Loading...
2020-12-01 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA December 1, 2020 6:00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Adopt Agenda 5. Consent Agenda a. Approval of November 17, 2020 City Council Minutes b. Approve November 12, 2020 Work Session Minutes c. Acknowledge October 27, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes d. Approval of Canoe Rack Rental Policy e. Acknowledge August 2020 to October 2020 Fire Synopsis f. Approval of Claims List 6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) *See guidelines below 7. Public Hearing a. Resolution 2020-81 Approve Lot Split and Critical Area Permit - 1680 Lexington Avenue S b. Resolution 2020-82 Deny Preliminary Plat of Valley View Oak 3rd Addition with a Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit for Property Located at the NW Quadrant of Victoria Curve and Glenhill Road 8. New and Unfinished Business a. Resolution 2020-83 Approve Lot Split, Wetlands Permit and Variance for 1826 Valley Curve Road b. Resolution 2020-80 Approve Final 2020 Tax Levy Collectible in 2021 and Adopt Proposed Budget for 2021 c. Ordinance No. 561 Amending Title 4, Chapter 2 Solid Waste Abatement d. Future Meeting Format Discussion 9. Community Announcements 10. Council Comments 11. Adjourn Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: “The Citizen Comments section of the agenda provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. All are welcome to speak. Comments should be directed to the Mayor. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per person and topic; presentations which are longer than five minutes will need to be scheduled with the City Clerk to appear on a future City Council agenda. Comments should not be repetitious. Citizen comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens, nor will any decisions be made at that presentation. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Citizen comments will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made, but rather for hearing the citizen for information only. If appropriate, the Mayor may assign staff for follow up to the issues raised.” CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, November 17, 2020 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Councilors Duggan, Paper, and Miller were also present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Duggan requested to add item 8d. Discussion of COVID Impacts and Steps to Safeguard Mendota Heights and the community. Mayor Garlock moved adoption of the agenda as amended. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Miller moved approval of the consent calendar as presented, pulling item f. for a separate discussion. a. Approval of November 4, 2020 City Council Minutes b. Approval of November 12, 2020 Special City Council Minutes c. Acknowledge September 2020 Par 3 Financial Report d. Approve Resolution 2020-77 Accepting a Donation of Equipment to the Police Department e. Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) to Provide Recycling Services f. Approve Hiring of Probationary Firefighters page 3 g. Approve Solar Array Electrical Wiring Changes at the Mendota Heights Fire Station h. Approve Resolution 2020-78 Certifying Delinquent Sewer Accounts i. Approve Resolution 2020-79 Certifying Delinquent Water Accounts j. Approve the Building Activity Report k. Approve the Treasurer’s Report l. Approval of Claims List m. Acknowledge October 13, 2020 Park and Rec Minutes Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS F) APPROVE HIRING OF PROBATIONARY FIREFIGHTERS Councilor Duggan asked for an update in relation to the number of volunteer firefighters. Councilor Miller commented that six new members are being brought onboard. He stated that in the last few weeks they also had a member return to the department. He stated that as December begins the department will be one person shy of being fully staffed, meaning 35 of 36. He noted that they will work hard to bring the new recruits up to speed as soon as possible. Councilor Duggan commented that he is pleased that the Fire Department continues to attract members that want to volunteer their services. Councilor Duggan moved to approve HIRING OF PROBATIONARY FIREFIGHTERS. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the public wished to be heard. PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) CONSIDER CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A PROPOSED INTERIM ORDINANCE PLACING A MORATORIUM ON PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISION OR page 4 CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING ACTIVITY REGARDING A PERMIT FOR PROPERTIES SITUATED IN THE CRITICAL AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Council was being asked to consider setting a public hearing date to hear proposed Ordinance No. 560, which establishes temporary moratorium on any proposed and/or requested land use application request, including single-family, multi- family, business and industrial development; new subdivision plats; or construction activity requiring certain land disturbance or building permits. This moratorium would apply to all properties situated in the current Critical Area Overlay District. If the Council wishes to consider this interim ordinance, it should set a public hearing. Councilor Miller asked if a moratorium is a finite tool with an end life. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that moratoriums are finite up to one year, with one possible extension of 120 days. He stated that City staff would be to complete the work within that one-year period. Councilor Miller commented that he fully supports considering a public hearing for this purpose. He stated that it is important to allow the community to provide input in that transparent format. Councilor Paper stated that everything that the City does is transparent and clear, and the City does not do anything hidden or in secret. He asked why this action is being considered today and why it was not brought forward two weeks ago when a Critical Area Permit was approved, or when another project was approved within the last year. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the City is operating under the existing and current ordinance. He stated that the DNR has stated that the City can continue to operate under its existing ordinance until the new ordinance is adopted that meets the DNR rules. He stated that this moratorium would allow staff to study the rules and implement the new ordinance which impacts the properties within the Critical Area Overlay District. Councilor Paper asked the location of the three permits that are pending at this time. Community Development Director Tim Benetti reviewed the details of the pending applications that would be impacted by this moratorium. Councilor Duggan commented that the Culligan project has been in the process for several months, along with other applications that have been received before this consideration of a moratorium. He was unsure how the moratorium could be enacted without impacting the applications that have already been received. He commented on the use of the language “irreversible damage”. He recognized that the language is within our current ordinance and possibly the State language but asked if that language could be changed. He stated that this development proposed is not new and has been in the works for some time, therefore he was unsure how this moratorium would affect that application. page 5 Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that the three submitted applications are still proposed and have not been fully entitled and therefore would be considered proposed. He stated that a moratorium can be enacted while an application is under review. Councilor Duggan asked if City staff has not done a sufficient job, as the language states that the ordinance “may not adequately address”. He asked who would write the MRCCA chapter. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the model ordinance was crafted by the DNR and has been provided to the cities to modify and implement it. He noted that the City would be tasked to make the updates and submit to the DNR for review and approval. Councilor Duggan referenced the exemption language related to minor development, noting that he could not find the definition for minor development within City Code. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided clarification, noting that while minor development is not defined in the ordinance today, guidance is provided by the DNR and provided examples. Councilor Duggan commented that in one of the examples the homeowner was adding living space on top of an existing structure, which did not obstruct views and therefore could be considered as exempt. He stated that people in good faith came forward and presented their plan, received comments and are making changes to their plan to again be reviewed. He stated that in his opinion those requests are in process. City Attorney Knetsch commented that because the Culligan development has not received preliminary plat approval from the City, it is considered to be pending. He stated that the language of the moratorium statute states that it can apply to new or pending development. He stated that if the Council finds it appropriate it could ask for a public hearing on this ordinance. Councilor Miller commented that the discussion tonight is whether the Council will allow for a public hearing, rather than discussing the moratorium or specific projects. Councilor Miller moved to SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR DECEMBER 1, 2020. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Further discussion: Mayor Garlock stated that in his time he has always operated in an honest and ethical way. He stated that he has a problem with allowing a public hearing when there are numerous proposals in the past four years that have been approved within the Critical Area Overlay District; most recently two weeks ago. He commented that there are three applicants within the process and they should be allowed to play out. He stated that if there is a pause in development proposals,that would be the time to consider a moratorium. He noted that ethically he cannot support a public hearing on this moratorium. Councilor Paper commented that if changes need to be made, that should be done when there are no applications in the works. He stated that there are projects that are following the established rules and it would not be fair for the City to move the goalpost. He stated that perhaps it would be appropriate to create the moratorium when there are no applications in process. page 6 Councilor Miller commented that the action tonight is simply to call for a public hearing to discuss the proposed moratorium. He commented that he feels it is important to hear the input of the public on this topic. He noted that the Council would then make the decision on whether or not it feels a moratorium would be appropriate. He stated that this would simply open the discussion for input from the community. Mayor Garlock stated that he could support that process as long as it did not impact the three applicants currently in the process. Councilor Duggan commented that two of the applications do not appear to have an impact. He noted that the Culligan application is attempting to work within the guidelines of the City and he would be comfortable to see the next proposal they bring forward. He commented that he would be comfortable excluding the three pending applications and considering a moratorium for future requests. City Attorney Knetsch stated that applications in the process have review deadlines. He commented that in order to exempt the three existing applications, the City would need to enact the moratorium after those reviews are complete. Councilor Miller asked if the City would be under obligation to make a decision on the moratorium after a public hearing is called and held. City Attorney Knetsch confirmed that the public hearing would simply be a public hearing and it would be up to the Council as to the action it would like to take. Councilor Duggan commented that he does not know the details of the Dakota County project and therefore was unsure he would like to exclude that application. He stated that the other two projects have been around for a length of time and the Council is familiar with those projects. He suggested that the two projects be excluded from the moratorium. City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that the Dakota County project has been a multi-year planning process involving the use of grant funds and therefore would suggest allowing the County to provide details on the project to prevent what could then be a delay of multiple years because of the County cycle. Mayor Garlock commented that there are so many unknowns that he would not support a public hearing at this time. Councilor Miller commented that the public hearing simply allows input from the public which could be helpful whenever the Council discusses a moratorium in the future. Mayor Garlock commented that perhaps there should be a workshop discussing the details and this timing would not allow for that. Councilor Paper commented that by waiting to hold this public hearing, it would allow for the Mayor Elect to have input as well as the vacant seat that will be filled. He noted that it would prevent a situation where a tie vote occurs. page 7 Councilor Miller stated that it would simply be a public discussion and the Council would not be obligated to make a decision that night and agreed that a snap decision should not be made on this topic. Mayor Garlock stated that he believes that a better process would be to hold a Council workshop and then hold a public hearing after that time. Councilor Paper commented that 40 percent of the people that would be involved in making a decision on this matter are not yet a part of the discussion. He stated that he supports everyone being allowed to provide input but does not want to move the goal. He stated that he would support completing this action once the Council is full so that everyone can make an informed decision at that time. Councilor Duggan commented that those interested in the vacant City Council position could watch, and/or take part in the public hearing. He asked if December 15th would be a more appropriate date to hold the public hearing. Mayor Garlock stated that the decision could be tabled as it appears the vote will be tied tonight. Councilor Miller asked if a tie vote would preclude the Council from considering the topic again. City Attorney Knetsch commented that a tie vote would fail, and a new motion could be brought forward at any subsequent time. Ayes: 1 (Miller) Nays: 3 (Duggan, Garlock, Paper) Councilor Duggan moved to CONSIDER THIS ITEM AT THE DECEMBER 15TH MEETING WITH A WORKSHOP TO BE HELD PRIOR TO THAT MEETING, IF TIME ALLOWS. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Further discussion: Councilor Paper commented that delay would not solve the issue as 40 percent of those that will be involved in the discussion will still not be formal members of the Council. He commented that everyone involved in the decision should be allowed to be a part of the discussion. Councilor Miller suggested that the discussion be delayed until the new year at a date to be determined when the full Council is on board. Councilor Paper stated that he would also prefer to have a full workshop to discuss the topic in depth. Mayor Garlock stated that he supports that process. Councilor Duggan withdrew his motion. Mayor Garlock moved to delay DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM UNTIL 2021 WHEN THE FULL COUNCIL HAS BEEN APPOINTED AND A WORKSHOP CAN BE SCHEDULED. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 page 8 Nays: 0 B) DISCUSS DATE - PROCESS FOR INTERVIEWS OF COUNCIL VACANCY CANDIDATES City Administrator Mark McNeill provided a brief background on this item. The Council was being asked to affirm a process and establish a date to interview candidates for the vacant City Council position. Councilor Duggan moved to adopt THE COUNCIL CANDIDATE QUESTIONNAIRE. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 City Administrator Mark McNeill asked when the Council would like to hold a work session to review the applications received for the vacant Council position. He stated that a work session is also needed to make a recommendation on the consultant for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan update. He suggested a work session date prior to December 15. It was the consensus of the Council to hold a work session on December 8th at 3:15 p.m. at the Fire Station. It was the consensus of the Council to hold interviews for the vacant Council position on Monday, December 14th at 5:00 p.m. at City Hall. C) DETERMINE THE DATE OF THE FIRST CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN JANUARY 2021 City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that the Council is being asked to designate the date of its first regular meeting in January 2021. It was the consensus of the Council to change the first meeting date of the Council from January 5, 2021 to January 12, 2021. D) DISCUSS COVID IMPACT AND STEPS TO SAFEGUARD THE COMMUNITY Councilor Duggan commented on the recent guidance from the governor that people do not gather with their extended families for the Thanksgiving holiday and stay only with their household members. He asked that the Council consider meeting virtually until appropriate guidance is provided from the state. He commented that the Council is not aware of the exposure of the other members of the Council and staff, therefore he believes that the meetings should be conducted virtually. Councilor Miller agreed. He stated that from a safety standpoint it is not helpful to bring people together in a room. He stated that the Council is in the position to provide leadership to residents and should set that example. He commented that holding meetings in a virtual setting would allow people to safely provide input in that format rather than bringing multiple people into City Hall together. He agreed that it makes sense to conduct meetings virtually until the data supports in person meetings. page 9 Councilor Paper stated that he is concerned about COVID and is cautious. He stated that coming into City Hall makes him nervous but believes that certain things are given up when holding meetings virtually. He would prefer to hold the two December work sessions in person, as he believes it is important to hold interviews in person. He noted that technical issues could impair an applicant’s ability to have a fair interview. He stated that he would support the virtual Council meetings but believed that proper spacing could be provided for the December work sessions. Mayor Garlock asked if the interviews could be held using the WebEx platform. Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson confirmed that platform could be used. She stated that she would recommend some changes be made in order to have a more live interactive format. She stated that staff would begin to work on the technology immediately to allow for the video interaction element. Mayor Garlock confirmed that there would be adequate space to hold the December work sessions in person, but staff could work on that interactive technology for the other meetings. Councilor Paper commented that those two work sessions involve important topics and he would prefer that those be held in person with the remainder being held virtually. Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson stated that staff would appreciate some time to ensure proper setup of the system for virtual meetings. She suggested that the change to virtual formatting not occur prior to the December 1st meeting, noting that the change could occur at the December 15th meeting or preferably that the change take place starting in January 2021. Mayor Garlock commented that he would support that. He expressed appreciation to staff for the hard work they continue to put into the changing dynamics. Councilor Paper commented that he preferred the earlier 5:00 p.m. start time for Council meetings. He asked if there was any feedback from the public related to the 5:00 p.m. start time used earlier this year. Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson stated that she did not receive any complaints, noting that most people were working from home or their jobs had been shut down during that time. The Council agreed to start holding their meetings virtually starting in January 2021, and to change the regular Council meeting start times to 5:00 p.m. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that the yard sign recycling bin is still available at City Hall. He stated that updates to recreation will be available on the City website following the Governor’s COVID 19 announcement. COUNCIL COMMENTS page 10 Councilor Miller thanked the public works department for its maintenance of trails to ensure continued use by residents. Councilor Paper thanked everyone that attended the meeting tonight, noting that he looks forward to moving on with the new members of the Council soon. Councilor Duggan commended the fire department for gaining new members. He hoped that there is much interest in the vacant Council position as well and encouraged residents to apply. He asked that residents clear snow from around the hydrants near their home during the winter season. Councilor Miller commented that clearing a hydrant can take a few minutes, which would impact the ability to save properties and lives. Councilor Duggan wished a happy and safe Thanksgiving to everyone as well as safe driving during the winter conditions. Mayor Garlock provided an update on the Yellow Ribbon program, noting that they have been working around the clock for the past few days to develop partnerships to develop 50 meals to 50 families. He thanked Oxendale’s Market and Cub Foods for their donations. Councilor Duggan commented that local businesses needs local support, and encouraged the community to use those businesses. ADJOURN Mayor Garlock moved to adjourn. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 7:21 p.m. ____________________________________ Neil Garlock Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk page 11 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Council Workshop Held Tuesday, November 12, 2020 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a workshop of the Mendota Heights City Council was held at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 3:25 p.m. Council members Duggan, Miller, and Paper were also present. Staff in attendance included City Administrator Mark McNeill, Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, Recreation Coordinator Meredith Lawrence, and City Clerk Lorri Smith. DISCUSSION OF RECREATION ITEMS CIP FUNDING OPTIONS: The City Administrator clarified with the Councilors the approved uses for Special Parks Fund dollars. He stated this fund can be used for the purchase of new equipment, facilities, or land for parks. However, he said that a recent City Attorney’s opinion said that the fund cannot be used to replace or maintain existing equipment or facilities. With this information, the City Council said that some projects planned for 2021 might have to be delayed to a future year, unless other sources of funding can be determined. FIELD AND USE POLICY REVIEW: Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson reviewed the policy history and explained how this policy is currently working for assigning priority use of the City’s athletic fields.. She stated that city staff tried to work with one contact from each of the user groups for reserving the fields. Ms. Jacobson reviewed the field hours reserved and the actual hours used, and the difference that has been experienced this year due to the COVID 19 pandemic. Councilors asked questions about blanket permitting and how the reservation system works. Councilor Miller stated he would like to see more collaboration with the School District on the sharing of their fields. Councilors were agreeable to accept Certificates of Insurance from the user groups that exclude liability coverage for claims related to communicable disease transmissions. Ms. Jacobson noted that per player fees were approved in the City’s 2020 fee schedule, and that was based on feedback received from the user groups. Options for setting the fees for 2021 were reviewed, including leaving the fees as they are now set; changing to a per hour rate; or providing the city fields and maintenance at no charge to all users. page 12 Councilors suggested that city staff hold meetings individually with the user groups to discuss 2021 field usage, and to see what will work for the groups. They stated they would also like to see included in the policy that a field must be returned to its original condition after the group uses it. 2020-21 WARMING HOUSE AVAILABILITY: City staff reported that the number of applications is low for warming house attendants for the upcoming season. Ms. Jacobson said that the warming house at Wentworth Park is too small to be able to hold skaters, and social distance. It was decided that this building will not be opened during the upcoming season. Councilors were in agreement to open up all of the other warming houses for the winter season, even if they are not staffed. SKATE PARK UPDATE: while on the agenda, this item was not addressed due to time constraints. PAR 3 LOGO: City staff provided options for a new logo at the Par 3 golf course. Councilor Duggan suggested staff look at selling advertising at each hole on the course. Councilors suggested the Parks and Recreation Commission review the new logos and make a decision on which to use. FIRST CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 2021 This item will be discussed at the November 17th Council meeting. ADJOURN Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 3:25 pm. ____________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 13 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 page 14 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. page 15 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 page 16 DATE: December 1, 2020 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Approval of City of Mendota Heights-Canoe Rack Rental Policy INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to approve a Canoe Rack Rental Policy for Roger’s Lake Park. BACKGROUND In 2015, the City of Mendota Heights installed a canoe rack at Roger’s Lake Park. The intent of the canoe rack was to allow residents to rent a space on the rack in order to store personal water craft (e.g. canoes and kayaks) during the spring, summer and fall. The existing canoe rack is located near the fishing pier and is able to hold six canoes. Since its installation, resident requests for canoe rack space has grown year-to-year. For the last two years, requests have exceeded available space and a waiting list has been administered. Given its popularity, an additional canoe rack was installed at Roger’s Lake this fall. The new rack provides six additional rental spaces. Staff has drafted a policy for the purposes of establishing guidelines for the allocation and management of City canoe rack rental spaces. The policy was presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission at their November meeting. The Commission provided recommendations and those changes were incorporated into the draft policy. Additionally, the City Attorney has also reviewed and provided comments and legal edits to the policy as well as rental application. Attachments: City of Mendota Heights Canoe Rack Rental Policy Request for Canoe Rack Rental Permit (Application) BUDGET IMPACT Fees for the renting a canoe rack at Roger’s Lake are included in the City’s Fee Schedule. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council review the attached Canoe Rack Rental Policy, provide staff with any recommended changes, and approve the policy. ACTION REQUIRED If the council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the City of Mendota Heights Canoe Rack Rental Policy. page 17 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CANOE RACK RENTAL POLICY CONTACT: Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651-452-1850 APPROVED: December 1, 2020 page 18 City of Mendota Heights Canoe Rack Rental Policy A. PURPOSE The City of Mendota Heights, hereinafter referred to as the “City”, coordinates and issues rental spaces for the use of canoe racks owned by the City. The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for the allocation and management of City canoe rack rental spaces. The objective of this policy is to allocate the use of the canoe rack rental spaces properly. The City owns and operates two canoe racks for rental at Roger’s Lake Park. B. CANOE RACK RENTAL The City reserves the right to deny, limit, or revoke canoe rack permits based upon an applicant’s performance history including compliance with established rules and policies. Each household can apply for a maximum of two canoe rack spaces per year. Application Deadlines Permits will be issued once throughout the year based on the following timeline: • Residents of Mendota Heights o Permit requests for use from April to November will be due the first business day in March to ensure residents receive first priority  If more residents apply for permits than canoe spots available, a lottery will be performed with all permit requests included received by the deadline • Residents of Mendota Heights and Non-Residents o Permit requests for use from April to November will be due the first business day of April on a first come, first serve basis for all interested parties The City does not guarantee that an interested party will receive a canoe rack rental permit. Reservations received after the deadline will be handled on a first-come, first-serve basis. Canoe rack permit request forms are available at City Hall or on the City’s website. C. PRIORITY OF CANOE RACKS Due to the limited number of canoe rack rental spaces, the City has established criteria for priority use. Users who had canoe rack rental spaces the year prior are not given priority. A lottery will be conducted for all resident applications received by the deadline if the number of applications exceeds the number of total spaces available. Priority use of canoe rack spaces will be allocated as follows: page 19 Priority #1: Residents of Mendota Heights This includes residents with a valid Mendota Heights address. Priority #2: Non-Residents of Mendota Heights This includes those that are not residents of Mendota Heights. D. CANOE RACK RENTAL SEASON Canoe rack rental permits will be allowed to be in use from April 1 to November 1 of the calendar year the permit was issued. Canoes may not be allowed on the rack prior to April 1 or after November 1. Canoes on the rack out of season will be removed and the owner will be required to pick up their canoe from the Mendota Heights Public Works Building. A minimum service charge of $25 will be required for property owners to reclaim their craft. E. FEES The City may charge application and use fees in order to recover public costs from the canoe racks. For each application submitted, an application fee shall be assessed. Canoe rack rental costs will be approved by the City Council and included in the City’s Fee Schedule. Fees are subject to change at the discretion of the City Council. All users who receive a permit for exclusive use of a canoe rack rental spot must pay the appropriate fee per the City fee schedule. Payments can be made by cash, check or credit/debit card. F. CANOE RACK EXCHANGE, OR SUBLEASE When permits are issued, a specific canoe rack rental spot is reserved for the user, to the exclusion of others. Recognizing this exclusivity, users should only reserve the spots intended for use. Users may not assign their canoe rack space to others or sublease canoe rack spaces under any circumstance. Any such action will result in the loss of rental/allocation privileges. A user may not “give up or exchange” their rental space or any part of it, without a written agreement between the impacted parties and City approval. Subleasing of rack spaces without City approval will result in revocation of all permits for all parties. G. PERMIT CANCELLATION AND REFUNDS Once a canoe rack rental permit has been issued, it is non-refundable for the season. Unused rental spaces will not be refunded. H. AGREEMENT FOR STORAGE OF CANOE/KAYAK • A current Minnesota Watercraft registration must be affixed properly to the water craft when on city property. Verification of the license must be provided to the city at the time of the application. page 20 • Applicant must agree to store watercraft only in the assigned rack location and to adequately secure the water craft at both the front and rear, to prevent dislodging in high winds. If dislodging / damage occurs, damage to other canoes/kayaks will be considered the liability of the permit holder who failed to adequately secure canoe/kayak at both ends. • Applicant must fully agree to the liability waiver, assumption of risk, and indemnification clauses as set forth in the Canoe Rack Rental Application. • When in use each craft must carry at least one (1) Coast Guard approved safety device per occupant at all times • It is mandatory that the craft be secured by the users own device to the assigned rack. This is to prevent the possibility of the canoe/kayak coming loose during high winds • NOTE: Canoes/kayaks will be used during daylight hours only. I. CITY CONTACT All communication regarding canoe rack rental spaces should go through the Recreation Program Coordinator. Users should report any damage, accidents, dangerous or unsafe conditions to: City of Mendota Heights Recreation Program Coordinator Phone: 651-255-1354 (During regular business hours: Monday – Thursday 7:00 am to 4:30 pm and Friday from 7:00 am to 11:30 am) Weekend/After Hours Phone: 651-302-3301 Email: meredithl@mendota-heights.com (Email is checked Monday-Friday during regular business hours) page 21 PARKS AND RECREATION REQUEST FOR CANOE RACK PERMIT USER INFORMATION PRIMARY CONTACT NAME: ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP CODE: EMAIL ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: ALTERNATE PHONE NUMBER: SECONDARY CONTACT NAME: ADDRESS: CITY: STATE : ZIP CODE: EMAIL ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: ALTERNATE PHONE NUMBER: CANOE INFORMATION CANOE BRAND/MANUFACTURER: DNR REGISTRATION NUMBER: DNR REGISTRATION EXPIRATION: COLOR OF CANOE: (See Back Page) page 22 COMPLIANCE STATEMENT I agree to the following: • A current Minnesota Watercraft registration must be affixed properly to the watercraft when on city property. Verification of the license must be provided to the city at the time of this application. • Watercraft must be stored in the assigned rack location, and the watercraft must be adequately secured to the rack at both the front and rear, to prevent dislodging in high winds. • If dislodging/damage occurs, damage to other canoes/kayaks, the permit holder who failed to adequately secure canoe/kayak at both ends shall be liable and responsible for the damage. The City of Mendota Heights shall not be liable or responsible for any damage even if there is insufficient evidence to establish who caused the dislodging or damage to occur. • The watercraft shall be secured by the user’s own device to the assigned rack. This is to prevent the possibility of the canoe/kayak coming loose during high winds. • The use of a canoe or watercraft includes the possibility of serious injury or death, including, but not limited to, possible exposure to and illness from infectious diseases including but not limited to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). While particular rules and personal discipline may reduce this risk, the risk of serious illness and death does exist for me and any other individual using the canoe rack permit; and • I, for myself and on behalf of my heirs, assigns, personal representatives and next of kin, HEREBY RELEASE AND HOLD HARMLESS City of Mendota Heights, its officers, officials, agents, employees, and/or volunteers (“Releasees”), with respect to any illness, disability, death, loss, or damage to person or property, WHETHER ARISING FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE RELEASEES OR OTHERWISE, to the fullest extent permitted by law. • I KNOWINGLY AND FREELY ASSUME ALL SUCH RISKS, both known and unknown, EVEN IF ARISING FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE RELEASEES or others, and assume full responsibility for my use of the canoe rack permit including any accidents of injuries of any kind that result from that use; and • I willingly agree to comply with any stated and customary terms and conditions regarding protection against infectious diseases, including but not limited to any applicable executive order from the Governor. If, however, I observe any unusual or significant hazard during my presence or use of the canoe rack permit, I will remove myself from the area and bring such to the attention of the nearest official immediately. • I agree to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Mendota Heights and Releasees against all claims, damages, losses, and expenses resulting from the rental and use of the canoe rack / storage according to this agreement. • When in use, each craft must carry at least one (1) Coast Guard approved safety device per occupant at all times. • Canoes/kayaks will be used during daylight hours only. • Canoe rack rental permits will be allowed to be in use from April 1 to November 1 of the calendar year the permit was issued. Canoes may not be allowed on the rack prior to April 1 or after November 1. Canoes on the rack out of season will be removed, and the owner will be required to pick up their canoe from the Mendota Heights Public Works Building. A minimum service charge of $25 will be required for property owners to reclaim their craft. I have read and understand the Mendota Heights Canoe Rack Rental Policy and agree to comply with all applicable requirements of the policy as they relate to my permit. page 23 I certify that the information that I have provided is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. If the information that I have provided or my request changes, I will submit a revised application or additional information. X Signature Date FOR OFFICE USE ONLY  Approved  Not Approved Application Fee: $ Payment:  Check  Cash  Credit Card Date Application Received: Time Application Received: page 24 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: December 1, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Scott Goldenstein, Assistant Fire Chief SUBJECT: August 2020 Fire Synopsis COMMENT: Fire Calls For August 2020, the Mendota Heights Fire Department was activated 29 times. Those calls broke out geographically as follows: Mendota Heights 26 call(s) Lilydale 2 call(s) Mendota 1 call(s) Sunfish Lake 0 call(s) Other 0 call(s) The estimated losses for August were $80,500 in structure value and $30,000 in content value. Types of calls: Medical/Extrication: 8 The Mendota Heights Fire Department (MHFD) was dispatched to seven calls that were medical in nature and to a call for an accident with injuries. Hazardous Situations: 5 We had five different calls for hazardous situations including a gas spill. Good Intent: 4 Under good intent, the MHFD responded to two calls for the smell of smoke with no problem found. False Alarms: 12 In August, we were called to eight calls with malfunctioning detectors as well as to four calls that were coded as accidental trips. Dispatched and Cancelled En route: 2 The fire department was paged to two calls that were cancelled before we arrived. August Training August 12 18:30 Water Supply: This was a mandatory training going over basic engine water supply procedures and best practices with multiple pieces of apparatus. August 13 07:00 Water Supply: This was a mandatory training going over basic engine water supply procedures and best practices with multiple pieces of apparatus. page 25 August 19 18:30 Mandatory 2 Option 1 August 24 18:30 Fire Attack This drill occurred at the station and involved proper hose deployment and fire attack procedure for a multi-story building August 25 07:00 Fire Attack This drill occurred at the station and involved proper hose deployment and fire attack procedure for a multi-story building page 26 Number of Calls 29 Total Calls for Year 227 FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE ACTUAL FIRES Structure - MH Commercial $0 Structure - MH Residential $70,000 $30,000 $265,000 Structure - Contract Areas $40,000 Cooking Fire - confined $0 Vehicle - MH $10,500 $31,800 Vehicle - Contract Areas $0 Grass/Brush/No Value MH Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES Other Fire OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $80,500 $30,000 $0 Excessive heat, scorch burns MEDICAL Emergency Medical/Assist 7 Vehicle accident w/injuries 1 Extrication ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$110,500 Medical, other HAZARDOUS SITUATION MEND. HTS. ONLY STRUCT/CONTENTS $265,000 Spills/Leaks 3 Carbon Monoxide Incident 1 MEND. HTS. ONLY MISCELLANEOUS $31,800 Power line down Arcing, shorting MEND. HTS. TOTAL LOSS TO DATE $336,800 Hazardous, Other 1 SERVICE CALL Smoke or odor removal CONTRACT AREAS LOSS TO DATE $40,000 Assist Police or other agency Service Call, other GOOD INTENT Good Intent Dispatched & Cancelled 2 Current To Date Last Year Smoke Scare 2 26 167 196 HazMat release investigation 2 11 19 Good Intent, Other 1 9 6 FALSE ALARMS 0 13 9 False Alarm 0 27 19 Malfunction 8 Total:29 227 249 Unintentional 4 False Alarm, other FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH MUTUAL AID INSPECTIONS 24 Total Calls 29 INVESTIGATIONS RE-INSPECTION WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year MEETINGS 1 FIRE CALLS 369 3741.25 3844 MEETINGS 17 583 515 ADMINISTRATION 8 TRAINING 221.5 1619 2662 SPECIAL ACTIVITY 139.75 518.75 367 PLAN REVIEW/TRAINING 3 FIRE MARSHAL 0 97 TOTAL:36 TOTALS 747.25 6462 7485 Lilydale Mendota Sunfish Lake Other MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT AUGUST 2020 MONTHLY REPORT FIRE LOSS TOTALS LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS Mendota Heights page 27 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: December 1, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Scott Goldenstein, Assistant Fire Chief SUBJECT: September 2020 Fire Synopsis COMMENT: Fire Calls: In the month of September, the Mendota Heights Fire Department was paged out to 31 calls and they were located in the following areas: Mendota Heights 21 call(s) Lilydale 1 call(s) Mendota 0 call(s) Sunfish Lake 3 call(s) Other 6 call(s) The estimated losses for September were $0 in structure value and $500 in content value. Types of calls: Fires: 3 For the month of September, the Fire Department responded to three actual fires in our coverage areas and also responded to three additional fires where we were called in for mutual/auto aid assistance: In our coverage areas: One was a call for a structure fire, but was limited to a washing machine that had started on fire. A second call was to a vehicle fire from a vehicle that had veered off of 494 into a wooded area. The vehicle ended up on its side and on fire. The driver was able to get out. A third call involved a small grass and vegetation fire. Under Mutual /Auto Aid requests (below) you will find the other fire calls the Mendota Heights Fire Department (MHFD) were called out for our neighboring areas. Medical/Extrication: 4 In September, we responded to three medicals and worked with the M Health Fairview medics as well as the Mendota Heights Police. In a fourth call, we responded to a two car accident with injuries where five patients were transported to the hospital, (three did not go to the page 28 hospital) and extrication occurred with two of the occupants. In this incident, South Metro Fire was also brought in for assistance. Hazardous Situations: 4 One call to the MHFD involved a vehicle with a full tank of fuel and a ruptured fuel tank with leaking gas. One call was for a one inch natural gas line that was cut. One call was to a downed power line and finally, one call was to a carbon monoxide alarm call where no problem was found. Good Intent: 2 In September, we had two calls coded as “smoke scares”. False Alarms: 7 Seven calls were for false alarms or system malfunctions. This included two calls with sprinkler system activation. Dispatched and Cancelled En route: 5 Five calls ended early with the department being cancelled before arriving on scene. Mutual/Auto Aid Requests: 6 The Mendota Heights Fire Department responded to a number of neighboring departments requests for help in September: 1. Call to West St. Paul for a fire where we were cancelled before arrival 2. Call to Eagan to assist at a residential structure fire 3. Call to Inver Grove Heights for an apartment fire, where we were on standby before being cleared 4. Call to Inver Grove Heights originally to a structure fire with a Tender but then changed to a pumper for city coverage at their station 5. Call to South St. Paul to assist at a residential structure fire 6. Call to South St. Paul for assistance but we were cancelled before arrival September Training: September 9 18:00 Live Burn Training Opportunity 1. This was a mandatory drill that was held at the fire training facility in Oakdale and involved numerous evolutions with each one having live fire scenarios involved. Live fire training is mandatory on an annual basis. September 10 07:00 Live Burn Training Opportunity 2. This was a mandatory drill that was held at the fire training facility in Oakdale and involved numerous evolutions with each one having live fire scenarios involved. Live fire training is mandatory on an annual basis. September 16 18:30 Water Supply Opportunity 3. This was a mandatory training going over basic engine water supply procedures and best practices with multiple pieces of apparatus. September 21 18:30 Aerial Master Streams. This drill was dedicated to the proper use and deployment of our master stream devices. This includes our master stream on the Ladder truck (Ladder 10), the Squrt (Engine 11) as well as the “deck gun” mounted on Engine 10. September 22 07:00 Aerial Master Streams. This drill was dedicated to the proper use and deployment of our master stream devices. This includes our master stream on the Ladder truck (Ladder 10), the Squrt (Engine 11) as well as the “deck gun” mounted on Engine 10. page 29 Number of Calls 31 Total Calls for Year 258 FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE ACTUAL FIRES Structure - MH Commercial $0 Structure - MH Residential 1 $500 $265,500 Structure - Contract Areas $40,000 Cooking Fire - confined $0 Vehicle - MH 1 $31,800 Vehicle - Contract Areas $0 Grass/Brush/No Value MH 1 Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES Other Fire OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $0 $500 $0 Excessive heat, scorch burns MEDICAL Emergency Medical/Assist 3 Vehicle accident w/injuries 1 Extrication ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$500 Medical, other HAZARDOUS SITUATION MEND. HTS. ONLY STRUCT/CONTENTS $265,500 Spills/Leaks 2 Carbon Monoxide Incident 1 MEND. HTS. ONLY MISCELLANEOUS $31,800 Power line down 1 Arcing, shorting MEND. HTS. TOTAL LOSS TO DATE $337,300 Hazardous, Other SERVICE CALL Smoke or odor removal CONTRACT AREAS LOSS TO DATE $40,000 Assist Police or other agency Service Call, other GOOD INTENT Good Intent Dispatched & Cancelled 5 Current To Date Last Year Smoke Scare 2 21 188 215 HazMat release investigation 1 12 24 Good Intent, Other 0 9 6 FALSE ALARMS 3 16 11 False Alarm 6 33 21 Malfunction 3 Total:31 258 277 Unintentional 4 False Alarm, other FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH MUTUAL AID 6 INSPECTIONS Total Calls 31 INVESTIGATIONS RE-INSPECTION WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year MEETINGS FIRE CALLS 455.50 4196.75 4231 MEETINGS 17 600 532.5 ADMINISTRATION TRAINING 377 1996 2922 SPECIAL ACTIVITY 74 592.75 443.5 PLAN REVIEW/TRAINING FIRE MARSHAL 0 132 TOTAL:0 TOTALS 923.5 7385.5 8261 REMARKS: Lilydale Mendota Sunfish Lake Other MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT SEPTEMBER 2020 MONTHLY REPORT FIRE LOSS TOTALS LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS Mendota Heights page 30 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: December 1, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Scott Goldenstein, Assistant Fire Chief SUBJECT: October 2020 Fire Synopsis COMMENT: Fire Calls: In the month of October, the Mendota Heights Fire Department