ϭ͘ϯϮϵ ϴ͘ϲϭ ϭ͘Ϭϯϭ ϰ͘Ϭϯ ϭ͘ϯϲϮdŽƚĂů ϳ͘ϱϵ Ϭ͘ϴϱ Ϭ͘Ϯϭϱ ϰ͘ϰϲ Ϭ͘ϲϲϭ ϮϬ͘ϰϲ Ϯ͘ϭϬϮ ϴ͘ϵϭ ϯ͘ϰϬϲPC Packet Pg. #70 July 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 11 B) PLANNING CASE 2020-15 MICHELLE CULLIGAN, NW QUADRANT OF VICTORIA CURVE AND GLENHILL ROAD – PRELIMINARY PLAT, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that 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. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; a number of comments and/or concerns were received and included in the packet. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended that the public hearing be held, and the issue then be tabled to allow input from the Park and Recreation Commission. He noted that this would then come back to the Planning Commission on August 25th. Commissioner Field stated that the rules allow someone to testify once and asked how that would apply in this situation where they could speak but then additional information could come forward from the Park and Recreation Commission that they might want to respond to at the next meeting. Commissioner Corbett believed that people are allowed to speak twice, as long as everyone has had an opportunity to speak. Chair Magnuson stated that she would be willing to allow people to respond at the second meeting to things that may have changed. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that staff would recommend allowing people to comment at both meetings. Michelle Culligan, applicant, stated that this land has been in their family for almost 100 years and her parents currently live on the property. She stated that because of that, they take how the property could be developed very seriously. She recognized that there are a number of challenges with the topography and the Critical Overlay District and therefore reached out to staff early in this process along with experts to help guide them. She stated that they have approached this in a manner of working with the topography to minimize tree removal and maintain the wooded nature of the property. She stated that they intended to hold a neighborhood meeting but refrained because of COVID and the age of her parents and therefore felt that the public hearing would be the best method of obtaining input. Commissioner Corbett asked if this project would be feasible without the variances. PC Packet Pg. #71 July 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 11 Ms. Culligan replied that it would be feasible without the variances but that would require additional tree removal which would expose more of the bluff. Commissioner Corbett asked if the retaining walls every 20 feet would be feasible. Ms. Culligan confirmed that would be possible but would be costly, require tree removal and is something she would rather avoid. Chair Magnuson stated that the retaining walls would span multiple properties and therefore could create a problem with maintenance. She asked how that would be handled. Ms. Culligan stated that there has been discussion of an HOA to maintain that element and others. She noted that discussion of a conservation easement was also discussed. She stated that the homeowners themselves would also desire an association in order to preserve the environment and nature of the neighborhood. Commissioner Katz stated that he appreciates the spirit to attempting to keep the bluff and vegetation preserved. He stated that because this is within the Critical Area, there is a possibility that this area was used as a burial ground. He asked the procedure the property owners would follow if bones were discovered. Ms. Culligan stated that she is not aware of all the steps would be taken but acknowledged that there is a procedure outlined. Chair Magnuson confirmed that State law would govern that process. Commissioner Katz stated that he simply wanted to ensure that the property owner was aware of the process that would need to be followed if that were to occur and the expense/change in direction that could be needed. Tom Goodrum, planning consultant for the applicant, stated that he appreciates all of the comments that have been received, recognizing that development within the Critical Area does not happen all the time. He provided background information on his firm and their experience with bluff development and critical area development. He also reviewed his experience with bluffs and critical areas. He stated that although the retaining walls reach up to 23 feet, that height is only in a very small area of the walls. He stated that they worked with the DNR and were conservative on their slope analysis. He stated that they want to respect the slopes and they need the retaining walls to help them with that. He noted that none of the retaining walls or house pads are up against the 40-foot setback line. He stated that they attempted to stay east to the extent possible, which is why variances are included. He stated that the soils on this site are fast draining. He stated that any drainage coming off the slope would be brought to the retention pond for treatment and disbursed at a much slower pace. PC Packet Pg. #72 July 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 11 Commissioner Toth referenced the locations of the retaining wall and degree of slope, asking if that would be a walkable slope. He stated that there is currently vegetation holding the soil in place and asked how they would prevent erosion once the vegetation is removed. Mr. Goodrum stated that they have a stormwater prevention plan to ensure that when the land is striped, they establish erosion control measures. He stated that once they open the soil, they will know which erosion control measures will be implemented. He commented that a 40 percent slope would be slightly greater than a freeway embankment. He stated that the wall would be vertical and provided details on the wall locations. Commissioner Toth asked the type of material that would be used for the walls. Mr. Goodrum replied that they are unsure as the soil type would dictate the materials/type necessary. He recognized that the City has material requirements as well. He stated that they will work with City staff to ensure the design meets everyone’s standards. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Allen Olstein, 1954 Glenhill Road, stated that he wants the developers to be aware that the two proposed properties across the street from his property are adjacent to a blind curve. He commented on the hazard of backing out of property in that area. Steven Douglas, 330 G Street, stated that there is a holding pond in the corner that is not visible on this plan. He stated that about 20,000 gallons a day drain to that area and water comes into his basement. He stated that he cannot handle any more water and has been unable to sell his home because of that problem. Bob Bruestle, 370 G Street (Mendota), stated that the former proposal of the development included a holding pond, which is not a retaining pond. He stated that a small pipe came out of that pond and inundated his yard. He stated that he blocked that pipe and is currently draining is through a hose. He stated that when the soil is frozen there is not retention. He stated that he would like to see a topographical map, as the property all slopes. He stated that the Mendota Springs have not yet been addressed, noting that hillside is full of springs and if cut into, that water drains out. He stated that there are two real Indian mounds under the original Culligan development. He stated that this is a Critical Area and was initially looked at as urban open space. He commented that not everything has to be developed to have equitable living. He encouraged the Commission members to visit the area to see the slopes in person. He stated that in the winter, the water all comes down. Brian Mielke, 1395 2nd Street (Mendota), stated that he is the Mayor of Mendota and they have multiple concerns with this development. He stated that their concerns are not just what you see, but what you do not see, like the underground springs. He stated that the proposed walls built into the ground will disrupt the underground springs and adjacent properties. He stated that if the water is going to be drained to a retention pond, it will still eventually go into Mendota. He stated that he would think there is a reason this is the last undeveloped property in that area. He referenced a landslide that occurred 12 years after a previous development was built, noting that if this development is approved, the problems might not be seen today it will be seen in the future. He PC Packet Pg. #73 July 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 11 stated that he would like to see the DNR response to the project, as the DNR expressed concerns with development in Mendota. He stated that he is also curious if BWSR has commented. Chair Magnuson asked if the springs have ever been marked. Mr. Mielke stated that the Mendota property owners would welcome members of the Planning Commission to come to their properties and see the water on the property from the natural springs. Commissioner Katz asked if there is a list of ongoing issues with Mendota Heights that could be addressed between the cities, rather than bringing concerns forward on a piece by piece basis with projects. He stated that he wants to ensure that Mendota feels that Mendota Heights recognizes its concerns and that there is a cooperative relationship. Mr. Mielke commented that he believes there is a good relationship between the cities. He noted that he does not have any other concerns outside of this development, which he was alerted of this week. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that notices were mailed to property owners on July 14th and he sent something to the Mendota City Clerk prior to that date. Mr. Mielke stated that he will provide his email to City staff and would like to have notices of this type emailed to him as well. Commissioner Katz commented that it appears the drainage issue in this case is the first concern. He asked if there are other concerns. Mr. Mielke stated that Mendota is a small city that operates differently than Mendota Heights. He stated that some of the property owners in that area have accepted the wet conditions, they simply do not want them made worse. Steve Golias, 1308 4th Street (Mendota), stated that he owns block 34 and the triangle piece that abuts this parcel. He stated that he is the Deputy Mayor of Mendota and has been on the Council for 30 years. He stated that the development that occurred in the 1980s just happened, as the process was much different then. He stated that the consequences from that development have been severe. He stated that the property owner at 1290 4th Street has been at the hospital and was unable to attend but also has concerns over this development. He stated that water does run 365 days of the year, even in the winter. He stated that they water their plants with water coming out of the hills. He stated that the Mendota City Council only meets once per month and therefore its Planning Commission and City Council could review the issue at their August meetings. He stated that he has two homes on his property that are served with well water and has concern with the damage that could occur to the springs in the hills with this development and the impact that could have on their wells. He stated that when this project was proposed in the 1980’s, it was stopped because MnDOT would not give access to 110. He stated that he is concerned with water runoff from the steep slopes. He asked if the holding pond would be City owned and maintained. PC Packet Pg. #74 July 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 11 Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the holding pond is City owned. He stated that when the new pond on Victoria Curve was constructed, the storm sewer was stubbed in for this property. Mr. Golias stated that he would want to ensure that