The URL can be used to link to this page

2020-11-24 Planning Commission 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 MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2020 7:00 PM- Mendota Heights City Hall 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights MN 55118 Mendota Heights MN 55118 1.Call to Order / Roll Call 2.Approve the October 27, 2020 Regular Meeting minutes 3.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 b.Case No. 2020-23: Lot Split, Wetlands Permit and Variance for the property located at 1826 Valley Curve Road. Paul Rice & Kaitlin Gardner (Applicants) and Frank Klein (Owner). c.Case No. 2020-24: Lot Split and Critical Area Permit for the property located at 1680 Lexington Avenue. Steve Norton (Applicant) and Keith Ostrosky (Owner) 4.Adjourn Meeting Packet Pg. #1 APPROVED __/__/2020 October 27, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 3 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 27, 2020 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 27, 2020 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Mary Magnuson, Commissioners John Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Litton Field, Michael Toth, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: Commissioner Brian Petschel. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of September 22, 2020 Minutes Commissioner Field noted on the bottom of page six, it should state, “…believed that additional work would need to be done to allow additional discussion and it should occur between the applicant and staff. Commissioner Corbett commented on the top of page seven, he is listed as voting nay, but should be listed as abstain. On the bottom of page eight, it should state, “Commissioner Toth Field…” COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2020 AS AMENDED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Approval of October 8, 2020 Minutes COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8, 2020 AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2020-22 AARON AND SARAH MACKE, 744 WOODRIDGE DRIVE – CRITICAL AREA PERMIT Packet Pg. #2 APPROVED __/__/2020 October 27, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 3 Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the applicants are seeking a Critical Area Permit to construct a new addition above an attached garage/sport court area to an existing single-family dwelling. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if the second story proposed addition is compliant with the building code, specifically the height restriction. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that this would not exceed the roof line of the existing structure and would be compliant. Sarah Macke, applicant, was present to address any questions. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT REQUEST FOR 744 WOODRIDGE DRIVE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 2ND STORY ADDITION TO THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DWELLING, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS COMPLIANT WITH CERTAIN CRITERIA, POLICIES AND STANDARDS OF THE CRITICAL AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE APPROVED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY DEMOLITION OR CONSTRUCTION WORK. 2. FULL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION MEASURES WILL BE PUT IN PLACE PRIOR TO AND DURING GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION WORK ACTIVITIES. 3. ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES, AS WELL AS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. Packet Pg. #3 APPROVED __/__/2020 October 27, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 3 4. ALL WORK ON SITE WILL ONLY BE PERFORMED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7 A.M. AND 8 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY; 9 A.M. TO 5 P.M. ON WEEKENDS. 5. ALL DISTURBED AREAS IN AND AROUND THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE RESTORED AND HAVE AN ESTABLISHED AND PERMANENT GROUND COVER IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its November 4, 2020 meeting. Staff Announcements / Updates A) UPDATE ON PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED APPLICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS Chair Magnuson noted that included in the packet was an update on recent cases considered by the Planning Commission. She reviewed the update noting that on Planning Case No. 2020-19, the applicant withdrew the application, and no further action is needed. On Planning Case No. 2020- 15, the review period has been extended by the application to January 25, 2021 and another public hearing could occur at the November or December meeting. Adjournment COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:13 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Packet Pg. #4 Planning Staff Report (Second Supplemental) DATE: November 24, 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: January 25, 2021 INTRODUCTION This second supplemental report is related to the continuation of the “Valley View Oak 3rd Addition” subdivision request from Michelle Culligan, acting on behalf of parents and landowners Larry & Mary Culligan. The original plat application requested nine new lots; eight of which would be for new single-family buildings, and one lot for the existing Culligan family dwelling property at 1941 Glenhill Road. The Developer has now revised their subdivision application from nine to six (6) lots, of which five (5) would accommodate new single-family housing. This revised plat still includes the request for a critical area permit (CAP) due to the location of this site in the Critical Area Overlay District, and a conditional use permit (CUP) to develop and disturb areas on slopes between 18% - 40% throughout the site. What is no longer being requested are the variances (i.e. reduced road right-of-way, extended cul-de-sac length, wall heights and reduced setbacks) presented for consideration at the previous public hearings. 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. 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. The proposed new lots are now noted by the following sizes: • Lot 1, Block 1 = 18,663 +/- sf. or 0.43 +/- acres • Lot 2, Block 1 = 19,235 +/- sf. or 0.44 +/- acres • Lot 3, Block 1 = 95,013 +/- sf. or 2.18 +/- acres • Lot 4, Block 1 = 65,365 +/- sf. or 1.50 +/- acres • Lot 5, Block 1 = 71,908 +/- sf. or 1.65 +/- acres Packet Pg. #5 Planning Case # 2020-15 (2nd Supplemental Report) Page 2 of 14 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd All lots meet (exceed) the minimum R-1 standards for width and area; and all new building lots remain identified as “FBWO” (full basement/walk-out) for future residential dwellings. Since all required frontage of lots must be measured against a “public roadway” frontage, the Commission will be asked to consider this lot frontage determination is acceptable along the proposed private common access roadway, explained in the next section of this report.  Proposed Roadway The previous plans included a 60-ft. wide (ROW) public roadway with a large 120-ft. diameter cul-de-sac at eh end. The revised plat now presents a 20-ft. wide, private common access situated in a 30-ft. wide easement. Due to this narrow roadway width, on –street parking would be prohibited and no parking signs will be required. The drive includes a “Y” shaped turn-around at the end to accommodate fire truck turn-around and other vehicle movements. This private driveway will only serve the three new lots (3, 4 & 5) on the westerly section of this plat development, while Lots 1 and 2 will have access on to Glenhill Road. The private driveway will contain the required utilities to serve all lots. Per Subdivision Code 11-3-3, Subd. B.2., private common access drives with a minimum 30-ft. wide right-of- way width (easement width) may be approved by the following: “The city council may choose to approve private common access for PUD, townhouse development, etc., where appropriate. Standards for said access, however, shall comply with minimums as outlined for minor streets (except right of way) and all other provisions as required by the city council.” Public Works Dept. supports the planned 30-ft. easement with the 20-ft. wide, curb-and-gutter roadway system, provided measures are in place to restrict any on-site parking along the entire length of the roadway. The city’s Fire Marshal were presented the revised plans and asked to comment on the proposed private roadway. The Marshal again expressed his support and appreciation for the Developer’s plan to keep and install the three water hydrants along the roadway; and feels the turn-around is sufficient and adequate to accommodate fire truck movements. A concern was raised on the 20-ft. roadway width, but with assurances of “No Parking” signs along the roadway, he feels this might be adequate. (Note: the Fire Marshal was unable to meet with the Fire Chief and fully review these plans and file a joint review/findings/recommendations by the time this report was being finalized. If more information is presented, staff will present this at the public hearing). The Developer states: “The common private access road... provides an efficient and minimally disruptive access to the home sites, allowing for better preservation of the wooded area by reducing the ROW from 60 - 30 feet. The proposed private common access is appropriate because it is the least disruptive means of access for the three homes, and the road will comply with minimums required of minor streets.” City staff and city’s legal counsel have determined this language on the private common access provides an opportunity to a developer to request the smaller, private driveway as presented herein, but only with city council approvals. No variance is needed with this request. The Planning Commission should make a recommendation to the city council that this private common access drive is an appropriate and/or an approved improvement within this development. If the Commission feels differently, you must make or determine findings-of-facts to support such a denial.  Stormwater Plans The new plans still call for the installation of a new on-site stormwater pond system near the south edge of the property and inside Lot 3 of the plat. It appears from the previous to the new plan, that not much changes are being proposed for the pond area, except with added grading in the front yard area of Lot 3 (see plan images – below). Packet Pg. #6 Planning Case # 2020-15 (2nd Supplemental Report) Page 3 of 14 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd Oct. 9th Grading Plan Nov. 24th Grading Plan Included with the July 28th Report was a copy of the Stormwater Management Report for this development site. As part of the plan submittals brought to the Planning Commission at the October 8th meeting, the Developer submitted a new Drainage Exhibit – Plan Sheet H1, which illustrated the before (existing) and after (proposed) drainage from the site – but with a full 60-ft. wide roadway and cul-de-sac system. That plan showed 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. With the previous roadway design, a large portion of stormwater would be directed away from the westerly edge with the bluff and hillsides, with most water directed southward towards Victoria Curve and into the storm pond. According to the Developer’s updated narrative: “The current design of the proposed development will still capture, slow down and pond the stormwater in a way that minimizes slope erosion and excessive downhill flows. As noted with the previous application, any rain water currently falling on the site property runs westerly down the slope, except for the existing home where it is graded 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 private access 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 3 proposed homes off of Victoria Curve. 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 private access road, 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 private access road and flow to the pond.”  Retaining Walls The revised plan has eliminated all retaining walls proposed under the previous plan submittals. With the elimination of all walls, there are no longer any variances to consider for excessive wall heights, spacing requirements, wall materials or locations.  Soils/Geo-Technical Report On November 6th, the Developer forwarded an updated Soils and Geotechnical Report from Braun Intertec, dated Nov. 4, 2020, followed by an Addendum Report dated Nov. 6, 2020. This amended/addendum report are attached hereto. This report was created in partial response to the neighbors’ own consultant report from Kelton Barr Consulting LLC on the “Preliminary Hydrogeological Investigation of Bluff Area in Glenhill Road/Victoria Curve Proposed Development” report, and a call for deeper soil borings and slope stability analysis. According to the Developer’s updated narrative: Packet Pg. #7 Planning Case # 2020-15 (2nd Supplemental Report) Page 4 of 14 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd “Braun’s geotechnical stability concludes that Analysis A will achieve the threshold safety factor of 1.5 by orientating the homes with one story above grade and two stories below grade, with wing walls adjacent to the home, so the home acts to retain the slope. As the report states, “[a]lthough loading from the house is shown, the net load is essentially negligible because soil load would be removed in order to excavate for the basements incorporating as necessary a double basement.” “The Addendum dated November 6, 2020 further provides “[n]o retention walls are proposed for our stability Analysis A. The basement foundation walls act as a retaining wall, as do all basement walls. Also, as for all below-grade basement foundation walls, we will recommend the basement walls be backfilled with free-draining clean sand or gravel and that sub-drains be placed along the base of the perimeter of the walls to prevent the development of hydrostatic pressure against the walls and to reduce risks of water seepage into the basement. “ “Further, we will recommend the sub-drains be wrapped in a water permeable geotextile filter fabric to prevent piping of fines into the drainpipes and creation of voids outside of the pipes. These design guidelines have been successfully implemented in standard house design in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area for decades.” The Addendum further addresses and negates the potential for landslides raised as a concern by the neighbors.”  Grading Plans (C3-1) The Applicant has submitted updated grading plans for the development. Most of the new overall grading takes place in and round the new storm pond on Lot 3, and includes some additional grading in the front area of Lot 3 under this new plan. All new lots contain the notation: “All Lots to be Custom Graded Based on Existing Topography and Trees”. As per the current Critical Area Ordinance, each new lot will need to go through an individual critical area permit review s part of each individual building permit approval process. The final grading of these lots will be reviewed and considered separately at the time of each development.  Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Plan (Sheet C4-1) The plans for these services appear to be very similar to those 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 has been slightly modified due the lower number of lots, reduced roadway widths and elimination of the retaining walls. The Applicant states: “[T]he reduction of the home sites from 8 to 5, and the reduction to a 30’ R-O-W access road will further minimize the impact on the wooded areas from the previously proposed concept plan with 8 lots and a public cul-de-sac road.” The Applicant indicated in their previous narrative that the existing property is not entirely wooded, and approximately half of the previous planned 60-ft. wide roadway was to be built on an existing open grassy area. It appears this upper section of the private roadway will be installed in this same open, grassed area of the site, thereby reducing the impacts to existing trees and vegetation. Plans still provide the planting of various deciduous and evergreen trees around the proposed stormwater pond near the southwest corner. Any final landscape plan for individual developments on each lot will be reviewed for compliance aby the city’s Natural Resource Technician at time of each new critical area permit and building permit review. It remains Staffs’ contention the importance 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 is to be added that requires the builder to submit a detailed survey indicating all Packet Pg. #8 Planning Case # 2020-15 (2nd Supplemental Report) Page 5 of 14 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd 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. Under this newly revised plan layout, the areas behind the new home sites become larger, which means there will be more woodlands to preserve and protect in these areas next to the bluff edge. As part of the DNR’s continued review of this development site (refer to attached DNR Review Memo – dated 11/17/2020), they have noted the following: “…the DNR is still concerned about the potential for home construction to result in significant site grading and tree removal in this sensitive bluff area. The DNR strongly recommends a deed restriction, conservation easement or some other form of permanent protection to prohibit any grading and tree removal at or below the contour line representing elevation 860 feet on Lot 3, Block 1 and at or below the 40 foot bluff setback line on Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 1. This is necessary to maintain stability and minimize erosion on the bluff and to retain the visual quality of the Critical Area.” This recommendation has been included as part of the plat conditions.  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 updated Slope Analysis Plan, all five lots appear to have slopes that have a combination of 0% - 18% grades shown in the green shaded areas; and slopes 18% - 40% range shown in the yellow shaded areas. All five lots will require this CUP approval to allow the new development on each lot. 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 Updated Plan shows the proposed house pads for Lots 3-5 to be clearly outside and away from the delineated Bluff Setback Line, which has been marked off 40-feet from the surveyed bluff edge. 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: Packet Pg. #9 Planning Case # 2020-15 (2nd Supplemental Report) Page 6 of 14 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd Subpart B. Setback from Bluff Line: No structure shall be constructed less than forty feet (40’) landward from the bluff line of the river. The purpose of the standard is to prevent structures being built close to the bluff, for erosion and aesthetic reasons. In this case, the buildable lot areas (proposed house pads) are all shown to be away from the delineated bluff line, and even outside of the 40-foot offset/setback buffer illustrated on the submitted plans. Therefore, the above standard does not apply in this case. Subpart F. Subdivision of Property for Residential, Commercial and Industrial Development: 1. No land shall be subdivided which is found to be unsuitable for reason of flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, unfavorable topography, inadequate water supply or sewer disposal capabilities or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision or the community. The planning commission, in applying the provisions of this section, shall in writing cite the particular features upon which it bases its conclusions that the land is not suitable for the proposed use and afford the subdivider an opportunity to present evidence regarding such suitability. Thereafter, the commission may affirm, modify or withdraw its determination of unsuitability. 2. All subdivisions shall comply with the applicable provisions of Title 11, "Subdivision Regulations", of this code. To the best of staff’s knowledge, this proposed subdivision site has not experienced any landslides, flooding or wash-outs, inadequate drainage, unstable rock formations or unfavorable topography (except for the bluff area). 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. Per the Applicant’s narrative: “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 proposed 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 this land is suitable for the proposed development.” 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. Per City Subdivision Code Sect. 11-3-8: Steep Slopes. D. Deeding Of Slopes: Steep slopes may be deeded to the city or an officially recognized homeowners' association. Upon city council approval, deeding of steep slopes may be used to satisfy public land dedication requirements as established in chapter 5 of this title. As Staff noted in the previous July 28th Report, we have requested the Developer provide a protective (conservation) easement or similar. Staff would recommend the Planning Commission consider establishing this deed restricted area or conservation easement area as per the recommendations from the DNR Review Memo – dated 11/17/2020. Packet Pg. #10 Planning Case # 2020-15 (2nd Supplemental Report) Page 7 of 14 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd 12-3-9: NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT A. Soil Erosion Control 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 that address this issue, based on additional standards that may be requested and granted to Developers (developments) located in the Critical Area Overlay District. Appropriate erosion control measures will be required as part of any pre-construction activities, as noted in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) in previous plan submittals. 