was paged out to 37 calls and they were located in the following areas: Mendota Heights 30 call(s) Lilydale 1 call(s) Mendota 4 call(s) Sunfish Lake 1 call(s) Other 1 call(s) The estimated losses for October were $3,000 in structure value and $0 in content value. Types of calls: Fires: 1 The Fire Department responded to a vehicle fire that involved a plow truck. Under Mutual /Auto Aid requests you will find other fire calls the MHFD were involved in but in neighboring areas. Medical/Extrication: 7 In October, we responded to six calls that were medical in nature. In addition, the department also responded to a vehicle accident where the vehicle had gone under the steel safety rail and had pinned the vehicle. The driver’s door was opened with hydraulic tools and the driver was able to get out of the vehicle. Hazardous Situations: 6 The Fire Department had five calls involving hazardous situations. One call was for an overturned semi that had leaked fuel from the accident. Another call was for a carbon monoxide leak in a residence, one call was for a smell of gas in a golf clubhouse, and three calls were due to powerline issues. Good Intent: 2 October had one outdoor fire that was called in, but was actually properly permitted. A second good intent call involved a home with a fire in a fireplace. It that was not drafting properly but instead caused the home to fill with smoke. page 31 False Alarms: 12 There were 12 calls that were for false alarms or system malfunctions. Dispatched and Cancelled En route: 8 The station was called out on nine occasions where we were cancelled before arriving on scene. Mutual/Auto Aid Requests: 1 The Mendota Heights Fire Department responded to a single call for assistance to Inver Grove Heights at a structure fire but our response was cancelled before our arrival to the scene. October Training: October 7 18:30 EMR B Option 1. This class is part B of the EMR (Emergency Medical Responder) refresher training and was taught by M Health Fairview. October 8 07:00 EMR B Option 2. This class is part B of the EMR (Emergency Medical Responder) refresher training and was taught by M Health Fairview. October 14 18:30 Water Rescue/Water Drafting with South Metro Fire Department. This drill was done in conjunction with our neighbors from South Metro Fire Department and was split into two portions, in two locations, focusing on water rescue and on water drafting for areas that do not have fire hydrants or easy access to a water supply. October 15 07:00 Water Rescue/Water Drafting with South Metro Fire Department. This drill was done in conjunction with our neighbors from South Metro Fire Department and was split into two portions, in two locations, focusing on water rescue and on water drafting for areas that do not have fire hydrants or easy access to a water supply. October 26 18:30 Ropes & Knots /Water Drafting with South Metro Fire Department. This drill was done in conjunction with our neighbors from South Metro Fire Department and was split into two portions, in two locations, focusing on water drafting for areas that do not have fire hydrants or easy access to a water supply. Another portion of the drill was dedicated to ropes and knots with multiple stations. The ropes and knots portion was held at the Mendota Heights Fire Station. October 27 07:00 Ropes & Knots. This drill was dedicated to ropes and knots with multiple stations. This drill was held at the Mendota Heights Fire Station. October 28 18:30 EMR B Option 3. This class is part B of the EMR (Emergency Medical Responder) refresher training and was taught by M Health Fairview. page 32 Number of Calls 37 Total Calls for Year 295 FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE ACTUAL FIRES Structure - MH Commercial $0 Structure - MH Residential $265,500 Structure - Contract Areas $40,000 Cooking Fire - confined $0 Vehicle - MH 1 $3,000 $34,800 Vehicle - Contract Areas $0 Grass/Brush/No Value MH Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES Other Fire 1 OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $3,000 $0 $0 Excessive heat, scorch burns MEDICAL Emergency Medical/Assist 6 Vehicle accident w/injuries Extrication 1 ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$3,000 Medical, other HAZARDOUS SITUATION MEND. HTS. ONLY STRUCT/CONTENTS $265,500 Spills/Leaks 1 Carbon Monoxide Incident 1 MEND. HTS. ONLY MISCELLANEOUS $34,800 Power line down 2 Arcing, shorting 1 MEND. HTS. TOTAL LOSS TO DATE $340,300 Hazardous, Other 1 SERVICE CALL Smoke or odor removal CONTRACT AREAS LOSS TO DATE $40,000 Assist Police or other agency Service Call, other GOOD INTENT Good Intent Dispatched & Cancelled 9 Current To Date Last Year Smoke Scare 1 30 218 243 HazMat release investigation 1 13 27 Good Intent, Other 4 13 7 FALSE ALARMS 1 17 12 False Alarm 1 34 24 Malfunction 6 Total:37 295 313 Unintentional 6 False Alarm, other FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH MUTUAL AID INSPECTIONS 28 Total Calls 37 INVESTIGATIONS RE-INSPECTION WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year MEETINGS 4 FIRE CALLS 421 4617.75 4698 MEETINGS 76 676 581 ADMINISTRATION 13 TRAINING 248 2244 3234 SPECIAL ACTIVITY 106.5 699.25 582 PLAN REVIEW/TRAINING 2 FIRE MARSHAL 47 47 185 TOTAL:47 TOTALS 898.5 8284 9280 REMARKS: Lilydale Mendota Sunfish Lake Other MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT OCTOBER 2020 MONTHLY REPORT FIRE LOSS TOTALS LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS Mendota Heights page 33 page 34 page 35 page 36 page 37 page 38 page 39 page 40 page 41 page 42 page 43 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: December 1, 2020 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - Resolution No. 2020-81 Approving a Lot Split and Critical Area Permit for 1680 Lexington Avenue South [Planning Case No. 2020-24] Introduction City Council is asked to conduct a public hearing and consider adopting a resolution approving a Lot Split and Critical Area Permit (CAP) for the property located at 1680 Lexington Avenue South. Background Mr. Steve Norton, acting on behalf of the owner Keith Ostrosky, is requesting approval to subdivide the large 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 is required for any subdivision approval of properties situated in the Critical Area Overlay District. At the November 24, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented, with survey and site plan, along with a narrative, soils report and woodland report from the applicants. A public hearing was conducted, and there were no comments or objections from neighboring residents. A copy of the 11/24/2020 Planning Staff Report and related attachments are appended to this memo. (Note: due to the early packet completion deadline this week – PC meeting minutes were not available for this council memo.) Discussion The City can use its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on certain land use or zoning decisions, such as this proposed lot split critical area permit, and has broad discretion in its approvals. A determination regarding whether or not the requests meet the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimously (6-0) to approve the proposed Lot Split and Critical Area Permit applications for 1680 Lexington Avenue, based on the findings-of-fact supporting such a recommendation with conditions, all of which are memorialized in the draft resolution included herein. Action Requested Pursuant to City Code Section 12-3-17.C, the City Council is required to hold a separate public hearing on critical area permit requests. The Council should open the duly noticed public hearing; take additional public comments, close the hearing, and give final consideration on this matter. If the City Council wishes to affirm the recommendation from the planning commission, and there are no other or outstanding issues related to this request, it should make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2020-81 APPROVING A LOT SPLIT & CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR 1680 LEXINGTON AVENUE. page 44 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020-81 RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT SPLIT AND CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR 1680 LEXINGTON AVENUE SOUTH [PLANNING CASE NO. 2020-24] WHEREAS, Paul Steve Norton (the “Applicant”) acting on behalf of Keith Ostrosky (the “Owner”) requests approval of a Lot Split and Critical Area Permit as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-24, and for the property located at 1680 Lexington Avenue South, legally described in attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and located in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, 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, and the Applicant seeks to subdivide the Subject Property into two parcels, as legally described and illustrated on attached Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 12-3-1 of the City Code (Critical Area Overlay District), a critical area permit is required for all development activities necessitating a building permit or any new subdivision approval; and WHEREAS, on November 24, 2020, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Lot Split and Critical Area Permit applications, and whereupon closing the hearing, recommended unanimously (6-0 vote) to approve both land use applications, which would allow the allow the Applicant to split the parcel into two new legal, buildable parcels for two (2) new single-family dwellings, with certain conditions and findings of fact to support said approval. page 45 WHEREAS, on December 1, 2020, the Mendota Heights City Council conducted a separate public hearing on this matter, and whereupon closing that hearing, declared that the Lot Split and Critical Area Permit proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-24 be approved, based on the following findings of fact: A. 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. B. The proposed subdivision and any new (future) residential dwelling will not create any negative impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood. C. The newly-created parcels meet the R-1 One Family Residential Zoning District standards for lot area and width. D. The proposed single-family dwellings proposed for each new lot meets the general purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District. E. 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. F. 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. G. 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. H. 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. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Lot Split and Critical Area Permit as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-24, for the property located at 1680 Lexington Avenue, is hereby approved 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. page 46 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) Pursuant to City Code Sect. 12-3-14: E., the Applicant and/or Owner [as “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%). 10) If requested by the City of Mendota Heights and/or Dakota County, the Owner agrees to dedicate a Trail Easement for future trail purposes along Lexington Avenue (Dakota County Road #43). Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 1st day of December, 2020. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 47 EXHIBIT-A Legal Description PID# 27-02300-50-010 Abstract Property Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 page 48 EXHIBIT-B page 49 EXHIBIT-B page 50 EXHIBIT-B page 51 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. page 52 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. page 53 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. . page 54  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 page 55 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 page 56 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. page 57 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. page 58 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. page 59 page 60 page 61 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 MAP page 62 page 63 page 64 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 COUNTMDWpage 65 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 SCALEpage 66 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 BORINGS800.00page 67 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 page 68 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 page 69 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. page 70 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 page 71 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 page 72 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 page 73 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. page 74 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. page 75 APPENDIX B DRAWINGS page 76 page 77 APPENDIX C BOREHOLE LOGS page 78 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 page 79 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 page 80 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 page 81 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 page 82 APPENDIX D General Reference Material (provided for your convenience) page 83 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 page 84 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 page 85 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 page 86 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 page 87 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. page 88 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 page 89 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 page 90 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. page 91 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. page 92 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. page 93 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 page 94 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. page 95 From:Bob Janecek To:Tim Benetti Subject:1680 Lexington Ave S Date:Wednesday, November 25, 2020 8:25:04 AM I live at 1665 Lexington Ave S and have lived here for over 35 years. I stayed at the meeting last night as long as I could and left before the last item was considered. I fully support Keith's efforts to improve his property and this area definitely needs some revitalization. page 96 From:nancygerber55@gmail.com To:Tim Benetti Subject:notice of public hearing to consider lot split 1680 Lexington Date:Friday, November 20, 2020 3:13:04 PM Dear Mr. Benetti and Planning Commission Members, We live down the hill from this property and have no objection to two single family homes as long as they comply with restrictions related to proximity of the river and historical requirements. We strongly object to more than two properties and construction that will take many trees. I assume that the hearing is only for the purpose stated and allowing more than two single family dwellings is not an option. Thank you for receiving our comment, Nancy and Clyde Gerber 1081 Douglas Road page 97 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: December 1, 2020 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - Resolution No. 2020-82 Denying the Preliminary Plat of Valley View Oak 3rd Addition, a Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit for Tract of Land Located at NW Quadrant of Victoria Curve and Glenhill Road [Planning Case No. 2020-15] Introduction City Council is asked to conduct a public hearing and consider a resolution denying the proposed Preliminary Plat of “Valley View Oak 3rd Addition”, which includes a Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit. The subject property is generally located at the northwest quadrant of Victoria Curve and Glenhill Road. Background The subject property is generally located near the northwest quadrant of Glenhill Road and Victoria Curve. The proposed plat is a re-platting of Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A, of Valley View 2nd Addition; and consists of approximately 6.8 acres of land. This plat is requested by Michelle Culligan, acting on behalf of parents/landowners Larry & Mary Culligan. This plat includes a related application requests 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. This plat application was first presented for review before the Planning Commission at the July 28, 2020 meeting. This original plat requested nine new lots, eight of which would be for new single-family dwellings and one lot for the existing Culligan family property at 1941 Glenhill Road. This first request included a number of variances, such as narrower road right-of-way width, extended cul-de-sac length, retaining walls more than 5-ft. in height and other site standard requirements. After this July 28th meeting/hearing, the matter appeared before the city’s Park and Recreation Commission for review at eh August 12, 2020 meeting, with no major issues or requirements. Afterwards, the plat was scheduled for a continued public hearing at an October 8, 2020 Special Meeting of the Planning Commission. At the October 8th meeting, the Planning Commission received a follow-up report and presentation by city staff and re-opened the hearing. The Applicant and her consultants provided an overview and update of their plat request; and a number of residents from Mendota Heights and City of Mendota, along with a professional geologist/hydrologist hired by the neighbors, appeared and testified to the issues and concerns they had with allowing this plat on this property, especially in the critical area and the bluff impact zone. page 98 Upon closing that hearing, the PC recommended to deny the plat and its related applications (CAP, CUP and variances) with a unanimous 7-0 vote. The plat request was then scheduled to go before the City Council at the October 20th meeting. However, prior to this meeting the Applicant requested a delay of this council consideration, and offered to extend their plat application review period to January 25, 2021. During this time, the Developer met with city staff and indicated a willingness to revise the plat and explore removing all variances associated with this plat. The developer later submitted a revised subdivision plan that shows only six lots (from originally nine lots), of which five 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. At the November 24, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, a Supplemental Planning Report was presented, along with the updated/revised plat layout, updated narrative, and an updated soils/boring report from Braun-Intertec. The city hired a separate engineering consultant from Barr Engineering (no affiliation with the neighbor’s consultant - Kelton Barr Consulting) to review both the Braun Soils Report and the Kelton Barr Report (dated 10/05/2020). All of these reports and the Technical Review Memorandum from Barr Engineering are included in this council packet. Once again a public hearing was reconvened on this plat matter; and considerable testimony was given again from the Developer, their own consultants, and numerous comments from the public - both Mendota Heights and Mendota residents. A copy of the 11/24/2020 Supplemental Planning Staff Report and related attachments are appended to this memo. (Note: due to the early packet deadline this week – the 11/24/2020 PC meeting minutes were not available for this council memo.) Discussion The City can use its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on certain land use or zoning decisions, such as this proposed subdivision plat, critical area permit and conditional use permit, and has broad discretion in its approvals. A determination regarding whether or not these respective or combined land use requests meet the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimously (6-0) to deny the proposed Preliminary Plat of Valley View Oak 3rd Addition, along with its related Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit, based on the findings-of-fact supporting such a recommendation, which is memorialized in the draft resolution included herein. Action Requested The City Council may affirm this recommendation of denial from the Planning Commission by adopting RESOLUTION NO. 2020-82, DENYING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF VALLEY VIEW OAK 3RD ADDITION WITH A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF GLENHILL ROAD AND VICTORIA CURVE. Should the City Council wish to reverse this recommendation, it may direct city staff to prepare a revised (alternative) resolution of approval, based on the findings-of-fact noted in the 11/24/2020 Supplemental Planning Report to the Planning Commission. Since this subdivision includes a critical area permit application, a separate (additional) public hearing is required per City Code. Upon opening and closing of the public hearing, the City Council must choose to act on one of the two draft resolutions. Action on either resolution requires a simple majority vote. page 99 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020-82 RESOLUTION DENYING A PRELIMINARY PLAT (SUBDIVISION) OF VALLEY VIEW OAK 3RD ADDITION WITH A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LOCATED AT NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF VICTORIA CURVE AND GLENHILL ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. 2020-15) WHEREAS, Michelle Culligan (the “Applicant” / “Developer” / “Subdivider”) acting on behalf of Larry and Mary Culligan (the “Owners”) applied for a new preliminary plat (subdivision) of lands to be titled “Valley View Oak 3rd Addition”, which include consideration and approval of a critical area permit and a conditional use permit, all for the property generally located at the northwest quadrant of Victoria Curve and Glenhill Road (the “Subject Property”), and which is legally described in attached Exhibit A: and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan and is located in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, Title 11-1-1 of the City Code (Subdivision Regulations) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district, and the Applicant requests to subdivide the Subject Property into six (6) new parcels as proposed under a new subdivision plat titled “Valley View Oak 3rd Addition; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 12-3-1 of the City Code (Critical Area Overlay District), a critical area permit is required for all development activities necessitating a building permit or any new subdivision approval; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 12-3-14, the Applicant requests approval of Conditional Use Permit to develop and disturb areas on slopes between 18% - 40% throughout the site; and page 100 WHEREAS, on November 24, 2020, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this planning case matter, and whereupon closing the hearing, recommended unanimously (6-0 vote) to deny 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. J. The proposed plat does not meet the Title 12-3-14:E. as noted below: 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%). page 101 WHEREAS, on December 1, 2020, the Mendota Heights City Council conducted a separate public hearing on this matter, received additional comment and testimony from the Applicant and general public, all noted in the official public record. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation of denial by the Mendota Heights Planning Commission is hereby upheld and affirmed, and the proposed 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, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-15 is hereby denied, based on the same findings of facts as noted above. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 1st day of December, 2020. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 page 102 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 page 103 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). page 104 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: page 105 “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 page 106 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: page 107 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. page 108 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. page 109 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: page 110 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.” page 111 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. page 112 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. page 113 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. page 114 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. page 115 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 page 116 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 page 117 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 page 118 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 page 119 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 page 120 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; page 121 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 page 122 page 123 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 HOUSEpage 124 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 NOTESpage 125 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 NOTESpage 126 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 NOTESpage 127 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)page 128 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.page 129 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.page 130 APPROX. FORMER ACCESS ROAD TO BARNLINE OF TRANSITION FROM LiDAR TO FIELD VERIFIED TOPOAPPROX. T O P O F 4 0 % B L U F F 40 FT. SETBACK FROM TOP OF BLUFFMANMADESLOPESSLOPES TABLEMIN. SLOPE0.0%18.0%40.0%MAX. SLOPE18.0%40.0%100.0%COLORCADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project areinstruments of the Consultant professional services for use solelywith respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be usedon other projects, for additions to this project, or for completionof this project by others without written approval by theConsultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may bepermitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files forinformation and reference only. All intentional or unintentionalrevisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall bemade at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additionsor deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify theConsultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.PLANNINGCIVIL ENGINEERINGLAND SURVEYINGLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREENVIRONMENTAL7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300Maple Grove, MN 55369763.424.5505www.loucksinc.comPlotted: 11 /08 / 2020 6:2 PMW:\2018\18524\CADD DATA\CIVIL\_dwg Working Files\SLOPE ANALYSISOUCKSLCADD QUALIFICATIONQUALITY CONTROLPROFESSIONAL SIGNATURESUBMITTAL/REVISIONSVALLEY VIEWOAK 3RDADDITION1941 GLENHILL ROADMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118LARRY & MARYCULLIGAN1941 GLENHILL ROADMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118NSLOPEANALYSISEX-1(Per Dakota County Tax records)Lot 1, Block 1, and OUTLOT A, VALLEY VIEW OAK 2ND ADDITION, DakotaCounty, Minnesota.DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYEDSURVEY REPORT1. This survey was prepared without the benefit of a Title Commitment.There may or may not be easements of record encumbering this property.2. Benchmark: MnDOT monument "1918H" (GSID Station 101785). Analuminum alloy rod located at the southwest corner of Trunk Highway No.110 and Lexington Ave. S.Elevation = 921.70 (NGVD29)Site Benchmark: Top nut of hydrant located at the northeast corner of thethe site along the west side of Glenhill Road.Elevation = 913.22 (NGVD29)3. The contours and features shown hereon within the heavy gray polygonare from a Boundary and Topographic Survey by Loucks Associates, datedMarch 13, 2020. The contours shown hereon lying outside of the heavygray polygon is information obtained from LiDAR.SCALE IN FEET050SPOT ELEVATIONSIGNLIGHT POLEPOWER POLECATCH BASINCONTOURCONCRETE CURBSTORM SEWERSANITARY SEWERBARBED WIRE FENCEWATERMAINUNDERGROUND ELECTRICCONCRETEELECTRIC TRANSFORMERTELEPHONE PEDESTALUTILITY PEDESTALELECTRIC METERGAS METERHAND HOLEUNDERGROUND TELEPHONEUNDERGROUND GASSANITARY SEWER SERVICEWATER SERVICEGUY WIRECULVERTOVERHEAD UTILITYGUARDRAILROOF DRAINCURB STOPFLARED END SECTIONSET 1/2 INCH X 14 INCH IRONMONUMENT, MARKED "LS 48988"FOUND 1/2 INCH X 14 INCH IRON PAVERSAIR CONDITIONING UNITIRON FENCEWOOD FENCEEXISTING BUILDINGRETAINING WALLSTORM MANHOLESANITARY MANHOLEHYDRANTGATE VALVEUNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISEMAPPED STORM SEWERMAPPED SANITARY SEWERMAPPED WATERMAINLIGHT POLEGUY POLELEGENDMONUMENT, MARKED "LS 10943"YARD LIGHT06/29/20CITY SUBMITTAL09/28/20 REV. CITY SUBMITTAL11/06/20 REV. CITY SUBMITTALReview DateSHEET INDEXLicense No.Date I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report wasprepared by me or under my direct supervision and thatI am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under thelaws of the State of Minnesota.Michael J. St. Martin - PEProject LeadDrawn ByChecked ByLoucks Project No.2444018-524MJSSFH/SFM/MJSMJS06/29/2006/29/20VICINITY MAPSITEpage 131 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. page 132 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. page 133 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. page 134 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. page 135 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 page 136 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 page 137 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 page 138 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 page 139 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 page 140 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. page 141 Project locationFigure 1. Glacial geology of project vicinity (Meyer, 2007)page 142 Project locationFigure 2. Bedrock geology in the project vicinity (Mossler, 2013)page 143 ST-3ST-2ST-1Figure 3. Location of MWI wells and fence diagram locationpage 144 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 page 145 842810805810Figure 5. Location of bluff seeps page 146 page 147 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. ƒ Staking and clearing the exploration location of underground utilities. We acquired the locations with respect to existing features ƒ A topographic survey was provided by Loucks, Inc. for the development. page 148 Mr. Larry Culligan Project B2007530 November 4, 2020 Page 2 ƒ 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. ƒ Performing laboratory testing on select samples to aid in soil classification and engineering analyses. ƒ Perform engineering analysis including global stability analyses. ƒ 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. page 149 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 --- ƒ Reddish brown to dark brown. ƒ Overall thickness ranged from 6 to 12 inches. Colluvium ML 9 to 10 BPF ƒ Light brown. ƒ Moisture condition generally moist. ƒ Only encountered in Boring ST-4. ƒ Extended to a depth of 6 1/2 feet. Glacial Deposits Glacial Outwash: SP, SP-SM, SM 13 BPF to Sampler Refusal ƒ Intermixed layers of glacial outwash and till. ƒ Variable amounts of gravel; may contain cobbles and boulders based on sampler refusals and drill rig chatter. ƒ Moisture condition of glacial outwash generally moist above groundwater measurements, generally wet below groundwater measurements. ƒ Moisture condition of glacial till generally moist. ƒ 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. page 150 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. page 151 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. page 152 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. page 153 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. page 154 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 page 155 page 156 (OHY 'HSWK IW    :DWHU/HYHO'HVFULSWLRQRI0DWHULDOV 6RLO$670'RU5RFN86$&((0  3225/<*5$'('6$1'ZLWK6,/7 6360  ZLWKURRWVUHGGLVKEURZQ 72362,/ &/$<(<6$1' 6& UHGGLVKEURZQVWLIIWR YHU\VWLII */$&,$/7,// 6,/7<6$1' 60 OLJKWEURZQPHGLXPGHQVH */$&,$/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+(5ƒ &OHDU %%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ 3ULQW'DWH67 SDJHRI page 157 (OHY 'HSWK IW   :DWHU/HYHO'HVFULSWLRQRI0DWHULDOV 6RLO$670'RU5RFN86$&((0  %OLQGGULOOHGWRIHHW KDUGGULOOLQJULJFKDWWHU 6,/7<6$1'ZLWK*5$9(/ 60 ILQHWR PHGLXPJUDLQHGUHGGLVKEURZQGU\WRPRLVW PHGLXPGHQVHWRYHU\GHQVH */$&,$/ 287:$6+ 3225/<*5$'('6$1' 63 ILQHWR PHGLXPJUDLQHGWUDFH*UDYHOOLJKWEURZQ PRLVWPHGLXPGHQVH */$&,$/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 :($7+(5ƒ PRVWO\ 6XQQ\ %%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ 3ULQW'DWH67$ SDJHRI page 158 (OHY 'HSWK IW   :DWHU/HYHO'HVFULSWLRQRI0DWHULDOV 6RLO$670'RU5RFN86$&((0  &/$<(<6$1' 6& ILQHWRFRDUVHJUDLQHG UHGGLVKEURZQPRLVWYHU\VWLII */$&,$/7,// 3225/<*5$'('6$1' 63 ILQHWR PHGLXPJUDLQHGWUDFH*UDYHOUHGGLVKEURZQ ZHWPHGLXPGHQVH */$&,$/287:$6+ &/$<(<6$1' 6& ILQHWRFRDUVHJUDLQHG WUDFH*UDYHORFFDVLRQDO6DQGOHQVHVJUD\ PRLVWPHGLXPWRKDUG */$&,$/7,// (1'2)%25,1* %RULQJLPPHGLDWHO\EDFNILOOHGZLWKEHQWRQLWH JURXW      6DPSOH%ORZV 19DOXH 5HFRYHU\                 5()  T቏ WVI 0& 7HVWVRU5HPDUNV :DWHUREVHUYHGDW IHHWZLWKIHHWRIWRROLQJ LQWKHJURXQGZKLOHGULOOLQJ /2*2)%25,1* 6HH'HVFULSWLYH7HUPLQRORJ\VKHHWIRUH[SODQDWLRQRIDEEUHYLDWLRQV 3URMHFW1XPEHU% *HRWHFKQLFDO(YDOXDWLRQ 9DOOH\9LHZ2DN7KLUG$GGLWLRQ 1:RI*OHQKLOO5RDGDQG9LFWRULD&XUYH 0HQGRWD+HLJKWV0LQQHVRWD %25,1*67$ /2&$7,216HHDWWDFKHGVNHWFK%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 :($7+(5ƒ PRVWO\ 6XQQ\ %%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ 3ULQW'DWH67$ SDJHRI page 159 (OHY 'HSWK IW   :DWHU/HYHO'HVFULSWLRQRI0DWHULDOV 6RLO$670'RU5RFN86$&((0  6,/7<6$1' 60 GDUNEURZQ 72362,/ &/$<(<6$1' 6& UHGGLVKEURZQVRIWWR YHU\VWLII */$&,$/7,// :LWK/LPHVWRQHIUDJPHQWVIURPWRIHHW 3225/<*5$'('6$1' 63 ILQHJUDLQHG EURZQORRVHWRPHGLXPGHQVH */$&,$/ 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+(5ƒ PRVWO\&OHDU %%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ 3ULQW'DWH67 SDJHRI page 160 (OHY 'HSWK IW    :DWHU/HYHO'HVFULSWLRQRI0DWHULDOV 6RLO$670'RU5RFN86$&((0  6,/7<6$1' 60 EURZQ 72362,/ &/$<(<6$1' 6& UHGGLVKEURZQVRIWWR YHU\VWLII */$&,$/7,// 6$1'</($1&/$< &/ PHGLXPJUDLQHG EURZQ */$&,$/7,// 3225/<*5$'('6$1' 63 ILQHWR PHGLXPJUDLQHGEURZQPHGLXPGHQVH */$&,$/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 :($7+(5ƒ PRVWO\&OHDU %%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ 3ULQW'DWH67 SDJHRI page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቏ WVI 0& 7HVWVRU5HPDUNV /2*2)%25,1* 6HH'HVFULSWLYH7HUPLQRORJ\VKHHWIRUH[SODQDWLRQRIDEEUHYLDWLRQV 3URMHFW1XPEHU% *HRWHFKQLFDO(YDOXDWLRQ 9DOOH\9LHZ2DN7KLUG$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+(5ƒ &OHDU %%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ 3ULQW'DWH67 SDJHRI page 162 (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+(5ƒ &OHDU %%UDXQ,QWHUWHF&RUSRUDWLRQ 3ULQW'DWH67 SDJHRI page 163 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 page 164 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 8.032page 165 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 8.032page 166 Technical Memorandum To: Ryan Ruzek, PE From: Barr Engineering Co. (Brent Theroux, PE; Jim Herbert, PE) Subject: Valley View Oaks 3rd Addition Date: November 24, 2020 Project: Development Project in Mendota Heights c: Mark McNeil, City Administrator The Valley View Oaks 3rd Addition (Culligan Property Development) is a proposed residential development located along the west side of Glenhill Road and immediately north of Victoria Curve in Mendota Heights, Minnesota. The City of Mendota Heights has requested assistance with performing a cursory review of the documents as they relate to geotechnical aspects of the proposed development. We reviewed the following reference documents provided by the City: A. Illustrative Site Plan, by Loucks, dated November, 2020 B. Construction Plans for Valley View Oak 3rd Addition Partial Plan Set (7 sheets), by Loucks, dated November 6, 2020 (Loucks Plans) C. Revised Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, by Braun Intertec, dated November 4, 2020 (Braun report) D. Addendum 1 to Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, by Braun Intertec, dated November 6, 2020 E. Preliminary Hydrogeologic Investigation of Bluff Area in Glenhill Road/Victoria Curve Proposed Development, by Kelton Barr Consulting LLC, dated October 5, 2020 The proposed development site is currently undeveloped. The site is generally covered with wooded vegetation and situated near the top of sloping bluff terrain along the Minnesota River. The Loucks plans indicate the proposed development will consist of five new residential lots, a bituminous paved private drive, new sanitary and water main utilities, a modular block retaining wall, and a new stormwater pond. After reviewing the reference documents, we have the following comments. 1. The investigation and analyses presented in the Braun report appear to be generally consistent with the standard of care for a preliminary geotechnical evaluation, as described in Section F.3 of the report. 2. Braun’s use of 1.5 as a minimum acceptable factor of safety in slope stability analyses is consistent with Federal Highway Administration guidelines, as published in FHWA/NHI-08-088 Soils and Foundations – Volume 1, December 2006. (The factor of safety is defined as the ratio of forces resisting slope failure divided by forces driving slope failure.) page 167 3. The Braun report, which includes the addendum by reference, is labeled as “preliminary”. Section D of the report states that final geotechnical and construction recommendations will be provided after additional borings are performed and the results incorporated into their analyses. 4. The material properties used for the slope stability analyses (Table 2 in Braun report) appear to be relatively high for naturally deposited soils. We anticipate the final Braun report would provide appropriate documentation supporting the use of all material properties. 5. The proposed stormwater pond appears to be approximately 100 feet upslope from the 40-foot setback from top of bluff. In general, locating stormwater ponds at the top of bluffs and similar sloping terrain can, either by subsurface infiltration beneath the pond or by surface runoff from overtopping, can contribute to slope instability if not appropriately considered in design. page 168 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 page 169 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 SUBMITTAL11/20/2020 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 /20 / 2020 2:2 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 NOTESBOUNDARY ABOVE860 CONTOUR ONLOT 3BOUNDARY ABOVE40 FOOT BUFFERSETBACK LINE ONLOTS 1 AND 2BOUNDARIES DEFINEDPER DNR LETTER DATEDNOVEMBER 17, 2020page 170 IN REPLY REFER TO: United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Mississippi National River and Recreation Area 111 E. Kellogg Blvd., Ste 105 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1256 November 20, 2020 Tim Benetti Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Valley View Oak 3rd Development Dear City of Mendota Heights Planning Commission: The National Park Service (NPS) is pleased to provide comments on the Valley View Oak 3rd Development. The proposed project would lie completely within the boundary of the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (NRRA). Congress established the Mississippi NRRA in 1988 to preserve, protect, and enhance the significant values of the Mississippi River Corridor in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) rules regulate setbacks from the river and bluffs along the 72-mile stretch of the Mississippi River within the NRRA to protect the river and retain public river corridor views. The MN Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has updated their MRCCA definition of a bluff from a slope greater than 40% to include slopes greater than 18%. This new definition would include the majority of the development based on your slope assessment. This change is due to these slopes being susceptible to erosion, especially once they are disturbed by development. Your own city code recognizes this fragile condition by requiring a Conditional Use Permit for construction within the critical area on slopes greater than 18% and less than 40% (Chapter 3, 12-3-14). These protections are in place to prevent building in sites that may not be suitable for development. The slope, underlying geography, and hydrology should be taken into careful consideration prior to development. The Mississippi NRRA did notice different opinions from Braun Intertec and Kelton Barr Consulting LLC on the integrity of the site. Kelton Barr appears more hesitant regarding construction in this area based on the degree of slopes, and other slope failures within the vicinity that share a similar geological make-up. We have not yet seen the final Slope Analysis from Braun Intertec, but this was referenced by Michelle Culligan, Culligan Legal & Business Counsel, when Mississippi NRRA reached out for clarification on some of the project. This analysis was cited by the developer as indicating the site would be appropriate to build according to construction guidelines. The reason for our concern was due to the limited boring samples page 171 being completed where most of the homes would be constructed on the west side of the development. This is also in closer proximity to the greater slopes and contains a different soil type than the section of the development closer to Glenhill Road. With the geology being of concern for stability in these steep slopes, we would recommend more soil exploration that better encompasses the entire development. We appreciate the level of attention from the Culligan family to reduce the impacts of their development on the site. They have a reduced impacts by decreasing the number of buildings, reducing the road size, re-designing structures to exclude retention walls, and by collecting rain water from new impervious surfaces within the Mississippi River watershed. However, we still have concerns about the stability of the development based on the input we have heard from the community, Kelton Barr Consulting LLC, and not seeing the final slope analysis from Braun Intertec. These concerns should be considered prior to approval by the City of Mendota Heights. If you any questions regarding these comments, please contact my staff, Adam Muilenburg at adam_muilenburg@nps.gov or by calling 651-293-8440. Sincerely, John O. Anfinson Superintendent page 172 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. page 173 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 page 174 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: December 1, 2020 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2020-83 Approving Lot Spit, Wetlands Permit and Variance for 1826 Valley View Curve Road [Planning Case No. 2020-23] Introduction City Council is asked to adopt a resolution approving a Lot Split, Wetlands Permit and Variance to the property located at 1826 Valley Curve Road. Background Paul Rice and Kaitlin Gardner are requesting approval to subdivide the property located at 1826 Valley Curve Road. The property is owned by Mr. Frank Klein, the grandfather of Ms. Gardner. The request also includes a wetlands permit and variance to the front-lot line average setback rule. The split creates a new legal lot for building a new home for the Rice/Gardner family, next to their grandfather Mr. Klein; allows work next to Marie Creek; and approves a variance to the average front-yard setback rule by allowing a 30-ft. (standard) setback from Valley Curve. At the November 24, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented, with survey and site plan, along with supporting narratives from the applicants. A public hearing was conducted, and there were no comments or objections from neighboring residents. A copy of the 11/24/2020 Planning Staff Report and related attachments are appended to this memo. (Note: due to the early packet completion deadline this week – PC meeting minutes were not available for this council memo, but will be later). Discussion The City can use its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on certain land use or zoning decisions, such as this lot split, wetlands permit and variance, and has broad discretion in approvals. A determination regarding whether or not the overall requests meet the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimously (6-0) to approve a Lot Split, Wetlands Permit and Variance for 1826 Valley Curve Road, based on the findings-of-fact supporting such a recommendation with conditions, all of which are memorialized in the draft resolution included herein. Action Requested If the City Council wishes to affirm the recommendation from the planning commission, and there are no other or outstanding issues related to this request, the council should make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2020-83 APPROVING A LOT SPLIT, WETLANDS PERMIT and VARIANCE for 1826 VALLEY CURVE ROAD. page 175 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020-83 RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT SPLIT, WETLANDS PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR 1826 VALLEY CURVE ROAD [PLANNING CASE NO. 2020-23] WHEREAS, Paul Rice and Kaitlin Gardner (as “Applicant”) and acting on behalf of Frank Klein (the “Owner”) requests approval of a Lot Split, Wetlands Permit and Variance as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-23, and for the property located at 1826 Valley Curve Road, legally described in attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and located in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, 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, and the Applicant seeks to subdivide the Subject Property into two parcels, as legally described and illustrated on attached Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 12-2-1 of the City Code, all new construction, related improvements, grading, and/or removals made within one-hundred (100) feet of a wetland or water resource-related area requires a wetlands permit; and WHEREAS, Title 12-1L-5 of the City Code (Variances) allows for the City Council to grant variances or certain modifications from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code, and impose conditions and safeguards with variances if so needed or granted: and WHEREAS, on November 24, 2020, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Lot Split, Wetlands Permit and Variance applications, and whereupon closing the hearing, recommended unanimously (6-0 vote) to approve all three land use applications, which would allow the allow the Applicant to construct a new single-family dwelling on a newly created legal lot, within 100-feet of an established wetland (Marie Creek) and page 176 allow the new single-family dwelling with a 30-ft. front yard setback, with certain conditions and findings of fact to support said approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council, that the recommendation from the Planning Commission on Planning Case No. 2020-23 is hereby affirmed, and the Lot Split, Wetlands Permit and Variance requested for the property located at 1826 Valley Curve Road, is hereby approved with the following findings-of-facts and conditions: 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. 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 page 177 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), and is hereby fully incorporated into this Resolution No. 2020-81. 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. 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. page 178 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. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 1st day of December, 2020. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 page 179 EXHIBIT-A Legal Description PID# 27-81150-01-050 LOT 5, BLOCK 1, VALLEY CURVE ESTATES, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA Torrens Property page 180 EXHIBIT-B page 181 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. page 182 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). page 183 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. page 184 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. page 185 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. page 186 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. page 187 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. page 188 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). page 189 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 page 190 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 page 191 LOOKING WESTERLY – TOWARDS NEIGHBORING HOME LOOKING EASTERLY – TOWARDS EXISTING HOME page 192 page 193 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 page 194 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. page 195 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. page 196 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 page 197 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 page 198 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 page 199 page 200 page 201 page 202 page 203 page 204 DATE: December 1, 2020 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Adopt Budget and Levy for FY 2021 COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to adopt a final budget and levy for FY 2021. BACKGROUND In August, the City Council held two budget work sessions to discuss the proposed 2021 budget. It considered priorities for expenditures, and then balanced those needs with revenues which would be available to fund that for the upcoming fiscal year (FY), which begins January 1st. The majority of the discretionary expenditures are supported by taxes levied on residential and commercial properties in the City. Given the uncertainties of what the COVID-19 pandemic will have on future city resources and expenditures, staff was directed to prepare a very tight budget. There have been three changes since the preliminary budget was adopted in September that are included in this final budget. The debt service levy was increased by $5,050 and the general fund was reduced by the same amount. The levy required for the bonds that were issued in 2020 was $5,050 greater than the previous bonds that were refunded. The premium for property insurance was reduced by $4,605 because the premium came in lower than the previous year. The sundry account in the administration budget was reduced by $455. These changes result in a net zero change in the levy amount. The highlights of expenditures which are proposed for FY 2021 are as follows: Personnel/Staffing: • There are no new employee positions proposed to be added. • The Mendota Heights Fire Relief Association asked for no additional FY 2021 contributions to the firefighter pensions. • The City’s four bargaining units will be entering the second year of two year contracts. As a result, a 3% cost of living increase has been budgeted for all employees. • The City will continue to see the benefit of changing to the Minnesota Public Employee Insurance Program last year, as no additional funding is necessary to continue to provide employee health coverage for 2021, even though rates charged to the City increased by 14%. page 205 • The City’s Worker’s Comp premium budgeted for FY 2021 will increase by $29,840. Activities/Quality of Life • Continues $14,000 funding for July 4th Fireworks Display. • Provides $3,500 in funding for a limited outdoor summer concert series. Capital/Major One Time Expenditures In most other years, the City has levied for the more expensive capital items. However, last year, due to the sizable balance which existed in the City’s General Fund, large one-time expenditures were financed from the Fund balance. For FY21, the City has had the advantage of being able to use proceeds from the sale of the Village lots to fund these one-time expenditures. The closing on that property took place in July, and yielded $1,105,000. After a Council review of the Departmental requests which took place during the August budget work sessions, the recommended capital items/major one-time expenditures proposed for acquisition in the next fiscal year are: • Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus Fire $ 225,000 • Pole Camera Police 5,000 • Squad Car Police 27,000 • Tracked Loader Public Works 55,000 • Disc Mower Public Works 5,000 • Tire Changer Public Works 13,200 • Column Jacks for Vehicle Maintenance Public Works 55,000 • Natural Resources Plan (Phase 2) Natural Resources 55,000 • Native Plantings Natural Resources 10,000 • Par 3 Well Repairs Par 3 19,000 Total $ 469,200 In addition to the above one-time expenditures, the Village lots proceeds will also fund these other one time expenditures: • City share of the Pilot Knob expansion (Valencour property) $ 150,000 • Fire Station Project Excess over Bond Sale Proceeds 303,300 • Replenish Reserve Funds (used in FY 20) 53,000 Total $506,300 The total which remains from the sale proceeds of the Village lots is $129,000. In September, the City Council deferred the decision to the December City Council meeting to determine what to do with this balance. It is recommended that the $129,000 balance be available for use in parks funding—either to provide for the portion of 2021 Parks projects which cannot be funded from the Special Parks Fund (one for one replacement, or maintenance), or to fund any improvements which will be recommended for the City’s Skate Park. Budget Increase: The total General Fund budget for 2021 is $9,751,636, which is 2.45% greater than the 2020 budget. This is the portion which is funded through property taxes and other revenues. The page 206 total city budget for all funds in 2021 is $16,447,544, which also includes such things as special revenue funds, enterprise funds, and debt service funds. Levy Impact: The levy for 2021 will increase by $433,893 from the 2020 levy. This represents a 4.32% increase over the 2020 final levy. Tax Impact on Residential Properties: Overall, the value of residential properties in Mendota Heights increased by an average of 4.1% between 2020 and 2021. The proposed 4.32% levy increase will increase the city portion of property taxes on an average value house ($426,600) from $1,613.62 in 2020, to $1,658.66 in 2021. This represents a 2.79% increase in the city portion of property taxes. Information on the impacts on other sample properties is attached. Following is a comparison of the proposed levy for 2021, versus the final levy for 2020: 2020 Final 2021 Prelim 2021 Final General Fund $7,761,373 $8,014,118 $8,009,068 Emergency Prep. 25,000 25,000 25,000 Fire Relief 180,000 180,000 180,000 Infrastructure/Facility Reserve 0 0 0 Equipment Reserve 0 0 0 Legal & Contingency 40,000 40,000 40,000 Net General Levy $8,006,373 $8,259,118 $8,254,068 Improvement Bonds $1,092,926 $1,273,037 $1,278,087 Fire Station Bonds $ 623,543 624,173 624,173 Equipment Certificates $ 28,442 28,114 28,114 Referendum (Par 3 Bonds) $ 244,440 245,175 245,175 Special Street Light District $ 53,000 53,000 53,000 Net Certified Levy $10,048,724 $10,482,617 $10,482,617 Dakota County mailed out parcel specific tax statements to the property owners in November. These showed the changes in property taxes for next year, based on the preliminary levy adopted in September. At the time of the writing of this memo, the City had not received any comments regarding the budget or proposed property taxes. This proposed final budget and levy should be discussed and considered for approval at the Council meeting on Tuesday, December 1, 2020. The final levy must be certified to the County no later than December 28, 2020. COVID_19 Pandemic Impact: The impact of the COVID- 19 pandemic on the world, national, and local economies is still unclear. It should be emphasized that Mendota Heights is highly reliant on property taxes to fund its operations, as those account for more than 70% of the City’s overall revenues. At this time, that is to the City’s advantage, and has led to relative stability. Other cities may have a more diversified mix of sources of revenues—sales taxes, hotel/motel taxes, beverage taxes, etc., and some of those have seen a downward turn as a result of changes in the economy. page 207 In September, the Council directed that none of the optional one time capital expenditures which were provided in this preliminary budget would be allowed to be ordered until the rate of second half payments was seen. That would give the Council an opportunity to re-visit those expenditures, should a “belt- tightening” be necessary. However, based on the second half property tax settlement which the City has received, it does not appear that there will be a property tax revenue shortfall for the first part of FY 2021—at least, at this time. The impact of the national economy on state and local budgets will likely be a multiple year scenario; the City will need to be diligent in monitoring its effects. RECOMMENDATION At the December 1st meeting, the Council should take public comments regarding the proposed budget and levy. Then, it is recommended that Council direct any necessary changes, and adopt the attached resolution for the final levy and budget for 2021. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs with the recommended final levy and budget for the upcoming fiscal year, it should approve the following resolution: Resolution 2020-80 “Resolution Approving Final 2020 Tax Levy Collectible in 2021 and Adopting Proposed Budget for 2021” The approval requires a simple majority. page 208 City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2020-80 RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL 2020 TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2021 AND ADOPTING PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 2021 WHEREAS, the City has previously adopted a preliminary tax levy in resolution 2020- 60; and WHEREAS, the City will accept public comments on December 1, 2020 on the proposed budget and tax levy. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the following levy for tax against all taxable property in the City of Mendota Heights for collection in the year 2021. 2021 Final General Fund $ 8,009,068 Emergency Preparedness $ 25,000 Fire Relief $ 180,000 Legal & Contingency $ 40,000 General Levy $ 8,254,068 Special Debt Levies Improvement Bonds $ 1,278,087 Fire Station Bonds $ 624,173 Equipment Certificates $ 28,114 Total Special Levy $ 1,930,374 Market Value Referendum Levy $ 245,175 Street Light District Levy $ 53,000 Net Certified Levy $ 10,482,617 page 209 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the budget as proposed is deemed to be practical and reasonable to maintain the City operations and is hereby approved. The 2021 budget reflects $16,447,544 of expenses for all funds. The 5 year capital improvement plan is presented as part of the 2021 final budget document. The clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the Dakota County Treasurer-Auditor. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 1st day of December, 2020. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ___________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 210 Net Tax Capacity Pay 2020 Pay 2021 Actual Preliminary Tax Capacity Value 27,187,958 28,839,230 6.07% Tax Increment (17,813) (176,904) Fiscal disparaties Contribution (2,759,064) (2,882,018) 4.46% Net Tax Capacity 24,411,081 25,780,308 5.61% Tax Capacity Rate Estimate Tax levy 9,751,284 10,184,442 4.44% Fiscal disparities (400,502) (421,436) 5.23% Net tax levy 9,350,782 9,763,006 4.41% Net Tax Capacity 24,411,081 25,780,308 5.61% Tax Capacity Rate 0.38315 0.37870 -1.16% City of Mendota Heights page 211 Market Value for Residential Properties Increased an Average of 4.1% from 2020 to 2021 2021 2021 Home Value Total 2020 Tax City Tax Referendum Total 2021 Tax Difference % Change 288,184$ 1,134.76$ 300,000$ 1,136.10$ 30.33$ 1,166.43$ 31.67$ 2.79% $409,798 $1,613.62 $426,600 $1,615.53 43.13$ $1,658.66 45.04$ 2.79% $528,338 $2,080.39 $550,000 $2,082.85 55.61$ $2,138.46 58.07$ 2.79% $672,430 $2,647.76 $700,000 $2,650.90 70.77$ $2,721.67 73.91$ 2.79% Tax Rates for Mendota Heights 2006 28.027 2007 26.398 2008 24.142 2009 26.165 2010 28.061 2011 29.733 2012 32.057 2013 34.479 2014 34.737 2015 34.964 0.0001511 2015 referendum rate 2016 35.247 0.0001284 2016 referendum rate 2017 37.487 0.0001297 2017 referendum rate 2018 37.826 0.0001207 2018 referendum rate 2019 39.294 0.0001146 2019 referendum rate 2020 38.315 0.0001061 2020 referendum rate 2021 37.870 0.0001011 2021 preliminary rate page 212 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2020 BUDGET BUDGET AND REVENUE SUMMARY 2019 2020 2021 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET % CHANGE GENERAL FUND $8,577,865 $9,518,571 $9,751,636 2.45% GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY $30,358 $40,000 $40,000 0.00% UTILITY FUND $2,001,964 $2,876,109 $2,242,662 -22.02% STORM WATER UTILITY FUND $275,607 $278,470 $260,750 -6.36% PAR THREE FUND $217,932 $193,592 $191,945 -0.85% CITY HALL FUND $225,421 $297,219 $301,452 1.42% EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND $9,277 $43,600 $43,600 0.00% FACILITY/INFRASTUCTURERESERVE FUND $5,162 $0 $0 0.00% FIRE RELIEF FUND $256,876 $281,000 $286,000 1.78% SPECIAL PARK FUND $388,515 $616,750 $631,750 2.43% DEBT FUND $1,277,214 $1,989,351 $2,175,549 9.36% EQUIPMENT RESERVE FUND $293,169 $399,086 $469,200 17.57% STREETLIGHT MAINTENANCE FUND $42,686 $53,000 $53,000 0.00% TOTAL BUDGET $13,602,045 $16,586,748 $16,447,544 -0.84% REVENUE GENERAL FUND $9,084,896 $9,518,571 $9,751,636 2.45% GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 0.00% UTILITY FUND $2,066,271 $2,305,350 $2,192,152 -4.91% STORM WATER UTILITY FUND $533,814 $467,850 $541,850 15.82% PAR THREE FUND $217,004 $159,450 $154,450 -3.14% CITY HALL FUND $219,826 $216,075 $216,075 0.00% EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND $28,129 $25,000 $25,000 0.00% FACILITY/INFRASTUCTURERESERVE FUND $30,942 $0 $0 0.00% FIRE RELIEF FUND $268,186 $281,000 $281,000 0.00% SPECIAL PARK FUND $276,848 $5,000 $5,000 0.00% DEBT FUND $1,277,214 $1,989,351 $2,175,549 9.36% EQUIPMENT RESERVE FUND/RESERVES $333,570 $399,086 $469,200 17.57% STREETLIGHT MAINTENANCE FUND $51,293 $53,000 $53,000 0.00% TOTAL REVENUE $14,427,991 $15,459,733 $15,904,912 2.88% page 213 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2020 BUDGET TAX LEVY SUMMARY 2019 2020 2021 % CHANGE GENERAL FUND $7,305,004 $7,761,373 $8,009,068 3.19% EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 0.00% FIRE RELIEF $162,000 $180,000 $180,000 0.00% INFRASTRUCTURE/FACILITY RESERVE $20,000 $0 $0 0.00% EQUIPMENT RESERVE $33,000 $0 $0 0.00% LEGAL AND CONTINGENCY $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 0.00% GENERAL FUND LEVY $7,585,004 $8,006,373 $8,254,068 3.09% IMPROVEMENT BONDS $1,004,844 $1,092,926 $1,278,087 16.94% FIRE STATION LEVY $519,932 $623,543 $624,173 0.10% EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES - DUMP TRUCK $28,770 $28,442 $28,114 -1.15% TOTAL SPECIAL LEVY $1,553,545 $1,744,911 $1,930,374 10.63% MARKET VALUE REFERENDUM LEVY $243,600 $244,440 $245,175 0.30% STREETLIGHT TAXING DISTRICT $53,000 $53,000 $53,000 0.00% TOTAL TAX LEVY $9,435,149 $10,048,724 $10,482,617 4.32% page 214 GENERAL FUND FUND 01 DEPARTMENT 2017 ACTUAL 2018 ACTUAL 2020 Budget 2021 budget % CHANGE CITY COUNCIL $42,946 $44,965 $48,371 $47,586 -1.62% ADMINISTRATION $1,115,527 $1,203,238 $1,215,671 $1,251,740 2.97% ELECTIONS $45,719 $42,465 $106,662 $44,452 -58.32% IT $69,582 $110,285 $217,930 $206,630 -5.19% POLICE $3,240,751 $3,851,567 $4,357,107 $4,501,180 3.31% FIRE $441,180 $498,662 $558,454 $553,906 -0.81% CODE ENFORCEMENT $109,066 $112,290 $118,625 $118,625 0.00% PUBLIC WORKS-STREETS $968,025 $1,120,780 $1,155,776 $1,202,882 4.08% PUBLIC WORKS-PARKS $710,761 $854,346 $900,377 $959,017 6.51% RECREATION $33,721 $47,317 $55,650 $57,650 3.59% COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $203,513 $169,927 $203,521 $208,965 2.67% RECYCLING $11,995 $41,201 $31,600 $31,600 0.00% ENGINEERING $375,410 $507,778 $548,827 $567,403 3.38% TOTAL GENERAL FUND $7,368,196 $8,604,822 $9,518,571 $9,751,636 2.45% GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY $102,652 $102,652 $40,000 $40,000 0.00% page 215 GENERAL FUND FUND 01 REVENUE SOURCE 2019 ACTUAL 2019 BUDGET 2020 BUDGET 2021 BUDGET % CHANGE TAXES CURRENT TAX LEVY $7,347,521 $7,305,004 $7,761,373 $8,009,068 3.19% LICENSES AND PERMITS CIGARETTE LICENSES $2,700 $1,800 $1,800 $1,800 0.00% RUBBISH LICENSES $1,275 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 0.00% DOG LICENSES $1,520 $2,000 $0 $0 0.00% CONTRACTOR LICENSES $15,350 $15,000 $0 $0 0.00% LIQUOR LICENSES $31,600 $30,000 $30,000 $25,000 -16.67% BUILDING PERMITS $324,783 $260,000 $270,000 $235,000 -12.96% HEATING PERMITS $48,621 $35,000 $40,000 $30,000 -25.00% PLUMBING PERMITS $32,760 $18,000 $25,000 $20,000 -20.00% RIGHT OF WAY PERMITS $20,839 $10,000 $15,000 $15,000 0.00% MASSAGE PERMITS $800 $1,500 $1,500 $1,000 -33.33% TOTAL LICENSES AND PERMITS $480,249 $374,700 $384,700 $329,200 -14.43% FINES AND FORFEITS COURT FINES $113,643 $67,000 $80,000 $100,000 25.00% FALSE ALARMS FINES $7,550 $4,500 $3,000 $3,000 0.00% DOG IMPOUNDING $0 $1,000 $1,000 $300 -70.00% TOTAL FINES AND FORFEITS $121,193 $72,500 $84,000 $103,300 22.98% CHARGES FOR SERVICES ACCIDENT REPORTS $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% RECREATION PROGRAMS $41,523 $38,000 $40,000 $35,000 -12.50% PARK USE FEES $14,925 $5,500 $5,500 $5,500 0.00% FIELD USE FEES $0 $30,000 $10,000 $10,000 0.00% SOFTBALL LEAGUES $10,782 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 0.00% MAPS AND ORDINANCES $9 $0 $0 $0 SURCHARGES ($36)$0 $0 $0 PLANNING FEES $26,253 $20,000 $18,000 $15,000 -16.67% FIRE CONTRACTS $173,314 $172,015 $193,551 $170,606 -11.85% LILYDALE POLICING $261,324 $261,321 $273,249 $296,850 8.64% MENDOTA POLICING $60,384 $60,386 $60,558 $66,992 10.62% POLICE SECURITY (OFF DUTY OT)$18,404 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 0.00% STREET MAINT. CHARGES $1,600 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 0.00% ASSESSMENT SEARCHES/SPLITS $15 $0 $0 $0 0.00% ENGINEERING CHARGES $51,214 $57,000 $30,000 $40,000 33.33% STREET CHARGES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% FILING FEES $0 $20 $20 $0 -100.00% LEASE MAINTENANCE CHARGES $4,374 $3,000 $4,000 $4,000 0.00% TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES $664,085 $668,242 $655,878 $664,948 1.38% page 216 INTERGOVERNMENTAL MSA MAINTENANCE $150,714 $135,000 $150,000 $150,000 0.00% POLICE STATE AID $163,345 $130,000 $135,000 $145,000 7.41% SCHOOL RESOURCES OFFICER $103,984 $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 0.00% FEDERAL AND STATE GRANTS $91,035 $20,000 $20,000 $40,000 100.00% DAKOTA COUNTY GRANT $0 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 0.00% PERA AID $9,073 $9,070 $9,070 $9,070 0.00% PEACE OFFICER INSUR REIMBURSE $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 0.00% ELECTION REIMBURSEMENT $0 $0 $10,000 $0 -100.00% TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL $518,151 $409,070 $449,070 $469,070 4.45% MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE SUNDRY REVENUE $5,852 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 0.00% DONATIONS $4,864 $0 $0 $0 0.00% CELL TOWER REVENUE $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $70,000 -6.67% INTEREST $176,757 $35,000 $35,000 $30,000 -14.29% TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS $262,473 $115,000 $115,000 $105,000 -8.70% DAKOTA COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT $30,868 $30,000 $21,000 $23,500 11.90% TOTAL DAKOTA COUNTY $30,868 $30,000 $21,000 $23,500 11.90% OTHER REVENUE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND TRANSFER $47,550 $47,550 $47,550 $47,550 0.00% TOTAL OTHER REVENUE $47,550 $47,550 $47,550 $47,550 0.00% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE $9,472,089 $9,022,066 $9,518,571 $9,751,636 2.45% page 217 2018 2019 2020 2021 % ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET FINAL CHANGE CITY COUNCIL 4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $22,592 $22,431 $22,500 $22,500 0.00% 4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $119 $164 $150 $165 10.00% 4135 FICA $1,728 $1,716 $1,721 $1,721 0.00% TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $24,439 $24,310 $24,371 $24,386 0.06% 4220 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $780 $0 $1,000 $1,000 0.00% 4400 TRAINING $0 $225 $1,500 $1,000 -33.33% 4490 HALLOWEEN BONFIRE $1,197 $418 $1,500 $1,200 -20.00% 4490 FIREWORKS $10,000 $14,250 $14,000 $14,000 0.00% 4490 MISCELLANEOUS $2,382 $5,763 $6,000 $6,000 0.00% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $14,359 $20,655 $24,000 $23,200 -3.33% 4600 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $38,798 $44,965 $48,371 $47,586 -1.62% CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION page 218 2018 2019 2020 2021 % ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET FINAL CHANGE ADMINISTRATION 4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $528,782 $570,869 $608,489 $635,342 4.41% 4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $58 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4131 INSURANCE $79,041 $83,728 $128,016 $128,016 0.00% 4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $9,248 $12,290 $10,980 $12,078 10.00% 4134 PERA $37,827 $41,170 $45,637 $47,651 4.41% 4135 FICA $38,506 $42,319 $46,549 $48,603 4.41% 4137 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM $1,632 $1,754 $1,700 $1,700 0.00% TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $695,094 $752,130 $841,371 $873,390 3.81% 4200 RENTALS AND LEASES $146 $111 $400 $200 -50.00% 4209 CITY HALL RENT $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 0.00% 4210 TELEPHONE $6,842 $6,267 $8,000 $2,000 -75.00% 4220 CITY ATTORNEY $10,004 $6,901 $12,000 $11,000 -8.33% 4220 AUDITOR $23,327 $24,095 $24,000 $25,000 4.17% 4220 CODIFIER-LINK TO CITY CODE $0 $0 $1,000 $500 -50.00% 4220 CODIFICATION SERVICES $3,165 $1,778 $4,500 $4,500 0.00% 4220 PROF SERVICES - JOB EVALUATION $2,688 $0 $1,000 $1,000 0.00% 4220 STAFF TRAINING $0 $0 $6,000 $4,500 -25.00% 4220 SAFETY TRAINING $0 $0 $2,400 $2,000 -16.67% 4220 COUNCIL RECORDING SERVICES $4,017 $3,797 $4,500 $5,000 11.11% 4220 MISCELLANEOUS $3,454 $20,124 $10,000 $13,000 30.00% 4221 RETAINER-CITY ATTORNEY $5,200 $7,100 $7,800 $8,400 7.69% 4240 LEGAL PUBLICATIONS $1,809 $2,181 $1,900 $2,200 15.79% 4250 LIABILITY AND AUTO INSURANCE $105,106 $101,547 $125,000 $130,395 4.32% 4268 NEWSLETTER $10,028 $14,507 $16,000 $17,000 6.25% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $240,786 $253,409 $289,500 $291,695 0.76% 4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $6,794 $9,596 $7,000 $7,000 0.00% 4306 RECRUITMENT COSTS $140 $0 $500 $3,000 500.00% 4318 POSTAGE $1,946 $1,747 $2,000 $2,000 0.00% 4320 FUEL $1,170 $1,528 $1,200 $1,500 25.00% 4330 EQUIPMENT REPAIR $8,633 $5,033 $4,000 $7,500 87.50% 4331 MISCELLANEOUS FURNITURE/EQUIP $0 $0 $500 $500 0.00% TOTAL COMMODITIES $18,683 $17,903 $15,200 $21,500 41.45% CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION page 219 4400 TRAINING $5,626 $7,272 $7,000 $7,500 7.14% 4402 BOOKS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS $0 $0 $3,100 $3,100 0.00%Polco 4404 MEMBERSHIP DUES $16,739 $16,883 $18,000 $17,000 -5.56% 4415 MILEAGE AND AUTO ALLOWANCE $2,573 $449 $500 $500 0.00% 4437 CREDIT CARD FEES $2,782 $3,798 $4,000 $4,000 0.00% 4480 CONTINGENCY $25,855 $31,600 $30,000 $27,555 -8.15% WSP ICE ARENA CONTRIBUTION $65,212 $114,637 $0 $0 0.00% 4490 MISCELLANEOUS $2,231 $3,884 $6,000 $4,500 -25.00% 4490 ARC PER DIEM $1,000 $1,275 $1,000 $1,000 0.00% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $122,018 $179,796 $69,600 $65,155 -6.39% 4600 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,076,581 $1,203,238 $1,215,671 $1,251,740 2.97% CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED page 220 2018 2019 2020 2021 % ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET FINAL CHANGE ELECTIONS 4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $26,343 $27,403 $28,045 $28,887 3.00% 4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $5,505 $0 $8,000 $0 -100.00% 4125 SALARIES-ELECTION JUDGES $23,949 $0 $36,000 $0 -100.00% 4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4131 INSURANCE $3,998 $4,893 $7,056 $7,056 0.00% 4134 PERA $2,385 $2,050 $2,703 $2,166 -19.87% 4135 FICA $2,865 $2,045 $2,758 $2,210 -19.87% TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $65,045 $36,391 $84,562 $40,319 -52.32% 4220 CONSULTING FEES $285 $0 $350 $0 -100.00% 4240 LEGAL PUBLICATIONS $218 $0 $300 $0 -100.00% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $503 $0 $650 $0 -100.00% 4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $2,974 $1,369 $4,500 $0 -100.00% 4318 POSTAGE $1,844 $163 $3,000 $0 -100.00% 4330 DAKOTA COUNTY SHARED EQUIPMENT $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4330 BALLOT COUNTER MAINTENANCE $3,083 $0 $3,100 $3,083 -0.55% 4330 ELECTRONIC POLL BOOKS $2,286 $2,286 $2,300 $0 -100.00% 4330 ELECTRONIC POLL BOOK MAINTENANC $0 $0 $1,400 $1,050 -25.00% TOTAL COMMODITIES $10,187 $3,817 $14,300 $4,133 -71.10% 4415 MILEAGE AND AUTO ALLOWANCE $386 $64 $450 $0 -100.00% 4490 MISCELLANEOUS $2,889 $344 $4,400 $0 -100.00% 4490 10 NEW VOTING BOOTHS $1,687 $1,850 $2,300 $0 -100.00% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $4,962 $2,258 $7,150 $0 -100.00% 4600 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $80,697 $42,465 $106,662 $44,452 -58.32% CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION page 221 2018 2019 2020 2021 % ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET FINAL CHANGE IT 4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4110 IT STAFF POSITION $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4131 INSURANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4134 PERA $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4135 FICA $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4210 TELEPHONE $490 $115 $24,000 $15,800 -34.17% 4220 WEBSITE COSTS $0 $0 $1,500 $3,000 100.00% LOGIS SUPPORT $49,020 $47,420 $30,000 $30,000 0.00% WEB SERVICES $1,300 $1,300 $1,500 $1,500 0.00% STATE OF MN LINE FEES (FIBER FEE)$1,332 $1,332 $12,600 $6,000 -52.38% SERVER HOSTING $0 $0 $28,000 $31,580 12.79% DAKOTA BROADBAND (DBB)$0 $2,230 $15,000 $17,500 16.67% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $52,142 $52,397 $112,600 $105,380 -6.41% 4301 COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE MICROSOFT LICENSES & CALS $0 $0 $21,150 $21,150 0.00% COMPUTER REPLACEMENT $13,420 $38,488 $23,200 $21,550 -7.11% MMD SYSTEM $0 $0 $7,000 $7,000 0.00% MISC HARDWARE & SOFTWARE $18,088 $0 $3,500 $3,500 0.00% LASERFICHE MAINTENANCE $9,764 $9,764 $10,300 $11,000 6.80% ADDITIONAL LASERFICHE LICENSES $0 $1,694 $2,500 $2,500 0.00% SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE/RENEWALS $0 $7,480 $13,800 $20,100 45.65% SERVER REPLACEMENT AND MAINTENAN $0 $0 $13,670 $6,700 -50.99% FIREWALL $0 $0 $7,460 $5,000 -32.98% DOOR ACCESS SYSTEM MAINTENANCE $0 $462 $2,000 $2,000 0.00% TOTAL COMMODITIES $41,272 $57,888 $104,580 $100,500 -3.90% 4400 TRAINING $0 $0 $750 $750 0.00% 4490 MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $0 $0 $750 $750 0.00% 4600 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $93,414 $110,285 $217,930 $206,630 -5.19% CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION page 222 2018 2019 2020 2021 % ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET FINAL CHANGE POLICE 4110 SALARIES-REGULAR/PATROL $1,165,930 $1,321,643 $1,361,231 $1,395,255 2.50% 4110 SALARIES-REGULAR/ADMINISTRATION $616,533 $694,060 $794,370 $814,663 2.55% 4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME/PATROL $34,142 $37,952 $80,946 $80,946 0.00% 4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $3,840 $2,363 $10,400 $10,400 0.00% 4131 INSURANCE $391,128 $450,512 $594,720 $614,880 3.39% 4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $114,332 $151,950 $135,765 $149,342 10.00% 4134 PERA/PATROL $186,065 $218,958 $247,701 $257,497 3.95% 4134 PERA/ADMINISTRATION $90,860 $104,853 $128,183 $131,402 2.51% 4135 FICA/PATROL $19,495 $22,929 $21,062 $23,529 11.71% 4135 FICA/ADMINISTRATION $15,635 $17,148 $22,363 $19,589 -12.40% TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $2,637,960 $3,022,367 $3,396,741 $3,497,503 2.97% 4200 RENTALS AND LEASES $64,526 $68,896 $73,992 $73,992 0.00% 4209 CITY HALL RENT $76,803 $76,803 $76,803 $76,803 0.00% 4210 TELEPHONE $19,587 $17,722 $20,000 $20,000 0.00% 4220 POST LICENSE RENEWALS $810 $360 $810 $810 0.00% 4220 ATTORNEY FEES $6,247 $8,483 $4,000 $4,000 0.00% 4220 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $3,387 $2,146 $5,000 $5,000 0.00% 4220 IT SERVICES - LOGIS $13,014 $18,054 $40,000 $40,000 0.00% 4222 PROSECUTIONS $70,692 $70,692 $70,692 $70,692 0.00% 4225 ANIMAL IMPOUNDING FEES $3,489 $315 $3,250 $2,000 -38.46% 4223 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES LEXIPOL $0 $8,312 $0 $8,500 100.00% BCA DEPARTMENT ACCESS CHARGE $0 $0 $1,100 $1,100 0.00% BCA MOBILE ACCESS CHARGE $2,880 $2,880 $3,000 $3,000 0.00% RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM $23,634 $25,594 $24,000 $24,000 0.00% AIRCARD $4,201 $4,437 $4,500 $4,500 0.00% LOGIS-APS TICKET WRITER $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 0.00% LOGIS-APPLICATION SUPPORT $27,151 $37,452 $32,000 $32,000 0.00% LOGIS-SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT $1,548 $0 $1,548 $1,548 0.00% LOGIS INET $0 $0 $11,000 $11,000 0.00% LOGIS ANY CONNECT/MAPS $0 $0 $1,650 $1,650 0.00% LEASE LINE MN OFFICE TECH GROUP $1,488 $1,473 $3,000 $3,000 0.00% CJIIN $10,697 $11,219 $13,000 $13,000 0.00% INT. ASSOCIATION OF POLICE CHIEFS $825 $0 $850 $850 0.00% AUTOMATED PAWN $204 $0 $205 $0 -100.00% LEXISNEXIS $1,299 $1,853 $2,000 $2,000 0.00% LANGUAGE LINE - INTERPRETER SVCS $591 $497 $600 $600 0.00% TLO INVESTIGATIONS $567 $1,375 $4,000 $5,000 25.00% MISCELLANEOUS $0 $2,218 $0 $0 0.00% ELECTRONIC CRIMES TASK FORCE $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 0.00% 4275 DCC ANNUAL RADIO FEE $10,638 $11,455 $13,095 $13,495 3.05% 4275 DCC ANNUAL FEE $193,873 $205,699 $232,171 $264,037 13.73% RADIO MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT $706 $0 $2,000 $2,000 0.00% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $556,857 $595,933 $664,266 $704,577 6.07% CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION page 223 4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $4,178 $3,133 $5,500 $5,500 0.00% 4301 COMPUTER SOFTWARE/HARDWARE $12,181 $26,000 $25,000 $25,000 0.00% 4305 OPERATING SUPPLIES $33,812 $12,184 $40,000 $40,000 0.00% 4305 POLICE RESERVES $0 $403 $4,000 $4,000 0.00% 4306 RECRUITMENT COSTS $22,056 $10,496 $15,000 $15,000 0.00% 4318 POSTAGE $655 $365 $1,000 $1,000 0.00% 4320 GAS AND OIL $42,672 $49,333 $45,000 $45,000 0.00% 4330 EQUIPMENT REPAIR/GENERAL $21,667 $36,241 $25,000 $25,000 0.00% 4330 EQUIPMENT REPAIR/CAR SET UP $3,660 $24,828 $45,000 $45,000 0.00% 4331 MISCELLANEOUS FURNITURE/EQUIP $9,080 $4,712 $11,000 $11,000 0.00% TOTAL COMMODITIES $149,961 $167,695 $216,500 $216,500 0.00% 4400 TRAINING $41,810 $37,980 $40,000 $40,000 0.00% 4402 BOOKS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS $173 $68 $500 $500 0.00% 4404 MEMBERSHIP DUES $9,831 $10,566 $12,000 $15,000 25.00% 4410 CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT $12,708 $15,584 $20,000 $20,000 0.00% 4430 CAR WASHES $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 0.00% 4490 MISCELLANEOUS $609 $521 $5,100 $5,100 0.00% 4490 SHREDDING $656 $853 $1,000 $1,000 0.00% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $65,787 $65,571 $79,600 $82,600 3.77% 4610 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $3,410,565 $3,851,567 $4,357,107 $4,501,180 3.31% CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED page 224 2018 2019 2020 2021 % ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET FINAL CHANGE FIRE 4110 SALARIES-REGULAR/ADMIN $45,148 $46,330 $75,221 $77,477 3.00% 4110 SALARIES-REGULAR/FIREFIGHTERS $158,575 $185,620 $175,131 $180,385 3.00% 4131 INSURANCE $4,594 $4,820 $5,040 $5,040 0.00% 4132 INSURANCE-LONG TERM DISABILITY $2,848 $3,049 $3,000 $3,000 0.00% 4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $39,512 $52,514 $46,920 $51,612 10.00% 4134 PERA/ADMIN $3,389 $3,474 $3,565 $3,672 3.00% 4135 FICA/ADMIN $3,447 $3,532 $5,755 $5,927 2.99% 4135 FICA/FIREFIGHTERS $3,496 $4,921 $2,539 $2,616 3.03% TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $261,009 $304,260 $317,171 $329,729 3.96% 4200 RENTALS AND LEASES $16 $570 $100 $100 0.00% 4210 TELEPHONE $5,058 $4,491 $5,500 $6,400 16.36% 4210 DAKOTA COUNTY FIBER LEASE $3,000 $0 -100.00% 4211 ELECTRICAL SERVICE $8,331 $8,235 $18,000 $10,000 -44.44% 4212 GAS SERVICE $4,991 $7,378 $10,000 $10,000 0.00% 4213 SOLAR LEASE $1,724 $1,903 $1,983 $2,079 4.84% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4220 LOGIS - IT SERVICES $2,097 $8,307 $4,000 $4,000 0.00% 4220 AUDIT $7,125 $7,200 $7,000 $7,500 7.14% 4220 LEGAL $1,643 $1,465 $1,500 $1,500 0.00% 4220 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $6,921 $0 $2,000 $2,000 0.00% 4240 LEGAL PUBLICATIONS $37 $271 $500 $500 0.00% 4244 MEDICAL EXAMS $6,766 $3,226 $8,000 $8,000 0.00% 4268 SNOWPLOW FIREFIGHTER DRIVEWAYS $14,175 $15,560 $7,000 $12,000 71.43% 4268 DEPARTMENT REPORT PRINTING $3,063 $2,835 $3,250 $3,500 7.69% 4268 STATIC TESTING $2,877 $7,073 $8,650 $8,850 2.31% 4275 DCC FEE $17,339 $18,616 $18,300 $8,898 -51.38% 4280 RUBBISH COLLECTION $1,337 $1,636 $1,300 $1,400 7.69% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $83,500 $88,766 $100,083 $86,727 -13.34% 4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $241 $302 $1,500 $1,500 0.00% 4301 COMPUTER SOFTWARE $2,974 $3,222 $6,900 $4,700 -31.88% 4301 COMPUTER HARDWARE $10,849 $0 $4,000 $2,000 -50.00% 4305 OPERATING SUPPLIES BOOTS/BUNKERPANTS/COATS $20,093 $567 $18,500 $19,000 2.70% HOSE/NOZZELS/FITTINGS $2,355 $1,145 $5,000 $5,000 0.00% MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING SUPPLIES $22,399 $13,349 $17,000 $17,000 0.00% FIRE PREVENTION $2,690 $0 $7,000 $7,000 0.00% 4318 POSTAGE $172 $278 $300 $300 0.00% 4320 GAS AND OIL $5,825 $6,126 $6,500 $6,500 0.00% 4330 EQUIPMENT REPAIR COPIER MAINTENANCE $944 $534 $1,500 $1,500 0.00% RADIO REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE $1,849 $460 $1,000 $1,000 0.00% APPARATUS REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE $52,562 $15,338 $25,000 $25,000 0.00% SCBA SERVICE $0 $0 $2,500 $1,000 -60.00% OTHER REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE $0 $10,110 $2,000 $2,000 0.00% 4331 EQUIPMENT $1,500 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4335 BUILDING MAINTENANCE $11,705 $8,465 $10,000 $10,000 0.00% TOTAL COMMODITIES $136,158 $59,897 $108,700 $103,500 -4.78% CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION page 225 4400 TRAINING $19,478 $32,813 $15,000 $15,000 0.00% 4402 BOOKS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS $1,460 $857 $1,500 $1,500 0.00% 4403 TRAINING EXPENSES TRAINING $3,083 $2,479 $5,000 $5,000 0.00% 4404 MEMBERSHIP DUES $0 $555 $1,750 $1,750 0.00% 4410 UNIFORMS $3,249 $7,647 $5,500 $7,000 27.27% 4415 MILEAGE $0 $0 $250 $250 0.00% 4425 WATER SERVICE $1,881 $1,300 $2,500 $2,500 0.00% 4490 MISCELLANEOUS $1,138 $88 $1,000 $950 -5.00% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $30,289 $45,739 $32,500 $33,950 4.46% 4630 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $510,956 $498,662 $558,454 $553,906 -0.81% CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED page 226 2018 2019 2020 2021 % ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET FINAL CHANGE BUILDING OFFICIAL 4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4131 INSURANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4133 INSURANCE-WORKERS COMPENSATION $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4134 PERA $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4135 FICA $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4209 CITY HALL RENT $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 0.00% 4210 TELEPHONE $4,270 $5,296 $5,500 $5,500 0.00% 4220 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $0 $500 $500 0.00% CITY ATTORNEY $1,369 $116 $1,500 $1,500 0.00% CITY ENGINEER/GOPHER ONE $504 $764 $0 $0 0.00% 4231 CONTRACTED INSPECTIONS $80,745 $91,998 $95,000 $95,000 0.00% 4240 LEGAL PUBLICATION $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $98,888 $110,174 $114,500 $114,500 0.00% 4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $1,249 $380 $1,250 $1,250 0.00% 4305 OPERATING SUPPLIES $1,246 $544 $500 $500 0.00% 4318 POSTAGE $1,003 $940 $1,000 $1,000 0.00% 4320 GAS AND OIL $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4330 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE $882 $117 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL COMMODITIES $4,380 $1,981 $2,750 $2,750 0.00% 4400 TRAINING $0 $0 $500 $500 0.00% 4402 BOOKS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS $0 $0 $250 $250 0.00% 4404 MEMBERSHIP DUES $135 $135 $125 $125 0.00% 4490 MISCELLANEOUS $4 $0 $500 $500 0.00% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $139 $135 $1,375 $1,375 0.00% 4620 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $103,407 $112,290 $118,625 $118,625 0.00% CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION page 227 2018 2019 2020 2021 % ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET FINAL CHANGE PW - STREETS 4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $357,206 $343,091 $353,875 $379,423 7.22% 4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $9,887 $12,912 $22,375 $22,375 0.00% 4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $3,905 $9,484 $5,000 $5,000 0.00% 4131 INSURANCE $94,718 $98,013 $107,654 $107,654 0.00% 4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $46,238 $61,452 $54,905 $60,396 10.00% 4134 PERA $26,183 $26,162 $28,219 $30,135 6.79% 4135 FICA $27,189 $27,703 $29,165 $31,120 6.70% TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $565,326 $578,817 $601,193 $636,103 5.81% 4200 RENTALS AND LEASES $3,882 $3,937 $5,500 $5,500 0.00% 4210 TELEPHONE $3,800 $3,273 $4,000 $4,000 0.00% 4211 ELECTRICAL-STREET LIGHTS $21,524 $20,568 $22,500 $22,500 0.00% 4211 ELECTRICAL-PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE $2,292 $2,210 $3,000 $3,000 0.00% 4211 ELECTRICAL-TRAFFIC SIGNALS $3,635 $3,546 $4,000 $4,000 0.00% 4212 GAS SERVICE $4,091 $4,258 $5,000 $5,000 0.00% 4213 SOLAR LEASE $1,714 $1,902 $1,983 $2,079 4.84% 4220 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $17,888 $2,214 $15,000 $5,000 -66.67% 4220 CITY ATTORNEY $405 $481 $1,000 $1,000 0.00% 4240 LEGAL PUBLICATIONS $365 $22 $500 $500 0.00% 4280 RUBBISH REMOVAL $1,418 $2,100 $2,500 $2,500 0.00% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $61,014 $44,512 $64,983 $55,079 -15.24% 4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $1,173 $725 $1,000 $1,000 0.00% 4305 OPERATING SUPPLIES $12,553 $21,585 $18,000 $18,000 0.00% 4306 RECRUITMENT COSTS $0 $0 $500 $500 0.00% 4318 POSTAGE $28 $35 $50 $50 0.00% 4320 GAS AND OIL $29,548 $29,212 $30,000 $30,000 0.00% 4330 EQUIPMENT REPAIR $86,741 $85,173 $60,000 $75,000 25.00% 4331 MISC OFFICE/COMPUTER EQUIPMENT $895 $1,023 $1,000 $1,000 0.00% 4335 PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE MAINTENANCE BUILDING MAINTENANCE $6,421 $8,451 $6,000 $7,500 25.00% CUSTODIAL SERVICES $800 $800 $1,750 $1,600 -8.57% 4336 SNOW REMOVAL DAMAGE REPAIR $3,383 $1,683 $5,000 $5,000 0.00% 4340 STORM DAMAGE $0 $18 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL COMMODITIES $141,542 $148,705 $123,300 $139,650 13.26% CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION page 228 4400 TRAINING $1,710 $798 $2,500 $2,500 0.00% 4404 MEMBERSHIP DUES $0 $300 $150 $300 100.00% 4410 CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT $4,042 $4,839 $5,000 $5,000 0.00% 4415 MILEAGE AND AUTO ALLOWANCE $248 $27 $250 $250 0.00% 4420 STREET SIGNS AND POSTS $7,243 $11,230 $12,000 $12,000 0.00% 4421 SAND AND SALT $116,013 $101,154 $125,000 $125,000 0.00% 4422 STREET MAINTENANCE MATERIAL $20,766 $36,005 $30,000 $30,000 0.00% 4423 CRACK SEALING/CHIP SEALING $104,642 $119,640 $100,000 $100,000 0.00% 4424 STREET SWEEPING AND STRIPING $53,606 $40,855 $50,000 $50,000 0.00% 4425 WATER SERVICE-PUBLIC WORKS $303 $273 $500 $500 0.00% 4426 BONFIRE CLEAN UP $0 $863 $500 $1,000 100.00% 4490 MISCELLANEOUS $269 $1,946 $400 $500 25.00% 4500 TREE REMOVAL $29,756 $30,816 $40,000 $45,000 12.50% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $338,598 $348,746 $366,300 $372,050 1.57% 4620 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,106,480 $1,120,780 $1,155,776 $1,202,882 4.08% CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED page 229 2018 2019 2020 2021 % ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET FINAL CHANGE PW - PARKS 4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $315,333 $332,791 $305,559 $343,912 12.55% 4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $22,403 $25,304 $10,000 $10,000 0.00% 4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $46,513 $43,055 $60,000 $50,000 -16.67% 4131 INSURANCE $77,229 $85,922 $104,227 $104,227 0.00% 4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $18,495 $24,579 $21,960 $24,156 10.00% 4134 PERA $23,912 $26,454 $23,667 $26,543 12.15% 4135 FICA $29,312 $32,573 $28,731 $30,900 7.55% TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $533,197 $570,678 $554,144 $589,738 6.42% 4200 RENTALS AND LEASES $11,704 $17,798 $15,000 $18,000 20.00% 4210 TELEPHONE $3,189 $4,747 $3,500 $4,000 14.29% 4211 ELECTRICAL-PW/WARMING HOUSES $2,292 $2,210 $3,000 $3,000 0.00% 4211 ELECTRICAL-COMF. STAT./AERATOR $6,491 $4,842 $6,000 $6,000 0.00% 4212 GAS SERVICE $4,787 $5,026 $7,500 $7,500 0.00% 4213 SOLAR LEASE $1,818 $1,902 $1,983 $2,079 4.84% 4220 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY ATTORNEY $285 $1,697 $500 $500 0.00% HR TRAINING/TESTING $1,549 $1,575 $1,000 $1,600 60.00% 4240 LEGAL PUBLICATION $214 $287 $0 $0 0.00% 4268 OTHER CONTRACT SERVICES SIBLEY PARK MAINTENANCE $19,722 $21,153 $22,500 $22,500 0.00% 4280 RUBBISH REMOVAL $1,418 $1,751 $2,500 $2,500 0.00% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $53,469 $62,988 $63,483 $67,679 6.61% 4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $1,777 $1,134 $1,750 $1,750 0.00% 4305 OPERATING SUPPLIES $14,402 $15,536 $18,000 $18,000 0.00% 4306 RECRUITMENT COSTS $0 $315 $2,000 $2,000 0.00% 4318 POSTAGE $129 $150 $150 $150 0.00% 4320 GAS AND OIL $15,340 $15,472 $17,500 $17,500 0.00% 4330 EQUIPMENT REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE $43,784 $34,698 $47,500 $46,500 -2.11% PARKS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES $67,629 $67,603 $50,000 $60,000 20.00% CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZER $0 $0 $14,000 $14,000 0.00% PARK MAINTENANCE COSTS $3,353 $0 $19,000 $19,000 0.00% ERADICATE INVASIVE PLANTS $10,000 $21,096 $30,000 $30,000 0.00% TOWN CENTRE LANDSCAPE MAINT.$5,726 $0 $9,000 $9,000 0.00% PILOT KNOB RESTORATION $10,700 $5,000 $11,000 $11,000 0.00% 4331 MISC OFFICE/COMPUTER EQUIP $895 $523 $1,000 $1,000 0.00% 4335 BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MAINTENANCE $7,185 $10,766 $6,000 $7,500 25.00% CUSTODIAL SERVICES $800 $800 $1,750 $1,600 -8.57% TOTAL COMMODITIES $181,720 $173,093 $228,650 $239,000 4.53% 4400 TRAINING $1,952 $2,973 $7,000 $7,000 0.00% 4404 MEMBERSHIP DUES $615 $864 $750 $750 0.00% 4410 CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT $2,840 $4,734 $2,500 $5,000 100.00% 4415 MILEAGE AND AUTO ALLOWANCE $79 $17 $250 $250 0.00% 4425 WATER SERVICE PUBLIC WORKS $303 $273 $500 $500 0.00% PARKS $12,888 $15,008 $15,000 $16,000 6.67% CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION page 230 4490 MISCELLANEOUS $501 $2,759 $1,000 $1,000 0.00% 4490 COMMISSIONER PER DIEM $1,925 $0 $2,100 $2,100 0.00% 4500 TREE REMOVAL $11,628 $20,958 $25,000 $30,000 20.00% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $32,731 $47,587 $54,100 $62,600 15.71% 4600 CAPITAL OUTLAY $19,330 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $19,330 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $820,447 $854,346 $900,377 $959,017 6.51% CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED page 231 2018 2019 2020 2021 % ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET FINAL CHANGE RECREATION RECREATION CIVICREC SOFTWARE $0 $7,500 $0 $0 0.00% 4435 SOFTBALL LEAGUES $7,017 $7,034 $7,750 $7,750 0.00% 4435 TENNIS LESSONS $1,341 $3,010 $3,000 $3,000 0.00% 4435 SUMMER CONCERTS $2,091 $4,657 $4,000 $4,750 18.75% 4435 SAFETY CAMP $1,616 $231 $1,700 $1,700 0.00% 4435 PRINCESS BALL/SUPERHERO $1,029 $1,189 $1,500 $1,500 0.00% 4435 TOUR DE REC $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 0.00% WORKOUTS IN THE PARK $0 $0 $500 $0 -100.00% CONTRACTED PROGRAMS $0 $7,390 $3,000 $11,250 275.00% SENIORS PROGRAMMING $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 0.00% 4435 SUMMER PLAYHOUSE $455 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4435 PROGRAM SUPPLIES/EQUIPMENT $0 $2,785 $1,600 $1,800 12.50% 4435 FIELD TRIPS $2,130 $3,086 $6,000 $5,000 -16.67% 4435 SUMMER PLAYGROUND PROGRAM $970 $2,285 $2,700 $1,500 -44.44% 4435 RECREATION OFFICE SUPPLIES $191 $0 $550 $550 0.00% 4435 KIDS FISHING DERBY $1,470 $1,719 $1,750 $1,750 0.00% 4435 YOUTH AND STAFF SHIRTS $2,497 $2,455 $2,500 $2,500 0.00% 4435 SKATEBOARD CAMPS/CLINICS $4,188 $0 $3,750 $0 -100.00% 4435 SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM $0 $1,000 $1,000 0.00% PARK CELEBRATION $910 $1,973 $4,000 $2,000 -50.00% TRANSLATION SERVICES $0 $0 $0 $900 100.00% MISCELLANEOUS $0 $1,000 $1,000 0.00% 4436 ONLINE REGISTRATION FEES $1,801 $2,004 $1,900 $2,250 18.42% 4400 CONFERENCES AND SCHOOLS $842 $0 $2,450 $2,450 0.00% 4400 TUITION REIMBURSEMEN $0 $0 $3,000 $3,000 0.00% TOTAL RECREATION CHARGES $28,548 $47,317 $55,650 $57,650 3.59% BUDGET IMPROVEMENT REQUEST CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION page 232 2018 2019 2020 2021 % ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET FINAL CHANGE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $98,284 $104,662 $111,039 $118,372 6.60% 4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4131 INSURANCE $19,200 $20,160 $20,160 $20,160 0.00% 4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4134 PERA $7,371 $7,850 $8,328 $8,878 6.60% 4135 FICA $6,455 $7,020 $8,494 $9,055 6.60% TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $131,310 $139,692 $148,021 $156,465 5.70% 4220 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONSULTING PLANNER $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 0.00% COMP PLAN UPDATE $36,353 $7,848 $10,000 $5,000 -50.00% CITY ATTORNEY $11,111 $8,544 $13,000 $13,000 0.00% OPEN TO BUSINESS - DAKOTA COUNTY $2,755 $2,755 $2,600 $2,600 0.00% DAKOTA COUNTY CHAMBER DIRECTORIES $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 0.00% PLANNING COMMISSIONER-MINUTES $2,369 $2,858 $2,000 $3,000 50.00% RESOLUTION FILING WITH COUNTY $1,046 $1,813 $1,500 $1,500 0.00% OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $1,200 $0 $500 $500 0.00% 4222 PROSECUTIONS $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 0.00% 4240 LEGAL PUBLICATIONS $978 $1,259 $2,000 $2,000 0.00% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $55,812 $25,076 $44,600 $40,600 -8.97% 4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $2,577 $1,084 $2,500 $2,500 0.00% 4318 POSTAGE $925 $821 $1,500 $1,500 0.00% 4330 EQUIPMENT REPAIR - VEHICLE MNTCE $0 $0 $500 $500 0.00% TOTAL COMMODITIES $3,502 $1,905 $4,500 $4,500 0.00% 4400 TRAINING $815 $278 $2,500 $3,500 40.00% 4402 BOOKS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS $0 $0 $100 $100 0.00% 4404 MEMBERSHIP DUES $414 $414 $500 $500 0.00% 4415 MILEAGE AND AUTO ALLOWANCES $0 $0 $300 $300 0.00% 4490 PLANNING COMMISSION PER DIEM $2,475 $1,750 $2,500 $2,500 0.00% 4490 MISCELLANEOUS $897 $812 $500 $500 0.00% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $4,601 $3,254 $6,400 $7,400 15.63% 4600 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $195,225 $169,927 $203,521 $208,965 2.67% CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION page 233 2018 2019 2020 2021 % ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET FINAL CHANGE RECYCLING 4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4131 INSURANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4134 PERA $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4135 FICA $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4220 CLEAN UP DAY/RECYCLING SUPPLIES $11,939 $17,063 $12,800 $12,800 0.00% 4220 SHARED RECYCLING POSITION $21,617 $24,138 $18,200 $18,200 0.00% 4268 CITY NEWSLETTER $260 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $33,816 $41,201 $31,000 $31,000 0.00% 4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4318 POSTAGE $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL COMMODITIES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4415 MILEAGE AND AUTO ALLOWANCE $0 $0 $100 $100 0.00% 4490 MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $500 $500 0.00% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $0 $0 $600 $600 0.00% 4600 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $33,816 $41,201 $31,600 $31,600 0.00% CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED NONE CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION page 234 2018 2019 2020 2021 % ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET FINAL CHANGE ENGINEERING 4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $253,963 $304,362 $315,497 $330,683 4.81% 4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $3,070 $6,418 $10,000 $10,000 0.00% 4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 0.00% 4131 INSURANCE $52,456 $69,665 $72,778 $72,778 0.00% 4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $4,961 $6,594 $5,895 $6,485 10.01% 4134 PERA $18,415 $22,708 $24,412 $25,551 4.67% 4135 FICA $19,072 $24,281 $25,666 $26,827 4.52% TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $351,937 $434,029 $464,248 $482,324 3.89% 4200 RENTALS AND LEASES $846 $870 $900 $900 0.00% 4209 CITY HALL RENT $49,329 $49,329 $49,329 $49,329 0.00% 4210 TELEPHONE $3,928 $3,033 $4,000 $4,000 0.00% 4220 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY AUDIT $3,325 $3,195 $3,500 $3,500 0.00% OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $51 $37 $2,000 $2,000 0.00% 4250 LIABILITY AND AUTO INSURANCE $1,530 $10,376 $10,000 $10,500 5.00% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $59,009 $66,840 $69,729 $70,229 0.72% 4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $1,406 $1,064 $2,000 $2,000 0.00% 4301 COMPUTER SOFTWARE $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4305 OPERATING SUPPLIES $2,196 $555 $1,200 $1,200 0.00% 4318 POSTAGE $33 $112 $300 $300 0.00% 4320 GAS AND OIL $1,575 $1,829 $2,000 $2,000 0.00% 4330 EQUIPMENT REPAIR $2,895 $480 $1,500 $1,500 0.00% 4331 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE/COMPUTER EQUIPMENT MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT $0 $0 $3,000 $3,000 0.00% TOTAL COMMODITIES $8,105 $4,041 $10,000 $10,000 0.00% 4400 TRAINING $650 $2,509 $2,500 $2,500 0.00% 4402 BOOKS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS $0 $0 $100 $100 0.00% 4404 MEMBERSHIP DUES $123 $0 $500 $500 0.00% 4410 CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT $0 $267 $500 $500 0.00% 4415 MILEAGE AND AUTO ALLOWANCE $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 0.00% 4490 MISCELLANEOUS $228 $93 $250 $250 0.00% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $1,001 $2,869 $4,850 $4,850 0.00% 4620 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $420,052 $507,778 $548,827 $567,403 3.38% CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION page 235 UTILITY FUND FUND 15 REVENUES REVENUE SOURCE 2018 ACTUAL 2019 ACTUAL 2019 BUDGET 2020 BUDGET 2021 BUDGET % CHANGE SEWER RENTAL $2,006,458 $2,041,989 $2,292,000 $2,292,000 $2,178,802 -4.94% SEWER PERMITS $3,150 $1,350 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 0.00% LILYDALE LIFT STATION MAINT.