the pond does not discharge down slope. He stated that he has concern with the disruption of the springs, impacts to wells, and would like to know additional information about the sewage and how that would be discharged. He stated that sometimes homeowners install swimming pools and asked if those would be allowed and if so, how would drainage of those be handled. He stated that the subject property was an old wagon trail and when he was young his father found an old musket. He stated that he would caution not just against burial grounds, but other artifacts that could be found. He stated that his triangle piece of property is landlocked and technically a part of Mendota Heights. He stated that if this goes forward, he would like to have access to water or to allow that parcel to be a part of Mendota. Mark Hunt, 1224 Culligan Lane, stated that there are a lot of issues with this property and it seems that it would seem to have additional engineering completed. He stated that he is concerned with the number of variances requested within the Critical Corridor area. He stated that the retaining walls seem triple the size of anything in this area. He stated that he is very concerned with the tightness proposed, noting that one lot would adjoin to his backyard. He stated that he does not want to see the land stripped. Ms. Culligan stated that they can explore the drainage concerns more. She stated that they could have less variances, with a wider road, but that would have more impacts. She explained that they are trying to work within the bounds of the property. Mr. Goodrum stated that he appreciates the input from residents that have lived in the area for years and from City staff, noting that they will attempt to address those concerns when they come back in August. Chair Magnuson encouraged the applicant and their team to make themselves available to the residents and City staff of Mendota. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO LEAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND TABLE THE ISSUE 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. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that this will be reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission on August 12, 2020. He noted that notices are not typically sent out when an item is tabled but stated that staff could send out notices prior to the August Planning Commission meeting if desired. Chair Magnuson advised staff to follow the normal process. PC Packet Pg. #75 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING AUGUST 1 2, 2020 The August meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on Wednesday, August 12, 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, Dan Sherer, and Amy Smith. Staff present: Recreation Program Coordinator, Meredith Lawrence, Assistant City Administrator, Cheryl Jacobson, Public Works Director, Ryan Ruzek, Natural Resource Technician, Krista Spreiter and Community Development Director, Tim Benetti. 7.Review of Valley View Oak 3rd Addition Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that 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. The subdivision would create eight (8) single family lots for future development. The Parks and Recreation Commission is requested to provide comments, concerns, or suggestions which staff will forward back to the Planning Commission and the developer/applicant for subsequent consideration. Mr. Benetti provided a staff report and a presentation on this item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Chair Goldade summarized that this was introduced at the Planning Commission meeting and tabled to provide an opportunity for this Commission to review the request. Mr. Benetti confirmed that this would go back to the Planning Commission in order to provide a recommendation to the Council. Chair Goldade asked if Marie Park would be the closest City park to this location. Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence stated that City Center Baseball Field would be the closest, but Marie Park would be the closest park with a playground amenity. Chair Goldade stated that he would suggest discussion of a trail that would allow connection from that neighborhood to Glenhill. Mr. Benetti stated that is a great idea but did not believe there were any trail systems in the area that could be connected to. He stated that comment could be passed on to the Planning Commission, but he was unsure if a trail could run through the lift station easement because of the grade. Chair Goldade advised of a possible connection that could be made to keep pedestrian traffic off the frontage road. He asked for additional details on the slope analysis. Mr. Benetti provided details on the slope and property boundaries. PC Packet Pg. #76 Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided additional details on the bluff and applicable setback requirements. Chair Goldade recognized how wooded the area is currently and that tree replacement would not be done on a one-by-one basis. He asked if the City could have an expectation that a certain number of trees would be replaced on each lot. Mr. Benetti replied that typically certain conditions or requirements are established under a Critical Area Conditional Use Permit. He stated that typically trees of six inches or greater that are removed are replaced on a one-to-one or two-to-one requirement. He noted that the type of tree can also be specified and that would be included in the conditions of the CUP. Commissioner Sherer commented that there are steep slopes on the site, and he would wonder about the slope stability. He asked if the construction impact for the retaining wall would be within the setback. He noted that a number of trees would be impacted by the grading and construction of the wall. Mr. Ruzek stated that a specific wall design or type has not been proposed, therefore the construction measures are still unknown. He stated that there would be a 40-foot setback from the bluff to the wall, noting two portions that may have difficulty maintaining that setback. Commissioner Sherer asked if some soil sampling has been completed. Mr. Ruzek stated that soil samples are proposed to be collected but was unsure if that work had been done as of yet. Commissioner Sherer asked if the City could require that geotechnical inspectors be inside during the construction to ensure proper compaction to prevent wall and slope failures. He commented that the sediment and infiltration pond require certain materials and maintenance and asked who would be responsible for maintenance. Mr. Ruzek commented that the maintenance of the pond would most likely be the responsibility of the City. He stated that the proposed plan would reduce the flows over the bluff by 50 percent, compared to the existing conditions. He recognized that comments were made at the Planning Commission meeting related to drainage concerns. Commissioner Cotter asked about the amount of land that would be held in conservation easement. Mr. Benetti replied that about one-third of the site would be held in conservation easement. He confirmed that the 40-foot setback would be included in that total. He explained that the intent would be to ensure that once the lots are turned over to private ownership, that area still remains protected. Commissioner Cotter commented that the storm pond would abut Victoria Curve and would be most visible to those driving by. He asked if that placement was chosen because of the topography. Mr. Ruzek commented that the proposed location was chosen because that is the only location where discharge could occur that would not go into Mendota. PC Packet Pg. #77 Commissioner Cotter asked if there would be treatment of the pond. Mr. Ruzek commented that he would anticipate that dredging would be needed in 20 or 30 years. He explained that as long as pond as functioning, they do not require maintenance. Commissioner Cotter asked if there would be a responsibility for the type of trees and vegetation planted around the pond. Mr. Ruzek commented that the City would not have ownership over the trees. He stated that if the development moves ahead, he would support the development having an organization association to handle things such as trees and vegetation. Commissioner Meyer asked what would happen to the triangle piece of property owned by the City and how it would be accessed. Mr. Ruzek commented that if a tree fell down, it would not be an issue of public safety and would remain. He was unsure that there is a wide enough easement to access the parcel. He noted that if the City needed to access the parcel it could attempt to make an agreement with a property owner. Commissioner Meyer asked for details on the barn that was mentioned on the property. Mr. Benetti replied that there is an old horse barn/garage owned by the property owners. Commissioner Meyer referenced the properties on the Mendota side and asked if there have been concerns raised by those property owners. Mr. Benetti replied that residents from Mendota attended the Planning Commission public hearing and expressed concern with drainage running down the bluff line. He stated that there were a number of concerns related to underground springs in the area that come out of the bluff. He stated that the residents were concerned that this could impact those springs. Mr. Ruzek stated that staff has received a lot of comments from the neighboring homes in both cities. He recognized that people are hesitant to change and this request includes a number of variances. Commissioner Meyer asked the size of each lot proposed and whether the conserved area would count in the lot size. Mr. Benetti replied that each lot would be ranging from 19,580 square feet to 31,000 square feet. He commented that most of the lots would be bigger than they have to be in order to protect the backyard space. He stated that the developable portion would be the front third or half while the remainder would be protected. Commissioner Meyer asked if the City would have any say in the type of trees replanted. She stated that perhaps a pollinator friendly planting could occur near the pond. Mr. Benetti stated that the Master Gardeners and Natural Resources Technician have reviewed the plan and provided their recommendations. He stated that a condition could be added that the City can review and delegate the variety of trees that could be planted and how those would be maintained. PC Packet Pg. #78 Commissioner Smith asked if there has been thought about landscape services that may be used on the properties that could end up as runoff into the bluff. Mr. Benetti stated that could be addressed as part of an HOA agreement. He stated that the City encourages new building sites to use the pollinator-friendly policy. Chair Goldade thanked the members of the public and the property owner who are present. Mr. Benetti noted that this meeting was noticed but not as a public hearing. He stated that the Commission does not need to provide an opportunity for those members to speak, as the public would have another opportunity to speak at the Planning Commission public hearing. Chair Goldade provided an opportunity for those members to speak. Michelle Culligan, applicant, commented that they have many challenges with the site. She stated that whether the conservation area is held in an easement or through an HOA, it will be protected. She explained that the goal would be to preserve as many trees as possible. She stated that the City would still have the ability to place a walking path along Victoria Curve within that right-of- way, if desired. She stated that the goal is to build a nice enclave. She stated that it would be difficult to have a walking path through the site because of the topography of the site and the fact that it is heavily wooded. She stated that there is a lot north of the City-owned lot that is vacant and could perhaps provide access to that parcel. Kathryn