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 Code prohibits development on soils 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 previous and updated Braun Intertec Reports concludes that Analysis A will achieve the threshold safety factor of 1.5 by orientating the homes with one story above grade and two stories below grade, with wing walls adjacent to the home, so the home acts to retain the slope. The full scope and findings from this report are included as an attachment to this supplemental report. E. Standards for Grading and Filling: Grading, filling, excavating or otherwise changing the topography landward of the ordinary high water mark shall not be conducted without a permit. A permit may be issued only if: 1. Earth moving, erosion, vegetative cutting and the destruction of natural amenities is minimized; 2. The smallest amount of ground is exposed for as short a time as feasible; 3. Temporary ground cover (mulch) is used and permanent ground cover, such as sod, is planted; 4. Methods to prevent erosion and trap sediment are employed; 5. Fill is established to accepted engineering standards. All appropriate erosion control measures will be required as part of any pre-construction activities 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. Packet Pg. #11 Planning Case # 2020-15 (2nd Supplemental Report) Page 8 of 14 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd 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. Some clear-cutting will still be needed for the new private roadway and house pads, which is allowed under this section. The Developer is proposing a reduced roadway feature in order to help minimize or reduce any additional impacts caused by the removal of trees and vegetation in this development. 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. 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: Packet Pg. #12 Planning Case # 2020-15 (2nd Supplemental Report) Page 9 of 14 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd 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. As per the Applicant’s updated narrative: 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 the existing homes in Valley View Oaks, and in 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 3 homes served by a new private access 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 five 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 elevations), increasing property values and the respective property taxes payable to the City; d) there will be minimal locations that include slopes in excess of 18%, 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; and 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. 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.” Packet Pg. #13 Planning Case # 2020-15 (2nd Supplemental Report) Page 10 of 14 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. 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 findings required above to issue a conditional use permit in this case. The Commission should review the updated Project Narrative from the developer, and carefully take into consideration these added comments as part 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 critical area permit and conditional use permit related to this overall subdivision request.  Moratorium Issue At the November 17th City Council meeting, the council was asked to review a proposed draft ordinance to enact a moratorium on all critical area permit applications in the Critical Area Overlay District, and set a public hearing date for the December 1, 2020 meeting, whereby official consideration could be taken on this matter. The purpose of the moratorium was to allow staff to begin work on updating the new rules and standards for the Critical Area District (Miss. River Critical Corridor Area - or MRCCA). After some considerable discussion, the Council elected not to set the hearing date; and instead chose to have the three pending planning cases (Nos. 2020-15; 2020-24 and 2020-25) with critical area permit applications be fully reviewed and considered by the PC and Council before enacting any moratorium at this time. Since this subdivision request does not include plan details or elevations of the new homes on each lot, all future owners/contractors will need to submit a separate CAP application to develop each lot individually. If this subdivision plat is approved, staff is asking the Planning Commission to consider allowing a waiver or allowance (if possible) for each new lot owner to submit a critical area permit application in the future, even if the moratorium is still in place. Should the moratorium be enacted after this subdivision request is fully considered, the new property owners may need to wait some time to develop the new lots until the new MRCCA rules or ordinance is adopted, which could take place much later next year. The Commission is free to discuss this issue and make a recommendation accordingly. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION In forming a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission is asked to determine if the proposed preliminary plat requested herein is reasonable and fits with the general character of the existing developments in and around the adjacent neighborhoods. The Commission must also determine if the applicant has meet the criterion needed for granting the related conditional use permit and critical area 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 and Conditional Use Permit or 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. Packet Pg. #14 Planning Case # 2020-15 (2nd Supplemental Report) Page 11 of 14 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd 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. The proposed private common access drive is an approved alternative to the previously proposed public roadway design in the previous plat/plan submittals; and the 100-ft. minimum lot width standard required for all new R-1 Zoned lots can be made along this private common access, due to the dedication of this roadway by easement and in favor of the City of Mendota Heights. E. 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 since there will only be 3 homes served by the new proposed private common access drive; 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 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. F. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2020-15, dated and presented on November 24, 2020 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2020-____. (final number to be assigned later) G. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to this Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit, Critical Area Permit, as long as those conditions are directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the development of this plat, Conditions related to this planning application are as follows: 1) The Applicant/Developer shall pay a park dedication fee of $4,000 per unit (5 lots x $4,000/unit = $20,000) 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. Packet Pg. #15 Planning Case # 2020-15 (2nd Supplemental Report) Page 12 of 14 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd 5) The Private common access roadway and all public 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 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. 10) The Developer shall deed the steep slopes to an established homeowners association; or provide a permanent easement, conservation easement or similar over and across the bluff area as recommended by the Minnesota DNR Review Memo, dated Nov. 17, 2020. . Small and discreet “NOTICE - Bluff Protection Area” or similar signs will be installed along the bluff edge to the rear yard areas of Lots 3, 4, and 5 of the plat. Any final easement document must be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. 11) All new water service plans and related utility line installation shall be reviewed and inspected by St. Paul Regional Water Service. 12) The proposed monument sign near the front entry must be reviewed and approved under separate sign permit application to the city. 13) The contractor or builder of each new lot shall be required to submit a separate critical area permit for each new (future) dwelling unit on each lot, with survey/site plan showing final grading elevations, utility connections, dimensioned site plan, and a landscape plan of any existing significant trees of 6” or more, including the removals and replanting of new trees. 14) Each new home residential site must submit an “as-built” survey upon completion of each individual dwelling construction to ensure all structures, grades, driveways and other improvements were built according to approved plans. 15) 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. 16) Future construction on the newly-created parcels will be compliant with all applicable City Code and Building Code provisions 17) Construction hours for all construction activities 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. 18) [Discuss the Critical Area Overlay District Moratorium waiver for each new lot] 19) A Developer’s Agreement will be prepared by the City Attorney and executed between the Applicant (Developer) and the City of Mendota Heights. Packet Pg. #16 Planning Case # 2020-15 (2nd Supplemental Report) Page 13 of 14 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd 2. Recommend DENIAL of the Preliminary Plat of Valley View Oak 3rd Addition”, along with the related Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit 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 such approval of these applications, noted as follows: A. The proposed plat and proposed uses are not consistent with rules and standards set by the Critical Area Overlay District, and is not in compliance with the general goals and policies of the city’s current or proposed comprehensive plan. B. The proposed plat does not meet the overall purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District. C. The proposed private common access roadway is not consistent with the general rules and standards of the city’s Subdivision Regulation Ordinance, and therefore is not supported for approval under this plat application. D. The proposed plat is not compatible with other uses in the immediate vicinity; E. The proposed work and disturbance to construct the improvements related to this new single-family plat development is deemed too significant, unreasonable and not within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District. F. The proposed plat is found to be a threat to the general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding properties due to potential and unresolved soil instability issues and potential impacts to the groundwater and increased stormwater runoff created by this development. G. This plat development is found to pose a threat could cause potential irreversible damage to this unique local resource; H. To promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public I. This plat and its related improvements are hereby found to be unsuitable for reason of potential flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, unfavorable topography that have been deemed to be likely harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision or the community. (Note: in applying the provisions of this section, the Planning Commission 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.) 3. TABLE the request to an agreed upon meeting date, and direct the Applicant to provide additional information as requested by the city. 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 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. Packet Pg. #17 Planning Case # 2020-15 (2nd Supplemental Report) Page 14 of 14 Culligan-Valley View Oak 3rd 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 11/06/2020 3. Plat Development Plans – UPDATED 11/06/2020 4. Slope Analysis Plan – UPDATED 09/28/20200 5. Soils-Geotechnical Report – Braun Intertec UPDATED 11/06/2020 Packet Pg. #18 November 6, 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 Preliminary Plat of Valley View Oak 3rd Addition - Planning Case No. 2020-15 Tim, the following narrative summarizes the revisions to our application based on feedback we received from the October 8th planning commission meeting, subsequent meetings and discus- sions with you, Ryan Ruzek and Mark McNeill, and recent conversations with neighbors. The revised plan materially minimizes the impact on the site from the originally proposed 8 lot site plan by reducing it to 5 lot site plan, and importantly it meets the soil stability safety factor and recommendations noted in the Braun geotechnical stability analysis. The proposed site plan has been modiﬁed as follows: •Reduced density by removing 3 lots from originally proposed 8 lots to current 5 lots; •Removed all requested variances; •Provided for a common private driveway for access to 3 lots off of Victoria Curve; and •Drainage, utility and access easement planned within the private driveway R-O-W. Preliminary Plat Letter of Intent. The following describes in more detail the properties to be platted, and what the expected outcome or beneﬁts an approved plat will provide to the commu- nity. 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 was constructed. The site is speciﬁcally noted as an inﬁll site for residential use within the Fo- cus Area of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and the proposed development completes the not- ed inﬁll site consistent with the City’s zoning and comprehensive plan. The property is a mix of open grassy areas and woods, with an old barn located in the woods. The site consists of a ﬂat grassy area, rolling topography with gradual slopes on the east and steeper slopes on the west, as 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 Packet Pg. #19 compliance with the City’s Critical Overlay ordinance requirements, as described more fully in the accompanying Critical Area Permit application. Throughout the woods, there are a variety of trees, with a dense underbrush of scrub trees, 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 6, Block 1). The proposed lot sizes will range from .43 acres to 2.18 acres As modiﬁed, the expected outcome for the property will be: •5 new lots and 1 existing lot (Culligan home) •15,000 SF minimum lot area •100’ minimum lot width •30’ front setback along Glenhill Road •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, orientating the home with one story above grade and two stories below grade, and adjacent to the home will be wing walls, so the home acts to retain the slope). •Access to the home sites will be from Glenhill Road for 2 lots, and then for the other 3 lots by a common private access off of Victoria Curve with a 30 ft. public R-O-W consistent with 11-3- 3 of Mendota Heights ordinances. •This private road will be subject to an easement in favor of the City for drainage, utilities and access, and will include a “Y” shaped turnaround area at the north end per ﬁre safety stan- dards set forth in Section D103 of the code. •The 3 homes will meet the 100-ft. lot width frontage requirement with the common private ac- cess a city approved street due to the R-O-W being subject to a public easement. 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 for over 30 years. The addition of 5 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. As the site plan illustrates, the reduction of the number of home sites from 8 to 5 new homes further minimizes the impact on the existing homes, particularly with the homes tucked into the wooded areas in a way that will enhance the aggregate property. A signiﬁcant portion of the existing woods, particularly along Victoria Curve, is scrub brush and weed trees, such as buck- thorn (see pictures attached). The modiﬁed site plan reduces the extent of the wooded area that would be disturbed by the development, while still aesthetically enhancing and complimenting the surrounding area by removing a portion of the dense, overgrown underbrush, preserving healthy signiﬁcant trees, and adding the landscaping reﬂected on the accompanying landscape plan. The common private access road for the three homes off of Victoria Curve, with the drainage, utilities and access easement located thereon, provides an efﬁcient and minimally disruptive access to the home sites, allowing for better preservation of the wooded area by reducing the ROW from 60 - 30 feet, or having three separate driveways from either Victoria Curve and/or Glenhill Road through the wooded area to the home sites. Section 11-3-3 provides that “*The Packet Pg. #20 city council may choose to approve private common access for PUD, townhouse development, etc., where appropriate. Standards for said access, however, shall comply with minimums as outlined for minor streets (except right of way) and all other provisions as required by the city council.” The proposed private common access is appropriate because it is the least disruptive means of access for the three homes, and the road will comply with minimums required of minor streets. As a city approved street, the 3 homes will meet the 100-ft width requirement. 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 modiﬁed site plan further minimizes the impact on the MRCA from the originally proposed site plan by reducing the number of home sites, reducing the R-O-W, providing more setback from the bluff line for situating the home sites, which alleviates the need for retaining walls and terracing. 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 the DNR Critical Area; the previously proposed 8 lot plan was acknowledged by the DNR as consis- tent 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. Braun performed ﬁve soil borings on the site. Those borings are being used for their initial analysis of the global stability of the slopes (See below). Braun’s geotechnical evaluation report was updated as of November 4, 2020, with an addendum addressing the modiﬁed preliminary plat with the 5 new home sites and removal of retaining walls and terraces. In addition, Braun has responded to the issues raised in the hydrological analysis prepared by Kelton Barr at the request of the neigh- bors. Braun’s geotechnical stability analysis has been provided to the City for review and con- sideration, as well as to the neighbors. 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. 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 Packet Pg. #21 3. Height of Structures will not exceed the 35’ restriction. 4. Sewage Disposal System - the residences will tie into the City sewer system, through individ- ual E/One sewer systems. 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 this land is suitable for the proposed development. Soil Stability Braun’s geotechnical stability concludes that Analysis A will achieve the threshold safety factor of 1.5 by orientating the homes with one story above grade and two stories below grade, with wing walls adjacent to the home, so the home acts to retain the slope. As the report states, “[a]lthough loading from the house is shown, the net load is essentially negligible because soil load would be removed in order to excavate for the basements incorporating as necessary a double basement.” The Addendum dated November 6, 2020 further provides “[n]o retention walls are proposed for our stability Analysis A. The basement foundation walls act as a retaining wall, as do all basement walls. Also, as for all below-grade basement foundation walls, we will recommend the basement walls be backﬁlled with free-draining clean sand or gravel and that sub-drains be placed along the base of the perimeter of the walls to prevent the develop- ment of hydrostatic pressure against the walls and to reduce risks of water seepage into the basement. Further, we will recommend the sub-drains be wrapped in a water permeable geotex- tile ﬁlter fabric to prevent piping of ﬁnes into the drainpipes and creation of voids outside of the pipes. These design guidelines have been successfully implemented in standard house design in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area for decades.” The Addendum further addresses and negates the potential for landslides raised as a concern by the neighbors. Stormwater The current design of the proposed development will still capture, slow down and pond the stormwater in a way that minimizes slope erosion and excessive downhill ﬂows. As noted with the previous application, any rain water currently falling on the site property runs westerly down the slope, except for the existing home where it is graded 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 private access 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 3 proposed homes off of Victoria Curve. 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 private access road, 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 private access road and ﬂow to the pond. Thus, water landing on the new hard surface areas will be directed to the new street and chan- neled to the south where it is collected in a pond that holds and inﬁltrates the water to prevent it Packet Pg. #22 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. 