Loading...
2018-05-01 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA May 1, 2018 – 7:00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Adopt Agenda 5. Recognitions a. Doug Hennes, Planning Commission b. Mark Westlake, St. Thomas Academy Teacher, National Space Science Teacher of the Year – Adopt Resolution 2018-34 6. Consent Agenda a. Approval of April 17, 2018 City Council Minutes b. Approval of April 17, 2018 Council Closed Session Minutes c. Acknowledge the March 27, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes d. Acknowledge the March 21, 2018 Airport Relations Commission Meeting Minutes e. Approval of City Administrator Compensation Placement on Pay Matrix, and Adjustment f. Ratify 2018-2019 Labor Agreement with the Minnesota Public Employee Association g. Developer’s Agreement for “The Oaks of Mendota Heights”, located at 2511-2525 Condon Court (Dick Bjorklund Properties, LLC) h. Approve Grading Permit at 2455 Visitation Drive i. Approve Grading Permit at 1179 Centre Pointe Circle j. Acknowledgement of Fire Synopsis Report k. Approval of Treasurer’s Report l. Approval of Claims List 7. Citizen Comments *See guidelines at the end of this agenda 8. Public Hearing - none 9. New and Unfinished Business a. Resolution 2018-35 Approving a Wetlands Permit request for Elevation Homes / Rob & SueMi Tuttle at 954 Wagon Wheel Trail (Planning Case No. 2018-10) b. Amendment to the Recreational Facility Reservation/Special Event Policy c. Approval of the 2018 Great River Greening Work Plans 10. Community Announcements 11. Council Comments 12. Adjourn * Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: “The Citizen Comments section of the agenda provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. All are welcome to speak. Comments should be directed to the Mayor. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per person and topic; presentations which are longer than five minutes will need to be scheduled with the City Clerk to appear on a future City Council agenda. Comments should not be repetitious. Citizen comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens, nor will any decisions be made at that presentation. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Citizen comments will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made, but rather for hearing the citizen for information only. If appropriate, the Mayor may assign staff for follow up to the issues raised.” To: Mayor and City Council From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Subject: Recognition of service on the Planning Commission – Doug Hennes Date: May 1, 2018 Comment: At its meeting of May 1st, a plaque will be presented to Doug Hennes in recognition of his years of service to the Planning Commission. It will recognize his years of service on the Planning Commission. He served from 2007 to 2018. The City Council expresses its appreciation for his service. Mark McNeill City Administrator page 3 To: Mayor and City Council From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Subject: National Space Science Educator of the Year Honor Date: May 1, 2018 COMMENT: INTRODUCTION: The City Council is asked to adopt a resolution honoring Mr. Mark Westlake of Saint Thomas Academy as the National Space Educator of the Year. BACKGROUND: Mark Westlake has been a science instructor at Saint Thomas Academy since 1989. During that time, he has challenged his students, and introduced them to many advanced studies in the field of science, especially in space science. As a result of his teachings, many Saint Thomas Academy students have gone on to careers in areas of science and technology. In recognition of his many teaching achievements over the years, in March of this year the National Space Club and Foundation awarded him the title of “National Space Educator of the Year”. This award was presented to him at the 61st Annual Robert H. Goddard Memorial Dinner, which was held in Washington, D.C. As a result of the receipt of this unique and distinguished award, the City Council has directed that a City resolution honoring Mark Westlake be created. Resolution 2018-34 is attached. RECOMMENDTION: The Council should adopt Resolution 2018-34. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, adopt the following resolution: page 4 RESOLUTION 2018-34 A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING AND HONORING MARK WESTLAKE AS NATIONAL SPACE EDUCATOR OF THE YEAR Mark McNeill City Administrator page 5 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2018-34 A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING AND HONORING MARK WESTLAKE AS NATIONAL SPACE EDUCATOR OF THE YEAR WHEREAS, Mark Westlake has been a teacher at Saint Thomas Academy of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, since 1989; and WHEREAS, during that time, he has exemplified creativity and dedication in the way that he has taught his students at Saint Thomas Academy; and WHEREAS, he has incorporated the study of space science into his curriculum, and has sought unique opportunities to explore the field of space science for his students; and WHEREAS, examples of the outstanding programs in which he and his students participate include: • Visions of Explorations • Microgravity University for Educators • Student Opportunities in Airborne Research • Experimental Vehicle Team; and WHEREAS, in recognition of his exemplary teaching methods and passion which drive many of his students to seek careers in science and technology, especially in the field of space science, Mark Westlake was honored during ceremonies at the 61st Annual Robert H. Goddard Memorial Dinner held in Washington D.C. on March 16th, 2018. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, do hereby recognize and extend congratulations to Mark Westlake for his achievement in being named the National Space Club and Foundation’s National Space Educator of the Year Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this first day of May, 2018. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ ATTEST: Neil Garlock, Mayor ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 6 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, April 17, 2018 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilors Paper and Miller were also present. Councilors Duggan and Petschel were absent. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Mayor Garlock moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Absent: 2 (Duggan, Petschel) CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Paper moved approval of the consent calendar as presented and authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Approval of April 3, 2018 City Council Minutes b. Approval of the April 3, 2018 Council Work Session Minutes c. Acknowledge February 13, 2018 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes d. Acknowledge March 1, 2018 Parks and Recreation Commission Work Session Minutes e. Authorize 2017 Auditing Services with BerganKDV f. Approval of Communications Coordinator Job Description and Position Posting g. Approve 2018 Workers Compensation Insurance Renewal h. Authorize MHAA Temporary Fence at Valley Park i. Approve Resolution 2018-33 Approving a Temporary Permit to MnDOT j. Approve Resolution 2018-31 Update Fund Balance Policy k. Approve Training Request for City Administrator l. Approve Dakota Communications Center Management Control Agreement page 7 m. Approve Resolution 2018-30 Cancellation of The Village Lots Letter Of Intent n. Approve the Purchase of Two Pickup Trucks for the Public Works Department o. Authorize Purchase of Tractor Loader for Public Works Department p. Acknowledgement of the March Building Activity Report q. Approval of Claims List Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Absent: 2 (Duggan, Petschel) CITIZEN COMMENT PERIOD Mr. Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, stated that the Vikings have moved into their new facility. He provided a perspective on the current and future challenges facing this community. Mr. Smith noted one of the guidelines for community comments included ‘no personal attacks’. He stated that the Supreme Court has addressed the question and determined that personal attacks against publicly elected officials are protected by the First amendment. He suggested that the Council, in terms of framing guidelines to provide comments, familiarize themselves with the First amendment and the degree of which comments and certain restrictions are protected by the First amendment of free speech. In terms of the Michael Development, Mr. Smith stated that the Comprehensive Plan states that on that acreage, the type of development was restricted to approximately 46 units. Yet the Council approved a plan that was approximately three times as many units, which is uncalled for. Mr. Smith complimented the Mayor for having shown real leadership at the last Council meeting in allowing citizens to speak against that development. Mr. Smith commented that the ordinances of the City are in shambles. Transparency – the City has not been transparent with the decision making governing that development. Lake Augusta – the water quality in that lake is zero. It used to be swimmable. One of the responsibilities of the City, as a steward of its resources, was to protect the lakes. Michael Development – at the last Council meeting, the City approved a plan that was currently under litigation. The idea that the City would change the plan of the development under litigation was absolutely unheard of. Owen Property Lawsuit – the City recently lost this lawsuit. It could and should have been won. Kensington Development lights – he questioned if anyone had been to that development and viewed how those lights affect that development. He questioned what Administrator McNeill meant by the statement as this is an issue for Eagan. In any event, Mr. Smith believes that the onset of the Vikings site poses a real challenge in terms of traffic. He pleaded with the Mayor to provide some leadership regarding that issue. Ms. Nancy Commerford, 2562 Lockwood Drive, lives in the Kensington Development. She attended the meeting held by the City of Eagan regarding the Vikings Headquarters. She was hoping that they would discuss the brightness of the lights showing onto the Kensington neighborhood. She shared pictures with the Council that she took from her bedroom window to show the brightness of the lights. The lights have become an annoyance. They are invading her space. She asked for the Council’s support. page 8 Mr. David Hiner, 1295 Kendon Lane, expressed appreciation for the removal of the Mendota Motel building. The neighborhood has totally changed with that. He stated that if the lawsuit ends up going against the city, then – he is sure – Michael Development will end up suing the city. This is going to cost the City approximately $3.5M when it is done – and it will be a vacant piece of property. When thinking about the residents of Mendota Heights and how they have to pay for this, he believes it is ridiculous. He addressed concerns about the water quality of Lemay Lake. In terms of a wetlands permit, he questioned why Michael Development does not have to follow the same rules that a resident would. This lake has taken a huge beating in terms of water quality in the last two years, ever since Lemay Shores was developed. A road was built right through the swamp and he questioned how that was allowed. He does not want to see the lake permanently destroyed. He did ask for an explanation of why Michael Development does not need a wetlands permit. He suggested that Michael Development – as planned – would be a great 55-plus development since older residents do not create as much traffic. PRESENTATIONS No items scheduled. PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) DISCUSS FORMAT FOR THE MAY 9, 2018 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PARKS AND RECREATION WORK SESSION City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that a joint work session has been scheduled for the City Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission for 5:30 p.m. on May 9. The intent is to discuss long- term and short-term financing for the parks and the Par 3 operation. There has also been some interest in looking at natural resources. A number of items need to be reviewed and updated, like an Emerald Ash Borer plan and a Natural Resources plan. Staff is also looking at if the City should become a GreenSteps city. Staff recommended a second joint work session to address natural resources. Mayor Garlock replied that he believes it would be important to schedule a separate work session. It was determined to schedule the second joint work session for May 16, 2018 starting at 5:30 p.m. page 9 B) APPROVE RESOLUTION 2018-32 TO COMPLY WITH DISTRICT COURT RULING ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ORCHARD HEIGHTS City Attorney Tom Lehmann explained this is the culmination of a lawsuit brought by the developer, Royal Oaks Realty Inc. challenging the City’s decision to deny the preliminary plat and a variance for the property. This matter was heard by Judge Asphaug. She took the matter under advisement following the oral arguments by the city and the developer. She issued her opinion and this resolution recognizes that. The matter before the Council was to adopt Resolution 2018-32, Approving the Preliminary Plat for Orchard Heights, a Variance and a Wetlands Permit for properties located at 1136 and 1140 Orchard Place, along with various conditions that the developer has agreed to in relation to this development. The resolution eliminates any concern as to whether or not the City would have to incur attorney’s fees, which was part of the decision by Judge Asphaug. The City had asked for reconsideration of that and that matter is pending; however, in an effort by both parties to resolve this without having to incur any additional attorney’s fees or additional cost moving forward, this resolution would put this matter to rest relative to all of those concerns. Mayor Garlock moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2018-32, APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ORCHARD HEIGHTS AND A VARIANCE AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1136 AND 1140 ORCHARD PLACE; WITH CONDITIONS as stated in the resolution. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Absent: 2 (Duggan, Petschel) COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that Clean-up Day has been set for May 5, at Mendakota Park. He said for interested parties to check the City’s website or the Heights Highlights for details. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Jay Miller expressed his appreciation to the Public Works staff for doing such nice work during the blizzard last weekend. He noted that April 22 is Earth Day and encouraged residents to give thought as to what they would do in their yard or in their community. Councilor Joel Paper commented that typically his neighborhood gets together and cleans up the neighborhood parks. They will be delayed in their efforts due to the weather. He noted that early voting is open for the District 197 Referendum at the District Offices at the High School. He also said that Great River Greening is holding a clean-up event at Valley Park on April 28th in the morning. page 10 Mayor Neil Garlock stated that the Officer Scott Patrick Memorial is getting close to a final resolution. The stone and the plaque have been ordered. The location is to be finalized soon. He expressed his appreciation to the group that has been meeting on this. The hope is to have the memorial dedication on July 30, 2018. ADJOURN Mayor Garlock moved to adjourn. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Absent: 2 (Duggan, Petschel) Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 7:31 p.m. ____________________________________ Neil Garlock Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk page 11 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the City Council Closed Session Held April 17, 2018 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a 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 6:30 pm. Councilors Miller, Paper, and Petschel were also present. Councilor Duggan was absent. CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE MATTERS A motion to adjourn to a closed session pursuant to Minnesota Statute §13D.05 subd. 3(b); for Attorney Client Privilege for discussion of pending litigation in the case of Royal Oaks Realty, Inc., David J. Olin, and James R. Olin Marital Family Trusts vs City of Mendota Heights, Court File No.: 19HA- CV-17-3446, was made by Mayor Garlock, and seconded by Councilor Miller. The motion passed 4- 0 (Absent-Duggan). Mayor Garlock adjourned to a closed session of the City Council at 6:31 pm. Those present in the closed session included Mayor Garlock, Councilmembers Miller, Paper, and Petschel. Also in attendance were City Administrator Mark McNeill, League of Minnesota Cities Attorney Paul Merwin, City Attorney Tom Lehmann, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, and Community Development Director Tim Benetti. A motion was made by Mayor Garlock, and seconded by Councilor Paper, to adjourn the closed meeting and to return to the open meeting at 6:56 pm. The motion passed 4-0. It was stated that no official action was taken by the Council in the closed session meeting. The Council will provide a summary of the closed session at a regular Council meeting as required by Minnesota Statutes. ADJOURN Motion by Mayor Garlock, seconded by Councilor Petschel, to adjourn the meeting at 6:57 pm. Motion carried 4-0. ___________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 12 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 27, 2018 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 27, 2018 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners John Mazzitello, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: Patrick Corbett Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of February 27, 2018 Minutes COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27, 2018, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Corbett) Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2018-09 MICHAEL SWENSON, MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT OF MINNESOTA, LLC 2160 & 2180 HIGHWAY 13 AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Working from materials provided to the Commission prior to this meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Michael Swenson of Michael Development of Minnesota, LLC has requested an amendment to a final development plan pursuant to Section 12-1K-6.G of the City Code. The Commission was also asked to provide additional comments and recommendations to the City Council regarding the previous City Council resolution of 2018-01 with respect to certain findings regarding the PUD allowing for a PUD of less than 10 acres. The Commission was also asked to reaffirm its August 22, 2017 recommendation for approval of the rezoning of the subject site from B-3 General Business to HR-PUD High-Density Residential Planned Unit Development. page 13 Background November 2015 - The developer sought to develop the Larson Garden Center site with a 70- unit apartment complex, that application was later withdrawn February 2017 - The developer informed the city he had secured the rights to the Mendota Motel site and shortly afterwards he secured the development rights to the Larson Garden Center site May 11, 2017 - Developer hosted an Open House-Neighborhood Meeting in which notices were mailed to all property owners within one-quarter mile of the site May 23, 2017 - Planning Commission recommended approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment from “B – Business” to “HR-PUD High Density Residential Planned Unit Development June 6, 2017 - City Council adopted Resolution 2017-43, approving the aforementioned Comprehensive Plan Amendment June 20, 2017 - City Council approves the creation of TIF District No. 2 August 22, 2017 - The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval to rezone the properties from B-3 General Business to HR-PUD – High Density Residential Planned Unit Development; Preliminary Plat of “Mendota Heights Apartments”; Conditional Use Permit; and a Wetlands Permit (vote 6-0) September 5, 2017 - City Council adopted Resolution 2017-69 approving the Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Wetlands Permit (vote 3-2) November 2017 - Several city residents initiated a lawsuit against the city relating to the City Council’s approval of the development - Attorneys representing the city recommended the City Council adopt an additional resolution reaffirming its previous approvals and whether the proposed PUD meets the standards for a PUD development of less than 10 acres January 2, 2018 - City Council adopted Resolution 2018-01, which: 1) Reaffirmed and adopted additional findings relating to the approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Rezoning, CUP, and Preliminary/Final Plat 2) Adopted specific findings setting for the basis for the decision 3) Confirmed that the site no longer needed or required a Wetlands Permit due to the changes made by the developer February 16, 2018 - Both sides appeared before Dakota County District Court Judge Michael Baxter and presented their arguments in the case - Judge Baster asked if the Planning Commission was required to review and comment on the matters addressed in Resolution 2018-01, particularly the “10-acre” findings, before the City Council adopted them – City Staff and City Attorneys do not believe that the Planning Commission consideration of those matters was required. However, because Mr. Swenson is requesting an amendment to the Final PUD Plan, staff asked the Planning Commission to review and comment on the matters addressed by the City Council in Resolution 2018-01. page 14 The subject parcel is bounded by Highway 13 on the west, Acacia Boulevard to the north, Augusta Shores and Lemay Lake to the east, and Victoria Avenue / Furlong Addition to the south. The combined Larson Greenhouse / Mendota Motel sites are 5.45 acres. The site plan approved in August 2017 included two 70-unit apartment buildings to be built in two phases; 270 parking spaces, both underground and surface; and a single, divided access driveway accessed by a right-hand turn lane from Highway 13 as required by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Amended Final Planned Unit Development The previous plan showed the apartment complexes as having a 47-foot distance between the two. At the request of a Councilmember, Mr. Swenson has agreed to increase that separation to 60.7 feet. This resulted in the Phase Two development to be reduced by 14 square feet, or 1,000+ square foot footprint. As part of the request to add more green space or to reduce the impervious surfacing, Mr. Swenson has agreed to take out 13 parking spaces in the Phase One section from the original 270 and put them into a ‘proof of parking’, meaning if there is ever a need for additional parking or the site stops meeting its parking demands, these parking spaces could go back in. They are taking out the closest access point and re-establishing all of the curb-gutter sections around that new parking area. In the Phase Two section, 14 surface parking spaces and 4 underground parking spaces will be removed and they will re-establish the curb-gutter sections. RESULTS: possible loss of two to six units on the north (Phase Two) section; however, the developer is still working on reconfiguring his interior floor plans. He believes he can get up to 6- 8 units even with the reduction. He is accomplishing this by taking some of the larger two-bedroom units and decreasing them to one-bedroom units. The building footprint will remain as is – less the 14 feet. The net result is 239 parking spaces, reducing the ratio to 1.73/unit from the original 1.98/unit ratio. Section 12-1K-2.B Mr. Benetti explained the determining standards that must be met for a PUD under 10 acres but more than 5 acres: • Determined to be an “infill type development” • Will not require any wetlands permit • Will not require any critical area variance • Will not increase traffic or parking estimates above the level reasonably estimated for a permitted use for the project area’s size in the zoning district in which it is situated [B-3 General Business] • Provides a landscaped buffer around the perimeter of the entire project area unless expressly waived by the Council He also noted that Council was required to be ‘conservative in exercising its discretion’ to permit a PUD of less than 10 acres. page 15 During his explanation of the above referenced standards, Mr. Benetti stated the recommendations of staff in each section: • City staff recommends the Planning Commission determines and affirms that the subject property meets the definition of an “infill-type development” standard as set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B of City Code • City staff recommends that the Planning Commission determines and affirms that the subject property (PUD Project Area) does not require a Wetlands Permit; and therefore the PUD meets this standard as set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B of City Code • City staff recommends the Planning Commission also determines and affirms that the subject property (PUD Project Area) does not require any critical area permit or any critical area variance; and therefore the PUD meets this standard as set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B of City Code • City staff recommends that the Planning Commission determines and affirms that the impacts due to increase traffic or parking estimates for the Project area would be less than those estimated for a typical permitted use under the original B-3 General Business District zoning standards, and therefore the subject property (PUD Project Area) meets this standard as set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B of City Code • City staff recommends that the Planning Commission also determines and affirms that the proposed and updated landscape and buffer plan for the subject property (PUD Project Area) are hereby acceptable; and therefore the PUD meets this standard as set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B of City Code • City staff recommends the Commission also determines and affirms that the City Council acted conservatively in exercising its discretion to permit a planned unit development of less than ten (10) acres on the Subject Property; and therefore the PUD meets this criteria as set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B of City Code Staff also asked that the Planning Commission to: • Reaffirm the August 22, 2017 recommendation for approval of the rezoning of the subject site from B-3 General Business to HR-PUD High-Density Residential Planned Unit Development Staff Recommendations 1. The Amendment to the Final Development Plan of the Mendota Heights Apartments Planned Unit Development (PUD), whereby the Developer is allowed to provide a 60-foot separation between both apartment buildings; and reduce the surface parking lot by 27 spaces and provide these under a new “proof-of-parking” plan for future use is acceptable and recommended for approval 2. The Planning Commission re-asserts and finds that the proposed planned unit development meets all the criteria set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B for a planned unit development on land less than 10 acres in size; and supports and concurs in the findings of fact made by the City Council on January 2, 2018 pursuant to Resolution No. 2018-01 3. The Planning Commission reaffirms its August 22, 2017 recommendation for approval of the rezoning of the subject site from B-3 General Business to HR-PUD High-Density Residential Planned Unit Development, with the original conditions of approval to remain in effect and unchanged page 16 Public Hearing Chair Field explained the purpose of the public hearing and the public hearing rules. He then opened the public hearing. Mr. Michael Swenson of Michael Development of Minnesota, LLC, 1650 Four Oaks Road, Eagan, MN stated that he believed Mr. Benetti covered everything and most of that had already been presented numerous times. He listened to the comments made about the distance between the two buildings and made that correction. He reduced the size of the Phase Two building by six apartment units; thereby, helping the density. He addressed the concern about water run-off by having a flat roof with inside drains that would drain all of the rainwater into the holding ponds, which when full, would then go into the sewer system. The other water that would fall within the parking lot or the grass is also pitched and designed to run into the holding ponds and then into the sewer system. In regards to the number of trips coming in and out of the development, a study was done by engineers who found that the amount of trips would be less than other uses that the property could have. The issue of visibility of people turning north or south onto Highway 13 was addressed by the landscape plan; there would be blockage of view on either side. His plans are to create an open market building. He has applications that must be filled out by potential residents to ensure that only good people are accepted. Mr. Robert Diedrich, 2178 Lemay Lake Drive in Augusta Shores, is a member of the homeowners association. He expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to speak. While they agree that these sites are in need of redevelopment, they have significant concerns about the size and scope of what is being planned. When he and his wife moved to Mendota Heights they were attracted to Augusta Shores because of its low density, peaceful surroundings. They never considered the possibility of a high density apartment complex because the property would not support it and it wasn’t zoned for anything like that at the time. His purchase came at a higher cost as a result; the rezoning and expected negative property value impact feels like a ‘bait and switch’; like a broken social contract between the city and the residents of Augusta Shores. This community is unique in character due to its resistance to unchecked growth and high density urban development. Mendota Heights attracts families looking for peaceful attractive neighborhoods with open green space. A number of citizens have written or called to express these concerns, some of which is in the packet of information the Commission received. Many have attended previous meetings – Planning and Council – to voice these concerns and while many have expressed a desire to redevelop the properties, he has yet to hear any citizens’ approval for anything the size and scope of this project. Any new development should seek to harmonize with adjacent properties and neighborhoods and this is codified in the city’s ordinances. Not only does this development not harmonize; it will stick out like a sore thumb in what is currently a low density, low traffic, and single-family owner occupied neighborhood. There is no structure of one story as far as the eye can see and these two hulking three-story rental units will loom large over the neighborhood while providing traffic density that will overwhelm the already limited roadways. Nothing about these proposed buildings is in harmony with the surrounding townhomes, single- family homes, and two cemeteries. There was a lot of police activity at the motel site with 20 units – this new development will have 138 units; seven times the number of units occupied by 30-40 page 17 year olds with no ownership interest. When this demographic is stacked on top of each other it creates a recipe for more altercations, domestic disputes, and fire and police services – not less. During a number of occasions since the first introduction of this project, citizens have expressed their concerns regarding the increase in traffic flow on Highway 13 between Highway 55 and Highway 110. At this point, Chair Field reminded Mr. Diedrich of the 3-minute limit. Mr. Diedrich continued by explaining that on two occasions this winter there were snow events and traffic was backed up all of the way from Highway 110 to Acacia Drive – the only ingress and egress to Augusta Shores. On those two occasions if there had been an apartment building next door with over 200 vehicles, traffic between Highway 55 and Highway 110 would have been completely gridlocked. There would have been no way to enter or exit their neighborhood. This situation also makes it difficult for services to get in and out. Most of the residents are elderly and it is difficult for them to navigate the traffic already. The developer has suggested that there would be landscaping to improve the sight lines; however, anyone who has driven that property knows that no landscaping is going to fix this problem. There is a curve to the left exiting Acacia Drive and there is a dip going towards Highway 110. Traffic is already on a driver in seconds; no landscaping on the property behind it is going to impact that. It is a road issue – an infrastructure issue. The road currently does not support this large of a development with the kind of traffic it will generate. Ms. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, has been a resident of Mendota Heights for over 29 years. She wished to share the declining property values that will be cause by this proposed development. She reviewed her credentials that would allow her to discuss this matter: • Senior specialist in the 3M Corporation Real Estate Department for 19 years • Served on the Mendota Heights City Council for 8 years • Currently on the Dakota County Planning Commission • Served on several related committees prior to this • Masters Degree in Business from the University of Wisconsin with a major in Real Estate Appraisal and Urban Land Development • Master of Public Affairs Degree from the University of Minnesota with concentrations in Land Use and Transportation She continued by explaining that Mr. Richard Kelly, a realtor, has provided an affidavit stating, in his professional opinion, that the property values in the surrounding area would be adversely impacted if this development proceeds as proposed. She then started to provide Mr. Kelly’s experience in forming his opinions. At this point, Commissioner Noonan asked if Mr. Kelly was in attendance. Ms. Smith replied that he was not able to attend. Commissioner Noonan then stated that he had a written report from Mr. Kelly and he would rather hear from Mr. Kelly. Ms. Smith stated that she had his affidavit. Commissioner Noonan stated that the affidavit could speak for itself. Ms. Smith then handed out copies of the affidavit to the Commission. page 18 When Ms. Smith continued in her efforts to share Mr. Kelly’s experience, Commissioner Noonan asked City Attorney Tom Lehmann to weigh in. Ms. Smith argued that it was her prerogative to continue; however Chair Field stated that he sets the rules and since the question was asked, he wanted to hear from Mr. Lehmann. Mr. Lehmann stated that it was his understanding that this affidavit is part of the court records and did not know, other than re-reading it, what purpose it would serve. Ms. Smith stated that she would not re-read it but would like to add her own comments to it. Commissioner Noonan asked if she would be adding to the realtor’s opinion. Ms. Smith replied that she would adding to other comments independent of his opinion. Ms. Smith continued by stating that Mr. Kelly was a licensed realtor, has been with Edina Realty, has participated in hundreds of real estate sales and is familiar with the factors that affect the value of the real estate – including all residential, he is familiar with Mendota Heights, and has visited the site. Mr. Kelly brought forward the following criteria in support of his conclusion: • Traffic – the development would generate over 1,000 estimated vehicles trips per day onto Highway 13 at a point approximately 200 feet from Acacia Drive and the only access point to Augusta