Jewell, 1948 Glenhill Road, stated that there have been comments about the development and there is an intent to do well but it will also be up to what each homeowner decides to do on their lot. She stated that this Commission has an interest in greenspace, and she has concern about the trees and disruption that will occur. She stated that her property is about one acre and about one third of the lot is wooded. She noted that in the time she has lived on the property she has had to remove many Oak and Ash trees because of disease. She hoped that the Commission would keep those items in mind when making their recommendation. Jane McKay,1949 Glenhill Road, stated that the greenspace behind the retaining wall would not be able to be accessed in order to remove diseased trees. She stated that they have removed many trees on their property because of disease and would want to ensure that the new homeowners maintain their trees. She asked how those property owners would access the trees when the retaining wall blocks access. Chair Goldade stated that the intent of this case was to review the request and provide input. He noted that this will go back to the Planning Commission for a continuation of the public hearing on August 25th. PC Packet Pg. #79 From:Petrik, Daniel (DNR) To:Tim Benetti; Huinker, Taylor (DNR) Subject:RE: Valley View Oak 3rd Addn. (NW Quad. of Glenhill Rd. & Victoria Curve) Date:Wednesday, July 8, 2020 8:39:58 AM Attachments:image001.png Hi Tim, We’ve taken a look at these plans and the proposal appears to be consistent with the City’s current ordinance. Dan Petrik Land Use Specialist | Shoreland and River Related Programs Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN, 55155-4032 Phone: 651-259-5697 Email: daniel.petrik@state.mn.us From: Tim Benetti <timb@mendota-heights.com> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 11:07 AM To: Huinker, Taylor (DNR) <Taylor.Huinker@state.mn.us>; Petrik, Daniel (DNR) <daniel.petrik@state.mn.us> Subject: RE: Valley View Oak 3rd Addn. (NW Quad. of Glenhill Rd. & Victoria Curve) Taylor / Dan: Here are the preliminary plat plans for Valley View Oak 3rd. The developers also included a Slope Analysis Diagram/Map; and Letter of Intent. Let me know thoughts/comments/conditions. As always - Thank you for reviewing and responding. Cheers! Tim Benetti Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 (651) 255-1142 timb@mendota-heights.com From: Huinker, Taylor (DNR) <Taylor.Huinker@state.mn.us> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 10:57 AM To: Tim Benetti <timb@mendota-heights.com>; Petrik, Daniel (DNR) <daniel.petrik@state.mn.us> PC Packet Pg. #80 Subject: Re: Valley View Oak 3rd Addn. (NW Quad. of Glenhill Rd. & Victoria Curve) Jennie took a new position as the DNR Wetlands Coordinator. From: Tim Benetti <timb@mendota-heights.com> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 10:55 AM To: Petrik, Daniel (DNR) <daniel.petrik@state.mn.us> Cc: Huinker, Taylor (DNR) <Taylor.Huinker@state.mn.us> Subject: RE: Valley View Oak 3rd Addn. (NW Quad. of Glenhill Rd. & Victoria Curve) Thanks Dan! I just remembered – is Jennie Skancke still on the list too? (or am I remembering her telling me she was leaving or transferring out of DNR??) Tim Benetti Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 (651) 255-1142 timb@mendota-heights.com From: Petrik, Daniel (DNR) <daniel.petrik@state.mn.us> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 9:28 AM To: Tim Benetti <timb@mendota-heights.com> Cc: Huinker, Taylor (DNR) <Taylor.Huinker@state.mn.us> Subject: RE: Valley View Oak 3rd Addn. (NW Quad. of Glenhill Rd. & Victoria Curve) Hi Tim, you can send it to Taylor and me. Taylor is acting Area Hydro for the south metro until the position is permanently filled. Dan Petrik Land Use Specialist | Shoreland and River Related Programs Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN, 55155-4032 Phone: 651-259-5697 Email: daniel.petrik@state.mn.us From: Tim Benetti <timb@mendota-heights.com> Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 10:49 AM PC Packet Pg. #81 July 22, 2020 Re: Case No. 2020-15 Mr Tim Benetti, Community Development Director Planning commission members Hello, We regret that we have prior commitments, and will not attend the initial meeting on the Culligan Development, July 28, 2020. Please accept our comments below. We have enjoyed and very much appreciate our spectacular view of trees, mowed lawn and wildlife for over 30 years. It is hard to see change. We, Lowell Chapin and Jane McKay, 1949 Glenhill Road, have several concerns as we will be signiﬁcantly affected by proposed development. I will list some of them here: -The access to our garage must be redesigned, a replacement curb cut has been discouraged . Are there options of shared driveway, easements, variance, and etc.? -The demo plan, C1-1, shows the driveway removed “by others”, who is “others”? -The Building of a Private/Public Road has several issues. - It appears that the road is cut into the hill . Can a retaining wall be built on our property line? The slope as it appears will make maintenance difficult. Will we be required to maintain easement? Can we request sod in place of turf seed? -Will the existing trees near all of our property line be protected? PC Packet Pg. #82 -Does having a road on both the East and West property line affect the value of our property and/or taxes and assessments? -If a private road, will we be charged upkeep? -What is the height restriction of proposed homes west of the new road? Will it be measured from current elevation or new elevation after excavation or ﬁll brought in? -Will the “Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 and out lot, A Valley View Oak, 2nd Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota” be applied to this development? -Will the corner of Glenhill Road and Victoria Curve be maintained or will it be wild like the East side of Glenhill. We have enjoyed the weekly mowing and maintenance done by Larry Culligan for over 30 years. -Adding two more driveways to an already dangerous curve should also be studied. Many times we come around that curve and brake for bikers or cars backing out of their driveway. -This is a huge project. What is timeline. Do construction companies have set times for their work day and is the duration of construction as far as months monitored by the city? Thank you for the time you are spending on this project. Please feel free to visit our property and if we can be of any assistance, let us know. Sincerely, Jane McKay, jane291@ msn.com Lowell Chapin, lgchapin@gmail.com PC Packet Pg. #83 From:MICHAEL SETHNA To:Tim Benetti Subject:Planning Commission Case No. 2020-15 Date:Sunday, July 26, 2020 12:47:06 PM Dear Mr. Benetti: I am writing to you regarding the proposed "Valley View Oak 3rd Addition" that will be discussed this Tuesday at the Planning Commission meeting (Case No. 2020-15). I have lived at 1242 Culligan Lane since 1997. In 2003, I spent $232,000 to purchase the vacant lot between my lot, and the lot of 1230 Culligan Lane. This vacant lot backs up to a 0.33 acre triangle of land (owned by the City) that contains a retaining pond that abuts the proposed development. My 0.56 acre lot--like the proposed subdivision--is heavily forested, with large bur oaks. I have paid property taxes on this lot each year. In 2020, the lot was assessed at $177,100, and I paid $2598 in property taxes. I am distressed at the thought of the proposed development. I hate to see so many trees removed. I am writing to you because for years, I have assumed that the 6.28 acre lot under consideration could not be developed. The assessed value of this land has always been very low. In 2020, this lot was assessed at $48,600: less than $8000/acre, versus more that $310,000/acre for my vacant lot. Even the City's outlot with retaining pond is assessed higher, at $30,000/acre. If the assessed value of the 6.28 acre has been low for years because the land was deemed undevelopable, why is is now considered developable? I will see you at the meeting Tuesday night. Mike Sethna PC Packet Pg. #84 Date: July 28, 2020 To: City of Mendota Heights Planning Commission Tim Benetti, Community Development Director From: Mark and Julie Hunt 1224 Culligan Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651-688-9922 | markjuliemn@gmail.com Subject: Planning Case No. 2020-15 PRELIMINARY PLAT / CRITICAL AREA PERMIT / CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / VARIANCES for VALLEY VIEW OAK 3rd ADDITION Dear Planning Commission and Mr. Benetti, We are Mark and Julie Hunt. We live at 1224 Culligan Lane, one of the affected properties of the preliminary plat “Valley View Oak 3rd Addition” subdivision. First, we would like to make the Planning Commission and Council aware, that the notification of this proposal, of which significantly impacts our property as well as the property of our neighbors, was sent to us one week before the July 28th Planning Commission meeting. Historically, Mendota Heights has given neighbors the opportunity and time to respond with a neighborhood meeting and time to digest and respond to this 49-page document. We ask that you do not vote in moving this proposal forward until we have had enough time to duly respond. Second, we ask the City to hire an independent engineer to look over this plat proposal. The location of this site in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area merits this action. This proposal has significant modifications to this bluff area and is requesting considerable variances in order to get this development approved. This 49-page plot proposal demonstrates the magnitude of the impact and change that will occur to the topography and slope of this land. The City Code Title 12-3-2 requires the Planning Commission and Council, 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 system. In order to comply with this Code, we ask the City to seek independently neutral expertise to determine if this project, as proposed, meets this criteria. Is it over-reaching? This proposal seems to believe these objectives have been met in providing “adequate” protections. The independent un-biased report may deem otherwise and bring forth new concerns and unforeseen consequences not addressed by the applicant. Confirmation from an independent source will give validity to the Planning Commissions’ vote and ultimately to the Councils’ on whether or not this proposed project should be approved “as-is.” Third, we ask the City to demand a “warranty” from the developer to protect the surrounding properties from any consequences that may happen when the soils on these slopes are disturbed, trees are taken out, and the retaining walls of these sizes built. The City has precedent with this type of warranty that was given to the affected homeowners in the Hidden Creek Development. We appreciate the applicants’ desires to “protect and preserve as much of the existing trees throughout the site, especially along the outer bluff edges” (p. 6) and the care/concern for such a historical and beautiful site. We hope to work with the applicant, developer, and City to find a resolution that is agreeable to all. Respectfully, Mark and Julie Hunt PC Packet Pg. #85 From:Michelle Culligan To:Tim Benetti Subject:Re: Culligan Proposed Project Date:Thursday, August 13, 2020 9:04:32 AM Interesting. Thanks for forwarding, Tim. Wonder how the neighbors of his Village development feel about their "implied privacy and value" his development is impacting... He lives across from my parents and his house has no view or wooded yard that will be impacted, which as a developer I'm surprised he seems not to recognize. He has lived in this particular neighborhood for 5 years. My immediate family has lived there for over 40 years and I don't recall mudslides ever being a problem, including over the past 30 years after the development of Valley View Oaks 2nd Addition, which