$2,500 $2,500 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 0.00% MISCELLANEOUS INCOME $13,798 $13,576 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 0.00% INTERST INCOME $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 0.00% UNAPPROPRIATED TRANSFER -$11,150 -$11,150 -$11,150 -$11,150 -$11,150 0.00% TOTAL UTILITY FUND REVENUE $2,024,756 $2,058,265 $2,305,350 $2,305,350 $2,192,152 -4.91% page 236 2018 2019 2020 2021 % ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET FINAL CHANGE SEWER UTILITY 4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $138,071 $130,169 $137,990 $143,219 3.79% 4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $1,615 $2,214 $5,000 $5,000 0.00% 4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $3,077 $4,000 $5,500 $5,500 0.00% 4131 INSURANCE $24,328 $23,382 $38,102 $38,102 0.00% 4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $10,837 $14,404 $12,870 $14,157 10.00% 4134 PERA $12,661 $5,837 $10,724 $11,116 3.66% 4135 FICA $11,615 $10,640 $11,359 $11,760 3.53% 4139 OPEB $1,991 -$3,684 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $204,195 $186,962 $221,545 $228,854 3.30% 4200 RENTALS AND LEASES $2,237 $2,549 $7,000 $7,000 0.00% 4209 CITY HALL RENT $6,907 $6,907 $6,904 $6,904 0.00% 4210 TELEPHONE $7,559 $6,990 $8,000 $8,000 0.00% 4211 ELECTRIC SERVICE PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE $2,292 $2,210 $3,000 $3,000 0.00% LIFT STATIONS $10,794 $12,241 $12,000 $12,500 4.17% 4212 GAS SERVICE PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE $4,091 $4,258 $5,000 $5,000 0.00% LIFT STATIONS $1,244 $1,440 $1,250 $1,500 20.00% 4213 SOLAR LEASE $1,610 $1,902 $1,983 $2,079 4.84% 4220 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $15,000 $15,000 0.00% CITY ENGINEER $7,710 $5,455 $0 $0 0.00% CITY AUDIT $2,834 $2,881 $3,000 $3,000 0.00% SUMP PUMP INSPECTIONS $6,991 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TRAINING $0 $0 $500 $500 0.00% OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $1,710 $4,546 $0 $0 0.00% 4240 LEGAL PUBLICATIONS $101 $51 $250 $250 0.00% 4250 LIABILITY AND AUTO INSURANCE $8,387 $9,026 $9,000 $9,500 5.56% 4280 RUBBISH REMOVAL $6,346 $1,751 $2,500 $2,500 0.00% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $70,813 $62,208 $75,387 $76,733 1.79% 4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $1,317 $1,378 $2,000 $2,000 0.00% 4305 OPERATING SUPPLIES $9,059 $9,453 $15,000 $15,000 0.00% 4318 POSTAGE $4,752 $4,307 $5,000 $5,000 0.00% 4320 GAS AND OIL $4,289 $3,668 $5,000 $5,000 0.00% 4330 EQUIPMENT REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE SEWER CLEANING/TELEVISING $69,585 $123,007 $62,000 $62,000 0.00% SEWER LINING $0 $0 $250,000 $125,000 -50.00% ROOT CHEMICALS $5,412 $7,933 $5,000 $5,000 0.00% HYDRANT MARKERS $0 $467 $750 $750 0.00% SOFTWARE SUPPORT $0 $795 $2,000 $2,000 0.00% LIFT STATIONS MAINTENANCE $0 $0 $15,000 $15,000 0.00% MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT REPAIRS $39,258 $32,273 $30,000 $35,000 16.67% 4331 FURNITURE/EQUIPMENT $895 $523 $1,200 $1,200 0.00% 4335 PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE MAINTENANCE BUILDING MAINTENANCE $6,314 $8,372 $5,000 $7,500 50.00% CUSTODIAL SERVICES $800 $800 $1,500 $1,600 6.67% TOTAL COMMODITIES $141,681 $192,975 $399,450 $282,050 -29.39% CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION page 237 4400 TRAINING $1,386 $2,220 $2,500 $2,500 0.00% 4404 MEMBERSHIP DUES $911 $0 $500 $500 0.00% 4410 CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT $0 $1,248 $750 $750 0.00% 4415 MILEAGE AND AUTO ALLOWANCE $16 $0 $250 $250 0.00% 4425 WATER SERVICE $303 $273 $300 $300 0.00% 4437 CREDIT CARD FEES $787 $1,068 $900 $1,000 11.11% 4449 MWCC CHARGES $1,343,712 $1,363,415 $1,387,527 $1,467,725 5.78% 4490 MISCELLANEOUS $7,591 $4,480 $4,000 $4,000 0.00% 4491 DEPRECIATION $177,821 $181,575 $178,000 $178,000 0.00% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $1,532,527 $1,554,280 $1,574,727 $1,655,025 5.10% 4600 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $605,000 $0 -100.00% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $605,000 $0 -100.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,949,216 $1,996,426 $2,876,109 $2,242,662 -22.02% CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED Ridge Place $315,000 page 238 STORM WATER UTILITY FUND 29 REVENUES REVENUE SOURCE 2018 ACTUAL 2019 ACTUAL 2019 BUDGET 2020 BUDGET 2021 BUDGET % CHANGE STORM WATER UTILITY FEES $501,173 $507,769 $476,000 $476,000 $550,000 15.55% MISCELLANSOUS INCOME $5,800 $400 $0 $0 $0 0.00% INTEREST INCOME $3,056 $11,188 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 0.00% UNAPPROPRIATED TRANSFER -$9,650 -$9,650 -$9,650 -$9,650 -$9,650 0.00% TOTAL STORM UTILITY FUND REVENUE $500,379 $509,707 $467,850 $467,850 $541,850 15.82% page 239 2018 2019 2020 2021 % ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET FINAL CHANGE STORM WATER UTILITY 4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $21,249 $22,084 $22,572 $23,249 3.00% 4131 INSURANCE $3,312 $4,093 $6,250 $6,250 0.00% 4134 PERA $349 $923 $1,693 $1,744 3.01% 4135 FICA $1,589 $1,628 $1,726 $1,778 3.01% 4139 OPEB $255 -$238 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $26,754 $28,491 $32,241 $33,021 2.42% 4209 CITY HALL RENT $6,904 $6,904 $6,904 $6,904 0.00% 4214 SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE $0 $0 $200 $200 0.00% 4220 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY AUDIT $1,063 $1,048 $1,100 $1,100 0.00% WMO MEETINGS $0 $0 $6,000 $6,000 0.00% NPDES ENGINEERING FEES $6,134 $20,033 $35,000 $35,000 0.00% RAIN GARDEN DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION $593 $6,358 $35,000 $35,000 0.00% SURFACE WATER TREATMENT $8,692 $18,543 $7,500 $10,000 33.33% OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $19,677 $5,380 $2,500 $2,500 0.00% 4240 LEGAL PUBLICATIONS $201 $90 $250 $250 0.00% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $43,264 $58,356 $94,454 $96,954 2.65% 4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $22 $0 $250 $250 0.00% 4318 POSTAGE $0 $26 $25 $25 0.00% 4330 EQUIPMENT REPAIR $254 $3,706 $3,000 $3,000 0.00% 4337 STORM SEWER MAINTENANCE $30,780 $37,042 $75,000 $50,000 -33.33% 4339 POND MAINTENANCE $110,720 $78,316 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL COMMODITIES $141,776 $119,090 $78,275 $53,275 -31.94% 4404 MEMBERSHIP DUES $19,490 $20,635 $20,000 $24,000 20.00% 4460 CONSTRUCTION COSTS $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4490 MISCELLANEOUS $1,048 $2,071 $500 $500 0.00% 4491 DEPRECIATION $52,726 $46,964 $53,000 $53,000 0.00% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $73,264 $69,670 $73,500 $77,500 5.44% 4600 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $285,058 $275,607 $278,470 $260,750 -6.36% CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION page 240 PAR 3 REVENUES REVENUE SOURCE 2018 ACTUAL 2019 ACTUAL 2019 BUDGET 2020 BUDGET 2021 BUDGET % CHANGE GREEN FEES $84,049 $93,078 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 0.00% RECREATION PROGRAMS $29,970 $33,229 $38,000 $40,000 $35,000 -12.50% CONCESSIONS $18,047 $19,538 $18,000 $19,000 $19,000 0.00% SUNDRY REVENUE $454 $280 $0 $0 $0 0.00% INTEREST $425 $1,067 $250 $450 $450 0.00% TOTAL PAR THREE FUND REVENUE $132,945 $147,192 $156,250 $159,450 $154,450 -3.14% page 241 2018 2109 2020 2021 % ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET FINAL CHANGE PAR 3 4110 SALARIES-ADMIN $17,775 $18,480 $23,601 $24,676 4.55% 4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME(HOLIDAY)$1,557 $29 $300 $300 0.00% 4110 SALARIES-CLUBHOUSE $26,963 $27,146 $34,000 $34,000 0.00% 4110 SALARIES - MAINTENANCE $16,160 $17,187 $22,000 $22,000 0.00% 4131 INSURANCE $6,336 $6,653 $6,653 $6,653 0.00% 4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $2,103 $2,794 $2,500 $2,750 10.00% 4134 PERA -$16,164 $2,206 $4,320 $4,401 1.88% 4135 FICA $4,688 $4,671 $6,113 $6,195 1.34% 4138 UNEMPLOYMENT $0 $403 $0 $0 0.00% 4139 OPEB $297 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $59,715 $79,568 $99,487 $100,975 1.50% 4200 RENTALS AND LEASES $2,819 $3,832 $4,750 $4,750 0.00% 4210 TELEPHONE $3,652 $3,981 $3,750 $3,200 -14.67% 4211 ELECTRIC SERVICE CLUBHOUSE $751 $826 $800 $850 6.25% MAINTENANCE $3,409 $1,800 $5,500 $4,500 -18.18% 4212 GAS SERVICE $786 $564 $800 $800 0.00% 4213 SOLAR LEASE $1,578 $1,751 $1,700 $1,915 12.65% 4220 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY AUDIT $2,725 $2,776 $2,850 $2,850 0.00% CITY ATTORNEY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% SYSTEM INSPECTIONS $3,455 $531 $1,000 $1,000 0.00% DEPT OF AG LICENSE $0 $0 $100 $100 0.00% 4250 LIABILITY AND AUTO INSURANCE $3,834 $4,739 $4,200 $4,800 14.29% 4268 CONTRACT SERVICES IRRIGATION SYSTEM SERVICES $0 $0 $3,000 $4,500 50.00% CITY NEWSLETTER $284 $235 $400 $0 -100.00% 4280 RUBBISH REMOVAL $658 $736 $700 $800 14.29% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $23,951 $21,772 $29,550 $30,065 1.74% 4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $467 $103 $600 $600 0.00% 4305 GOLF SUPPLIES $2,876 $1,597 $1,500 $1,500 0.00% 4310 CONCESSIONS FOOD $1,460 $1,697 $3,300 $3,300 0.00% POP $2,126 $1,659 $2,250 $2,250 0.00% 4320 GAS AND OIL $1,614 $1,554 $1,750 $1,750 0.00% 4330 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE GROUNDSKEEPING EQUIPMENT REPAIR $9,928 $4,342 $10,000 $10,000 0.00% 4334 COURSE MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $3,500 $3,500 0.00% CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZER $7,155 $12,086 $11,000 $15,000 36.36% IRRIGATION SYSTEM REPAIR $1,151 $2,225 $2,750 $2,750 0.00% COURSE BEAUTIFICATION $1,555 $2,568 $1,500 $1,500 0.00% SOIL/SAND $510 $510 $600 $600 0.00% 4335 BUILDING MAINTENANCE $3,922 $7,752 $6,000 $6,000 0.00% TOTAL COMMODITIES $32,764 $36,093 $44,750 $48,750 8.94% CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION page 242 4400 TRAINING $0 $266 $100 $300 200.00% 4404 MEMBERSHIP DUES $290 $90 $300 $450 50.00% 4410 CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT $0 $901 $1,750 $1,750 0.00% 4415 MILEAGE AND AUTO ALLOWANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4425 WATER SERVICE $340 $316 $480 $480 0.00% 4427 SEWER SERVICE $1,366 $1,366 $1,400 $1,400 0.00% 4436 ONLINE REGISTRATION FEE $1,192 $1,169 $1,475 $1,475 0.00% 4437 CREDIT CARD FEES $2,639 $2,588 $2,800 $2,800 0.00% 4490 MISCELLANEOUS $2,712 $2,080 $2,000 $2,000 0.00% 4480 CONTINGENCY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4491 DEPRECIATION $12,358 $0 $8,000 $0 -100.00% 4500 TREE REMOVAL $0 $0 $1,500 $1,500 0.00% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $20,897 $8,776 $19,805 $12,155 -38.63% 4620 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $71,723 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $71,723 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $137,327 $217,932 $193,592 $191,945 -0.85% CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED page 243 2018 2019 2020 2021 % ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET FINAL CHANGE CITY HALL 4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $62,918 $65,999 $66,747 $68,765 3.02% 4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $2,642 $935 $0 $0 0.00% 4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4131 INSURANCE $10,622 $19,375 $20,160 $20,160 0.00% 4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $5,549 $7,374 $6,590 $7,249 10.00% 4134 PERA $349 $2,296 $5,005 $5,157 3.04% 4135 FICA $5,506 $5,545 $5,106 $5,260 3.02% 4139 OPEB $826 $1,040 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $88,412 $102,563 $103,608 $106,591 2.88% 4211 ELECTRIC SERVICE $30,332 $20,537 $30,000 $30,000 0.00% 4212 GAS SERVICE $6,823 $6,993 $7,500 $7,500 0.00% 4213 SOLAR LEASE $652 $3,923 $3,911 $4,161 6.39% 4220 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $709 $0 $1,000 $1,000 0.00% 4240 LEGAL PUBLICATION $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4250 LIABILITY AND AUTO INSURANCE $5,991 $6,206 $6,000 $6,500 8.33% 4280 RUBBISH SERVICE $2,169 $2,852 $2,500 $3,000 20.00% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $46,676 $40,511 $50,911 $52,161 2.46% 4331 FURNITURE/EQUIPMENT $0 $0 $1,800 $1,800 0.00% 4335 BUILDING MAINTENANCE $53,733 $42,947 $46,500 $46,500 0.00% TOTAL COMMODITIES $53,733 $42,947 $48,300 $48,300 0.00% 4404 MEMBERSHIP DUES $0 $0 $50 $50 0.00% 4415 MILEAGE $0 $0 $100 $100 0.00% 4425 WATER SERVICE $3,271 $3,869 $4,000 $4,000 0.00% 4480 CONTINGENCY/RESERVE $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 0.00% 4490 MISCELLANEOUS $0 $112 $250 $250 0.00% 4491 DEPRECIATION $79,714 $35,419 $80,000 $80,000 0.00% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $82,985 $39,401 $94,400 $94,400 0.00% 4600 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $271,806 $225,421 $297,219 $301,452 1.42% CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED Pumps Boilers LED Conversion Parking Lot CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION page 244 2018 2019 2020 2021 % ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET FINAL CHANGE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4131 INSURANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4134 PERA $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4135 FICA $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4138 UNEMPLOYMENT $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4211 ELECTRIC SERVICE $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4220 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $0 $0 $7,000 $7,000 0.00% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $0 $0 $7,000 $7,000 0.00% 4305 OPERATING SUPPLIES $1,179 $322 $1,500 $1,500 0.00% 4330 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE SIREN MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 0.00% N95 MASK TESTING $0 $0 $700 $700 0.00% PHSYICALS $0 $0 $3,000 $3,000 0.00% DAKOTA COUNTY SPECIAL OPS $5,434 $5,577 $3,000 $3,000 0.00% EOC SUPPLIES $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 0.00% TOTAL COMMODITIES $6,613 $5,899 $14,200 $14,200 0.00% 4400 AMEM ANNUAL CONFERENCE $0 $0 $1,200 $1,200 0.00% 4400 TRAINING $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 0.00% 4400 CONTINGENCY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4400 DAKOTA COUNTY EMER. PREP. CMTE.$3,353 $3,378 $4,000 $4,000 0.00% 4400 DRILL CONSULTANT/EXPENSES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4490 MISCELLANEOUS $577 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $3,930 $3,378 $10,200 $10,200 0.00% 4620 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $12,200 $12,200 0.00% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $12,200 $12,200 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $10,543 $9,277 $43,600 $43,600 0.00% CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED SIREN ESCROW $12,200 CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION page 245 2018 2019 2020 2021 % ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET FINAL CHANGE FIRE RELIEF 4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4131 INSURANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4134 PERA $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4135 FICA $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4138 UNEMPLOYMENT $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4200 RENTALS AND LEASES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL COMMODITIES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4490 FIRE AID $100,975 $104,236 $100,000 $105,000 5.00% 4490 CITY CONTRIBUTION $128,680 $152,640 $180,000 $180,000 0.00% 4490 SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFIT ADMIN $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 0.00% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $229,655 $256,876 $281,000 $286,000 1.78% 4600 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $229,655 $256,876 $281,000 $286,000 1.78% CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED NONE CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION page 246 2018 2019 2020 2021 % ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET FINAL CHANGE SPECIAL PARK 4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4131 INSURANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4134 PERA $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4135 FICA $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4138 UNEMPLOYMENT $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4220 CITY AUDIT $1,226 $1,205 $1,250 $1,250 0.00% 4220 CITY ENGINEER $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $1,226 $1,205 $1,250 $1,250 0.00% 4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL COMMODITIES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4460 CONSTRUCTION COSTS $10,549 $32,249 $5,000 $5,000 0.00% 4490 MISCELLANEOUS $0 $26,364 $500 $500 0.00% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $10,549 $58,613 $5,500 $5,500 0.00% 4620 CAPITAL OUTLAY $140,981 $328,696 $610,000 $625,000 2.46% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $140,981 $328,696 $610,000 $625,000 2.46% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $152,756 $388,515 $616,750 $631,750 2.43% CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED Pickleball Court $25,000 Wentworth Warming House $175,000 Wentworth Parking Lot/Trails $90,000 Wentworth Tennis Court Resurfacing $85,000 Marie Park Playground $125,000 Skate Park Improvements $125,000 CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION page 247 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2020 BUDGET DEBT SUMMARY IMPROVEMENT BONDS 2019 LEVY 2020 LEVY 2021 LEVY END DATE 2009 $25,491 $0 $0 2/1/2020 2010 $43,043 $0 $0 2/1/2030 2011 $218,832 $0 $0 2/1/2031 2012 $88,034 $88,641 $0 2/1/2032 2013 $125,393 $127,913 $123,661 2/1/2034 2014 Refunding $64,518 $64,186 $69,104 2/1/2027 2014 $69,703 $69,831 $69,566 2/1/2035 2015 Refunding $157,329 $148,509 $139,794 2/1/2028 2015 $48,558 $48,697 $48,836 2/1/2036 2016 $75,624 $80,819 $80,543 2/1/2037 2017 $88,318 $86,911 $91,632 2/1/2030 2018 $0 $101,617 $109,447 2/1/2030 FIRE STATION $0 $623,543 $624,173 2/1/2035 2019 $0 $275,802 $351,455 2/1/2031 2020 $0 $0 $194,048 2/1/2032 TOTAL $1,004,843 $1,716,469 $1,902,260 EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES 2019 LEVY 2020 LEVY 2018 LEVY END DATE FIRE TRUCK $0 $0 $0 2/1/2020 DUMP TRUCK $28,770 $28,442 $28,114 2/1/2025 PAR THREE BONDS 2019 LEVY 2020 LEVY 2018 LEVY END DATE PAR THREE $243,600 $244,440 $245,175 2/1/2023 GRAND TOTAL $1,277,213 $1,989,351 $2,175,549 page 248 2018 2019 2020 2021 % ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET FINAL CHANGE STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE 4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4131 INSURANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4134 PERA $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4135 FICA $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4138 UNEMPLOYMENT $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4211 ELECTRICAL SERVICES $12,456 $10,049 $17,500 $17,500 0.00% 4220 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $0 $0 $500 $500 0.00% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $12,456 $10,049 $18,000 $18,000 0.00% 4330 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE $7,471 $32,637 $35,000 $35,000 0.00% TOTAL COMMODITIES $7,471 $32,637 $35,000 $35,000 0.00% 4490 MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 4620 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $19,927 $42,686 $53,000 $53,000 0.00% CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED NONE CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION page 249 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Streets Brompton/London Rehabilitation (SPRWS Water Main)1,000,000$ CenterPoint/Commerce Rehabiltation 1,732,000$ Sylvandale/Emerson Neighborhood Rehabilitation 1,081,000$ Victoria Curve Reconstruction 1,250,000$ Maire/Dodd Mini Roundabout 325,000$ Wentworth/Dodd Mini Roundabout 325,000$ Friendly Hills Neighborhood Rehabilitation (SPRWS Water Main)2,190,000$ Decorah/Wagon Wheel Realignment 575,000$ Delaware Reconstruction 75,000$ Curly's/Valley View Rehabilitation 1,200,000$ 1,000,000$ 2,813,000$ 1,900,000$ 2,765,000$ 1,275,000$ Sanitary Sewer Sanitary Sewer Trunk Main Reconstruction - NW of Dodd/110 Annual Cleaning 62,000$ 62,000$ 62,000$ 62,000$ 62,000$ Annual Lining 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 312,000$ 312,000$ 312,000$ 312,000$ 312,000$ Storm Sewer IVC Streambank Stabilization 100,000$ 100,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ Lake Augusta Erosion 150,000$ Sylvandale Neighborhood Rehabilitation 50,000$ Friendly Hills Neighborhood Rehabilitation 100,000$ Curly's/Valley View Rehabilitation 50,000$ Pond Maintenance 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 200,000$ 400,000$ 250,000$ 200,000$ 150,000$ page 250 Parks/Trails Warming House Replacement - Wentworth Park 175,000$ Wentworth Parking Lot 90,000$ Pickleball Court 25,000$ Skate Park Improvements 125,000$ Wentworth Park Tennis Court Resurfacing 85,000$ Marie Playground Replacement 125,000$ Friendly Hills Tennis Court Resurfacing 20,000$ Dugouts 96,000$ Valley View Heights Playground Remodel 125,000$ Mendakota Parking Lot Resurfacing 75,000$ Valley Park Playground Remodel 135,000$ Ivy Hills Playgound Remodel 140,000$ Roger's Lake Playground Remodel 140,000$ Roger's Lake Fishing Pier Maintenance Unknown 625,000$ 241,000$ 210,000$ 140,000$ 140,000$ City Hall/Facilities City Hall Expansion/Remodel 