Shores. The Furlong neighborhood would experience a similar situation. • Since any services are a distance away from the development and residents would have to drive to any destination and vehicles trips are likely to be higher than those estimated by MnDOT at 1,000 • Traffic Visibility – had already been covered so Ms. Smith did not discuss that • Design Factors – the design, use, and dimension of the large 3-story structure is incompatible with the existing surrounding neighborhood. Augusta Shores, Furlong, and Lemay Shores are all primarily single-family one-story structures. The dimension factor also refers to the intensity of the development over the 5.45 acre site. Multiple variances have been requested to accommodate the size of the development, the underlying zoning is HR-PUD which is R-3; which has been mentioned with the 60-foot separation between buildings. That would allow 46 units rather than the 140 proposed number of units. Ms. Smith commented that from her experience on the City Council and on many other public commissions, boards, and committees she believes that the responsibility of the Planning Commission and the City Council is primarily to the current and future residents over that of the developer. The proposed development does not serve either residential and citizen constituencies. Commissioner Noonan commented that Ms. Smith stated that there were many variances granted for this application; the record will stand that there were not any variances granted. This was done under a PUD and the PUD provided the necessary approvals. The Planning Commission did not grant any variances. Ms. Smith argued that the R-3 district is the standard that the PUD should be judged. Commissioner Noonan replied that was not true. Commissioner Petschel asked for confirmation that the land was zoned as a B-3 General Business before the PUD. Confirmation was given. Mr. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, has been a resident of the community for approximately 60 years. He is a retired lawyer and served 12 years on the Planning Commission. He wished to make page 19 it clear that, in his view, this was a public hearing and the Commission has no right to limit his time to 3-minutes or that of anyone else. Those are the rules that apply to public hearings in the State of Minnesota and suggested that the Commission confirm with the City Attorney. Mr. Lehmann stated that it was not uncommon for municipalities to limit public speaking; in fact it is not unlawful to set a time limit for people to present their testimony. In fact, it is common that there is limited time. After the three minutes are up a person certainly can present other information at the end. The Commission allows other people to present their testimony and then a person can return after everyone has been given an opportunity to speak. Mr. Friel expressed his desire to discuss the matters adopted by the City Council in Resolution No. 2018-01 and which the Commission is now being asked to reaffirm. None of those issues had the benefit of a public hearing at any time before. Not in the Commission’s August meeting and not in the Council meeting. He will address those later. Currently, he wished the Commission to know that he is one of the seven plaintiffs in the litigation now pending against the City of Mendota Heights challenging this project and why they are in the litigation. They are not just a bunch of angry NIMBY’s; some are here because they believe the project creates serious dangers from traffic, some because it would affect the value of their homes, and some because it is inconsistent with land uses. Those in the litigation are concerned with all of those things, as well as being appalled by the approval of this project by the Planning Commission. He also noted that out of the seven members in the lawsuit, five of them were former members of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or members of the school board in this community. He most recently watched the video of the 27th meeting [assuming the February 27, 2018 meeting] and noted that one of the Commissioners said that they – referring to the plaintiffs – did not have the common courtesy to come and share their concerns and then they sued the city and that is a bit troublesome. Mr. Friel replied to that comment by explaining that the reason they were not at the Planning Commission meeting in August is because they did not know about it – they do not live close enough to be entitled to a notice. They learned about it by watching the Council meeting on September 5, 2017, about mid-October, after they were advised that they ought to take a look at the meeting. The City Council, at that time, recommended approval pursuant to the Commission’s recommendations of a PUD and granting a Conditional Use Permit. They were all appalled because the ordinance under which they authorized Planned Unit Developments for areas less than 10 acres has got a whole bunch of hoops to go through. One of the hoops is that it would not require a Wetlands Permit. Not only did this one get approved without paying any attention to that provision, the Commission and the Council approved a PUD and at the same time approved a Wetlands Permit; notwithstanding that the ordinance prohibits that. More troubling to them was the fact that your staff told the Council that this violated the ordinance; however, it was a minor matter so they should go ahead anyway. He did not believe that violating any ordinance, any provision of any ordinance, by the governmental body that is responsible to the citizens is a good idea. The language of the ordinance is very clear and unequivocal. page 20 Two members of the lawsuit went to city staff and were told that this was discretionary with the Council. Later they had a similar conversation with a couple of the Councilmembers and they received the same response. Mr. Friel asked to come back after others had an opportunity to speak to continue with his comments. Ms. Belina Reisman, 2338 Lemay Shores Drive, noticed while sitting here listening to the evaluations that have occurred she has not heard about Lemay Shores development being included, like with the traffic. It is a concern of those that live in the area that they not be impacted in terms of what the development would look like. They like to have all of those natural settings. This is also in the Comprehensive Plan that the city had and she knows that the city is concerned with adding affordable housing and increasing the density; however, she does not believe that growth has to include the size of what is being considered; with the destruction that is there already; and what the residents want to have. A three-story building will be visible across Lemay Lake and Augusta Lake and that will change the environment. They are also concerned, and have heard, that the building and the site development is not in keeping with the existing buildings in the Furlong area. If this is so, they would also be changing the way it looks. She has heard that it would be closer to Highway 13 than it should be. She and her husband walked around there and saw the steep hill going down into the wetlands. She was amazed that anyone would want to put something there, even if they were to move it back. She has not seen a picture of what the building would look like. She would like to have something to see that really shows it to her and not have to go to an architect to interpret. Ms. Reisman also raised concerns about the drainage. She does not know how anyone can take a building on the property for the motel and have it not impact the area that is to the south because there is nothing there. There are no trees. She questioned what the developer was going to put there that is going to make that development fit in with the rest of the community. Ms. Reisman further asked the Commissioners if they have been to the site and walked the paths from Lemay Shores to Augusta Shores and then down Lemay Lake Road and looked at what that community is like so that they are knowledgeable of what is going to affect all of them. Mr. Al Fautsch, 2126 Lake Augusta Drive, has lived in the area for 15 years and was one of the original owners in Augusta Shores. He lived in St. Paul for 36 years and served for a number of years on their Planning Commission and had lots of speakers and they never limited anyone speaking at any of their meetings. He wished to speak as an individual in a community. One of the things they always look at is “what is the feeling of the community around a particular development.” That has a meaning; they are a community. He was not in attendance to support of any particular development; he is part of a community. He then asked for a show of hands of how many people oppose this development. He page 21 stated that this large show of hands gives an indication of what the community wants. It is the duty of the Planning Commission to hear all of the testimonies regardless of how long it takes and to make a decision that is beneficial to the community. Mr. Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, noted that he is on the faculty of the University of Minnesota. He stated that since Commissioner Noonan rudely interrupted his wife [Ms. Jill Smith who spoke earlier] within her three minutes he wished to repay the favor and make a few blunt remarks. He pointed out that every Planning Commission and every Council in this city, in the past, has supported careful, prudent development of the city. This Planning Commission and three members of the Council have abandoned that record and that tradition. One reason that this city enjoys its special character, of all of the suburbs of the Twin Cities, and is considered an oasis of careful prudent development. This Commission has abandoned that tradition; have abandoned that record and he does not understand why. One could say that they are no longer a Planning Commission but they are a degradation commission. Chair Field stated that he took offense to that statement since he was not present at the previous meeting and there are three new planning commission members since that occurrence. Mr. Smith asked if he could continue. Commissioner Noonan replied that he could as long as he states the facts and not personal opinions. Mr. Smith continued by stating that this is a public hearing and they should be allowed to express their opinion and they have 1st Amendment Rights. Commissioner Noonan agreed as long as slanderous remarks are not made. Addressing Chair Field, Mr. Smith said that Chair Field had a positive reputation in the community; however, he is squandering that now, and the rest of the Planning Commission by supporting this development. Mr. Smith concluded by saying that the original plan was flawed. The remaining two resolutions; one this evening and the one in February; are like putting lipstick on a pig. The pig hasn’t changed – think about it. Commissioner Petschel stated that he is receptive to any comments, especially any emotional comments about this development. No one likes new development near them but the first time that this was before the Commission he did not remember most of the audience being in attendance. He also did not remember many negative comments when this issue was before them previously. (At this point, the Chambers became noisy from audience members speaking out). Commissioner Petschel withdrew his comment and said he was sorry. Chair Field called the meeting back to order. Mr. Smith responded by saying that there has been a consistent lack of transparency on the part of the city regarding consulting the residents of what is going on. Mr. Jim Losleben, 815 Hazel Court, stated that when he and his family moved here in 1974 he started on the first Park Board and raised $600,000 to have some parks in the city. He then moved page 22 onto the City Council for 12 years and was part of the original first personnel team who did the first Comprehensive Plan. He remembers they were sweating bullets because the Metropolitan Council (Met Council) was