included homes built closer to the bluff line since it was prior to the critical overlay area restrictions. His arm-chair developer attack of the project, and self-interested offer to give our family's land to the City, hopefully will be received by the city council members as such. If he or a group of neighbors want to pay market value for any number of the lots, they can do that once it's been subdivided. Or, if he wants to buy the entire parcel at full subdivided market value and donate it to the City, he's welcome to do that too. Trying to scare the City Council to minimize the plan so he can step in and purchase below value (being the "investor and developer of real estate" that he is), or continue to benefit from the undeveloped property as he has for the past 5 years, rather than contacting us directly is suspect. As with any of the other adjoining neighbors with whom I've talked to about the development in the past couple weeks, if they are interested in purchasing a lot, we will certainly consider an offer at market value. I'll share with the Loucks team, but as you know we've already been working on additional details related to the retaining walls, and other requested variances for the meeting on the 25th, so the planning commission and city council members can evaluate based on the well- developed facts rather than his scare tactics. On a different note, did you ever receive the email in support of the project that Clem Commers (Kuepper's immediate neighbor to the south) said he would be happy to send to the planning commission and city council? Looking forward to discussing in more detail at our meeting tomorrow. Thanks, Michelle Michelle Culligan, Esq. Culligan Legal & Business Counsel, PLLC 612-308-0874 michelle@culligancounsel.com PC Packet Pg. #86 From: Tim Benetti <timb@mendota-heights.com> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 7:50 AM To: Michelle Culligan <michelle@culligancounsel.com> Subject: FW: Culligan Proposed Project FYI. Tim Benetti Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 (651) 255-1142 timb@mendota-heights.com -----Original Message----- From: Kueppers <kueppers@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 7:45 AM To: Tim Benetti <timb@mendota-heights.com>; Mark McNeill <markm@mendota-heights.com>; Ryan Ruzek <ryanr@mendota-heights.com>; Andrew Katz <katz.andrew@comcast.net>; Litton Field <litton.fieldjr@northriskpartners.com>; jrmazz@hotmail.com; Mary Magnuson <marybmagnuson@comcast.net>; Brian Petschel <brian.petschel@gmail.com>; Patrick Corbett <pbcorbett@gmail.com>; Michael Toth <michael.toth8@gmail.com>; Liz Petschel <lizpetschel@gmail.com>; Jay Miller <jaym@mendota-heights.com>; Joel Paper <joelp@mendota- heights.com>; Ultan Duggan <duggan.ultan@gmail.com>; Neil Garlock <neilg@mendota- heights.com> Subject: Culligan Proposed Project Dear City officials, I live at 1936 Glenhill Road. I have live at this address 5 years but grew up in Mendota Heights, a city that is the best kept secret in MN. Also, I am one of the partners in the Village apartment and restaurant development and am excited to get that project completed next year. I am contacting you today because of the horrible proposal that was presented by the Culligan family to develop their last piece of real estate. This project destroys the implied privacy and value of the neighbors who’s properties share a property line with the Culligan project. The engineering is also a huge risk for the City. They are proposing huge walls 10 feet to 23 feet high. My entire life this area has dealt with mudslides because of the nature of the terrain, and irresponsible development. Even a simple retaining wall like the wall recently replaced in the Village, can be an expensive and time consuming task for the City. That wall was less than 15 years old. What happens when the wall fails? Does it destroy the houses at the bottom of the bluff? Do people get injured or killed like the little boy a few years ago in the park when that hillside gave way? As a taxpayer this is a huge concern of what our liability would be to: The City of Mendota; the adjoining neighbors; and long term the people who purchase these lots. As an investor and developer of real estate I am excited to see the City expand, but there is a better plan for this land. I think 2-4 lots off of Glenhill and Victoria curve would be a responsible development and the remaining property could be giving to the City for a nature preserve or sold to the adjoining neighbors with a legal agreement it can't be developed. I appreciate you reading this and if any of you would like to discuss please email or call me. I am PC Packet Pg. #87 aways available to discuss how we keep Mendota Heights the best City in Minnesota. Sincerely, Brian W. Kueppers 651-485-3178 PC Packet Pg. #88 From:Neil Garlock To:Tim Benetti Subject:Fwd: Valley View Oaks 3rd addition Date:Friday, August 14, 2020 8:05:00 AM Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Dave&Mary Janisch <mdjanisch@comcast.net> Date: August 13, 2020 at 10:30:17 PM CDT To: Neil Garlock <neilg@mendota-heights.com> Subject: Valley View Oaks 3rd addition Dear Mayor Garlock, We are writing to express our concern over the proposed development of Valley View Oak 3rd addition. Our property is 1935 Glenhill Road. My husband and I attended the first planning commission meeting to learn more about this project. We first learned of the proposal (via written notice from city) less than a week prior to the meeting. We came with an open mind but left with grave concerns. Concerns not only for our property and it’s value but also for our safety. The project has a large number of significant variances. The most concerning variances include the massive (23 feet versus 5 feet) retaining walls ( which are not in keeping with the existing neighborhood). It was very unclear how we would be protected in the very real event of mudslide due to the removal of a significant number of trees. There are countless other concerns related to safety, including 2 new driveways on an already dangerous blind curve. We would like to go on record that we are opposed to this development. Sincerely, Mary and David Janisch 1935 Glenhill Road Sent from my iPhone PC Packet Pg. #89 From:Kueppers To:Tim Benetti; Mark McNeill; Ryan Ruzek; Andrew Katz; Litton Field; jrmazz@hotmail.com; Mary Magnuson; Brian Petschel; Patrick Corbett; Michael Toth; Liz Petschel; Jay Miller; Joel Paper; Ultan Duggan; Neil Garlock Subject:Culligan Proposed Project Date:Thursday, August 13, 2020 7:43:40 AM Dear City officials, I live at 1936 Glenhill Road. I have live at this address 5 years but grew up in Mendota Heights, a city that is the best kept secret in MN. Also, I am one of the partners in the Village apartment and restaurant development and am excited to get that project completed next year. I am contacting you today because of the horrible proposal that was presented by the Culligan family to develop their last piece of real estate. This project destroys the implied privacy and value of the neighbors who’s properties share a property line with the Culligan project. The engineering is also a huge risk for the City. They are proposing huge walls 10 feet to 23 feet high. My entire life this area has dealt with mudslides because of the nature of the terrain, and irresponsible development. Even a simple retaining wall like the wall recently replaced in the Village, can be an expensive and time consuming task for the City. That wall was less than 15 years old. What happens when the wall fails? Does it destroy the houses at the bottom of the bluff? Do people get injured or killed like the little boy a few years ago in the park when that hillside gave way? As a taxpayer this is a huge concern of what our liability would be to: The City of Mendota; the adjoining neighbors; and long term the people who purchase these lots. As an investor and developer of real estate I am excited to see the City expand, but there is a better plan for this land. I think 2-4 lots off of Glenhill and Victoria curve would be a responsible development and the remaining property could be giving to the City for a nature preserve or sold to the adjoining neighbors with a legal agreement it can't be developed. I appreciate you reading this and if any of you would like to discuss please email or call me. I am aways available to discuss how we keep Mendota Heights the best City in Minnesota. Sincerely, Brian W. Kueppers 651-485-3178 PC Packet Pg. #90 From:Mark&Julie Hunt To:Tim Benetti; Mark McNeill; Ryan Ruzek; Andrew Katz; Litton Field; jrmazz@hotmail.com; Mary Magnuson; Brian Petschel; Patrick Corbett; Michael Toth; Liz Petschel; Jay Miller; Joel Paper; Ultan Duggan; Neil Garlock Cc:Hunt Mark; sandra krebsbach; NORBERT KREBSBACH; Brian Kueppers; Dave and Mary Janisch; Kae Lovaas; Jane McKay; Lowell Chapin; Alan Olstein; Phyllis Karasov; Yelva Lynfield; Sharon and Mike Sethna; Cathy Helmstetter; Steve Helmstetter; Dave and Gloria Olsen; Joe and Patty Juliette; Jodi Saltzman; Daniel Saltzman Subject:Valley View Oak 3rd Addition Neighborhood Response Date:Thursday, August 13, 2020 11:52:37 PM Attachments:landslide-inventory.pdf Dear Mayor Garlock, Mendota Heights Council Members, Planning Commission Chair Magnuson, Planning Commission Members, and City Hall Staff: Brian Kueppers contacted me and asked me, along with our neighbors that are cc'd on this e-mail and are welcome to directly voice their opinions independent of this e- mail, to send you our neighborhood concerns about the Valley View Oak 3rd Addition proposal. I am not sure why the expediency but with such short notice given about this proposal at the end of July, it was our desire to at least meet as a neighborhood, read and digest the 47-page document, and obtain enough understanding, research and documentation to validate our reasons to give to you to deny this proposal. It was our understanding that we were to present our descent to you at the July 25th Planning Commission meeting. I can assure you that 100% of our neighborhood is adamantly against this proposal. If you desire their signatures on a petition for denial, we will be happy to provide that to you. Our concerns are much more serious than what Mr. Ruzek stated in the Park & Rec Commission meeting last night as "neighbors just don't like to see change" when asked what we thought. There are so many reasons that this proposal needs to be denied and voted against. A neighborhood meeting was held on Sunday evening, August 9th, at the home of Mark and Julie Hunt, 1224 Culligan Lane to discuss this proposal. 15 were in attendance. Those that could not make it, voiced their position that this proposal should NOT be approved. ALL in attendance voiced their complete disapproval. Reasons we feel strongly about the denial of this proposal are numerous. 1. The amount of variances required for this project is over-reaching. Building on 18%-40% slope grades are protected by the Critical Area Act. 2. The amount of retaining walls needed and their heights that far exceed the maximum allowed in this area is irresponsible. Building retaining walls and possibly putting in pylons that disturb these critical slopes and the underground springs has a high risk of causing slope failure. See attached report. 3. No tree inventory was taken to determine which trees and how many can or need to be saved. This is a heavily wooded area with hardwood trees. Taking these out and disturbing the slope stability is hazardous, as recently experienced with the Excel project taking out one cottonwood tree along Hiway 13 and having a slope slide causing closure. 