6. Protection of natural features - the reduction of the home sites from 8 to 5, and the reduction to a 30’ R-O-W access road will further minimize the impact on the wooded areas from the pre- viously proposed concept plan with 8 lots and a public cul-de-sac road. 7. Retaining walls or terraces not to exceed 5’ and minimum horizontal spacing between ter- races and retaining walls is 20’ - the proposed revised preliminary plat will not require the con- struction of retaining walls and terraces. Conditional Use Permit Letter of Intent The proposed modiﬁed preliminary plat provides more area for the 5 new home sites to situate on land that is less than 18% slopes. However, there will be a few areas that include building on slopes that exceed 18%, as shown in the accompanying plans, and detailed slope analysis. Ac- cordingly, we will be requesting a conditional use permit to the extent there are any buildings or potions of the road on slopes in excess of 18%. In support of our CUP request, please consid- er 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 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.” The proposed revised plan meets the four ﬁndings, with even less impact to the community, trafﬁc, property values, and slopes than the previously submitted plan: 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 the existing homes in Valley View Oaks, and in simi- lar 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 3 homes served by a new private access road, so there will not be any trafﬁc congestion or haz- ards in connection with the road due to the requested CUP; c) the proposed use will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value - the pro- posed development will offer ﬁve 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 elevations), increasing property values and the respective property taxes payable to the City; Packet Pg. #23 d) there will be minimal locations that include slopes in excess of 18%, 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 criti- cal area district and comprehensive plan. Variances No variances are requested. Upon consideration of the comments and concerns at the Plan- ning Commission meeting on October 8th regarding variances, we have modiﬁed the site plan so that it does not require any variances. . 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. Conclusion In conclusion, the attached modiﬁed proposed Preliminary Plat Application, together with ac- companying applications for Critical Area Permit, and Conditional Use Permit are hereby sub- mitted. We look forward to working with the Planning Commission and the City Council of Mendota Heights to discuss any questions or concerns regarding the proposed platting of the property. Best Regards, Michelle Culligan, Esq cc Mike St. Martin Tom Goodrum Larry Culligan Mark Rachac Packet Pg. #24 Packet Pg. #25 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 SUBMITTAL11/06/2020 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: 11 /06 / 2020 4:9 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: 6.78± ACDISTURBED AREA: 1.92 ACEXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA: 0.18 AC (2.7%)PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA: 0.88 AC (13.0%)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- BUILDING SETBACK ABUTTING PRIVATE DRIVE SHALL BE 30' FROM BACK OF CURB- 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.LO 913.0FBWO913.0923.0GRADE AT REAR OF HOUSE PAD(LOWEST OPENING)130' FRONT HOUSEPacket Pg. #26 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 SUBMITTAL11/06/2020 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: 11 /06 / 2020 4:10 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. B20007530), DATED MARCH NOVEMBER 4TH, 2020 AS PREPAREDBY BRAUN INTERTEC FOR AN EXISTING SUBSURFACE SITE CONDITIONANALYSIS AND CONSTRUCTION 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 NOTESPacket Pg. #27 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 SUBMITTAL11/06/2020 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: 11 /06 / 2020 4:10 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. SANITARY SEWER SHALL BE A COMBINED FORCEMAIN SYSTEM BY ENVIRONMENT ONE CORPORATION (E/ONE).7. ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE LOCATED 5 FEET BEHIND BACK OF CURB OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED.8. PROPOSED PIPE MATERIALS:WATERMAIN DIP 6" DIAMETERFORCEMAIN PE 6" DIAMETER9. 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.10.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.11. PIPE LENGTHS SHOWN ON THE PLAN DO NOT INCLUDE THE APRON SECTION.UTILITY NOTESPacket Pg. #28 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 SUBMITTAL11/06/2020 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: 11 /06 / 2020 4:11 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 NOTESPacket Pg. #29 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: 11 /05 / 2020 2:51 PMW:\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 COMMENTS11/05/20CITY 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 = 18,663 +/- square feet or 0.43 +/- acresLot 2, Block 1 = 19,235 +/- square feet or 0.44 +/- acresLot 3, Block 1 = 95,013 +/- square feet or 2.18 +/- acresLot 4, Block 1 = 65,365 +/- square feet or 1.50 +/- acresLot 5, Block 1 = 71,908 +/- square feet or 1.65 +/- acresLot 6, Block 1 = 23,674 +/- square feet or 0.54 +/- acresGlenhill Road = 1,449 +/- square feet or 0.03 +/- 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)Packet Pg. #30 DECIDUOUS TREESQTY COMMON NAME10COMMON HACKBERRY8NORTHERN PIN OAK3SIENNA GLEN MAPLE3SWAMP WHITE OAKEVERGREEN TREES QTY COMMON NAME6 BLACK HILLS SPRUCEFULL FORMORNAMENTAL TREES QTY COMMON NAME1 AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY4 FOX VALLEY BIRCH1 THORNLESS HAWTHORNPLANT SCHEDULENSCALE IN FEET040 8006/29/2020 CITY SUBMITTAL09/28/2020 REV. CITY SUBMITTAL11/06/2020 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: 11 /06 / 2020 4:12 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 DETAILSC8-3CIVIL 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.Packet Pg. #31 DECIDUOUS TREES CODE QTYCOMMON NAMEBOTANICAL NAMECONT SIZECH 10COMMON HACKBERRYCeltis occidentalisB & B 2.5"CalNP8NORTHERN 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 SIZEBS 6BLACK HILLS SPRUCEFULL FORMPicea glauca `Densata`B & B 6` HGTORNAMENTAL TREES CODE QTYCOMMON NAMEBOTANICAL NAMECONT SIZEABS 1AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY Amelanchier x grandiflora `Autumn Brilliance` B & B 1.5"CalFVB 4FOX VALLEY BIRCHBetula nigra `Little King` TMB & B 1.5"CalTH 1THORNLESS HAWTHORNCrataegus crus-galli `Inermis`B & B 1.5"CalGROUND COVERS CODE COMMON NAMEBOTANICAL NAMESEED 3 BASIN SEED MIXMNDOT SEED MIX 33-261STORMWATER SOUTH & WESTSEED TURF SEEDSEED 2 WOODLAND SEED MIXMNDOT SEED MIX 36-211WOODLAND EDGE SOUTH & WESTPLANT SCHEDULE06/29/2020 CITY SUBMITTAL09/28/2020 REV. CITY SUBMITTAL11/06/2020 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: 11 /06 / 2020 4:12 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 DETAILSC8-3CIVIL 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.Packet Pg. #32 AA/EOE Braun Intertec Corporation p 11001 Hampshire Avenue S p Minneapolis, MN 55438 Phone: 952.995.2000 Fax: 952.995.2020 Web: braunintertec.com November 6, 2020 Project B2007530 Mr. Larry Culligan 1949 Glen Hill Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re: Addendum 1 to Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Valley View Oak Third Addition Mendota Heights, Minnesota Dear Mr. Culligan: This letter serves as Addendum 1 to our Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Report for this project, dated November 3, 2020. This Addendum addresses our review and comments in regard to the Kelton Barr Consulting, LLC report dated October 5, 2020. Background The Third Addition for the Valley View Oak Residential Development is proposed at the northwest quadrant of Glenhill Road and Victoria Curve. In our Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Report, dated November 3, 2020, our task was to determine the global stability of the property for single-family residential homes. This task is to assist Loucks, Inc. determine the arrangement of the houses and corresponding housing density. Several block wall retaining structures and slope configurations were proposed and addressed in our Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation. Most recently, Loucks, Inc. has completed a grading plan, reducing house density from 7 houses to 5 houses and eliminating walls. A copy of this grading plan is attached to this addendum. Nearby residents contracted Kelton Barr Consulting, LLC to address the groundwater aspects of the projects, which resulted a report dated October 5, 2020, which is referred to as the Barr report in this addendum. Addendum Scope In the attached Barr report, several issues and observations were presented pertaining to the groundwater aspects of the proposed development. In this Addendum, we address these issues and observations. Packet Pg. #33 Mr. Larry Culligan Project B207530 November 6, 2020 Page 2 Geology We are in agreement with the Barr report in that deeper borings were necessary to determine whether shallow bedrock exists in the area and for us to better assess the stability of the proposed construction to the rather steep slopes that exist in the area. As such, as part of our supplement evaluation, we extended one of the pervious Borings (ST- 1A) to a deeper depths of 61 feet, and we drilled a another Boring (ST-4), also to 61 feet, to better evaluate conditions in other portions of the development. The deeper borings indicate that the bedrock is deeper than the exploration termination depths of 61 feet. Our slope stability analyses indicated that the modeled failure planes did not extend below the depths explored. As such, the 61-foot deep borings are sufficient for us to model stability in the areas of those borings. Hydrogeology According to the Barr report, groundwater could be as high as 840 feet above mean sea level. Based on our borings drilled and the existing topographic contours presented in our Soil Boring Location Sketch, the groundwater could be as high as Elevation 850. In our slope stability modeling, we assumed that hydrostatic water levels in the areas of our borings are at Elevation 850. Discussion Soil Overburden Upon further evaluation, we interpret the soil explored to be glacial till/glacio-fluvial deposits and stability analysis modeling included in our final report reflects that interpretation. Bedrock As stated earlier, the deeper borings drilled, ST-1A and ST-4 indicate that the bedrock is deeper than the exploration depths of 61 feet. Our slope stability analyses indicated that the modeled failure planes did not extend below the depths explored. Springs We modeled that groundwater was approximately 10 feet higher than found in our borings and at least 20 feet higher than the highest elevation cited in the Barr report. Even though we consider our modeled groundwater elevation to be conservative, our estimated resultant Factors of Safety we higher than the accepted value of 1.5 for residential structures. Packet Pg. #34 Mr. Larry Culligan Project B207530 November 6, 2020 Page 3 Retention Walls No retention walls are proposed for our stability Analysis A. The basement foundation walls act as a retaining wall, as do all basement walls. Also, as for all below-grade basement foundation walls, we will recommend the basement walls be backfilled with free-draining clean sand or gravel and that sub-drains be placed along the base of the perimeter of the walls to prevent the development of hydrostatic pressure against the walls and to reduce risks of water seepage into the basement. Further, we will recommend the sub-drains be wrapped in a water permeable geotextile filter fabric to prevent piping of fines into the drainpipes and creation of voids outside of the pipes. These design guidelines have been successfully implemented in standard house design in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area for decades. For the retaining walls that were included in our stability Analysis B, similar to the basement foundation walls, free-draining sand or gravel and sub-drains wrapped in fabric will be placed behind the walls. It has been our experience, that, when sub-drains wrapped geotextile filters and pervious backfill are designed and constructed properly, the drainage from behind the wall(s) will function properly for the life of the structure. Again, this is a standard retaining wall detail that has been used in this area for decades. For with or without walls, the structures will either be above the groundwater flow or allow groundwater to either flow through or under the structures and thereby we do not expect the house foundation walls and/or retaining walls to impede groundwater flow. Based on the boring data, we foresee that the groundwater to be drained for this project will the result of perched water conditions resulting from seasonal or heavy rainfall. It is our experience that iron and other cations causing encrustation of drains comes from groundwater flowing directly from bedrock. As stated earlier, we did not encounter bedrock in our deeper borings. The source of groundwater which could be intercepted will likely be from temporary perched groundwater conditions and therefore encrustation from iron and other cations is not likely. According to the Surface Water Management Plan for the City of Mendota Heights, dated July 2018, the use of fertilizer containing phosphorous is prohibited within the city. Therefore, considering that the source of groundwater will likely be from stormwater infiltration and that the natural sandy soils and sand fill will have filtering capabilities, the potential for biofouling should be minimal. Packet Pg. #35 Mr. Larry Culligan Project B207530 November 6, 2020 Page 4 Deeper Borings Since our report draft was submitted on September 28, 2020, we have drilled Borings ST-1A and ST-4 to a depth of 60 feet in order to better define the soil stratigraphy on site. As this project continues to final layout and design, we recommend additional borings at specific locations to better define the soil in plan view and depth, depending upon the elevations and arrangements of the houses. Landslide Potential We have reviewed the report by Carrie E. Jennings et. al. dated 2016, which describes the bowl-shaped re-entrant scenario, which, according to the Barr report, is inferred to this development. To clarify, we understand that this applies to a vertical or near vertical bedrock surface where a soil mantle is deposited against the rock face, such that instead of the bedrock face being able to topple, the soil mantle moves. The movement would likely be from groundwater resting upon the soil bedrock interface and developing porewater pressures could potentially trigger the soil to slide along the bedrock. Based on our borings drilled to depths of 60 feet, we did not find bedrock in those borings and, therefore we believe that bedrock is at such a depth that we do not think this scenario exists on this development. As stated in the Barr report, slope movement occurs when the driving forces exceed the resisting forces. Factor of Safety (F.o.S.) is defined as the ratio of resisting forces to driving forces. Therefore, a slope failure would occur when the Factor of Safety is less than 1.0. For our analyses, we consider an acceptable F.o.S. for residential structures of at least 1.5; this means that the resisting forces are at least 50 percent greater than the driving forces. As the project progresses to final configuration and design, we will continue to apply this minimal F.o.S. for subsequent analyses and data obtained from additional borings, considering the soil strengths, groundwater, proposed house and wall arrangements, and proposed slope geometry. Packet Pg. #36 Mr. Larry Culligan Project B207530 November 6, 2020 Page 5 In Closing This Addendum should be attached to and considered a part of our original Geotechnical Evaluation Report. With the exception of any results or recommendations changed by this Addendum, the information contained in our Geotechnical Evaluation Report remains unchanged. 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. If you have any questions about this Addendum, please contact Bryan Ripp at 612.845.4475 or Bob Janssen at 612.865.8786. Sincerely, BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION Professional Certification: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Bryan J. Ripp, PE, CFM Senior Engineer License Number: 40232 November 6, 2020 Robert J. Janssen, PE President, Principal Engineer Attachments: Kelton Barr Consulting, LLC Report Loucks, Inc. 5-House Grading Plan Packet Pg. #37 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 Packet Pg. #38 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 Packet Pg. #39 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 Packet Pg. #40 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 Packet Pg. #41 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. Packet Pg. #42 Project locationFigure 1. Glacial geology of project vicinity (Meyer, 2007)Packet Pg. #43 Project locationFigure 2. Bedrock geology in the project vicinity (Mossler, 2013)Packet Pg. #44 ST-3ST-2ST-1Figure 3. Location of MWI wells and fence diagram locationPacket Pg. #45 A BC (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 Packet Pg. #46 842810805810Figure 5. Location of bluff seeps Packet Pg. #47 Packet Pg. #48 AA/EOE Braun Intertec Corporation p 11001 Hampshire Avenue S p Minneapolis, MN 55438 Phone: 952.995.2000 Fax: 952.995.2020 Web: braunintertec.com November 4, 2020 Project B2007530 Mr. Larry Culligan 1949 Glen Hill Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re: Revised Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Valley View Oak Third Addition Mendota Heights, Minnesota Dear Mr. Culligan: Braun Intertec respectfully submits this revised preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the global stability of several slope 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 and slope configurations are proposed. 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 several wall and slope configurations. For this report, we are presenting the borings logs, the interpretation of the soil stratigraphy, and some preliminary global slope stability analyses. 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. Packet Pg. #49 Mr. Larry Culligan Project B2007530 November 4, 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. We later returned to the site and drilled two more SPT borings, denoted as ST-1A and ST-4 to nominal depths of 61 feet below grade. Performing laboratory testing on select samples to aid in soil classification and engineering analyses. Perform engineering analysis including global stability analyses. Preparing this report containing a boring location sketch, logs of soil borings, a summary of the soils encountered, results of laboratory tests, a summary of our stability analyses, and recommendations for wall and slope construction. 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 alternating layers of clayey sandy glacial till and outwash sands. In one Boring, ST-4, a thin layer of silt colluvium was encountered above the glacial deposits. 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 Table 1 provides a summary of the soil boring results, in the general order we encountered the strata. Please refer to the Log of Boring sheets in the Appendix for additional details. The Descriptive Terminology sheet in the Appendix include definitions of abbreviations used in Table 1. Packet Pg. #50 Mr. Larry Culligan Project B2007530 November 4, 2020 Page 3 Table 1. Subsurface Profile Summary* Strata Soil Type - ASTM Classification Range of Penetration Resistances Commentary and Details Topsoil SP-SM, SM --- Reddish brown to dark brown. Overall thickness ranged from 6 to 12 inches. Colluvium ML 9 to 10 BPF Light brown. Moisture condition generally moist. Only encountered in Boring ST-4. Extended to a depth of 6 1/2 feet. Glacial Deposits Glacial Outwash: SP, SP-SM, SM 13 BPF to Sampler Refusal Intermixed layers of glacial outwash and till. Variable amounts of gravel; may contain cobbles and boulders based on sampler refusals and drill rig chatter. Moisture condition of glacial outwash generally moist above groundwater measurements, generally wet below groundwater measurements. Moisture condition of glacial till generally moist. Penetration Resistance generally increased with depth, denser and stiffer layers generally encountered at about 50 to 55 feet in the deeper Borings ST-1A and ST-4. Glacial Till: SC, CL 11 BPF to Sampler Refusal *Abbreviations defined in the attached Descriptive Terminology sheet. B.3. Groundwater Groundwater was observed in Borings, ST-1A and ST-4, at depths of 35 and 20 feet below grade respectively. It appears Borings ST-1, ST-2, and ST-3 did not extend deep enough to encounter groundwater. 