on them for all kinds of different things that the Council did not want to do. The mayor at the time, Don Huber, said that they were living in the next best development community in the Twin City area; 15 minutes from downtown Minneapolis, 12 minutes to downtown St. Paul, the airport is only 5-6 miles away; we do not have to give anything away. When the developers starting coming in and building he was concerned about adding streets and how they were going to be paid for. Again, Mr. Huber sat him down and stated ‘we do not have to give away anything’. They will come to us because we are the next hot spot. With the drainage center on Eagan, this is another hot spot time and please do not give anything away. He concluded by saying that if the Council and the Commission feels that the high density development is necessary for Mendota Heights, that case should be made to the citizens and presented along with a revised Comprehensive Plan that includes properly designed zoning and ordinances to allow the growth of the community in a fashion that they have decided they want. This Commission is not representing what the people want. The developers will come no matter what happens because of where the city is located. He would like for Mendota Heights to stay ‘spacious and gracious’. Ms. Dawn Caruso, 629 Hampshire Drive, has lived in Mendota Heights for almost 30 years and was one of the original Centex people; if anyone was around at that time this is like déjà vu. They had a density problem and had Centex the developer wanting to put multiple, multiple, multi- family living. The community and the people who moved into the area at that time did not know that was coming; they fought and fought and fought and they were heard. They worked with the Planning Commission and the City Council and eventually they worked with the developer to find a solution, a compromise where density was decreased and everyone was very happy. The people that live in that community now, across from Mendota Heights Road, has a beautiful community with multi-family and single-family that blends in very nicely. They do not have the issues with traffic and the school density and everything they were looking at. She stated that she was appalled at the communication going back and forth between the Planning Commission and the people from this community that have done their homework and the question about when people decided to jump on the bandwagon and get involved in this. That is a moot point; it does not matter when people became aware – it matters as when people are here because this impacting their lives, their families, and the way they live in this community. The Commission needs to be more respectful of that. This does not impact her as much because she does not use Highway 55 as much, she has other routes. However, the people that are living right in that community on Acacia; this is important to them. The developer does not live here; a developer comes in and builds his homes and gets his money and then he leaves. The community is left to deal with this year after year, after year, after year. She begged the Commission to look at this and see if there isn’t a compromise; some way that either density could go down or the side of the building can be maintained so it flows into the community that has already been approved, people have bought into, and are raising their families there. page 23 Mr. Floyd Knight, 2338 Lemay Shores Drive, commented that he just noticed a new apartment development on Highway 110 and Dodd Road. As he looks at that it looks like a huge development and he just found out in the last couple of weeks that it is going to be approximately 150 units. As he visualizes that building it will probably be comparable to what is planned right now to replace the Larsen Garden Center and the Mendota Motel. If it is anything close to what is being built already, it is going to be an eyesore. It is going to stick out like a sore thumb. It is not going to blend into the neighborhood. He is unaware of what the façade is going to be but he could not imagine that it would be attractive, someplace that people are going to want enjoy, and that the people in the neighborhood are going to feel comfortable. He also noted that the reason he was not in attendance at the beginning was because he just found out about this in the last few months. Ms. Kathy Geier, 1309 Kendon Lane, has lived in the Furlong addition for 62 years. When she was a child there was open fields and woods where she played and ran wild; then her dad decided to build some homes in the neighborhood and he filled up four of the empty lots. That changed the status quo. They went along for a number of decades and then Augusta Shores came in; that upset the status quo and they got riled up, had all of these discussions and meetings – and now that became the new status quo. Then Lemay Lake Shores came in and upset the status quo – they all got riled up again because what they knew was changing; however, it became the new status quo. This is yet another change in the neighborhood and it will become, yet again, the new status quo. Her concern was that with adding that additional housing, the police presence needs to be increased. Currently they do not see very many police cruisers in the Furlong area and they do have issues with cars being broken into, etc. She hopes the police presence will be more noticeable. She also expressed her concern about the traffic and hoped there is a Plan B in the back pocket to address the expansion of the frontage road to accommodate the traffic in the future. Ms. Linnea Hanschen, 2158 Lemay Lake Drive, noted that she had been a previous meeting and brought up the same concern she brings up now, that being the traffic. There is way too much traffic and the density is too large. She is also concerned about the wetlands no matter what kind of holding ponds the developer installs. She lives right across the lake from this development and she sees trees and turkeys in the trees every evening; that is not going to happen now. She is going to lose some of those trees and she is certainly not just going to see turkeys in the remaining trees; she is going to be seeing a building. She would like to see that building cut down to two stories. They are grateful that the motel is gone and Larsen’s is an eyesore. But, cut the development down to two stories; cut it down to 100 units. Ms. Mike Pilney, 2154 Theresa Street, lives in the Curley Addition. He raised his concerns about the unintended consequences of traffic. Coming down Lexington it is very difficult to get in and out of his neighborhood; due to weather or road maintenance, they seem to get unintended traffic. Having additional traffic potentially coming down CenterPoint Drive or Court – due to weather or road conditions or whatever – potentially adds more congestion in that area. He would like to know what traffic would like from a worst case scenario. Mr. Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vickie Lane, came forward to talk about Lemay Lake. Fifty or more years ago Augusta Lake was a fishable lake. Now, the Met Council has given that lake a grade of F; page 24 cannot get any worse than that. She has a friend who lives on Lemay Lake and every two weeks she goes out in a canoe and measure the water quality because she is concerned that it is coming to her lake soon. Augusta Lake is a deep lake and Lemay Lake is a shallow lake. She knows that there are plans and buffer zones, etc. Storm sewer could be Lemay Lake. When someone says ‘storm sewer’ it does not go off to be cleaned up. Overflow from a holding pond goes to a lake – either to Augusta Lake or to Lemay Lake. She would really like for this Commission to fully assure this community that Lemay Lake is going to be protected with a the very best of practices. She does not know what happened with Augusta Lake, it is a mystery; however, she knows that public Works Director Ryan Ruzek is trying to figure that out and she is grateful for that. However, they are fearful about Lemay Lake itself with this kind of a development. She also noted that pervious surfaces soon become impervious without maintenance. They become filled with debris and they need to be cleaned up. She again asked for assurances that Lemay Lake will remain the nice lake that it is right now. Mr. Daniel Bogg, 809 Hazel Court, expressed his concerns regarding future development in Mendota Heights in general; Lemay Lake, Highway 110, and now proposed across Dodd Road. All of these high density complexes are a concern to him. If there is any notice by the people and the Commission – he is a member of the younger generation. Everyone he has seen come up to speak has been here 30 years or more. He and his wife were fortunate enough to move into the city in 2011. They felt it was an absolute blessing at the time and they continue to feel that way as this is the place they want to raise their family; not because of what it does not offer but because of what it does for the future. That being that this is an oasis; this is a different development than the first ring suburbs and the rest of the seven county metro. There is a special holding here in the city. They feel that this Commission and this City Council are foregoing the past – the very important past that has been stood on – to maintain and preserve Mendota Heights for what it is for us – not only the current residents but for the future generations. Seeing no one else to come forward, Chair Field allowed Mr. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, tor return. Mr. Friel stated that they probably would not be here tonight but for the fact that the Wetlands Permit and the Planned Unit Development were approved at the same time. When they started looking at the action the Council had taken and the Planning Commission had taken, there were more infirmities from their point of view and he wished to address those. One of the things that disturbs him is that in a normal process, a public hearing happens and it is referred to the Council and the Council makes the decision. In this case, the Council apparently has made the decision and referred their decision back to the Commission for its blessing. That is not the way it is supposed to work. He suggested that the Commission had no recommending authority at this time because the recommendation has already been determined. He was surprised to see in the staff report that there is a plat change before the Commission. He knows that there is no notice required for that but, under the circumstances, it would have been beneficial to learn that was the case in the notice of the hearing. The underlying zoning classification for this piece of property is R-3 and the basic standards of R- 3 is where the Commission starts. Mr. Benetti informed the Commission of that in their August page 25 2017 meeting and the Council at their June 2017 meeting. He made it clear to the Commission that for purposes of this site, they could not do more than 46 units, which is the permitted number in an R-3, without a PUD. INFILL – keeping the maximum of 46 units in mind, Mr. Friel spoke about ‘infill’. The ordinances the city contain a definition of infill in the aviation section and it deals with sound. The definition of an infill, whether it is in the sound section or anyplace else, is the same. The Michael property is not infill. It had a development on it when the Commission decided to go forward with this and, in fact, no piece of property that has buildings on it that have to be torn down can ever become infill. Infill by definition is ‘property that is vacant in the city because it has been built around’ and the infill property in this community was all identified in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the map. By definition infill is filling in – it is not refilling. There is a difference. Redevelopment of infill property is what was done some years ago with the Super Block. There was a property that was largely undeveloped and owned by one or two people. That was