Loading...
2020-12-17 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING THURSDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2020 7:00 PM- Mendota Heights City Hall 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights MN 55118 1. Call to Order / Roll Call 2. Approve the November 24, 2020 Regular Meeting minutes 3. Public Hearings a. Case No. 2020-25: Critical Area Permit for The Big Rivers Regional Trail Park located at 1498 Mendota Heights Road – Dakota County (Applicant) 4. Adjourn Meeting PC Packet Pg. #1 PC Packet Pg. #2 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 24, 2020 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 24, 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 Patrick Corbett, Litton Field, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: Commissioner John Mazzitello Approval of Agenda Chair Magnuson suggested moving Item B under Public Hearings to be considered as the first public hearing as that item will likely have less discussion. The agenda was approved as amended. Approval of October 27, 2020 Minutes COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2020 AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (Petschel) Hearings B) PLANNING CASE 2020-23 PAUL RICE AND KAITLIN GARDNER ON BEHALF OF FRANK KLEIN, 1826 VALLEY CURVE ROAD – LOT SPLIT AND VARIANCES Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that 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. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. PC Packet Pg. #3 Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Paul Rice and Katilin Gardner were present representing the applicant. Mr. Rice commented that they are excited to grow their family in Mendota Heights and this request would allow them to do so. Ms. Gardner commented that this would also give them the ability to live next door to her grandfather, who is aging. Chair Magnuson asked the amount of space that would be left for a backyard if the home is pushed back 43 feet. Mr. Rice commented that they are already considering not having a typical backyard in order to preserve the wetland area. Ms. Gardner commented that this option would also provide them to have the desired amount of square footage while preserving the wetland and buffer area. 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 FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO 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 WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER CORBETT COMMENTED THAT THE CORNER LOT MAY BE AN UNUSUAL PLACEMENT TO USE FOR THE STRING TEST. HE COMMENTED THAT THE PLACEMENT SEEMS CONSISTENT WITH EVERY OTHER HOME ON THE STREET AND WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI STATED THAT IT WAS A 50/50 CALL FROM STAFF AND AGREED IT WAS A TOUGH CALL. HE STATED THAT IN ORDER TO COVER ALL BASES STAFF FELT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO REQUEST THAT VARIANCE. HE COMMENTED THAT STAFF BELIEVED THAT THIS WAS A REASONABLE REQUEST. PC Packet Pg. #4 COMMISSIONER FIELD COMMENTED THAT THE 25 FOOT BUFFER WOULD STILL BE FULLY MAINTAINED. COMMISSIONER KATZ COMMENTED THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE HOMEOWNERS ALSO DESIRE TO BE PROTECTIVE OF THE CREEK. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 1, 2020 meeting. A) PLANNING CASE 2020-15 MICHELLE CULLIGAN (ON BEHALF OF LARRY AND MARY CULLIGAN), NW QUADRANT OF VICTORIA CURVE AND GLENHILL ROAD – PRELIMINARY PLAT, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that 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 her parents and landowners Larry and 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 lots, of which five would accommodate new single-family housing. This revised plat still includes the request for a critical area permit due to the location of this site in the Critical Area Overlay District, and a conditional use permit to develop and disturb areas on slopes between 18 and 40 percent throughout the site. The variances previously requested are no longer being requested. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Commissioner Corbett stated that there is a total of five requirements/conditions, and he is most concerned with Item E, which states that building areas must be on grades less than 18 percent. He stated that none of the proposed building areas are on slopes under 18 percent. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the slopes analysis shows the existing slopes, not the proposed. He explained that if approved, each lot builder would need to apply for a Critical Area Permit and provide for a buildable area of 18 percent or less slope. Commissioner Field stated that it would then seem that this would kick the can down the road in respect to buildable area. PC Packet Pg. #5 Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that he would suggest that the applicant be allowed to respond to the ability to create those buildable areas. He stated that this application would be reviewed under the existing rules and acknowledged that the building of the homes may fall under the new rules. Commissioner Petschel asked if this would be a situation where approving this request would create a situation in which a buildable lot could not be created in the future. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that would be a fair question to ask the developer to demonstrate that ability. Chair Magnuson stated that this request is to be reviewed under the existing code and rules. Commissioner Petschel asked if this would be buildable, assuming that the final lot approval would come in once the new DNR rules are adopted. Commissioner Corbett commented that he would believe that would fall to the developer/subdivider to demonstrate now rather than the individual lot builders. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the current City Code is at the 18 percent slope mark which is equal to the proposed code the DNR wishes the City to adopt and therefore that should be an equal comparison. Chair Magnuson stated that she is concerned with that provision as well and questioned if a Conditional Use Permit would even be allowable, as it would seem that the house pads and private road would need to be reviewed and it would need to be demonstrated that the pads and private roads could be constructed on slopes lesser than 18 percent. She stated that in her ten years on the Commission this has been the most difficult application to review and wanted to ensure that everyone understood the requirements of the existing code and what could be required under a revised code, acknowledging that the burden would be on the applicant. She commented that the applicant should demonstrate tonight that the building can occur on slopes of 18 percent of less for both house pads and roads. She commented that she has a problem hoping that the applicant can demonstrate that in the future under Critical Area Permits and would want to see that demonstration tonight. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that the Commission can require the developer to demonstrate that. Chair Magnuson referenced language from the staff report which states that the Conditional Use Permit can only be granted when the mentioned conditions are met, including that the use is consistent with the Critical Area District and Comprehensive Plan therefore that is another set of criteria that the Commission must consider. Michelle Culligan, applicant, stated that they heard the feedback from the Commission during the last review and made revisions to the plan based on that input. She stated that the custom home sites allow for custom grading rather than mass grading and she believes that the proposed plan PC Packet Pg. #6 meets the existing rules. She highlighted the revisions that were made to the plan to reduce density, remove variances, incorporating a more narrow private driveway rather than public road to minimize tree and vegetation disruption, necessary easements provided, and the stormwater has been managed away from Mendota. She commented that the geotechnical analysis supports stability of the proposed project and the conservative setback from the bluff line achieves the objectives of the DNR recommended protection zone. She did not believe that the CUP request is different from any of the neighboring properties. She commented that she believes that these are buildable sites and commented that the proposed home sites are preliminary and could be shifted. She stated that they have spent a lot of time and analysis reviewing the slopes to ensure