4. The length of the street proposed is longer than allowed by the city. PC Packet Pg. #91 5. There is no plan in place for the maintenance of the retaining walls and who is responsible if they fail. 6. No soil boring samples have been taken to determine the quality of the soil. And, last but most importantly, 7. Mendota Heights and this Mississippi River Valley corridor has had its share of landslides and retaining wall failures. To name a few, the Sylvandale backyard which was quite costly, UMN, and the most unfortunate and disheartening of all, the Lilydale landslide that killed two school aged children. These incidences merit your full attention to the seriousness of your decision on this proposal as you consider the impact the disruption of this development will have on these slopes. The developer has presented allot of glossy pictures with land surveys and a plan on how 8 homes can easily be squeezed into this area. However, the omission of a geotechnical study and report of this site by the developer is quite concerning. The failure of this proposal to recognize the vast amount of underground springs and the risks associated with the disturbance of this vulnerable area is negligent. We at the top of this slope and the City of Mendota at the bottom are greatly troubled by this. Attached is a report written by the MN Department of Natural Resources in 2016, Historical Landslide Inventory for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area that you might find to be a fascinating read. One of the author's of this report C.E. Jennings was contacted about this project and this was her response, "I worked with Hennepin County Emergency Management to create a report and atlas on slope stability that would be useful here even though you are in Dakota County. I am also part of a group that is developing a statewide landslide hazard inventory of 5 critical areas and you are in one of them. The Hennepin project has gone to print and the website will be up soon. The statewide project got an extension due to CoVID and will be done by the end of the year. While we do not make engineering recommendations, we do suggest geotechnical analysis and monitoring in these areas. Your main issues will be slope stability and the springs play a role in reducing the strength in layers. You know how hard MnDOT has worked to keep Highway 13 from slipping away; new roads will be quite problematic. The bowl-shaped hollow that Mendota occupies was most likely created by springs that emerged from the bluff face. I consider the slopes above it very vulnerable to failure. You are right to be concerned." She would welcome your questions concerning this proposal. She had some interesting geological insights about the Mendota Heights bluff areas as well as the underground springs. You can reach Carrie Jennings at cjennings@freshwater.org. The residents of Mendota Heights rely on you to make sure the due diligence on all projects is done and that you take each one seriously and responsibly. This project, especially, in this critical area merits the extra attention and work necessary to make the right decision. In this case, the merits of this proposal scream denial. Our neighborhood encourages you to deny this proposal. Sincerely, Julie Hunt PC Packet Pg. #92 1224 Culligan Lane 651-688-9922 cc: Mark Hunt (1224 Culligan Lane) Sandra Krebsbach (1230 Culligan Lane) Nob Krebsbach (1230 Culligan Lane) Dave and Mary Janisch (1935 Glenhill Rd.) Kae Jewell (1948 Glenhill Rd.) Jane McKay (1949 Glenhill Rd.) Lowell Chapin (1949 Glenhill Rd.) Alan Olstein (1954 Glenhill Rd.) Phyllis Karasov (1954 Glenhill Rd.) Yelva Lynfield (1242 Culligan Lane) Mike Sethna (1242 Culligan Lane) Ruth Lynfield (1242 Culligan Lane) Cathy Helmstetter (1248 Culligan Lane) Steve Helmstetter (1248 Culligan Lane) Gloria Olsen (1254 Culligan Lane) Dave Olsen (1254 Culligan Lane) Joe and Patty Juliette (1920 Glenhill Rd.) Brian and Shelley Kueppers (1936 Glenhill Rd.) Dan and Jodi Saltzman (1921 Glenhill Rd.) PC Packet Pg. #93 From:Mark McNeill To:Ryan Ruzek; Tim Benetti Subject:FW: Valley View Project Date:Friday, August 14, 2020 9:52:28 AM From: sandra krebsbach [mailto:sandrakrebsbach@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 9:50 AM To: Mark McNeill <markm@mendota-heights.com> Subject: Fw: Valley View Project Mark, This was just sent to the Council. Please forward to Ultan. It came back. Thank you. Sandra Sandra Krebsbach 651-454-5696 From: sandra krebsbach Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 9:48 AM To: jaym@mendota-heights.com <jaym@mendota-heights.com>; Joel Paper (joelpaper@gmail.com) <joelpaper@gmail.com>; Ultan Duggan <dugan.ultan@gmail.com>; Neil Garlock <ngarlock4867@comcast.net>; Liz Petschel <lizpetschel@gmail.com> Subject: Valley View Project Dear Mayor and Council, Thank you for your service over the past four years and for some years beyond that. I am requesting that you deny the application for the Valley View Project as submitted by the City of Mendota Heights Planner to the Planning Commission on July 27 2020. The reasons to deny conclude: 1. No soil boring samples have been taken to determine the quality of the soil. City Response: 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. 2. No tree inventory to determine which trees and how many can or need to be saved. PC Packet Pg. #94 3. The chart on required documentation does not have the materials needed for the retaining walls. 4. It is building in the slope percentages that are protected by the Critical Area Act because the project requires variances. 5. The length the cul du sac is longer than allowed by the city and requires a variance. It is the length of the cul du sac that enables the project to push back on the slopes. 6. There is no report on water movement through the project, underground springs and water flow after construction. 7. There needs to be a warrantie on the project as was required in Hidden Creek which guaranteed the design to protect yet to be built homes. This project has three in need of protection, the houses on Glenhilll and Culligan, the new construction and the home in Mendota. The project needs a warrantee to protect our houses, future houses and the City of Mendota Heights from the cost of a slide. As a Council member I asked for and got a warranty from the developer for the Hidden Creek development because of the springs that ran through that development. This development in the Critical Area on a 40% slope bluff if there is a collapse due to the weight of a development on a retaining wall and/or water from rains or springs moving through the site, should be in a $1 Million range. Back yards of Sylvandale slid into HW 13 twice as a result of rain and the removal of trees. (125% of the project) 8. No plan for maintenance of the retaining walls. They will shift and depending on materials decompose. 9. An additional reason to deny is there has not been a traffic study by an outside consultant on the Glenhill entrance. It is a dangerous entrance now and with two more houses, which typically add 9 trips a day per household, an untenable option without a plan on how it will work. The entrance may need to be redesigned and moved to the west and/or the drives of the new houses be circular on the individual property similar to McKay/Chapin and Culligan's. Nevertheless, this is a key safety item that has not been overlooked or ignored. 10. There is no hardship. The sentence that variances are needed due to no fault of the property owner should not apply since the bluff exists and was enjoyed by the property owner for decades. Bluffs are not a complexity that is a hardship they are an asset that has been enjoyed and are projected by law. 11. Tree removal will disrupt the bluff, there are three known bluff slides a. there is a recent slide onto HW 13 when a large tree was removed by XCEL Energy after a rain the lower portion of the bluff slid into HW 13 causing closure. b. Sylvandale backyard gave way twice the second wall needed to be pylons that took over a month to pound in and a cost to the home owner of $250,000 or more. c. Cherokee Park tragedy when two children were buried in the mud. Our own Mendota Heights Fire Department was part of the rescue and recovery operation. 12. Credentials of Loucks presenter-is he a licensed civil and structural engineer working on PC Packet Pg. #95 the project or is he a government relations person either with or without an engineering license who is presenting on behalf of Loucks? The engineer that signed the documents should be presenting. 13.The City and Loucks did not submit the topographical map which they must have been working with. A Mendota resident had to ask for it. Did they, the City or Loucks publicly identify the materials for the 23 ft retaining wall structure. It was also unclear to the Culligan representative as to whom would maintain it over time. 14. The Loucks presenter referred to MNDOT's highway projects that at times have a 30% slope. This project has within it a 40% slope. Where is the line when MNDOT uses pylon's, not keystone blocks? He said this project is at 40% "just a little bit more then 30%." Would MN DOT be using pylon's on a 40% slope? 15. What has been presented both in content and timing of information to the neighborhood is equivalent to a lot split in the Critical Area. There is a 47 page document that upon request is available. But that was discovered by a neighbor. This would have required weeks if not months of work and meetings between Loucks and the City and probably the Culligan family representative. 16. It is not clear to Mendota Heights residents and the City of Mendota that we were provided all of the reports, meeting notes and the records pertinent to this project. Thank you for your consideration of denial. Sandra Krebsbach 651-454-5696 PC Packet Pg. #96 From:Lowell Chapin To:Tim Benetti Subject:Fwd: Culligan Property Development Project Date:Sunday, August 16, 2020 9:15:33 AM Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Lowell Chapin <lgchapin@gmail.com> Date: August 15, 2020 at 9:46:14 PM CDT To: Chapin/McKay <lgchapin@gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: Culligan Property Development Project Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: lgchapin@gmail.com Date: August 15, 2020 at 12:07:21 PM CDT To: Chapin/McKay <lgchapin@gmail.com> Cc: Jane Mckay <jane291@msn.com> Subject: Culligan Property Development Project Hello, My name is Lowell Chapin and I have lived at 1949 Glenhill Road for over 32 years. My wife and I bought the residence from Larry and Mary Culligan in 1988. Our home was built in 1970 and is one of the oldest homes in the neighborhood. Living in this home, in this neighborhood, and in this city has really been a dream come true. I want to thank all of the city officials for what they have done to keep it pristine. My concern is not the development itself but the the documents being presented for approval. I believe that to better understand the impact of building a road, moving untold yards of soil, and building VERY HIGH retaining walls, has on the existing vegetation that is said to be protected. It is not clear what being protected means. Most trees are very dependent on the water source that allowed them to grow in the first place. By disrupting the water source to the trees root system, the trees will suffer and most likely die within a few years before they can develop a new root system. PC Packet Pg. #97 I also have concerns about soil erosion. Since purchasing our home we have attempted to mitigate rapid storm water run off and resulting soil erosion. By building retaining walls we have leveled our driveway and our lawns where possible. On our property there is evidence of soil erosion due to the steep slopes and lack of proper vegetation. To protect the city and the immediate neighborhood, I strongly recommend that the city retain a third party forester, geologist, and civil engineer to study the site and the project proposal and submit written opinions and recommendations prior to this project approval by the city council. I encourage all city council members and any other city officials to visit our property to see first hand some of property that is being proposed for development. With the exception