infill and was identified as such. He himself has a piece of property identified as infill. It is vacant except for his house on it and it is subdivided. A property that has buildings on it cannot be called infill just because you tear the buildings down. TRAFFIC & PARKING – there is a threshold in the ordinance for traffic and parking. The traffic and parking in the new PUD cannot exceed the reasonable estimates for parking in the permitted use in that district. The permitted use in this district is R-3, not B-3. And the comparison with B- 3 is ridiculous for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is Mr. Benetti compared the size of the density using the R-3 – the 46 units – and its appropriate to use it for the traffic estimates as well. The traffic estimates for this property for the permitted use – 46 units – would be approximately 470 vehicle trips per day using the eight trips per day per unit under the Institute of Traffic Engineers Transportation Manual. The 138 to 136 units will give 1,000 to 1,400 trips per day. MnDOT sent to staff a note that said their view was that they would generate on this site, with this development, over 1,000 trips per day with 140 units. Unfortunately, that information was never disclosed at your public hearing last August, nor did they make the estimates that the Council, because of the lawsuit, saw fit to finally make. He stated that the Council used the wrong basis, they used a comparison with what would be permitted in a B-3. There is another reason why the B-3 is not applicable; go back to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that took care of in June – under the Comprehensive Plan Amendment the Commission created a HR-PUD Comprehensive Plan Characteristic for this property. Once the Commission did that, under Minnesota Statues, nothing can be put on that property that isn’t consistent with HR-PUD. B-3 certainly is not consistent with anything that could be put in an R-3 zone. Mr. Friel referenced Minnesota Statute 473.58. The parking estimates cannot exceed those for a permitted use. In this case, for 140 units the parking space required is 2.5 per unit. That has been cut down to 1.7 per unit, a 30% decrease. Staff compared the ordinance provisions with the ordinance provisions of other municipalities and suggested to the Commission that the city was different than the rest of them. He believed that there had been enough testimony to this point about the residents liking to be different from everybody else. If the city wants to change their parking, they would need to change the ordinance – after a hearing and consideration – and not doing it on an ad-hoc basis as was done in this case page 26 and sometimes that results in a problem, as the city knows from the results of a different lawsuit that has come down just in the last few weeks involving this community. LANDSCAPE PLAN – He did not have much to say on the landscape plan except to say that staff keeps saying that this is not the sort of plan that would ordinarily be had at this stage of the proceedings and that the Planning Commission never sees it and the Council rarely sees it. This isn’t any other plan, this is an ordinance that has a provision in it that requires the Commission have the plan at the time of making the decision; otherwise they cannot determine that they met the requirements of the ordinance. He has not yet seen a landscape plan that meets those provisions, although he has heard repeatedly that one exists. CONSERVATIVE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – he was interested in the city’s analysis of that. The provision reads ‘the Council shall be conservative in exercising it discretion to permit a Planned Unit Development of less than 10 acres’. The word ‘shall’, under the provisions of this ordinance, is mandatory. It is not a suggestion. It is disingenuous to suggest that tripling the number of units from what was permitted – 46 to 140 or 136 – is conservative. They are also permitting at least 2.5 times what is permitted in parking; although there is a little bait and switch there because he wants to reduce the parking required normally for a 140 units down to 235 spaces. Commissioner Noonan suggested that the variance was the wrong term to use and he was correct. All of those setbacks from what is normally required were provided for under the Conditional Use Permit. They may be there but they do vary significantly from the standards by as much as 17 to 50 feet set back on one side and 25% setback on two other sides, and at least a 25% barrier setback in the parking area from the street. For the record, conservative is not a political term, it is not a noun; it’s an adverb and it modifies exercise – conservative exercise of discretion to create the district. He submitted that what was done was not a conservative exercise of discretion of the city in this case. The planning staff report indicated that the plan is down to 45.5% impervious surface – down from 49.7%. He stated that this is really an inconsequential difference, particularly in view of the fact that the ordinance says ‘furthermore, in order to qualify under this subsection of a residential planned unit development, notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter to the contrary, the ratio of impervious surface to the total project area shall not be more than 25:100 – 2,500 square feet of impervious surface to 10,000 square feet of project area. So this plan is still approximately two times what it should be with impervious surface. When dealing with a lot of Planned Unit Developments it is learned that PUD’s of less than 5 acres get a little bit different treatment. The ordinance provides a lot of hoops and the reason those hoops are required to be jumped through is because it is not a good idea to have high density on small tracts of land; it is not a good idea to have high density on small tract in a critical area; it is not a good idea to have high density on property that is near a wetland, let alone be encroaching on it, because of the problems that high density creates in a small tract. He suggested that the Council has not treated those hoops properly or this matter would not be under discussion. page 27 He has practiced law for a while, for approximately 60 years. Most of that has been in the municipal area and he stated that to have the proceeding with a case pending, in which all of the decisions being made tonight are already pending before a judge in Dakota County, is, at best, really bizarre. Mr. Jim Losleben, 815 Hazel Court, returned and noted again that he had been on the City Council for 12 years when Mendota Heights was 4,500 to 5,000 people. He has been through a lot of development and went through some really heated ones. Mr. Don Huber, afterwards, would always say that he did not like what took place at the meeting and he would wait and get this settled. He would put everyone in a room and they would settle it together. That is why everyone is here. He is part of the lawsuit – they are not the party of new – if he wasn’t living next door he would be here begging the Commission to clean that mess up. But let’s do it with the favor of all of the people that can accept it. Chair Field asked the applicant if he would like to comment. In response, Mr. Ben Delwiche, architect with Kaas Wilson Architects came forward. He said that he realizes that he would be unable to change a lot of opinions so he would be as fact-based as possible. It appears that the number one issue is traffic, he could not speak to that as he does not live in the area but he has driven down into the Augusta Shores area and understands the current concerns. There are trees that overhang that parking lot; he assured the residents that if they take a look at the current landscape plan the situation would be greatly improved. Additionally, the traffic report that was listed as part of the lawsuit was impartial reports by a third party and he could not speak to the expertise of that report, but that is the one fact-based object available to look at and judge this plat. In regards to police calls being similar in regards to the motel, while he could not say unequivocally yes or no, in his experience in the last five or six years dealing with multi-family housing that a lot of the product is going to go to empty nesters, people who are 55 to 60 and want to downsize a little bit, do not want to deal with the yard – that is a huge component of who would be renting here. Not to mention the Phase 2 building, although they do not want to classify it just yet based on how it rents out, is potentially going to be a 55+ building. Mr. Swenson rents to a high quality resident, he puts all potential renters through a thorough vetting process and Mr. Delwiche could guarantee that if asked he would come back and say how many police visits he’s had at his buildings. Mr. Delwiche could guarantee that it would not be anywhere near what the motel was rumored to create. In regards to the building, he has heard comments that the building has not been seen or that it does not fit into the context of the existing neighborhood, he did not disagree altogether. He would say that it was looked at from a different angle. He has been in the neighborhood and found it to be completely separate off of Highway 55 and he did not believe any of the residents would identify as living off of Highway 55. The apartment buildings being proposed are designed to be more reflective of what would be on a busy street, such as what is across the street – the restaurant technologies warehouse building. page 28 Similarly, Mr. Swenson chose a more expensive roof product – a flat roof versus a pitched roof – to deal with some of the height issues. Mr. Delwiche and Mr. Borgan – also from Kaas-Wilson Architects – did a handful of studies that show that during the summer time the 3-story building would not be seen or would not even be close. They have computer generated images that would show how that process was determined. They are trying to be consistent with a bridge from the restaurant technologies flat roof building industrial to a flat roof high-density residential to what is down the hill – a single-family twin- home development. Mr. Delwiche is not an engineer but he knows the requirements they have to meet. Currently this site is not up to current codes for stormwater retention. There are no provisions to keep the water on the site, the rain falls and hits the motel site or green house site and rolls on down the hill. When this building is complete, that site will be brought up to current code; all of the water that is generated or that lands on the site will be handled internally within that site and then drain to the proper stormwater facilities. As part of that, during construction there is a SWPP plan that evaluates erosion control and has procedures in place during construction to ensure that no pollution from that construction will be getting outside of that property boundary. Mr. Delwiche stated that Mr. Swenson is an owner/operator of all of the buildings that he has. It is a family-owned business that he intends to hand down to his sons. This is not a building he plans to build and then uproot and leave – make his money and get out. That is not his philosophy nor is it his or his company’s objective with this property or their general philosophy of dealing with business. In conclusion, Mr. Delwiche said that where the proposed building is, the setbacks that were maintained and designed to were consistent with where the existing building footprints were at that time. When this was started last fall there were a lot more supporters, which is a real shame because they do not have the perspective of what was there to say – look at what we are putting there instead of this motel. All he heard from residents the first time around was generally positive feedback about how they could not wait for the motel and greenhouse to be removed. He wanted to remind everyone what was there, what is being proposed, it is nowhere close – they plan to do a high-class development. Chair Field asked Mr. Swenson if he had anything else to add. Mr. Swenson stated that there were a lot of comments on this building and what it was going to consist of. One gentleman says it is going to be a monster like the one down by Mendakota. That building is six stories, four stories of apartments and two stories of parking. This project would be nowhere near that. This is three stories above grade and one story parking underneath grade. It is not going to be a monster, it is not going to stand out like a sore thumb, and it is very well designed. Kass Wilson has been doing apartment buildings for a long time. He himself has been building for 40 years and has 4,000 units and he receives very few police calls. The crimes that took place at the hotel were not just domestic; there was drug use, attempted murder, and all kinds of felonies. He vets all of the potential renters and makes sure they can pay the rent so he can pay his mortgage. page 29 They also check to see if they are people of character. They check their background, criminal records, check their credit, and if they do not measure up to what is believed to be fair standards then they do not rent to them. [Note: three emails/letters related to this item were received by the city, requesting consideration by the Planning Commission/City Council. These letters were made part of the March 27th Planning Agenda Packet report - and are appended to these minutes on the bottom.] COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Corbett) COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES TO ALLOW THE ROOM TO CLEAR AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Corbett) At 8:45 p.m. Chair Field reconvened the Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Magnuson asked City Attorney Tom Lehmann, since the Commission has not been apprised of the lawsuit situation, if the lawsuit was pending and if the issues that are being discussed here this evening a part of what the judge is being asked to consider. Attorney Lehmann replied that the matter was taken under advisement by Judge Baxter (Dakota County District Court). By law he has 90 days in which to issue an opinion. He indicated to the parties in court that he was going on a medical leave and as a result he would probably need the full 90 days in which to issue his decision. The matter of the lawsuit is still before the district court and under advisement and no opinion has been rendered. The Commissions job now is solely limited to what Chair Field read with regards to the proposed amendment regarding the separation of the buildings and then reaffirming the Commission’s recommendation to the City Council and then their decision on January 2, 2018. That is really all the Commission is being asked to do. Commissioner Magnuson asked for confirmation that the Commissions’ role is very limited at this time. Mr. Lehmann confirmed. Addressing Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, Commissioner Magnuson stated that she too is concerned about the quality of the lakes in this area. She asked if Mr. Ruzek had determined what that problem might be and if there are some assurances that there would not be any degradation of Lemay Lake as a result of this or any other development in the area. Mr. Ruzek replied that there was actually a pollution control agency study a couple of years ago and they recommended alum treatment to treat the excess phosphorus in the lake. The city, in conjunction with the Lower Mississippi Watershed Management Organization, did an alum treatment to Lake Augusta. page 30 Unfortunately, they are not seeing high quality results. Last summer, city staff did some additional investigative work and discovered some erosion on the east side of the lake. Now the city and the watershed management organization are working on putting together a plan to take care of the erosion. The brown color is being caused by suspended solids – fine clay takes a while to settle out. Every rainstorm is washing a little bit of additional sediment into the lake. They are going to work on a temporary solution in the early spring and then work on a more permanent solution. The new development is being held to the watershed management organization’s water quality standards. They are the most stringent plan that the city has at this time; which should require a 50% reduction from phosphorus levels from how the city’s current ordinance are established right now. The city is in the process of updating its plan; however, that will not be complete until the end of the year. The systems being installed in this project do have mostly infiltration. The city does require one inch of infiltration over all new impervious surface. He believes the calculations on this site far exceed those requirements. They are infiltrating approximately 14 inches. Commissioner Magnuson stated that she was confused about the underlying zone here – is it B-3 or R-3. Mr. Benetti replied that the old zoning was B-3 General Business. The new zoning is now HR-PUD High-Density Residential Planned Unit Development. It is a new classification and new zoning district that was created by the rezoning, which is consistent or compliant with the land use change of HR-PUD as well. Commissioner Magnuson requested confirmation that the traffic study that the Commission has, which does a traffic study based upon what could have been developed in a B-3 zone, is accurate. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan asked for clarification that the zoning was never R-3. Mr. Benetti replied that the zoning had never been R-3 on that site. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), AND FURTHER REAFFIRM THE COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS MADE ON AUGUST 22, 2017 AS THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE SAME APPLICATION, AND REASSERTS THAT THE PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MEETS ALL CRITERIA SET FORTH IN SECTION 12-1K-2.B Commissioner Magnuson, for clarification sake, stated that the scope of what the Commission is being asked to do is consistent with the motion and that does not include any opportunity or ability on the Commission’s part to talk about density or size or structure or design or anything like that. The Commission is simply being asked by the Council to do these three very limited things. Mr. Benetti confirmed. page 31 Commissioner Toth asked for the items under consideration to be put back up on the screen and that they be read by Mr. Benetti: Staff Recommendations 1. The Amendment to the Final Development Plan of the Mendota Heights Apartments Planned Unit Development (PUD), whereby the Developer is allowed to provide a 60-foot separation between both apartment buildings; and reduce the surface parking lot by 27 spaces and provide these under a new “proof-of-parking” plan for future use is acceptable and recommended for approval. 2. The Planning Commission re-asserts and finds that the proposed planned unit development meets all the criteria set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B for a planned unit development on land less than 10 acres in size; and supports and concurs in the findings of fact made by the City Council on January 2, 2018 pursuant to Resolution No. 2018-01. 3. The Planning Commission reaffirms its August 22, 2017 recommendation for approval of the rezoning of the subject site from B-3 General Business to HR-PUD High-Density Residential Planned Unit Development, with the original conditions of approval to remain in effect and unchanged. Commissioner Magnuson noted that page one of the staff report states that the Commission was being asked to provide comment and recommendations to City Council in respect to its findings that this project meets the criteria set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B. However, on page 10 of the staff report the Commission is being asked to specifically find that it meets the criteria. She would be more comfortable saying that the Council had the authority and made a decision that was consistent with the ordinance versus the Commission making an independent finding based on what has been presented. Commissioner Mazzitello accepted the amendment to the motion made. Commissioner Noonan explained that he was uncomfortable with the amended motion because to simply to say that the Commission was agreeing that the decision was a reasonable decision with respect to the findings to support the PUD. It was said that the Commission did not have enough information to make their own independent and therefore to reassure the decision. He believed that the staff report was very thorough in terms outlining what the criteria is of the ordinance and going through the five elements would allow the Commission to make a determination that, yes the Council made a decision on the PUD and the Commission has the information that they could reassert that it was an appropriate decision. He would stand by the initial motion. He believed the Commission could stand by it fairly strongly to say that the Commission does assert or reassert the provisions of the PUD section, based upon the analysis contained in the staff report and the discussions which took place. Commissioner Magnuson asked if the Commission would be reasserting the decision the Council made or the decision the Commission made. The Commission did not make a decision before. Mr. Benetti replied that the Council had already made that decision by adopting Resolution 2018-01. Commissioner Magnuson continued by stating that maybe that was her problem; she did not like page 32 the word reassert because they did not make a decision that needed to be reasserted. The Commissioner was being asked to state that they agree with the Council’s interpretation. Commissioner Noonan agreed with that logic. The motion was changed as follows: COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), AND FURTHER REAFFIRM THE COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS MADE ON AUGUST 22, 2017 AS THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE SAME APPLICATION, AND AGREES AND FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MEETS ALL CRITERIA SET FORTH IN SECTION 12-1K-2.B AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Corbett) This item will be returned to the City Council at their meeting on Tuesday, April 3, 2018. Staff and Commission Announcements Mr. Benetti reminded the Commission that a Planning Commission Workshop Meeting would be held on Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 6:30 p.m. Chair Field did stated for the audience that this was a workshop meeting, not a public hearing. However, the public is more than welcome to attend. Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:53 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Corbett) page 33 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES March 21, 2018 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, March 21, 2018, at Mendota Heights City Hall. 1. Call to Order Chair David Sloan called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. 2. Roll Call The following commissioners were present: David Sloan, Sally Lorberbaum, William Dunn, Jim Neuharth, Gina Norling and Kevin Byrnes. Absent: Arvind Sharma Also present: City Administrator Mark McNeill, Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson 3. Approval of Minutes Approval of Minutes January 17, 2018 Meeting Neuharth asked to insert “total turboprop operations information” in the second paragraph of the Airport Operations Statistics section. Motion by Neuharth/Second by Dunn to approve the minutes of the January 17, 2018 ARC meeting, with the noted change. Motion carried 6-0. 