that these lots would be buildable. She stated that the private driveway is far less disruptive than separate driveways would be. Mike St. Martin, Loucks, commented that since the last review they reduced the number of lots to better configure the lots and incorporate a private driveway in order to have less disruption. He explained how the private driveway would move through the site and access the different proposed sites. He noted that the home sites could be adapted to be fully within the green areas of the slope analysis map. Chair Magnuson asked how lot one would be shifted as it is shown completely within the yellow area. Mr. St. Martin commented that the existing homes along Culligan Lane are within similar slopes and provided additional details on the grade of that site. He provided an overview of the changes that were made to the stormwater management and drainage and identified the pathway drainage would follow for collection. Commissioner Toth stated that it appears the water from three homes would be intercepted to the east and routed to the stormwater pond. He asked where the stormwater pond would be located. Mr. St. Martin identified the proposed location of the stormwater pond. Commissioner Toth asked if the stormwater pond would be in an area of slopes greater than 18 percent, which would be above the elevation of the proposed homes. He asked how many gallons of water the pond would hold at any time. Mr. St. Martin replied that the pond would be sized to hold a 100-year event. He provided details on what would occur in an overflow event. Commissioner Toth asked the stability of the soil/rock beneath the pond in the event the pond fails and whether that water would flow down the hill. Mr. St. Martin stated that this would be a constructed and lined pond that would be inspected. He stated that the pond would be lined with clay in order to prevent infiltration as the desired intent would be for the filtered stormwater to enter the storm sewer. PC Packet Pg. #7 Commissioner Petschel asked if the slope analysis is the existing or proposed conditions. He identified the top left lot which would have greater than 40 percent slopes. He asked how it is known that is manmade rather than natural. Mr. St. Martin replied that Ms. Culligan is the daughter of the person that constructed that slope/building pad. He stated that the DNR letter indicated the protected area and noted that the appropriate map shows that area proposed to be protected identified in green. He provided details on the section view noting that they would be below the 35-foot elevation as required. Bryan Ripp, Braun Intertec, stated that within the report there are two scenarios but advised that the walls have been eliminated. He stated that during the initial evaluation they came to the conclusion that the borings were not deep enough, so deeper borings were drilled to depths they felt comfortable with based on the densities of the sands. He presented the double walk out scenario and advised that a factor of safety of 1.7 was reached. He stated that for structures of this nature a minimum factor of 1.5 is required and they are above that by 20 percent. Commissioner Field asked if the slope analysis is for any given site or specific sites. Mr. Ripp replied that this was mainly for the three homes on the western side of the property as those would be considered the more difficult portions of the site compared to the other home sites. He explained that borings were taken from different places on the site in order to provide the general information. He stated that they do recommend additional site-specific borings for each home site as this moves forward. Chair Magnuson asked if there is a map that shows the identification of where the borings were completed. Mr. Ripp confirmed that there is a map that identifies the locations of the borings, noting that the locations were chosen based on the different ground surfaces rather than the proposed lot locations. Chair Magnuson referenced the November 4th report. She stated that it would appear these would be double basement homes that could go down 16 feet and noted that the report mentioned groundwater levels as high as 20 feet. Mr. Ripp replied that in the slope stability analysis they were conservative in those groundwater models to allow for seasonal variation. He confirmed that groundwater was encountered at those locations. He stated that in the modeling they assumed the groundwater to be at the surface, or ten feet below. Commissioner Katz asked if the additional site-specific borings would be done at a depth of 60 feet. Mr. St. Martin stated that once the grading plan is known they would have the additional data to determine how deep the site-specific borings should be but confirmed the borings would be deeper than 25 feet. PC Packet Pg. #8 Commissioner Katz commented that it seems that the stability is based on the structure of the home and protecting the home and land around it. He stated that he has not seen a lot of information about the impact that could occur downhill to Mendota from the displacement and additional weight that would be placed on this site. Mr. St. Martin stated that the stability analysis looks for the lowest factor of safety and the failure points did not extend to the downhill locations in Mendota. He explained that the walkout basements provide a cut in the slope and the removal of that material would provide a balance to the structure being built. He stated that the weight of the house is added, and the removal of the soil is accounted for in the modeling. Commissioner Katz stated that he would like to see more information showing that Mendota would be protected in this plan. Mr. Ripp provided details on the failure surface within the analysis, noting that the town of Mendota is well beyond that range. Commissioner Katz asked if the runoff water is accounted for in that modeling. Mr. Ripp replied that they modeled the groundwater, using conservative scenarios. He stated that the stormwater is on the surface and only impacts the stability if it infiltrates the groundwater. Commissioner Corbett asked if it can be shown how any of this development would not exacerbate the conditions in Mendota caused by natural springs. Mr. Ripp stated that with the proposed development, this would be the result. Commissioner Corbett asked if baseline water runoff in Mendota was calculated to ensure that this development would not make those conditions worse. He stated that this information shows that the ground would hold up with the digging for the construction of the homes but asked if there could be natural springs that may be impacted when digging out the sites for the basements that could cause bigger issues in Mendota. Commissioner Katz commented that the information shown has been great for Mendota Heights but asked if there is information showing the analysis that was done for Mendota and potential impacts on that town. Mr. Ripp stated that there is a scaling issue. He commented that if they would have seen the effects further down slope, there could be a point made but they did not see that. Chair Magnuson asked if they tested the slope further down for stability and groundwater. Mr. St. Martin displayed the stormwater map, explaining that they can intercept the surface water bringing that to the pond. He stated that new storm sewer would be installed to intercept groundwater to a certain depth. He noted that any water deeper than that would be essentially unaffected by this development. PC Packet Pg. #9 Commissioner Toth asked for more information on the water running off the slope shown in the soils and slope analysis. Mr. St. Martin stated that they did not model the groundwater and instead artificially set that as high to provide a conservative plan. Commissioner Toth asked the margin of error in that analysis. Mr. Ripp stated that a safety factor of one would mean balance and in order to reduce that level of error the resistance is increased to at least 50 percent higher, but in this case, they went to 70 percent. Mr. St. Martin commented that they input a higher groundwater level in order to make the model conservative and estimate the failure plain. He stated that even with the more conservative approach they still have the safety factor of 1.7. Commissioner Toth stated that in theory this model would look good on paper but once you are on site and the conditions are more accurately known, adjustments would need to be made. He asked what the backup plan would be. Mr. Ripp stated that he cannot predict what would happen on site. He stated that once the site- specific borings are known, they can determine the adjustments that would need to be made. Mr. St. Martin reviewed some of the alternatives that could be considered once the individual borings are known. He commented that they have a lot of experience and many “tools” to work with in order to provide the best conditions for each site. Ms. Culligan acknowledged that this can be complicated and therefore they took a conservative approach in their modeling. She stated that they would be improving the water situation on the site. She recognized that Mendota is a factor to consider as well. She stated that this can be done as you look at all of the other homes that have been constructed in this area, some on slopes above 18 percent. She stated that the homes in Windy Ridge are larger and closer to the bluff. She stated that any builder will be building on the facts at that time to ensure the best quality product. She stated that a significant amount of time and money have been spent on the analysis to protect this process. Commissioner Petschel asked the definition of buildable area. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the building area is typically defined by the limits of the setbacks. Commissioner Petschel stated that if a tiny home were placed on a lot would that be considered buildable area. PC Packet Pg. #10 Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the minimum buildable area is considered to be 1,000 square feet. Commissioner Petschel asked if the entire area would need to be under 18 percent slope, or whether a portion or majority of that buildable area would need to be under 18 percent slope. He also asked whether the developer is able to correct the slope to bring it into conformance. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the existing Code does not define that. He stated that staff could look into the proposed rules from the DNR to determine if there is guidance that could be used. Commissioner Petschel commented that some of these areas identified as buildable areas do not comply with section E without that information it is difficult to evaluate. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Bob Brewstal, 370 G Street in Mendota, stated that he has not heard of a two-story basement before and asked for clarification on a double walk out. He stated that he has encountered a lot of surface water issues and would like to focus on the issue of storm water and surface water management. He stated that water runs downhill, and this development promises a 30 to 40 percent reduction in the runoff but commented that the remainder would continue to run downhill. He also believed that winter conditions should be considered. He stated that he lives behind what is currently called a pond, which was supposed to capture water for the Culligan addition. He stated that in the spring melt conditions water was running through his basement wall. He stated that the discharge that was coming from the pond above his property was inundating his yard before he plugged it. He stated that he has spent hundreds of hours trying to improve this issue. He stated that there are no guarantees with the stormwater pond and if it does release, that water will go downhill and commented that Mendota cannot handle any more water. Julie Hunt, 1224 Culligan Lane, stated that in October she and other neighbors submitted findings of fact and supported the Commission’s recommendation of denial. She stated that their concern is not with homes being constructed near their homes but with the catastrophic failure that could occur. She stated that this area is unique with homes above and below that would be susceptible to failure. She believed that staff should use all regulations available and not just the existing City Code. She believed that the Commission would want accurate and up to date information using current research and technological tools when making its decision. She focused on the research that she has done since the last review by the Commission. She stated that under the updated DNR rules, this area would not be considered developable and was identified as unbuildable through that process in 2017. She stated that the 2017 regulations of the DNR are much more accurate in protecting against slope failure. She stated that the DNR and Metropolitan Council require municipalities to adopt the new regulations. She stated that the City has stated that this development aligns with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. She stated that section nine of the Comprehensive Plan includes information on bluffs and bluff impact zones (BIZ), noting that those rules are more restrictive and provided an overview. She asked why this information has not been mentioned in previous staff presentations. She stated that one of the goals identified within that plan is to protect PCA’s from private development. She stated that this property, along with the PC Packet Pg. #11 property of the development her home is located in is within a PCA. She stated that when overlaying the BIZ data over the proposed development, only one proposed home location would be outside of the BIZ. She asked why the City did not enact a moratorium earlier in order to allow updating of the City Code with the DNR adopted rules. She reviewed experts that she has spoken with during the past few months to gain additional information on this topic. She read portions of an article written about Dr. Carrie Jennings dated August 3, 2019, which provides background on her expertise with bluff failure. She then provided statements that she received from those different experts related to the development proposal on this site. She commented that there are other technologies available that will help to better answer the questions raised about this development and site. She found it confusing that the DNR identified this area within the BIZ which does not allow clear cutting or building but recognizes that the City must operate under its existing rules until the new rules are adopted. She reviewed some of the comments from those experts related to the slope risk analysis. She stated that the slope stability analysis is based off assumptions and if you use the wrong assumptions that will result in failure. She provided an example of a slope slide that occurred in a similar bowl area in Bloomington. She commented that while there were no homes below the slope in Bloomington that failed, there are homes below this slope in Mendota. She asked the Commission to consider the DNR studies. She stated that the decision of the Commission is being asked to be based on the Braun Intertec study that is not yet complete and does not consider the type of failure she provided data on tonight. She stated that Dr. Jennings is the lead expert in slopes and understanding failures and she is very concerned about this proposal. She stated that this area has been selected as one of the five critical areas in the State for additional study. She asked the Commission to consider section nine of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and ask that a full geotechnical study be done on this area before making a decision. Allen Olstein, 1954 Glenhill Road, commented that the previous speaker identified the large gaps within the engineering and geotechnical studies presented by the applicant. He stated that the supplementary report from the applicant stated that the proposed use would not be detrimental to the community and would ensure that slope stability would be provided through this design. He stated that the data the applicant collected is inadequate and there is too much uncertainty in the model used by the applicant. He stated that this development presents a serious risk to the entire community and urged the Commission to deny the CUP based on the adverse impacts this would have on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Brian Mielke, Mayor of Mendota, asked if Braun Intertec had studied the perspective of Mendota in its review but it does not appear that Braun came to Mendota to look at the existing springs and model the potential impact that could have on Mendota. He stated that Mendota remains concerns and opposed to any development that could lead to failure of the bluff. He stated that the likelihood of failure would be high, especially with the increase in the 100-year rain events. He stated that digging and disturbing of underground springs could exacerbate the issues that currently exist. He asked that Mendota Heights consider a moratorium in order to enact the new DNR rules. Steve Helmstetter, 1248 Culligan Road, stated that his home was built 37 years ago on quite a slope and in his seven years in the home he has experienced issues with his basement because of pressure from the slope. He stated that he continues to spend money to fight this issue and noted that his home would be similar to the conditions of three of the proposed homes. He stated that the soil on his property is very unstable and he is hesitant to remove invasive species because it PC Packet Pg. #12 could lead to further instability. He commented that he is unsure how his home was allowed to be built because of the unstable soils. He stated that within the loop of his development there is a sewage pumping station and asked if there would be a sewage pumping system for the three homes on the western edge of the proposed development. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the three lots would be proposed to be served by individual grinder pump systems, which are privately owned pump lift stations and would not be City owned. Steven Douglas, 330 G Street in Mendota, stated that he purchased his home 30 years ago and, in that time, the underground water level has increased by at least five feet. He stated that the limestone rock is fractured, and water runs through those areas, which are 40 or 50 feet above the homes. He stated that he is worried about landslides and has also spent time attempting to move the water away from his home that flows down the bluff. He asked for details on the borings and whether those are creating additional holes that will run out to Mendota. He asked the Commission not to approve this request. Mark Hunt, 1224 Culligan Lane, encouraged the Commission to continue to press for specific boring locations. He stated that he would want to see borings from the furthest reach of where they would intend to build. He expressed a concern related to the retention pond, as if that were to fail that would have bigger implications. Kae Jewel, 1948 Glenhill Road, stated that the reality is that the City is operating on old information and there is new information out there. She stated that the residents asked for a public hearing to consider a moratorium but that was not approved. She stated that she spent her career analyzing risk and did not believe that this is a risk the City or its residents should take on as it cannot be managed or handled. She referenced a recent newspaper article in which someone put family land into a conservatorship with Dakota County. She encouraged the City and property owner to explore other options. She asked the Commission to deny this request. Sandra Krebsbach, 1230 Culligan Lane, commented that this is probably the most complex application that has come before the City. She stated that she does have experience in the development of the City during her time on the Commission and as an elected official. She stated that through previous development this parcel was labeled as an undevelopable outlot and has been taxed as since. She stated that her home is built on bedrock and they preserved the large trees on their property in order to be structurally solid. She stated that if this development is allowed and erodes that slope, it will not just be the top of the slope that erodes, but other properties as well. She noted that homeowners insurance does not cover this type of damage and asked the recourse for property owners if this property causes others to fail. She asked the Commission to take its time and do its due diligence to ensure specific information is provided to ensure that this property will not cause failure to others. Mark Culligan stated that he, his sisters, and their parents are the stakeholders for the property. He stated that he has been impressed with all of the technical information presented. He provided background on the use of the property over the years his family has owned it, noting that he has a 60-year perspective on the property. He referenced the river bluff landslide that occurred in PC Packet Pg. #13 Bloomington, noting that is not the same type of slope as the subject property. He stated that the building sites are relatively flat, and they have spent a considerable amount of funds on engineering and studies. He stated that hydrostatic pressure occurs in many areas, including his home in Saint Paul. He stated that his family should not be responsible for water problems in the bowl of Mendota. He stated that this is a natural beautiful woodland property that people often trespass on and dump their yard waste on. He stated that while people have an attachment to the property, they are the rightful owners. He stated that their property rights have not been condemned. By the DNR. He stated that his family are stewards of the land and will not be clear cutting and have proposed this design in order to minimize the impacts to the land. He stated that stormwater management removes the water from the natural downhill flow and would improve the current conditions. He stated that there has never been a single landslide of any type on this property in the past 50 plus years that he has been involved in the property. He commented that this is not bluff and is instead a slope. He believed that credit should be given to the engineering team that has been involved in this project. Ms. Culligan stated that she believes it would be helpful for some of her team to be able to provide additional comments following the public comments made. Mr. Ripp commented that some of the information was perhaps taken out of context. He stated that there was an assertion that only soil samples were taken and reviewed the steps that were taken. He stated that it was considered preliminary because those are preliminary borings. He confirmed that a geotechnical analysis was completed and up to date technology was used. He stated that there was a question related to how the borings were backfilled and replied that the borings were backfilled according to the Minnesota Department of Health standards, providing details on that process which ensures that infiltration will not result from the borings. Commissioner Corbett asked if all the borings were backfilled or whether it was just the 60-foot borings that were backfilled. Mr. Ripp confirmed that all borings more than 15 feet are required to be backfilled and were backfilled. He confirmed that they studied and analyzed the possibility of rotational failure, which was mentioned by one of the residents. He stated that he did not see evidence of failures or movement when walking this site. He commented that the number of trees has most likely provided the balance to prevent that from occurring on this site. He stated that they feel comfortable with the results of the deeper borings that were completed in order to investigate the possibility of rotational failure. He stated that there are springs on this site, but the depths are well below the area that would be disturbed. He stated that there are sandy soils on the site and the team is aware of the potential for erosion, which is why they are attempting to minimize the areas to be disturbed. He reviewed the factors that tend to lead to slope failure and commented that those would not be factors in this proposed development or on this site. Commissioner Toth referenced the boring map locations and stated that there is no data on the borings for the area proposed for home construction. Mr. Ripp confirmed that to be correct. He stated that they intend to drill borings in those locations. PC Packet Pg. #14 Commissioner Corbett stated that it appears four sites were selected for soil borings and then two of those were dug deeper. Mr. Ripp confirmed that to be true. He stated that when the initial slope stability analysis was done, they came to the realization that the borings were not deep enough. Commissioner Corbett stated that his attempt was to determine why two sites were listed twice. Commissioner Toth stated that there was mention that soil erosion will occur when you remove vegetation. He asked the controls that would be put in place once the vegetation would be removed during the construction process. Mr. St. Martin stated that they would have a stormwater pollution prevent plan (SWPPP) that would identify the steps that would be taken during construction and reviewed some measures that could be enacted to prevent erosion during construction. He stated that the contractor would have a licensed SWPPP inspector onsite daily and that entire process would be permitted by the MPCA. Commissioner Toth provide an example situation that could occur during construction once vegetation is removed and a June rain event occurs. He asked if silt fence would hold soils on a ten percent grade. Mr. St. Martin reviewed additional measures that could be taken to provide that protection. He stated that contractors are used to dealing with rain events during construction. Chair Magnuson referenced the report that was prepared by Barr Engineering and the major concern related to the location of the stormwater pond. She asked for a response from the applicant. Mr. St. Martin stated that they would work with Braun and would likely line the pond with a clay liner to create a bowl that would keep the water in the pond and would not allow seepage. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF VALLEY VIEW OAK 3RD ADDITION ALONG WITH A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NW QUADRANT OF VICTORIA CURVE AND GLENHILL ROAD, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT CONFIRM THE APPLICANT FAILED TO MEET THE BURDEN(S) OF PROOF OR STANDARDS PC Packet Pg. #15 REQUIRED IN GRANTING SUCH APPROVAL OF THESE APPLICATIONS, NOTED AS FOLLOWS: THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE BUILDING AREA WOULD BE ON SLOPES LESSER THAN 18 PERCENT. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL COMMENTED THAT HE WOULD AGREE WITH THE DENIAL. HE STATED THAT HE STILL QUESTIONS THE BUILDABLE LOT AND WHETHER THAT IS INTENDED FOR THE EXISTING STATE OR PROPOSED FUTURE STATE. HE STATED THAT ANY LOT COULD BE ALTERED TO BECOME BUILDABLE WITH ENOUGH FILL AND DID NOT BELIEVE THE INTENT OF THE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE THAT THE SLOPE COULD BE ALTERED TO MEET THAT SLOPE REQUIREMENT. HE STATED THAT TWO OF THE FIVE LOTS WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC FROM THAT POINT OF VIEW. COMMISSIONER CORBETT STATED THAT HE AGREES WITH THAT INTERPRETATION, THAT THE SLOPE PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENT IS BEFORE ALTERATION. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT HE DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT ANYTHING PROPOSED IS OVERTLY DANGEROUS. HE STATED THAT WHILE HE APPRECIATES THE INPUT OF THE RESIDENTS, THESE ARE COMPLICATED TOPICS FOR EXPERTS AND THE ONLY ENGINEERS PRESENT TONIGHT ARE THOSE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. COMMISSIONER CORBETT APPLAUDED THE EFFORT FROM THE APPLICANT AND THEIR ENGINEERS BUT NOTED THAT HIS ROLE IS TO UPHOLD THE CODE AND HE STICKS TO THAT POINT THAT THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE CITY REQUIREMENTS. COMMISSIONER KATZ STATED THAT HE HAS CONCERN WITH THE ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE RELATED TO ROTATIONAL SLIDE. HE STATED THAT HE DOES NOT WANT TO DISMISS THE CONCERN AND APPRECIATES THE INPUT FROM THE ENGINEERING TEAM FROM THE APPLICANT BUT WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE TWO SIDES RECONCILED. CHAIR MAGNUSON STATED THAT THE COMMISSION WAS ASKED BY STAFF TO ADDRESS THE PRIVATE ROAD, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISCUSSED. SHE STATED THAT AS SHE READS THE CITY CODE, A LOT IS DEFINED AS A LOT THAT ABUTS A PRIVATE ROAD. SHE STATED THAT THIS WOULD NOT BE A PUBLIC STREET AND WOULD BE AN EASEMENT. SHE ASKED IF THIS WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCE FOR A PRIVATE ROAD. SHE STATED THAT WHEN REVIEWING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THE COMMISSION IS TASKED TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SHE NOTED THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STATES DISCOURAGES FROM INFILL DEVELOPMENT THAT RELIES ON A PRIVATE STREET OR FLAG LOT DESIGN. SHE STATED THAT SHE HAS A HARD TIME RECONCILING THE CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WITH THE SLOPE PERCENTAGES. PC Packet Pg. #16 COMMISSIONER TOTH ASKED IF EMERGENCY SERVICES REVIEWED THE PRIVATE ROAD CONCEPT. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI REPLIED THAT THE FIRE MARSHAL REVIEWED THIS AND DID NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT BECAUSE OF THE THREE HYDRANTS THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED. HE STATED THAT THE FIRE MARSHAL FELT THAT THE TURNAROUND WOULD BE SUFFICIENT BUT WANTED TO REVIEW THAT WITH THE FIRE CHIEF TO ENSURE THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH SPACE. COMMISSIONER TOTH STATED THAT WITH WINTER CONDITIONS AND SNOW STORAGE, ALONG WITH VEHICLES THAT COULD BE PARKED ON A ROADWAY, THAT COULD PRESENT A SITUATION WHERE AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE COULD NOT TURN AROUND. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI NOTED THAT STAFF STATED THAT WITH THE NARROW ROADWAY, STAFF LISTED A CONDITION THAT WOULD NOT ALLOW PARKING ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ROAD. COMMISSIONER FIELD STATED THAT HE AGREES WITH THE COMMENTS OF CHAIR MAGNUSON AND COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL. HE STATED THAT THERE ARE SOME ISSUES BUT HE IS NOT CONVINCED THAT THOSE ISSUES COULD NOT BE RESOLVED AND WOULD BE WILLING TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT ADDITIONAL TIME TO ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THOSE ISSUES. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ASKED IF IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO ASK THE APPLICANT WHETHER THEY WOULD PREFER A VOTE OR FOR THE MATTER TO BE TABLED. MS. CULLIGAN COMMENTED THAT SHE WOULD PREFER A VOTE. SHE STATED THAT THEY HAVE DONE RESEARCH ON THE BUILDABLE AREA AND BELIEVE THEY CAN MEET THAT AND ARE THE SAME AS OTHER LOTS THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO BUILD. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL COMMENTED THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL LOTS AND SUBDIVISION. MS. CULLIGAN COMMENTED THAT SHE WOULD PREFER THE VOTE. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 1, 2020 meeting. PC Packet Pg. #17 Chair Magnuson briefly recessed the meeting. Chair Magnuson reconvened the meeting. C) PLANNING CASE 2020-24 STEVE NORTON AND KEITH OSTROSKY, 1680 LEXINGTON AVENUE – LOT SPLIT AND CRITICAL AREA PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that 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 is required for any subdivision approval of properties situated in the Critical Area Overlay District. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; he reviewed the input that was received prior to the meeting. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Commissioner Katz commented that when determining the zoning for the Comprehensive Plan, he believes that this property was unique and wanted to ensure that was resolved. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that was reviewed during the Comprehensive Plan process but the request to change to a medium density residential land use was denied by the Council and therefore remains as low density residential. Commissioner Corbett asked if a variance would be needed to allow for a lot split of a flag lot. He stated that he would also like to see the data related to the slope of the land. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that this would not be a typical lot split, but the ordinance allows for the split as long as there would be frontage of 100 feet or more on a public roadway. He stated that both properties would have frontage at or above 100 feet and therefore would not be considered flag lots. He commented that the shared driveway would be memorialized in an agreement between the two properties and confirmed that would be a private agreement and not of the City. He stated that the City does not have anything that permits or prohibits shared driveways. Chair Magnuson asked if there is anything in the City Code that would require that access be provided from the parcel rather than from someone else’s parcel. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that there is no requirement that the driveway leading to a lot has to go through that frontage. He stated that there are other lots in the City that have frontage on one roadway and access provided in another area. PC Packet Pg. #18 Chair Magnuson stated that this is within the Critical Area and therefore she would want to see the data related to the slope requirements. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the surveyors clearly delineated the new house pads outside of the 40-foot bluff setback. Commissioner Field asked for details on what the address would be. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that addresses are provided based off where access is for emergency services purposes. Steve Norton, applicant, stated that the area proposed to be developed is quite flat and noted that the building pads would be outside of the 40-foot bluff setback. He provided examples of shared driveways in Mendota Heights. He referenced the soil boring reports from their consultant, noting that this site has quite a bit of bedrock and therefore they anticipate that the building pads would be very stable. He commented that these would be modest size homes and would not take away from the views in the area. He believed that this application would be the best solution for everyone, rather than the previously considered medium density residential use. Commissioner Field commented that this seems to be an innovative solution. Chair Magnuson stated that she was curious that bedrock was found at four or five feet and asked if these would be slab on grade homes. Mr. Norton replied that they would not have to be slab on grade homes. He explained that they would be establishing building pads and it would be up to the end user as to the home they would want to build and noted that user would have to apply for and work within their own Critical Area Permit. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Bruce Westlund, 1700 Lexington Overlook, asked if the 40-foot slope was measured from the front of 14. Community Development Director Tim Benetti highlighted the delineation of the bluff and the 40- foot setback. Mr. Westlund asked the location of holding ponds on the property and whether that would cause tree removal. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that there are basins identified in two locations. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that in most conditions the basins would be dry and would hold water after rain events that would then infiltrate. PC Packet Pg. #19 Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Petschel stated that it appears there is only five feet of grade difference across the site. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that house pad two looks to be flat. He stated that house pad one seems to be right around 18 percent and the driveway appears to be near the ten percent allowed. He stated that there appears to be areas where retaining walls would be required but did not believe any variances would be required. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE LOT SPLIT FOR 1680 LEXINGTON AVENUE AND CRITICAL AREA PERMIT BASED ON THE FINDINGS-OF-FACT SUPPORTING SUCH APPROVAL, CONTINGENT UPON THE SITE NOT EXCEEDING THE 18 PERCENT SLOPE REQUIREMENT, AND 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 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. PC Packet Pg. #20 8. ANY AND ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK ON SITE IS LIMITED TO THE HOURS BETWEEN 7:00 A.M. AND 8:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY AND 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. 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. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 1, 2020 meeting. Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review: • The draft calendar was included in the Commission packet and a potential conflict was identified for the September 2021 meeting. Chair Magnuson commented that she is not very comfortable sitting in a full room and asked about the agenda for the December meeting. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that staff is looking to hold that meeting virtually as there is only one potential permit to consider. Commissioner Field asked if there would be a way to submit public input. City Administrator Mark McNeill replied that they have not yet been setup well for live public input and reviewed the current options. Commissioner Field stated that he feels that it is important to have interaction between those providing input and the Commission. Community Development Director Tim Benetti asked if the Commission would like to move that meeting date to December 17th. It was the consensus of the Commission to hold the December meeting on December 17, 2020. Adjournment COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:41 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 PC Packet Pg. #21 Planning Staff Report DATE: December 17, 2020 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2020-25 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT APPLICANT: Dakota County PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1498 Mendota Heights Road ZONING/GUIDED: State Park / SP – State Park (2030 Comp Plan) ACTION DEADLINE: N/A DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Dakota County is seeking a Critical Area Permit to construct and install a number of new improvements to the Big Rivers Regional Trail park , located at 1498 Mendota Heights Road. This park is also referred to as Scenic Overlook Park on the city parks map. The subject property is situated in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, also known as the Critical Area Overlay District. Title 12-3-5 of the City Code requires a critical area permit for all development activities requiring a building permit or special zoning approvals in this overlay district. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters were mailed to all neighboring property owners within 350-feet of the subject property. The city received no objections or comments from the neighboring owners. BACKGROUND The current park/trailhead area is accessed off the intersection of Mendota Heights Road and Sibley Memorial Highway, and contains a small surface parking lot with 24 spaces. From this lot a short paved trail connection leads out to the half-circle shaped, lookout area, with picnic benches scattered throughout. PC Packet Pg. #22 The lookout area has a short (3-ft. high) rock wall along the out perimeter, The site also contains an public information/map board, and a single portable toilet inside a fenced enclosure. The Big Rivers Regional Trail (BRRT) extends north from I-494 in Eagan, through Mendota Heights, Mendota, and to Lilydale where it enters Lilydale Regional Park in Saint Paul. The primary access point to the BRRT is an existing trailhead located at 1498 Mendota Heights Road in Mendota Heights. Despite its high use, the site lacks several essential features such as drinking water, permanent restrooms, and sufficient parking. In addition to correcting these deficiencies, the site’s unique characteristics provide numerous opportunities to enhance the visitor experience and promote natural and cultural resource stewardship at the trailhead and along the greenway corridor. The proposed project includes a new restroom/picnic shelter facility; a new information center kiosk; parking lot addition; new trail connections; charging station; WiFi technology; and some special event use area and other natural resource improvements. Sanitary sewer and water service lines are available from Mendota Heights Road or Sibley Mem. Hwy. for future utility connections. One significant improvement will be a new, raised earthen berm to accommodate a new 30” high (ADA compliant) viewing platform (see image-below). Dakota County is hoping to let the project out to bid in February-March 2021, with construction to begin April thru November of 2021. ANALYSIS The subject parcel is guided “SP-State Park” in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan (yet to be adopted) identifies this same area as “P-Parks & Open Space”. Dakota County’s request to construct the proposed park and trail improvements are supported by and consistent with the current 2030 Plan and the 2040 Plan, noted as follows: 2030 Plan Goals: 1. To provide the optimum amount of active and passive open space for the enjoyment of all Mendota Heights residents. PC Packet Pg. #23 2. To provide a park system that assures the quality of facilities will match residents’ desires and standards of living.. 3. To use the park system as a means to enhance the environment of each neighborhood and the City as a whole. 4. To support the Dakota County 2030 Greenway Corridors Plan/Vision. 2040 Plan Goals/Policies: Provide a park system that is safe, accessible, and equitable in its offerings to all Mendota Heights’ residents and visitors. 4.1.1 Create and maintain a park system that provides the optimum amount of active and passive open space for the enjoyment of all Mendota Heights residents. 4.1.2 Provide facilities and programs that allow people of varying ages and abilities to participate. 