of Glenhill Road , our property is completely surrounded by property that is included by this proposed development project. Regards Lowell Chapin Sent from my iPad PC Packet Pg. #98 From:Linda Morgan To:Tim Benetti; Mark McNeill; Ryan Ruzek; Andrew Katz; Litton Field; jrmazz@hotmail.com; Mary Magnuson; Brian Petschel; Patrick Corbett; Michael Toth; Liz Petschel; Jay Miller; Joel Paper; Ultan Duggan; Neil Garlock Subject:Valley View Oak 3rd Addition Proposal Concerned Resident Response Date:Monday, August 17, 2020 2:06:28 PM Dear Mayor Garlock, Mendota Heights Council Members, Planning Commission Chair Magnuson, Planning Commission, and City Staff: Please deny this proposal as it has not answered to and has omitted soil samples, critical geotechnical analysis, and underground spring survey information needed for approval in this Critical Area to determine the risks associated with building on this land. The proposed area for development is a “Critical Zone” in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area. City codes and standards are being disregarded and the environmental impact is quite significant. I listened to the Planning Commission meeting held in July and heard from residents affected by this proposed development. The residents from Mendota were very upset about disrupting the existing underwater springs and the flooding effects to their homes and properties that will happen with the proposed housing development. It was very sad to here the residents upset about all the flooding that will take place. One gentleman could hardly get the words out because he is so upset- my house already has flooding issues from the existing developed subdivision up on the hill. I can not sell my house because of the water problem and can not imagine what my house will be like if this proposal goes through. Thank you for your time, Linda Morgan 1015 Overlook Road Mendota Heights, Mn PC Packet Pg. #99 From:Cathy Helmstetter To:Neil Garlock; Ultan Duggan; Jay Miller; Joel Paper; Liz Petschel; Michael Toth; Patrick Corbett; Brian Petschel; Mary Magnuson; jrmazz@hotmail.com; Litton Field; Andrew Katz; raynr@mendota-heights.com; Mark McNeill; Tim Benetti Subject:Valley View Oak Addition Date:Tuesday, August 18, 2020 4:18:22 PM Dear Mayor, City Council Members, Planning Commission Members, Ryan Ruzek, Mark McNeil, Tim Bennetti, We are sending this email to let you know our concerns about developing the NW-quadrant of Glenhill Road and Victoria Curve. Our concern is the lack of transparency from you all regarding this project. We see that there is rush to approve the project in an election year. Some of our questions and concerns follow. What substrate will the retaining walls be made of. Why haven't experts been consulted regarding a geological study of the area. The area surrounding the Mississippi River can be unstable. What steps have been taken to confirm that this slope is stable. How will removal of 4 acres of trees affect the slope over time. How will two additional driveways on Glenhill Road impact safety. For the record, we are not against change and progress in our community. We are not asking that you vote against this development project. We are asking that you follow procedures, and understand the environmental consequences of the development as it is planned today. Please take the time to listen to the affected neighbors, respond, and act accordingly. Sincerely, Cathy and Steve Helmstetter 1248 Culligan Ln, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 312-286-6294 PC Packet Pg. #100 Planning Case No. 2020-15 PRELIMINARY PLAT/CRITICAL AREA PERMIT/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCES for VALLEY VIEW OAK 3rd ADDITION E-mail correspondence from Geological Experts between resident Julie Hunt (1224 Culligan Lane) And Dr. Carrie E. Jennings, P.G. PhD Research and Policy Director Freshwater 612/718-1415 cjennings@freshwater.org And Dr. Greg Brick, PhD Lands & Minerals Division, MN DNR bric0004@umn.edu August 25, 2020 PC Packet Pg. #101 PC Packet Pg. #102 PC Packet Pg. #103 PC Packet Pg. #104 PC Packet Pg. #105 PC Packet Pg. #106 From:Michelle Culligan To:Mark Hunt; nobby@comcast.net; Brian Kueppers; mdjanisch@comcast.net; kaelovass@comcast.net; Jane McKay; lgchapin@gmail.com; Alan; pkarasov@larkinhoffman.com; yelva@aol.com; MICHAEL SETHNA; Cathy Helmstetter; shelmst@comcast.net; dwo823@yahoo.com; jjuliette@comcast.net; jodisaltzman@comcast.net; Daniel Saltzman; CBC@stpaullinocpt.com Cc:Tom Goodrum; Mike St Martin; Tim Benetti; markrachac@gmail.com; Ryan Ruzek; cdolan@fredlaw.com Subject:Culligan Property - Valley View Oaks 3rd Addition Date:Wednesday, August 26, 2020 9:42:13 PM Please be advised that we will be conducting soil boring tests on our property this Friday as part of our scheduled due diligence. We wanted to let you know so there isn't a concern about the nature of the work being performed since there will be drilling machinery on the property. As I've mentioned to a few of you who personally reached out to me for more information, we do not take lightly the development of this property. This is why we retained a well- established and experienced civil engineering team, with specific knowledge of the Mississippi Corridor Critical Area. The extensive plans for the development designed by Loucks and submitted to the planning commission are based on their initial analysis of the soils and the requirements of the Critical Area. Keep in mind, the soils for this property are similar to those on which your homes are built, some of which homes were built into sloped areas. We've kept Tim Benetti and Ryan Ruzek informed from the beginning, discussing potential issues to ensure the proposed development works within City and Critical Area constraints. As noted in the report prepared by Tim for the initial planning commission meeting (copies of which you received to review), any development on the property requires professional soil borings and a completed soils analysis report prior to finalizing the plans for a final plat approval (page 8). Notwithstanding the various emails by neighbors claiming we are carelessly approaching the development, it has always been part of the plan to conduct soil borings and testing to ensure viability of the plans. With the informal planning commission meeting, then the parks & rec meeting, we had planned to wait until receipt of feedback before undertaking the soil borings on the property. The information gleaned from these tests will be incorporated into our updated information/plans to be presented at the formal planning commission meeting. I also want to take the opportunity to remind everyone that this is private property, and while I'm not suggesting anyone has been doing so, please refrain from trespassing. Regards, Michelle Michelle Culligan, Esq. Culligan Legal & Business Counsel, PLLC 612-308-0874 michelle@culligancounsel.com PC Packet Pg. #107 From:Mark&Julie Hunt To:Tim Benetti; Mark McNeill; Ryan Ruzek; Andrew Katz; Litton Field; jrmazz@hotmail.com; Mary Magnuson; Brian Petschel; Patrick Corbett; Michael Toth; Liz Petschel; Jay Miller; Joel Paper; Ultan Duggan; Neil Garlock Subject:Landslide Hazard Atlas Report Resource Date:Sunday, August 30, 2020 9:09:13 PM Dear Mayor Garlock, Council Members, Planning Commission Chair Magnuson, Planning Commissioners, and City staff: Greetings. This is Julie Hunt. I live at 1224 Culligan Lane and have previously communicated my concerns with you about the Valley View Oak 3rd Addition development proposal submitted to the Planning Commission on July 28th. As you have come to know, I am educating myself on the environmental and geological impact that will occur if this proposal is passed. I have been corresponding with the geological experts in this area, Dr. Carrie Jennings and Dr. Greg Brick to learn more about slope slides and underground springs. They mentioned a report they were working on behalf of Hennepin County that would be relevant to this proposal in Mendota Heights. It was published and came on-line on Friday. The reason for this report financed by Hennepin County was given in the Introduction, The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (Minnesota, USA) has experienced an increase in landslide activity over the past decade. Local area landslides have threatened critical infrastructure, disrupted transportation routes, closed public parklands, cost millions of dollars to stabilize and most tragically, have resulted in several injuries and deaths. The significant and sometimes tragic impacts of these landslides have revealed a regional natural hazard largely unknown among government officials and the public, as well as underappreciated by scientists. When they happen, the sudden onset of landslides, the technical complexity of landslide rescue, and the expense and difficulty of landslide stabilization have surprised the affected Twin Cities’ communities. (p. 7) You can find this report at the Hennepin County website https://www.hennepin.us/landslides. There, you will find a detailed Hennepin County Landslide Map and their report Landslide Hazard Atlas. I think you will find this report informative, educational and important as you make development decisions and assess risk in this Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area. You will find Chapter 3: Introduction and Recent Events and Chapter 6: Minnesota River Valley Landslides to be most relevant to the issues facing Mendota Heights. I hope this resource adds to your knowledge and will benefit you for the decisions you are and will be making in your roles on the Council, Planning Commission or with the City. PC Packet Pg. #108 If you have any questions, I will be happy to field them as best as I can. Best wishes, Julie Hunt 1224 Culligan Lane 651-688-9922 PC Packet Pg. #109 From:Brian Mielke To:Tim Benetti; Cathy Helmstetter; Mark Hunt; lgchapin@gmail.com; Jane McKay; Brian Kueppers; MICHAEL SETHNA; Kae Lovaas; Annette Cunningham; Alan Cc:Michelle Culligan; Tom Goodrum; Mark McNeill; Ryan Ruzek Subject:RE: Links to Updated Plans - Valley View Oak 3rd Addition Plat (Culligan Properties) Date:Tuesday, September 29, 2020 5:31:38 PM Attachments:resolution MH Valley View Oak.pdf Good evening Tim, The City of Mendota passed a resolution expressing our opposition to the Valley View Oak 3rd Addition Plat on Tuesday, September 8th. The City of Mendota implores the Mendota Heights Planning Commission to NOT approve this development until the impact of the proposed development is fully investigated/studied and all independent studies are considered. Not just the studies/reports from those companies hired by the developers. We do not believe that there has been sufficient time to determine the impact to the adjoining property owners both in Mendota Heights and your downhill neighbors, the City of Mendota. The City of Mendota has only been made aware of this development for roughly 60+ days. Can you please distribute this resolution to the MH Planning Commission members and confirm to us when this has been done? Thank you in advance! Brian Mielke City of Mendota Mayor BRIAN MIELKE VP/National Sales Director c: 612-270-9091 w:myservion.com The Servion Group is adapting in light of COVID-19. For information on the steps we’re taking, please click here. We remain available via phone and email. During this crisis, you can count on Servion. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and delete this message from your system. Thank you, The Servion Group. From: Tim Benetti <timb@mendota-heights.com> PC Packet Pg. #110 PC Packet Pg. #111 PC Packet Pg. #112 From:Michelle Culligan To:Brian Mielke; Tim Benetti Cc:Tom Goodrum; Mark McNeill; Ryan Ruzek; Mark&Julie Hunt Subject:Re: Links to Updated Plans - Valley View Oak 3rd Addition Plat (Culligan Properties) Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2020 2:34:54 PM Attachments:Outlook-2dvsu4k4.png Outlook-Servion Co.png Outlook-Servion Fa.png Outlook-Servion Tw.png Outlook-Servion Li.png Outlook-wcmjlgiv.png Outlook-Servion Co.png Outlook-Servion Fa.png Outlook-Servion Tw.png Outlook-Servion Li.png Outlook-u1gam1am.png Outlook-Servion Co.png Outlook-Servion Fa.png Outlook-Servion Tw.png Outlook-Servion Li.png Mayor Mielke, as we stated at the Planning Commission meeting in July, from the beginning of this project we engaged the Loucks team of engineers to ensure that the proposed development will meet MRCA requirements, and have a neutral impact on the hillside and the residents of Mendota. Upon hearing the concerns and comments at the Planning Commission meeting raised by you and the other Mendota residents, as well as our Mendota Heights neighbors, we've undertaken further significant evaluation and analysis, including retaining Braun Intertec to perform the planned soil borings and prepare a stability analysis to ensure we will be able to meet the standard 1.50 safety factor for this site. Our objective with the updated narrative and plans and documents most recently submitted has been to communicate as clearly as possible the extensive due diligence and analysis undertaken throughout this process to address the concerns raised. As you review the documents submitted, which Tim has forwarded to you, please note specifically the summary on pages 3 and 4 of the Narrative regarding the Mississippi River Critical Overlay, particularly: "Per this design, less overall water will be flowing down the slope than what occurs today as the acreage of drainage is reduced from 7 acres to 3.4 acres of land. The concentration of flow will also be controlled by the construction and grading of the home sites to prevent the channeling of water down the slope. Additionally, subgrade drainage will be intercepted with draintile and drainage rock running behind the curb and parallel to the storm sewer and routed to stormwater pond. Subgrade drainage behind the retaining walls will be intercepted with draintile and drainage rock and routed around the walls." The drainage exhibit also provides a detailed illustration of this, showing how the development would actually improve the drainage situation for the town of Mendota. Regards, PC Packet Pg. #113 Michelle Michelle Culligan, Esq. Culligan Legal & Business Counsel, PLLC 612-308-0874 michelle@culligancounsel.com From: Brian Mielke <bmielke@myservion.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 10:13 AM To: Tim Benetti <timb@mendota-heights.com> Cc: Michelle Culligan <michelle@culligancounsel.com>; Tom Goodrum <TGoodrum@loucksinc.com>; Mark McNeill <markm@mendota-heights.com>; Ryan Ruzek <ryanr@mendota-heights.com> Subject: RE: Links to Updated Plans - Valley View Oak 3rd Addition Plat (Culligan Properties) Tim, I spoke with Dan Petrik from the DNR this morning. They are going to reopen this and review the impact of this potential development and make comments. They were not made aware of the downhill/critical river bluff impact to the City of Mendota and it’s residents. Mr. Petrik indicated that they were short staffed at the time as they had not replaced Jennie Stancke. She has since been replaced. While it is true that the DNR does not have authority to approve or deny development projects, they absolutely have the authority to comment and point out risks. They do intend to do just that. I am not 100% convinced that the developer or the City of MH has taken the time to fully understand the impact this project has on the City of Mendota. It is my job to advocate for the residents of Mendota and the City intends to do just that. Tim, do you know if the City of MH council/planning commission or the developer has walked the bluff from the City of Mendota perspective and gotten a complete understanding of the water that comes from this bluff? Perhaps we could schedule that. Thanks! Brian Mielke BRIAN MIELKE VP/National Sales Director c: 612-270-9091 w:myservion.com PC Packet Pg. #114 The Servion Group is adapting in light of COVID-19. For information on the steps we’re taking, please click here. We remain available via phone and email. During this crisis, you can count on Servion. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and delete this message from your system. Thank you, The Servion Group. From: Tim Benetti <timb@mendota-heights.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 10:03 AM To: Brian Mielke <bmielke@myservion.com> Cc: Michelle Culligan <michelle@culligancounsel.com>; Tom Goodrum <TGoodrum@loucksinc.com>; Mark McNeill <markm@mendota-heights.com>; Ryan Ruzek <ryanr@mendota-heights.com> Subject: RE: Links to Updated Plans - Valley View Oak 3rd Addition Plat (Culligan Properties) [ CAUTION: EXTERNAL CONTENT ] Mayor Mielke: Our ordinance only requires we send notices for new developments within the Critical Area Overlay district to the DNR, which we did and noted their response for the record. Dakota County and/or MnDOT typically receive plans only if a plat/development is located along a county or state roadway system. The Applicant also met directly with Mr. Petrick and other staff from the DNR, and developed their plans in accordance with the rules/standards of the city’s Critical Area Overlay district, which include requests for conditional use permits and variances. DNR does not “approve” development plans or land use applications; as they leave that right or approvals to the local governing unit. I conferred with City’s Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek on DC-SWC review - and his reply: “Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) and the Lower Mississippi River WMO (LMRWMO) do not review plans unless requested. We could request that if necessary but would not be able to complete ahead of an October deadline.” Let us know if you have any other questions. Tim Benetti Community Development Director PC Packet Pg. #115 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 (651) 255-1142 timb@mendota-heights.com From: Brian Mielke <bmielke@myservion.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 8:49 AM To: Tim Benetti <timb@mendota-heights.com> Subject: RE: Links to Updated Plans - Valley View Oak 3rd Addition Plat (Culligan Properties) Good morning Tim, The email from Dan is interesting in that it only talks about that the plan is consistent with your city ordinances. It does not say that they approve of the development and that they studied the impact to the area given that we are located in a critical river bluff area. I have a call into Dan from the DNR to get further feedback. With regards to Dakota County. I understand that it may not adjoin a county road, however, the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation may or may not have concerns with this. I would think it would be appropriate for them to be made aware and have a chance to comment on the project. Thanks! Brian BRIAN MIELKE VP/National Sales Director c: 612-270-9091 w:myservion.com The Servion Group is adapting in light of COVID-19. For information on the steps we’re taking, please click here. We remain available via phone and email. During this crisis, you can count on Servion. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and delete this message from your system. Thank you, The Servion Group. From: Tim Benetti <timb@mendota-heights.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 7:48 AM To: Brian Mielke <bmielke@myservion.com> Cc: Michelle Culligan <michelle@culligancounsel.com>; Tom Goodrum <TGoodrum@loucksinc.com> Subject: RE: Links to Updated Plans - Valley View Oak 3rd Addition Plat (Culligan Properties) PC Packet Pg. #116 [ CAUTION: EXTERNAL CONTENT ] Mayor Mielke: Attached is the DNR Review Response email we received 07/08/2020. We do not need Dakota County comments or approvals; this plat is not situated or accessed on any county roadway system. Tim Benetti Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 (651) 255-1142 timb@mendota-heights.com From: Brian Mielke <bmielke@myservion.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 5:13 PM To: Tim Benetti <timb@mendota-heights.com>; Cathy Helmstetter <cathhelmstetter@gmail.com>; Mark Hunt <markjuliemn@gmail.com>; lgchapin@gmail.com; Jane McKay <jane291@msn.com>; Brian Kueppers <kueppers@comcast.net>; MICHAEL SETHNA <msethna@comcast.net>; Kae Lovaas <kaelovaas@comcast.net>; Annette Cunningham <acctr@comcast.net>; Alan <olstein@comcast.net> Cc: Michelle Culligan <michelle@culligancounsel.com>; Tom Goodrum <TGoodrum@loucksinc.com>; Mark McNeill <markm@mendota-heights.com>; Ryan Ruzek <ryanr@mendota-heights.com> Subject: RE: Links to Updated Plans - Valley View Oak 3rd Addition Plat (Culligan Properties) Hi Tim, I am wondering where the DNR and Dakota County’s comments and approvals are located? I have asked for them on a couple of occasions but never received them. Thanks! Brian Mielke Mendota Mayor BRIAN MIELKE VP/National Sales Director c: 612-270-9091 w:myservion.com PC Packet Pg. #117 From:Michelle Culligan To:Tim Benetti Subject:Re: Links to Updated Plans - Valley View Oak 3rd Addition Plat (Culligan Properties) Date:Thursday, October 1, 2020 3:49:19 PM Attachments:condos along 13.pdf WIndy Ridge Homes on bluff.pdf Windy Ridge plat.pdf Tim, I'm wondering how best to address that Mendota's Mayor seems to be ignoring their double standard. Mendota has allowed construction on much tighter slopes, with seemingly minimal restrictions on homes and/or retaining walls. See the attached which pictures show just how close the homes are to the edge of the bluff. On the Mendota website there is a link to "Mudslides" where you can find reports from Braun after the home noted in blue on the plat created a mudslide issue. It's also very close to the slope down to D Street. Also, the recent construction of homes along Victoria Curve in the Windy Ridge subdivision must have required some form of review as within the MCRA, so it would be interesting to review the records of that. We are not proposing to replicate the situation on Windy Ridge; we have worked with Loucks to develop a plan that actually improves the drainage from the hillside into Mendota. Hopefully, there will be sufficient review and evaluation of the plans and reports submitted by the Mayor and his constituents to recognize this. Thanks, Michelle Michelle Culligan, Esq. Culligan Legal & Business Counsel, PLLC 612-308-0874 michelle@culligancounsel.com From: Tim Benetti <timb@mendota-heights.