The URL can be used to link to this page

2017-08-15 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA August 15, 2017 – 7:00 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 August 1, 2017 City Council Minutes b. Accept Feasibility Report for Dodd Road Corridor Study c. Approve Joint Powers Agreement for Cherokee Heights Ravine Stabilization d. Approve Resolution 2017-63 Rogers Avenue Right-of-Way Vacation, Call for Public Hearing e. Approve First Avenue Striping Modifications and Purchase Order for Solar Speed Signs f. Approve Resolution 2017-65 Approve Plans & Authorize Advertisement of Bids for the 2017 Storm Sewer Improvements Project g. Accept Resignation of Christine Costello from Planning Commission. h. Approve Resolution 2017-64 Appointment to the Planning Commission i. Accept Resignation from Jill Smith, Alternate on the Noise Oversight Committee j. Acknowledge July 2017 Fire Synopsis k. Approval of Claims List 6. Public Comments 7. Presentations - none 8. Public Hearing - none 9. New and Unfinished Business a. Resolution 2017-57 Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights with Related Variance and Wetlands Permit b. Mendota Heights Road & Kensington Street Improvements – Change Orders 1 & 2 10. Community Announcements 11. Council Comments 12. Adjourn CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, August 1, 2017 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. Councilmembers Duggan, Paper, and Miller were also present. Councilmember Petschel arrived at 8:04 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of the agenda. Councilmember Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the consent calendar as presented and authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein, pulling items c) Acknowledge June 27, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, f) Authorize RFP for Animal Control Services, and i) Approval of Claims List. a. Approval of July 18, 2017 City Council Minutes b. Approval of July 17, 2017 City Council Work Session Minutes c. Acknowledge June 27, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes d. Approval of Resolution 2017-59, Call for a Public Hearing on an Easement Vacation at 950 Mendota Heights Road – St. Thomas Ice Arena e. Accept Resignation of Sloan Wallgren, Recreation Program Coordinator and Authorize the Recruitment Process to fill the Recreation Program Coordinator Position -Councilmember Duggan and Mayor Garlock expressed their regrets at the departure and wished Mr. Wallgren well in his future endeavors. f. Authorize RFP for Animal Control Services page 3 g. Approval of Resolution 2017- 60, Support of Robert Street Funding -City Administrator Mark McNeill noted a couple of descriptive words that were changed and the revised resolution was at the Council dais. h. Approval of June 2017 Treasurer’s Report i. Approval of Claims List Councilmember Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEM C) ACKNOWLEDGE JUNE 27, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Councilmember Duggan questioned a section of the Planning Commission minutes that referenced the City of St. Paul. He asked if that should be the City of Lilydale. Community Development Director responded that the minutes should have stated City of Lilydale and the amendment will be made. Councilmember Duggan moved to acknowledge June 27, 2017 Planning Commission minutes as revised. Councilmember Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 F) AUTHORIZE RFP FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES Councilmember Duggan questioned if the annual budget of $5,000 is an accurate amount. Councilmember Petschel replied that the budget amount includes the $300 per month retainer fee plus additional costs for unclaimed animals. City Administrator Mark McNeill confirmed that Councilmember Petschel was correct. Councilmember Duggan moved to authorize a Request for Proposals for animal control services. Councilmember Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 I) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS LIST Councilmember Duggan questioned the Foth Infrastructure – Sump Pump Inspections claim of $20,514.44. He asked how many inspections have been completed. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the contract was for 2,000 homes to have sump pump inspections completed. He said that to date, Foth Infrastructure had inspected approximately 1,900. The project will be substantially under budget. The original contract amount was $215,000 and the total billing currently is approximately $80,000. It is anticipated, as inspections continue for the remainder of this month, that the total billing will be approximately $100,000, which is roughly one-half of the contracted amount. page 4 Councilmember Petschel stated that she would like to see a report when the first phase is ended, about what discoveries have been made, and what the level of compliance has been. Councilmember Duggan questioned the US Bank monthly transactions amount of $6,366.78. Finance Director Kristen Schabacker replied that this was for purchases made by City employees, and not fees that were charged for credit card processing. Councilmember Duggan moved to approve the Claims List. Councilmember Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Bruce Vatne, 2205 Bent Tree Lane, commented on the positive service they had recently received from the City’s Police Department. He said that he and his wife had a call approximately a week ago about an abandoned car in front of their house. Within five minutes an officer was at the site. In June, he said that they had had a medical emergency and called 911. Again, an officer was there within five minutes. He wanted to let people know that they really appreciate the job that the Police are doing and requested that his comments be passed on to the Police Chief. Councilmember Petschel added that the Vatnes had done exactly what people are supposed to do when they see a car parked where it did not belong. In this case, it turned out to be an important piece of evidence. Mayor Garlock also commented that 9-1-1 is the preferred method because the operator will have all relevant information on their console readily available. People living in a neighborhood know when something is out of place better than the police officer who patrols the area. He stated that residents should not hesitate to call 911. PRESENTATIONS No items scheduled. PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) RESOLUTION 2017- 61, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND TIF NOTE FOR MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT page 5 City Attorney Andy Pratt explained that this request was for a contract for private development between the City of Mendota Heights and Michael Development Minnesota, LLC. In June 2017, the Council held a public hearing for the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance. The developer has proposed a 69 unit apartment building on the former Mendota Motel property. There may be, in the future, a second phase to this development; however, this resolution and contract only covered this first phase. As part of the TIF plan, there is a proposal for a Tax Increment Financing note to be provided to the developer in the maximum amount of $634,000. This is not an out-of-pocket outlay by the City. It would be in the City’s TIF District #2 and, as TIF revenues are created through the development, As such, a portion of the money would be allowed to be sent to the developer as a reimbursement for the site acquisition costs and other TIF eligible costs that are allowed per state law. The TIF note is not an obligation of the City of Mendota Heights. The contract for private development places certain obligations on the developer to make sure there are enough costs that are being incurred that equal $634,000 for the TIF note which would be issued. It also provides the construction dates, a minimum assessment agreement, and that the developer may transfer the contract to another limited liability company they may create for this parcel. The contract also states that the developer will continue to be responsible for any third party consultant costs that the City incurs. Mr. Pratt further explained that this resolution approves the contract, and also memorializes the terms of the TIF note. Councilmember Duggan noted that this contract is over eight years and seven months and asked why that extension of time. Mr. Pratt replied that was likely due to how Ehlers set the TIF cash flow. This TIF district is not anticipated to go to the full 25-year term; therefore, this property would get back onto the tax rolls much sooner. Councilmember Duggan, referencing Article II Representations and Warranties, (3) read “…any land use permits required as a part of the Project shall be governed by City land use ordinances, specific land use approvals and other agreements,” asked if the Comprehensive Plan is considered ‘other agreements’. Mr. Pratt replied that all of the zoning approvals need to be complied with. Councilmember Duggan moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2017-61, APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AND AWARDING THE SALE OF, AND PROVIDING THE FORM, TERMS, COVENANTS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR, THE ISSUANCE OF THE CITY’S TAX INCREMENT FINANCING REVENUE NOTE (MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT MINNESOTA, LLC). Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Petschel asked the developer, on behalf of the nearby residents, when the demolition would occur. Mr. Michael Swenson of Michael’s Development, stated that September 5th is the anticipated closing date on the property. They will then work with the Fire Department to see if they want to conduct any training at the site. In mid-September, demolition is anticipated to start, with construction to follow. Completion is anticipated within 10 months. page 6 B) RESOLUTION 2017-58, APPROVING CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES IN CRITICAL AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT - 796 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY (PLANNING CASE 2017-16) Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this application from Precision Homes LLC, acting on behalf of James R. Hanson, is for a Critical Area Permit and a Conditional Use Permit to remove the existing single-family home which straddles two lots, and would allow them to do some preliminary construction work and tree removal as necessary. The property is located at the corner of Sibley Memorial Highway and Wachtler Avenue and consists of two lots. One lot is 1.08 acres and the other lot is 1.19 acres. The site contains an existing 3,400 square foot single-family, two story, home constructed in 1952. There is an existing driveway off Sibley Memorial Highway and a remnant of an old driveway off Wachtler. There would be no change in the zoning or land use. The existing home is sitting on an artificially elevated pad site, rising approximately 40 feet from the street to the rear of the property. Mr. Benetti shared that most of the trees that need to be removed to facilitate the new construction activities are near the front edge of the property. Mr. Benetti explained that any future homes built here would need to have Planning Commission and Council approval for separate critical area permits. Any driveway connection would need to be approved by the state or Dakota County, since those are state or county roads. The owner plans on utilizing some of the existing sewer and water lines off Highway 13 and reconnecting new ones to the other lot off of Wachtler. When the applicant provided their plans, staff requested prudent tree removals. Staff believes that they have done that, and have targeted some invasive growths on the site. The said that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has looked at these plans, and had no issues with the removals as presented. The original grading plan presented had some issues; however, they revised the plan and the City Engineer found it to meet all of the requirements for surface water management. The plan does include a retaining wall; staff has included a condition of approval that this retaining wall be made of stone. Staff believes there would be very minimal disturbance of the natural area, and that no part of the bluff line would be affected. Councilmember Duggan noted that in the report to the Planning Commission, staff is recommending tabling the request to allow the developer more time to refine the site, and create grading and drainage plans for the properties. Mr. Benetti replied that this was the original recommendation; however, the developer was able to revise their plans and staff verbally amended the recommendation at the Planning Commission meeting. Councilmember Duggan asked about the park dedication fee. Mr. Benetti replied that the understanding that he had was that a park dedication fee was up to $4,000 per dwelling unit. A question was raised as to whether that applied only in the event of a new lot creation. Mr. Benetti stated that he had checked the park dedication language, and determined that the fee schedule states the fee is for any new dwelling unit. page 7 Councilmember Duggan asked if any consideration had been made of taking the $4,000 and subtracting any fees paid in 1952. Councilmember Duggan suggested that research be done and that it be reviewed again when applications are made for the actual building permits. Councilmember Petschel stated that with the increase in lot splits and tear downs, the City did come up with something new for charging park dedication fees. She also recommended that staff research this a further. Mr. Benetti stated that the ordinance amendment stated that any park dedication in lieu of fee had to be paid before a final plat was recorded. However, the ordinance itself, for park dedication, states a developer either has to dedicate up to 10% of the land or parts, or pay in lieu of fee. It represents that the fee would be established by resolution of the City Council, which currently states that it is $4,000 per dwelling unit. The City Council provided direction to Mr. Benetti to pursue applying the park dedication fee to this application. Councilmember Paper noted that these are long lots with significant slopes at the back side. He asked why the owner wouldn’t just give 10% of the land at the rear for park usage. Mr. Benetti replied that staff ensures that any park land dedicated is usable park space. Councilmember Duggan asked if staff could encourage the developer to not have two houses similar to each other and possibly stagger the setbacks. Mr. Benetti replied that, per Precision Homes, both houses are intended to be a custom built homes – the two structures would be different. Councilmember Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2017-58, APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES IN THE CRITICAL AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 796 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 C) RESOLUTION 2017-56, APPROVING MUNICIPAL CONSENT FOR THE MNDOT HIGHWAY 149 (DODD ROAD) REHABILITATION PROJECT Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that at the July 17, 2017 City Council meeting, a public hearing was held for municipal consent for the Dodd Road rehabilitation project, relating to the acquisition of land for public purposes. This was for easement and right-of-way acquisitions outside of the State of Minnesota’s existing right-of-way. At that time, one resident expressed concern about the project. They have since had conversations with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and no longer are concerned about impacts to their property. page 8 Councilmember Petschel stated that at the Traffic Committee meeting on July 31, 2017, one of the issues discussed was the school crossing at Somerset School, and if the County has made it a safe crossing. City Engineer Ruzek agreed to speak with officials at Somerset Elementary School to see if there is anything that the County could do to make it better. Mr. Ruzek noted that the state is at 90% complete in their design plans. Councilmember Petschel pointed out that, regarding the school crossing, this was an agreement between the state and the school, and they had met to discuss it. If the school is comfortable with the plans, then she would be as well. Councilmember Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2017-56, APPROVING MUNICIPAL CONSENT FOR THE MNDOT HIGHWAY 149 (DODD ROAD) REHBILITATION PROJECT with the recommendation that Mr. Ruzek follow-up with MnDOT and Somerset School to ensure that the crossing has been addressed in the safest way possible. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that there will be a pollinator-friendly plants demonstration on August 3rd at 6:30 p.m. at the Douglas and Victoria intersection with pollinator- friendly master gardeners. He stated that staff is aware of questions regarding this past weekend’s event at White Pines relating to emergency notifications. Dakota County operates what is called the Everbridge System. He said that land lines are automatically linked to the notification system. However, cell phones and electronic devices must opt in. He said that the link to do that is posted on the City’s website. COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayor Garlock, referencing the White Pines incident, said that his thoughts and prayers were going out the family and friends of Beverly Cory. He also expressed special thanks to the law enforcement, EMS, and fire personnel who assisted on that call. He said that Mendota Heights is a very strong community, and will rally together in tough times as they have in the past. Councilmember Duggan noted that Mayor Garlock led a service on Sunday honoring and commemorating Officer Scott Patrick. He echoed Mayor Garlock’s comments regarding the strength of the community. He expressed his appreciation to the law enforcement, EMS, and fire department. Councilmember Duggan stated it was great to see the Night to Unite events growing with more neighborhoods participating than ever before. Councilmember Petschel stated that many times on the consent agenda the Council approves joint powers agreements and mutual aid agreements. She said that they are routinely approved and, at the time, do not appear to mean a great deal. However, the outpouring of help and support received from page 9 law enforcement as a result of those mutual aid agreements from the surrounding communities was absolutely extraordinary this past weekend. The City received help from police officers from many of the surrounding cities; the SWAT teams from Dakota and Washington counties, the Dakota County Sheriff, and the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. Councilmember Paper echoed the comments made about Mendota Heights being a strong community, and that was also seen during the Night to Unite block parties. He expressed his appreciation to Mr. Sloan Wallgren for all that he did for the recreation programs. He appreciated having the opportunity to having worked with him on the Parks and Recreation Commission. He also noted that the golf league participant Levi Paper had shot a hole-in-one the previous Thursday. Councilmember Miller noted that he could not improve on the eloquent statement by Mayor Garlock regarding the July 29th incident. ADJOURN Councilmember Duggan moved to adjourn. Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 8:51 p.m. ____________________________________ Neil Garlock Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk page 10 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 15, 2017 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Accept Dodd Road Corridor Trail Feasibility Study COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to accept the Dodd Road Trail Feasibility Study. BACKGROUND The previous City Council authorized staff to submit a grant application to Dakota County for funding through the Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP). The City was subsequently awarded a $25,000 grant from Dakota County to pursue a study of the Dodd Road corridor to identify trail facility options and funding sources. The previous City Council also approved a joint powers agreement with Dakota County and professional services agreement with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. to complete the study. A summary of the project scope included the following tasks: 1. Right-of-Way analysis to determine availability and identify logical trail alignments. 2. Constructability assessment, including field reviews to identify constraints and alternative trail alignments based on technical considerations. 3. Corridor outreach, including an open house. 4. Develop concept designs depicting a preferred alignment along the corridor, including order-of-magnitude estimates of barriers to trail construction. 5. Developed an opinion of probable cost to construct preferred trail alignments, including recommending trail crossing treatments or other enhancements where appropriate. 6. Prepared a written report, including findings and comments from the City. The City’s required 10% match was in-kind staff-time to create and implement the Public Participation Plan in compliance with the SHIP grant requirements. DISCUSSION The City was required to host several community engagement sessions as part of receiving grant money from the Statewide Health Initiative Program. Staff held open houses at Parkview Plaza and at the Village Commons. Staff also surveyed students at Visitation School and St. Thomas Academy. Staff and Stantec held an open house at city hall to answer any questions or concerns page 11 residents may have. Following the open house, the consultants made a formal presentation with their findings and recommendations to the Parks Commission. The report includes a number of details including cost estimates, mapping and comments from the public outreach. BUDGET IMPACT The contract with Stantec has been submitted to Dakota County for full reimbursement. The City in-kind match was provided through staff time. The cost to construct a trail along the complete Dodd Road Corridor is estimated to be $3,640,050, which does not include right-of-way costs. Obviously, this is a long term issue, and will not be pursued, absent significant grant funding or other non-traditional sources of City funding. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council accept the feasibility report. The City will incorporate the information developed in the report into its Trail Improvement and Management Plan (TIMP). ACTION REQUIRED Staff recommends that the City Council pass a motion accepting the Stantec report on the Dodd Road Corridor study for use in future planning. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 12 Dodd Road Trail Feasibility Study Prepared for: City of Mendota Heights Prepared by: Fay Simer, AICP November 7, 2017 page 13 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... I 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION ..................................................................................................... 4 3.0 TRAIL DESIGN STANDARDS ............................................................................................ 6 TRAIL ELEMENTS AND WIDTHS .......................................................................................... 6 OTHER RIGHT-OF-WAY USES ............................................................................................. 7 3.2.1 Burying Utilities ................................................................................................. 8 3.2.2 Relocating Utilities ........................................................................................... 8 3.2.3 Replacing Drainage Ditches ......................................................................... 9 4.0 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................... 11 5.0 MOST FEASIBLE TRAIL ALIGNMENT .............................................................................. 13 PHYSICAL FEATURES ........................................................................................................ 14 RIGHT-OF-WAY AVAILABILITY ......................................................................................... 15 6.0 COMMUNITY INPUT ..................................................................................................... 26 MENDOTA HEIGHTS 5K/PARKS CELEBRATION .............................................................. 26 PARKVIEW PLAZA AND VILLAGE COMMONS (08.25.16 AND 08.31.16) ................... 26 ST. THOMAS ACADEMY AND VISITATION SHOOL SURVEYS ........................................ 27 COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE 10.17.16 ............................................................................. 27 7.0 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES ................................................................................... 28 8.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 29 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Private Right-of-Way Required for Trail ..................................................................... 16 Table 2: Trail Construction Cost Estimates ............................................................................... 28 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway Master Plan ...................................................... 2 Figure 2: 2040 Transportation Policy Plan .................................................................................. 3 Figure 3: Dodd Road Corridor and Existing Trail Facilities in Mendota Heights .................... 5 Figure 4: Assumed Widths of Right-of-Way Uses ....................................................................... 7 Figure 5: Surface Drainage with Retaining Wall Below ........................................................... 9 Figure 6: Surface Drainage and Ditch with Retaining Wall Above ....................................... 9 Figure 7: Drainage with Storm Sewer ....................................................................................... 10 Figure 8: Assessment of potential trail alignment ................................................................... 12 Figure 9: Most Feasible Trail Alignment .................................................................................... 13 page 14 Figure 10: Right-of-Way Needed in Segment 1 (Delaware Ave. to Chippewa Ave.) .............................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 11: Right-of-Way Needed in Segment 2 (Chippewa Ave. to Emerson Ave.) ........ 18 Figure 12: Right-of-Way Needed in Segment 3 (Emerson Ave. to Wentworth Ave.) ........ 19 Figure 13: Right-of-Way Needed in Segment 4 (Wentworth Ave. to Marie Ave.) ............. 20 Figure 14: Proposed Trail Alignment in Segment 5 (Marie Ave. to Maple St.) .................... 22 Figure 15: Existing Trail in Segment 6 (Maple St. to S. Plaza Drive) ....................................... 23 Figure 16: Trail Alignments in Segment 7 (Decorah Lane to South Plaza Drive) ................ 24 Figure 17: Trail Alignment in Segment 8 Using Public Right-of-Way ..................................... 24 Figure 18: Trail Alignment in Segment 9 Using Public Right-of-Way ..................................... 25 LIST OF APPENDICES PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN AND PUBLIC COMMENTS ......................... A.1 DETAILED COST ESTIMATES ....................................................................... B.1 page 15 Executive Summary The City of Mendota Heights retained Stantec Consulting Services to evaluate preliminary feasibility of an off-road trail along Dodd Road. Dodd Road runs approximately 3.8 miles north- south the entire length of the City. Approximately one mile of this corridor is served by an existing trail or by a funded trail that will be constructed in 2018. Stantec analyzed 2.8 miles of the corridor between Delaware Ave. and Marie Ave. and between Wagon Wheel Trail and Mendota Heights Road. To identify the best location for a trail alignment, Stantec generated assumptions regarding the total surface width required for a trail facility. A trail would require a twenty foot -wide corridor adjacent to the roadway shoulder. This corridor would accommodate an eight -foot wide walking and bicycling trail, clear zones, private utilities, and drainage infrastructure for stormwater generated by both the trail and the road. Stantec conducted a desktop assessment and field review to understand the physical conditions within the public right-of-way that would impact trail construction, and assess the availability of public right-of-way for a trail. The following principles guided our analysis of potential locations for a trail alignment along Dodd Road: • Utilize available public right-of-way as much as possible • Minimize relocation of utilities • Minimize disruption to slopes and trees • Minimize crossings; maintain a continuous trail segment along one side of Do dd Road for as long as possible Based on this analysis, Stantec has determined that the most -feasible alignment for an off-road trail along Dodd Road would run on the west side of Dodd Road from Delaware Ave. to Marie Ave. Trail users would cross Dodd Road at Marie Ave. to a planned trail segment along the east side of Dodd from Marie to Maple St., connecting to an existing trail that runs from Maple St. south of Highway 110 on the east side of Dodd Road. From Highway 110 to Mendota Heights Road, Stantec determines the most-feasible trail alignment to be on the east side of Dodd Road. Our preliminary cost estimate for constructing this trail in its entirety is $3.6 million, including soft costs. This does not include right-of-way acquisition. In order to construct the trail, the City of Mendota Heights would need to acquire approximately 75,000 square feet of right-of-way from approximately 71 privately owned parcels. The City of Mendota Heights conducted outreach meetings with community stakeholders to understand preferences regarding a trail alignment. Participants generally supported a trail along the corridor and indicated a desire for safer walking and bicycl ing facilities on Dodd Road. page 16 Stantec recommends the City pursue the following next steps in order to advance implementation of a trail in this corridor: • Continue to discuss the proposed alignment with citizens and elected officials to generate buy-in and support for the trail concept. • Pursue trail construction in segments. This helps spread costs out over time. Begin construction along southern trail segments where right -of-way is publicly owned. Completed segments can help build public support for the trail and for extending the alignment further north where right-of-way acquisition is required. • Initiate individual meetings with property owners along the trail alignment to assess support for the trail project and readiness to sell property or easements for trails segments. • Continue conversations with Xcel Energy staff and other utility companies regarding relocation needs of private utilities. Utility staff expressed appreciation for early notice of these discussions and can more easily join productive partnerships when they are included early in the process. • Look for opportunities through the development review process to acquire trail easements as properties change ownership. • Work with MnDOT to install crossing improvements such as medians at key location s on Dodd Road during its 2018 resurfacing project to improve safe access to the trail. • Both segments 7A and 7B create a continuous off-road connection throughout the trail corridor. While it is likely only feasible to construct one alignment in the short term, the City should pursue both alignments in the long term to maximize the trail’s connectivity with existing trail and the City’s park system. page 17 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report documents preliminary feasibility analysis of an off-road trail along Dodd Road in the City of Mendota Heights, MN. This corridor represents a gap in the City’s extensive trail network. Currently, there are no sidewalks or trails along most of Dodd Road. The road is paved with wide shoulders, which are used regularly by both cyclists and pedestrians. Enhancing bicycling and walking facilities in this corridor would greatly improve connectivity of the city-wide trail system and create a continuous north-south connection through Mendota Heights. Improving walking and bicycling facilities along Dodd Road is consistent with local and regional plans. The City of Mendota Heights 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies planned improvements on Dodd Road between TH110 and Marie Avenue as a priority in its Parks and Open Space Plan.1 This trail connection will be implemented during MnDOT’s 2018 resurfacing project on Dodd Road. Dakota County’s Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway Master Plan, depicted in Figure 1, identifies portions of Dodd Road in Mendota Heights as the preferred and/or alternative alignment for a future greenway corridor that would include bicycling and walking facilities. 2 The Metropolitan Council’s 2040 Transportation Policy Plan identifies Dodd Road as part of a Tier 1 Priority Regional Bicycle Transportation Corridor.3 The Met Council defines these as the highest priority corridors for regional transportation planning and investment , located where they can attract the most riders and most effectively enhance mode choice in favor of biking and walking. The City of Mendota Heights asked Stantec to perform a preliminary feasibility analysis of an off- road trail along Dodd Road. City of Mendota Heights staff also conducted outreach meetings with community members to gauge interest and support for a potential trail alignment, summarized in Section 6. This report documents right-of-way availability for a trail along Dodd Road; assesses major geographic features such as mature trees, wetlands, and slopes that could impact the trail’s physical design and constructability; and presents a preliminary recommendation for a trail alignment along Dodd Road based on these characteristics . An estimated cost to construct this alignment is also included in this report. This study and City-led community outreach regarding the trail alignment was funded by a grant from Dakota County as part of the Statewide Health Improvement Program. 