4.1.3 Build, maintain and retrofit park facilities and equipment to be safe for all users. 4.1.4 Plan and build safe connections for pedestrians and bicyclists within and between park facilities and major destinations in the community. 4.1.5 Strive to make all facilities and programs open and welcoming to people of all ages and diverse backgrounds. Provide a park system that assures high quality facilities, buildings, grounds, trails, amenities, and natural settings. 4.2.1 Keep the park system up-to-date in terms of facilities, activities and programs that are responsive to the community’s needs and wishes. 4.2.2 Support the park system adequately through the facilities, activities and programs offered. 4.2.3 Provide bicycle amenities in parks and along trails. Use the park system as a means to enhance and sustain the environment of each neighborhood and the city as a whole. 4.3.1 Provide facilities, programs and opportunities in the park system that bring people together and create community. 4.3.2 Ensure that stormwater is managed in park facilities in a manner that protects and preserves water quality and the ecology of the watershed. 4.3.3 Strive to make all park facilities, equipment and construction projects and materials environmentally friendly and sustainable. Cooperate with Dakota County and surrounding communities in park and recreation facilities and programming. 4.4.1 Support the Dakota County 2030 Greenway Corridors Plan/Vision. 4.4.2 Continue to cooperate with South St. Paul, West. St. Paul and other neighboring communities on park and recreation programs and facilities. Critical Area Overlay Zoning District 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…” [Title 12-3-2] The pertinent provisions of the Critical Area Overlay District that apply to this application are: PC Packet Pg. #24 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. The site plans call for the placement of the new shelter/restroom building near the flat piece of land located just north of the walled, lookout area (see aerial image – below). The shelter facility measures approximately 38’ x 55’ (footprint), and will be opened on three sides, with a 24’ x 17.5’ fully enclosed restroom. A number of picnic tables will be placed under the shelter. The site plan includes a considerable expansion of the surface parking lot on the north side of the existing lot. The expansion will increase the current 24 space layout to 58 total spaces, with an additional driveway/entrance leading out to the north and back on to Sibley Mem. Highway (see plan image – below). PC Packet Pg. #25 A proposed storm water pond is planned near the northeast corner of the expanded parking lot. The plans did not include any details on this pond. The Public Works Director is requiring full engineering plans and details, including storm water calculations, be provide prior to commencement of any work. Section 12-3-8: Development Standards 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 • 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. It appears the new shelter/restroom building will be setback approximately 53-ft. from the bluff edge, which meets this 40-ft. setback standard. 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. Based upon aerial interpretation from Dakota County GIS mapping, it appears the structure will be over 410-ft. from the mapped wetland edge of the nearby Gun Club Lake water body located to the west (opposite side of the railroad tracks). PC Packet Pg. #26 • Height Of Structures: All new structures shall be limited to the lesser of the underlying zoning district regulations or thirty five feet (35'). Although the land is identified on the city’s official zoning map as “State Park”, there is no zoning section or development standards within current City Code. The plans call for the structure to be 17’- 1” to the peak, which easily meets the 35’ limit. • 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. The proposed project will not involve much grading work, except for the area for the new parking lot expansion. This area (shown in the site photo – below) is to take place in an area that appears to be a small, unmanaged stand of volunteer trees and vegetation. Staff determined in our on-site inspection of this area, there does not appear to be any significant trees that will be affected by this expanded lot, and no wetlands were present (note: the City’s Wetland Map does not identify any wetlands in this park, except for Gun Club Lake to the west). The large evergreen trees near the new shelter/restroom will be preserved as part of this project. There appears to be no other major impacts to any significant natural features or trees under this project. . 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 (DNR) The DNR indicated they have no comments on this proposed project or improvements. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the Critical Area Permit request from Dakota County and for the property generally identified as The Big Rivers Regional Trail Park, located at 1498 Mendota Heights Road, which would allow the construction of a new park shelter/restroom facility, expanded parking lot and other trailhead park improvements, 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 certain conditions; or PC Packet Pg. #27 2. Deny the Critical Area Permit request from Dakota County and for the property generally identified Big Rivers Regional Trail Park, located at 1498 Mendota Heights Road, based on findings-of-fact that the proposed project does not meet certain criteria, policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District, as determined by the Planning Commission; or 3. Table the request; direct staff to work with the Applicants to revise or refine the project plans, provide additional information later, and extend this land use application review period an additional 60 days (if necessary) and in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since there is very little, if any impact to the Mississippi River corridor area or the protected bluff area, staff recommends the Planning Commission consider Alternative No. 1 noted above, which would approve the requested Critical Area Permit to Dakota County for 1498 Mendota Heights Road, along with the following added conditions: 1. The final grading plan, including new storm pond details and calculations, must be submitted to the Public Works Director prior to issuance of any grading or land disturbance permit. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. A building permit must be approved by the City of Mendota Heights prior to the commencement of any new construction work on the shelter/restroom facility. 5. Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 6. 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. 7. The plans for the new parking lot and new access improvements must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director prior to start of any construction. 8. A SWPPP shall be developed for the project. Protected bluffs shall have a double silt fence installed for added protection in these areas. 9. An NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit and a Minnesota Dept. of Transportation drainage permit is required. 10. No structures, hard-surfaced improvements, or tree and vegetation removals will be allowed within the 40-foot bluff impact zone. 11. Any future work to replace or improve the existing monument sign near the front entry must be reviewed and approved under separate sign permit application to the city. PC Packet Pg. #28 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Critical Area Permit for The Big River Regional Trail Park – 1498 Mendota Heights Road The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District, with little to no impacts to the river corridor, bluff area, adjacent waterway or surrounding properties. 