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 10:28 AM To: Brian Mielke <bmielke@myservion.com> Cc: Mark&Julie Hunt <markjuliemn@gmail.com>; Michelle Culligan <michelle@culligancounsel.com> Subject: RE: Links to Updated Plans - Valley View Oak 3rd Addition Plat (Culligan Properties) I am not aware if they are (or were made) aware of this proposed development. Tim Benetti Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 (651) 255-1142 timb@mendota-heights.com PC Packet Pg. #118 condos along hwy 13 04/28/2018 PC Packet Pg. #119 Windy Ridge Homes04/28/2018PC Packet Pg. #120 Property Map Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Tax Parcels Parcels Dedicated Right of Way Right of Way Easement 10/1/2020, 11:49:44 AM 0 0.03 0.050.01 mi 0 0.04 0.080.02 km 1:2,257 Copyright 2018, Dakota County This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. PC Packet Pg. #121 October 5, 2020 Ms. Julie Hunt 1224 Culligan Lane Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 PRELIMINARY HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION OF BLUFF AREA IN GLENHILL ROAD/VICTORIA CURVE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT On behalf of residents near the Glenhill Road/Victoria Curve (project area) proposed development, a preliminary hydrogeologic investigation was carried out. This report describes the methods of the investigation, the preliminary findings, and several aspects of potential concern. METHODS The investigation made use of publicly available information from several sources. These were: Maps and reports from the Minnesota Geological Survey Well logs in the Minnesota Well Index (MWI) Dakota County GIS tool Also, documents provided by the City of Mendota Heights (City) to the residents from the developer, including: A Braun Intertec geotechnical report containing soil borings (Braun borings) Several letters, reports, and drawings from the Culligan family and their consultants (developers) In addition, I paid a field visit to the surrounding properties to observe several springs adjacent to the project area October 5, 2020 Page 2 FINDINGS Geology The project area is mapped as having a surficial deposit of glacial till from the Twin Cities member of the Grantsburg Sublobe, the last, late-Wisconsinan glacial event which overrode and incorporated Cromwell Formation deposits (Meyer, 2007; Meyer and Patterson, 1999). The Braun logs refer to this material as having a clayey sand (SC) texture which is consistent with the published descriptions of this Formation. At the foot of the bluff in the project area and to the southwest of the project there can be found surficial outwash and glaciofluvial deposits consisting of sandy materials. These deposits are shown in Figure 1. The bedrock geology underlying the glacial deposits is mapped as having the Decorah Shale potentially extending into project area and extending to the east and south. This shale is underlain by the Platteville Formation, a dolomitic limestone which contains a number of vertical and horizontal partings capable of transmitting groundwater. The Platteville is mapped as subcropping beneath the project area (Mossler, 2013). These deposits are shown in Figure 2. The Minnesota Well Index (MWI) shows several well with logs describing their construction and encountered stratigraphy. Several of the well logs in the immediate vicinity of the project were used to construct a geologic fence diagram starting to the southwest and running to the soil borings in the project area, then to wells east of project area, then continuing to wells to the northwest. The location of these wells are shown in Figure 3, and the fence diagram is shown in Figure 4. Hydrogeology Springs have been identified in the bluff area; four of these springs have been mapped as shown in Figure 5. The inferred elevations from Figure 5 indicate that these springs occur at elevations of 805 to 810, and of 840 feet above mean sea level (ft msl). DISCUSSION The project area upland and bluff slope is generally overlain vertically by approximately 80 to100 ft of glacial till. Braun boring logs indicate the presence of sand layers at depth (between 850 and 870 ft msl) within the till which are attributed to be weathered sandstone or may be glaciofluvial deposits. The latter interpretation is more likely, based on the elevation of these sand deposits which is much shallower than the bedrock and the occurences of subcropping sandstone. The MWI well logs confirm that subcropping Decorah does extend into the project vicinity at least near Glenhill Road and potentially further east at an elevation of approximately 830 ft msl. Immediately under the project area is likely subcropping Platteville limestone, and at the foot of the bluff St. Peter Sandstone is the subcropping bedrock, overlain by glacial till and outwash or alluvial deposits. What is not known at this time is how far into the bluff area the October 5, 2020 Page 3 Decorah or Platteville extends and how much till mantles the bedrock surface, as this can have an influence on the source of the springs groundwater. The lower elevations for the mapped springs correspond to middle of Platteville Fm where a high-transmissivity parting is commonly located (Runkel et al., 2015). These springs could potentially be the result of a thin mantling of till over the bedrock and a direct transmission of Platteville ground water to the land surface. The higher spring elevation may be related to groundwater flow to the bluff on the surface of the Decorah Shale. Again, this may potentially indicate that the Decorah as well has a a thin mantling of till over the unit. Alternatively, all of the springs may be related to sand layers within the stratigraphy of the glacial sediment on the bluff face, similar to the one encountered in the basal portion of the Braun borings (Braun Intertec, 2020). Such sand layers are not mentioned in the MWI well logs which only indicate undifferentiated drift deposits; this is a common description reported from mud rotary-drilled wells intended for a bedrock water source. Only one of the Platteville wells in the neighborhood, No. 244795, reported a static water level which indicated that groundwater within the Platteville is moderately confined and consistent with providing groundwater to the lower set of springs. The drawings provided to date for the proposed construction of the project indicate one or two retention walls. The construction of these retention walls and the terracing of the bluff can raise several hydrogeologic concerns. One is that any structural footing or driven piles can potentially interrupt the groundwater flow within the till deposits, resulting in an interruption of existing flow patterns and the buildup of groundwater levels. Subsequently there can potentially be new springs emerging with erosion of the walls and slope failures. Another concern is that the infiltration rates may be altered by the creation of flatter land in the terraces with a potential buildup of groundwater with the above-mentioned effects. While drain tiles and other drainage features can be proposed, their long-term fate is being plugged by the influx of fines, precipitation of iron and other cations from the groundwater, and biofouling without regular cleaning, treatment, and replacement. To avoid these potential problems, the stratigraphy of the till and the delineation of the bedrock units in the bluff area should be determined by deeper soil borings before construction is allowed to proceed with their information fully incorporated into the project design. The processes occurring on the bluff face are part of a larger pattern of this vicinity. The Village of Mendota occupies a bowl-shaped re-entrant in the bluff face. This feature post-dates the creation of the Minnesota-Mississippi River valley and a potential origin is that the bluff face has progressively eroded back into the slope because of unique features in the stratigraphy and hydrogeology. Seepage of groundwater over time can create amphitheater-like sapping hollows of this scale. Sapping at lower horizons removes material, undercuts the slope and leads to gravitational failure (Dr. Carrie Jennings, October 5, 2020). Bedrock faults may focus groundwater discharge. In specific, the fact that the two northern wells, Nos. 273735 and 207247 have a bottom-of-Platteville contact approximately 20 feet lower than the two southern October 5, 2020 Page 4 wells, No. 244795 and 242894 may be due to a vertical-displacement fault trending into the bowl which can be supplying groundwater flows within the bluff. Steep slopes may be prone to failure either by landsliding or sudden collapse; examples of both can be found within a radius of a few miles of this site. The shallow Braun borings may not have penetrated the accumulated colluvium that can deeply bury in situ glacial sediment and rock on active, post-glacial slopes like these (Dr. Carrie Jennings, personal communication, October 5, 2020). Stability of a steep slope is maintained as long as the balance of driving forces and resisting forces are not disrupted. Driving forces include the total load on the slope (weight of the soil, rock, water vegetation and anything built). The slope can fail if load is increased. The resisting forces are the force of the material that push back or hold up the bluff or lead to friction between grains. Cutting into the lower slope can decrease resisting forces and lead to failure. Alterations to the way water drains can also lead to a decrease in resisting forces by building up water pressure and reducing the friction forces within the sediment (Jennings, et al., 2016) Construction on the slope is potentially changing both driving and resisting forces. Driving forces may increase with the building of homes. Resisting forces may decrease with alterations to the slope that locally steepen it for retaining wall construction and the build-up of pore-water pressure. It is clear that groundwater is being transmitted to deeper layers and emerges at the elevation of the springs on the bluff face. Failures in locations with similar stratigraphy have involved all of the material above the elevation of the springs with the entire hillside rotating and in some cases liquefying as it flows to lower elevations (e.g. Fig. 11, Jennings et al., 2016). Professional Certification: I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Geologist under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Kelton D. Barr, PG License Number: 41410 October 5, 2020 October 5, 2020 Page 5 REFERENCES CITED Braun Intertec, Inc. (September 28, 2020) Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Valley View Oak Third Addition, Mendota Heights, Minnesota; report to Mr. Larry Culligan; 12 p. Jennings, Carrie E., M. Presnail, E. Kurak, R. Meier, C. Schmidt, J. Palazzolo, S. Jiwani, E. Waage, J. Feinberg (2016) Historical Landslide Inventory for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area: Minnesota DNR EcoWaters Report of Investigations, 34 p. https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/shoreland/landslide- inventory.pdf Meyer, Gary N. (2007) Surficial Geology of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota: Minnesota Geological Survey Miscellaneous Map Series Map M-178; 1 plate. Meyer, Gary N. and Carrie J. Patterson (1999) Surficial Geology of the Anoka 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangle, Minnesota: Minnesota Geological Survey Miscellaneous Map Series Map M-97; 1 plate. Mossler, John H (2013) Bedrock Geology of the Twin Cities Ten-County Metropolitan Area, Minnesota: Minnesota Geological Survey Miscellaneous Map Series Map M-194; 1 plate. Runkel, Anthony C., Julia R. Steenberg, Robert O. Tipping, Steve Jansen, and Adrew Retzler (April, 2015) Hydraulic Conductivity and Hydrostratigraphy of the Platteville Formation, Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota: Minnesota Geological Survey Open File Report 15-1; 35 p. Project location Figure 1. Glacial geology of project vicinity (Meyer, 2007) Project location Figure 2. Bedrock geology in the project vicinity (Mossler, 2013) ST-3 ST-2 ST-1 Figure 3. Location of MWI wells and fence diagram location A B C (West) (East) (Northwest) 756466 544269 ST-3 ST-2 ST-1 244795 242894 273735 207247 920 918 916 914 912 910 908 906 904 902 900 898 896 GLACIAL 894 DRIFT 892 890 888 886 884 882 GLACIAL GLACIAL 880 DRIFT DRIFT 878 876 874 (wx'd Ss) 872 870 868 866 864 862 860 (wx'd Ss) 858 856 854 852 (wx'd Ss) 850 848 846 844 842 840 838 836 834 832 830 828 DECO- 826 RAH DECO- 824 RAH CLAY 822 & ROCKS 820 SHALE 818 PLATTE- 816 VILLE 814 812 810 808 806 804 802 PLATTE- PLATTE- 800 VILLE VILLE 798 PLATTE- 796 GLEN-VILLE 794 GLEN- WOOD 792 WOOD SHALE 790 SHALE 788 786 784 SAND/ 782 CLAY 780 778 776 GLEN- 774 WOOD 772 SHALE 770 SAND 768 ST. 766 PETER 764 762 760 ST. 758 PETER 756 754 752 Static water level 750 748 Date of SWL reading 746 744 Pumping water level 742 740 738 736 CLAY 734 732 GRAVEL 730 728 726 724 722 720 718 716 SAND 714 712 710 ROCK 708 706 704 702 700 698 696 694 SAND- 692 ROCK/ 690 SHALE 688 5/5/2009 686 684 682 680 678 676 674 672 SAND- 670 ROCK 668 (Osp) 666 664 662 660 658 656 654 652 650 648 646 644 642 640 638 636 634 632 630 628 626 624 622 620 618 SHAKOPEE 616 ROCK DOLOMITE 614 612 610 608 606 604 602 600 598 596 594 592 590 588 586 584 582 7/23/1991 SP Legend 7/23/1991 5/5/2009 10/15/2013 SC SM SC SC SC CL SP Figure 4. Geologic Fence Diagram Figure 2. Geologic Cross Section 842 810 805 810