1 City of Mendota Heights website. Accessed 9.19.16. http://www.mendota-heights.com/vertical/sites/%7BA0FB05B5- 4CF8-4485-84AA-0C48D0BC98D7%7D/uploads/%7BC3D7F995-5084-416B-8992-95A9EDFE7BF8%7D.PDF 2 Dakota County website. Accessed 9.19.16. https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/parks/Planning/Greenways/Documents/MendotaLebanonHillsGreenwayMasterPlan.pdf 3 Metropolitan Council website. Accessed 9.19.16. http://www.metrocouncil.org/Transportation/Planning-2/Key- Transportation-Planning-Documents/Transportation-Policy-Plan-(1)/The-Adopted-2040-TPP-(1)/Final-2040-Transportation- Policy-Plan/2040-TPP-Chapter-7-Bike-and-Pedestrian-Investment.aspx page 18 Figure 1: Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway Master Plan page 19 Figure 2: 2040 Transportation Policy Plan page 20 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION The City of Mendota Heights’ existing trail system is depicted in Figure 3 on the following page. The Dodd Road corridor is highlighted in this graphic in light tan. Bicycling and pedestrian needs along the majority of Dodd Road are currently served by wide shoulders. An additional off-road trail would provide greater separation and protection from vehicular traffic. Stantec analyzed the Dodd Road corridor between Del aware Ave. and Marie Ave., and from Wagon Wheel Trail to Mendota Heights Road. Stantec did not review Dodd Road between Marie Ave. and Wagon Wheel Trail, because this segment is served by an existing off-road trail from TH 110 to Maple Street that will be extended north to Marie Ave. during MnDOT’s planned 2018 resurfacing of Dodd Road. The total corridor is approximately 3.8 miles long and runs north- south through the City. The segments included in this study are approximately 2.8 miles long. page 21 Figure 3: Dodd Road Corridor and Existing Trail Facilities in Mendota Heights page 22 3.0 TRAIL DESIGN STANDARDS TRAIL ELEMENTS AND WIDTHS To identify the best location for a trail alignment, Stantec generated assumptions regarding the total surface width required for a trail facility. The trail design standards listed below were developed based on recommendations from City staff on widths of existing City trails, the MnDOT Bikeway Design Manual, the 2012 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, and a June 2016 conversation with Xcel Energy staff regarding standard utility sizes and right-of-way requirements. This study uses the following assumptions regarding trail design standards: • A multi-use trail along Dodd Road will be constructed as close to the road shoulder as possible • The total surface width needed for a trail corridor is twenty feet. The multi-use trail corridor includes: o 8’ bituminous surface two-way walking and bicycling trail o 2’ clear space on either side of trail o 3’ additional vegetative clearance between trail and roadway shoulder o 7’ additional separation between trail and adjacent properties to accommodate drainage and utilities within public right-of-way Figure 4 is a visual depiction of this trail design accommodating all of the elements listed above. page 23 Figure 4: Assumed Widths of Right-of-Way Uses OTHER RIGHT-OF-WAY USES The available public right-of-way along Dodd Road (i.e. publicly-owned land that does not include the roadway surface or shoulder) currently serves two major uses: it houses p rivate utilities (e.g. power lines, power poles, and utility boxes) and contains drainage infrastruct ure to carry stormwater. Construction of a trail along Dodd Road must continue to accommodate these uses within the public right -of-way. The width of the publicly-owned right-of-way along Dodd Road varies greatly throughout the corridor. The road surface is typically 38 feet wide. In some locations, the total right -of-way is as narrow as 40 feet. At the southern end of the corridor, the right -of-way is owned by Dakota County and is as wide as 300 feet. The width of the available public right -of-way varies block by block and parcel by parcel. In some locations along the corridor, a 20 foot right -of-way width is available adjacent to the road. In other locations, between 5 feet and 20 feet of right -of-way would need to be acquired in order to accommodate a 20 foot trail corridor with drainage and utility infrastructure. Constructing as much of the trail as possible within the public right-of-way reduces the cost of acquiring land or easements from neighboring property owners for the trail. Furthermore, assembling easements from dozens of property owners fronting the corridor could take many years. page 24 Because of the constrained width of public right-of-way, accommodating a trail within this space would require changing the location of existing public and private utility infrastructure. Although public agencies are required to provide space for private utilities in the public right-of- way, agencies have some discretion in determining where within their right-of-way these utilities are located. Stantec explored the idea of moving or burying private utilities in order to create more room within existing right-of-way for a trail. In order to understand whether private utilities along Dodd Road could be buried underground or moved (e.g. to the side of the road opposite the proposed trail alignment), Stantec and City staff had a conversation with Xcel Energy representatives on June 30, 2016. This conversation focused on general concepts of burying and relocating utilities and did not review any detailed designs or investigate specific conditions along the corridor. 3.2.1 Burying Utilities Private utilities may be buried underground at the expense of the requesting entity. Burying power lines eliminates the need for most power poles, creating room along the ground surface for other uses such as trails. According to Xcel staff, the additional cost of burying utilities along two miles of Dodd Road could range from $1.5 to $2 million. Furthermore, some elements of the system such as utility boxes cannot be buried underground and would still need to be accommodated within the public right-of-way at the surface. Because of the high cost of this option, Stantec and City staff determined that it was not realistic to consider utility burial as part of this trail project and to only investigate options for trail construction that accommodate above-ground private utility infrastructure. 3.2.2 Relocating Utilities The City of Mendota Heights could require Xcel and other utility companies to relocate power poles within the public right-of-way to create space for a trail. All utility equipment must be contained completely in the public right-of-way, including the full length of overhanging power pole arms. Any new right-of-way needed for the relocation of private utilities must be purchased by the City of Mendota Heights. The majority of overhead power lines along Dodd Road are on the west side of the corridor, although in some segments utility lines are on the east side of the corridor as well. Xcel staff believe that poles on the west side of Dodd Road are used by Xcel; poles on the east side are used by Century Link. Both utilities could be combined on the same pole; however, this would likely require constructing taller, larger poles that may not be politically acceptable to nearby residents. Stantec explored the idea of moving existing poles closer to the roadway to create more room for a trail along the edge of the right-of-way closest to the neighboring property line. However, MnDOT clear zone requirements do not allow poles to be moved closer to the roadway than they are today. Therefore, Stantec and City staff determined that the preliminary concept designs explored in this study should incorporate space for p rivate utilities alongside the page 25 proposed trail, between the trail and the adjoining property line. This configuration is depicted in Figure 4. 3.2.3 Replacing Drainage Ditches In some segments along Dodd Road, stormwater drainage is carried by ditches. In order to repurpose right-of-way space for a trail, drainage ditches can be eliminated by adding storm sewers to transfer water in pipes. Figures 5-7 depict modifications to stormwater drainage systems along Dodd Road to ensure that drainage can still occur within the public right -of-way. These modifications are included in the cost estimat es to construct a trail presented in Section 6. Figure 5: Surface Drainage with Retaining Wall Below Figure 6: Surface Drainage and Ditch with Retaining Wall Above page 26 Figure 7: Drainage with Storm Sewer page 27 4.0 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT To identify a potential alignment for the trail along Dodd Road, Stantec first conducted a review of aerial photography to identify major physical barriers to trail construction along the corridor alignment. We next analyzed the width of the public right-of-way along both sides of Dodd Road to determine which side of the road (east or west) would be most feasible for a trail alignment given both physical conditions and available public right -of-way. The following principles guided our analysis of potential locations for a trail alignment along Dodd Road: • Utilize available public right-of-way as much as possible • Minimize relocation of utilities • Minimize disruption to slopes and trees • Minimize crossings; maintain a continuous trail segment along one side of Dodd Road for as long as possible. Stantec divided the corridor into nine segments based on different characteristics of each segment. An initial assessment of each segment is depicted in Figure 8 on the following page. Note: Stantec did not review Segments 5 or 6. Segment 6 includes an existing trail segment along Dodd Road. This trail will be extended into Segment 5 during a 2018 resurfacing project on Dodd Road. page 28 Figure 8: Assessment of potential trail alignment page 29 5.0 MOST FEASIBLE TRAIL ALIGNMENT After completing the desktop assessment, Stantec performed a field review of Segments 1-4 and Segments 7-9 to verify actual conditions and assess potential limitations to the constructability of a trail based on the physical features present. The field review confirmed findings from the desktop assessment and informed which side of Dodd Road Stantec determined to be most feasible for the trail alignment. This alignment is depicted in Figure 9. Figure 9: Most Feasible Trail Alignment page 30 PHYSICAL FEATURES The following is a summary of existing conditions within each segment along Dodd Road that would impact trail construction, and major activities that would be required to accommodate a trail within this alignment. Segment 1 – Delaware Ave. to Chippewa Ave. • Fill existing ditch sections and add storm sewer between road and trail • Remove and replace existing stone retaining wall • Add retaining walls to keep grading limits within the 20’ trail corridor • Clear 15-20 trees and shrubs Segment 2 – Chippewa Ave. to Emerson Ave. • Fill existing ditch sections and add storm sewer between road and trail • Add retaining walls to keep grading limits within the 20’ trail corridor • Clear 35-40 trees and shrubs Segment 3 – Emerson Ave. to Wentworth Ave. • Add retaining walls to keep grading limits within the 20’ trail corridor • Clear 15-20 trees and shrubs Segment 4 – Wentworth Ave. to Marie Ave. • Fill existing ditch sections and add storm sewer between road and trail • Add retaining walls to keep grading limits within the 20’ trail corridor • Clear 55-60 trees and shrubs Segment 5 – Marie Ave. to Maple St. • Not analyzed as part of this study. Trail extension planned as part of 2018 Dodd Road resurfacing project. Segment 6 – Maple St. to Hwy 110 • Not analyzed as part of this study. Trail exists along east side of Dodd Road. page 31 Segment 7A – Apache St. to Decorah Ln. (off-road on public right-of-way) • Clear 30’ wide corridor through existing woods; approximately 30 trees and brush Segment 7B – Hokah Ave. to Decorah Ln. (along Dodd Road) • Fill existing ditch sections and add storm sewer between road and trail • Add retaining walls to keep grading limits within the 20’ trail corridor • Clear 15-20 trees and shrubs Segment 8 – Decorah Ln. to Lake Dr. • Fill existing ditch sections and add storm sewer between road and trail • Add retaining walls to keep grading limits within the 20’ trail corridor • Clear 30-35 trees and shrubs Segment 9 – Lake Dr. to Mendota Heights Road • Extend grading limits in public right-of-way to 30-45’ to eliminate retaining walls • Clear 10-15 trees and brush RIGHT-OF-WAY AVAILABILITY As described in Section 3, a twenty-foot wide right-of-way corridor along Dodd Road is required to construct a trail. In many cases, the City of Mendota Heights would need to acquire portions of the twenty-foot right-of-way corridor from adjoining property owners, either through land purchase or easements. In some instances, easements on individual properties would be as narrow as five feet; in others, all twenty feet would need to be acquired. Table 1 summarizes the total right-of-way that would need to be acquired from private property owners to support a trail. Locations where right-of-way acquisition is required within each segment are depicted in Figures 10-16 beginning on page 17. page 32 Table 1: Private Right-of-Way Required for Trail Total Right-of-way Acquisition Needed (square feet) Number of Parcels Impacted Segment 1 6,400 14 Segment 2 24,100 23 Segment 3 27,000 25 Segment 4 12,700 5 Segment 7B 4,900 4 Segment 5, 6, 7A, 8,9 Public right-of-way available or trail exists TOTAL 75,100 71 Note: Constructing either Segment 7A or Segment 7B would result in a continuous north -south trail connection along Dodd Road. Although building a trail in Segment 7B requires the acquisition of private right-of-way, this segment connects the proposed trail with existing trail west of Dodd Road and to Mendakota Park. For this reason, both alignments are included in this study. page 33 Figure 10: Right-of-Way Needed in Segment 1 (Delaware Ave. to Chippewa Ave.) page 34 Figure 11: Right-of-Way Needed in Segment 2 (Chippewa Ave. to Emerson Ave.) page 35 Figure 12: Right-of-Way Needed in Segment 3 (Emerson Ave. to Wentworth Ave.) page 36 Figure 13: Right-of-Way Needed in Segment 4 (Wentworth Ave. to Marie Ave.) page 37 page 38 Figure 14: Proposed Trail Alignment in Segment 5 (Marie Ave. to Maple St.) page 39 Figure 15: Existing Trail in Segment 6 (Maple St. to S. Plaza Drive) page 40 Figure 16: Trail Alignments in Segment 7 (Decorah Lane to South Plaza Drive) Figure 17: Trail Alignment in Segment 8 Using Public Right-of-Way (Decorah Lane to Lake Drive) page 41 Figure 18: Trail Alignment in Segment 9 Using Public Right-of-Way (Lake Drive to Mendota Heights Road) page 42 6.0 COMMUNITY INPUT The City of Mendota Heights shared t rail design concepts at public meetings throughout the summer of 2016. While this report details technical considerations that would make a trail feasible, acquiring right-of-way from adjoining property owners is ultimately a political decision that requires strong support from the community and buy-in from both property owners and potential trail users. The following is a summary of comments and discussion at public meetings held to discuss a potential trail alignment. Appendix A includes the public participation plan for this outreach effort. MENDOTA HEIGHTS 5K/PARKS CELEBRATION City of Mendota Heights planning staff attended this event on June 4, 2016. Staff presented trail concepts and asked for feedback on the proposed Dodd Road alignment. Participants expressed the following desires regarding the potential trail: • Overwhelmingly positive comments about establishing a trail along the corridor • Safer corridor for walking and biking • A separated trail facility is preferred over a wide shoulder • Safer connection to Somerset Elementary School • Pedestrian crossing improvements PARKVIEW PLAZA AND VILLAGE COMMONS (08.25.16 AND 08.31.16) City of Mendota Heights planning staff visited two senior housing facilities located along the Dodd Road corridor on August 25 and August 31, 2016. Staff presented trail concepts and asked for feedback on the proposed Dodd Road alignment. Participants expressed the following desires regarding the potential trail: • Most residents would not use a trail facility on Dodd Road • Walking/biking would not replace any vehicle trips for those that drive • Some recreational walkers may use Dodd Road to reach other walking trails • Pedestrian crossing at South Plaza Drive • Connection to River to River Greenway • Trail crossing Dodd Road at TH 110 page 43 ST. THOMAS ACADEMY AND VISITATION SHOOL SURVEYS Mendota Heights staff sent surveys to St. Thomas Academy, Visitation School, Friendly Hills Middle School, Somerset Elementary and Sibley High School to gather input from school-aged children about a potential trail along Dodd Road. 119 students from St. Thomas Academy School and Visitation School responded to the survey, including students from third, fourth, seventh, eight h and ninth grades. Ten percent of students who responded say they walk or bicycle along Dodd Road today, primarily to travel between home and school. Other top destinations included Mendota Plaza and nearby parks. When asked “If bike-walk facilities were along Dodd Road, how frequently would you use them,” 50 percent of students said they would use them daily, weekly, or monthly. The following comments are representative of typical desires for Dodd Road students requested via the survey: • I would love a bike path on Dodd Road. My family loves to go on bike rides and it would be awesome to be able to bike to or from after school activities. My siblings and I usually do golf which is about 45 min. walking from our house and we usually walk along Dodd Road for about 20 min and most cars are very careful, but it is still scary, if we had a bike path or SIDEWALKS it would be amazing. • Traffic signs with more cross walks would be nice. • A biking path is a really good idea. • With our cross country team, we run on Dodd Road quite frequently, and it is a little scary running inches away from cars. Our team would benefit greatly from something that could prevent that. Full results of the student survey are included in Appendix A. COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE 10.17.16 The City of Mendota Heights hosted an open house on October 17, 2016 to share the draft of this study with residents. Stantec presented a summary of the draft study at the open house and again at a Parks and Recreation Commission meeting later that evening. Stantec gave a third presentation of the study to the Planning Commission on October 25, 2016. At the open house, participants expressed mixed opinions about the importance of a trail along Dodd Road. Many expressed that bicycling and walking should be made safer on this corridor, especially near Somerset School. Others, particularly homeowners along Dodd Road, expressed opinions that a trail should not be considered because the 20 foot trail corridor would be invasive of private right-of-way for homes with short setback distances from the road. Written comments provided at the meeting or e-mailed in advance to City staff are transcribed in Appendix A. page 44 7.0 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES Stantec prepared a preliminary cost estimate to construct each trail segment. Costs do not include right of way acquisition or temporary construction easements. Costs include a 20 percent construction contingency and a 25 percent engineering contingency (e.g. design, construction administration, survey, geotechnical work and legal fees for acquisitions). Detailed descriptions of the construction requirements for each segment are provided in Appendix B. Table 2: Trail Construction Cost Estimates Trail Segment Length (LF) Probable Construction Cost/LF Probable Construction Cost Segment 1 - Delaware Ave to Chippewa Ave 900 $ 252.67 $ 227,400 Segment 2 - Chippewa Ave to Emerson Ave 2600 $ 269.02 $ 699,450 Segment 3 - Emerson Ave to Wentworth Ave 2800 $ 224.49 $ 628,575 Segment 4 - Wentworth Ave to Marie Ave 2800 $ 297.46 $ 832,875 Segment 5 - Marie Ave to Maple St [Trail construction planned] Segment 6 & 7 - Maple St to Hokah Ave [Existing trail facilities to remain] Segment 7A - Apache St to Decorah Lane (Off- road through public right-of-way) 1500 $ 117.75 $ 176,625 Segment 7B - Hokah Ave to Decorah Lane (Along Dodd Rd) 1000 $ 230.03 $ 230,025 Segment 8 - Decorah Lane to Lake Dr 1650 $ 372.41 $ 614,475 Segment 9 - Lake Dr to Mendota Heights Rd 1600 $ 144.14 $ 230,625 Total Segment 1 - 9 14850 $ 3,640,050 page 45 8.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Public right-of-way along Dodd Road is finite and must serve multiple functions. Adding a trail entirely within the existing right -of-way is not feasible. Therefore, the City of Mendota Heights would have to acquire additional right-of-way along some portions of Dodd Road in order to construct a trail. In addition, private utilities within the right-of-way would also need to be relocated to support the trail alignment. Stantec recommends the City pursue the following next steps in order to advance implementation of a trail in this corridor: • Continue to discuss the proposed alignment with citizens and elected officials to generate buy-in and support for the trail concept. • Pursue trail construction in segments. This helps spread costs out over time. Begin construction along southern trail segments where right -of-way is publicly owned. Completed segments can help build public support for the trail and for extending the alignment further north where right-of-way acquisition is required. • Initiate individual meetings with property owners along the trail alignment to assess support for the trail project and readiness to sell property or easements for trails segments. • Continue conversations with Xcel Energy staff and other utility companies regarding relocation needs of private utilities. Utility staff expressed appreciation for early notice of these discussions and can more easily join productive partnerships when they are included early in the process. • Look for opportunities through the development review process to acquire trail easements as properties change ownership. • Work with MnDOT to install crossing improvements such as medians at key locations on Dodd Road during its 2018 resurfacing project to improve safe access to the trail. • Both segments 7A and 7B create a continuous off-road connection throughout the trail corridor. While it is likely only feasible to construct one alignment in the short term, the City should pursue both alignments in the long term to maximize the trail’s connectivity with existing trail and the City’s park system. page 46 APPENDICES page 47 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN AND PUBLIC INPUT RECEIVED page 48 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Dodd Road Corridor Study Purpose: Dakota County’s Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP) is funded by a grant from the Minnesota Department of Health to reduce chronic disease and improve health for all. The SHIP grant requires that the City engage target populations through community outreach as part of the proposed project. The City recognizes that public participation is an important component of the planning process. This plan is intended to outline public engagement strategies and methods to fulfil the grant award requirements. Project Scope: The City intends to conduct an in-depth analysis of the Dodd Road (State Trunk Highway 149) corridor in an effort to identify safe trail facility options and funding sources. Dodd Road is a key north-south transportation corridor through the community that requires a detailed analysis to identify opportunities and constraints to establishing an off-street trail facility. The study will include stakeholder engagement outreach to certain user groups that are more likely to depend on non-motorized transportation, including seniors and children. Public Participation Methods: In an effort to promote community engagement in the planning process and recognize the SHIP target populations, the following activities will be undertaken: Parks and Recreation Commission The Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission will be presented project updates and will advise staff and consultants throughout the planning process. The Commission meets monthly and includes seven members and two high- school aged student representatives. All Commission meetings are posted in advance and open to the public. The meeting agendas will allow for public comment on the planning process. In addition to the regularly scheduled meetings, staff plans to host an open house prior to one of the Commission meetings. Commission Members: Joel Paper (Chair) Ira Kipp Pat Hinderscheid Stephanie Brod Levine David Miller Jay Miller Michael Toth Claire Dunham (student) Miles Bowen (student) page 49 Focus Group Open Houses Parkview Plaza and Village Commons are senior living/affordable housing facilities operated by the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) and located along the Dodd Road corridor. The CDA’s Senior Housing Program is designed for adults over age 55 who meet the income eligibility requirements. The Village at Mendota Heights and Mendota Plaza are mixed-use commercial developments that serve as local and regional destinations located along the corridor. Staff plans to hold open houses at both facilities and prior to one of the Commission meetings to present the preliminary findings and get feedback from the residents. Surveys Staff plans to develop a short survey to be completed by students of area public/private schools and by attendees of the Parks Celebration to inform them about the planning process and get feedback regarding potential use of an off- street trail facility along the corridor. Electronic Communications Staff plans to utilize several electronic communication outlets to inform and engage stakeholders in the planning process. The City’s website and social media applications will be updated with current information on the planning process, including meeting agendas and materials. In addition, articles will be included in the weekly Friday News email and in the September edition of the Heights Highlights newsletter mailed to all property owners. Public Participation Timeline: Staff anticipates starting the project in May and finishing by the end of December 2016. Public Participation Method Stakeholder(s) Tentative Timeline Parks and Recreation Commission Meetings (6-7) Commissioners, Residents Monthly meetings (May – November) Focus Group Open Houses (4) Seniors citizens, business owners July – November Surveys (5) Students, residents September – October (schools) June 4 (Parks Celebration) Electronic Communications Residents, “friends/followers” Continuous (website/social media) Weekly (Friday News) September (Heights Highlights) page 50 St. Thomas Academy and Visitation School Student Survey Results School Answer Options Response Percent Response Count St. Thomas Academy 41.2% 49 Visitation 58.8% 70 answered question 119 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0% Drive Walk Bicycle Other (please specify) How do you currently travel on Dodd Road? 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Less than 1 mile 1-3 miles More than 3 miles How long is your typical trip? page 51 Other comments or suggestions? • A biking path is a really good idea. • Add a bike lane like they do in Washington D.C. • Bike lanes and sidewalks. • Get the communities opinion, good job taking the initiative of asking our opinion. Walking path to reach different places. • Good idea for path. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Daily Weekly Monthly Never If bike-walk facilities were along Dodd Road, how frequently would you use them? 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Lighting Shade Benches Street crossing improvements What other improvements would you like to see on Dodd Road to make walking and biking safer, easier, and more fun? page 52 • Having a bike path would be very helpful. • I do not use Dodd Road, but I know many people do and would enjoy a bike/walk path. • I don't live in Mendota Heights, so I would never use a bike lane. • I live on Dodd Road and when I walk my dog, I feel like I'm going to get hit, I would like a sidewalk, and for cross country for Saint Thomas we cross from Blue Bill to the other side of Dodd, and we have had two incidents where cars don't stop or watch for us when we cross. They have almost hit us twice. Please add a stop sign and, or cross walk. • I mean I don't live around here so... • I think a path to use for athletics would be very practical. • I think there should be sidewalks because they would really be useful since sports run along Dodd & lots of kids bike to school. It would be an improvement to the community. • I think we need to have more sidewalks for walking people or runners. • I would love a bike path on Dodd Road. My family loves to go on bike rides and it would be awesome to be able to bike to or from after school activities. My siblings and I usually do golf which is about 45 min. walking from our house and we usually walk along Dodd Road for about 20 min and most cars are very careful, but it is still scary, if we had a bike path or SIDEWALKS it would be amazing. • I would use it for going to soccer games/practices. • I'd like more bike trails and bicycling infrastructure along the Dodd Road corridor. Wider trails, better crossings (including possible reduced speed limits) would also be helpful. Unrelated to bicycling, but still important, is public transportation. better maintained, higher frequency public transportation will enrich the area, if installed. • It would be nice if there was a boulevard in the middle (like Summit Avenue in St. Paul). • Less noisy. A bike counter to see how many bikes ride that path every day! • Make a bike park. • Make a bike path for runners, bikers and students. • Make a bike trail on Sunfish lane Angel road. • People are going too fast! • People drive very fast on Dodd, so it would be beneficial for so many people to have a sidewalk/bike path. I might not use it to walk to school, but for sports, gym class, and other people, it would help out so much and make it much safer. • Please put in a bike path. • Put in benches. • Sidewalk • Slowing down or roundabouts • The stop light by the Mendota Plaza/Village is very slow in the morning on the way to school. • Track often runs on Dodd, and I feel unsafe knowing that there isn't much space to run. A trail would be much better. • Traffic signs with more cross walks would be nice. • Visitation's Phy. Ed class may use this if a bike path was put into place. • With our cross country team, we run on Dodd Road quite frequently, and it is a little scary running inches away from cars. Our team would benefit greatly from something that could prevent that. page 53 • Yes, put in a trail. • You don't want to put in a bike lane because people would not be happy. It would take up parking space and create traffic. For sure some awareness signs for crossing!! • You should make bench stop and drinking fountain. • You should put more sidewalks, and biking trails because it gives people more opportunities to come and go to school. page 54 Written Comment (From Open House 10.17.16) Name Date Thank you for starting the conversation. My primary concern is safety on Dodd and Delaware for all- bikes and peds and cars. Where is Somerset golf course in this conversation? Julie Gugun 10.17.16 I oppose this trail alignment. Where is the use/where is the need. Terribly inconvenient. Too much cost. Jerry Geis 10.17.16 Yes. Create a bike trail. It’s a pure good. It’s needed, helpful and reasonable. I have ridden my bicycle many time up and down Dodd; it’s scary, but there’s no other way to traverse the area it serves. I hope I don’t need to mention Somerset Elementary & Sibley High School. I’m almost but not quite a senior citizen- my demographic supports a bike/pedestrian path. Celeste Riley 10.17.16 100% in favor of the trail on Dodd. Dodd is used so much by pedestrians and it is so unsafe right now. Becca Glass 10.17.16 I don’t have high hopes for this happening, but I hope it does. I have 2 young children who I plan to raise in Mendota Heights, and the prospect of a safe route to bike to school or the village for ice cream makes the livability & enjoyability of my neighborhood that much greater. As millennials begin to start families, it is the forward thinking burbs who will attract them. Brian Udell 10.17.16 Just can’t leave well enough alone. Benefit the few to the dismay of the many. It’s a trunk highway, snow emergency route which works very well. James Stehr 10.17.16 The trail would be far too close to our house and would take away about 1/3 of our driveway and most of our privacy. Linda Stehr 10.17.16 The existing trails run to Delaware Avenue as well. Delaware Avenue – between Hwy 110 and Dodd (North) is heavily travelled by walkers/bikers from the high school. Teen drivers are also plenty on Delaware Avenue. Seems like the City would provide greater safety to a greater number of users if the trail were built along Delaware Avenue from Hwy. 110 to the north end of the proposed trail. Mary Deitchler 10.17.16 Thank you for developing the study, I don’t live on Dodd, but I know it is dangerous for walkers & bikers and we need a solution if to assure safety, we have been lucky so far!! Please consider bike & walk path!! Denise Dunham 10.17.16 page 55 Written Comment (E-mailed to staff) Name Date I am strongly opposed for a few reasons: 1. Property assessment/increased taxes both for the current proposed project and the required maintenance in the future. 2. Encroachment onto my property/property value reduction 3. Increased foot traffic near my property and the associated increased security risk. 4. Reduction in the scenic/aesthetic value of Dodd Road as a county highway. I have a few questions about the proposed trail. 1. Is the trail proposed for the east or west side of Dodd Road? 2. How wide will the trail be? 3. Where will the trail start and stop? 4. Will there be any railings or fences associated with the trail? 5. What is the environmental impact of the additional asphalt on the wildlife in the Mendota Heights ecosystem? Dodd Road already crosses numerus tributaries leading to the flood plain of the Mississippi River. Joel Farley 10.15.16 Hi. I am not able to attend the Oct 17 meeting re: Dodd Road, but wanted to voice my support for a plan that makes this road safer for pedestrians and bicyclists. Of special interest to me is the intersection at Delaware and Dodd. This intersection is busy, at a weird angle, and only has sidewalk on the northeast corner. We live in the Ivy Falls area, and my son attends Heritage Middle School (his home school). In order to walk or bike to school, he has to navigate this dangerous intersection and is forced to walk several blocks (either north on Dodd or along Delaware/Butler) without any sidewalk. Encouraging biking/walking is good for the public health and well-being of a community. Having bike and walking paths leads to greater community satisfaction and is attractive to people living and moving to an area. I hope you will be able to take advantage of this construction project to enhance the trail system in Mendota Heights. Maia Hendel 10.10.16 page 56 I live near Dodd Road in Mendota Heights and I ride a bicycle 50-100 miles a week year round. The problem on Dodd Road is the section from Mendota Heights Road South to Blue Gention Road in Eagan. The wide shoulders are nice North of 110, and the traffic is slower and there are no Freeway ramps. Please work with Eagan and fix the real problem first. NA 9.23.16 My family moved to Mendota Heights from Highland Park (St. Paul) one year ago. We love the community and our neighborhood (Ivy Falls) but we feel the only thing that's missing is access to the rest of Mendota Heights from our house on Ivy Falls Ave and a bike/pedestrian trail on Dodd Road would enable us to access the rest of Mendota Heights. We feel that Dodd Road is too busy and there is not enough room for it to be utilized by foot and bike traffic. We have two young girls who will be attending Somerset Elementary in the upcoming years and the only way we would want to bike or walk to school would be through the back pathway through our neighborhood. If there were access along Dodd, we would certainly use that as an alternative. Not to mention being able to bike/walk to the shopping area of Mendota and accessing the other trails that we already have. Thank you for taking the time to allow us to voice our enthusiasm for a possible bike/walk path along Dodd Rd, I know it would be a great asset to the community and would encourage more healthy activities for our Mendota Heights residents. Chad Schuirmann 9.23.16 I am writing in strong support of an off-street pedestrian/bike trail along Dodd. People are already traversing this stretch, but on the shoulder, and it feels dangerous for them and for drivers. It would also be nice when my kids are a little older to be able to more safely travel up and down Dodd, as it is one of our border streets of our neighborhood (Somerset Heights). Sara (Eric) Rice 9.23.16 I am writing in support of a safe path or sidewalk on Dodd road from Delaware to Mendota Heights Road. I travel on Dodd at least twice a day and frequently see children and adults riding their bikes, walking or running along the road. It always makes me nervous to see a teen or child on the side of Dodd riding their bike, because I know there is only so much room I can give them. A new path would dramatically improve the walkability and safety of Mendota Heights. Please do you best to push for this new path/sidewalk. Christopher Schultz 9.15.16 page 57 Hope you are well. I am writing to lend my enthusiastic support to the idea of a Dodd Road corridor. A safe pathway on or near Dodd road would increase foot and bike traffic to the many businesses at Dodd and 110 and would allow more of our community’s children to bike or walk to and from school and after school activities. This would improve congestion in school parking lots in the morning/afternoons and for evening activities and promote physical activity in our communities. This may also help to decrease obesity and inactivity-related conditions in our community. Kris Ann 9.15.16 I would be so happy to see a bike/pedestrian trail along Dodd Road! Corrine McCarthy 9.12.16 We moved to Ivy Falls Ave last summer from Highland Park. I grew up in Mendota Heights and when my husband and I made the decision to move back to Mendota Heights, I was so excited. We are thrilled to be back in Mendota Heights. Dodd Road is the only disappointment to the area due to the fact that it does not have pedestrian access. We feel that if it this bike/pedestrian trail was added to Dodd road it would give the area more of a community feel. And it would our community allow access to all the wonderful parks and businesses. We love our neighborhood, but we feel very limited in where we can comfortably walk. We won't walk on Dodd with our small children and our hope is to send them to Somerset for elementary school. This would allow our girls a quick and safe way to walk to school. My husband and I are very hopeful this new trail will be added to the already wonderful trail system in Mendota Heights. Meghan Schuirmann 9.10.16 page 58 I can't make your open house, but think that this off-street bike/pedestrian trail is a great idea and about 30 years overdue. I live on the corner of South Lane and Wesley Lane. When I run and bike, I avoid Dodd at all costs due to the volume of traffic. In fact, early this week, when I went to turn south onto Dodd Road off of Wesley Lane, I had to wait for a young family (dad, mom, one small kid on a bike and two in a double stroller} as they made their way south on the eastside of Dodd Road into oncoming traffic. I thought to myself how dangerous that is for those people to put their lives into the hands of a distracted driver. Only takes one text to wipe out a family. Please make this project happen ASAP before someone gets killed on that road. Mitchell Rossman 9.10.16 I won't be able to attend the Dodd Road Corridor Study Open House so I wanted to email to let you know that I fully support building a bike path on Dodd. The path would allow me to take my family bike riding from our house on Hingham Circle and connect with the great bike path that runs from Marie to Hwy 110 along 35E N. Myles McKee 9.10.16 page 59 DETAILED COST ESTIMATES page 60 Segment 1 - Delaware Ave to Chippewa Ave Length 900 LF Width Area Bit 8 LF Bit 7200 SF Gravel 12 LF Gravel 10800 SF Shouldering 2 LF Shoulder 1800 SF Common Ex 12 LF Com Ex 10800 SF Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 12 LF SG Ex/CB 10800 SF Topsoil Borrow 10 LF Topsoil 9000 SF Clearing 8 LF Clearing 7200 SF Thickness Bit 2.5 IN Gravel 6 IN Shouldering 2.5 IN Common Ex 0.71 FT Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 1 FT Topsoil Borrow 0.5 FT No.Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price 1 Mobilization LS 1 7,000.00$ 7,000.00$ 2 Traffic Control LS 1 700.00$ 700.00$ 3 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 4 Remove Curb/ Bit Trail / Conc Walk SY 60 5.00$ 300.00$ 5 Common Excavation - Trail CY 290 20.00$ 5,800.00$ 6 Common Excavation - Cut Slopes CY 230 20.00$ 4,600.00$ 7 Subgrade Excavation CY 120 20.00$ 2,400.00$ 8 Common Borrow for Subgrade Ex CY 120 15.00$ 1,800.00$ 9 Common Borrow - Fill Slopes CY 280 15.00$ 4,200.00$ 10 Storm Sewer Pipe LF 600 40.00$ 24,000.00$ 11 Storm Sewer Structures EA 3 3,500.00$ 10,500.00$ 12 Retaining Wall SF 1400 30.00$ 42,000.00$ 13 Chain Link Fence LF 300 20.00$ 6,000.00$ 14 Aggregate Base TN 460 15.00$ 6,900.00$ 15 Aggregate Shouldering TN 40 20.00$ 800.00$ 16 Bituminous Pavement TN 140 80.00$ 11,200.00$ 17 Concrete Curb & Pedestrian Ramps EA 3 2,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 18 Topsoil Borrow (LV)CY 230 30.00$ 6,900.00$ 19 Erosion Control LS 1 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 20 Turf Establishment SY 1000 3.00$ 3,000.00$ 21 Signing & Striping LS 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ Subtotal Construction Costs 151,600.00$ +/- 20% Construction Contingency 30,320.00$ 181,920.00$ +/- 25% Engineering, Admin, Legal, Etc 45,480.00$ Total Cost 227,400.00$ page 61 Segment 2 - Chippewa Ave to Emerson Ave Length 2600 LF Width Area Bit 8 LF Bit 20800 SF Gravel 12 LF Gravel 31200 SF Shouldering 2 LF Shoulder 5200 SF Common Ex 12 LF Com Ex 31200 SF Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 12 LF SG Ex/CB 31200 SF Topsoil Borrow 10 LF Topsoil 26000 SF Clearing 8 LF Clearing 20800 SF Thickness Bit 2.5 IN Gravel 6 IN Shouldering 2.5 IN Common Ex 0.71 FT Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 1 FT Topsoil Borrow 0.5 FT No.Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price 1 Mobilization LS 1 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 2 Traffic Control LS 1 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 3 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 4 Remove Curb/ Bit Trail / Conc Walk SY 180 5.00$ 900.00$ 5 Common Excavation - Trail CY 830 20.00$ 16,600.00$ 6 Common Excavation - Cut Slopes CY 170 20.00$ 3,400.00$ 7 Subgrade Excavation CY 350 20.00$ 7,000.00$ 8 Common Borrow for Subgrade Ex CY 350 15.00$ 5,250.00$ 9 Common Borrow - Fill Slopes CY 3230 15.00$ 48,450.00$ 10 Storm Sewer Pipe LF 1600 40.00$ 64,000.00$ 11 Storm Sewer Structures EA 8 3,500.00$ 28,000.00$ 12 Retaining Wall SF 4450 30.00$ 133,500.00$ 13 Chain Link Fence LF 1050 20.00$ 21,000.00$ 14 Aggregate Base TN 1320 15.00$ 19,800.00$ 15 Aggregate Shouldering TN 100 20.00$ 2,000.00$ 16 Bituminous Pavement TN 390 80.00$ 31,200.00$ 17 Concrete Curb & Pedestrian Ramps EA 9 2,000.00$ 18,000.00$ 18 Topsoil Borrow (LV)CY 650 30.00$ 19,500.00$ 19 Erosion Control LS 1 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 20 Turf Establishment SY 2900 3.00$ 8,700.00$ 21 Signing & Striping LS 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ Subtotal Construction Costs 466,300.00$ +/- 20% Construction Contingency 93,260.00$ 559,560.00$ +/- 25% Engineering, Admin, Legal, Etc 139,890.00$ Total Cost 699,450.00$ page 62 Segment 3 - Emerson Ave to Wentworth Ave Length 2800 LF Width Area Bit 8 LF Bit 22400 SF Gravel 12 LF Gravel 33600 SF Shouldering 2 LF Shoulder 5600 SF Common Ex 12 LF Com Ex 33600 SF Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 12 LF SG Ex/CB 33600 SF Topsoil Borrow 10 LF Topsoil 28000 SF Clearing 8 LF Clearing 22400 SF Thickness Bit 2.5 IN Gravel 6 IN Shouldering 2.5 IN Common Ex 0.71 FT Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 1 FT Topsoil Borrow 0.5 FT No.Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price 1 Mobilization LS 1 18,000.00$ 18,000.00$ 2 Traffic Control LS 1 1,800.00$ 1,800.00$ 3 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 4 Remove Curb/ Bit Trail / Conc Walk SY 60 5.00$ 300.00$ 5 Common Excavation - Trail CY 890 20.00$ 17,800.00$ 6 Common Excavation - Cut Slopes CY 790 20.00$ 15,800.00$ 7 Subgrade Excavation CY 380 20.00$ 7,600.00$ 8 Common Borrow for Subgrade Ex CY 380 15.00$ 5,700.00$ 9 Common Borrow - Fill Slopes CY 950 15.00$ 14,250.00$ 10 Storm Sewer Pipe LF 200 40.00$ 8,000.00$ 11 Storm Sewer Structures EA 1 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$ 12 Retaining Wall SF 5980 30.00$ 179,400.00$ 13 Chain Link Fence LF 1495 20.00$ 29,900.00$ 14 Aggregate Base TN 1420 15.00$ 21,300.00$ 15 Aggregate Shouldering TN 100 20.00$ 2,000.00$ 16 Bituminous Pavement TN 420 80.00$ 33,600.00$ 17 Concrete Curb & Pedestrian Ramps EA 9 2,000.00$ 18,000.00$ 18 Topsoil Borrow (LV)CY 700 30.00$ 21,000.00$ 19 Erosion Control LS 1 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$ 20 Turf Establishment SY 3200 3.00$ 9,600.00$ 21 Signing & Striping LS 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ Subtotal Construction Costs 419,050.00$ +/- 20% Construction Contingency 83,810.00$ 502,860.00$ +/- 25% Engineering, Admin, Legal, Etc 125,715.00$ Total Cost 628,575.00$ page 63 Segment 4 - Wentworth Ave to Marie Ave Length 2800 LF Width Area Bit 8 LF Bit 22400 SF Gravel 12 LF Gravel 33600 SF Shouldering 2 LF Shoulder 5600 SF Common Ex 12 LF Com Ex 33600 SF Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 12 LF SG Ex/CB 33600 SF Topsoil Borrow 10 LF Topsoil 28000 SF Clearing 8 LF Clearing 22400 SF Thickness Bit 2.5 IN Gravel 6 IN Shouldering 2.5 IN Common Ex 0.71 FT Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 1 FT Topsoil Borrow 0.5 FT No.Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price 1 Mobilization LS 1 26,000.00$ 26,000.00$ 2 Traffic Control LS 1 2,600.00$ 2,600.00$ 3 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 4 Remove Curb/ Bit Trail / Conc Walk SY 120 5.00$ 600.00$ 5 Common Excavation - Trail CY 890 20.00$ 17,800.00$ 6 Common Excavation - Cut Slopes CY 800 20.00$ 16,000.00$ 7 Subgrade Excavation CY 380 20.00$ 7,600.00$ 8 Common Borrow for Subgrade Ex CY 380 15.00$ 5,700.00$ 9 Common Borrow - Fill Slopes CY 1380 15.00$ 20,700.00$ 10 Storm Sewer Pipe LF 1300 40.00$ 52,000.00$ 11 Storm Sewer Structures EA 7 3,500.00$ 24,500.00$ 12 Retaining Wall SF 7325 30.00$ 219,750.00$ 13 Chain Link Fence LF 1650 20.00$ 33,000.00$ 14 Aggregate Base TN 1420 15.00$ 21,300.00$ 15 Aggregate Shouldering TN 100 20.00$ 2,000.00$ 16 Bituminous Pavement TN 420 80.00$ 33,600.00$ 17 Concrete Curb & Pedestrian Ramps EA 9 2,000.00$ 18,000.00$ 18 Topsoil Borrow (LV)CY 700 30.00$ 21,000.00$ 19 Erosion Control LS 1 5,500.00$ 5,500.00$ 20 Turf Establishment SY 3200 3.00$ 9,600.00$ 21 Signing & Striping LS 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ Subtotal Construction Costs 555,250.00$ +/- 20% Construction Contingency 111,050.00$ 666,300.00$ +/- 25% Engineering, Admin, Legal, Etc 166,575.00$ Total Cost 832,875.00$ page 64 Segment 7A - Apache St to Decorah Lane (Off Street through County Right of Way) Length 1500 LF Width Area Bit 8 LF Bit 12000 SF Gravel 12 LF Gravel 18000 SF Shouldering 4 LF Shoulder 6000 SF Common Ex 12 LF Com Ex 18000 SF Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 12 LF SG Ex/CB 18000 SF Topsoil Borrow 10 LF Topsoil 15000 SF Clearing 30 LF Clearing 45000 SF Thickness Bit 2.5 IN Gravel 6 IN Shouldering 2.5 IN Common Ex 0.71 FT Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 1 FT Topsoil Borrow 0.5 FT No.Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price 1 Mobilization LS 1 5,500.00$ 5,500.00$ 2 Traffic Control LS 1 500.00$ 500.00$ 3 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 4 Remove Curb/ Bit Trail / Conc Walk SY 20 5.00$ 100.00$ 5 Common Excavation - Trail CY 480 20.00$ 9,600.00$ 6 Common Excavation - Cut Slopes CY 0 20.00$ -$ 7 Subgrade Excavation CY 670 20.00$ 13,400.00$ 8 Common Borrow for Subgrade Ex CY 670 15.00$ 10,050.00$ 9 Common Borrow - Fill Slopes CY 0 15.00$ -$ 10 Storm Sewer Pipe LF 200 40.00$ 8,000.00$ 11 Storm Sewer Structures EA 1 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$ 12 Retaining Wall SF 0 30.00$ -$ 13 Chain Link Fence LF 0 20.00$ -$ 14 Aggregate Base TN 760 15.00$ 11,400.00$ 15 Aggregate Shouldering TN 110 20.00$ 2,200.00$ 16 Bituminous Pavement TN 230 80.00$ 18,400.00$ 17 Concrete Curb & Pedestrian Ramps EA 1 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 18 Topsoil Borrow (LV)CY 380 30.00$ 11,400.00$ 19 Erosion Control LS 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 20 Turf Establishment SY 1700 3.00$ 5,100.00$ 21 Signing & Striping LS 1 600.00$ 600.00$ Subtotal Construction Costs 117,750.00$ +/- 20% Construction Contingency 23,550.00$ 141,300.00$ +/- 25% Engineering, Admin, Legal, Etc 35,325.00$ Total Cost 176,625.00$ page 65 Segment 7B - Hokah Ave to Decorah Lane (Along Dodd Rd) Length 1000 LF Width Area Bit 8 LF Bit 8000 SF Gravel 12 LF Gravel 12000 SF Shouldering 2 LF Shoulder 2000 SF Common Ex 12 LF Com Ex 12000 SF Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 12 LF SG Ex/CB 12000 SF Topsoil Borrow 10 LF Topsoil 10000 SF Clearing 8 LF Clearing 8000 SF Thickness Bit 2.5 IN Gravel 6 IN Shouldering 2.5 IN Common Ex 0.71 FT Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 1 FT Topsoil Borrow 0.5 FT No.Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price 1 Mobilization LS 1 7,000.00$ 7,000.00$ 2 Traffic Control LS 1 700.00$ 700.00$ 3 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 4 Remove Curb/ Bit Trail / Conc Walk SY 20 5.00$ 100.00$ 5 Common Excavation - Trail CY 320 20.00$ 6,400.00$ 6 Common Excavation - Cut Slopes CY 230 20.00$ 4,600.00$ 7 Subgrade Excavation CY 140 20.00$ 2,800.00$ 8 Common Borrow for Subgrade Ex CY 140 15.00$ 2,100.00$ 9 Common Borrow - Fill Slopes CY 840 15.00$ 12,600.00$ 10 Storm Sewer Pipe LF 600 40.00$ 24,000.00$ 11 Storm Sewer Structures EA 3 3,500.00$ 10,500.00$ 12 Retaining Wall SF 1050 30.00$ 31,500.00$ 13 Chain Link Fence LF 300 20.00$ 6,000.00$ 14 Aggregate Base TN 510 15.00$ 7,650.00$ 15 Aggregate Shouldering TN 40 20.00$ 800.00$ 16 Bituminous Pavement TN 150 80.00$ 12,000.00$ 17 Concrete Curb & Pedestrian Ramps EA 3 2,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 18 Topsoil Borrow (LV)CY 250 30.00$ 7,500.00$ 19 Erosion Control LS 1 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 20 Turf Establishment SY 1200 3.00$ 3,600.00$ 21 Signing & Striping LS 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ Subtotal Construction Costs 153,350.00$ +/- 20% Construction Contingency 30,670.00$ 184,020.00$ +/- 25% Engineering, Admin, Legal, Etc 46,005.00$ Total Cost 230,025.00$ page 66 Segment 8 - Decorah Lane to Lake Dr Length 1650 LF Width Area Bit 8 LF Bit 13200 SF Gravel 12 LF Gravel 19800 SF Shouldering 2 LF Shoulder 3300 SF Common Ex 12 LF Com Ex 19800 SF Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 12 LF SG Ex/CB 19800 SF Topsoil Borrow 10 LF Topsoil 16500 SF Clearing 8 LF Clearing 13200 SF Thickness Bit 2.5 IN Gravel 6 IN Shouldering 2.5 IN Common Ex 0.71 FT Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 1 FT Topsoil Borrow 0.5 FT No.Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price 1 Mobilization LS 1 19,000.00$ 19,000.00$ 2 Traffic Control LS 1 1,900.00$ 1,900.00$ 3 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 4 Remove Pagel Rd Intersection SY 400 20.00$ 8,000.00$ 5 Common Excavation - Trail CY 530 20.00$ 10,600.00$ 6 Common Excavation - Cut Slopes CY 0 20.00$ -$ 7 Subgrade Excavation CY 220 20.00$ 4,400.00$ 8 Common Borrow for Subgrade Ex CY 220 15.00$ 3,300.00$ 9 Common Borrow - Fill Slopes CY 1740 15.00$ 26,100.00$ 10 Storm Sewer Pipe LF 500 40.00$ 20,000.00$ 11 Storm Sewer Structures EA 3 3,500.00$ 10,500.00$ 12 Retaining Wall SF 7025 30.00$ 210,750.00$ 13 Chain Link Fence LF 1250 20.00$ 25,000.00$ 14 Aggregate Base TN 840 15.00$ 12,600.00$ 15 Aggregate Shouldering TN 60 20.00$ 1,200.00$ 16 Bituminous Pavement TN 250 80.00$ 20,000.00$ 17 Concrete Curb & Pedestrian Ramps EA 3 2,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 18 Topsoil Borrow (LV)CY 420 30.00$ 12,600.00$ 19 Erosion Control LS 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 20 Turf Establishment SY 1900 3.00$ 5,700.00$ 21 Signing & Striping LS 1 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ Subtotal Construction Costs 409,650.00$ +/- 20% Construction Contingency 81,930.00$ 491,580.00$ +/- 25% Engineering, Admin, Legal, Etc 122,895.00$ Total Cost 614,475.00$ page 67 Segment 9 - Lake Dr to Mendota Heights Rd Length 1600 LF Width Area Bit 8 LF Bit 12800 SF Gravel 12 LF Gravel 19200 SF Shouldering 2 LF Shoulder 3200 SF Common Ex 12 LF Com Ex 19200 SF Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 12 LF SG Ex/CB 19200 SF Topsoil Borrow 10 LF Topsoil 16000 SF Clearing 8 LF Clearing 12800 SF Thickness Bit 2.5 IN Gravel 6 IN Shouldering 2.5 IN Common Ex 0.71 FT Subgrade Ex/Com Bor 1 FT Topsoil Borrow 0.5 FT No.Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price 1 Mobilization LS 1 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 2 Traffic Control LS 1 750.00$ 750.00$ 3 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 4 Remove Curb/ Bit Trail / Conc Walk SY 40 5.00$ 200.00$ 5 Common Excavation - Trail CY 510 20.00$ 10,200.00$ 6 Common Excavation - Cut Slopes CY 790 20.00$ 15,800.00$ 7 Subgrade Excavation CY 220 20.00$ 4,400.00$ 8 Common Borrow for Subgrade Ex CY 220 15.00$ 3,300.00$ 9 Common Borrow - Fill Slopes CY 2530 15.00$ 37,950.00$ 10 Storm Sewer Pipe LF 200 40.00$ 8,000.00$ 11 Storm Sewer Structures EA 1 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$ 12 Retaining Wall SF 0 30.00$ -$ 13 Chain Link Fence LF 0 20.00$ -$ 14 Aggregate Base TN 810 15.00$ 12,150.00$ 15 Aggregate Shouldering TN 60 20.00$ 1,200.00$ 16 Bituminous Pavement TN 240 80.00$ 19,200.00$ 17 Concrete Curb & Pedestrian Ramps EA 2 2,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 18 Topsoil Borrow (LV)CY 400 30.00$ 12,000.00$ 19 Erosion Control LS 1 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 20 Turf Establishment SY 1800 3.00$ 5,400.00$ 21 Signing & Striping LS 1 1,700.00$ 1,700.00$ Subtotal Construction Costs 153,750.00$ +/- 20% Construction Contingency 30,750.00$ 184,500.00$ +/- 25% Engineering, Admin, Legal, Etc 46,125.00$ Total Cost 230,625.00$ page 68 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 15, 2017 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Cherokee Heights Ravine Stabilization – Approve JPA COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the Cities of Saint Paul and West St. Paul for the Cherokee Heights Ravine Stabilization Project. BACKGROUND The Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization (LMRWMO) regulates storm water drainage that crosses municipal boundaries, and has identified a portion of storm water drainage to this site as coming from Mendota Heights. Multi-jurisdictional storm water runoff from about 47-acres discharges to a low area (basin) located in Saint Paul just north of Annapolis Street and east of Cherokee Heights. The storm water runoff is collected via storm sewer piping and is then conveyed beneath Cherokee Heights by a 60-inch diameter culvert owned and maintained by Saint Paul. High flow rates and velocities have caused erosion problems on the upstream and downstream end of the culvert. Downstream of the 60-inch culvert storm water runoff flows down the bluff through a steep ravine area (upper ravine) and eventually flows to Pickerel Lake. The Cherokee Heights upper ravine channel has significant erosion along the channel bottom and side slopes, including undercutting of the toe of slope, which contributes to the instability of the ravine side slopes. In 2015 a Cherokee Heights Culvert Analyses and Erosion Control Feasibility Study was completed for the LMRWMO. See Exhibit A for the final study report, as received and accepted by the Project Partners and LMRWMO. The $80,186 cost to complete the feasibility study was paid for by Saint Paul. The Project Partners participated in the progress and review of the feasibility study. Note that a 49 page Feasibility Study has been prepared, but is not included in the Council’s information packet. Anyone wishing to see the document is asked to contact the Public Works Director. DISCUSSION page 69 To minimize erosion of the upper ravine channel and side slopes, and reduce the instability of the adjacent banks, the selected option (Downstream Channel Stabilization Option) from the 2015 feasibility study includes regrading and stabilizing the channel by armoring the channel with rip- rap and a properly graded filter material to prevent migration of underlying fine-grained soils through the rip-rap. High flow velocities in the upper ravine Channel preclude the use of many bio-engineering techniques for stabilization, as these techniques typically cannot withstand the magnitude of the flow velocities. The 2015 feasibility study outlined the Project cost sharing percentages for each of the Partners in accordance with LMRWMO allowable flow calculations. Below are the Project cost sharing percentages: • Saint Paul = 69% • West St. Paul = 19% • Mendota Heights = 12% The Partners have determined the need to complete the Project (see Exhibit B). The purpose and goals of this Project are: A. Prepare construction plans and specifications to rehabilitate and stabilize the Cherokee Heights upper ravine, immediately downstream and upstream of the 60-inch culvert. B. Erosion stabilization measures to be designed and constructed to handle a 100-year storm event. C. Complete Project plans, specifications, and bidding documents by May 31, 2018. D. Complete Project construction by the November 1, 2019. The partners have also applied for a Clean Water Grant through the LMRWMO for this project through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The grant is requesting an 80% (percent) match. BUDGET IMPACT The estimated projects costs for the project are: • Feasibility Study (completed) - $80,186.74 • Final Plans for bidding - $101,000 • Construction - $500,000-$800,000 • Construction Inspection - $51,000 Mendota Heights being a 12% (percent) partner would be subject to a total reimbursement of $87,862.42 to a maximum of $123,862.41. The City currently has a Capital Improvement budget item for this of $40,000. The storm water utility fund would have the funds for this improvement above the budgeted amount. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council approve the JPA. ACTION REQUIRED Staff recommends that the City Council pass a motion approving the Joint Powers Agreement between Saint Paul and West St. Paul for the Erosion Stabilization Project or the Cherokee Heights Upper Ravine. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 70 5/24/2017 Page 1 of 9 AGREEMENT Between Saint Paul, City of West St. Paul, and Mendota Heights Erosion Stabilization Project Cherokee Heights Upper Ravine THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into by and between the City of Saint Paul (“Saint Paul”), the City of West St. Paul (“West St. Paul”) and the City of Mendota Heights (“Mendota Heights”) (collectively the “Partners”), and witnesses the following: WHEREAS, under Minnesota Statutes Sections 471.59, subd. 1, two or more governmental units may enter into an Agreement to cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting parties, and one of the participating governmental units may exercise one of its powers on behalf of the other governmental units; and WHEREAS, it is considered mutually desirable to stabilize the Cherokee Heights Upper Ravine; and WHEREAS, the Partners will jointly participate in the costs of the feasibility study, preparation of plans and specifications, construction and construction inspection services for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Partners will share Project responsibilities and related activities as set forth in this agreement. BACKGROUND Multi-jurisdictional storm water runoff from about 47-acres discharges to a low area (basin) located in Saint Paul just north of Annapolis Street and east of Cherokee Heights. The storm water runoff is collected via storm sewer piping and is then conveyed beneath Cherokee Heights by a 60-inch diameter culvert owned and maintained by Saint Paul. High flow rates and velocities have caused erosion problems on the upstream and downstream end of the culvert. Downstream of the 60-inch culvert storm water runoff flows down the bluff through a steep ravine area (upper ravine) and eventually flows to Pickerel Lake. The Cherokee Heights upper ravine channel has significant erosion along the channel bottom and side slopes, including undercutting of the toe of slope, which contributes to the instability of the ravine side slopes. In 2015 a Cherokee Heights Culvert Analyses and Erosion Control Feasibility Study was completed for the LMRWMO. See Exhibit A for the final study report, as received and accepted by the Project Partners and LMRWMO. The $80,186 cost to complete the feasibility study was paid for by Saint Paul. The Project Partners participated in the progress and review of the feasibility study. To minimize erosion of the upper ravine channel and side slopes, and reduce the instability of the adjacent banks, the selected option (Downstream Channel Stabilization Option) from the 2015 feasibility study includes regrading and stabilizing the channel by armoring the channel with rip-rap and a properly graded filter material to prevent migration of underlying fine-grained soils through the rip-rap. High flow velocities in the upper ravine channel preclude use of many bio-engineering techniques for stabilization, as these techniques typically cannot withstand the magnitude of the flow velocities. page 71 5/24/2017 Page 2 of 9 The 2015 feasibility study outlined the Project cost sharing percentages for each of the Partners in accordance with LMRWMO allowable flow calculations. Below are the Project cost sharing percentages: • Saint Paul = 69% • West St. Paul = 19% • Mendota Heights = 12% PROJECT PURPOSE AND GOALS The Partners have determined the need to complete the Project (see Exhibit B). The purpose and goals of this Project are: A. Prepare construction plans and specifications to rehabilitate and stabilize the Cherokee Heights upper ravine, immediately downstream and upstream of the 60-inch culvert. B. Erosion stabilization measures to be designed and constructed to handle a 100-year storm event. C. Complete Project plans, specifications, and bidding documents by May 31, 2018. D. Complete Project construction by the November 1, 2019. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: AGREEMENT 1. Definitions 1.1 “Consultant” means Barr Engineering. 1.2 “LMRWMO” means the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization. 1.3 “LMRWMO” JPA” means the JPA that governs the LMRWMO. 1.4 “Project” is the engineering design, inspection, and construction to stabilize the Cherokee Heights Upper Ravine. 2. Terms of Agreement 2.1 LMRWMO JPA: The provisions contained within the current version of the LMRWMO JPA shall be incorporated into this Agreement, including Section 9, “Construction of Improvements.” Where there appears to be a discrepancy between the LMRWMO JPA and this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement shall govern. 2.2 Effective Date: The date all required signatures are obtained by the Partners. 2.3 Agreement Term: This Agreement shall expire on June 30, 2020 or until all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs later, or until terminated or cancelled pursuant to Section 8. page 72 5/24/2017 Page 3 of 9 3. Duties and Responsibilities between the Partners 3.1 Scope (1) Saint Paul will: a. Act as the lead entity on the Project, executing and administering a professional services contract with a Consultant for final engineering design and construction inspection services for the Project tasks as set forth in Exhibit B. b. Provide available information to the Consultant, as requested, in support of the Project. c. Participate in meetings and discussions with the Consultant and Partners toward the successful completion of the Project. (2) The Partners will: a. Participate in meetings and discussions with the Consultant toward the successful completion of the Project. b. Participate in the shared costs of the Project as outlined herein. (3) West St. Paul will: a. Provide available information to the Consultant, as requested, in support of the Project. b. Participate in meetings and discussions with the Consultant and Partners toward the successful completion of the Project. (4) Mendota Heights will: a. Provide available information to the Consultant, as requested, in support of the Project. b. Participate in meetings and discussions with the Consultant and Partners toward the successful completion of the Project. 4. Payment 4.1 Consideration. This is a cost participation Project between the Partners. Below are estimated costs for the Project phases: • Feasibility Study (completed) = $80,186.74 • Final Plans & Specifications for Bidding (see Exhibit B) = $101,000 • Construction = $500,000 to $800,000 • Construction Inspection Services (see Exhibit B) = $51,000 (1) Compensation. Saint Paul will initially pay for the Project. Below are the cost sharing percentages for each of the Project Partners: • Saint Paul = 69% • West St. Paul = 19% • Mendota Heights = 12% In 2018 West St. Paul and Mendota Heights will reimburse Saint Paul for their cost shares of the completed Project “Feasibility Study.” In 2018 West St. Paul and Mendota Heights will reimburse the Saint Paul for their cost shares of the Project “Final Plans & Specifications for Bidding.” page 73 5/24/2017 Page 4 of 9 In 2019 West St. Paul and Mendota Heights will reimburse Saint Paul for their cost shares of the Project “Construction” and “Construction Inspection Services.” (2) Invoices. Upon completion of the Project Plans and Specifications, Construction and Inspection Saint Paul will separately invoice West St. Paul and Mendota Heights their pro rata share of the Project cost consistent with section 3.1 above. West St. Paul and Mendota Heights will promptly pay Saint Paul after receipt of written notification of project completion. Payment to Saint Paul will be made within forty-five (45) days of receipt of written notice. 5. Work Products, Reports and Documents The Partners will be included when Saint Paul receives oral and written analyses and briefings under Saint Paul’s agreement for Consultant services for the Project. In addition, document sharing will be facilitated by the participation of Partners project management team assigned to the Project. Saint Paul will provide West St. Paul and Mendota Heights copies of all material generated during the course of the Project and a copy of its consultant’s final report. West St. Paul and Mendota Heights shall make all requests for work products and documents through Saint Paul’s designated contact person named in Section 6 of this Agreement and shall not direct or attempt to direct the work of the consultant for the Project. 6. Authorized Representatives Saint Paul’s Authorized Representative is Bruce Elder, Sewer Utility Manager, St. Paul Public Works, 700 City Hall Annex, 25 W. Fourth Street, St. Paul, MN 55102, telephone: (651) 266- 6248, or his designated successor. West St. Paul’s Authorized Representative is Ross Beckwith, City Engineer/ Public Works and Parks Director, 1616 Humboldt Avenue, West St. Paul, MN 55118, telephone: (651) 552-4130, or his designated successor. Mendota Height’s Authorized Representative is Ryan Ruzek, Public Work Director, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118, telephone: (651) 452-1850, or his designated successor. 7. Conflicts of Interest Saint Paul shall inform its consultant for the project about this Agreement and Partners’ funding provided under this Agreement. Saint Paul and its consultant for the project shall immediately discuss with the Partners any current or new client obligation of the firm which may directly conflict with the firm’s ongoing work under its agreement for consulting services with Saint Paul. page 74 5/24/2017 Page 5 of 9 8. Audits and Record Keeping Saint Paul shall maintain for at least six (6) years all books, records, documents and other evidence directly related to the performance of this Agreement in accordance with the general accepted accounting principles and practices of governmental entities. Upon request and reasonable notice, Saint Paul shall permit West St. Paul and Mendota Heights to examine and copy the books, records, documents, and other evidence maintained by Saint Paul. 9. Termination Saint Paul, West St. Paul, and Mendota Heights shall each have the right to terminate its participation in this agreement at any time without cause upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other parties. In the event of such a termination, the terminating entity will pay their share of the costs of the services satisfactorily performed prior to the date of termination, as determined by the remaining parties to this agreement. Saint Paul shall have the right to receive, use, and (subject to the provisions of the Minnesota Data Practices Act) distribute copies of all materials, work products, reports and documents prepared by its consultant, pursuant to the consultant’s agreement for consulting services with Saint Paul, if such materials, work products, reports and documents were prepared prior to the termination of this Agreement. 10. Merger Agreement It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the Partners is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between each of the Partners relating to the subject matter thereof. All items in this Agreement, which are incorporated or attached, are deemed part of the Agreement. Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement and signed by the Partners. 11. Governing Law This Agreement shall be governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of Minnesota. Venue shall be in the state or federal courts of Minnesota. 12. Amendments, Waiver and Contract Complete 12.1 Amendments. The Partners may choose to amend this agreement to include final engineering, construction, and other work necessary to implement an alternative selected as a result of this Project or for any other term and condition. Any amendment to this agreement must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been approved and executed by the parties. Any change orders and supplemental agreements that impact the Project cost must be approved by the Partners’ authorized representatives in Section 6 prior to the execution or authorization of such work. page 75 5/24/2017 Page 6 of 9 12.2 Waiver. If Saint Paul fails to enforce any provision of this agreement, that failure does not waive the provision or its right to enforce it. 13. Indemnification The Partners each agree that they are solely responsible for and will hold harmless the others against any and all claims, liability, loss, damage, or expense arising under the provisions of this Agreement and caused by or resulting from their own negligent acts or omissions and/or those of their employees or agents. The Partners recognize that liability for any claims arising under this Agreement are subject to the provisions of the Minnesota Municipal Tort Claims Law; Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 and expressly reserve all immunities, rights and privileges accorded thereunder. In the event of any claims or actions filed against another party, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to allow a claimant to obtain separate judgments or separate liability caps from the individual parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Partners have caused this agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representative (see attached signature pages). page 76 5/24/2017 Page 7 of 9 Signatures CITY OF ST. PAUL This agreement is duly executed: By: _____________________ Title: Director of Public Works Date: Approved as to form: By: _____________________ Title: Assistant City Attorney Date: By: _____________________ Title: Office of Financial Services Date: By: _____________________ Title: Sewer Utility Manager Date: Funding Activity# INCLUDE COPY OF RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING ITS EXECUTION page 77 5/24/2017 Page 8 of 9 Signatures CITY OF WEST ST. PAUL This agreement is duly executed: By: _____________________ Title: Mayor Jenny Halverson Date: By: _____________________ Title: City Manager Ryan Schroeder Date: Approved as to form: By: _____________________ Title: City Attorney Date: INCLUDE COPY OF RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING ITS EXECUTION Signatures page 78 5/24/2017 Page 9 of 9 MENDOTA HEIGHTS This agreement is duly executed: By: _____________________ Title: Mayor Date: By: _____________________ Title: City Clerk Date: Approved as to form: By: _____________________ Title: City Attorney Date: INCLUDE COPY OF RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING ITS EXECUTION page 79 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 15, 2017 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2017-63 – Call for a Public Hearing on Rogers Avenue Right-of-Way Vacation COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve Resolution 2017-63 calling for a public hearing on a right-of- way vacation started by a petition of abutting land owners. BACKGROUND Rogers Avenue, south of Wagon Wheel Trail, was platted in 1929 as part of the Caroline’s Lake View plat as recorded in Dakota County, Minnesota. The platted right-of-way is not serving any sub-dividable parcels and is not in the best interest of the city to retain, unless it is determined that an additional public access to Rogers Lake is desired to be maintained. DISCUSSION Staff received a petition to vacate Rogers Avenue east of Lot 16, 954 Wagon Wheel Trail, in said Caroline’s Lake View plat. The plat dedicated 30 feet of right-of-way to the city. The adjacent property, 940 Wagon Wheel Trail, also dedicated an additional 30 feet of right-of-way creating the 60 foot corridor named Rogers Avenue. Staff is proposing that the abutting owners dedicate a 20 feet wide easement for any future drainage and utility purposes or existing private utilities. This dedication is a standard requirement for any new plats. BUDGET IMPACT The petitioners submitted the required $250 fee to cover the advertising, mailing and staff time for this request. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that council approve the resolution calling for a public hearing. ACTION REQUIRED Staff recommends that the city council pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 2017-63, “RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A RIGHT-OF-WAY page 80 VACATION STARTED BY A PETITION OF ABUTTING LANDOWNERS”. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 81 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2017-63 RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION STARTED BY A PETITION OF AN ABUTTING LANDOWNER WHEREAS, a request signed by a majority of property owners abutting Rogers Avenue Right-of-Way in Mendota Heights was received by the City Clerk on the 9th day of August 2017; and WHEREAS, the petition requested by the City Council pursuant to Minnesota Statute §412.851 to vacate Rogers Avenue between Lot 16, Caroline’s Lake View and that part of Section 35, Township 28, Range 23 further described as the South 535 Feet of the North 990 Feet of the West 182 Feet of the Northeast quarter South of Wagon Wheel Trail; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has reviewed and examined the signatures on said request and determined that such signatures constitute a majority of landowners abutting upon the portion of Right-of-Way to be vacated. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mendota Heights City Council will consider the vacation of such Right-of-Way and a public hearing shall be held on such proposed vacation on the 17th day of October, 2017, before the City Council in the Mendota Heights City Hall located at 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 p.m. The City Clerk is hereby directed to give published, posted, and mailed notice of such hearing as required by law. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 15th day of August, 2017. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BY________________________________ ATTEST Neil Garlock, Mayor BY_________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 82 page 83 page 84 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 15, 2017 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: 1st Avenue Striping Modifications and Purchase Order for Solar Speed Signs COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve a purchase order for two solar powered radar feedback speed limit signs. BACKGROUND The city has received a number of complaints on 1st Avenue in relation to traffic volumes, speed and large vehicles. The Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) discussed the issues at their May 9, 2017 meeting. DISCUSSION Recommendations from the TSC included: • Get more traffic information regarding speed and volumes • Do concentrated speed enforcement • Investigate centerline striping • Check to see if a designated crosswalk is feasible • Install radar feedback speed signs with to draw attention to the speed limit • Request Google to remove 1st Avenue as a route from Dodd to Wachtler The City has collected data with the newly purchased “Stalker” data collection device but is still in the process of reviewing the data. Due to the width of the street, a centerline can only be added within the bump out areas, due to current parking configurations. Other striping modifications would include a crosswalk at Laura Street and a stop bar at Clement Street. The TSC is also proposing that the city purchase two solar powered radar feedback signs. The City has not received a response from Google regarding the routing of traffic in the neighborhood. BUDGET IMPACT 1st Avenue has been chip-sealed, which requires the striping to be redone. The current striping budget has adequate funds for the added striping. The City needs to purchase and install two page 85 pedestrian crossing signs from the Street Department sign budget and received a quote of $6,460.28 for the two solar powered radar feedback signs. It is recommended that the solar powered radar feedback signs be funded through the remaining street chip-sealing budget. RECOMMENDATION The Traffic Safety Committee recommends that Council approve the striping modifications, and purchase order for two solar powered radar feedback signs. ACTION REQUIRED Staff recommends that the city council pass a motion approving the striping changes to 1st Avenue and the purchase order for two solar powered radar feedback signs, with funding from the remaining chip-seal allocation. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 86 page 87 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 15, 2017 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolutions 2017-65 Approve Plans Authorize Advertisement for Bid for the 2017 Storm Sewer Improvements COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to authorize staff to bid a storm sewer extension plan for several areas in the city. BACKGROUND A number of storm sewer maintenance issues have been recently identified or have been ongoing for several years. DISCUSSION The proposed plan will add catch basins in areas where excessive water from sump pump discharges have been creating problems and nuisances for both the public and city maintenance crews. Also included in the plan is a repair to an older metal pipe that has deteriorated and is causing a sink hole. A summary of the improvements are: • Add a catch basin near the end of Kendon Lane to address icing issues in front of a mailbox due to a super elevation of street grades. • Install a lateral catch basin on Apache Street for collection of sump pump drainage. • Install a beehive manhole on Pondhaven Lane for collection of sump pump drainage. • Install a lateral catch basin on Park Circle for collection of sump pump drainage. • Install a catch basin on Farmdale Road for collection of sump pump drainage. • Replace a section of metal pipe to repair a sinkhole on Arvin Drive. • Install two beehive manholes on Junction Lane for collection of sump pump drainage. The additional storm sewer extensions are known problem areas and are not the direct result of recent sump pump disconnections from the sanitary sewer. Recent disconnections may identify future improvements not included in this plan. BUDGET IMPACT Staff identified $100,000 in storm sewer improvements in the 2017 Capital Improvement Plan. The estimated cost for this project is $68,308.50. Mendota Heights policy requires any projects greater than $50,000 follow the competitive bidding requirements. page 88 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council authorize the advertisement for bids on the Storm Sewer Improvement plan. The bid opening date for this project would be September 13, 2017, with an award date of September 19, 2017. Staff would anticipate construction starting towards the end of September with a completion before the end of October. Plans are available for review in the engineering department. ACTION REQUIRED Staff recommends that the city council pass a motion adopting Resolution 2017-65, a resolution “APPROVING PLANS AND AUTHORIZING THE ADVERTISEMENT OF BIDS FOR THE 2017 STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT”. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 89 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2017-65 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE 2017 STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT #201707) WHEREAS, the Public Works Director reported that the proposed improvements and construction thereof were feasible, desirable, necessary, and cost effective, and further reported on the proposed costs of said improvements and construction thereof; and WHEREAS, the Public Works Director has prepared plans and specifications for said improvements and have presented such plans and specifications to the City Council for approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED; by the Mendota Heights City Council as follows: 1. That the plans and specifications for said improvements be and they are hereby in all respects approved by the City. 2. That the Clerk with the aid and assistance of the Public Works Director be and is hereby, authorized and directed to advertise for bids for said improvements all in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes, such as bids to be received at the City Hall of the City of Mendota Heights by 10:00 A.M., Wednesday, September 13, 2017, and at which time they will be publicly opened in the City Council Chambers of the City Hall by the Public Works Director, will then be tabulated, and will then be considered by the City Council at its next regular Council meeting. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this fifteenth day of August 2017. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST _________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 90 DATE: August 15, 2017 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Planning Commissioner Resignation COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to accept the resignation of Christine Costello from her position on the Planning Commission.. BACKGROUND Christine Costello was appointed to a seat on the Planning Commission which began in February, 2016. However, because of a recent change in her work duties, Ms. Costello recently submitted her resignation. The City is grateful to her for her service. RECOMMENDATION The Council should accept with regret the resignation of Christine Costello. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, accept with regret the resignation of Christine Costello from her position on the Mendota Heights Planning Commission, effective August 15, 2017. Mark McNeill City Adminsitrator page 91 DATE: August 15, 2017 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Planning Commissioner Appointment COMMENT: INTRODUCTION At its meeting of August 15th, the Council will be asked to appoint a Planning Commissioner to fill the vacancy left by the resignation of Christine Costello. BACKGROUND On July 17th, six Mendota Heights residents were interviewed by the Council to fill a separate vacant position created by the resignation of Howard Roston. As a result of those interviews, John Mazzitello was appointed to fill that vacancy. Rather than re-advertise to fill the vacancy resulting from Ms. Costello’s resignation, the Council could choose one of the remaining five candidates from the previous interviews. The remaining five candidates are: • Joseph Hertenstein • Dan Johnson • Michael Toth • Nancy Breymeier • Lawrence Sommer The term of the office will be for the unexpired portion of Ms. Costello’s term, which will expire January 31, 2019. RECOMMENDATION The Council should appoint the next Commissioner by means of adopting the attached resolution, by filling in the blank for the name. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, adopt the following resolution: Resolution 2017- 64 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING A CANDIDATE TO FILL A VACANCY ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION page 92 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2017 - 64 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING A CANDIDATE TO FILL A VACANCY ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights benefits from the active participation of citizens in representing the City on boards and commissions; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission serves as an advisory body to the City Council in addressing general matters of planning, including zoning, new development, redevelopment plans, transportation issues, and platting, which impact the City; and, WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the excellent qualifications of Mendota Heights resident ________ to serve the City on the Planning Commission. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, that it does hereby appoint _____________ to the Planning Commission, to fill the unexpired term of Christine Costello, which will expire January 31, 2019. Adopted by the Mendota Heights City Council this 15th Day of August, 2017. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ______________________________ ATTEST: Neil Garlock, Mayor _____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 93 DATE: August 15, 2017 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Noise Oversight Alternate Resignation COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to accept the resignation of Jill Smith from her position of alternate to the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC). BACKGROUND The City of Mendota Heights has one of the six standing community members who sit on the Airport’s Noise Oversight Committee; representatives of the airlines and support industries comprise the other 6 members of the Committee. The purpose of the NOC is to monitor for problematic airport-related noise, and seek solutions. Mendota Heights’ primary member has been an elected official, and Councilor Jay Miller currently fills that position. In 2016, Jill Smith was appointed as the alternate to serve in the event of the absence of the primary member. Recently, however, Ms. Smith submitted her resignation (attached). As shown, she wishes to remain as the City’s representative on the Lower Mississippi River Water Management Organization. Airport Relations Commission Chair David Sloan also acts as a City alternate to the NOC, and Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson attends NOC meetings as well. Therefore, the City’s interests will continue to be represented, in spite of this resignation. RECOMMENDATION I recommend that the resignation of Jill Smith be accepted, with regret, effective August 15, 2017. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, with regret, accept the resignation of Jill Smith as the City’s alternate to the Noise Oversight Committee. Mark McNeill City Administrator page 94 Jill Smith 625 Hampshire Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 H 651-688-7444 C 651-402-6086 August 2, 2017 Mayor and City Council City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re: Noise Oversight Committee Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I am writing with reference to my appointed position as the alternate Mendota Heights representative to the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC), advisory to the Metropolitan Airports Commission. As a member of the Blue Ribbon Committee, appointed by the Metropolitan Airports Commission, that designed this organization to succeed the Metropolitan Airports Sound Abatement Council, I am delighted to find that it has been so successful in working towards airport noise solutions for all stakeholders on this issue. I am honored to have been appointed to represent the City of Mendota Heights as an alternate representative to the NOC. However, I find that other commitments require that I resign from this position. After working with Jay Miller, the Mendota Heights City Council representative to the NOC, I am confident that he will continue to represent the City well in this position. Please accept my resignation from this position and my continued support for the work of Mendota Heights for reducing air noise for the City. Best regards, Jill Smith page 95 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: August 15, 2017 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Scott Goldenstein, Assistant Fire Chief SUBJECT: July 2017 Fire Synopsis COMMENT: Fire Calls The department responded to 28 calls for the month. Of those calls, 24 were located in Mendota Heights, two in Lilydale and two were mutual aid to neighboring communities. This month we had one structure fire and it was a port a potty and enclosure, Three of the 28 calls were EMS in nature, three calls were utility checks in nature, six calls were coded as false alarms or smoke scares, one call was coded as a grass fire and twelve were coded as “other” in nature including the police assist with the Plaza, White Pines and the Mendota Heights Office Building call. We also responded to a request from South Metro Fire and Rosemount Fire for mutual aid assistance. Four of the calls were at commercial occupancies. Monthly Department Training This month’s department drill was set up at Public Works. It had several stations set up allowing firefighters to go over a Tender (a.k.a. water tanker truck). The operations scenario was where we would shuttle water to a fire location that typically does not have fire hydrants. The second station had Engine 11 using the water that the Tender had brought in. Then pumping that water up to Engine 10 which was then flowing water to firefighters with hoses. Finally, an additional station was set up for aerial deployment using the Public Works building as the intended target to theoretically get firefighters to the roof with Ladder 10. Monthly Squad Training The monthly squad drill was dedicated to boat operations. Annually, we dedicate a monthly squad drill to refresh firefighter’s skills and familiarize them with our boat operations. For each squad, the boat was brought to Rogers Lake, launched into the lake and several rescue scenarios were gone through using a firefighter in the water as the victim and allowing the firefighters to practice rescue techniques that attempt to minimize the rescuers risk while still successfully performing their task as per department guidelines. page 96 MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT JULY 2017 MONTHLY REPORT FIRE CALLS NO. 17147 -17174 NUMBER OF CALLS:28 FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE ACTUAL FIRES Structure - MH Commercial $0 Structure - MH Residential *1 $145,800 Structure - Contract Areas $50 Vehicle - MH $2,000 Vehicle - Contract Areas $0 $0 Grass/Brush/No Value MH Grass/Brush/No Value Contract 1 TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES MEDICAL Assist 3 $0 $0 $0 Extrication HAZARDOUS SITUATION FIRE LOSS TOTALS MENDOTA HEIGHTS Spills/Leaks 1 Arcing/Shorting 1 ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$0 $147,850 Chemical 1 Power Line Down MEND. HTS. ONLY STRUCT/CONTENTS $145,800 FALSE ALARM Residential Malfunction MEND. HTS. ONLY MISCELLANEOUS $2,000 Commercial Malfunction 2 Unintentional - Commercial 1 MEND. HTS. TOTAL LOSS TO DATE $147,800 Unintentional - Residential 2 Criminal BILLING FOR SERVICES GOOD INTENT Smoke Scare 1 AGENCY THIS MONTH TO DATE Steam Mistaken for Smoke Other 12 MN/DOT $0 MUTUAL AID 2 MILW. RR $0 CNR RR $0 TOTAL CALLS 28 OTHERS: $0 LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS:TO DATE LAST YEAR TOTALS:$0 $0 MENDOTA HEIGHTS 24 132 104 MENDOTA 0 6 3 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH SUNFISH LAKE 0 9 14 LILYDALE 2 18 11 INSPECTIONS 18 OTHER 2 9 10 INVESTIGATIONS 0 TOTAL 28 174 142 RE-INSPECTION 0 WORK PERFORMED HOURS TO DATE LAST YEAR MEETINGS 0 FIRE CALLS 566.5 2574 2153.5 MEETINGS 56 286.5 239 ADMINISTRATION 7 DRILLS 153.5 1093 1188.5 WEEKLY CLEAN-UP 29.5 237.5 266.5 SPECIAL PROJECTS 1 SPECIAL ACTIVITY 121 1278 1400.5 ADMINISTATIVE 0 0 TOTAL 26 FIRE MARSHAL 26 298 307.5 TOTALS 952.5 5767 5555.5 REMARKS:SEE OTHER SIDE FOR SYNOPSIS *Dumpster or other outside trash receptacle fire page 97 page 98 page 99 page 100 page 101 page 102 page 103 page 104 page 105 page 106 page 107 page 108 page 109 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: August 15, 2017 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution of Approval and Denial of the Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights with related Variance and Wetlands Permit Planning Case No. 2017-14 (Marcel Eibensteiner – Developer / David Olin & Marilyn Olin - Owners) Introduction Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oaks Realty, acting on behalf of the property owners Marilyn Olin and David Olin, is seeking approval of a new residential subdivision creating 18 new single family lots, to be titled “Orchard Heights”. The plat application includes a request for a variance to exceed the recognized normal length of cul-de-sac roadway, along with a wetlands permit due to work in and around the adjacent pond. Background The subject plat is essentially a combination of two existing parcels, locally addressed as 1140 and 1136 Orchard Place. The 1140 site is a 13.03 acre parcel with an older single family residence and a well- established apple tree orchard near the front entry. The 1136 site is a 0.42 acre site with a two-story single family residence. At the June 27, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, a planning staff report was presented regarding the plat and related application under a public hearing, whereby many comments from neighboring residents were noted for the record (refer to 06/27/17 PC Report and meeting minutes – attached). After lengthy discussions with the developer, the Commission elected to table the matter, and directed staff to work with the developer to resolve certain utility and drainage issues, and provide responses to some concerns raised that evening. At the July 25, 2017 meeting, a revised preliminary plat was presented, along with updated grading and utility plans. An updated (supplemental) staff report was also presented, which addressed these new modifications to the plat and responded to some concerns with utility line depths and drainage plans. The Commission re-opened the public hearing and allowed additional comments from the nearby residents, which are noted for the record (refer to 07/25/17 PC Report and meeting minutes – attached). Upon closing the hearing, a motion was made to approve the plat with certain findings, but said motion died for a lack of second. Shortly thereafter, a second motion was made to deny the plat, based on the grounds that the applicant did not provide a sufficient basis nor met a burden of proof in establishing a variance for an extra-long cul-de-sac was warranted. However, this motion also died due to the lack of a second. A third motion was then offered up once again to approve the plat with certain findings of facts with amended conditions of approval. Additional discussion amongst the commissioners ensued, along with added follow-up questions to city staff. Upon completion of discussion, the question was called on the 3rd motion, which failed on 2 votes for and 3 votes against. It is Staff’s interpretation that since this motion to approve was essentially denied, this action constitutes a recommendation of denial. page 110 Discussion The City can use its legislative authority when considering action on land use requests such as these and has broad discretion; the only limitations are that actions must be constitutional, rational, and in some way related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public. A determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Should the City Council choose to deny this plat (and related) application requests, it should adopt certain findings of facts for denial, which are noted in the attached resolution of denial for consideration; and which findings may be amended as per the wishes of the Council. If the Council deems this plat and the related applications are acceptable, the Council may elect to adopt the alternative resolution of approval, with certain findings of facts originally presented under the original Planning Staff Report with certain conditions as noted therein. If the Council wishes to have this item tabled and have any additional findings or conditions determined further (for each resolution), it can elect to table this item to the September 5, 2017 regular meeting and direct City Staff accordingly. [Please note the action deadline review for the plat, variance and wetlands permit expire September 30, 2017]. Budget Impact N/A Recommendation 1) Make a motion to adopt the RESOLUTION 2017-57, DENYING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ORCHARD HEIGHTS AND THE RELATED VARIANCE AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1136 AND 1140 ORCHARD PLACE. OR 2) Make a motion to adopt the RESOLUTION 2017-57, APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ORCHARD HEIGHTS AND THE RELATED VARIANCE AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1136 AND 1140 ORCHARD PLACE. OR 3. Table the request and direct staff to prepare amended findings (either for or against the request) and bring back a revised and preferred Resolution to the September 5, 2017 regular meeting. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 111 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2017-57 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ORCHARD HEIGHTS AND THE RELATED VARIANCE AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1136 & 1140 ORCHARD PLACE WHEREAS, Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oaks Realty (the “Developer”), acting on behalf of Marilyn Olin and David Olin (the “Property Owners”) has applied for a preliminary plat to be titled “Orchard Heights”, along with a related variance to exceed the normal length of a cul-de-sac roadway and wetlands permit for work in and around an established water feature, as proposed under Planning Case 2017-14, located at 1136 and 1140 Orchard Place (the “Subject Property”), and legally described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, on June 27, 2017, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this plat and related application at their regular meeting of, whereby a planning staff report was presented and received by the commission, comments from the general public and Developer were received and noted for the record, and whereupon closing the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended to table this matter to the July 25, 2017 meeting; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 2017, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission received a supplemental planning staff report and an updated presentation regarding this new subdivision plat matter, re-opened the public hearing and allowed additional comments from the general public and Developer, and whereupon closing the hearing the Planning Commission offered a motion and seconded to approve the plat and related applications, but said motion failed on 2 votes for and 3 votes against said adoption, which thereby constitutes a recommendation of denial. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council, that despite the recommendation of denial by the Planning Commission, the applications for Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights, along with the related Variance and Wetlands Permit as proposed under Planning Case 2017-14, are hereby approved with the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed plat generally meets the purpose and intent of the Title 11 - Subdivision Code; and meets the general policies and goals of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan regarding LR-Low Density Residential areas. 2. The proposed lots meet the minimum standards in the R-1 Zoning District. 3. The City Council accepts the depths of the utility service lines presented under this preliminary plat request. 4. The Variance for an elongated cul-de-sac roadway section is approved based on the following added findings: page 112 a. practical difficulties are evident in this proposed development area, so a longer cul-de-sac is a reasonable request and will be used in a reasonable manner; b. the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, especially the difficulties of not having a secondary access point connection provided when surrounding properties were being platted; and c. the variance to allow this longer roadway system will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 5. Any impacts to the wetlands will be determined upon submittal and review of a wetland delineation report; whereby city staff will ensure any mitigation measures (if needed) to complete work under this development in or around the wetlands will be done in accordance with State Laws and City Ordinances. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that that the applications for Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights, along with the related Variance and Wetlands Permit as proposed under Planning Case 2017-14, are hereby approved with the following with the following conditions: 1. The existing single family dwellings and detached accessory buildings must be removed prior to the Final Plat being recorded by Dakota County. 2. In lieu of land dedication, the Developer/Applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of $4,000 per unit (18 lots – 2 existing lots = 16 x $4,000/unit, or $64,000) is collected after City Council approval and before the Final Plat is recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any permits. 3. All new homes within this development shall have an automatic fire sprinkler/fire suppression system, reviewed and approved by the City Building Official. 4. Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 5. The final grading plan must be submitted to the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or land disturbance permit. 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. Streets and utilities shall have approved profiles showing final street grades, horizontal curves, pipe lengths, pipe slopes, pipe materials, and elevations. 8. Street grades in excess of 6% - but no more than 8% are hereby allowed in certain locations as shown on the submitted Plans. In the event the Plans are revised in the future, the Developer must make every effort to meet the 6% grade standard along this roadway section. Any changes to the Plans must be resubmitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. page 113 9. The cul-de-sac roadway must be constructed at a 33-ft. face-to-face street width. 10. Plans must be revised on the pond with a 10-ft. depth, whereby City Code permits only an 8-ft. maximum depth; and the top of the berm around pond shall be 1.5 feet above HWL. All revisions and new elevations to the plans must be approved by the City Engineer. 11. A SWPPP shall be developed for the project. Protected waters shall have a double silt fence/redundant BMP per MPCA rules, and a separate NPDES permit is required. 12. The Developer/Applicant shall submit a wetland delineation report to the City for review. Any impacts or mitigation measures (if needed) in order to complete construction work in or around the wetlands must be approved by the City prior to issuance of any permits. 13. No disturbances shall occur within a 25-foot wide wetland buffer, which shall include provisions for no cutting (non-mowing) and a natural vegetation buffer area around the delineated edges of the wetland. The buffer strip shall be shown and dedicated on the final plat. 14. Provide treatment from structures 301, 302, 303, 304. The proposed “Rain Guardian” is not an approved BMP. 15. Final drainage structure along streets shall have a minimum of 3-foot sump (301, 103). 16. Any utilities greater than 20 feet in depth will require City Council approval. 17. The Developer/Applicant shall provide subsurface drainage, per geotechnical report. 18. Temporary sediment basins will be required during construction. 19. Any proposed retaining wall(s) greater than 4 feet in height require engineered drawings. 20. All Plans shall be reviewed by St. Paul Regional Water Service. 21. The Developer/Applicant shall submit final grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with associated easements, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department and Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 22. 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. 23. Future construction on the newly-created parcels will be compliant with all applicable City Code and Building Code provisions Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 15th day of August, 2017. page 114 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 115 EXHIBIT A Legal Description – 1136 Orchard Place PID: 27-54150-01-010 Lot 1, Block 1, Olin Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota AND Legal Description – 1140 Orchard Place PID: 27-54150-01-020 Lot 2, Block 1, Olin Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota page 116 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2017-57 RESOLUTION DENYING A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ORCHARD HEIGHTS AND THE RELATED VARIANCE AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1136 & 1140 ORCHARD PLACE WHEREAS, Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oaks Realty (the “Developer”), acting on behalf of Marilyn Olin and David Olin (the “Property Owners”) has applied for a preliminary plat to be titled “Orchard Heights”, along with a related variance to exceed the normal length of a cul-de-sac roadway and wetlands permit for work in and around an established water feature, as proposed under Planning Case 2017-14, located at 1136 and 1140 Orchard Place (the “Subject Property”), and legally described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, on June 27, 2017, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this plat and related application at their regular meeting of, whereby a planning staff report was presented and received by the commission, comments from the general public and Developer were received and noted for the record, and whereupon closing the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended to table this matter to the July 25, 2017 meeting; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 2017, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission received a supplemental planning staff report and an updated presentation regarding this new subdivision plat matter, re-opened the public hearing and allowed additional comments from the general public and Developer, and whereupon closing the hearing the Planning Commission offered a motion and seconded to approve the plat and related applications, but said motion failed on 2 votes for and 3 votes against said adoption, which thereby constitutes a recommendation of denial. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the applications for Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights, along with the related Variance and Wetlands Permit as proposed under Planning Case 2017-14, are hereby denied with the following findings of fact as determined by the Council: 1. The proposed development and re-platting of the Subject Property into 18 new single family lots with a longer than normally allowed cul-de-sac roadway, is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Code, and appears to be inconsistent with the surrounding single-family developments. 2. The practical difficulties associated with the variance request is not unique to the property; and the Developer has not provided a sufficient basis, reasoning for a variance; nor met a clear burden of proof in establishing that a variance for the extra-long cul-de-sac roadway is warranted. 3. The Developer has not accepted other alternatives or options for creating additional roadway (right-of-way) connections from the plat, including a possible pedestrian access/escape route and/or public safety vehicle trail system, similar to page 117 other long cul-de-sac developments with the City, which could possibly eliminate the need for the variance. 4. The layout and sizes of the lots as presented under the preliminary plat, although recognized as meeting City Code minimum standards, does not match with other adjacent or abutting single family lot sizes, and appears to be inconsistent and out of character with the neighborhood. 5. The proposed road grades in excess of 6% are not acceptable. 6. The depths of the proposed sanitary sewer and water utility lines, which would become public-owned once the city accepted all utility work under the development, are too deep and would hinder or hamper future maintenance work by the City should any work or repairs be needed; plus the addition of new sanitary grinder pumps for some of the new residential homes causes concern of maintenance and possible system failures related to these private systems, which are normally not found or installed in other single family residences throughout the city. Therefore, the plans for the utility systems are not acceptable. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 15th day of August, 2017. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 118 EXHIBIT A Legal Description – 1136 Orchard Place PID: 27-54150-01-010 Lot 1, Block 1, Olin Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota AND Legal Description – 1140 Orchard Place PID: 27-54150-01-020 Lot 2, Block 1, Olin Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota page 119 Planning Staff Report (Supplemental) DATE: July 25, 2017 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-14 Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights / Variance /Wetlands Permit APPLICANT: Marcel Eibensteiner, Royal Oaks Realty (on behalf of David Olin / Marilyn Olin – Property Owners PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1136 and 1140 Orchard Place ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: August 1, 2017 September 30, 2017 (per extension letter and Minn. Statutes § 462.358, Subd. 3(b) ) DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oaks Realty, acting on behalf of the property owners Marilyn Olin and David Olin, is seeking to subdivide an existing single family parcel into 19 new lots, to be titled “Orchard Heights” of Mendota Heights. This preliminary plat request also includes a request for a variance to exceed the maximum length of cul-de- sac roadway (that serves this development), along with a wetlands permit due to work taking place nearby the established pond, which is a recognized water feature in this area. BACKGROUND The subject plat is essentially a combination of two existing parcels, locally addressed as 1140 Orchard Place and 1136 Orchard Place. The main larger site has been used as a local apple orchard (hence the plat name) for quite some time, and the Olin family is no longer interested in operating or maintaining the orchard upon the close of this growing season (see aerial image below). page 120 This item was originally presented under a duly noticed public hearing action item at the June 27, 2017 meeting. Upon hearing from many neighboring residents, the developer and discussion amongst all commissioners and city staff, the Commission closed the public hearing, and thereafter elected to table the application, with the following reasoning statements: 1) applicant to consider additional road connections to the subdivision; 2) the platting and lot size of the subdivision; 3) the findings of the wetland delineation presented to the planning commission for their understanding; a better description of the stormwater management to address some of the concerns raised, including the functioning of the pond high-water and the balance of the pond; and 4) a better understanding and justification for sprinklers to be imposed or included in the new homes. As the Commission is well aware, there were a number of issues discussed and raised that night, including the depths of the water and sanitary sewer lines; the need or justification for the over-length cul-de-sac roadway; and the general drainage plan and possible impacts upon neighboring properties. Since the June 27th meeting, city staff met with the Developer and his support team and civil engineers (twice) to review the overall layout of the plat, discuss options or alternatives on revising the underground utility plans; revising the stormwater management plans, and exploring the added roadway connections, from both the east and west sides of this property. The Developer has submitted a revised and updated civil engineering plan set to the city for review. The new plans are attached to this supplemental report and will be presented and reviewed by city staff at the July 25th meeting. page 121 ANALYSIS – Supplemental 1) Lot Size. The R-1 District requires minimum lot width of 100 feet and minimum lot area of 15,000 sq. ft. The original plan called for 19 new lots. The new plan now illustrates 18 lots, with essentially the same matching layout as before, except for the loss of a buildable lot at the upper northwest corner of the plat, which is now shown with a new storm pond feature. All new lots still exceed the minimum lot standards of 100-ft. minimum lot widths and 15,000 sq. ft. lot area. 2) Density. The density of the new plat has been slightly reduced from 1.41 units/ac. to 1.34 units/ac., which remains much less than the Comprehensive Plan maximum of 2.9 units/acres. 3) Grading & Stormwater Drainage Plan: The updated grading and drainage plans still shows a large cut or removal of the large mid-section of this property, which was detailed in the previous June 25th report and reported by city staff during the June 25th PC Meeting. The plans called for a high point would essentially remain at the center section of the plat; and would entail storm water to be handled on the north end and south end by separate storm utility systems. The north end’s storm water will be captured in five separate catch basins along the street edge, along with a storm catch basin located behind Lots 2 and 3 ( to capture the rear yard drainage), and which all lead to or tied into the new storm pond located at the northwest corner. The south end will be directed to three new catch basins near the end of the cul-de-sac system, along with two additional catch basins located behind Lot 8 and Lot 11, and those lead to or tied into the previously identified storm pond system to be installed behind Lots 9 and 10. page 122 4) Utility Plan. As was noted under the June 27th report and meeting presentation, city staff expressed great concerns with having new sanitary and water system lines well over 20 feet in depth. The concern was expressed or noted when considering the future maintenance and repairs of these systems once the roadway is dedicated to the City. It was stated that service lines that deep would require an enormous open trench/excavation pit with massive shoring devices in order to gain safe access for repairs, and would likely impact and disturb abutting residential lots and yard spaces. The updated plans now show the plat has reduced these depths to approximately 15 to 19 feet for the sanitary line (near the high-point of the plat) and approximately 7-8 feet for the water main. Although the sanitary system lies at a higher depth than normally seen for these types of lines, city staff has agreed to support the proposed plan and depths as shown, but still defers final determination and acceptance by the City Council. page 123 Street Design & Variances As illustrated on the preliminary plat map (and related plans) this subdivision will be served by a single access, two-way traffic cul-de-sac roadway. The developer intends to dedicate the road back to the City, which will then become a public road once completed and accepted by the City Engineer. The road meets the minimum 60-foot wide platted width, but is only shown with a 30-foot wide curb-to-curb width, whereas a 33-foot width is required. The cul-de-sac however, measures well over 950 feet from the beginning point off Orchard Place to the center- point of the end circle. Pursuant to Title 11-3-3 Streets and Alleys, the following standard applies to cul-de- sacs type roadways: D. Dead End and Cul-De-Sac Streets: Dead end streets are prohibited, but cul-de-sacs will be permitted only where topography or other conditions justify their use. Cul-de-sacs shall normally not be longer than five hundred feet (500'), including a terminal turnaround which shall be provided at the closed end, with an outside curb radius of at least forty nine feet (49') and a right of way radius of not less than sixty feet (60'). City staff researched other cul-de-sac developments throughout the city, and discovered that approximately 19 over-length, single access cul-de-sac roadways exist in this city (see attached diagrams). It was unclear from this research if the 500-foot standard was in places at the time of these various plat approvals or developments; or if variances were approved for such developments. To eliminate the need for the variance on this proposed over-length cul-de-sac, staff was directed to work with the Developer, and seek an alternative or explore other options for possible, second road connection or access, thereby eliminating the variance. As also noted in the previous June 25th report/presentations, the subject property currently has two potential right-of-way connections coming off Hunter Lane to the west of this site. The two connectors are identified as Mallard Road and Veronica Lane. (See highlighted image below). Veronica Lane is currently paved and provides general access to four homes in this area. The city-owned lot at the end of Veronica houses a sanitary lift-station for this area. Mallard Road remains an undeveloped section of land located between 1890 and 1908 Hunter Lane properties. Staff directed the Developer to explore the page 124 possibility of making a second access or connection point to these right-of-way segments, and also see if utility connections could be made to these areas as well. The Developer later indicated that to make any connection to Mallard, the difference in elevations were to extreme (from 920-ft. to 894-ft.), and would impose severe impacts on the adjacent wetlands. Moreover, to regrade the section of Mallard to make the connections would also require grading beyond the limits to the Mallard ROW and into neighboring properties, which would have also included the loss of some significant evergreen trees on the north side of Mallard. Any connection onto Veronica was also rules out due to the farther distance; same grade issues, and increased (greater) impacts to the wetlands. The Developer has provided the attached memorandum from their engineers at Plowe Engineering stating the reasons or justifications for not being able to provide any secondary access or utility extensions on to Mallard or Veronica. The Developer also offered to explore the option of providing a 60-ft. wide right-of-way connection, ideally located near or between Lots 5 and 6, which would allow a future roadway connection over to the east should or when the property[ies] to the east decide to develop. The Developer contacted the property owner to the immediate east, Mr. Stephen Rolf, who owns a large, developable piece of land off 1861 Lexington Avenue and Orchard Hill (see image below). Mr. Rolf indicated to the Developer that any right way access point near this area may hinder his ability to fully develop or lay out potential (future) lots in this area, and politely declined to accept or support any future access point into his property. Pursuant to Title 11-1-9, Variances from the strict application of the provisions of this title (i.e. Title 11 – General Subdivision Provision) can be requested under the requirements of section 12-1L-5 of the City Code. To approve this over-length cul-de-sac, a variance to this standard is in order. Under section 12-1L-5 of City Code: “The council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of this chapter 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 this chapter.” 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.” For all intents and purposes, the variance can be supported based on the following statements: page 125 1) Practical difficulties are evident in this proposed development area, so the longer cul-de-sac seems a reasonable request and will be used in a reasonable manner; 2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, especially the difficulties of not having a secondary access point connection provided when surrounding properties were being platted; and 3) The variance to allow this longer roadway system will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. At this time, City Staff does not object or have any concerns with the length of the proposed cul-de-sac as designed; and the recommendation and findings that support the variance to allow such roadway length remains as noted in the previous June 25th report. Statement Justifying the Home Fire Sprinkler Systems As noted previously, when the initial concept plan of this plat was presented to the Fire Dept. for review, the fire department staff raised some concerns to having a single-access roadway longer than the 500-ft. recommended standard, and initially indicated they would oppose and not support a variance to allow the over- length cul-de-sac at that time. The Fire Chief later met with the Developer, and agreed to drop his concern or objections, provided that all new homes would be equipped with automatic fire sprinkling systems. A question was made at the last meeting seeking a justification, explanation, or reasons for such recommendations, noted as follows [these are paraphrased comments from Fire Chief Dreelan to city staff]: • Although we have a concern for one-way in/ one-way out, past history has shown that there are a number of existing over-length cul-de-sacs in the city; and these other roadways have apparently not hindered or impacted the department’s current emergency response times in these areas. • The in-home sprinkles will provide a temporary stop-gap or short-term fire suppression system for any emergency until full firefighting and rescue equipment can arrive on the scene, thereby helping in any emergency incident. • Should the single access to the development be blocked (such as fallen tree, caved in street, etc.), the sprinklers will provide added fire suppression measures until full fire-fighting/emergency services can arrive on the site. The sprinklers will also help contain the damage to the affected home, and help reduce any possible impacts or spreading to neighboring homes. • The costs in providing these home sprinkler systems are not that expensive; and home owners insurance companies will support and provide a reduced discount to homeowner premiums. The Fire Chief has also provided an attached “Facts about home fire sprinklers” for the Commission to review. REQUESTED ACTION Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights, based on the attached findings of fact with conditions. OR 2. Recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights, with findings of fact as determined by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. OR 3. Table the request once again, pending additional information from staff or others. page 126 STAFF RECOMMENDATION It remains City Staff’s recommendation that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council to approve the Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights, along with the Variance to certain street length standards and a Wetlands Permit, with the following conditions: 1. The existing single family dwellings and detached accessory buildings must be removed prior to the Final Plat being recorded by Dakota County. 2. In lies of land dedication, the Developer/Applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of $4,000 per unit (19 lots – 2 existing dwellings = 17 x $4,000/unit, or $68,000) is collected after City Council approval and before the Final Plat is recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any permits. 3. All new homes within this development shall have an automatic fire sprinkler/fire suppression system, reviewed and approved by the City Building Official. 4. Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 5. The final grading plan must be submitted to the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or land disturbance permit. 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. Streets and utilities shall have approved profiles showing final street grades, horizontal curves, pipe lengths, pipe slopes, pipe materials, and elevations. 8. Street grades in excess of 6% - but no more than 8% are hereby allowed in certain locations as shown on the submitted Plans. In the event the Plans are revised in the future, the Developer must make every effort to meet the 6% grade standard along this roadway section. Any changes to the Plans must be resubmitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 9. The City Engineer recommends the city allow the 30-ft. face-to-face street width as proposed. 10. Plans must be revised on the pond with a 10-ft. depth, whereby City Code permits only an 8-ft. maximum depth; and the top of the berm around pond shall be 1.5 feet above HWL. All revisions and new elevations to the plans must be approved by the City Engineer. 11. A SWPPP shall be developed for the project. Protected waters shall have a double silt fence/redundant BMP per MPCA rules, and a separate NPDES permit is required. 12. The Developer/Applicant shall submit a wetland delineation report to the City for review. Any impacts or mitigation measures (if needed) in order to complete construction work in or around the wetlands must be approved by the City prior to issuance of any permits. 13. No disturbances shall occur within a 25-foot wide wetland buffer, which shall include provisions for no cutting (non-mowing) and a natural vegetation buffer area around the delineated edges of the wetland. The buffer strip shall be shown and dedicated on the final plat. 14. Provide treatment from structures 301, 302, 303, 304. The proposed “Rain Guardian” is not an approved BMP. 15. Final drainage structure along streets shall have a minimum of 3-foot sump (301, 103). page 127 16. Any utilities greater than 20 feet in depth will require council approval. 17. The Developer/Applicant shall provide subsurface drainage, per geotechnical report. 18. Temporary sediment basins will be required during construction. 19. Any proposed retaining wall(s) greater than 4 feet in height require engineered drawings. 20. All Plans shall be reviewed by St. Paul Regional Water Service. 21. The Developer/Applicant shall submit final grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with associated easements, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department and Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 22. 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. 23. Future construction on the newly-created parcels will be compliant with all applicable City Code and Building Code provisions MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. June 27th Planning Staff Report 2. Updated Preliminary Plat Map of Orchard Heights 3. Updated Grading & Drainage/Civil Plans 4. Olin Property – Wetland Delineation Report (excerpt) 5. Memorandum from Plowe E ngineering 6. Images of Over-Length Cul-de-Sacs 7. Facts about home fire sprinklers page 128 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Preliminary Plat, Variance and Wetlands Permit for Orchard Heights 1136 and 1140 Orchard Place 1. The proposed plat generally meets the purpose and intent of the Title 11 - Subdivision Code; and meets the general policies and goals of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan regarding LR-Low Density Residential areas. 2. The proposed lots meet the minimum standards in the R-1 Zoning District. 3. The City Council accepts the depths of the utility service lines presented under this preliminary plat request. 4. The Variance for an elongated cul-de-sac roadway section is approved based on the following added findings: a. practical difficulties are evident in this proposed development area, so a longer cul-de-sac is a reasonable request and will be used in a reasonable manner; b. the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, especially the difficulties of not having a secondary access point connection provided when surrounding properties were being platted; and c. the variance to allow this longer roadway system will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 4) Any impacts to the wetlands will be determined upon submittal and review of a wetland delineation report; whereby city staff will ensure any mitigation measures (if needed) to complete work under this development in or around the wetlands will be done in accordance with State Laws and City Ordinances. page 129 Planning Staff Report DATE: June 27, 2017 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-14 Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights / Variance /Wetlands Permit APPLICANT: Marcel Eibensteiner, Royal Oaks Realty (on behalf of David Olin / Marilyn Olin – Property Owners PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1136 and 1140 Orchard Place ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: August 1, 2017 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oaks Realty, acting on behalf of the property owners Marilyn Olin and David Olin, is seeking to subdivide an existing single family parcel into 19 new lots, to be titled “Orchard Heights” of Mendota Heights. This preliminary plat request also includes a request for a variance to exceed the maximum length of cul-de- sac roadway (that serves this development), along with a wetlands permit due to work taking place nearby the established pond, which is a recognized water feature in this area. This item is being presented as a public hearing item. Notices were mailed to all surrounding property owners within 350-feet of the site; and a notice was published in the local newspaper. BACKGROUND The subject plat is essentially a combination of two existing parcels, locally addressed as 1140 Orchard Place and 1136 Orchard Place. The main larger site has been used as a local apple orchard (hence the plat name) for quite some time, and the Olin family is no longer interested in operating or maintaining the orchard upon the close of this growing season (see aerial image below). page 130 page 131 • The 1140 Orchard Pl. parcel contains an existing single family residential dwelling with 3,377 finished square feet of living space, a double-car tuck-under garage, and was built in 1959. A separate detached accessory or outbuilding is nearby (see photos below). page 132 • The 1136 Orchard Pl. parcel contains an existing two-story, single family residential dwelling, with attached two car garage, built in 1992 (see photo below). • The combined area of the subject properties is 585,843 sq. ft., or 13.45 acres in area. • The property is guided LR Low Density Residential in the City’s Land Use Plan. • The property is zoned R-1 One Family Residential. • No change in land use or zoning is proposed. • All dwellings and out-buildings will be removed as part of this new housing development. ANALYSIS 1) Lot Size. The R-1 District requires minimum lot width of 100 feet and minimum lot area of 15,000 sq. ft. All 19 proposed new lots will meet or exceed these minimums: A majority of the lots along the Orchard Heights Lane roadway (Lots 2 thru 7 and Lots 12 thru 18) are established with 107-ft. lot widths and 141.25 ft. depths. Lot 8 is slightly larger; and lots 9 (0.96 ac.), 10 (4.02 ac.) and 11 (1.46 ac.) are much larger due to their location at the end of the cul-de-sac. Most of the adjacent lots platted to the west in Sun View Hills Addition, located off Hunter Lane were platted with approximately 150-ft. lot widths. The lots to the east along the Orchard Hill roadway (Swansons 2nd Addition) are also wide due to their layout along the end of their own cul-de-sac; and the lots farther south (accessed from Lexington Avenue) range in width from approx. 190-ft. (Rolf parcel), 200 ft. (Illetschko parcel) up to 485 feet (Kelly parcel). 2) Density. The density of the new plat is 1.41 units/acre, which is much less than the Comprehensive Plan maximum of 2.9 units/acres. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss or determine if the scale of the proposed plat and lot dimensions are consistent with the City’s Comp Plan and in keeping with the surrounding (adjacent) residential uses. 3) Grading and Trees. When entering the property from the north off Orchard Place, the grades start out even with the road bed, but once you enter the site, the gradient begins to increase dramatically once you page 133 begin to traverses up the long asphalt driveway leading back to the 1140 homestead. The grade difference is approx. 900 feet at the entrance, and roughly 952-feet at the existing house pad. The house appears to be at or near the highest point of this property. From the back of the house, the grades begin to gradually drop down southward towards the pond and wetlands area located at the southernmost end of the lot, from 952 feet to approx. 894 feet, or a 58 foot decrease (see photo below). Due to the need to create new and suitable house pads, the installation of a new main access roadway, new utilities and additional on-site storm ponds, it is expected that a vast and intensive level of grading work will be required to re-grade and re-shape this site; and it appears many of the existing trees on the site, including every apple tree, will be removed under this new development plan. Some trees and vegetation page 134 may be saved and protected along the outer edges of the site, and some will probably be protected in and around the existing pond and wetland to the south. 4) Concept Grading & Drainage Plan: The grading plan indicates the property will be shaved down (at the high pint) almost 14 to 15 feet, which is necessary to make the road grades and new house pad elevations feasible. The grading directs the drainage from the northerly 600 feet of the development (from about Lot 6 and 14) northward down to the storm systems that eventually connect into the existing city-owned systems in Orchard Place (note: plans are mislabeled as Orchard Lane). The drainage plan calls for what appears to be new storm catch basins along the back sides of Lots 1 & 2; Lots 2 &3; and Lots 17 &18. The southerly half of the development (Lots 7 thru 13) then drain southward towards the new ponding areas to be installed by the developer. page 135 Stormwater drainage will be captured by new storm inlets installed within the roadway system, and in some cases along the back sides of some residences. Many of the rear yards of these lots have a drainage swale incorporated into their designs, with U-shaped rock check dams spaced about 50 to 100 feet apart from each, which are designed to essentially slow the high flow rates of water in these areas. Plans show the new pond with a 10-ft. depth, whereby City Code permits only an 8-ft. maximum depth. The top of the berm around pond must also be 1.5 feet above HWL. All revisions and new elevations to the plans must be approved by the City Engineer. The new development also calls for the installation of a new retaining wall along the back side of lots 11, 12 and 13. There are no details on this wall at this time. The City Engineer recommends that any new wall(s) over 4-feet in height must have engineered designs and approved by the City Engineer and Building Official. The proposed grading plan is only required to show that a potential new dwelling could be constructed that meets the applicable Code standards, and is not meant to bind a future property owner into a specific location or design. Subdivision Code requires that no construction or grading on slopes 33% or greater. There does not appear to be any slopes over 33% percent on site. 5) Utility Plan. Sanitary sewer main extension and water main extensions for all lots will come from the existing systems under Orchard Place. Each main service line essentially runs south down to the end of the cul-de-sac, with individual service lines to each lot to be determined later. The utility service mains (sanitary and water) feeding this development are shown with depths greater than 20 feet in some areas. The City Engineer has expressed great concerns with having sewer lines that deep; and is especially alarmed with taking on maintenance and repairs of these systems in the future, once the roadway is dedicated to the City (note: service lines that deep would require an enormous open trench/excavation pit with massive shoring devices in order to gain safe access for repairs, and would likely impact and disturb abutting residential lots and yard spaces). Due to the complicated topography of this existing site, and the Developers wish to minimize as much grading and reshaping the site for this area, the City Engineer is electing to have the City Council approve these new utility line depths. Should the City Council disapprove of these utility plans, the Developer will page 136 be required to re-submit new grading/drainage and utility plans which must be acceptable to the City Engineer and City Council. Three fire hydrants are being installed along the new Orchard Heights Drive roadway, which we assume meets all required Fire Department’s needs. Final locations and details of these hydrants will be approved by the Fire Chief prior to issuance of any grading and/or utility permits. Drainage and utility easements on the perimeters of all lots are show as 10-foot along the front lot; 5-foot along the shared side lot lines, and 25 feet along the back lot lines. The larger rear yard easements are to ensure the larger drainage swale and infrastructure improvements necessary under this development plat. These easements will be provided or officially dedicated under the final plat approval and recording. Street Design & Variances City Code Title 11 – General Subdivision Provision provides for all the required standards related to new subdivisions, including streets, utilities, easement, drainage, etc. As illustrated on the preliminary plat maps and grading/utility plans, the subdivision will be served by a single access, two-way traffic cul-de-sac roadway. The developer intends to dedicate the road back to the City, which will then become a public road once completed and accepted by the City Engineer. The road meets the minimum 60-foot wide platted width, but is only shown with a 30-foot wide curb-to-curb width, whereas a 33- foot width is required. Pursuant to City Code Title 11-3-3, Streets may not exceed 6% in grade, unless the city engineer recommends or allows excess street grades should the topography warrant a greater maximum. The grading/drainage plan shows street grades in certain areas range from 1% up to 8% along the length of the roadway. The City Engineer is allowing the Developer to exceed the 6% street grades in certain (limited) areas of this development; and accepts the 3-foot difference (down to 30-feet) in street width. The cul-de-sac however, measures well over 950 feet from the beginning point off Orchard Place to the center- point of the end circle. Pursuant to Title 11-3-3 Streets and Alleys, the following standard applies to cul-de- sacs type roadways: D. Dead End and Cul-De-Sac Streets: Dead end streets are prohibited, but cul-de-sacs will be permitted only where topography or other conditions justify their use. Cul-de-sacs shall normally not be longer than five hundred feet (500'), including a terminal turnaround which shall be provided at the closed end, with an outside curb radius of at least forty nine feet (49') and a right of way radius of not less than sixty feet (60'). When city staff initially met with the Developers on this plat layout, we indicated the concerns of having a roadway that length, and suggested they explore options of providing a secondary access into the site, either off Veronica Lane or the undeveloped segment of Mallard Road, both located near the south end of the subdivision site and directly off Hunter Lane (see highlighted image below). page 137 It was determined (and later supported by city staff) that having a roadway extension through these right-of- way segments would likely upset abutting homeowners; the grades coming off these short roadway segments do not work well and would be challenging; an enormous amount of fill would be needed to bring roadway connection grades back into the development; and impacts to the wetlands would be significant. There are no available road connections to the east. (Note: there is however, anecdotal statements and evidence of a video-taped discussion from a 1995(?) City Council meeting, while considering the adjacent Swansons 2nd Addition plat, that a road connection or ROW extension was recommended to be platted over to the Olin property. However, the council elected not to enjoin the developer to provide said right-of-way connection at that time, thereby excluding any possible road connections to the east). Because there are no real viable alternatives in providing a secondary access to the subdivision, Staff allowed the Developer to present a request for the single access and longer cul-de-sac roadway. Pursuant to Title 11-1-9, Variances from the strict application of the provisions of this title (i.e. Title 11 – General Subdivision Provision) can be requested under the requirements of section 12-1L-5 of the City Code. To approve this over-length cul-de-sac, a variance to this standard is in order. Under section 12-1L-5 of City Code: “The council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of this chapter 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 this chapter.” 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.” Staff is forgoing a full-breadth analysis on this variance request, due to the simple fact that the City currently has a number of other residential subdivisions with single-access cul-de-sacs that either exceed 500-feet throughout the city; and there does not appear to be any reasons given (other than general city council approval) that these longer cul-de-sacs were given less or more favorable considerations than what is being asked under this application. For all intents and purposes, the variance can be supported based on the following statements: 1) Practical difficulties are evident in this proposed development area, so the longer cul-de-sac seems a reasonable request and will be used in a reasonable manner; 2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, especially the difficulties of not having a secondary access point connection provided when surrounding properties were being platted; and 3) The variance to allow this longer roadway system will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. When the initial concept plan of this plat was presented to the Fire Dept. for review, the initial statement was they wanted to see a roadway no more than 500 feet, due to safety concerns and lack of secondary access for emergency situations. When the Developer met with the city’s Fire Chief and Fire Marshal afterwards, a reasonable alternative (and solution) was negotiated, in that the Developer has agreed to require all new homes in this development will have automatic fire sprinkling systems, which although can prove expensive, will hopefully provide added fire safeguards and response times if needed. Staff does not object or have any concerns with the length of the proposed cul-de-sac as designed. Wetland Impacts A wetland delineation report is currently underway and was not yet completed as the preparation of this report. Once the report is finished and submitted to the city for review, staff will be able to gage any impacts or assess any mitigation measures (if needed) in order to complete any work in or around the wetlands. The initial page 138 grading pans show that most of the new ponding and grading work will be done within the confines of the newly developed lots. For any work within 100 feet of this wetland and ponds, a wetlands permit is required for approval. As stated previously, staff will ensure that all elements of the wetland report are investigated and studied; the wetland boundaries will be clearly marked and protected during all phases of construction, and no part of the wetlands will be negatively impacts by this development. Since the properties located at the end of the cul-de-sac (Lots 9, 10 and 11) extend into or will encompass part of the pond and wetland areas, Staff is also providing a condition that the developer should provide a 25-foot wide natural vegetation buffer strip, with no mowing requirements from all delineated edges of wetlands, to ensure any runoff or pollutants are trapped or impeded as much as possible prior to reaching the wetlands. REQUESTED ACTION Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights, based on the attached findings of fact with conditions. OR 2. Recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights, with findings of fact as determined by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. OR 3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or others. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council to approve the Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights, with the following conditions: 1. The existing single family dwellings and detached accessory buildings must be removed prior to the Final Plat being recorded by Dakota County. 2. In lies of land dedication, the Developer/Applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of $4,000 per unit (19 lots – 2 existing dwellings = 17 x $4,000/unit, or $68,000) is collected after City Council approval and before the Final Plat is recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any permits. 3. All new homes within this development shall have an automatic fire sprinkler/fire suppression system, reviewed and approved by the City Building Official. 4. Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 5. The final grading plan must be submitted to the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or land disturbance permit. 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. Streets and utilities shall have approved profiles showing final street grades, horizontal curves, pipe lengths, pipe slopes, pipe materials, and elevations. page 139 8. Street grades in excess of 6% - but no more than 8% are hereby allowed in certain locations as shown on the submitted Plans. In the event the Plans are revised in the future, the Developer must make every effort to meet the 6% grade standard along this roadway section. Any changes to the Plans must be resubmitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 9. The City Engineer recommends the city allow the 30-ft. face-to-face street width as proposed. 