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 unit weight. Packet Pg. #51 Mr. Larry Culligan Project B2007530 November 4, 2020 Page 4 C. Slope Stability Analyses For the analyses, we are using the following soil parameters: Table 2. Material Properties Material USCS Density (pounds per cubic foot) Effective Friction (degrees) Effective Cohesion (pounds per square foot) Engineered Sand Fill SP 120 36 0 Glacial upper Till SC/SP 125 34 0 Glacial Lower Till SC/SP 130 40 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 made the conservative assumption that the groundwater was within 10 feet of the ground surface in front of the houses and followed the engineered fill and glacial till contact. For both of the analyses presented below, the configurations were placed in the steepest portions of the site. Analysis A addresses lowering the site grade about 10 feet and orientating the home with one story above grade and two stories below grade. Adjacent to the home will be wing walls. In this configuration the home acts to retain the slope. Although loading from the house is shown, the net load is essentially negligible because soil load would be removed in order to excavate for the basements. For Analysis B, the top of slope is maintained, and the house is orientated with one story below grade. Downslope of the home will be a three-tiered system of mechanical stabilized earth (MSE) walls acting to retain the slope. Based on our preliminary analysis, we calculated an acceptable factor of safety of about 1.5 or greater for both analyses, our results are preliminary and will be subject to further exploration and analysis. Packet Pg. #52 Mr. Larry Culligan Project B2007530 November 4, 2020 Page 5 D. Recommendations As stated above, we calculated an acceptable factor of safety of 1.5 for both the double basement and a three-tiered MSE wall options. Once additional borings are completed for the site and the data is incorporated into our analyses, we will present final geotechnical recommendations pertaining to the global stability of the houses and walls as well as compaction requirements for fill, foundation bearing capacities, lateral earth pressures and other pertinent recommendations. These recommendations will be presented in our final 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. Packet Pg. #53 Mr. Larry Culligan Project B2007530 November 4, 2020 Page 6 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, (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. Packet Pg. #54 Mr. Larry Culligan Project B2007530 November 4, 2020 Page 7 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 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. Packet Pg. #55 Mr. Larry Culligan Project B2007530 November 4, 2020 Page 8 To have questions answered or schedule a time to meet and discuss our approach to this project further, please contact Bob Jansen at 612.865.8786, or Bryan Ripp at 612.845.4475. Sincerely, BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION Professional Certification: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Bryan J. Ripp, PE, CFM Senior Engineer License Number: 40232 November 4, 2020 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 Slope Stability Analyses Results Packet Pg. #56 Packet Pg. #57 (OHY 'HSWK IW :DWHU/HYHO'HVFULSWLRQRI0DWHULDOV 6RLO$670'RU5RFN86$&((0 3225/<*5$'('6$1'ZLWK6,/76360 ZLWKURRWVUHGGLVKEURZQ72362,/ &/$<(<6$1'6&UHGGLVKEURZQVWLIIWR YHU\VWLII*/$&,$/7,// 6,/7<6$1'60OLJKWEURZQPHGLXPGHQVH */$&,$/287:$6+ &/$<(<6$1'6&EURZQVWLII*/$&,$/ 7,// (1'2)%25,1* 6DPSOH%ORZV 19DOXH 5HFRYHU\ T቏ WVI 0& 7HVWVRU5HPDUNV /2*2)%25,1* 6HH'HVFULSWLYH7HUPLQRORJ\VKHHWIRUH[SODQDWLRQRIDEEUHYLDWLRQV 3URMHFW1XPEHU% *HRWHFKQLFDO(YDOXDWLRQ 9DOOH\9LHZ2DN7KLUG$GGLWLRQ 1:RI*OHQKLOO5RDGDQG9LFWRULD&XUYH 0HQGRWD+HLJKWV0LQQHVRWD %25,1*67 /2&$7,216HHDWWDFKHGVNHWFK 1257+,1*($67,1* '5,//(5$+ROPER /2**('%<%5LSS 67$57'$7((1''$7( 685)$&( (/(9$7,215,**30(7+2'+6$685)$&,1*:RRG GHEULV :($7+(5 &OHDU %%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ 3ULQW'DWH67 SDJHRI Packet Pg. #58 (OHY 'HSWK IW :DWHU/HYHO'HVFULSWLRQRI0DWHULDOV 6RLO$670'RU5RFN86$&((0 %OLQGGULOOHGWRIHHW KDUGGULOOLQJULJFKDWWHU 6,/7<6$1'ZLWK*5$9(/60ILQHWR PHGLXPJUDLQHGUHGGLVKEURZQGU\WRPRLVW PHGLXPGHQVHWRYHU\GHQVH*/$&,$/ 287:$6+ 3225/<*5$'('6$1'63ILQHWR PHGLXPJUDLQHGWUDFH*UDYHOOLJKWEURZQ PRLVWPHGLXPGHQVH*/$&,$/287:$6+ &/$<(<6$1'6&ILQHWRFRDUVHJUDLQHG UHGGLVKEURZQPRLVWYHU\VWLII*/$&,$/7,// /LPHVWRQHIUDJPHQWVDWIHHW &RQWLQXHGRQQH[WSDJH 6DPSOH%ORZV 19DOXH 5HFRYHU\ 5() T቏ WVI 0& 7HVWVRU5HPDUNV /2*2)%25,1* 6HH'HVFULSWLYH7HUPLQRORJ\VKHHWIRUH[SODQDWLRQRIDEEUHYLDWLRQV 3URMHFW1XPEHU% *HRWHFKQLFDO(YDOXDWLRQ 9DOOH\9LHZ2DN7KLUG$GGLWLRQ 1:RI*OHQKLOO5RDGDQG9LFWRULD&XUYH 0HQGRWD+HLJKWV0LQQHVRWD %25,1*67$ /2&$7,216HHDWWDFKHGVNHWFK%RULQJGULOODSSUR[LPDWHO\ IHHWDZD\IURP67 1257+,1*($67,1* '5,//(50%DUEHU /2**('%<%5LSS 67$57'$7((1''$7( 685)$&( (/(9$7,215,**30(7+2'+6$685)$&,1*:HHGV 5RRWV :($7+(5 PRVWO\ 6XQQ\ %%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ 3ULQW'DWH67$ SDJHRI Packet Pg. #59 (OHY 'HSWK IW :DWHU/HYHO'HVFULSWLRQRI0DWHULDOV 6RLO$670'RU5RFN86$&((0 &/$<(<6$1'6&ILQHWRFRDUVHJUDLQHG UHGGLVKEURZQPRLVWYHU\VWLII*/$&,$/7,// 3225/<*5$'('6$1'63ILQHWR PHGLXPJUDLQHGWUDFH*UDYHOUHGGLVKEURZQ ZHWPHGLXPGHQVH*/$&,$/287:$6+ &/$<(<6$1'6&ILQHWRFRDUVHJUDLQHG WUDFH*UDYHORFFDVLRQDO6DQGOHQVHVJUD\ PRLVWPHGLXPWRKDUG*/$&,$/7,// (1'2)%25,1* %RULQJLPPHGLDWHO\EDFNILOOHGZLWKEHQWRQLWH JURXW 6DPSOH%ORZV 19DOXH 5HFRYHU\ 5() T቏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acket Pg. #60 (OHY 'HSWK IW :DWHU/HYHO'HVFULSWLRQRI0DWHULDOV 6RLO$670'RU5RFN86$&((0 6,/7<6$1'60GDUNEURZQ72362,/ &/$<(<6$1'6&UHGGLVKEURZQVRIWWR YHU\VWLII*/$&,$/7,// :LWK/LPHVWRQHIUDJPHQWVIURPWRIHHW 3225/<*5$'('6$1'63ILQHJUDLQHG EURZQORRVHWRPHGLXPGHQVH*/$&,$/ 287:$6+ (1'2)%25,1* 6DPSOH%ORZV 19DOXH 5HFRYHU\ T቏ WVI 0& 7HVWVRU5HPDUNV /2*2)%25,1* 6HH'HVFULSWLYH7HUPLQRORJ\VKHHWIRUH[SODQDWLRQRIDEEUHYLDWLRQV 3URMHFW1XPEHU% *HRWHFKQLFDO(YDOXDWLRQ 9DOOH\9LHZ2DN7KLUG$GGLWLRQ 1:RI*OHQKLOO5RDGDQG9LFWRULD&XUYH 0HQGRWD+HLJKWV0LQQHVRWD %25,1*67 /2&$7,216HHDWWDFKHGVNHWFK 1257+,1*($67,1* '5,//(5$+ROPER /2**('%<%5LSS 67$57'$7((1''$7( 685)$&( (/(9$7,215,**30(7+2'+6$685)$&,1*:RRGURFN IDOO :($7+(5 PRVWO\&OHDU %%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ 3ULQW'DWH67 SDJHRI Packet Pg. #61 (OHY 'HSWK IW :DWHU/HYHO'HVFULSWLRQRI0DWHULDOV 6RLO$670'RU5RFN86$&((0 6,/7<6$1'60EURZQ72362,/ &/$<(<6$1'6&UHGGLVKEURZQVRIWWR YHU\VWLII*/$&,$/7,// 6$1'</($1&/$<&/PHGLXPJUDLQHG EURZQ*/$&,$/7,// 3225/<*5$'('6$1'63ILQHWR PHGLXPJUDLQHGEURZQPHGLXPGHQVH */$&,$/287:$6+ (1'2)%25,1* 6DPSOH%ORZV 19DOXH 5HFRYHU\ 7: T቏ WVI 0& 7HVWVRU5HPDUNV '' SFI /2*2)%25,1* 6HH'HVFULSWLYH7HUPLQRORJ\VKHHWIRUH[SODQDWLRQRIDEEUHYLDWLRQV 3URMHFW1XPEHU% *HRWHFKQLFDO(YDOXDWLRQ 9DOOH\9LHZ2DN7KLUG$GGLWLRQ 1:RI*OHQKLOO5RDGDQG9LFWRULD&XUYH 0HQGRWD+HLJKWV0LQQHVRWD %25,1*67 /2&$7,216HHDWWDFKHGVNHWFK 1257+,1*($67,1* '5,//(5$+ROPER /2**('%<%5LSS 67$57'$7((1''$7( 685)$&( (/(9$7,215,**30(7+2'+6$685)$&,1*5RFNIDOOGDUN WRSVRLO :($7+(5 PRVWO\&OHDU %%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ 3ULQW'DWH67 SDJHRI Packet Pg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቏ WVI 0& 7HVWVRU5HPDUNV /2*2)%25,1* 6HH'HVFULSWLYH7HUPLQRORJ\VKHHWIRUH[SODQDWLRQRIDEEUHYLDWLRQV 3URMHFW1XPEHU% *HRWHFKQLFDO(YDOXDWLRQ 9DOOH\9LHZ2DN7KLUG$GGLWLRQ 1:RI*OHQKLOO5RDGDQG9LFWRULD&XUYH 0HQGRWD+HLJKWV0LQQHVRWD %25,1*67 /2&$7,216HHDWWDFKHGVNHWFK 1257+,1*($67,1* '5,//(5$+ROPER /2**('%<%5LSS 67$57'$7((1''$7( 685)$&( (/(9$7,215,**30(7+2'+6$685)$&,1**UDVV :($7+(5 &OHDU %%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ 3ULQW'DWH67 SDJHRI Packet Pg. #63 (OHY 'HSWK IW :DWHU/HYHO'HVFULSWLRQRI0DWHULDOV 6RLO$670'RU5RFN86$&((0 &/$<(<6$1'6&ILQHWRPHGLXPJUDLQHG WUDFH*UDYHOUHGGLVKEURZQPRLVWWRZHWYHU\ VWLII*/$&,$/7,// &/$<(<6$1'6&ILQHWRPHGLXPJUDLQHG WUDFH*UDYHORFFDVLRQDO6DQGOHQVHVJUD\ PRLVWYHU\VWLIIWRKDUG*/$&,$/7,// (1'2)%25,1* %RULQJLPPHGLDWHO\EDFNILOOHGZLWKEHQWRQLWH JURXW 6DPSOH%ORZV 19DOXH 5HFRYHU\ T቏ WVI 0& 7HVWVRU5HPDUNV :DWHUREVHUYHGDW IHHWZLWKIHHWRIWRROLQJ LQWKHJURXQGZKLOHGULOOLQJ /2*2)%25,1* 6HH'HVFULSWLYH7HUPLQRORJ\VKHHWIRUH[SODQDWLRQRIDEEUHYLDWLRQV 3URMHFW1XPEHU% *HRWHFKQLFDO(YDOXDWLRQ 9DOOH\9LHZ2DN7KLUG$GGLWLRQ 1:RI*OHQKLOO5RDGDQG9LFWRULD&XUYH 0HQGRWD+HLJKWV0LQQHVRWD %25,1*67 /2&$7,216HHDWWDFKHGVNHWFK 1257+,1*($67,1* '5,//(5$+ROPER /2**('%<%5LSS 67$57'$7((1''$7( 685)$&( (/(9$7,215,**30(7+2'+6$685)$&,1**UDVV :($7+(5 &OHDU %%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ 3ULQW'DWH67 SDJHRI Packet Pg. #64 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 gravel E Cu < 4 and/or (Cc < 1 or Cc > 3)D GP Poorly graded gravel E 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 sand I Cu < 6 and/or (Cc < 1 or Cc > 3)D SP Poorly graded sand I 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 Silt K 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 KLMN Organic silt KLMO Liquid Limit − oven dried Liquid Limit −not dried <0.75 Organic clay KLMP Organic silt KLMQ 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 = ܦ͵Ͳ ʹ / ሺܦͳͲ ݔܦ͸Ͳ) 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 Packet Pg. #65 W 350.00 lbs/ft2MethodNameMinFSSpencer1.832MaterialNameColorUnitWeight(lbs/Ō3)StrengthTypeCohesion(psf)Phi(deg)FillSoil120MohrͲCoulomb036UpperTill125MohrͲCoulomb034LowerTill130MohrͲCoulomb040House1InĮnitestrength90087585082580077575080100120140160180200220240260280300320Analysis DescriptionRetaining HouseCompanyBraun IntertecScale1:300Drawn ByTSAFile NameValley View Oak No walls_10.08.2020.slmdDate09.23.2020ProjectValley View OaksSLIDEINTERPRET 8.032Packet Pg. #66 W 350.00 lbs/ft2MethodNameMin FS Spencer1.469Material NameColorUnit Weight(lbs/Ō3)Strength TypeCohesion(psf)Phi(deg)Fill Soil120Mohr-Coulomb036Wall150Infinite strengthUpper Till125Mohr-Coulomb034Lower Till130Mohr-Coulomb040Support NameColorTypeAdhesion (psf)FricƟonAngle (deg)Strip Coverage(%)Tensile Strength(lbs/Ō)GEOGRIDGeoTexƟle0301003000900875850825800775750-125-100-75-50-250255075100125150Analysis Description3-Tier WallCompanyBraun IntertecScale1:335Drawn ByTSAFile NameValley View Oak 3Tiers_10.08.2020.slmdDate09.23.2020ProjectValley View OaksSLIDEINTERPRET 8.032Packet Pg. #67 Ecological and Water Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 November 17, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: Valley View Oak 3rd Addition Plat, Mendota Heights, Dakota County Dear Planning Commission, The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the revised plans for the proposed “Valley View Oak 3rd Addition” submitted November 6, 2020. Design changes since the original proposal reduce the project’s impact on Critical Area resources. These changes include: reducing the number of new lots from eight to five, elimination of the large retaining wall, and use of private road rather than a public street that reduces the right of way area, which allows for the three homes on the bluff side of the development to be moved farther from the bluff line. While these are improvements, the DNR is still concerned about the potential for home construction to result in significant site grading and tree removal in this sensitive bluff area. The DNR strongly recommends a deed restriction, conservation easement or some other form of permanent protection to prohibit any grading and tree removal at or below the contour line representing elevation 860 feet on Lot 3, Block 1 and at or below the 40 foot bluff setback line on Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 1. This is necessary to maintain stability and minimize erosion on the bluff and to retain the visual quality of the Critical Area. Vegetation softens the impact of raindrops that otherwise can loosen soil particles. Vegetation slows runoff and filters out suspended sediments. Native vegetation is preferred over turf grass and other non-native species because native vegetation generally has deeper roots, which better stabilize the slope. The DNR appreciates the opportunity to comment on this manner. Sincerely, Taylor Huinker Area Hydrologist CC: Dan Petrik, DNR Land Use Specialist November 20, 2020 Dear Planning Commissioners: We are writing to share our concerns about the significant risks posed by the proposed Valley View Oak 3rd Addition at 1101 Victoria Curve. We believe that this project could further a long history in Mendota Heights and the surrounding area of bluff collapse and expensive damage to public and private property. Friends of the Mississippi River (FMR) is a non-profit organization with a mission to engage community members and other stakeholders to protect, restore and enhance the Mississippi River and its watershed in the Twin Cities region. We represent thousands of people in the metropolitan area who care deeply about the river, including a growing membership of over 2,700 people and more than 3,200 volunteers and 2,000 advocates engaged each year. As you know, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has issued an updated definition of “bluff” for the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA). The DNR defines a bluff as having a grade of 18 percent or higher, whereas Mendota Heights’ current definition is based on a 40 percent grade. When Mendota Heights adopts its new MRCCA ordinance, buildings on this specific property will required to be set back 40 feet from any slope with a grade of 18 percent or higher. The proposed project doesn’t come close to meeting this standard. The Mississippi River bluffs are a tremendous scenic and ecological asset to Mendota Heights and are part of our national park, the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area. The updated DNR MRCCA rules, intended to guide riverfront development in a way that protects the bluffs, were created through years-long stakeholder engagement processes. That public input should be honored. There is also a science-based rationale for this updated requirement. The bluffs in this part of the metro area are particularly fragile and prone to erosion and collapse, including several high- profile landslides that have closed roads and trails, damaged buildings, and even taken human lives. As the DNR noted in their comments to you, human modifications to slopes increase the risk of collapse. Just a few weeks ago, a significant bluff collapse happened less than a mile from this proposed development site, damaging a popular trail and bringing the buildings along the top of that bluff perilously close to the edge. The future will present additional challenges for buildings on steep slopes. As climate change brings about more extreme weather events more frequently, rainfall and other factors will accelerate bluff erosion. Each erosion incident brings structures closer to the bluff's edge. Betting on the long-term stability of a bluff is a risky liability for any property developer or owner. Remediation projects, when they become necessary, are incredibly expensive. (Property owners should start setting money aside now for these future expenses.) We have seen too many landslides in this area to allow more risky development on bluffs. How many more bluff collapses will it take before we learn to stop permitting these projects? How much more damage to public roads and trails? How many more buildings hanging over the bluff’s eroded edge? We strongly encourage Mendota Heights leaders to find a path to development of 1101 Victoria Curve that complies with the DNR’s updated bluff development standards. This may include working with the property owner to redesign the project or placing a temporary moratorium on the issuance of Critical Area permits until the city’s MRCCA ordinance is updated. Thank you for your careful consideration of this proposed project. Sincerely, Whitney L. Clark Executive Director Planning Staff Report DATE: November 24, 2020 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2020-23 LOT SPLIT /WETLANDS PERMIT / VARIANCE APPLICANT: Paul Rice & Kaitlin Gardner (Frank Klein – Owner) PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1826 Valley Curve Road ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: December 28, 2020 for Variance & Wetlands Permit / February 27, 2020 for Lot Split (Subdivision) Request DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Paul Rice and Kaitlin Gardner are requesting approval to subdivide the property located at 1826 Valley Curve Road. This subdivision request requires city approval before any plat or survey can be accepted and recorded by Dakota County. The property is owned by Frank Klein, the grandfather of Mrs. Gardner. The request also includes a wetlands permit and variance to the front-lot line average setback rules. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcels. City did not receive any objections to this request. BACKGROUND The subject site is an irregular shaped lot of 33,483-sf. or 0.77 acres. The property is generally located at near the intersection where Valley Curve Road and Willow Lane meet (see image – below). The existing home is a single-story walk-out rambler built in 1986, with 2,837-sf. of finished floor area. The proposed lot split would effectively create a new parcel in the westerly undeveloped area of the lot. Packet Pg. #68 Planning Report Case #2020-23 Page 2 LOT SPLIT  Project Description The Applicant proposes to keep the existing single-family dwelling and subdivide the lot into two single- family lots, as illustrated on the survey drawing dated 11/15/2020 Brandt Engineering and Surveying.  Parcel A: this parcel is located on the east side of the original parcel, and will consist of 17,137- sf. of land area. The lot contains 130.4 feet of frontage along Valley Curve. No changes are planned to the existing dwelling.  Parcel B: this parcel will be created on the west side of the subject property. The new lot consists of 16,346 sq. ft. in area. This parcel will have 170.6 feet of frontage along Valley Curve.  All new lots to be created under this subdivision will have new perimeter drainage and utility easements dedicated along the front, sides and rear lot lines of each parcel. The subject property (Lot 5) was originally platted under the Valley Curve Estates plat in 1986. This plat included extensive drainage and utility easements between the properties, which included “coverage” of the Marie Creek waterway (see plat image – below). Packet Pg. #69 Planning Report Case #2020-23 Page 3 These easements are somewhat more than those easements normally platted with other lots; which can create some limitations or site impacts with future development of the newly created parcel.  Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s request to subdivide the subject parcel into two parcels, consisting of approximately 0.42 acres and 0.47 acres respectively, makes each new lot consistent with the LR density level of 2.9 units per acre. According to the Comprehensive Plan, “Infill sites” are meant to be any property in Mendota Heights that has the opportunity to develop, or redevelop, beyond its current level. The City’s policies for consideration of development in these areas are noted as follows: o Require that any new development or redevelopment meets all zoning and subdivision regulations. o Avoid access and traffic which unduly burdens just a few properties. o Ensure that development of infill sites will not result in any negative impact on existing environmental conditions, such as soils, wetlands, drainage, or similar factors. o Require that all development of infill sites provide access to a public street, new or existing. o Ensure that land uses are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and do not reflect a “spot- zoning” pattern. o Avoid infill development that relies on private street or “flag-lot” design.  Zoning Requirements Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district. As shown in the table below based on the attached survey, the proposed parcels are compliant with the R-1 District’s lot area and width standards: Standard Subject Parcel New Parcel A New Parcel B Lot Area 15,000 SF 33,483-sf. (0.77 ac.) 17,137-sf. (0.42 ac.) 16,346-sf. (0.47 ac.) Lot Width 100 ft. 301-ft. 130.4-ft. 170.6-ft. WETLANDS PERMIT If the lot split is approved, the Applicant intends to construct a single-family residential dwelling on the new parcel. Title 12-2-6(A) of the Code requires a wetlands permit for the construction, alteration, or removal of any structure within the 100-foot wetland or water resource-related buffer area. As indicated on the Survey/Site Plan, there is a creek (Marie Creek) situated along the rear section of the property. This creek channel has been identified and surveyed out on the plans, and includes a 25-ft. offset or buffer edge from the upper (closest) bank of the creek channel. Although this buffer is not required by City Code, it is recommended to be implemented or included on any new development near or adjacent to recognized wetland features throughout the city. In an effort to avoid another planning application approval process prior to applying for a building permit to construct the dwelling, Staff recommended the Applicant seek approval of a wetlands permit in conjunction with the other requests. Packet Pg. #70 Planning Report Case #2020-23 Page 4 The purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the Code is to (Title 12-2-1): 1. Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-related areas; 2. Maintain the natural drainage system; 3. Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from excessive sedimentation; 4. Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and 5. Ensure safety from floods. There is an approximate difference of 8 feet from the front edge of the house pad (830’) to the upper bank of the creek channel (822’). It is unknown if the Applicant is seeking to build a walkout feature with the new home. Staff believes the construction of a dwelling on newly-created parcel with the creek channel along the rear part of the yard, should have little if any negative impacts on the surrounding wetlands and water feature, especially with the identification and inclusion of the wetland buffer and easements that will remain along the creek channel. Stream bank erosion has taken place along Marie Creek in the past. The 25-foot non-disturb buffer area that is now part of the wetlands permit review process helps to protect stream banks from surface runoff caused by impervious surfaces. With the non-disturb area in place, erosion is more likely to be caused by the velocity of water moving within the creek itself than is likely from surface runoff. Neighboring owners have installed various walls and rip-rap features to help stabilize their adjacent embankments. The Applicants indicated in their narrative their commitment to not build within the 25-ft. buffer space; and they wish to install a raingarden in the back-yard to protect the creek. City staff will work with the Applicants to assist in the siting and design of the raingarden if needed; and provide professional resources on the types of plantings that will provide natural, but adequate cover and stability to the surrounding areas. VARIANCE Title 12-1D-4-D-2 of the Code requires the following: Whenever buildings have been built on one side of the street between two (2) intersections, no building shall hereafter be erected to extend closer toward the street than the average of the required district setback and average setback of the adjoining principal structures. Front-yard setbacks of 30-ft. are normally required for R-1 lots; but according to the zoning rule Sect. 12- 1D-4-D-2 described above, any new home built on Parcel B would technically need to meet an average setback between the existing home to the east at 1826 Valley Curve and 1824 Valley Curve to the west. The existing house has an established setback of 28.4-ft. from the front lot line. The neighboring parcel to the west at 1824 Valley Curve has a setback of 53.1 ft. The Applicant was advised to show or include a proposed “house pad” site on the new lot and illustrate how a new dwelling would fit on the newly created parcel. Utilizing the average setback between both properties, a setback of 40.75-ft. would be needed. A setback of that scale would result in a very limited and small building pad, due to the limitations created on the back side with the existing drainage easements and creek buffer. City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variance requests. The city must consider a number of variables when recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i) practical difficulties; and (ii) impact to the community. The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality or neighborhood. It is also noted that economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Packet Pg. #71 Planning Report Case #2020-23 Page 5 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. As part of any variance requests, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and findings to the Three-Part Variance test questions, whereby demonstrating or justifying the need of the variance. In this report, the applicant’s responses are noted below (in italic text), followed by staff responses: 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance. Applicant’s Response: 1) Creek running along the property: The first practical difficulty that we have encountered is related to a stream the runs along the north side of the property. The stream, although beautiful, adds an almost 35 feet no build zone. This creates much less room for us to build. If we want to build, we will have to go as close as possible to the 25 foot buffer of the stream, impeding on the natural environment. We would prefer to leave 28-ish feet between us and the stream. 2) House to the west has large setback: the house to the west of this lot is very unique. It is a corner lot without a house behind it, meaning it is bordered by the road on 3 sides. It is a very large lot, and the owner set his house back almost 53 feet. That means that the shoestring rule of averaging the east and west houses forces us deep into our lot. We have attached a picture to the letter of intent to outline this. 3) A lot of dirt: the further back we are, the more dirt we need to truck in. We would prefer to truck in less dirt, as the more dirt we add the more we disturb the natural environment. 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. Applicant’s Response: Due to the unique creek on the property, the home is already set forward 25 feet from the creek. Thus, conforming to the 30 foot setback would allow for more space for a home to be built. In addition, the creek creates a setback different from the normal rear yard setback. 3. The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Applicant’s Response: No, the creek isn't being maintained on the south side. By building a home on this property it would give us the ability to maintain the creek especially well. Additionally, we theorize that by having a similar setback to the house to the east it will make the neighborhood appear more symmetrical and aesthetically pleasing. Packet Pg. #72 Planning Report Case #2020-23 Page 6 Variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff finds that the request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the R-1 One Family Residence district, as any new (proposed) dwelling will be consistent and allowed as a permitted use in the underlying zoning. The city is not allowed to permit a variance on any use not allowed in the district where the property is located (i.e. “use variance”); and this variance is not requesting such use. The R-1 districts are most predominant throughout the community; and the zoning standards are intended to maintain proper spacing between structures, roadway, and ecological features, and sustain the general character of neighborhoods. The subject property is designated as LR-Low Density Residential in the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and the same is called for proposed 2040 Plan. Certain land use goals and policies are noted below: • LUG #1: Maintain and enrich the mature, fully developed residential environment and character of the community. • LUP #5: Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level in community development and building. • LUP #2.2.2: Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level in community development and building. The guiding principles in the comprehensive plan provide for maintaining, preserving, and enhancing existing single-family neighborhoods. The requested variance would preserve the residential character of the neighborhood and would provide a substantial investment in a property to enhance its overall use and enjoyment by the owner. The proposed dwelling should pose no threat or any negative effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. This new home and request for variance can be viewed or considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans for the community. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the Lot Split, Wetlands Permit and Variance to the Average Front Yard Setback Rule, for the property located at 1826 Valley Curve Road, based on the following findings-of-fact that support the applications requested herein, and noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance for a reduced setback, by: i.) Any proposed dwelling for the newly created lot should be consistent with other homes and properties throughout the surrounding neighborhood, and the overall use and enjoyment of the existing property and home does not change even with the allowance of the variance on the new dwelling; therefore the requested variance can be considered a reasonable request. ii.) the allowance of this variance to match (closely) the front-yard setbacks with the existing dwelling on the subject property, is considered reasonable under this request. Packet Pg. #73 Planning Report Case #2020-23 Page 7 iii.) The location and meandering nature of the creek in the rear yard, along with the existing drainage and utility easements along the rear lot area, generates some unique circumstances or difficulties for the Applicant to meet the average setback of the adjoining principal structures on each side of this new lot, except by means of this variance. iv.) approving the Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as the neighboring properties and residential neighborhood area will not be affected by the approval of this variance; and v.) This new addition and request for variance is considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans for the community. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance needed for this addition will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of the Variance is for 1826 Valley Curve Road only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by city staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The proposed lot split request meet the overall spirit, purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. F. The proposed subdivision and any new (future) residential dwelling will not create any negative impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood. G. The two, newly-created parcels meet the R-1 One Family Residential Zoning District standards for lot area and width. H. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2020- 23, dated and presented November 24, 2020 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2020-____. (final number to be assigned later) I. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon a property when considering certain land use approval requests, including variances. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the proposed development. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows: i.) Park dedication fee in the amount of $4,000 (in lieu of land dedication) must be paid prior to the resolution authoring the Lot Split is recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any building permit by the City. ii.) The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any excavation or construction of the new dwelling. iii.) Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. Packet Pg. #74 Planning Report Case #2020-23 Page 8 iv.) All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. v.) The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with associated easements, subject to review and approval by the City Public Works Department as part of any building permit application. vi.) No disturbance shall occur within 25 feet of the edge of Marie Creek, besides installation of erosion control measures during construction, or installation of rain gardens and/or plantings and landscaping with city approvals. vii.) Any land disturbance activities shall be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document. viii.) Residential 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 adhered to by the Applicant/Owner and all contractors working on the property. ix.) Approval of the variance is contingent upon City Council approval of the application and corresponding site plan. If the variance is approved by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed addition within one-year from said approval date. 2. Recommend denial of the Lot Split, Wetlands Permit and Variance for the property located at 1826 Valley Curve Road, based on the following findings-of-fact that confirm the Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting approvals to one or all of these application, noted as follows: A. The proposed Lot Split (subdivision) does not meet the general purpose and intent of the City Subdivision Code and is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. The proposed addition and development of a new lot next to this Marie Creek water feature does not meet the general purpose and intent of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code, and such development will negatively impact this important waterway feature and impact surrounding neighborhood drainage systems. C. 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.” D. The Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a Variance for the reduced setback. The proposed addition is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and the fact the addition requires a variance to a normal setback standard is not considered a reasonable use of the property. E. 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). Packet Pg. #75 Planning Report Case #2020-23 Page 9 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration to Alternative No. 1, approval of the Lot Split, Wetlands Permit and Variance with findings-of-facts to support the granting of said applications requested under this Planning Case No. 2020-23. Attachments 1. Aerial/Site Location Map 2. Planning Application – with Application Responses for Each (Narrative) 3. Survey / Site Plan Packet Pg. #76 SITE PICTURES – 1826 Valley Curve Road LOOKING NORTHWARD - INTO NEW LOT LOOKING NORTH – INTERIOR OF NEW LOT LOOKING NORTH – NEIGHBORS HOME MARIE CREEK MARIE CREEK LOOKING SOUTH – TOWARDS VALLEY CURVE Packet Pg. #77 Planning Report Case #2020-23 Page 11 LOOKING WESTERLY – TOWARDS NEIGHBORING HOME LOOKING EASTERLY – TOWARDS EXISTING HOME Packet Pg. #78 Packet Pg. #79 Paul Rice and Kate Gardner 1826 Valley Curve Road, Mendota Heights MN Letter of Intent for Variance Application: This letter is meant to inform the city of Mendota Heights of our plan to create a new subdivided lot from Frank Klein's existing lot at 1826 Valley Curve Road. This new lot and the old lot will conform to the city's zoning guidelines around lot square footage, lot frontage, and set back requirements. Once we are done with the subdivision and procurement of required permits, we intend to build a house on the lot. We have attached a survey that shows our newly split lot, along with a potential house in relation to the creek outlined below. As true environmentalists, we are aware that we will be removing trees from the lot in order to build our dream home. We do not do this lightly, and plan on planting new trees per any city requirement to replace whatever we remove. We have also taken the time to notice and document a creek that runs through the back of the lot. We have noted its location, and determined and commit to not build within 25 feet of its location along our lot. We intend to install and maintain a rain garden for the purpose of protecting the creek and helping to maintain the current location of the creek. As it relates to the variance, we are requesting that instead of taking the average of two stringline setbacks from east and west neighbors, that we follow the east neighbors stringline setback/the city zoning requirement of 30 feet back. The first reason we wish to be granted a variance is related to the ecosystem of the stream behind us. If we are not granted a variance, we will have to push our house as close as it can be to the stream. We want to preserve as much area as possible around the stream and would love to preserve even more than 25 feet. This variance would allow us to do that. In addition, if we are granted this variance we will be able to remove less trees and preserve more of the wooded area. Additionally, the neighbor to the west has an extremely large lot that takes up the entire city block. This gave that neighbor the ability to put his house deeply into the lot: 52 feet back. The house to the right of our proposed lot split is only 28 feet back, meaning we would have to push our house back quite a bit. As you can see from the picture below, we have highlighted the house to the west and how unique the lot is. It is a comer lot with streets on the south, west, and north side. We think Packet Pg. #80 that given how far the house will be from our proposed house, it will be more aesthetically pleasing to have our house conform to the 30 foot rule. u.:,~ . • 1 I ~w:,~ vv IMl<:.UW:, ~ vv As you can see from the picture above, his lot doesn't have a house to the north. His house is boxed in black ink. That means he/she was free to push their lot deeper, given how large his lot is. We outlined our lot in red, to show how much less depth it has. This will allow for a more aesthetically pleasing and symmetrical neighborhood street view as the east home has a similar sized yard with backyard neighbors versus the west home is a comer lot which takes up the whole comer and is father away from this property. In addition, in this lot there is a creek which requires no building within 25 feet of the creek. This leaves a larger backyard setback, so in order to build a nice home, it would be most beneficial to have the string-line setback at 30 feet per the existing zoning requirements. Packet Pg. #81 Finally, through having a 30 feet setback this would allow for less dirt to be brought in to support the home father back from the standard zoning setback. Packet Pg. #82 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendotn Heights, MN 55118 6514521850 phone i 651452 8940 fax www mendota-he,ghts com mJ CITY OF :.:.:., MENDDT A HEIGHTS VARIANCE APPLICATION-CHECKLIST & RESPONSE FORM Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. Application submittal deadlines are available on the City's website or by contacting the City Planner. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. Office Use Only: Case#: --------- App Ii cant: _______ _ Address : --------- The City Council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted in cases where there are practical difficulties in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. "Practical difficulties", as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Please consider these requirements carefully before requesting a variance. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: • Electronic and hard copies of all the required materials must be submitted according to the current application submittal schedule. • Submit 1 electronic copy and 2 hard copies (full-size/to-scale) of all required plans. The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: 9( Fee, as included in current Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights). NOTE: Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees which may be required to complete the project. }( Completed Application Form(s). ~ Letter of Intent. ~ Required Plans. APPLICANT MUST CHECK ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE SUBMITTAL Sketch Plan (to-scale drawing or certified survey, if determined necessary): ~ Location and setbacks of all buildings on the property in question including both existing and proposed structures. ~ Location of any easements having an influence upon the variance request. a Written consent and waiver of public hearing, in a fo rm presc ribed by the city, by the owners of property within one hundred feet (100') of the boundaries of the property for which the Variance Application (2019) Page 1 of3 Packet Pg. #83 variance is requested, accompanied by a map indicating the location of the property in question and the location of the property owners who have given consent; or, lacking such consent, a list of names and addresses of the owners of property within one hundred feet (100') of the boundaries of the property for which the variance is requested. \~.:'/l If topography or extreme grade is the basis on which the request is made, all topographic ~ .. / contours shall be submitted. ]:iJ If the application involves a cutting of a curb for a driveway or grading a driveway, the applicant shall have his plan approved by the city public works director prior to construction. Please complete the attached questions regarding your request. Responses will be presented to the Planning Commission & City Council. Please answer the following three questions as they relate to the variance request. (Note: you may fill-in this form or create your own) 1. Are there any practical difficulties that help support the granting of this variance? (Note: "practical difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by City Code. Economic considerations along do not constitute a practical difficulty). ! YES ONO Please describe or identify any practical difficulties and/or how you plan to use the property in a reasonable manner below: 1) Creek running along the property: The first practical difficulty that we have encountered is related to a stream the runs along the north side of the property. The stream, although beautiful, adds an almost 35 feet no build zone. This creates much less room for us to build. If we want to build, we will have to go as close as possible to the 25 foot buffer of the stream, impeding on the natural environment. We would prefer to leave 28ish feet between us and the stream. 2) House to the west has large setback: the house to the west of this lot is very unique. It is a corner lot without a house behind it, meaning it is bordered by the road on 3 sides. It is a very large lot, and the owner set his house back almost 53 feet. That means that the shoestring rule of averaging the east and west houses forces us deep into our lot. We have attached a picture to the letter of intent to outline this. 3) A lot of dirt: the further back we are, the more dirt we need to truck in. We would prefer to truck in less dirt, as the more dirt we add the more we disturb the natural environment. Variance Application (2019) Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. #84 2. Are there any circumstances unique to the property (not created by the owner) that s~,.Pport the granting of this variance? r:A_ YES O NO Please describe or identify anv uniaue circumstances below: Due to the unique creek on the property, the home is already set forward 25 feet from the creek. Thus, conforming to the 30 foot setback would allow for more space for a home to be built. In addition, the creek creates a setback different from the normal rear yard setback. 3. If the variance was granted, would it alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 0 YES j NO Why or Why Not? Please explain how the reauest fits with the character of the neighborhood. No, the creek isn't being maintained on the south side. By building a home on this property it would give us the ability to maintain the creek especially well. Additionally, we theorize that by having a similar setback to the house to the east it will make the neighborhood appear more symmetrical and aesthetically pleasing. The City Council must make affirmative findings on all of the criteria listed above in order to grant a variance. The applicant for a variance has the burden of proof to show that all of the criteria listed above have been demonstrated or satisfied. Variance Application (2019) Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. #85 Packet Pg. #86 Packet Pg. #87 Packet Pg. #88 Packet Pg. #89 Packet Pg. #90 Planning Staff Report DATE: November 24, 2020 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2020-24 LOT SPLIT (SUBDIVISION) and CRITICAL AREA PERMIT APPLICANT: Steve Norton / Keith Ostrosky (Owner) PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1680 Lexington Avenue ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: March 10, 2021 (120-days) DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Mr. Steve Norton, acting on behalf of the owner Keith Ostrosky, is requesting approval to subdivide the residential property located at 1680 Lexington Avenue. This subdivision request requires city approval before any plat or survey can be accepted and recorded by Dakota County. The critical area permit (CAP) is required for any subdivision approval of properties situated in the Critical Area Overlay District. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcels. The city has not received any comments for or against this request. BACKGROUND The subject properties is located at the SE corner of Lexington Ave. and Sibley Memorial Hwy. The site is 2.8 acres in size; and has 383.5-ft. of frontage along Lexington Avenue and approx. 322-ft. along Sibley Memorial Highway. The property contains a one story, single family dwelling, originally built in 1952, with approximately 2,075 finished floor area. The existing driveway access is on Lexington only. Packet Pg. #91 Planning Report: Case #2020-24 Page 2 The site is heavily wooded and impacted by a bluff line along the mostly northerly sections of the lot (see Bluff Impact Zone overlay – map image below). The Survey/Site Plan includes a delineation line of the mapped bluff on the property; and includes the 40- ft. offset buffer from this bluff edge. The property recently experienced a fire that caused extensive fire, smoke and water damage to the dwelling. Mr. Ostrosky has elected not to re-build the home, and instead has listed the property. A potential buyer expressed a desire to remove the damaged home, split the large parcel into two parcels, and create an opportunity to develop two new single-family dwellings on each lot. ANALYSIS  Lot Split / Project Description The applicant has submitted a Survey/Site Plan that illustrates the lot split, prepared by Solution Blue.  Parcel A: this proposed parcel is approximately 47,412 sf. in area (1.09 acres), with 283.5-feet of roadway frontage along Lexington Avenue.  Parcel B: this proposed parcel is approximately 77,585-sf. in area (1.78 acres), with 100-feet of frontage along Lexington Avenue and 322 feet along Sibley Mem. Hwy. This parcel is uniquely designed in order to create the required 100-ft. frontage off Lexington Ave. At this 100-ft. offset from the most NW corner of the parcel, the proposed lot boundary line starts off perpendicular to the westerly parcel line; runs easterly for 150-ft. into the central part of the property; then turns at a right angle south for approx. 81 feet; then turns southeasterly to the south parcel line for a distance of 94.03 feet. This 94.03-ft. dimensioned line splits the two proposed house pads. Since MnDOT would not allow an access on to Sibley Highway, and due to the access limitation placed by Dakota County, staff had directed the Applicant to propose a lot split with the required frontage off Lexington; and by placing the lot line behind the new house pad for Parcel A, the city could recognize this as a front lot line boundary for establishing the new front-yard setback for Pad B, as well as the side-yard and rear yard setbacks.  Based on the proposed lot layouts, the Front Yard setback for Parcel A/Pad #1 is approx. 135-ft. from Lexington Ave., with Side Yard setback of 20-ft. from the south line. For Parcel B/Pad #2, the FY setback is 30-ft., and the Side Yard setback is 10-ft. from the south line. Packet Pg. #92 Planning Report: Case #2020-24 Page 3 The subject property has an existing driveway that comes off Lexington, which feeds up to the main house and three-car tuck under garage. The driveway juts out towards the bluff area, which allows for additional surface/outdoor parking, and has a small kidney shaped landscape island in the middle.  The plan calls for the two lots to continue to use the single driveway/access coming off Lexington Avenue, and provide a shared driveway to both properties. Since Lexington Avenue is also Dakota County Road No. 43, the County was asked to review the site plan and provide comments to the lot split proposal. They support the joint driveway design, as they do not wish to see any new driveway (for Parcel B) near the existing intersection of Lexington Ave. and SMH; and stated MnDOT would likely not allow any access from Sibley Memorial Highway. As indicated in the site/aerial image below, it appears part of the driveway encroaches over the property line with The Overlook Condominium to the south. The new plan shows that this driveway will be corrected.  The Site Plan calls for the straightening out of the driveway, so it will meet onto Lexington Ave. are more of a right angle. Dakota County has stated that any new work needed on this driveway in the county right-of-way will require a separate review and permit from the county. . Packet Pg. #93 Planning Report: Case #2020-24 Page 4  Shared Driveway Both parcels are planning to have a shared access coming off Lexington Avenue only. The plan calls for the installation of a new 24-ft. wide driveway, that leads up along the south lot line, at least 5-feet from the line, which is an acceptable setback. The driveway turns into a larger, shared pad between both parcels. This driveway pad is situated over the dividing lot line between both parcels, which does not meet a the required 5-ft. setback. Since the city has a number of shared driveways throughout the city, and since this upper area of potential development is somewhat limited, the Commission is asked to consider allowing this shared driveway to remain as shown, with the understanding both parcels will be share and maintain the joint driveway area, per a shared driveway agreement.  Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s request to subdivide the subject parcel into two parcels, consisting of approximately 1.09 acres and 1.78 acres respectively, makes each new lot consistent with and well below the LR density level of 2.9 units per acre. According to the Comprehensive Plan, “Infill sites” are meant to be any property in Mendota Heights that has the opportunity to develop, or redevelop, beyond its current level. The City’s policies for consideration of development in these areas are noted as follows: o Require that any new development or redevelopment meets all zoning and subdivision regulations. o Avoid access and traffic which unduly burdens just a few properties. o Ensure that development of infill sites will not result in any negative impact on existing environmental conditions, such as soils, wetlands, drainage, or similar factors. o Require that all development of infill sites provide access to a public street, new or existing. o Ensure that land uses are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and do not reflect a “spot-zoning” pattern. o Avoid infill development that relies on private street or “flag-lot” design.  Critical Area Permit According to Title 12-3-2 of the City Code, the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is: …to prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource to promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas, 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… The pertinent provisions of the Critical Area Overlay District that apply to this application are: Section 12-3-5. Site Plan Requirements: A: Site Plan Required: No building permit, zoning approval, or subdivision approval permit or certificate shall be issued for any action or development located in an area covered by this chapter until a site plan has been prepared and approved in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Section 12-3-8: Development Standards: A. Objectives: 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 Packet Pg. #94 Planning Report: Case #2020-24 Page 5 B. Structure Setbacks: All new structures shall meet the following minimum setbacks: 1. Setback from Bluff Line: No structure shall be constructed less than forty feet (40') landward from the bluff line of the river. 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. The proposed house pads are both shown to be situated outside of the 40-ft. buffer line from the bluff edge. The developed portion of the subject property is well over 690-feet from the edge of the Mississippi River to the north. The construction of the two new residential dwellings will (and must) comply with all standards and regulations of the city’s current Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant must demonstrate the development of this site will not impact neighboring residential properties, and must ensure that proper and positive drainage is maintained during and after construction of the new home. The Applicant has submitted a Soils Report from Soil Investigation and Design, Inc. The report indicated from the three site borings that no soil corrections were needed in this area. The report also provided general information and recommendation for drainage and groundwater considerations, which include proof-rolling, compacting and backfilling measures of materials around new foundations. Most of these suggested measures can be handled as part of any future building permit review process for both parcels. The Applicants has also submitted for review a Woodland Flora Inventory on the property from Davey Resource Group. This report provides a very accurate accounting and identification of the trees and vegetation scattered throughout the property. The new properties will be effectively screened from the neighboring Overlook Condos to the south by a very dense, wooded, and natural vegetated buffer between both properties (see aerial image – blue box outline – below). The Site Plan does not show the removal of any of these trees along this side yard area. The construction of these two new dwelling units should have little, if any effect upon the existing Mississippi Critical Area or the surrounding neighborhood environment. The report concludes “…the Packet Pg. #95 Planning Report: Case #2020-24 Page 6 significant trees on this property are in fair condition and provide essential habitat and refuge to local wildlife”. The report suggests management or mitigation of a few trees due to diseased or distressed conditions. 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 application; no additional comments received. Dakota County • Acknowledged receipt of the application by Mr. Gordon “Butch” McConnell, ROW/Permits Manager. Mr. McConnell stated no objections to this development request; and that a ROW Permit would be needed for any driveway improvement work in the county right-of-way. Minnesota Department of Transportation • Application and Survey/Site Plan and supporting materials were sent to the Metro-Reviews division of MnDOT. City did not receive any response. City of Lilydale • Plans and Hearing Notice were sent and mailed to the City Clerk/Treasurer of Lilydale. City did not receive any response.  Moratorium Issue At the November 17th City Council meeting, the council was asked to review a proposed draft ordinance to enact a moratorium on all critical area permit applications in the Critical Area Overlay District, and set a public hearing date for the December 1, 2020 meeting, whereby official consideration could be taken on this matter. The purpose of the moratorium was to allow staff to begin work on updating the new rules and standards for the Critical Area District (Miss. River Critical Corridor Area - or MRCCA). After considerable discussion, the Council elected not to set the hearing date; and instead chose to have the three pending planning cases (Nos. 2020-15; 2020-24 and 2020-25), all of which include a critical area permit request, to be fully reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission and City Council before enacting any moratorium at this time. Case Nos. 2020-15 and 24 are expected to be completed by December 1; while Case No. 2020-25 (Dakota Co. – Big Rivers Trailhead Project at Overlook Park) is scheduled to be presented at the December 22nd PC meeting and later at the January 12th meeting. Since this particular planning case request does not include a full site and layout plan on the two new homes proposed on each parcel, the new owner or developer of the property would still need to submit separate CAP applications for each home site. If this Lot Split and CAP is approved, staff is asking the Planning Commission to consider allowing a waiver or allowance (if possible) for the new owner to submit a critical area permit application for one or both parcels in the future, even if the moratorium is in place. Should the moratorium be enacted after this Lot Split and CAP request are considered, the new property owner may need to wait some time to fully develop the new lots until the new MRCCA rules or ordinance is adopted, which could take place much later next year. The Commission is free to discuss this issue and make a recommendation accordingly. Packet Pg. #96 Planning Report: Case #2020-24 Page 7 ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the Lot Split for 1680 Lexington Avenue, which would allow the splitting of the subject property into two (2) separate parcels in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations Ordinance, and a Critical Area Permit determined to be in compliance with the current general rules, policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District Ordinance, based on the findings-of-facts supporting such approval, with certain conditions as noted herein; or 2. Deny the Lot Split and Critical Area Permit request for 1680 Lexington Avenue, based on the findings-of-fact that support a denial on both applications since they do not meet certain rules, policies and standards of the Subdivision Regulations Ordinance or the Critical Area Overlay District Ordinance, as determined by the Planning Commission; or 3. Table the request; direct staff to work with the Applicants and allow them more time to prepare and present additional information for the Planning Commission to consider at a later meeting date, and extend the application review period if necessary. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission is asked to determine the effect of the proposed lot split on the character and development of the neighborhood in forming its recommendation to the City Council. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the lot split as submitted, with the following conditions: 1) The Owner/Developer shall dedicate new drainage and utility easements along the perimeter of each new lot per the approval of the Public Works Director. 2) Park dedication fee of $4,000 (in lieu of land - per current City policy) will be paid before the subdivision is recorded with Dakota County. 3) Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. 4) An individual (or joint) critical area permit application must be submitted for any future single- family development on Parcel A/Pad 1 and Parcel B/Pad 2. 5) The Applicant must prepare a shared driveway access easement agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney, which must be agreed to by both property owners of each new lot, signed, notarized, and recorded against both properties prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6) Any land disturbance activities must be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document. 7) Any new grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 8) Any and all construction work on site is limited to the hours between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday through Friday and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM weekends. 9) All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established and permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed. Packet Pg. #97 Planning Report: Case #2020-24 Page 8 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Lot Split (Subdivision) and Critical Area Permit for 1680 Lexington Avenue The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed lot split request meet the overall spirit, purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed subdivision and any new (future) residential dwelling will not create any negative impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood. 3. The newly-created parcels meet the R-1 One Family Residential Zoning District standards for lot area and width. 4. The proposed single-family dwellings proposed for each new lot meets the general purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District. 5. The newly-created parcel will have adequate building area for a conforming single-family dwelling within the Critical Area Overlay Zoning District and without the need for setback variances. 6. The proposed lot split will remove an existing nonconforming structure that exists on this site and will be replaced with two conforming developments and parcels. 7. The proposed shared driveway is necessary to allow access to the two parcels without creating an additional access onto the county roadway system (Dak. Co. Road #43) and State Highway 13/Sibley Memorial Hwy. 8. The proposed single-family dwellings will be a nice addition to the neighborhood, and keeps the established and overall residential character of the neighborhood intact. Packet Pg. #98 Packet Pg. #99 Planning Report: Case #2020-24 Page 10 Packet Pg. #100 1680 Lexington Ave. (Ostrosky) Property Information November 4, 2020 0 110 22055 ft 0 30 6015 m 1:1,200 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. LOCATION MAPPacket Pg. #101 64°37'08"HOUSE PAD 1+/- 2,325 SFHOUSE PAD 2+/- 2,125 SF+/- 37'+/- 30'+/- 50'+/- 17'+/- 70'+/- 45'+/- 26'+/- 50'24'12'24' 30'30'20'100' 30' FRONT YARD SETBACK 30' FRONT YARD SETBACK 30' FRONT YARD SETBACK 30' FRONT YARD SETBACK30' REAR YARD SETBACK 30' REAR YARD SETBACK10' SIDE YARD SETBACK10' SIDE YARD SETBACK10' SIDE YARD SETBACK10' SIDE YARD SETBACK10' SIDE YARD SETBACK30' REA R Y A R D S E T B A C K 30' FRONT YARD SETBACK5'5'20'40' BLUFF LINE SETBACK40' BLUFF LINE SETBACK40' BLUFF LINE SETBACK40' BLUFF LINE SETBACKEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEPROPOSEDLOT LINEPROPOSEDLOT LINEPROPOSED ACCESSEASEMENT (TYP.)PROPOSED ACCESSEASEMENT (TYP.)PROPOSED ACCESSEASEMENT (TYP.)EXISTINGPROPERTY LINEEXISTINGPROPERTY LINE100.00' 80.96'150.00'94.03'69.35'90.0°90.0°127.3° 90.0°COPYRIGHT © 2019 BY SOLUTION BLUE INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDSOLUTION BLUE PROJECT NO:REVISION HISTORYDATEDESCRIPTIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.DATE:REG. NO.CERTIFICATIONXX/XX/2019 XXXX#XXDESIGNED:REVIEWED:PHASE:SUMMARYDRAWN:INITIAL ISSUE:BENCHMARKS (BM)JRKJRKBJLJAY RONALD KOESTER, P.E.44333PRELIM.CADD USER: Jay Koester FILE: C:\USERS\JAY KOESTER\DROPBOX\PROJECTS\201001 - 1680 LEXINGTON AVE - NORTON REALTY\WORKING FILES\CAD\DWG\PLAN SHEETS\C300 - SITE.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1:1 PLOT DATE: 11/9/2020 3:20 PM( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALESBINKnow what'sR1680 LEXINGTON AVENUE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINESSOTABENJAMIN LUCAS11/XX/2020542652010011680 LEXINGTON AVENUENORTON REALTY11/09/2020BJL1OVERALL SITE PLANBJL----LEGENDPROPOSEDPROPERTY LINEEXISTINGLIMITS OF CONSTRUCTIONCURB & GUTTERSWALESIGN & BOLLARDADA PAVEMENT MARKINGSTANDARD DUTY ASPHALTHEAVY DUTY ASPHALTCONCRETE SIDEWALKCONCRETE PAVINGBUILDINGLIGHT POLESOIL BORINGSPARKING STALL COUNTMDWPacket Pg. #102 HOUSE PAD 1+/- 2,325 SFHOUSE PAD 2+/- 2,125 SF+/- 37'+/- 30'+/- 50'+/- 17'+/- 70'+/- 45'+/- 26'+/- 50'24'12'24' 30'30'20'100' ONT YARD SETBACK 30' FRONT YARD SETBACK 30' FRONT YARD SETBACK 30' FRONT YARD SETBACK30' REAR YARD SETBACK 30' REAR YARD SETBACK10' SIDE YARD SETBACK10' SIDE YARD SETBACK10' SIDE YARD SETBACK10' SIDE YARD SETBACK10' SIDE YARD SETBACK5'5'20'40' BLUFF LINE SETBACK40' BLUFF LINE SETBACK40' BLUFF LINE SETBACK40' BLUFF LINE SETBACKEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEPROPOSEDLOT LINEPROPOSEDLOT LINEPROPOSED ACCESSEASEMENT (TYP.)PROPOSED ACCESSEASEMENT (TYP.)PROPOSED ACCESSEASEMENT (TYP.)100.00' 80.96'150.00'94.03'69.35'90.0°90.0°127.3° 90.0°COPYRIGHT © 2019 BY SOLUTION BLUE INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDSOLUTION BLUE PROJECT NO:REVISION HISTORYDATEDESCRIPTIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.DATE:REG. NO.CERTIFICATIONXX/XX/2019 XXXX#XXDESIGNED:REVIEWED:PHASE:SUMMARYDRAWN:INITIAL ISSUE:BENCHMARKS (BM)JRKJRKBJLJAY RONALD KOESTER, P.E.44333PRELIM.CADD USER: Jay Koester FILE: C:\USERS\JAY KOESTER\DROPBOX\PROJECTS\201001 - 1680 LEXINGTON AVE - NORTON REALTY\WORKING FILES\CAD\DWG\PLAN SHEETS\C300 - SITE.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1:1 PLOT DATE: 11/9/2020 3:21 PMSBINKnow what'sR1680 LEXINGTON AVENUE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINESSOTABENJAMIN LUCAS11/XX/2020542652010011680 LEXINGTON AVENUENORTON REALTY11/09/2020BJL2ENLARGED SITE PLANBJL----LEGENDPROPOSEDPROPERTY LINEEXISTINGLIMITS OF CONSTRUCTIONCURB & GUTTERSWALESIGN & BOLLARDADA PAVEMENT MARKINGSTANDARD DUTY ASPHALTHEAVY DUTY ASPHALTCONCRETE SIDEWALKCONCRETE PAVINGBUILDINGLIGHT POLESOIL BORINGSPARKING STALL COUNTMDW( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALEPacket Pg. #103 HOUSE PAD 1+/- 2,325 SFHOUSE PAD 2+/- 2,125 SF+/- 37'+/- 30'+/- 50'+/- 17'+/- 70'+/- 45'+/- 26'+/- 50'24'12'24' 30'30'20'ONT YARD SETBACK 30' FRONT YARD SETBACK 30' FRONT YARD SETBACK 30' FRONT YARD SETBACK30' REAR YARD SETBACK 30' REAR YARD SETBACK10' SIDE YARD SETBACK10' SIDE YARD SETBACK10' SIDE YARD SETBACK10' SIDE YARD SETBACK10' SIDE YARD SETBACK5'5'20'860865870875880857858859861862863864866867868869871872873874876877878879881882865870870870875875875875880880 862863864866867867867868868868869869869871872873873873873874874874874876876876876877877 878 878 879879881881881881882882882882 87087586987187287387487687787787887887987988087988188288088188288240' BLUFF LINE SETBACK40' BLUFF LINE SETBACK40' BLUFF LINE SETBACK40' BLUFF LINE SETBACKEXTEND EXISTING 24"CULVERT FOR PROPOSEDIMPROVEMENTSPROPOSED BASINOUTFALL PIPE - BLINDCONNECTION TO 24"CULVERT EXTENSIONPROPOSED BASINOUTFALL PIPEPAD ELEVATION@ 882.50PAD ELEVATION@ VARIES882.50 TO 872.00PROPOSED 2' WIDEDIVERSION SWALEINTO LOT'S BASINPROPOSED 2' WIDEDIVERSION SWALEINTO LOT'S BASINLOT #2 BASINBOTTOM: 873.00EOF: 875.002' WIDE BERM: 876.0010-YR HWL: 87x.xx100-YR HWL: 87x.xxLOT #1 BASINBOTTOM: 867.00EOF: 869.002' WIDE BERM: 870.0010-YR HWL: 86x.xx100-YR HWL: 86x.xxCOPYRIGHT © 2019 BY SOLUTION BLUE INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDSOLUTION BLUE PROJECT NO:REVISION HISTORYDATEDESCRIPTIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.DATE:REG. NO.CERTIFICATIONXX/XX/2019 XXXX#XXDESIGNED:REVIEWED:PHASE:SUMMARYDRAWN:INITIAL ISSUE:BENCHMARKS (BM)JRKJRKBJLJAY RONALD KOESTER, P.E.44333PRELIM.CADD USER: Jay Koester FILE: C:\USERS\JAY KOESTER\DROPBOX\PROJECTS\201001 - 1680 LEXINGTON AVE - NORTON REALTY\WORKING FILES\CAD\DWG\PLAN SHEETS\C400 - GRAD.