4,500,000$ Parking Lot Upgrade/Expansion (city hall/police dept)200,000$ Replace Boiler & Pumps (city hall)70,000$ Salt Storage Facility (public works)250,000$ Parking Lot (Public Works)150,000$ -$ 400,000$ 4,570,000$ 200,000$ -$ page 251 Equipment Skid Steer 55,000$ Disc Mower 5,000$ 4 Post Hoist 55,000$ Tire Changer 13,200$ Plow Truck - Mack (streets)200,000$ 200,000$ Kubota 25,000$ John Deere Zero Turn 20,000$ 3/4 Ton Pickup (Parks)60,000$ 60,000$ Brush Chipper 60,000$ 3/4 Ton Pickup (streets)60,000$ 510 John Deere 25,000$ Loader 150,000$ Parks Trailer 10,000$ One Ton Truck - Parks 70,000$ Engineering Vehicle 30,000$ Squad Replacements (police)27,000$ 35,000$ 35,000$ 35,000$ Pole Camera 5,000$ CSO Vehicle 45,500$ Taser Replacement 23,000$ Fire Radios 65,000$ ATV (fire)30,000$ Replacement Boat & Motor (fire)25,000$ Replace Ladder 10 (fire)840,000$ SCBA Replacement 225,000$ Thermal Imagers 20,000$ Par 3 Well Repairs 19,000$ Par 3 Sand Pro Replacement 17,000$ Par 3 Windows 5,500$ Par 3 HVAC System 8,000$ Par 3 Sidewalk Work/ADA Compliance Work 25,000$ Par 3 Greens Roller 10,000$ 404,200$ 1,358,000$ 271,000$ 230,000$ 330,000$ Totals 2,541,200$ 5,524,000$ 7,513,000$ 3,847,000$ 2,207,000$ page 252 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: December 1, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Ordinance 561 Amending Title 4, Chapter 2, for Solid Waste Abatement COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve Ordinance 561 amending City Code; Title 4, Chapter 2, updating the existing rubbish ordinance for compliance with Dakota County solid waste abatement. BACKGROUND On November 26, 2019, the Dakota County Board of Commissioners adopted amendments to County Ordinance 110 (Solid Waste Management) to implement strategies in the 2018-2030 Solid Waste Master Plan. The ordinance changes are intended to reduce waste going to landfills, improve the quality of materials recycled, and make progress toward the state’s goal to recycle 75 percent of waste by 2030. Municipalities with a population of 10,000 residents are required to complete city code updates by January 1, 2021. In accordance with State law, notice of this proposed ordinance change has been posted on the City’s website the required amount of time. DISCUSSION Ordinance 561 updating the Mendota Heights rubbish ordinance, includes a number of additional definitions, as well as requirements for commercial and multi-family properties which will be enacted in 2020. The city will also need to make additional updates in 2022 for compliance with a weekly residential recycling service to single family homes. The first highlight of the amendment is renaming the Mendota Heights rubbish ordinance to Solid Waste Abatement. Added definitions include: Back-of-house, department, designated lists of contaminants and recyclables, large events, non-recyclable paper, organics, plastic beverage bottles, and solid waste abatement messaging. Highlights to the commercial, multi-family, and large events (over 300 people generating one ton of waste) code includes: minimum container size, spacing, labeling, schedule, and messaging requirements. page 253 Staff also cleaned up some antiquated language and requirements by eliminating a reference to a covered tank or wagon, and the city no longer provides recycling containers and ownership reference of the containers was deleted. Detailed changes and additions to these regulatory mechanisms are attached for your review. The underlined language in the proposed Ordinance is what is to be added; struck-out language is to be deleted. BUDGET IMPACT The proposed changes will not affect any budget activities. The Mendota Heights Recycling Coordinator has been meeting with multi-family and commercial properties this year for implementation of the new requirements. The Recycling Coordinator is funded through a reimbursement from Dakota County. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council adopt Ordinance 561, amending the solid waste abatement ordinance. ACTION REQUIRED Staff recommends that the City Council pass a motion adopting Ordinance 561, “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, CHAPTER 2, OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT”. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 254 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 561 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, CHAPTER 2, OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Title 4-2 is hereby amended as follows: 4-2-1: TITLE: This chapter shall be known, cited and referred to as the MENDOTA HEIGHTS RUBBISH ORDINANCE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT except as referred to herein, where it shall be known as "this chapter". In response to Dakota County Ordinance 110, the City of Mendota Heights has created a solid waste abatement ordinance. The implementation of the ordinance is intended to reduce the amount of waste going into landfills, improve the quality of materials recycled to strengthen the market, and make progress towards the state’s recycling goals. 4-2-2: DEFINITIONS: The following words and terms, whenever they occur in this chapter, are defined as follows: BACK-OF-HOUSE: means the kitchen, food preparation, dishwashing, and storage areas of a commercial generator or large event venue with organics that are not accessed by customers or the public CITY: The city of Mendota Heights, a Minnesota municipal corporation. COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT: Any premises where a commercial or industrial enterprise of any kind is carried on, and shall include restaurants, clubs, churches, and schools where food is prepared or served. CUSTOMER: Those customers that have hired the hauler to collect solid waste in the city of Mendota Heights. DEPARTMENT: means the county department of unit designation by the county board to conduct solid waste regulatory activities within the county, its staff, and designation agents. DESIGNATED LIST OF CONTAMINANTS FOR RECYCLING: batteries, ceramic dishware, clothing and textiles, food waste, household hazardous waste, non-recyclable paper, pallets, pet and human waste including diapers, pharmaceuticals and medicines, medical waste, plastic bags and film, metal cylinders, scrap metal, shredded paper, Styrofoam, tanglers, trash, yard waste, electronics, appliances, sharps, tires, and other items defined by Dakota County Ordinance 110 as approved by the Dakota County Board of Commissioners and published by the Department on the Dakota County Website. DESIGNATED LIST OF CONTAMINANTS FOR COMMERCIAL COMPOSTING: ceramic dishware, glass, pet and human waste, items not meeting ASTM standards D6400 or D6868, bags, cartons, diapers, disposable wipes, freezer boxes, wax and parchment paper, shredded paper, trash, treated wood and sawdust, yard waste and Christmas trees, recyclables, and other page 255 items defined by Dakota County Ordinance 110 as approved by the Dakota County Board of Commissioners and published by the Department on the Dakota County Website.. DESIGNATED LIST OF RECYCLABLES OR RECYCLABLE MATERIALS: Aluminum, tin and steel beverage cans, plastic beverage bottles, scrap metal, tin cans, glass bottles and jars, newsprint, cartons, mixed paper and cardboard and other items defined by Dakota County Ordinance 110 as approved by the Dakota County Board of Commissioners and published by the Department on the Dakota County Website. GARBAGE: All putrescible waste matter or material of every kind, including animal offal and carcasses of dead animals but excluding human excreta, sewage and other water carried wastes. HAULER: A licensed solid waste hauler in the city of Mendota Heights. LARGE EVENT VENUE with ORGANICS: means a public gathering of at least 300 people that generates at least one ton of municipal solid waste or contracts for eight cubic yards or more per location and generates organics back-of-house. Examples include but are not limited to concerts, fairs, festivals, community events, athletic tournaments, parades, etc MIXED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE: Garbage, other refuse, and other solid waste from residential, commercial, industrial, and community activities which is generated and collected in aggregate, but excluding auto hulks or construction debris, mining waste, sludges, household hazardous waste, tree and agricultural wastes, tires, lead acid batteries, used oil, yard waste, and other materials collected, processed and disposed of as separate waste streams. MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING: Any building used for residential purposes consisting of more than four (4) dwelling units. NON-RECYCLABLE PAPER: Paper napkins, paper towels, paper plates and cups. ORGANICS: Food scraps and food waste including bakery and dry goods, coffee grounds, dairy products, eggs and eggshells, meat, fish, bones, produce, fruits, vegetables, and other items defined by Dakota County Ordinance 110. OTHER REFUSE: Includes all organic material resulting from the manufacture, preparation, or serving of food or food products, and spoiled, decayed or waste foods from any source, non- recyclable bottles, cans, glassware, paper or paper products, crockery, ashes, rags and discarded clothing, tree or lawn clippings, leaves, weeds, and other waste products, except human waste or waste resulting from building construction or demolition. PLASTIC BEVERAGE BOTTLES: Includes Recyclable PET (SPI code #1), HDPE (SPI code #2), PP (SPI code #5) including containers and jugs. RECYCLABLES OR RECYCLABLE MATERIALS: Aluminum, tin and steel beverage cans, plastic beverage bottles, scrap metal, tin cans, glass bottles and jars, newsprint, cartons, mixed paper and cardboard. RESIDENTIAL UNITS: Any single building consisting of one through three (3) dwelling units with individual kitchen facilities for each. SCHEDULED DAY: That normal customary and scheduled day that the hauler has informed the customer or agreed with the customer to collect solid waste from the customer's residential unit. Solid Waste Abatement Messaging: means the standardized solid waste abatement education messaging developed by the Department and published on Dakota County’s website. TARGETED RECYCLABLES: Metal beverage containers, glass, plastic beverage bottles, cartons, cardboard, newsprint, or other materials as may be defined by council resolution items defined by Dakota County Ordinance 110 as approved by the Dakota County Board of Commissioners and published by the Department on the Dakota County Website. YARD WASTE: Leaves and grass clippings or other materials as may be defined by council resolution. (Ord. 264, 2-21-1989; amd. Ord. 284, 5-19-1992) page 256 4-2-4: COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL REGULATIONS: A. Required Collection Of Garbage And Other Refuse; Exemptions: 1. Every household and commercial/industrial establishment in the city must be under a contract for the collection of garbage and other refuse with a licensed garbage hauler. A household in a multiple residential dwelling is considered to be under a garbage collection contract if the owner, association or management entity has a contract with a licensed garbage hauler. (Ord. 264, 2-21-1989; amd. 2003 Code) 2. A household or commercial/industrial establishment may be exempt from the requirement to be under a garbage and other refuse contract if the household or commercial/industrial establishment hauls garbage or other refuse from its own residence or business property and complies with the standards set forth in subsection 4-2-3A2 of this chapter. (Ord. 284, 5-19-1992) 3. Multi-Unit Residential Buildings owners and managers who manage municipal solid waste through a common contract shall: a. Ensure Dakota County’s designated list of recyclables are collected for recycling. b. Ensure recycling services are provided to all residents. c. Provide recycling containers with a weekly service capacity of at least 0.1 cubic yards per dwelling unit. d. Ensure that the collection schedule and container capacity are sufficient to contain all the recyclables collected and organics (if collected) from the building and public spaces and to prevent overflowing containers. e. Provide a collection schedule and containers adequate to meet the requirements of this ordinance. Container locations must include but are not limited to: indoor and outdoor locations, public spaces, private spaces, and communal spaces. f. Ensure all trash collection containers or collection chutes are co-located within 10 feet from a recycling container or recycling chute. Each container or chute must have equal access. g. Ensure all trash, recyclables, and organics collection containers are clearly labeled or marked to adhere to the standards found in Dakota County Ordinance 110, Section 16.06 (A). h. Provide solid waste abatement messaging in print or electronic form to each employee, tenant, multiunit resident, student, volunteer, and housekeeping and custodial contractors. Messaging must be documented and follow the solid waste abatement messaging published on the Dakota County Website and occur: 1. At least annually. 2. Within 30 days of any substantive change to generator’s waste program. 3. Within 30 days of a new hire or new tenant. 4. Property owners, event sponsors and managers for large event venues with organics shall: a. Ensure Dakota County’s designated list of recyclables are collected for recycling. b. Provide a collection schedule and containers adequate to meet the requirements of this ordinance. Container locations must include but are not limited to: indoor and outdoor locations, public spaces, private spaces, and communal spaces. page 257 c. Ensure all trash collection containers or collection chutes are co-located within 10 feet from a recycling container or recycling chute. Each container or chute must have equal access. d. Ensure all trash, recyclables, and organics collection containers are clearly labeled or marked to adhere to the standards found in Dakota County Ordinance 110, Section 16.06 (A). e. Ensure all trash is delivered to a facility licensed or permitted to accept the waste, recyclables are delivered to a recycling facility, and organics are delivered for food recovery or to a composting facility or anaerobic digester i. Provide solid waste abatement messaging in print or electronic form to each employee, tenant, multiunit resident, student, volunteer, and housekeeping and custodial contractors. Messaging must be documented and follow the solid waste abatement messaging published on the Dakota County Website and occur: 1. At least annually. 2. Within 30 days of any substantive change to generator’s waste program. 3. Within 30 days of a new hire or new tenant. B. Collection Schedules: 1. Weekly Collection: All licensed haulers shall make weekly collection of separated garbage and other refuse and yard waste available to customers. In the case of recyclables, all licensed haulers shall make weekly collection available to customers, unless a hauler is providing a "one sort" service, in which case the hauler may make collection available to customers every other week. (Ord. 389, 1-20-2004) 2. Hours Of Collection: No collections of garbage, other refuse and/or recyclable materials shall be made except between the hours of seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. and six o'clock (6:00) P.M. Monday through Friday. C. Collection Vehicle: Each licensed garbage, other refuse and/or recyclable materials collector shall provide a covered tank or wagon vehicle, so constructed that the contents will not leak or spill therefrom, in which all garbage, other refuse and/or recyclable materials collected by the licensee shall be transported. The vehicle wagon or conveyance used shall be kept clean and as free from offensive odors as possible, and shall not be allowed to stand in any street, alley or public place longer than is reasonably necessary to collect garbage, other refuse and/or recyclable materials. D. Disposal Of Garbage And Refuse: It is unlawful for any person to deposit garbage or other refuse from any source in any place other than a licensed sanitary landfill or county approved facility. (Ord. 264, 2-21-1989) 4-2-5: RECYCLING REQUIREMENTS: A. Collecting Recyclable Materials Required: All licensed haulers shall make curbside recycling collection available at a minimum of once a week to all residential unit customer accounts, unless a hauler is providing a "one sort" service, in which case the hauler may make collection available to customers every other week. At a minimum, such service shall include all "targeted recyclables" as defined herein. Such recycling pick up service shall be considered a page 258 part of residential rubbish hauling service generally, and no additional fee or charge may be made for such curbside recycling pick up. (Ord. 389, 1-20-2004) B. Minimum Targeted Recyclables: Minimum targeted recyclables to be collected are: newsprint, metal beverage cans, carboard, cartons, plastic beverage bottles, glass bottles and jars. Additional items may be added or defined as the council deems necessary or as county requirements change. (Ord. 264, 2-21-1989) C. Collection Schedule: 1. Weekly collection of recyclables from residential unit accounts shall be available, unless a hauler is providing a "one sort" service, in which case the hauler may make collection available to customers every other week. Service for multiple residential dwellings shall be determined by agreement between the hauler and the customer. (Ord. 389, 1-20-2004) 2. Collection of recyclables shall be on the scheduled day for normal garbage collection for every customer. 3. Collections must be made within twelve (12) hours of designated collection day. D. Point Of Collection: Point of collection shall be agreed upon by the customer and the hauler (i.e., curbside or other location). E. Charges: Each licensee shall file with the city clerk a schedule of rubbish hauling rates to be charged during the license period for which the application is made. Every licensee shall provide thirty (30) days' prior notification of any change in rates to be implemented during the license period. F. Subcontracting For Recycling Services: All subcontractors shall comply with all the licensing provisions contained within this chapter. G. Procedure Of Collector: 1. Hauler must comply with all state, county and city laws and regulations. If hauler does not comply with state, county, and/or city regulations, ordinances or laws, the license may be revoked. 2. Hauler will retain ownership of recyclable materials. 3. Prior to delivery of the recyclables to the recycling center or recycling company, the hauler shall weigh the recyclables at a state inspected and certified scale. The recyclables shall be weighed, and the hauler shall provide the city with scale receipts. 4. The hauler shall take the recyclables to a recycling center or to any other company or entity that engages in the process of recycling. It is unlawful to landfill or incinerate collected recyclables without approval from the city. H. Receipts, Reports And Payments: 1. On a monthly basis, the hauler shall provide to the city the scale receipts for the recyclables collected in the city. Reports will be due by the fifteenth of the month following the reporting period. 2. All licensed haulers shall report to the city the quantity of all recyclables and yard waste abated from landfills. These reports shall be submitted on a quarterly basis and shall include: a. The number of residential units from which recyclables were collected. b. The weight of the recyclables, measured by the scale and categorized by type of targeted recyclables. c. The city's share of the hauler's total recyclables. d. Yard waste may be reported in estimates of cubic yardage abated. 3. The city will provide the form on which the report will be submitted. 4. The quarterly reports are due on March 15, June 15, September 15, and December 15 of each year. page 259 5. Haulers will be reimbursed each quarter at the discretion of the city as determined by council resolution. I. Collection Conditions Of Residents: 1. Residential unit customers may not put out materials more than twelve (12) hours in advance of collection, and containers may not be out more than twelve (12) hours after collection. 2. The city retains ownership of recycling containers provided to residential unit accounts. (Ord. 264, 2-21-1989) This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication. Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this twenty first day of December, 2020. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST ___________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 260 DATE: December 1, 2020 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Future Meeting Format Discussion Comment: Introduction: The City Council is asked to give direction on remote versus in-person meetings. This is requested in view of City Council discussions at the November 17th meeting, and more recent directives from Governor Walz regarding COVID 19 gathering safety. Background: At its November 17th meeting, it was determined that the December 1st City Council meeting would be held “in person” due to notifications which had been previously mailed to property owners relating to the FY 2021 Budget adoption process. At that meeting, the Council also stated a preference to have a December 8th meeting held in person, to begin at 3:15 PM at the Fire Hall. At that time it would discuss selecting “finalists’ to interview for the City Council vacancy, and also conduct a workshop to discuss changes to the preliminary 2040 Comp Plan amendment. The Council further determined that it would have the vacant Councilor interviews to be held in person, beginning at 5:00 PM on Monday, December 14th. Since the November 17th meeting, however, the COVID 19 virus has continued to surge, prompting Governor Walz to issue new and more stringent restrictions on social gatherings. While City Council meetings are included under “legislative and governmental meetings” and can continue in person, remote meeting are strongly encouraged whenever possible. Given the new restrictions on other types of gathering, some members of the City Council have indicated a desire to revisit the “in person” meeting decision, at least for those occurring after the December 1st regular Council meeting. It is technically possible to conduct the December 8th meeting virtually. It could be a work session, with as many Council as desired, the Mayor-elect, and the presenter for the Comp Plan update discussion to be at remote locations; any public spectators would be accommodated—appropriately spaced--in the City Council Chambers. Mayor Garlock would be present in the Chambers. The December 14th interview meeting could also be done in a work session format. Again, if desired by the Council, the Council and Mayor–elect could be remote. The interview candidates would be directed to come to the Council Chambers to be interviewed one at a time (the “on-deck” candidates would be seated in the City Hall lobby). Public spectators would be seated in the Chambers. The Council would have its discussion, and make a recommendation as to the selected candidate via Webex.. The official appointment would be made the following evening at the regular Council meeting. Neither the December 8th, nor the December 14th meetings are proposed to be cablecast or web-streamed. If either of these are desired by the Council to be broadcast, it should so indicate, so that technological accommodations can be made through NDC4. page 261 Updates on the ability to do future Council meetings as “all remote” (beginning December 15th, and extending into 2021), will be given at this meeting. Important to that discussion will be how public commentary is taken. Assistant City Administrator Jacobson will report on options. The Council should also give direction as to how City Commissions—Parks and Recreation, and the Planning Commission—should meet until public gathering/meeting restrictions are lifted. Action Required: After discussing the options, the Council should give direction on the following •Remote or “in person” meetings for December 8th and 14th; •Remote or “in person” for all regular meetings of the City Council and Commissions, beginning December 15th. •Accommodation of public commentary at the meetings. Mark McNeill, City Administrator page 262