10. Plans must be revised on the pond with a 10-ft. depth, whereby City Code permits only an 8-ft. maximum depth; and the top of the berm around pond shall be 1.5 feet above HWL. All revisions and new elevations to the plans must be approved by the City Engineer. 11. A SWPPP shall be developed for the project. Protected waters shall have a double silt fence/redundant BMP per MPCA rules, and a separate NPDES permit is required. 12. The Developer/Applicant shall submit a wetland delineation report to the City for review. Any impacts or mitigation measures (if needed) in order to complete construction work in or around the wetlands must be approved by the City prior to issuance of any permits. 13. No disturbances shall occur within a 25-foot wide wetland buffer, which shall include provisions for no cutting (non-mowing) and a natural vegetation buffer area around the delineated edges of the wetland. The buffer strip shall be shown and dedicated on the final plat. 14. Provide treatment from structures 301, 302, 303, 304. The proposed “Rain Guardian” is not an approved BMP. 15. Final drainage structure along streets shall have a minimum of 3-foot sump (301, 103). 16. Any utilities greater than 20 feet in depth will require council approval. 17. The Developer/Applicant shall provide subsurface drainage, per geotechnical report. 18. Temporary sediment basins will be required during construction. 19. Any proposed retaining wall(s) greater than 4 feet in height require engineered drawings. 20. All Plans shall be reviewed by St. Paul Regional Water Service. 21. The Developer/Applicant shall submit final grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with associated easements, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department and Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 22. 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. 23. Future construction on the newly-created parcels will be compliant with all applicable City Code and Building Code provisions MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Aerial Site Map 2. Planning Applications, including supporting materials 3. Existing Conditions (Survey) Map 4. Preliminary Plat Map of Orchard Heights 5. Grading & Drainage Plan Map 6. Storm Sewer Plan Map 7. Sanitary Sewer & Water Plan Map page 140 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Preliminary Plat, Variance and Wetlands Permit for Orchard Heights 1136 and 1140 Orchard Place 1. The proposed plat generally meets the purpose and intent of the Title 11 - Subdivision Code; and meets the general policies and goals of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan regarding LR-Low Density Residential areas. 2. The proposed lots meet the minimum standards in the R-1 Zoning District. 3. The City Council accepts the depths of the utility service lines presented under this preliminary plat request. 4. The Variance for an elongated cul-de-sac roadway section is approved based on the following added findings: a. practical difficulties are evident in this proposed development area, so a longer cul-de-sac is a reasonable request and will be used in a reasonable manner; b. the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, especially the difficulties of not having a secondary access point connection provided when surrounding properties were being platted; and c. the variance to allow this longer roadway system will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 4) Any impacts to the wetlands will be determined upon submittal and review of a wetland delineation report; whereby city staff will ensure any mitigation measures (if needed) to complete work under this development in or around the wetlands will be done in accordance with State Laws and City Ordinances. page 141 MEMORANDUM TO:MENDOTA HEIGHTS – CITY STAFF FROM: ADAM GINKEL – PLOWE ENGINEERING, INC. MARCEL EIBENSTEINER – ROYAL OAKS REALTY SUBJECT: ORCHARD HEIGHTS ROAD CONNECTION TO HUNTER VIA MALLARD DATE: JULY 21, 2017 We have reviewed a road extension from the proposed cul-de-sac to Hunter Lane via Mallard Road. Based on site observations, lidar topography, and a grading and drainage analysis, this connection is not feasible for the following reason: 1.Acquisition of private property – Given the significant elevation change from the proposed cul-de-sac (Elev 920) down to the existing wetland (Elev 894) and back up to Hunter Lane (Elev 920), significant grading and fill is required. The grading limits for this connection would extend beyond the existing Mallard right-of-way into private property. The cooperation of adjacent property owners would be required. 2. Tree impacts on private property – The existing Mallard right-of-way is flanked by significant mature trees and landscaping. This includes 8-10 fifty (50) foot tall evergreens on the Bartush property. These trees would be impacted by this construction. 3.Wetland fill & impacts – Approximately 0.35 acres of wetland fill would be required. This number is approximate and could increase as the private properties have not been flagged for wetlands. Please also see the attached for a concept grading analysis of this street connection and an aerial image from Dakota County GIS showing existing trees and landscaping adjacent to Mallard Road. page 142 page 143 Dakota County, MN BasemapSurvey July 21, 2017 0 50 10025 ft 0 10 205 m 1:600 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. page 144 Facts about home fire sprinklers Automatic sprinklers are highly effective and reliable elements of total system designs for fire protection in buildings. According to an American Housing Survey, 4.6% of occupied homes (including multi-unit) had sprinklers in 2009, up from 3.9% in 2007, and 18.5% of occupied home built in the previous four years had sprinklers. Source: U.S. Experience with Sprinklers • 85% of all U.S. fire deaths occur in the home. • Home fire sprinklers can control and may even extinguish a fire in less time than it would take the fire department to arrive on the scene. • Only the sprinkler closest to the fire will activate, spraying water directly on the fire. In 84% of home fires where the sprinklers operate, just one sprinkler operates. • If you have a fire in your home, the risk of dying is cut by about one-third when smoke alarms are present (or about half if the smoke alarms are working), while automatic fire sprinkler systems cut the risk of dying by about 80%. • In a home with sprinklers, the average property loss per fire is cut by about 70% (compared to fires where sprinklers are not present.) • The cost of installing home fire sprinklers averages $1.35 per sprinklered square foot. page 145 Olin Property Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report Prepared for DuPont Holdings by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc. (KES Project No. 2017-064) May 22, 2017 page 146 Olin Property Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page 1. WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY .........................................................................1 2. OVERVIEW ...........................................................................................................................2 3. METHODS .............................................................................................................................2 4. RESULTS ...............................................................................................................................3 4.1 Review of NWI, Soils, Public Waters, and NHD Information .........................................3 4.2 Wetland Determinations and Delineations ........................................................................4 4.3 Other Areas .......................................................................................................................4 4.4 Request for Wetland Boundary and Jurisdictional Determination ...................................5 5. CERTIFICATION OF DELINEATION .............................................................................6 TABLES Table 1. Summary of Delineated Wetlands ...........................................................................1 Table 2. Soil types mapped on the Olin Property ..................................................................3 FIGURES 1.Site Location 2.Existing Conditions 3.National Wetlands Inventory 4.Soil Survey 5.DNR Public Waters Inventory 6.National Hydrography Dataset APPENDICES A.Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota B.Supporting Information C.Wetland Delineation Data Forms page 147 1 Olin Property Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report 1.WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY The 13.45-acre Olin Property was inspected on May 4, 2017 for the presence and extent of wetland. The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map showed two wetlands within the property boundaries. The soil survey showed Quam as the hydric soil type within site boundaries. The DNR Public Waters Inventory showed DNR Public Wetlands 19-105W and 19- 106W within site boundaries. The National Hydrography Dataset showed one Lake/Pond feature within site boundaries. The one wetland delineated within the site boundary is summarized below. Table 1.Summary of Delineated Wetlands Wetland ID Wetland Type Dominant VegetationCircular 39 Cowardin Eggers and Reed 1 5/4/3/2 PUBG/PEM1F/ PEMC/PEM1B Shallow open water, deep marsh, shallow marsh, and wet meadow Water, cattail purple loosestrife, reed canary grass page 148 Olin Property, Mendota Heights Wetland Delineation Report 2 2. OVERVIEW The 13.45-acre Olin Property was inspected on May 4, 2017 for the presence and extent of wetland.The property was located in Section 27, Township 28 North, Range 23 West, City of Mendota Heights,Dakota County, Minnesota. The site was situated between Orchard Place and Victoria Curve (Figure 1).The property corresponded to Dakota County PIDs 275415001020 and 275415001010, 1140 Orchard Place and 1136 Orchard Place, respectively. The site was comprised of one, small single family home/home lot (0.42-acre)in the northeast portion, and a second larger single-family home-home lot (13.03-acres) in the remainder. Homes were surrounded by mowed Kentucky bluegrass laws and planted/landscape trees/shrubs. An apple orchard was located between the two homes. The larger parcel was primarily mowed lawn with some wooded canopy comprised of Siberian elm, cottonwood, green ash, boxelder, pines/spruce, cedar,and Norway maple trees with common buckthorn shrubs, except for wooded area bordering wetlands as described below. The property was bordered by single-family homes to the north, west, and east, and by a church and City properties to the south. One wetland is located within the site boundary.The delineated wetland boundar y and existing conditions are shown on Figure 2. Appendix A of this report includes a Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota, which is submitted in request for: (1) a wetland boundary and type determination under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), and (2)a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD)for the wetland under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. 3. METHODS Wetlands were identified using the Routine Determination method described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Waterways Experiment Station, 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:Midwest Region (Version 2.0) as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Wetland boundaries were identified as the upper-most extent of wetland that met criteria for hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology. Wetland -upland boundaries were marked with pin flags that were located by land surveyors from E.G. Rud & Sons, Inc. Soils, vegetation, and hydrology were documented at a representative location along the wetland - upland boundary. Plant species dominance was estimated based on the percent aerial or basal coverage visually estimated within a 30-foot radius for trees and vines, a 15-foot radius for the shrub layer, and a 5-foot radius for the herbaceous layer within the community type sampled. page 149 Olin Property, Mendota Heights Wetland Delineation Report 3 Soils were characterized to a minimum depth of 24 inches (unless otherwise noted) using a Munsell Soil Color Book and standard soil texturing methodology. Hydric soil indicators used are from Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Version 7, 2010). Figure 4 displays the mapped soils located within the property boundaries. Mapped soils are separated into five classes based on the percent composition of hydric components and the Hydric Rating by Map Unit color classes utilized on Web Soil Survey. The five classes include Hydric (100 percent hydric components), Predominantly Hydric (66 to 99 percent hydric components), Partially Hydric (33 to 65 percent hydric components), Predominantly Non -Hydric (1 to 32 percent hydric components), and Non-Hydric (less than one percent hydric components). Plants were identified using standard regional plant keys.Taxonomy and indicator status of plant species was taken from the 2016 National Wetland Plant List (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2016. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.3, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH). 4. RESULTS 4.1 Review of NWI, Soils,Public Waters,and NHD Information The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)(Minnesota Geospatial Commons 2009-2014 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)showed two wetlands within the property boundaries (Figure 3). The Soil Survey (USDA NRCS 2015)showed Quam as the hydric soil type mapped within site boundaries.Soil types mapped on the property are listed in Table 2 and a map showing soil types is included in Figure 4.The Report—Hydric Soil List -All Components is included in Appendix B. Table 2. Soil types mapped on the Olin Property Symbol Soil Name Hydric Rating Acres % of Area Hydric Category 7D Hubbard loamy sand, 12 to 18 percent slopes 0 1.8 12.20%Non-Hydric 39B2 Wadena loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded 0 2.5 16.60%Non-Hydric 129 Cylinder loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 15 0 0.20%Predominantly Non-Hydric 250 Kennebec silt loam 0 0.2 1.50%Non-Hydric 415B Kanaranzi loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 0 2.1 13.70%Non-Hydric 415C Kanaranzi loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 0 4 26.90%Non-Hydric page 150 Olin Property, Mendota Heights Wetland Delineation Report 4 Table 2. Soil types mapped on the Olin Property Symbol Soil Name Hydric Rating Acres % of Area Hydric Category 449B Crystal Lake silt loam, 1 to 8 percent slopes 0 0.8 5.20%Non-Hydric 1824 Quam silt loam, ponded 100 3.6 23.80%Hydric The Minnesota DNR Public Waters Inventory (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2015)showed DNR Public Wetlands 19-105W and 19-106W within site boundaries.(Figure 5). The National Hydrography Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey 2015)showed one Lake/Pond feature located within the property boundaries (Figure 6). 4.2 Wetland Determinations and Delineations Potential wetlands were evaluated during field observations on May 4, 2017.One wetland was identified and delineated on the property (Figure 2).Corresponding data forms are included in Appendix C.The following description of the wetland and adjacent upland reflects conditions observed at the time of the field visit.Herbaceous vegetation was actively growing at the time of the wetland delineation.Precipitation conditions were typical (normal) based on three-month antecedent precipitation (gridded database method)data (Appendix B). Wetland 1 was a Type 5/4/3/2 (PUBG/PEM1F/PEMC/PEM1B)shallow open water and deep marsh in the east portion, and shallow marsh and wet meadow in the west portion. The east and west wetland basins were connected to each other by a ditch feature which was flowing at the time of the site visit.Water flowed from west to east.Inundation exceeding more than 6 inches was observed in both east and west wetland areas. Adjacent upland consisted of green ash, red oak, American plum, chokecherry, nannyberry, gray dogwood, common buckthorn, honeysuckle, and amur maple with an understory of gooseberry, Pennsylvania sedge, Canada goldenrod, daisy fleabane, raspberry, motherwort, creeping Charlie, common burdock, and quackgrass.Primary and secondary hydrology indicators were not observed in the upland. The wetland boundary corresponded to topographic rise that coincided with a transition to an upland plant community.The wetland corresponded to NWI mapped PEM1C and PUBG/PEM1F wetlands, and was located in an area mapped as hydric soil (Quam) on the soil survey. The wetland extended outside property boundaries, and the presence or absence of an outlet is not known. 4.3 Other Areas No other areas with hydrophytic vegetation or wetland hydrology were observed on the site. No other areas were shown as hydric soil on the soil survey or as wetland on the NWI map. page 151 Olin Property, Mendota Heights Wetland Delineation Report 5 4.4 Request for Wetland Boundary and Jurisdictional Determination Appendix A of this report includes a Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota, which is submitted in request for: (1) a wetland boundary and type determination under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), and (2 )a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD)for all wetlands under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. page 152 Olin Property, Mendota Heights Wetland Delineation Report 6 5. CERTIFICATION OF DELINEATION The procedures utilized in the described delineation are based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act.This wetland delineation and report were prepared in compliance with the regulatory standards in place at the time the work was performed. Site boundaries indicated on figures within this report are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. Delineation and report completed by:Melissa Lauterbach-Barrett MN Certified Wetland Delineator No. 1085 Licensed Professional Soil Scientist No.45067 Report reviewed by: ____________________________________ Date:May 22, 2017 Mark Kjolhaug, Professional Wetland Scientist No. 000845 page 153 Olin Property Wetland Delineation Report FIGURES 1.Site Location 2.Existing Conditions 3.National Wetlands Inventory 4.Soil Survey 5.DNR Protected Waters Inventory 6.National Hydrography Dataset page 154 © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA Figure 1 - Site Location Olin Property (KES 2017-064)Mendota Heights, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 1,000 Feet Legend Project Boundary Source: ESRI Streets Basemap page 155 9 0 8 9 1 0906 912914904916 9189209229249 2 6 9029289009308 9 8932 896894934936 938 940942944 892890946 8 8 8 948950 886884952894894894906 918942 9068968 9 4 9349488949 2 0 900906900 910936930 946 936 93295 0 91 6 924932 904 934 938912 944 902912926 910928918 910 922 91691 0 914 900900 93691691692089 8 93 0 934918898922928894940Figure 2 - Existing Conditions (2016 MnGEO Photo) Olin Property (KES 2017-064)Mendota Heights, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 250 Feet Legend Project Boundary Wetland 1 (3.50 acres onsite) Transect Channel/Ditch Dakota County Lidar Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap T1 T2 Wetland 1(east)Wetland 1(west) page 156 PEM1F PFO1A R2UBH PUBGPEM1C PFO1A PEM1C PABGx PUBGx PEM1Ax PEM1C PUBGxPEM1Ax L2UBH Figure 3 - National Wetlands Inventory Olin Property (KES 2017-064)Mendota Heights, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: Minnesota DNR (2013), USFWS page 157 415C 39B2 1824 857B 415C 39B2 39B2 129 896F 449B 857A 39B2 7D 39C2 7D 250 39B2 250 344 415B W 611C 250 250 344 1898F 411A 39B2 Figure 4 - Soil Survey Olin Property (KES 2017-064)Mendota Heights, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Project Boundary Hydric/Predominantly Non-Hydric Prdominantly Non-Hydric/Non-Hydric Source: USDA, NRCS page 158 Augusta (19-81 P) U.S. Lock & Dam #2 Pool (main channel) (19-5-09 P) Unnamed (19-105 W) Unnamed (19-106 W) Figure 5 - DNR Public Waters Inventory Olin Property (KES 2017-064)Mendota Heights, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 1,000 Feet Legend Project Boundary Public Watercourse Public Waters Source: Minnesota DNR page 159 Figure 6 - National Hydrography Dataset Olin Property (KES 2017-064)Mendota Heights, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Project Boundary Hydro Junction ArtificialPath CanalDitch Connector Pipeline StreamRiver Underground Conduit Gate Nonearthen Shore Wall Lock Chamber StreamRiver LakePond Reservoir SwampMarsh Source: USGS page 160 page 161 page 162 page 163 page 164 page 165 page 166 page 167 OVER-LENGTH CUL-DE-SAC -Images Orchard Hill (580-ft.)Orchard Circle (750-ft.) page 168 OVER-LENGTH CUL-DE-SAC -Images Twin Circle Dr. (555-ft.)Faron Drive (521-ft.) page 169 OVER-LENGTH CUL-DE-SAC -Images Swan Ct. (600-ft.)Rogers Ct. (660 ft.)Alice Ln. (600-ft.) page 170 OVER-LENGTH CUL-DE-SAC -Images Pagel Rd. –south of Keokuk (1,200 ft.)Havenview Ct. (708-ft.) page 171 OVER-LENGTH CUL-DE-SAC -Images Acacia Dr. (872-ft.)LeMay Lake Dr. (765-ft.) page 172 OVER-LENGTH CUL-DE-SAC -Images LeMay Shores Drive (2,975-ft.Valley Curve Road (900-ft.) page 173 OVER-LENGTH CUL-DE-SAC -Images Field Stone Dr. (1,350-ft.)Apache Lane (820-ft.) page 174 OVER-LENGTH CUL-DE-SAC -Images Bent Tree Ln./Quail Ridge = 887-ft.)Knob Road (1,140 ft.) page 175 OVER-LENGTH CUL-DE-SAC -Images Dodge Lane (777-ft.)William Ct. (1,500-ft.) page 176 OVER-LENGTH CUL-DE-SAC -Images Lakeview Ave (630-ft.)Kendon Ln. (565-ft.)Circle page 177 Planning Staff Report DATE: June 27, 2017 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-14 Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights / Variance /Wetlands Permit APPLICANT: Marcel Eibensteiner, Royal Oaks Realty (on behalf of David Olin / Marilyn Olin – Property Owners PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1136 and 1140 Orchard Place ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: August 1, 2017 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oaks Realty, acting on behalf of the property owners Marilyn Olin and David Olin, is seeking to subdivide an existing single family parcel into 19 new lots, to be titled “Orchard Heights” of Mendota Heights. This preliminary plat request also includes a request for a variance to exceed the maximum length of cul-de- sac roadway (that serves this development), along with a wetlands permit due to work taking place nearby the established pond, which is a recognized water feature in this area. This item is being presented as a public hearing item. Notices were mailed to all surrounding property owners within 350-feet of the site; and a notice was published in the local newspaper. BACKGROUND The subject plat is essentially a combination of two existing parcels, locally addressed as 1140 Orchard Place and 1136 Orchard Place. The main larger site has been used as a local apple orchard (hence the plat name) for quite some time, and the Olin family is no longer interested in operating or maintaining the orchard upon the close of this growing season (see aerial image below). page 178 page 179 • The 1140 Orchard Pl. parcel contains an existing single family residential dwelling with 3,377 finished square feet of living space, a double-car tuck-under garage, and was built in 1959. A separate detached accessory or outbuilding is nearby (see photos below). page 180 • The 1136 Orchard Pl. parcel contains an existing two-story, single family residential dwelling, with attached two car garage, built in 1992 (see photo below). • The combined area of the subject properties is 585,843 sq. ft., or 13.45 acres in area. • The property is guided LR Low Density Residential in the City’s Land Use Plan. • The property is zoned R-1 One Family Residential. • No change in land use or zoning is proposed. • All dwellings and out-buildings will be removed as part of this new housing development. ANALYSIS 1) Lot Size. The R-1 District requires minimum lot width of 100 feet and minimum lot area of 15,000 sq. ft. All 19 proposed new lots will meet or exceed these minimums: A majority of the lots along the Orchard Heights Lane roadway (Lots 2 thru 7 and Lots 12 thru 18) are established with 107-ft. lot widths and 141.25 ft. depths. Lot 8 is slightly larger; and lots 9 (0.96 ac.), 10 (4.02 ac.) and 11 (1.46 ac.) are much larger due to their location at the end of the cul-de-sac. Most of the adjacent lots platted to the west in Sun View Hills Addition, located off Hunter Lane were platted with approximately 150-ft. lot widths. The lots to the east along the Orchard Hill roadway (Swansons 2nd Addition) are also wide due to their layout along the end of their own cul-de-sac; and the lots farther south (accessed from Lexington Avenue) range in width from approx. 190-ft. (Rolf parcel), 200 ft. (Illetschko parcel) up to 485 feet (Kelly parcel). 2) Density. The density of the new plat is 1.41 units/acre, which is much less than the Comprehensive Plan maximum of 2.9 units/acres. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss or determine if the scale of the proposed plat and lot dimensions are consistent with the City’s Comp Plan and in keeping with the surrounding (adjacent) residential uses. 3) Grading and Trees. When entering the property from the north off Orchard Place, the grades start out even with the road bed, but once you enter the site, the gradient begins to increase dramatically once you page 181 begin to traverses up the long asphalt driveway leading back to the 1140 homestead. The grade difference is approx. 900 feet at the entrance, and roughly 952-feet at the existing house pad. The house appears to be at or near the highest point of this property. From the back of the house, the grades begin to gradually drop down southward towards the pond and wetlands area located at the southernmost end of the lot, from 952 feet to approx. 894 feet, or a 58 foot decrease (see photo below). Due to the need to create new and suitable house pads, the installation of a new main access roadway, new utilities and additional on-site storm ponds, it is expected that a vast and intensive level of grading work will be required to re-grade and re-shape this site; and it appears many of the existing trees on the site, including every apple tree, will be removed under this new development plan. Some trees and vegetation page 182 may be saved and protected along the outer edges of the site, and some will probably be protected in and around the existing pond and wetland to the south. 4) Concept Grading & Drainage Plan: The grading plan indicates the property will be shaved down (at the high pint) almost 14 to 15 feet, which is necessary to make the road grades and new house pad elevations feasible. The grading directs the drainage from the northerly 600 feet of the development (from about Lot 6 and 14) northward down to the storm systems that eventually connect into the existing city-owned systems in Orchard Place (note: plans are mislabeled as Orchard Lane). The drainage plan calls for what appears to be new storm catch basins along the back sides of Lots 1 & 2; Lots 2 &3; and Lots 17 &18. The southerly half of the development (Lots 7 thru 13) then drain southward towards the new ponding areas to be installed by the developer. page 183 Stormwater drainage will be captured by new storm inlets installed within the roadway system, and in some cases along the back sides of some residences. Many of the rear yards of these lots have a drainage swale incorporated into their designs, with U-shaped rock check dams spaced about 50 to 100 feet apart from each, which are designed to essentially slow the high flow rates of water in these areas. Plans show the new pond with a 10-ft. depth, whereby City Code permits only an 8-ft. maximum depth. The top of the berm around pond must also be 1.5 feet above HWL. All revisions and new elevations to the plans must be approved by the City Engineer. The new development also calls for the installation of a new retaining wall along the back side of lots 11, 12 and 13. There are no details on this wall at this time. The City Engineer recommends that any new wall(s) over 4-feet in height must have engineered designs and approved by the City Engineer and Building Official. The proposed grading plan is only required to show that a potential new dwelling could be constructed that meets the applicable Code standards, and is not meant to bind a future property owner into a specific location or design. Subdivision Code requires that no construction or grading on slopes 33% or greater. There does not appear to be any slopes over 33% percent on site. 5) Utility Plan. Sanitary sewer main extension and water main extensions for all lots will come from the existing systems under Orchard Place. Each main service line essentially runs south down to the end of the cul-de-sac, with individual service lines to each lot to be determined later. The utility service mains (sanitary and water) feeding this development are shown with depths greater than 20 feet in some areas. The City Engineer has expressed great concerns with having sewer lines that deep; and is especially alarmed with taking on maintenance and repairs of these systems in the future, once the roadway is dedicated to the City (note: service lines that deep would require an enormous open trench/excavation pit with massive shoring devices in order to gain safe access for repairs, and would likely impact and disturb abutting residential lots and yard spaces). Due to the complicated topography of this existing site, and the Developers wish to minimize as much grading and reshaping the site for this area, the City Engineer is electing to have the City Council approve these new utility line depths. Should the City Council disapprove of these utility plans, the Developer will page 184 be required to re-submit new grading/drainage and utility plans which must be acceptable to the City Engineer and City Council. Three fire hydrants are being installed along the new Orchard Heights Drive roadway, which we assume meets all required Fire Department’s needs. Final locations and details of these hydrants will be approved by the Fire Chief prior to issuance of any grading and/or utility permits. Drainage and utility easements on the perimeters of all lots are show as 10-foot along the front lot; 5-foot along the shared side lot lines, and 25 feet along the back lot lines. The larger rear yard easements are to ensure the larger drainage swale and infrastructure improvements necessary under this development plat. These easements will be provided or officially dedicated under the final plat approval and recording. Street Design & Variances City Code Title 11 – General Subdivision Provision provides for all the required standards related to new subdivisions, including streets, utilities, easement, drainage, etc. As illustrated on the preliminary plat maps and grading/utility plans, the subdivision will be served by a single access, two-way traffic cul-de-sac roadway. The developer intends to dedicate the road back to the City, which will then become a public road once completed and accepted by the City Engineer. The road meets the minimum 60-foot wide platted width, but is only shown with a 30-foot wide curb-to-curb width, whereas a 33- foot width is required. Pursuant to City Code Title 11-3-3, Streets may not exceed 6% in grade, unless the city engineer recommends or allows excess street grades should the topography warrant a greater maximum. The grading/drainage plan shows street grades in certain areas range from 1% up to 8% along the length of the roadway. The City Engineer is allowing the Developer to exceed the 6% street grades in certain (limited) areas of this development; and accepts the 3-foot difference (down to 30-feet) in street width. The cul-de-sac however, measures well over 950 feet from the beginning point off Orchard Place to the center- point of the end circle. Pursuant to Title 11-3-3 Streets and Alleys, the following standard applies to cul-de- sacs type roadways: D. Dead End and Cul-De-Sac Streets: Dead end streets are prohibited, but cul-de-sacs will be permitted only where topography or other conditions justify their use. Cul-de-sacs shall normally not be longer than five hundred feet (500'), including a terminal turnaround which shall be provided at the closed end, with an outside curb radius of at least forty nine feet (49') and a right of way radius of not less than sixty feet (60'). When city staff initially met with the Developers on this plat layout, we indicated the concerns of having a roadway that length, and suggested they explore options of providing a secondary access into the site, either off Veronica Lane or the undeveloped segment of Mallard Road, both located near the south end of the subdivision site and directly off Hunter Lane (see highlighted image below). page 185 It was determined (and later supported by city staff) that having a roadway extension through these right-of- way segments would likely upset abutting homeowners; the grades coming off these short roadway segments do not work well and would be challenging; an enormous amount of fill would be needed to bring roadway connection grades back into the development; and impacts to the wetlands would be significant. There are no available road connections to the east. (Note: there is however, anecdotal statements and evidence of a video-taped discussion from a 1995(?) City Council meeting, while considering the adjacent Swansons 2nd Addition plat, that a road connection or ROW extension was recommended to be platted over to the Olin property. However, the council elected not to enjoin the developer to provide said right-of-way connection at that time, thereby excluding any possible road connections to the east). Because there are no real viable alternatives in providing a secondary access to the subdivision, Staff allowed the Developer to present a request for the single access and longer cul-de-sac roadway. Pursuant to Title 11-1-9, Variances from the strict application of the provisions of this title (i.e. Title 11 – General Subdivision Provision) can be requested under the requirements of section 12-1L-5 of the City Code. To approve this over-length cul-de-sac, a variance to this standard is in order. Under section 12-1L-5 of City Code: “The council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of this chapter 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 this chapter.” 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.” Staff is forgoing a full-breadth analysis on this variance request, due to the simple fact that the City currently has a number of other residential subdivisions with single-access cul-de-sacs that either exceed 500-feet throughout the city; and there does not appear to be any reasons given (other than general city council approval) that these longer cul-de-sacs were given less or more favorable considerations than what is being asked under this application. For all intents and purposes, the variance can be supported based on the following statements: 1) Practical difficulties are evident in this proposed development area, so the longer cul-de-sac seems a reasonable request and will be used in a reasonable manner; 2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, especially the difficulties of not having a secondary access point connection provided when surrounding properties were being platted; and 3) The variance to allow this longer roadway system will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. When the initial concept plan of this plat was presented to the Fire Dept. for review, the initial statement was they wanted to see a roadway no more than 500 feet, due to safety concerns and lack of secondary access for emergency situations. When the Developer met with the city’s Fire Chief and Fire Marshal afterwards, a reasonable alternative (and solution) was negotiated, in that the Developer has agreed to require all new homes in this development will have automatic fire sprinkling systems, which although can prove expensive, will hopefully provide added fire safeguards and response times if needed. Staff does not object or have any concerns with the length of the proposed cul-de-sac as designed. Wetland Impacts A wetland delineation report is currently underway and was not yet completed as the preparation of this report. Once the report is finished and submitted to the city for review, staff will be able to gage any impacts or assess any mitigation measures (if needed) in order to complete any work in or around the wetlands. The initial page 186 grading pans show that most of the new ponding and grading work will be done within the confines of the newly developed lots. For any work within 100 feet of this wetland and ponds, a wetlands permit is required for approval. As stated previously, staff will ensure that all elements of the wetland report are investigated and studied; the wetland boundaries will be clearly marked and protected during all phases of construction, and no part of the wetlands will be negatively impacts by this development. Since the properties located at the end of the cul-de-sac (Lots 9, 10 and 11) extend into or will encompass part of the pond and wetland areas, Staff is also providing a condition that the developer should provide a 25-foot wide natural vegetation buffer strip, with no mowing requirements from all delineated edges of wetlands, to ensure any runoff or pollutants are trapped or impeded as much as possible prior to reaching the wetlands. REQUESTED ACTION Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights, based on the attached findings of fact with conditions. OR 2. Recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights, with findings of fact as determined by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. OR 3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or others. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council to approve the Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights, with the following conditions: 1. The existing single family dwellings and detached accessory buildings must be removed prior to the Final Plat being recorded by Dakota County. 2. In lies of land dedication, the Developer/Applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of $4,000 per unit (19 lots – 2 existing dwellings = 17 x $4,000/unit, or $68,000) is collected after City Council approval and before the Final Plat is recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any permits. 3. All new homes within this development shall have an automatic fire sprinkler/fire suppression system, reviewed and approved by the City Building Official. 4. Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 5. The final grading plan must be submitted to the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or land disturbance permit. 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. Streets and utilities shall have approved profiles showing final street grades, horizontal curves, pipe lengths, pipe slopes, pipe materials, and elevations. page 187 8. Street grades in excess of 6% - but no more than 8% are hereby allowed in certain locations as shown on the submitted Plans. In the event the Plans are revised in the future, the Developer must make every effort to meet the 6% grade standard along this roadway section. Any changes to the Plans must be resubmitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 9. The City Engineer recommends the city allow the 30-ft. face-to-face street width as proposed. 10. Plans must be revised on the pond with a 10-ft. depth, whereby City Code permits only an 8-ft. maximum depth; and the top of the berm around pond shall be 1.5 feet above HWL. All revisions and new elevations to the plans must be approved by the City Engineer. 11. A SWPPP shall be developed for the project. Protected waters shall have a double silt fence/redundant BMP per MPCA rules, and a separate NPDES permit is required. 12. The Developer/Applicant shall submit a wetland delineation report to the City for review. Any impacts or mitigation measures (if needed) in order to complete construction work in or around the wetlands must be approved by the City prior to issuance of any permits. 13. No disturbances shall occur within a 25-foot wide wetland buffer, which shall include provisions for no cutting (non-mowing) and a natural vegetation buffer area around the delineated edges of the wetland. The buffer strip shall be shown and dedicated on the final plat. 14. Provide treatment from structures 301, 302, 303, 304. The proposed “Rain Guardian” is not an approved BMP. 15. Final drainage structure along streets shall have a minimum of 3-foot sump (301, 103). 16. Any utilities greater than 20 feet in depth will require council approval. 17. The Developer/Applicant shall provide subsurface drainage, per geotechnical report. 18. Temporary sediment basins will be required during construction. 19. Any proposed retaining wall(s) greater than 4 feet in height require engineered drawings. 20. All Plans shall be reviewed by St. Paul Regional Water Service. 21. The Developer/Applicant shall submit final grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with associated easements, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department and Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 22. 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. 23. Future construction on the newly-created parcels will be compliant with all applicable City Code and Building Code provisions MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Aerial Site Map 2. Planning Applications, including supporting materials 3. Existing Conditions (Survey) Map 4. Preliminary Plat Map of Orchard Heights 5. Grading & Drainage Plan Map 6. Storm Sewer Plan Map 7. Sanitary Sewer & Water Plan Map page 188 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Preliminary Plat, Variance and Wetlands Permit for Orchard Heights 1136 and 1140 Orchard Place 1. The proposed plat generally meets the purpose and intent of the Title 11 - Subdivision Code; and meets the general policies and goals of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan regarding LR-Low Density Residential areas. 2. The proposed lots meet the minimum standards in the R-1 Zoning District. 3. The City Council accepts the depths of the utility service lines presented under this preliminary plat request. 4. The Variance for an elongated cul-de-sac roadway section is approved based on the following added findings: a. practical difficulties are evident in this proposed development area, so a longer cul-de-sac is a reasonable request and will be used in a reasonable manner; b. the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, especially the difficulties of not having a secondary access point connection provided when surrounding properties were being platted; and c. the variance to allow this longer roadway system will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 4) Any impacts to the wetlands will be determined upon submittal and review of a wetland delineation report; whereby city staff will ensure any mitigation measures (if needed) to complete work under this development in or around the wetlands will be done in accordance with State Laws and City Ordinances. page 189 1136-1140 ORCHARD PLACE BasemapProperty Information June 12, 2017 0 875 1,750437.5 ft 0 270 540135 m 1:9,600 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. page 190 page 191 page 192 page 193 page 194 page 195 A) PLANNING CASE #2017-14 MARCEL EIBENSTEINER – ROYAL OAKS REALTY, 1136 AND 1140 ORCHARD PLACE PRELIMINARY PLAT, VARIANCE, AND WETLANDS PERMIT Chair Litton Field, Jr. explained that the public hearing on this application was closed on this matter. There had been some discussion with staff and they would provide an update. Mr. Tim Benetti, Community Development Director recapped what was tabled at the last Planning Commission meeting. This was a Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights / Variance / Wetlands Permit for property owned by Marilyn and David Olin. They are seeking to subdivide an existing single family parcel into 19 new lots, to be titled Orchard Heights of Mendota Heights. At the June 27, 2017 meeting the public hearing was officially closed; however, the Commission could allow comments from the public, if they chose, without an official public hearing notice. The application was tabled with the following reasoning statements: 1. Applicant to consider additional road connections to the subdivision 2. The platting and lot size of the subdivision 3. The findings of the wetland delineation presented to the planning commission for their understanding; a better description of the stormwater management to address some of the concerns raised, including the functioning of the pond high-water and the balance of the pond; and 4. A better understanding and justification for sprinklers to be imposed or included in the new homes Since the meeting held on June 27, 2017, staff had met with the developer on two occasions and there has also been follow-up with emails and direct phone calls. The developer has revised the plans, which were presented to the Commissioners. The civil plans have also been updated that staff had some concerns with in the previous version. Mr. Benetti provided a brief background by explaining that the parcel is just under 13.5 acres, is currently guided LR – low-density residential, and zoned R-1 Residential. There would be no changes to the land use or the zoning at this time. The main site had been used as a local apple orchard for some time and all of the dwellings and outbuildings would be removed to make room for this new development. The proposed 18 lots, down from the originally proposed 19 lots, would meet the minimum lot size requirements. This reduction in the number of lots would also decrease the density per acre from 1.41 units per acre down to 1.34 units per acre. This would be well under the Comprehensive Plan maximum of 2.9 units per acre. Mr. Benetti then shared the revised Grading & Stormwater Drainage Plan, Utility Plan, Street Design & Variances, and a Statement Justifying the Home Fire Sprinkler Systems; all of which had been provided in the staff report to the Commissioners prior to this meeting and are available on the City’s website. page 196 Commissioner Magnuson, referencing the study that was done on the road connection to Mallard Lane, asked if they were looking at a full 30- to 33-foot road and the attendant 60-foot right-of- way. Mr. Benetti confirmed that this was correct. Commissioner Magnuson then noted that roads are required to be 33 feet, except based on the City Engineer’s recommendation. She assumed that this recommendation was based on a good reason other than the developer’s desire for a 30-foot road. She then asked for the justification here for a 30-foot wide road, other than it would allow the developer to fit in more lots. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the revised street design is for a 33-foot wide roadway without a variance. However, he would be supportive of a reduced width roadway just due to the decrease in impervious surface with less stormwater run-off. The traffic volumes on this road should not be such that cars would not be able to maneuver up and down the road without the worry of head-on collisions or parked cars being a major concern. Chair Field, asking for clarification, noted that there is a set of drawings dated July 14, 2017 and these would reflect a 33-foot road width. The reason for the question was that the staff report did not track with that. Mr. Benetti apologized for the discrepancy and confirmed that the drawings do reflect a 33-foot road width, not 30-foot. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that the drawings in sheet C2.1 reflected a 30-foot road width. Mr. Ruzek replied that the road width on sheet C2.2 shows the 33-foot road width. Commissioner Mazzitello then agreed with Mr. Ruzek’s earlier comment that he would approve a 30-foot wide road, should the developer wish, due to lower traffic volumes and reduction in impervious surface. All commissioners agreed that the drawings reflected a typical section road width of 33 feet; however, the plans and drawings reflected a 30-foot width. Clarification on which is desired is a question for the applicant. Commissioner Mazzitello, referring to the examples of other cul-de-sac lengths provided in the packet, stated that many of them were approved before the cul-de-sac length standard came into being. However, several of these do have an alternate way out, but not by car. He then asked if it would be possible to explore the installation of a trail as another egress to the subject property. Mr. Benetti deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Magnuson moved to re-open the public hearing to allow for discussion with the applicant and to allow people present, who did not get an opportunity to speak at the previous public hearing, a chance to comment. Commissioner Noonan asked, since the Commission had advanced a motion at the last meeting specifically asking for consideration of five particular issue areas and the staff report had brought them forward, if the applicant didn’t have the opportunity to address those five areas outside of a public hearing. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Magnuson put her motion on hold to allow the applicant to respond to the issues. page 197 The applicant, Mr. Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oaks Realty located at 1000 W. County Road E, Suite 150 in Shoreview, MN, representing the owners came forward to address the Commission. He stated that it was practically impossible that the road could be extended to the west to exit onto Hunter Street, so they stayed with the cul-de-sac design as originally presented. They gave up one lot on the northwest corner for ponding to allow them to make the storm sewer shallower. Also, they would be installing a force pump into three of the proposed houses on the south end of the property to allow for reduction of the sanitary sewer depth. There had been discussions earlier about stubbing into the east property line a 60-foot right-of- way; however, staff was not in favor of that. Commissioner Noonan stated that, in terms of the road connection to Hunter Lane, he had not heard that staff was not in favor of it. What he had heard was that it was technically difficult because of the amount of fill and the grading that would have to be done on the adjacent property. Mr. Eibensteiner agreed this was a fair statement; however, if Mallard Street were to be improved then they would have to go into the private properties on both sides by approximately 15 to 20 feet. The south side property is owned by the City; however, on the north side all of the trees would need to be removed [60-foot trees] to build the road up and have a 3-to-1 slope. They would also have to cross some water, which is approximately 12-inches deep currently, and that would take the Army Corp of Engineers to be involved. Unless the property to the north were to allow some sort of acquisition, it would be impossible; and even if it were possible it would take approximately 1.5+ years to accomplish. Commissioner Noonan noted that an individual previously had suggested that, in the fullness of time, the likelihood would be that they would develop a lesser number of lots. Mr. Eibensteiner agreed that this was mentioned; however, he has a couple of buyers that might take two lots or 1.5 lots. They have decided to move forward with the request for 18 lots as they do not want to promise that they would or could reduce the number of lots. If a buyer comes along and wants to purchase 1.5 lots, then the developer can come back and request to split the lots and vacate the easements. Commissioner Magnuson asked who would be responsible for maintaining the force pumps. Mr. Ruzek replied that they would be privately owned and noted that they would not be unique to this development as there are other force pumps located within the City. However, the holding ponds would be located in the drainage and utility easements and maintenance would be addressed in the Developers Agreement. Typically the maintenance would fall back onto the City. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if the previously abandoned discussion of a road connection to Mallard Road were changed from a full-width street to a 10-foot wide trail, would that be more in the realm of possibility. Mr. Eibensteiner replied that he would not be in favor of that. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ALLOW ANYONE WHO DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY AT THE LAST MEETING TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION. AYES: 5 page 198 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 (HENNES, COSTELLO) Mr. Scott Cottington, 1151 Orchard Circle, stated that Mr. and Mrs. Olin are good neighbors and they have every right to sell their land and do well on the transaction. Developers who see potential and take risks and build homes are entitled to their profit. He would support the Olin’s and reasonable development; however, this plan is not reasonable development. The developer wants the City to grant him the maximum number of lots and also a variance to jam them onto a road with only one outlet; that is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood, which is something that needs to be taken into consideration when granting a variance. The Commission suspects, as does he, that if 18 houses are approved then 18 houses will be built because those smaller homes are how developers and real estate agents make the most money with the fastest turn over and the least risk. He also submitted, based on the Commission’s own life experiences, that Mr. Benetti’s traffic estimates of 6 to 8 trips per household per day seems very low. The City of Apple Valley’s website states that active households can generate up to 20 trips per day. With this estimate, plus the number of cars from Orchard Circle located nearby and the number of cars just passing through the neighborhood, the number of trips per day dumping onto Orchard Place could be up to 500+ cars per day – onto a 30-foot wide street with no sidewalks, no bike lanes, no street lights, or even a center line. He urged the Commission to use their authority to get better answers than what has been provided. Mr. Cottington then quoted City Ordinance 12-1D-17A as saying “An applicant for any proposed development or redevelopment project that results in the change or intensification of the existing or planned land use may be required to conduct or submit a recently completed traffic study, at the cost of the applicant and prepared by a licensed engineer, analyzing existing and proposed traffic patterns of the surrounding area for review and comment as part of any permit application.” He suggested the requirement of a traffic study be enforced prior to acting on this proposed development plan. The developer claims there are no alternatives to a single entrance onto Orchard Place, 43 yards from Orchard Circle, and if that is the case perhaps the project should be changed to provide for less density, less traffic, and a safer intersection. He believes this project should not be approved as is because of too many unanswered questions, denying the plans means it would simply go to the City Council and they would not have had the benefit of all of the input received by the Commission; the best option would be for the Commission to use their authority to force the development of a better plan, with fewer lots, and less traffic. He urged the Commission to rule only on what they must, and table all they can, to allow time for people to work this out. He stated that the Commission would have his and his neighbor’s commitment to do all that they could to move this along so that the Olin’s could sell their property and Mr. Eibensteiner could build a good neighborhood. page 199 Mr. Bob Fogt, 1145 Orchard Place, noted that this project fills his living room window. He referenced the discussions had on the length of this cul-de-sac but has not heard any mention made about the situations that are unique to winter access over a grade that is as steep as this. He believed that the importance of this issue, pertaining to winter access, is being downplayed. He also pointed out that there are no other alternatives to driving up this steep grade in the winter; it cannot be driven around. He provided commentary about witnessing vehicles unable to get up the hill, or struggling to do so. Some folks have even packed into his driveway to get a running start to make it up the hill. He was just happy that he had not seen any emergency vehicles trying to navigate that hill in the winter. Commissioner Noonan asked Mr. Fogt if he would feel more comfortable with the street being maintained by the City with sand, ice removal techniques, and plowing. Mr. Fogt stated that he would be more comfortable in that situation. Mr. John Huberty, 1140 Orchard Circle, noted that he is the father of two bike riders without training wheels. He echoed the sentiments made by Mr. Cottington; however, 18 homes in the area seems high and recommended limitations to that if possible. Chair Field replied that legally 18 homes would be permissible and the zoning would permit that. Mr. Huberty noted that the allowances being made (i.e., street widths) need to be balanced appropriately and expressed his concern with the increase in traffic volume. Ms. Nancy Bartusch, 1890 Hunter Lane, noted that the trees shown in the presentation were planted by her 27 years ago and she is not interested in taking them down or in selling her property. She also noted that it has been very nice and quiet where they are and would like for it to remain so. Mr. Eibensteiner returned and noted that he is aware that there is traffic in the area; however, he can build up to 18 homes. As for the grading, the top of the hill will come down approximately 12 or 13 feet thus reducing the slope. He did not feel that this would be as much of a concern as was expressed. Commissioner Noonan asked for clarification on the width of the proposed road. Mr. Eibensteiner deferred to his engineer, Mr. Adam Ginkel of Plowe Engineering, Inc. located at 6776 Lake Drive in Lino Lakes. Mr. Ginkel replied that he may have made an error and mislabeled the road; however, the intent was to install the standard 33-foot width and he would have no objection to staff modifying the plans to read 33 feet. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 (HENNES, COSTELLO) COMMISSIO NER NOONAN MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-14, PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ORCHARD HEIGHTS / VARIANCE / WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICATION BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND IN page 200 ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: • Condition 2 should read “In lieu . . . ” instead of “In lies . . . ” • Delete Condition 3 • Modify Condition 9 to read “The City Engineer recommends the city allow the 33-foot face-to-face street width as proposed” The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Benetti noted that the math in Condition 2 should be corrected to be “. . . (18 lots – 2 existing dwellings = 16 x $4,000/unit, or $64,000) . . .” COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-14, PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ORCHARD HEIGHTS / VARIANCE / WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICATION BASED ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT PROVIDED A SUFFICIENT BASIS NOR MET HIS BURDEN OF PROOF IN ESTABLISHING A VARIANCE FOR A 954 FOOT CUL-DE-SAC IS WARRANTED. This motion died for lack of a second. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-14, PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ORCHARD HEIGHTS / VARIANCE / WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICATION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed plat generally meets the purpose and intent of the Title 11 - Subdivision Code; and meets the general policies and goals of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan regarding LR-Low Density Residential areas. 2. The proposed lots meet the minimum standards in the R-1 Zoning District. 3. The City Council accepts the depths of the utility service lines presented under this preliminary plat request. 4. The Variance for an elongated cul-de-sac roadway section is approved based on the following added findings: a. practical difficulties are evident in this proposed development area, so a longer cul-de- sac is a reasonable request and will be used in a reasonable manner; b. the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, especially the difficulties of not having a secondary access point connection provided when surrounding properties were being platted; and c. the variance to allow this longer roadway system will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 5. Any impacts to the wetlands will be determined upon submittal and review of a wetland delineation report; whereby city staff will ensure any mitigation measures (if needed) to complete work under this development in or around the wetlands will be done in accordance with State Laws and City Ordinances. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING REVISED CONDITIONS: page 201 1. The existing single family dwellings and detached accessory buildings must be removed prior to the Final Plat being recorded by Dakota County. 2. In lieu lies of land dedication, the Developer/Applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of $4,000 per unit (19 18 lots – 2 existing dwellings = 17 16 x $4,000/unit, or $68,000 $64,000) is collected after City Council approval and before the Final Plat is recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any permits. 3. All new homes within this development shall have an automatic fire sprinkler/fire suppression system, reviewed and approved by the City Building Official. 4. Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 5. The final grading plan must be submitted to the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or land disturbance permit. 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. Streets and utilities shall have approved profiles showing final street grades, horizontal curves, pipe lengths, pipe slopes, pipe materials, and elevations. 8. Street grades in excess of 6% - but no more than 8% are hereby allowed in certain locations as shown on the submitted Plans. In the event the Plans are revised in the future, the Developer must make every effort to meet the 6% grade standard along this roadway section. Any changes to the Plans must be resubmitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 9. The City Engineer recommends the city allow the 30-ft. face-to-face street width as proposed. [deleted as a friendly amendment by Commissioner Mazzitello as being unnecessary since the street width would then meet the standard] 10. Plans must be revised on the pond with a 10-ft. depth, whereby City Code permits only an 8-ft. maximum depth; and the top of the berm around pond shall be 1.5 feet above HWL. All revisions and new elevations to the plans must be approved by the City Engineer. 11. A SWPPP shall be developed for the project. Protected waters shall have a double silt fence/redundant BMP per MPCA rules, and a separate NPDES permit is required. 12. The Developer/Applicant shall submit a wetland delineation report to the City for review. Any impacts or mitigation measures (if needed) in order to complete construction work in or around the wetlands must be approved by the City prior to issuance of any permits. 13. No disturbances shall occur within a 25-foot wide wetland buffer, which shall include provisions for no cutting (non-mowing) and a natural vegetation buffer area around the delineated edges of the wetland. The buffer strip shall be shown and dedicated on the final plat. 14. Provide treatment from structures 301, 302, 303, 304. The proposed “Rain Guardian” is not an approved BMP. 15. Final drainage structure along streets shall have a minimum of 3-foot sump (301, 103). 16. Any utilities greater than 20 feet in depth will require council approval. 17. The Developer/Applicant shall provide subsurface drainage, per geotechnical report. 18. Temporary sediment basins will be required during construction. 19. Any proposed retaining wall(s) greater than 4 feet in height require engineered drawings. 20. All Plans shall be reviewed by St. Paul Regional Water Service. page 202 21. The Developer/Applicant shall submit final grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with associated easements, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department and Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 22. 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. 23. Future construction on the newly-created parcels will be compliant with all applicable City Code and Building Code provisions Discussion: Commissioner Mazzitello stated that it appears that the length of the cul-de-sac is a huge issue with this proposed development, and having been through this on several different applications in the past, he had a brief exchange with the Police Chief and Chief McCarthy is not overly concerned with the length of the cul-de-sac for emergency response. If emergency responders need to get somewhere, they tend to get there. His bigger concern is the ability for people to get out in case of an emergency. He requested the opinion of the other Commissioners on this point. Chair Field stated that as the motion currently stands, he would vote in opposition. He is not only reminded of the Lemay Shores development, but also of Hidden Creek, which was developed in 2001. The developers, at considerable expense, bought an outlot that they completely dedicated to the City with no residences whatsoever to avoid the cul-de-sac issue – which is now Nature Way. He would be willing to look at some sort of entrance and egress at the other end; however, as it is currently proposed he would not support the motion. Commissioner Magnuson agreed with Chair Field in that she would not support the motion either. Her primary concern is that she does not believe that the applicant has met his burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of a variance. She does not believe that there are practical difficulties and to the extent that there are, she believes them to be created by the proposed development itself. They may be overcome with some modifications, including some type of egress or some other type of access – perhaps even in the reduction in the number of parcels. This plan, as proposed, does not meet the practical difficulty standard. She continued by stating that a third issue that needs to be addressed is the affect this development would have on the character of the surrounding neighborhood. She did not believe that this development, as proposed, is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Noonan respectfully disagreed with Commissioner Magnuson by expressing that he believes they have met the burden for the variance. The practical difficulty is the size and shape of the property, the Commission cannot lose sight of the fact that an individual does have the right to develop their property. The fact is that the property is long and narrow, is zoned to allow R-1 Residential, there was a recognition both in terms of the Comprehensive Plan and in terms of the Zoning Ordinance that this land would eventually be developed. If there were concerns with respect to the intensity of development, he would submit that the Comprehensive Plan would have reflected revised standards. page 203 In terms of meeting the practical difficulty of providing a secondary means of egress and ingress, the Commission heard very clearly from the neighbor that she is not interested in selling any of her property to allow for the cutting of a road. He shares Commissioner Mazzitello’s concern about people getting in and out in the case of an emergency; however, he believed that if an emergency situation existed, backyards would be a tremendous way out. He has a hard time making fire sprinklers mandatory; however, that is a fundamental belief that he had based on his experience as a builder. He plans to support this motion to approve. Chair Field noted that he does not believe that Commissioner Mazzitello’s solution to the secondary access is a reasonable solution; however, some sort of egress method of much less intensity is more what he would suggest at this point. He reiterated that during the Hidden Creek project they spent a lot of money to solve this problem. AYES: 2 (NOONAN, PETSCHEL) NAYS: 3 (MAZZITELLO, FIELD, MAGNUSON) ABSENT: 2 (HENNES, COSTELLO) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 1, 2017 meeting, which begins at 8:00 p.m. page 204 D) PLANNING CASE #2017-14 MARCEL EIBENSTEINER, ROYAL OAKS REALTY, PRELIMINARY PLAT, VARIANCE, AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR A NEW SUBDIVISION PLAT TO BE TITLED “ORCHARD HEIGHTS” 1136 AND 1140 ORCHARD PLACE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oaks Realty, acting on behalf of the property owners Marilyn Olin and David Olin, is seeking to subdivide an existing single family parcel, located at 1136/1140 Orchard Place, into 19 new lots, to be titled “Orchard Heights” of Mendota Heights. This also involves a variance and a wetlands permit. The site is a 13.45 acre parcel located right off of Orchard Place, is currently guided LR – Low Density R esidential, and is zoned R-1. There is no change in the land use or the zoning under this proposal. The main larger site has been used as a local apple orchard for some time and all of the dwellings on the site would be removed as part of this project. The single family home on the mid-point or the high-point of the lot is where Ms. Olin currently lives. There are a couple of outbuildings off to the side, just a couple hundred feet away from the home and another single family resident on the 1136 parcel, on the corner. Mr. Benetti shared the standards required in the R-1 district for new lots and explained how this project meets those standards; all of the 19 proposed lots meet or exceed the minimum standards. Lots 8, 9, 10, 11 are on the south side of the plat and are very large because of the impact to the wetlands or ponds on the south. Most of the adjacent lots on the Sun View Hills Addition, on the other side of Hunter, are 150-foot wide lots – wider than what is being proposed here. The lots on the other side of Orchard Hill Roadway, the Swanson 2nd Addition, are also a little bit wider and they also have some wider lots for those lots coming off of Lexington on the far east side. There are some very, very larger lots next door to this one. Mr. Benetti shared an image of the proposed plat and explained that basically it is a new roadway, a cul-de-sac road coming off of Orchard Place. The 19 lots are strategically situated around the cul-de-sac and meet the minimum width, depth, and size requirements and the larger lots are on the south side because of this was as far as they could go with the cul-de-sac for the extension. All of the contours reflected on the image are reflective of the new contours that would be graded into the site as part of the grading plan. A neighborhood meeting was held on Thursday, July 22, 2017 which was fairly well attended. Mr. Benetti noted that the plan falls well within the R-1 design standards. The density of the new plat is 1.41 units/acre, which his much less than the Comprehensive Plan maximum of 2.9 units/acre. When entering the property, a person would go up the hill, hit the top of the hill which is very flat, and then it drops way down. In order for this development to work and the grades to work for the new roadway and especially for the lots to lay out, they have to grade all of that stuff page 205 down. There is going to be a lot of dirt moving in this area to make this work. A lot of grading work needs to be done on the backside as well because they are putting in a retention pond – capturing pond – on the backside of the property before it enters the other pond on the back. As part of the stormwater management, they have to preserve and protect as much as possible. Mr. Benetti then shared the Concept Grading and Drainage Plan, Storm Sewer System, and Utility Plan for the sanitary sewer and water; all of which had been included in the Commissioner’s meeting packet. All easements will be shown as 10-foot along the front and 5-foot along the side, but 25 feet along the back side to ensure that all of the drainage is taken care of on-site. However, as the report indicated, it shows that some of the utility service mains will be approximately 20 feet deep, which is a very deep system. Whenever those systems break down, cities have to go in there and fix them and going down 20 to 30-plus feet to fix a sanitary, sewer, or water line it is expensive. The deeper the system the more expensive it is on the city’s end; and pose some nightmares or concerns to any city engineer or city official. Staff has expressed concerns with the 20-foot lines; however, due to the complicated topography of the site the developer is wishing to provide this grading as much as possible without destroying the whole integrity of the site and is trying to make the grades work as best as possible with the depths as shown. Therefore, staff is having the City Council approve the new utility depths. Should the Council disapprove, the developer would have to go back and re-evaluate and redesign and make it work for them. For all intents and purposes, would the new system work at the 20-foot depth – yes, it would all work but they need a confirmation from the City Council. Mr. Benetti also noted that with this heavy grading there would be a lot of trees lost; expect possibly some perimeter trees and the backside trees. The grade difference at the entrance to midpoint of the lot is approximately 52 feet. It is hoped that a lot of the landscaping and trees at the backside of the property can be saved as the slope begins to gradually slope down towards the pond and wetlands, from 952 feet to approximately 894 feet. Mr. Benetti then shared the reason for the street design and variances as being very simple. The new subdivision will be served by a single access, two-way traffic cul-de-sac roadway. The developer intends to dedicate the road back to the public and would meet the minimum 60-foot width but is short by three feet in the curb-to-curb width, 30 feet to the required 33 feet. Also, City Code Title 11-3-3 says that streets may not exceed 6% in grade, unless the city engineer recommends or allows excess street grades. Currently, the streets would range from 1% to 8%; therefore engineering was queried and the City Engineer is allowing the plat to exceed the 6% street grades in certain (limited) areas and accepts the 3-foot difference (down to 30-feet) in street width. The planned cul-de-sac measures well over 950 feet from the beginning point off Orchard Place to the center-point of the end circle. City Code states that cul-de-sacs shall normally not be longer than 500 feet. Staff encouraged the developer to meet the standard as the fire department does not like to see anything longer because of hose lengths to fight fires. Mr. Benetti noted that there is a segment of right-of-way that splits between properties; an undeveloped segment of right-of-way page 206 referred to as ‘a segment of Mallard Road.’ Basically it looks like a yard space between the two properties. Veronica Lane is a paved surface that connects and provides access for homes and dead-ends right at this property line. So they could have pursued an access point here; however, when on the south end of the lot it would be tricky. To meet those grades and try to make a road connection on the south side would involve a lot more grading and would have impacted the wetland area and the pond areas. Staff felt that this was not a very good idea and would not support it. There are no available connection points on the east side. Because of these points and there being no real viable alternatives in providing a secondary access, staff allowed the developer to present a request for the single access and longer cul-de-sac roadway. Based on this determination, the developer returned to the fire department and asked what alternatives he had to get their approval. Their reply was that if he fire-sprinkled all of the homes they would acquiesce on the length. The developer agreed and so all of the new homes will be fire- sprinkled as a part of the conditions for approval. Mr. Benetti shared the standards that need to be met to grant a variance and explained how this project meets those standards. The wetland impacts report was received just today and is being reviewed by the city engineer/public works director for accuracy and will be reviewing/analyzing that later on. Staff will make sure that all impacts to the wetland are minimal or zero and will also provide for buffering and protection throughout the duration of the project; before, during, and after the project. Mr. Benetti pointed out a letter given to the Planning Commission from an adjacent resident who was concerned about traffic coming in and out of the development. He stated that he believes the developer did a great job in indicating that the level of service or level of traffic coming in and out of the development would be approximately 100 – 150 vehicle trips per day (based on the typical family home generating approximately six to eight trips per day). Commissioner Hennes asked if there were a lot of cul-de-sacs longer than 500 feet now in the City. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative and stated that there are a number of them. Commissioner Hennes then asked if any approached the 900 foot length. Mr. Benetti replied that there are some approaching almost a quarter mile. Commissioner Hennes, referencing the possible access points off of Veronica or Mallard, stated that the Veronica one seems like it would be totally unreasonable due to the wetland and ponds. The Mallard one is actually fairly close to the cul-de-sac and asked if there would be a way to build a reasonable access point in there to have a shorter cul-de-sac. Mr. Benetti deferred to the Public Works Engineer. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that City staff did draw out what that would like. He noted that anything is possible, it is just a matter of who much work, money, and effort will it take to accomplish that. If that connection was made shallower utilities could also be provided. Staff did drop an option and that has not been shared with the developer. However, they would gladly share that with the Commission and the public. page 207 Commissioner Noonan stated that there is a preliminary plat in front of the Commission and asked, if the preliminary plat were to advance, if the final plat would be coming back to the Commission for approval. Mr. Benetti replied that the final plat only goes back to the City Council. Commissioner Noonan asked for confirmation that, in any event, the final plat gets reviewed by some recommending or decision-making body. Mr. Benetti confirm that typically when a final plat is submitted, city staff reviews it for compliance with the approved preliminary plat and then it goes to the City Council for final recommendation or final approvals. Commissioner Noonan then asked, in order to deny the preliminary plat, what findings the Commission would have to make. Mr. Benetti replied that they can make a number of them; however, they would have to find technical basis – the grading does not work, the sewer does not work; or the access does not work. Commissioner Noonan clarified that staff has not identified any technical reasons; which Mr. Benetti confirmed. However, for all intents and purposes, if there is something that the Commission feels warrants or merits a denial, staff would have to have some very strong technical or reasonable findings for denial. Commissioner Noonan noted that the suggestion was that 60-foot is the standard city right-of-way; Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan continued by indicating that they are only putting in 30 feet, even though a 33-foot cross section could fit in there. He asked why the City was moving away from the standard to 30 feet. Mr. Benetti replied that it was a preference made by the applicant to narrow the roadway by three feet. Commissioner Noonan reminded the Commission on the long and exhaustive discussion they had when Mr. Mazzitello was here with respect to going from 30 to 33. Commissioner Noonan stated that he did not understand why sprinklers are being requested. Mr. Benetti replied that the new fire chief and the fire marshal felt that if the houses were sprinkled, it would give them [the fire department] added extra time to respond to emergency if there was a fire. Basically, they said that if the developer were to fire-sprinkler their buildings the fire department would drop their objections. Mr. Benetti also noted that the State Legislature has been talking about making all new homes auto fire-sprinkled as part of any new home improvement. However, there is a lot of push back from builders and other organizations. Commissioner Petschel asked about the owner situation on the back eighth of this property; where the ring water pond is and the adjacent areas. Mr. Benetti replied that the three lots on the back side; their lot lines would go almost all of the way back to the south perimeter. Commissioner Petschel then asked if they could conceivably be further subdivided. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative because it is all wetland and would be encumbered under the drainage and utility easement. All that area back there will, more than likely, be unbuildable. Mr. Ruzek also noted that the long-term maintenance of the pond would be maintained by the City; however, there would not be any weekly mowing or maintenance as it is not park land. Also, under the drainage and utility easement, it would be the responsibility of the land owner to maintain the trees and maintenance of that area. Commissioner Magnuson asked if there was an access granted off of Hunter Lane [the Mallard portion], what that would do to the holding pond and all of those drainage easements. Mr. Ruzek page 208 replied that staff has not redesigned any ponds or shown any grades. Things could be moved, they may lose a lot, and they may be able to add a lot, it is hard to say without their engineers having fully looked at the plan. Chair Field asked if it would be fair to say that it could be done, in theory and based on the work that has been done to date. Mr. Ruzek replied in the affirmative and noted that there would be the added step of wetland impacts so they would have to go through a wetland conservation act process. That process would also include the DNR, the State Board of Water and Soil Resources, Dakota County Soil and Water; a number of agencies would comment on any wetland impacts. Chair Field stated that it would be unfair, since the applicant has not even seen it, for the Commission to review Mr. Ruzek’s handiwork; although he finds it extremely appealing as an alternative. Commissioner Magnuson asked for an explanation of why there is no opportunity to provide access off of Lexington. Mr. Benetti replied that the area in question is a long private driveway. He also noted that the original intent was to have an access point road coming off of Orchard, extending west over to approximately mid-point of the Olin property. In any event, that extension never got created or approved. Therefore, they basically land locked this parcel and the developer indicated that it would not work from a design standpoint. Commissioner Petschel asked if the City Engineer agreed that it would not work. Mr. Ruzek replied that Veronica would be prohibitive; however, Mallard Way could have potential. The impacts to the wetlands from Veronica would be too major. Mr. Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oaks Realty came forward to address the Commission and to answer any questions. He stated that Mr. Benetti did a good job as far as explaining the complete project. He also noted that he understands that certain things need to be tweaked as the project goes along. Some of the main issues are, as far as he is concerned, is that people are interested in saving trees. However, they have a lot of grading going throughout the whole project and they have some catch basins in the back yards. They will save as many trees as they can but a lot of them will be removed. Most of them are not of very good quality. As far as grading is concerned, they have to maintain erosion control during the project so that rain does not drain onto the neighbors lots. They will do everything possible to maintain the erosion on their own property. If something does happen they will reimburse. Commissioner Noonan, noting that there was some discussion with respect to the pursuing of a secondary access point, asked if the development team looked at that in any detail, specifically the Mallard or potentially just exploring an extension of Veronica Lane. Mr. Eibensteiner replied that they were told that it would take approximately 17 feet of fill to build Mallard open to their property, plus there are tremendous wetlands across, and city staff advised them that it would practically be impossible. The same thing for Veronica Lane. Commissioner Noonan stated that there has been some sketching done for extending Mallard; however, that has not been shared with Mr. Eibensteiner; who confirmed. Commissioner Noonan page 209 also noted that Mr. Eibensteiner said they would need 17 feet of fill for the Mallard option; however, a portion of this site is going to have to be cut to the tune of 10 – 12 feet; sounds like the developer is going to be a little long on dirt in any event. Mr. Eibensteiner disagreed and stated that he still might be short. Chair Field asked for confirmation that Mr. Eibensteiner has not seen the drawings by staff on the Mallard easement. Mr. Eibensteiner confirmed that this is so. Commissioner Magnuson, to ensure she was operating with full disclosure, noted that she is a neighbor of this property and so would have some interest on a personal level. One of her major concerns is, when looking at the character of the neighborhood, this proposal of 19 additional houses basically doubles the size of the neighborhood in one little development. She wondered, with 19 houses on one cul-de-sac with one only opportunity to in and out onto Orchard Place, if that was extraordinarily dense for that neighborhood and creating a lot of traffic issues and not fitting with what is already there. She asked if he had considered increasing the lot sizes and reducing the number of homes being put into this development. Mr. Eibensteiner replied that the current minimum lot size is 106 feet by 141 feet; however, as they go along and they have a project approved by September 1 or October 1, then he would talk to his clients and some lots would be larger, and some would be a lot and half or so, before they record the plat. The total number of lots may be reduced down to 12 lots. As a developer, they start out with 19 lots – the maximum that can be approved – and adjustments can be made to make the lots larger but not to make them smaller – before the final plat is recorded. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mr. Stephen Rolf, 1861 S. Lexington Avenue, who owns the property on the east side of the development and also adjacent to Orchard Hills Road, stated that he had a few concerns that have already been dealt with, including the number of lots brought up by Commissioner Magnuson. He then shared an image of his solution and noted that Mr. Eibensteiner spoke of being willing to reduce the number of lots as low as 12. The solution he shared was for 11 lots with the road being on the edge of the property so that the large lots – expensive lots – would be able to have deep lots. The original plan, with the road going up the middle would still reduce the depth of the lots, even if more than one were combined. The lots would still be short with the homes being close to the road. His option gives the opportunity for houses to be further from the road and gives home buyers more flexibility with what to do with the placement of their houses and their yards. Chair Field noted that he has given Mr. Rolf some flexibility; however, this is not the plan that is before the Commission to consider. It is an illustrative example of what could be done. However, the Commission cannot dwell on it unless the applicant is applying for it. Since Mr. Rolf does not own the land, there is very little that the Commission or the Council can take into consideration. It is Mr. Eibensteiner’s application. Commissioner Magnuson stated that the Planning Commission only makes recommendation to the City Council. When this comes to the Council for consideration, then Mr. Rolf can provide input. She stated that she likes his plan a lot better, it is very creative; however, as the chair stated that is not what is before the Commission currently. page 210 Commissioner Noonan also explained that the property is zoned a particular way and what is being presented is clearly in compliance with the zoning. Mr. Rolf explained that he came up with this scenario because, as mentioned by Commissioner Magnuson, many of the surrounding residents do not feel that the small lot sizes are not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. He also noted that one of the neighbors at the meeting talked about vision; what is the vision of this development and what is the vision of the City. It occurred to him, and he just recently learned about this, that the proclamation that Mayor Krebsbach made declaring Mendota Heights a pollinator-friendly community – he has created a horticultural experiment on his property that has been pretty successful. Because the City encourages pollinator-friendly lots, have larger lots would provide a vision, would be in accord with the City’s own proclamation, and would enhance the rural feel and the character of the neighborhood. He would like to see the residents of the development take up this cause and make it an emblem for their community. Mr. Joe Capecchi, 1162 Veronica Lane, raised his concern about the water table. Currently, there is a very large wetland area; at least two-thirds the length of the property. With pushing the hill down into the southern part of the property; despite the fact that there would be holding basins, his concern is fluctuation of the water table. Three years ago they had flooded basements and he wished to go on record as to his concern about the water level. Chair Field replied that it was commented by Mr. Benetti that the City Engineer would be completely evaluating the water plan as part of any final condition. However, his comments would definitely be on record. Ms. Peggy Reagan, 1853 Orchard Hill, was a part of the 1996 ‘no access’ because it would have come directly across her backyard. She is on a one acre lot and most the lots in her neighborhood are large. The discussion at the meeting was that the homes would be worth approximately $1M to $3.5M and she questioned how that could be on 0.3 acres of land. She does not understand why the land is being plotted for 19 homes just because it is allowed; being allowable does not make it the best value. She was also unsure if the lots are larger if they would sell for more rather than the smaller pieces of property. She expressed her desire to preserve the neighborhood and it would be nice to see fewer homes. Mr. Keith Kelley, 1905 Lexington Avenue, has a lengthy piece of property. The hill on the subject property slopes west toward his property so he is quite concerned about the 25 foot easement because now there is going to be hard surfaces with water runoff; running right back down onto his property. He is also very concerned about the pond. The three property owners along the north side of the pond do not use chemicals on their yards because they do not want anything in the pond that does not have to be. They are very protective. The catch basins that have been mentioned will actually need catch everything from the top of the hill flowing south and he wanted to ensure that they would be large enough to catch all of that. The new property owners will probably have a very nice lawn and probably lawn care – with chemicals. More than likely these would runoff into the pond and he asked that everyone be very careful to keep that in mind. page 211 Upon being asked, Mr. Ruzek noted that the catch basins would not run directly into the pond but would run into some pretreatment basins and/or infiltration basins. There would still be further review of the stormwater needs that occur. Mr. Robert Fogt, 1145 Orchard Place, noted that his driveway is directly across Orchard Place from the intended new street. His living room and bedroom windows face the front of the house and this is going to have a big presence for them. He asked to be put on record as saying that they would love nothing more than a second point of access to share the traffic load going in and out. Mr. Jay Phillips, 1127 Orchard Place, expressed his agreement with Commissioner Magnuson on the character of the neighborhood; it is a huge factor in regards to his personal well-being in the neighborhood. He bought his property because of the open lots and is really concerned about adding 19 properties. It seems like an excessive number of homes. Going by the estimated number of trips per home of six, times 19 homes, which is 114 trips up and down and is currently dumping on his route. He would prefer a second access point. Even if they reduced the number down to 13, that would still be 78 additional trips a day coming down his street. Speeds on the road have increased since the rehabilitation of it and adding more cars will not change that. In regards to the size of the road, he would prefer the 30-foot road to the 33-foot. When they were doing Orchard Place and Hunter Lane there was much discussion about that and they specifically requested something narrower because they did not want it to look like a runway. After some negotiations they settled on 29 feet. He would also prefer a second access point. He noted that they have some very good neighbors in the Olin’s and the property is an absolute gem and he is probably in the early stages of grief to see that going. Mr. Paul Dorn, 1129 Orchard Circle, is a neighbor and a real estate broker and he represents the Olin’s in this transaction. He also knows most of the people that have provided testimony this evening. He understands everything they are saying and thinks he will probably be involved in the sale of these lots. He can tell from the initial request he received for information and the type of homes that would be going in here, most of the buyers probably would not buy a lot unless they were larger than this what is planned. He understands that the Commission has to consider the application before them as it is written; however, he highly doubts that the lot sizes will remain as small as planned – not to say that could not happen because it could – but it is highly unlikely. Ms. Dawn Loving, 1851 Orchard Hill, lives next to the apple orchard and is really going to miss the purchasing the apples and the honey. She wished to reiterate what everyone else has said; they have concerns about 19 lots, concerns with things like noise and traffic, and they would be an advocate of smaller number of homes on larger lots. Chair Field asked Mr. Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oaks Realty if he would like to respond to any of the comments and concerns raised by the neighbors. Mr. Eibensteiner stated that he would take everyone’s comments into consideration; however, they still have a long way to go and will be doing a lot of tweaking. He agreed with Mr. Dorn that there will most likely be less than 19 lots; he gut feeling is that they will end up with approximately 12 lots. However, he is not page 212 promising anything – the market could change and they would be back to building houses on 106 foot lots. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO TABLE THIS APPLICATION; SPECIFICALLY TO ASK THE APPLICANT TO CONSIDER ADDITIONAL ROAD CONNECTIONS TO THE SUBDIVISION, THE PLATTING AND LOT SIZE OF THE SUBDIVISION; THE FINDINGS OF THE WETLAND DELINEATION PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THEIR UNDERSTANDING; A BETTER DESCRIPTION OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS RAISED, INCLUDING THE FUNCTIONING OF THE POND HIGH- WATER AND THE BALANCE OF THE POND; AND A BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND JUSTIFICATION FOR SPRINKLERS TO BE IMPOSED OR INCLUDED IN THE NEW HOMES. Commissioner Noonan explained that the reason he is suggesting to table is that there a number of the concerns really are quite concerning and does not believe that the Commission has enough information. The applicant did say that he would take the comments into consideration but the Commission is being asked to make a final decision and they should have the benefit of hearing the consideration and making a determination based upon that consideration. He also heard the comment that there is a lot of tweaking that needs to be done. Whenever he hears that there is a lot of tweaking that needs to be done leads him to believe that the application is not necessarily ready for prime time and there is additional work that needs to be brought before the Commission. Commissioner Hennes expressed his agreement to Commissioner Noonan as there is too much fuzziness and the Commission needs more definition to they have a more complete proposal and a better sense of where this is going and able to make a better decision. Commissioner Petschel asked for clarification that the Commission really as no control over the lot size other than to beg for consideration, as long as they are conforming lots. That was confirmed. Chair Field asked Mr. Benetti about the 60 day rule. Mr. Benetti replied that the City is still well within the 60 day rule on this application and it could also be extended. The 60 days would be August 1 so the Commission would have the July 25, 2017 meeting to consider the application. Commissioner Noonan suggested staff exercise the 60-day extension. Mr. Benetti asked the applicant if he would be open to that extension. After research, Mr. Benetti replied that the City page 213 has time on the plat decision (120 days) but not on the variance (60 days); however, the Commission can exercise one extension. Chair Field noted that the 60 day extension for the variance would need to be added to the motion. Upon the request of the applicant, the Commission took a five minute recess to allow him to confer with his client. Upon return of the Commission, Mr. Eibensteiner stated that he and his client would accept the decision to table the application tonight but asked that if the decision at the July 25th meeting is again to table, could he request a denial judgment and have it move on to the City Council. Chair Field informed Mr. Eibensteiner that the action tonight would essentially grant a 60 day extension on the variance request because of the timing of the next City Council meeting. However, he could return to staff and request an up or down decision and staff could present that to the Commission at the July 25th meeting. However, the Commission is hoping that he would do some wonderful things between now and the 25th of July. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MODIFIED HIS MOTION BY EXERCISING THE COMMISSIONS 60-DAY RIGHT TO EXTEND THE VARIANCE APPLICATION AND THE WETLANDS PERMIT. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON SECONDED THE MODIFICATION. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Field noted that the public hearing was officially closed; however, it can be reopened at the next Planning Commission meeting. As requested by Mr. Benetti. Chair Field stated that anything the Commission saw at their desk this evening would be part of the public record. page 214 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 15, 2017 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Mendota Heights Road & Kensington Street Improvements – Change Order #1 & Change Order #2 COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve Change Order #1 & Change Order #2 for the Mendota Heights Road & Kensington Street Improvement Project. BACKGROUND Mendota Heights awarded a contract to Stantec for the design, surveying and inspection of the Mendota Heights Road & Kensington Street Improvement Project and awarded a construction contract to Valley Paving for the installation of these improvements. Due to unforeseen conditions and the inclusion of additional tasks, the existing contracts to both the consultant and contractor will need to be modified. DISCUSSION CONTRACTOR: Change Order # 1 is a breakdown of additional tasks and necessary modifications to complete the project under traffic. A summary of Change Order #1 includes: • Additional mobilization costs to fast track portions of the Kensington Construction for Soccer program Access ($2,950). • Add water service wet taps, water service to 2535 Condon Court and reduce service size from 1.5” to 1” ($6,709.40). Some of this work was assumed to be done by St. Paul Service. • Add portable concrete barrier, truck detour, and drain tile to maintain traffic through the area of Mendota Heights Road that was not closed ($15,879.05). • Add a storm sewer catch basin east of the city trail in north Kensington Park. The city trail has caused seasonal flooding to the back yards of homes on Stockbridge Road ($15,462). Remove “Brentwood Estates” monument sign ($1,690). Residents on Whitfield Drive and Stockbridge Road requested the development monument sign be removed due to lack of an association for maintenance. This entire cost will be added to the single family home portion of the assessment. • Remove milling existing trail and overlay only (-$345) page 215 The total of Change Order #1 is $42,345.45. Staff anticipates an additional change order due to the discovery of an underground lake near the roundabout. A plan has been developed to reduce the depth of the sanitary sewer line which will require the relocation of two existing storm sewer lines, costs for this have not been calculated yet. CONSULTANT: Change Order #2 is a request from the city consultant, Stantec, for an increase in the contract amount to perform the necessary work due to the poor soil conditions an additional requested tasks. The request is further broken down into: • Additional inspection hours due to poor soils • Additional Senior Engineer hours due to poor soils • Inclusion of water main extension not in original scope • Plan revisions due the underground lake discovery, including additional surveying, inspection, research, and meetings • Additional work regarding items outlined in Change Order #1 The estimated additional time towards the project supervision and testing is estimated to be $30,000. BUDGET IMPACT The estimated project cost for the Mendota Heights Road & Kensington Street Improvements was $2,111,564, the contract with Valley Paving is $1,650,939.72. The contract with Stantec for the inspection portion of the project was for a not-to-exceed amount of $62,000. The additional work outside of this contract plus the original scope of work would have a new contract amount of $92,000. This equates to 5.5 percent of the contract amount. Funding for the change orders is not expected to have a major impact to the overall project costs. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve Change Order #1 and Change Order #2. ACTION REQUIRED Staff recommends that the City Council pass a motion authorizing Change Order #1 in favor of Valley Paving, and Change Order #2 Stantec, both regarding the Mendota Heights Road & Kensington Street Improvement project. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 216 August 9, 2017 File: 193803763 Attention: Ryan Ruzek Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Ryan Ruzek, Reference: Mendota Heights Road & Kensington Street Improvements We are under contract to oversee and administer the construction contract for the Mendota Heights Road & Kensington Street Improvements project awarded to Valley Paving. In our proposal, we provided an estimated $62,000 for construction services. This estimate was based on having an Engineer in Training (EIT) on site for an average of 6 hours a day. Changes that have occurred are listed below: 1.We have encountered very wet silts in the pipe zone of the sanitary sewer. The material is so soft, the contractor has not been able to place a compactor in the trench. The sanitary sewer installation has been slowed significantly due to the moisture in the soil. We have instructed Kristin Zink to be present on site anytime sanitary sewer is being installed to document all operations of the contractor in case there is a claim from the contractor. 2.Due to the compaction issues with the sanitary sewer trench, Craig Larson and I have been attending meetings and been on site more than anticipated. 3.Water main survey and inspection was added to our scope and no adjustment was made to the construction administration budget. 4.We encountered an historic wetland or pond that was covered during the construction of Mendota Heights Road. This has added time for design research and meetings. This will likely add to inspection and survey yet to be performed. 5.Change order 1 added storm sewer to the southwest lot corner of 2501 Stockbridge Road. Design, inspection, and survey have been added to our scope of work. We have estimated the remaining construction administration, survey, and project supervision to cost an addition $30,000. This added to the previously budgeted $62,000 equates to approximately 5.5% of the total construction cost. This cost estimate assumes we are able to design a plan for the sanitary sewer on Mendota Heights Road that does not involve a lift station. page 217 August 9, 2017 Ryan Ruzek Page 2 of 2 Reference: Mendota Heights Road & Kensington Street Improvements Please let us know how you would like us to proceed. Feel free to call me at my office number (651) 604-4913 if you have any questions of concerns. Respectfully, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Chad Davison, P.E. Project Manager Phone: (651) 604-4913 Chad.Davison@stantec.com c. Craig Larson; Kristin Zink cgd document3 page 218 Date August 3, 2017 Bond No: 2257986 Description of Work A). B). C). D). E). Contract Unit Total No.Item Unit Quantity Price Amount CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 PART A 1 BITUMINOUS MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 $1,750.00 $1,750.00 2 CONCRETE MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 SUBTOTAL PART A $2,950.00 PART B 3 TRAFFIC CONTROL MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 $1,750.00 $1,750.00 4 TRUCK DETOUR LUMP SUM 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 5 PORTABLE CONCRETE BARRIER LIN FT 272 $21.15 $5,752.80 6 FLAGGING LUMP SUM 1 $3,881.25 $3,881.25 7 4" HDPE PERFERATED DRAIN TILE LIN FT 100 $14.95 $1,495.00 8 CORE DRILL DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EACH 4 $450.00 $1,800.00 SUBTOTAL PART B $15,879.05 PART C 9 WET TAP 1" SERVICE EACH 6 $835.00 $5,010.00 10 1.5" CURB STOP AND BOX EACH -5 $1,630.00 ($8,150.00) 11 1.5" TYPE K COPPER PIPE LIN FT -291 $18.60 ($5,412.60) 12 1" CURB STOP AND BOX EACH 6 $1,597.00 $9,582.00 13 1" TYPE K COPPER PIPE LIN FT 320 $17.75 $5,680.00 SUBTOTAL PART C $6,709.40 Additional scope of work within the Kensington Neighborhood to remove a development sign and add a storm sewer catch basin at the back south lot corner of 2501 Stockbridge Road Remove a portion of trail milling on Mendota Heights Road. The existing pavement is to thin to mill 1.5" off the surface. Additional mobilization charges to fast track a portion of the Kensington streets to provide access to the soccer fields Add portable concrete barrier and truck traffic detour to maintain one lane of traffic through the intersection of Lake Dr and Mendota Heights Road. Add drain tile to the low point of Mendota Heights Rd Add water service wet taps typically provided by St Paul Regional Water. Change water service size from 1.5" to 1". Add a water service to address 2535 Condon Court. Owner: City of Mendota Heights, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Contractor: Valley Paving, Inc., 8800 13th Ave. E., Shakopee, MN 55380 Bond Co: North American Specialty Insurance This Contract Change Order provides for the following: CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD AND KENSINGTON STREET IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT NO. MH2014009 AND MH201616 STANTEC PROJECT NO. 193803763 193803763-CHO1.xlsm page 219 Contract Unit Total No.Item Unit Quantity Price Amount PART D 14 REMOVE DEVELOPMENT MONUMENT LUMP SUM 1 $1,690.00 $1,690.00 15 12" RC PIPE SEWER CLASS V LIN FT 135 $48.20 $6,507.00 16 CONSTRUCT STORMSEWER MANHOLE OVER EXISTING PIPE EACH 1 $6,635.00 $6,635.00 17 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN G EACH 1 2320.00 $2,320.00 SUBTOTAL PART D $17,152.00 PART E 19 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW CU YD 50 32.00 $1,600.00 20 MILL BITUMINOUS SURFACE (1.5")SQ YD -2150 $1.80 ($3,870.00) 21 MILL BITUMINOUS SURFACE (EDGE MILL) LUMP SUM 1 $1,925.00 $1,925.00 SUBTOTAL PART E ($345.00) TOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO. 1:$42,345.45 193803763-CHO1.xlsm page 220 page 221