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1:1 PLOT DATE: 11/9/2020 3:21 PM( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALESBINKnow what'sR1680 LEXINGTON AVENUE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINESSOTA11/XX/20202010011680 LEXINGTON AVENUENORTON REALTY11/09/20203PRELIMINARY GRADING& DRAINAGE PLAN----LEGENDPROPOSEDPROPERTY LINEEXISTINGLIMITS OF CONSTRUCTIONTOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURTOPOGRAPHIC INDEX CONTOUR802800802800CURB & GUTTERSTORM SEWERDRAINTILESWALESPOT ELEVATIONDRAINAGE SLOPEFLARED END SECTION OUTLET1.0%800.00800.00RIP RAPBUILDINGFLARED END SECTION INLETGUTTER OUT CURBEOFEMERGENCY OVERFLOWSOIL BORINGS800.00Packet Pg. #104 Soil Investigation & Design, Inc. Project No. 10152020SoilIDD Soil Site Assessment 1680 Lexington Ave. S., Mendota Heights MN Prepared for: Solution Blue, Inc. 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1005 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Prepared by: Soil Investigation & Design, Inc. 2809 – 78th Ave. N Brooklyn Park MN 55444 11/5/2020 Packet Pg. #105 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose 1.2 Scope of Services 1.3 Authorization 1.4 Standard of Care 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Proposed Development 2.2 Site Description 3.0 INVESTIGATION AND TESTING 3.1 Subsurface Investigation 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4.1 Stratigraphy 4.2 Groundwater 4.3 Shoring opinion 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Site Soils 5.2 Drainage and Groundwater Considerations 6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES 7.0 CLOSURE APPENDICES Appendix A Limitations Appendix B Drawings Appendix C Borehole Logs Appendix D General Reference Material Packet Pg. #106 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose This report presents the results of a Soils Site Assessment prepared by Soil Investigation & Design, Inc. (Soil ID) for 1680 Lexington Ave. S., Mendota Heights MN, the soil properties relating to construction and recommendations for further investigation relating to the design of foundations and other aspects of the proposed construction. 1.2 Scope of Services The scope of work included the following: • Review of available data pertinent to the site. • Conduct a subsurface investigation. • Prepare this report of our findings, conclusions. 1.3 Authorization This assessment was performed and the report prepared in general accordance with our proposal. SOIL ID received authorization from Solution Blue, Inc. (Solution Blue) to proceed with the work. 1.4 Standard of Care The services performed by SOIL ID were conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the soils profession practicing contemporaneously under similar conditions in the locality of the project. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Limitations of this report are discussed in Appendix A. These limitations further explain the realities of soils engineering and the limitations that exist in evaluating soils issues. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Solution Blue, with specific application to the proposed project. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Proposed Development It is understood that the proposed development will consist of residential home(s). Soil ID Was not afforded the proposed site diagram prior to field work for the site. If the locations of the assumed loadings, proposed structures, floor elevations, or any other site features changes from the expected locations, SOIL ID should be notified so that the changes can be reviewed to determine if the recommendations presented in this report are still applicable. 2.2 Site Description The site is located on the on the southeast corner of STH 13 and Lexington Ave. S Mendota Heights, MN. The site is located in a large lot residential area and the lot is currently partially developed. Packet Pg. #107 The site consists of a single residential lot. The site has a slope from one (1) to 16 percent. This lot presented no obstacles for access Drainage across the site is directed to the west, north and south on the lot. 3.0 INVESTIGATION AND TESTING 3.1 Subsurface Investigation The field investigation to determine the soil characteristics of the subsurface materials included a reconnaissance of the project site, soil borings, performing standard observation and classification and testing if needed. The soil borings consisted of three (3) test borings at the locations depicted on Figure 1 (Appendix B). The soil borings were carried out on 11/3/2020 using a Simco B2400 drill rig and using continuous-flight augers. The boring 1 was located near the center of the lot (see Figure 1) at the place designated and drilled to a depth of 12 feet, groundwater was not encountered. We experienced auger refusal and presumed that the refusal was the result of encountering bedrock. The boring 2 was located near the south and west of boring 1 (see Figure 1) at the place designated and drilled to a depth of 4 feet, groundwater was not encountered. We experienced auger refusal and presumed that the refusal was the result of encountering bedrock. The boring 3 was located five feet south of boring 2 (see Figure 1) at the place designated and drilled to a depth of 5 feet, groundwater was not encountered. We experienced auger refusal and presumed that the refusal was the result of encountering bedrock. Soil samples were obtained at selected intervals in the soil test borings. Undisturbed soil samples were obtained with normal industry methods using a two inch (1”) split spoon driven by a 20 pound drop hammer. All samples were identified according to project number, boring number and depth. The results of the dynamic cone penetration test indicate the relative density and comparative consistency of the soils, and thereby provide a basis for estimating the relative strength and compressibility of the soil profile components. Water level observations were made during the boring operations and the results are noted on the boring logs. In relatively impervious soils, such as silty and clayey soils, the indicated elevations are considered reliable ground water levels at the time of the soil borings. A field log was prepared for each boring. Each log contained information concerning the boring method, samples attempted and recovered, indications of the presence of various materials such Packet Pg. #108 as silt, clay, gravel or sand and observations of ground water. It also contained an interpretation of subsurface conditions between samples. Therefore, these logs included both factual and interpretive information. The boring logs are included in Appendix C. On completion of each borehole, the hole was filled in with native soil materials. 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4.1 Stratigraphy The generalized subsurface profile for this region consists of outwash from glacial rivers. The following soil types were encountered in the soil test borings performed at the site: Soil test borings SOILID 1 encountered a thin layer of clayey material presumed to be from fill during construction of the home. Below that we encountered a soft silt Sand until auger refusal. Groundwater was not encountered during the soil boring. No reason for soil corrections was noted. Soil test borings SOILID 2 we encountered a soft silt Sand until auger refusal. Groundwater was not encountered during the soil boring. No reason for soil corrections was noted. Soil test borings SOILID 3 we encountered a soft silt Sand until auger refusal. Groundwater was not encountered during the soil boring. No reason for soil corrections was noted. Not found at the site was any evidence of fill from non-native materials. No debris, organic soils or other unconsolidated deposits were noted. Detailed description of the type of soil layers encountered during drilling is given in the borehole logs (Appendix C). The lines designating the interface between soil strata on the boring logs represent approximate boundaries, transition between materials may be gradual. 4.2 Groundwater Groundwater levels may fluctuate with seasonal climatic variations and changes in the land use. Excavation into the saturated zone is not advisable. Construction footings in the water table is not advisable and may be against local codes. Please note the bottom of footings should be placed at least one foot above groundwater levels. In some areas greater separation distances are required. Even with a slab on grade construction adequate drainage and/or a drainage/sump system should be established at this site. Drainage should be provided under the slab and foundations to allow water to flow to lower portions of the lot. 4.3 Shoring Opinion Generally temporary excavations of any type should either be shored or a sloped excavation completed. The soils at this site if dry could be classified as a C type soil. These soils should be excavated at a minimum of 1.5 foot horizontal to every 1 foot vertical within excavations. Slopes Packet Pg. #109 constructed in this manner may still exhibit surface sloughing. If site constraints do not allow the construction of slopes with these dimensions, then temporary shoring may be required. 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations presented in the following sections of this report are based on the information available regarding the proposed construction, the results obtained from our soil test borings and our experience with similar projects. Because the test borings represent a very small statistical sampling of subsurface conditions, it is possible that conditions may be encountered during construction that are substantially different from those indicated by the soil test borings. In these instances, adjustments to design and construction may be necessary. This soils report is based on the Site Plan and project information supplied to SOIL ID and the assumptions stated in this report. Changes in the proposed location or design of the structures can have significant effects on the conclusions and recommendations of the soils report. SOIL ID should be contacted in the event of such changes. 5.1 Site Soils The soils encountered at the site appear to be a mixture of outwash deposits soils. Bedrock was encountered. The soils exhibited poor bearing capacity. No debris or other materials were encountered. No poor structure, organic or other substandard soil materials were encountered. The soils encountered at the bore holes were Clays. 5.2 Drainage and Groundwater Considerations The site should be graded to provide positive drainage to reduce storm water infiltration. A minimum gradient of one percent for impervious areas should be maintained. A three percent gradient should be maintained for landscaped areas immediately adjacent (within 10 feet) to the building. In general, water should not be allowed to collect near the surface of the foundation or floor slab areas of the structures during or after construction. If water were allowed to accumulate next to the foundation, it would provide an available source of free water to the expansive soil underlying the foundation. Similarly, surface water drainage patterns or swales must not be altered so that runoff is allowed to collect next to the foundation. Temporary drainage provisions should be established, as necessary, to minimize water runoff into the construction areas. Since soils generally tend to soften when exposed to free water, provisions should be made to remove seepage water from excavations, should it occur. Also, undercut or excavated areas should be sloped toward one corner to facilitate the collection and removal of rainwater or surface runoff. Adequate protection against sloughing of soils should be provided for workers and inspectors entering the excavations. This protection should meet O.S.H.A. and other applicable building codes. Ground water seepage was encountered in one of our borings during drilling. Ground water Packet Pg. #110 seepage may be encountered within the proposed building foundation, utility trenches and grading excavations at the time of construction, especially after periods of heavy precipitation. Small quantities of seepage may be handled by conventional sump and pump methods of dewatering. Significant seepage may require an expert opinion on the best way to manage that water. Maintaining positive surface drainage throughout the life of the structure is essential. 6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES The recommendations presented in this report are contingent on SOIL ID observing and/or monitoring: • Proofrolling and fill Subgrade conditions; • Backfilling and compaction of excavations; • Suitability of borrow materials; • Fill placement and compaction; • Foundation subgrades; and • Compliance with the soils recommendations. 7.0 CLOSURE We trust that this report will assist you in the design and construction of the proposed project. SOIL ID appreciates the opportunity to provide our services on this project and looks forward to working with you during construction and on future projects. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, Soil Investigation & Design, Inc. I hereby certify that this plan, document, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Soil Scientist under the Laws of the state of Minnesota. November 5, 2020; License number: 30007 Sincerely, Paul Brandt PSS President Soil Investigation & Design, Inc. Packet Pg. #111 APPENDIX A LIMITATIONS This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the client for the design of the proposed development. The report may not be relied upon by any other person or entity without the written permission of SOIL ID Consulting. This report was prepared in accordance with current, generally accepted soils engineering practices. No other warrantee is provided. SOIL ID should be allowed the opportunity to review the soils aspects of plans and specifications prior to construction, to allow confirmation of the correct interpretation of the recommendations provided in this report. Foundation, earthworks, underground construction, and pavement construction should be undertaken only with full time monitoring by qualified personnel. SOIL ID can provide these services on request. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from a limited number of widely spaced subsurface explorations. The nature and extent of variations between these explorations may not become evident until construction or further investigation. If variations or other latent conditions do become evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. The recommendations contained herein are not intended to dictate construction methods or sequences. Instead, they are furnished solely to help designers identify potential construction problems related to foundation and earth plans and specifications, based upon findings derived from sampling. Depending upon the final design chosen for the project, the recommendations may also be useful to personnel who observe construction activity. Potential contractors for the project must evaluate potential construction problems on the basis of their review of the contract documents, their own knowledge of and experience in the local area, and on the basis of similar projects in other localities, taking into account their own proposed methods and procedures. The Scope of Services did not include any environmental assessment for the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater, or air, on or below or around this site. Any statements in this report or on the boring logs regarding odors, colors or unusual or suspicious items or conditions are strictly for the information of the client. Packet Pg. #112 APPENDIX B DRAWINGS Packet Pg. #113 Packet Pg. #114 APPENDIX C BOREHOLE LOGS Packet Pg. #115 Project:Solution Blue Project Location:2250 Longview Circle Orono MN Project Number:10152020SoilIDD Log of Boring 1 Date(s) Drilled November 3, 2020 Drilling Method Flighted Auger Drill Rig Type Simco B2400 Groundwater Level and Date Measured Not encountered. Borehole Backfill Cuttings Logged By TO Drill Bit Size/Type 3.5" Drilling Contractor Soil ID Sampling Method(s)Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Location SB 1 Checked By PJB Total Depth of Borehole 12 feet bgs Approximate Surface Elevation 880 Hammer Data Dynamic cone penetrometer.Material TypeCL-ML CL-ML CL-ML SW-SM REMARKS AND OTHER TESTSGraphic LogMATERIAL DESCRIPTION Tan Clay fill with inclusions of gravel. Tan to brown Clay fill, topsoil, some gravel, heavy Redox. Tan lean Clay, some gravel, heavy Redoximorphic features below 7.5 feet. Tan to brown Coarse Gravel 0.25 to 2.5 inch, Boring terminated, Auger refusal, probable bedrock surface. borehole backfilled with cuttingsDepth (feet)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Sample NumberSS1 SS 2 SS 3 SS 4Sample TypeSampling Resistance, blows/ft10 5 19 14Elevation (feet)880 875 870 865 860 855 850 H:\PROJECTS\Solution Blue\boringlogs.bg4[(master 0 lab).tpl]Sheet 1 of 1 Packet Pg. #116 Project:Solution Blue Project Location:2250 Longview Circle Orono MN Project Number:07152020SoilIDD Log of Boring 2 Date(s) Drilled July 29, 2020 Drilling Method Flighted Auger Drill Rig Type Simco B2400 Groundwater Level and Date Measured Encountered 12.0' Borehole Backfill Cuttings Logged By TO Drill Bit Size/Type 3.5" Drilling Contractor Soil ID Sampling Method(s)Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Location SB 2 Checked By PJB Total Depth of Borehole 4 feet bgs Approximate Surface Elevation 977 Hammer Data Dynamic cone penetrometer.Material TypeCL-ML CL-ML REMARKS AND OTHER TESTSGraphic LogMATERIAL DESCRIPTION Tan Clay fill with inclusions of gravel, Tan Silty Sand with inclusions of gravel, Boring terminated, Auger refusal, probable bedrock surface. borehole backfilled with cuttingsDepth (feet)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Sample NumberSS 1 SS2 SS 3 SS 4 SS 5 SS 6Sample TypeSampling Resistance, blows/ft60 18 16 12 18 60Elevation (feet)977 972 967 962 957 952 947 H:\PROJECTS\Solution Blue\boringlogs.bg4[(master 0 lab).tpl]Sheet 1 of 1 Packet Pg. #117 Project:Solution Blue Project Location:2250 Longview Circle Orono MN Project Number:07152020SoilIDD Log of Boring 3 Date(s) Drilled July 29, 2020 Drilling Method Flighted Auger Drill Rig Type Simco B2400 Groundwater Level and Date Measured Encountered 11.25 Borehole Backfill Cuttings Logged By TO Drill Bit Size/Type 3.5" Drilling Contractor Soil ID Sampling Method(s)Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Location SB 3 Checked By PJB Total Depth of Borehole 5 feet bgs Approximate Surface Elevation 978 Hammer Data Dynamic cone penetrometer.Material TypeSP-SM REMARKS AND OTHER TESTSGraphic LogMATERIAL DESCRIPTION Tan Silty Sand, some gravel. Boring terminated, Auger refusal, probable bedrock surface. borehole backfilled with cuttingsDepth (feet)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Sample NumberSS 1Sample TypeSampling Resistance, blows/ft15Elevation (feet)978 973 968 963 958 953 948 H:\PROJECTS\Solution Blue\boringlogs.bg4[(master 0 lab).tpl]Sheet 1 of 1 Packet Pg. #118 Project:Solution Blue Project Location:2250 Longview Circle Orono MN Project Number:10152020SoilIDD Key to Log of Boring Material TypeREMARKS AND OTHER TESTSGraphic LogMATERIAL DESCRIPTIONDepth (feet)Sample NumberSample TypeSampling Resistance, blows/ftElevation (feet)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS 1 Elevation (feet): Elevation (MSL, feet). 2 Depth (feet): Depth in feet below the ground surface. 3 Sample Type: Type of soil sample collected at the depth interval shown. 4 Sample Number: Sample identification number. 5 Sampling Resistance, blows/ft: Number of blows to advance driven sampler one foot (or distance shown) beyond seating interval using the hammer identified on the boring log. 6 Material Type: Type of material encountered. 7 Graphic Log: Graphic depiction of the subsurface material encountered. 8 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION: Description of material encountered. May include consistency, moisture, color, and other descriptive text. 9 REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS: Comments and observations regarding drilling or sampling made by driller or field personnel. FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST ABBREVIATIONS CHEM: Chemical tests to assess corrosivity COMP: Compaction test CONS: One-dimensional consolidation test LL: Liquid Limit, percent PI: Plasticity Index, percent SA: Sieve analysis (percent passing No. 200 Sieve) UC: Unconfined compressive strength test, Qu, in ksf WA: Wash sieve (percent passing No. 200 Sieve) MATERIAL GRAPHIC SYMBOLS SILTY CLAY (CL-ML)Poorly graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) Well graded SAND with Silt (SW-SM) TYPICAL SAMPLER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS Auger sampler Bulk Sample 3-inch-OD California w/ brass rings CME Sampler Grab Sample 2.5-inch-OD Modified California w/ brass liners Pitcher Sample 2-inch-OD unlined split spoon (SPT) Shelby Tube (Thin-walled, fixed head) OTHER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS Water level (at time of drilling, ATD) Water level (after waiting) Minor change in material properties within a stratum Inferred/gradational contact between strata ?Queried contact between strata GENERAL NOTES 1: Soil classifications are based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive, and actual lithologic changes may be gradual. Field descriptions may have been modified to reflect results of lab tests. 