2. The proposed project meets and is supported by the goals and policies of the community’s own 2030 Comprehensive Plan and future 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed work and areas of disturbance are in areas already developed or areas found not to be significant to cause irreparable damage(s) to the bluff or surrounding properties. The improvements are minimal, reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area. 4. The proposed improvements are in keeping with the existing development and character of the park and trailhead area. 5. The expansion and construction of this new shelter/restroom facility and other related park improvements are allowed under city zoning ordinance, and will comply with all standards and regulations of the State Building Code and other applicable ordinances. PC Packet Pg. #29 SITE PHOTOS (City of Mendota Heights) PC Packet Pg. #30 PC Packet Pg. #31 PC Packet Pg. #32 November 12, 2020 Letter of Intent for Big Rivers Regional Trail Mendota Trailhead Project To: Tim Benetti Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 (651) 255-1142 Mr. Benetti, As we have discussed Dakota County is proceeding with trailhead improvements at the Mendota Overlook along the Big Rivers Regional Trail at site at 1498 Mendota Heights Road. Per the Critical Area permit I am writing you to give you a summary of the project background and components. Background The Big Rivers Regional Trail (BRRT) extends north from I-494 in Eagan, through Mendota Heights, Mendota, and to Lilydale where it enters Lilydale Regional Park in Saint Paul. Part of the overall 17-mile Minnesota River Greenway Regional Trail corridor, the BRRT received an estimated 158,900 visitors in 2018. The primary access point to the BRRT is an existing trailhead located at 1498 Mendota Heights Road in Mendota Heights. Despite its high use, the site lacks several essential features such as drinking water, permanent restrooms, and sufficient parking. In addition to correcting these deficiencies, the site’s unique characteristics provide numerous opportunities to enhance the visitor experience and promote natural and cultural resource stewardship at the trailhead and along the greenway corridor. Two key plans guide development of the BRRT, including the Mendota Heights Trailhead. • The Minnesota River Greenway Plan1 was adopted by the Dakota County Board of Commissioners in 2011. The BRRT is referenced in this plan as Segment 1 of the Minnesota River Greenway, and the Mendota Heights Trailhead is referenced as the WPA Overlook. • The Minnesota River Greenway Cultural Resources Interpretive Plan2 was adopted by the County Board in 2017. The plan guides historic and cultural resource interpretation along the greenway corridor, including the Mendota Heights Trailhead (referenced as the WPA Overlook). The frameworks, concepts, and schematic designs presented in the plan should be considered but details may be revisited during the design process. 1 https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/parks/About/TrailPlanning/Documents/MinnesotaRiverMast erPlan.pdf 2 https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/parks/About/TrailPlanning/Documents/MinnesotaRiverCultur alResourcesInterpretivePlanDraft.pdf Parks, Facilities, and Fleet Management Dakota County Administration Center 1590 Highway 55 Hastings, MN 55033 651.438.4388 Fax: 651.438.8455 www.co.dakota.mn.uss PC Packet Pg. #33 Project Scope: The following improvements are identified as high-priority improvements for the Mendota Heights Trailhead and constitute and the scope of this RFP: • Restroom Facility – two fully accessible and inclusive gender-neutral restrooms with a general use picnic canopy with 2-4 tables with capacity for approximately 6-12 individuals. • Picnicking – one canopy/shaded general use picnic area with 2-4 tables with capacity for approximately 6-12 individuals (may be included as part of Restroom Facility); open picnicking for approximately 50 individuals; ample opportunities for observation at/around overlook. • Information Center/Kiosk – 4-sided information kiosk per County standard; intuitively-placed user-friendly site and greenway orientation (with design specifics to be informed by forthcoming wayfinding standards); County standard amenity package (e.g., bike fix-it station, seating, water, trash receptacles). The Information Center/Kiosk should integrate spatially with the broader site but also establish its own space. • Parking Lot – assess existing shortage and propose design to optimize parking in relation to other site improvements and add approximately 30 stalls for a total of 60 stalls; accommodate addition of electric vehicle charging stations and bike-sharing station. • Trails – provide accessible connectivity between greenway, parking, restrooms, picnic areas, overlook, and other use areas. A connection to the adjacent site of the WPA Camp should be designed as a potential future connection. Signage and wayfinding design specifics will be informed by the forthcoming wayfinding standards. • Security & Technology – provide appropriate lighting and security cameras; remote locking restroom facility doors; high-speed internet and WiFi throughout site to support security and visitor experience. Design should reflect CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) standards. • Special Event/Use Area(s) – because the greenway regularly supports special use permitted events (e.g., trail-oriented bike or running events) provide areas that can be utilized to support these activities with a capacity of 250+ individuals. • Natural Resource Improvements – design and implementation of natural resource improvements to trailhead’s recreational areas in consultation with County Natural Resources staff. • Interpretation – integrate interpretation in the design process and the improvements themselves. PC Packet Pg. #34 Preliminary Project Schedule: Schematic Design Approved Nov 2020 Design Development Approved by Core Team Dec 2020 Construction Documents Approved Jan 2021 Bidding Feb-Mar 2021 Construction Apr – Nov 2021 In general, the County seeks to create a resource for Mendota Heights, Dakota County and the region with this project. The proposed amenities and their increased service level for the area are consistent with Critical Area requirements and constitute a justifiable Critical Area Permit. Attached you will find the proposed site and building designs and the Project Planning Application. Let me know if you have any additional questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Josh Kinney, PLA, ASLA Senior Project Manager Capital Projects Management P 952-891-7016 W www.dakotacounty.us A 1590 Highway 55, Hastings MN 55033 c 612-387-6260 PC Packet Pg. #35 EUEUEUEU EU EU EU EUEUEUEU EU EU EU EU $1 66666666666666666666 666666666666! ! " " " " ! ! * * ! * * " " * * 6 6 66666666 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 1495 1480 1450 1455 1460 300'288'306'204' 207' 99' BIG RIVER REGIONAL TRAILHEAD(Scenic Overlook Park)1495-1498 Mendota Heights Road City ofMendotaHeights0190 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 12/3/2020 PC Packet Pg. #36 PC Packet Pg. #37 Big Rivers Regional Trail Trailhead - Site ConceptDakota CountyOctober 21, 2020Big Rivers Regional TrailExpanded ParkingMendota Heights RdGathering + PicnicNew EntranceSidewalk + Pedestrian CrossingsInterpretive GardensViewing PlatformConstructed BermADA RampReading + Small GatheringsContemplation GardenInterpretive PathPicnicADA Gravel PathStormwaterTreatmentTrail User PlazaExistingParkingEntry Plaza + Visitor BuildingPC Packet Pg. #38 ŝŐZŝǀĞƌƐZĞŐŝŽŶĂůdƌĂŝůdƌĂŝůŚĞĂĚͲKǀĞƌůŽŽŬ^ĞĐƟŽŶ10’ WalkConstructed Berm w/ Prairie Grasses5% Existing Lawn30” High Viewing Platform w/ CurbExisting GradeHistoric Stone Wall6’ WalkDakota CountyOctober 21, 2020PC Packet Pg. #39 Big Rivers Regional Trail Trailhead - Overlook PlanConstructed Berm w/ Prairie GrassesExisting LawnViewing PlatformExisting Oak5:1 Slope3:1 SlopeContemplation GardenDakota CountyOctober 21, 2020PC Packet Pg. #40 ŝŐZŝǀĞƌƐZĞŐŝŽŶĂůdƌĂŝůdƌĂŝůŚĞĂĚͲKǀĞƌůŽŽŬWĞƌƐƉĞĐƟǀĞDakota CountyOctober 21, 2020PC Packet Pg. #41 ŝŐZŝǀĞƌƐZĞŐŝŽŶĂůdƌĂŝůdƌĂŝůŚĞĂĚͲWůĂŶƚWĂůĞƩĞDakota CountyOctober 21, 2020Spring - Early SummerMid SummerLate Summer - AutumnPC Packet Pg. #42 Big Rivers Regional Trail Trailhead - Site MaterialsDakota CountyOctober 21, 2020Bicyle Fix-it StationBicycle RackWaste Receptacle Drinking FountainBenchConcrete Paving Cut Stone Block Seating Lighting BollardParking Lot LightPC Packet Pg. #43 ŝŐZŝǀĞƌƐZĞŐŝŽŶĂůdƌĂŝůdƌĂŝůŚĞĂĚͲ^ŝƚĞ&ƵƌŶŝƐŚŝŶŐн>ŝŐŚƟŶŐDakota CountyOctober 21, 2020Big Rivers Regional TrailEntry Plaza + Visitor Building• 4 Picnic Tables• 4 Bike Racks• 2 Waste + Recycling Stations• Limestone Block Seating• Drinking Fountain• Info KioskTrail User Plaza• Bike Fix-it Station• 4 Bike Racks• Waste + Recycling Station• Power Pedestal• 2 Existing Benches (Relocate)• 2 Existing Picnic TablesGathering + Picnic• 1 Bench• 4 Existing Picnic Tables• 3 Grills• Fire Ring w/ Seating Ring• Limestone Block SeatingSouth Picnic• 2 Picnic Tables• Waste + Recycling StationReading + Small Gatherings• 4 BenchesParking Lot LightLighting BollardPC Packet Pg. #44 PC Packet Pg. #45 PC Packet Pg. #46 PC Packet Pg. #47 PC Packet Pg. #48 PC Packet Pg. #49