2: Descriptions on these logs apply only at the specific boring locations and at the time the borings were advanced. They are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times.H:\PROJECTS\Solution Blue\boringlogs.bg4[(master 0 lab).tpl]Figure B-1 Sheet 1 of 1 Packet Pg. #119 APPENDIX D General Reference Material (provided for your convenience) Packet Pg. #120 D.1 Site Preparation Building rubble, concrete foundations and any other debris noted at or below the existing ground surface should be removed as part of the site preparation for the proposed construction area. In all new fill and excavation areas, vegetation, topsoil, roots and other deleterious materials (typically 4 to 6 inches), deemed unsuitable shall be removed from the proposed construction areas, and replaced with controlled fill. Site clearing, grubbing and stripping will need to be performed only during dry weather conditions. Operation of heavy equipment on the site during wet conditions could result in excessive rutting and mixing of organic debris with the underlying soils. D.2 Excavations Temporary construction slopes should be designed and excavated in strict compliance with the rules and regulations of the Federal Register, Volume 54, No. 209 (October 1989), the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 29 CFR, Part 1926 or current edition. This document was prepared to better insure the safety of workers entering trenches or excavations, and requires that all excavations conform to the new OSHA guidelines. The contractor is solely responsible for protecting excavations by shoring, sloping, benching or other means as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. SOIL ID does not assume any responsibility for construction site safety or the activities of the contractor. For this site, the overburden soil encountered in our exploratory borings consisted of mostly fat clay. We anticipate that OSHA will classify these materials as type C. OSHA recommends a maximum slope inclination of 1.5H:1V for type C soils. Excavation requirements will vary depending on the actual soil conditions in some areas. Temporary construction slopes should be closely observed for signs of mass movement, such as tension cracks near the crest, bulging at the toe of the slope, etc. D.3 Structural Fill No structural fill is recommended for this site at this time. If during excavation it is determined that structural fill is required Soil ID should be contacted for recommendations. It is recommended that any structural fills be constructed as controlled, well-compacted engineered fills. Structural engineered fill should be inorganic, low plastic clay, sand, or gravel. Any existing soils with a high organic content (browns) are suitable for reuse as fill in landscaping areas only. It is recommended that only granular fill be used within the building footprint and within 5 feet of the building footprint. The intent of these recommendations is to reduce the potential for consolidation and settlement of new fills. Laboratory testing should be performed on the fill materials to determine the appropriate moisture-density relationship of the fill being placed. Adjustments to the soil moisture by wetting or drying should be made as needed during fill placement. During grading operations, representative samples of the proposed imported structural fill materials should be periodically checked via laboratory testing. A full-time representative from Packet Pg. #121 the testing agency should be on site to monitor excavation and grading operation as well as the suitability of fill materials. Suitable fill material should be placed in thin lifts (lift thickness depends on type of compaction equipment, but in general, lifts of 8 inches loose measurement are recommended). The soil should be compacted by the necessary compaction equipment to meet the specified compaction recommendations. Self-propelled compactors similar to Caterpillar Model 815 with tamping feet or sheepsfoot rollers may be required to adequately compact fine-grained fill material (silts and clay). If the fill material is granular (sands and gravels) with less than 10% clays and silts, smooth-drum vibratory compactors should be used. In addition, a smooth-drum roller should be provided to “seal” the fill at the end of each workday to reduce the impact of precipitation. In areas undergoing removal of seepage water, the engineered fill should be limited to well-graded sand and gravel or crushed stone. Within small excavations, such as in utility trenches (less than 24 inches in width), around manholes or behind retaining walls, we recommend the use of "wacker packers", "Rammax" compactors or vibrating plate compactors to achieve the specified compaction. Loose lift thickness of 4 inches are recommended in small area fills. We recommend that structural fill and backfill be compacted in accordance with the criteria stated in Table 1. A qualified field representative should periodically observe fill placement operations and perform field density tests at various locations throughout each lift, including trench backfill, to indicate if the specified compaction is being achieved. TABLE 1 STRUCTURAL FILL PLACEMENT GUIDELINES Areas of Fill Placement Compaction Recommendation(ASTM D698-StandardProctor) Moisture Content (Percent of Optimum) Granular cushion beneath Floor Slab and over Footings 98% As necessary to obtain density Structural fill supporting Footings 98% -1 to +3 percent Structural fill placed within 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the building pad 98% -1 to +3 percent Grade-raise fill placed within 1 foot of the base of the pavement 98% -1 to +3 percent Structural fill placed below the base of the Pavement Soil Subgrade 95% -1 to +3 percent Utility Trenches - Within building and pavement areas 98% -1 to +3 percent Beneath Landscaped/Grass Areas 92% As necessary to obtain density During construction, we recommend that fill materials placed in the building area have a liquid Packet Pg. #122 limit of less than 45, and a plasticity index of less than 25. Whenever possible, highly plastic silt (MH) or clay (CH) fill soils should not be placed within the upper 4 feet of the final ground elevation. Soils which have a liquid limit greater than 45 and a plasticity index greater than 25 will typically require removal or blending with less plastic materials to result in lower Atterberg limits. D.4 Foundation Design Based on the results of the soil test borings, laboratory testing and our evaluation, it is our opinion that the subsurface conditions are suitable for supporting the proposed structure include using 1. spread footings, or 2. bored cast-in-place concrete piles D.4.1 Spread Footings We recommend that footings be designed for a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 psf on the soil. The net allowable bearing pressures refer to the bearing pressure at foundation level in excess of the surrounding overburden pressure and does not include footing weight, backfill weight, or slab weight. Footings should have minimum dimensions in accordance with local buildings codes. All footings should be located so that the smallest lateral clear distance between footings will be at least equal to the difference in their bearing elevations. If this distance cannot be maintained, the lower footing should be designed to account for the load imparted by the upper footing. The recommended soil bearing capacity includes a factor of safety of at least 3 against shear failure. It is possible that some soils at the site will have an allowable soil bearing pressure less than the recommended design value. Therefore, foundation bearing surface evaluations should be performed by an SOIL ID representative during footing construction to aid in the identification of such soils. After the evaluations and any required remedial measures are performed, concrete should be placed as quickly as possible to avoid exposure of the foundation sub-soils to wetting, drying or freezing. If soils in the areas of foundation support are subjected to such conditions, the footings should be re-evaluated. D.4.2 Bored Concrete Piles The structure may be supported on bored, cast-in-place concrete piles it is not expected that these are necessary they are however, included as an alternative for design consideration. Bored concrete piles may be designed to resist static axial compressive reactions on the basis of the allowable skin friction and end bearing parameters provided in Table 2 TABLE 2 - PILE DESIGN CRITERIA Depth (Material) Skin Friction* End Bearing Packet Pg. #123 0 to 1.5 feet (Topsoil) 0 0 1.5 feet to 5 feet (Fill) 0 0 Below 5 feet (Alluvium) 200 psf 2000 psf * Skin friction should be neglected within fill strata. To achieve the above end bearing in the founding soil, the base of the pile must be free of water and loose or remoulded material prior to placing concrete. Under-reaming to form ‘belled’ piles should be feasible in the silty clay till. Pile installation monitoring and inspection by qualified soils personnel is required during construction of all bored cast-in-place concrete piles. D.5 Floor Slab Subgrade Preparation The soil subgrade in the areas of concrete slab-on-grade support is often disturbed during foundation and superstructure construction. Additionally, floor slab areas are often disturbed by construction equipment traffic between the time of initial grading and final pavement construction. The subgrade should be excavated to the design depth of the bottom of slab gravels. To prepare the subgrade, the top eight inches of the subgrade should be compacted to a minimum of 98% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698-91, Standard Proctor Moisture-Density Relationship. The moisture content should also be controlled to -1 to +3% of the optimum. The final subgrade should be proof-rolled and evaluated by a representative of SOIL ID immediately prior to placement of the engineered fill to detect any localized areas of instability or soft areas. If unstable soils are encountered which cannot be adequately densified in place, such soils should be removed and replaced with well-compacted fill material placed in accordance with the Structural Fill section of this report. The subgrade should be graded to a shallower slope than five horizontal to one vertical (5H:1V) prior to receiving general engineered fill material to reduce the effects of differential fill thicknesses. The prepared subgrade should be protected from drying, excessive moisture, and freezing. D.6 Floor Slab Design The recommended bearing capacity of the floor slab is 2000 psf. Should a greater bearing capacity be required, SOIL ID should review the recommendations presented in this report. The granular cushion beneath the floor slab, should be free-draining, well-graded and compacted by vibration prior to pouring the floor slab. A minimum of 4 inches of granular fill should be provided below the slab. he granular fill should be compacted according to the recommendations given in Structural Fills section of this report. The recommended minimum gravel thicknesses are required to promote uniform distribution of floor loads to the subgrade, and to bridge over newly constructed fill areas such as utility trenches. Thicker gravel courses may be required for structural considerations. A vapor barrier should be placed beneath the concrete slab. The slab should be allowed to float independently of all load-bearing walls and columns. Floating the floor slab independent from the wall and column loads with movable and/or Packet Pg. #124 expansion joints will be critical in minimizing the potential cracking which can occur along and around the proposed foundation system. In regards to the wall/floor structural detail, expansion joints and gap spacing are recommended at the wall/floor connection. A half-inch gap for movement between the floor slab and insulation board is recommended along with a bond break that allows independent movement between the floor slab and masonry block wall. A 4-inch-thick granular cushion is also recommended between the floor slab and top of column pad and wall footings. Resting the floor slab on top of column pads and wall footings is not recommended. Assuming the previously mentioned recommendations are performed, the risk associated with floor slab cracking will be reduced. D.7 Drainage and Groundwater Considerations The site should be graded to provide positive drainage to reduce storm water infiltration. A minimum gradient of one percent for impervious areas should be maintained. A three percent gradient should be maintained for landscaped areas immediately adjacent (within 10 feet) to the building. In general, water should not be allowed to collect near the surface of the foundation or floor slab areas of the structures during or after construction. If water were allowed to accumulate next to the foundation, it would provide an available source of free water to the expansive soil underlying the foundation. Similarly, surface water drainage patterns or swales must not be altered so that runoff is allowed to collect next to the foundation. Temporary drainage provisions should be established, as necessary, to minimize water runoff into the construction areas. Since soils generally tend to soften when exposed to free water, provisions should be made to remove seepage water from excavations, should it occur. Also, undercut or excavated areas should be sloped toward one corner to facilitate the collection and removal of rainwater or surface runoff. Adequate protection against sloughing of soils should be provided for workers and inspectors entering the excavations. This protection should meet O.S.H.A. and other applicable building codes. Ground water seepage was not encountered in our borings during drilling. However, minor ground water seepage may be encountered within the proposed building foundation, utility trenches and grading excavations at the time of construction, especially after periods of heavy precipitaion. Small quantities of seepage may be handled by conventional sump and pump methods of dewatering. Maintaining positive surface drainage throughout the life of the structure is essential. For all structural design issues a qualified professional engineer should be contacted. Packet Pg. #125 Woodland Flora Inventory 1680 Lexington Ave South City of Mendota Heights September 24th, 2020 Prepared for: Solution Blue 444 Cedar St, Suite 1005 St. Paul, MN 55101 Prepared by: Katie Karl ISA Certified Arborist MN-4820A 7085 Shady Oak Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 612-392-2405 – Office 612-392-2406 – Fax katie.karl@davey.com Packet Pg. #126 Scope of Work A flora inventory at 1680 Lexington Ave in Mendota Heights was conducted on October 19, 2020. Tree groupings were collected based on ecological transitions in the landscape. Primary factors for grouping include species, size, health, and understory composition. Area descriptions are separated by number and letters correlate to a specific significant tree which can be found in the inventory results and summary map below. Area Map Packet Pg. #127 Inventory Results Area 1 This section is located at the driveway entrance to the property and is primarily composed of mature basswood and elms ranging in 12-15” in diameter. Smaller 4-6” boxelders are also present and scattered throughout this area. Overall, the trees are in this area are in fair health. There is a dead 6” boxelder located near the road and driveway that could be hazardous. The understory is primarily buckthorn ranging from 1-2” in diameter. Area 2 This area, shown in the photo to the right, is located along the driveway and contains several oaks ranging from fair to poor quality. Significant trees include one bur oak, 22”a DBH, in fair condition but showing signs of dieback of large branches. There are also two red oaks measuring 30”b and 23”c DBH. These oaks are in poor condition due to extensive trunk decay and dieback of large branches. This understory is more diverse and includes weedy natives such as white snakeroot and goldenrod, as well as the invasive burdock and seedling buckthorn. Area 3 Area 3 contains one mature hackberry (13”) surrounded by an elm/ash forest ranging from 6-12”. Overall, the trees in this location are in good condition. There is a small pocket of 6” invasive and very aggressive black locusts that may begin seeding into the landscape. The understory is composed of 80% ground cover of 1-2” buckthorn. Area 4 Mature buckthorn understory growth dominates this area measuring 1-3” in diameter shown in the photo below. There are some larger boxelder, ash and elm on the edge of the property reaching up to 25 ”. Within the buckthorn stand is a mix of 8” or smaller DBH ash and basswood. Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) is present in ash trees along the street edge. One, 20” dead standing elm lines Lexington Ave with the possibility of obstructing the roadway. Significant trees include a 38”d basswood in poor condition showing signs of trunk decay. Packet Pg. #128 Area 5 This pocket is primarily composed of 3-9” ironwood trees. There are a few young 5-9” basswoods located along Lexington Ave, but there is a significant amount of light reaching the understory. In the image below, you can see buckthorn seedlings are beginning to emerge. Area 6 This section contains a grouping of mature oaks and basswoods. Red oaks and basswoods are in good condition ranging in 15-20” DBH and 24-30” DBH respectively. The understory is comprised of mature buckthorn ranging from 1-3 in diameter. Packet Pg. #129 Area 7 This stretch is located along Sibley Memorial Highway and the main slope of the property. Mature 8-15” Boxelders, ash, and elm line the property boundary and are scattered across the slope growing alongside 10-20” cottonwoods. All ash are showing signs of Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) infestation. The understory is exclusively mature 3-8” buckthorn. Significant trees include a large, 62”e Cottonwood in fair condition in the northeast corner of the property. Area 8 This area encompasses the bluff at the eastern edge of the property and can be classified as an unmanaged clear cut. There are elm, ash, and basswood resprouts competing with buckthorn seedlings. Ground cover consists of white snakeroot and goldenrod, two native and early colonizing species. It also contains the invasive species garlic mustard, burdock, and daylily which without intervention can spread across the landscape. Young green ash trees 2-4” in cleared area. There are some Boxelder, elm, and basswoods never reaching more than 15” DBH. These trees are listed in fair condition due to their recent exposure and possible decline from clearcutting. The image on the right shows the clear cut area looking down the slope. Area 9 This area encompasses all of the planted landscaping trees. On the north side of the property, the largest of the trees on the site includes a 40”f basswood in fair condition (shown on the right) due to large, over extending branches. There is also a 10” white pine, newly planted 3” paper birch, 29” cottonwood, and a 11” Norway maple all in good condition. Turf grass is managed surrounding the trees. For the south side of the property, there are two planted cedars, 7” and 11” as well as a 7” crabapple all in good condition. Packet Pg. #130 Area 10 This area makes up the southern edge of the property line. It is composed of mature 7-20” basswoods. One 20” bur oak in good condition. Moving west, the edge changes to mature 14 -25” cottonwoods and 6-18” boxelders, and 6-12” Siberian elms. Understory composed of 1” buckthorn, white snakeroot, burdock, and grape vine. Significant trees include a 22” bur oak. Planted landscape trees include. Summary Table Area Tree species DBH Range Condition 1 Boxelder Elm Basswood 4-6” 12-15” 12-15” Fair 2 Bur Oak Red Oak *a22” *c23, b30” Fair Poor 3 Elm Ash Hackberry 6-12” 6-12” 13” Good Poor Good 4 Ash Boxelder Elm *Basswood 4-25” 4-25” 12-25” *d38” Poor Fair Poor Poor 5 Ash Basswood Elm White Pine Norway Maple Cottonwood Basswood 8-15” 8-15” 8-15” 10” 11” 29” *e40” Poor Good Good Good Good Good Fair 6 Ironwood Basswood 3-9” 5-9” Good Good 7 Red oak Basswood 15-20” 24-30” Good Good Packet Pg. #131 8 Boxelder Ash Elm Cottonwood 8-15” 8-15” 8-15” 10-20” *f62” Good Poor Good Fair Fair 9 Boxelder Elm Basswood 3-15” Fair 10 Siberian Elm Boxelder Crabapple Cedar Basswood Cottonwood Bur oak 6-12” 6-18 7” 7-11” 7-20” 14-25” 20” Good *denotes significant tree Conclusion We receive many health and environmental benefits from healthy, mature trees and native woodlands. Well-maintained landscaping or restoring natural areas can increase property aesthetics and can have significant environmental benefits. The inventory above is meant to be a general overview and categorization of the woodland habitats for 1680 Lexington Ave. Overall, the trees on this property are in fair condition and provide essential habitat and refuge to local wildlife. The few hazard trees noted above should be managed before impacting roadways or structures. Packet Pg. #132