4. Unfinished and New Business a. NOC Meeting Sloan reviewed the results of the Noise Oversight Committee meeting which had been held earlier in the day. He reported that the total operations were down in January compared to the previous year, but that February was up, due to Super Bowl traffic. However, because of MAC’s prior notification to neighbors of the amount of anticipated increased air operations because of the game, overall complaints were down. He reported that the requests of the Fair Skies Coalition had been discussed. Their three requests were: • A desire for greater citizen representation on the NOC • The NOC should establish goals to reduce noise • Publish 55 and 65 DNL and N65 contours He said that the NOC had decided in January that it was very comfortable with the current representation on the board, but that steps should be taken to enhance citizen input during NOC meetings. It had also decided to set a goal to mitigate to the 60 dbl contour limits by 2024. page 34 Sloan said that that afternoon’s meeting had discussion on the publishing of the 55 contours. He said that some NOC representatives were concerned that publishing that information by MAC might create unrealistic expectations on the part of some residents that they were in an area to be mitigated, and that the information was available for Fair Skies to use as it wished. For those reasons, a motion to publish the 55 DNL contours by MAC had failed. Sloan also reported that HMMH, a private airport noise consulting firm, has been hired to do a benchmarkng study. NOC had set the scope of work. Finally, he reported that the NOC had heard the Annual Noise Control Report, a report on the vortex generator study, the winter listening session by NOC, and additional information relating to the Super Bowl impact. b. Airport Operational Statistics i. Operational Charts—Neuharth led discussion on the Upper Control Limit, and whether to change from using the four year base which had been started in 2009. Byrnes said he could modify the UCL, but cautioned that making too many changes could impact the statistical accuracy. Neuharth agreed to look at the older statistics, and then to meet with Byrnes to discuss possible modifications. ii. Complaint Information—There were no notable changes. iii. Turboprop Information. Turboprop charts were reviewed. Neuharth volunteered to do a spreadsheet with current information, and from that to establish a control chart. 5. Acknowledge Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence The Annual Noise Control Report was reviewed and acknowledged. Neuharth noted an article from the Wall Street Journal that Boston’s Logan Airport was requiring a slower departure speed from airplanes, which reduces the overall noise. However, that practice uses additional fuel. Norling was informed that her proposal for keeping departing aircraft on a straight heading for ten additional seconds before turning was on the NOC work plan for this year, and that that would be reviewed in May. 6. Upcoming Meeting The next regular meeting will be April 18th. Commissioners Norling and Lorberbaum indicated that they would not be able to attend on that date. The Commission was also reminded of the joint meeting with the Eagan ARC on May 22nd. page 35 7. Public Comments There were no members of the public present. 8. Commissioner Comments No additional comments were made. 9. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 7:57 PM Minutes Taken By: Mark McNeill City Administrator page 36 Request for City Council Action DATE: May 1, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: City Administrator Salary—Pay Matrix Introduction Staff is requesting Council approve placing the City Administrator’s salary on the City’s Compensation Plan and 2018 Pay Matrix. Background The annual salary of the City Administrator is provided for in an employment agreement between the City and City Administrator Mark McNeill dated February 17, 2015. At the time of Administrator McNeill’s hire, the City Council approved an annual salary outside of City’s then- existing pay matrix, with specific pay for 2015 and 2016. Beyond that, the agreement provided for annual raises at a percentage rate equal to what was offered other non-union employees. As part of the City’s compensation study, the position of City Administrator was evaluated. As a result, the position was adjusted both in position grade and salary range. The position of City Administrator is now ranked at a position grade 20, which has a 2018 salary range of $112,159 (step one) to $137,871 (step seven). With the adjustments to the grade and salary range of the City Administrator position, staff is recommending that the pay of the City Administrator be adjusted, and placed on the updated Compensation Plan and 2018 Pay Matrix. Budget Impact The City Administrator’s current annual salary is $129,002, which is between steps five and six of position grade 20 on the 2018 pay matrix. Placement on the 2018 pay matrix at step six would page 37 result in an increase of $4,207, or an annual salary of $133,209. The position is included in the 2018 budget, and the increase can be accommodated. Recommendation Staff is recommending that the City Council approve an adjustment to the City Administrator’s salary to step six of position grade 20, retroactive to Administrator McNeill’s anniversary date of February 23, 2018. Requested Action If the City Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve placement of the City Administrator’s salary on the City’s Pay Matrix, and approve the current placement at step six of position grade 20, retroactive to February 23, 2018. page 38 DATE: May 1, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: 2018-2019 MNPEA Labor Agreement INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to ratify a two-year labor agreement with Minnesota Public Employees Association, representing Police Sergeants. BACKGROUND Attached for review and consideration is the 2018-2019 contract between the City of Mendota Heights and Minnesota Public Employees Association (MNPEA), for which there is a tentative agreement. The 2018-2019 agreement is consistent with the direction which staff received from the city council. Changes and updates to the 2018-2019 contract include: • Article XI Work Schedules (Section 11.2)—changed language so that holidays and authorized leave time are calculated on the basis of actual shift length. Language in Article XXIV (Holidays) was amended to match wording in Article XI. • Article XIV Call Back Time—Increased the minimum call back time from two (2) to two and one half (2.5) hours. • Article XVI Insurance--The city will provide $1,600 per month for 2018. There will be a reopener for 2019. • Article XXII Wage Rates—A 2.75% cost of living adjustment for 2018 and a 2.75% cost of living adjustment for 2019. Monthly base pay shall be: page 39 2018 2019 At 0-12 months $7,005 $7,198 At 12-24 months $7,355 $7,557 At 24+ months $7,724 $7,936 At 240 months (total department service) $7,880 $8,097 • Memorandum of Agreement—Renew the agreement with the addition of clarifying language related the accrual of holiday time to be reflective of actual length of time of the assigned shift. The union members have voted and approved the contract. BUDGET IMPACT Costs associated with the negotiated agreement are included in the 2018 city budget. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends ratification of the agreement between the City of Mendota Heights and the MNPEA, covering Police Sergeants for 2018-2019. ACTION REQUIRED If the City Council concurs, it should, by motion, ratify the 2018-2019 labor agreement between the City of Mendota Heights and the Minnesota Public Employees Association. page 40 MASTER LABOR AGREEMENT CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND MINNESOTA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (SERGEANTS UNIT) January 1, 2018 - December 31, 2019 page 41 Table of Contents ARTICLE I ARTICLE II ARTICLE Ill ARTICLE IV ARTICLE V ARTICLE VI ARTICLE VII ARTICLE VIII ARTICLE IX ARTICLE X ARTICLE XI ARTICLE XII ARTICLE XIII ARTICLE XIV ARTICLE XV ARTICLE XVI ARTICLE XVII ARTICLE XVIII ARTICLE XIX ARTICLE XX ARTICLE XXI ARTICLE XXII ARTICLE XXIII ARTICLE XXIV ARTICLE XXV ARTICLE XXVI ARTICLE XXVII ARTICLE XXVIII PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT 2 RECOGNITION 2 DEFINITIONS 2 EMPLOYER SECURITY 3 EMPLOYER AUTHORITY 3 UNION SECURITY 4 EMPLOYEE RIGHTS GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 4 SAVINGS CLAUSE 7 SENIORITY 7 DISCIPLINE 8 WORK SCHEDULES 9 OVERTIME 9 COURT TIME 10 CALL BACK TIME 10 WORKING OUT OF CLASSIFICATION 10 INSURANCE 10 STANDBY 11 UNIFORMS 11 INJURY ON DUTY 11 EDUCATIONAL INCENTIVE 11 WAIVER 12 WAGE RATES (MONTHLY BASE RATE) 12 VACATIONS 12 HOLIDAYS 13 PERSONAL LEAVE/EXTENDED DISABILITY PROTECTION SICK LEAVE 13 INDEMNIFICATION INSURANCE 14 TRAINING 14 DURATION 15 page 42 MASTER LABOR AGREEMENT CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND MINNESOTA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION ARTICLE I PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT is entered into as of January 1, 2018 between the City of Mendota Heights, hereinafter called the EMPLOYER, and the Minnesota Public Employees Association, hereinafter called the UNION. It is the intent and purpose of this AGREEMENT to: 1.1 Establish procedures for the resolution of disputes concerning this AGREEMENT's interpretation and/or application; and 1.2 Place in written form the parties' agreement upon terms and conditions of employment for the duration of this AGREEMENT. ARTICLE II RECOGNITION 2.1 The EMPLOYER recognizes the UNION as the exclusive representative, under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 179A for all police personnel in the following job classification: Licensed Police Sergeant 2.2 In the event the EMPLOYER and the UNION are unable to agree as to the inclusion or exclusion of a new or modified job class, the issue shall be submitted to the Bureau of Mediation Services for determination, pursuant to the rules and procedures established by the BMS. ARTICLE Ill DEFINITIONS 3.1 UNION: Minnesota Public Employees Association 3.2 UNION MEMBER: A member of the Minnesota Public Employees Association 3.3 EMPLOYEE: A member of the exclusively recognized bargaining unit. 3.4 DEPARTMENT: The Mendota Heights Police Department. page 43 3.5 EMPLOYER: The City of Mendota Heights. 3.6 CHIEF: The Chief of the Mendota Heights Police Department. 3.7 UNION OFFICER: Officer elected or appointed by Minnesota Public Employees Association 3.8 OVERTIME: Work performed at the express authorization of the EMPLOYER in excess of the employee scheduled shift. 3.9 SCHEDULED SHIFT: A consecutive work period including rest breaks and a lunch break. 3.10 REST BREAKS: Periods during the SCHEDULED SHIFT during which the employee remains on continual duty and is responsible for assigned duties. 3.11 LUNCH BREAKS: A period during the SCHEDULED SHIFT during which the employee remains on continual duty and is responsible for assigned duties. 3.12 STRIKE: Concerted action in failing to report for duty, the willful absence from one's position, the stoppage of work, slow-down, or abstinence in whole or in part from the full, faithful and proper performance of the duties of employment for the purpose of inducing, influencing or coercing a change in the conditions or compensation of the rights, privileges or obligations of employment. ARTICLE IV EMPLOYER SECURITY The UNION agrees that during the life of this AGREEMENT that the UNION will not cause, encourage, participate in or support any strike, slow-down or other interpretation of or interference with the normal functions of the EMPLOYER. ARTICLE V EMPLOYER/AUTHORITY 5.1 The EMPLOYER retains the full and unrestricted right to operate and manage the workforce, facilities and equipment; to establish functions and programs; to set and amend budgets; to determine the utilization of technology; to establish and modify the organizational structure; to select, direct, and determine the number of personnel; to establish work schedules, and to perform any inherent managerial function not specifically limited by this AGREEMENT. page 44 5.2 Any term and condition of employment not specifically established or modified by the AGREEMENT shall remain solely within the discretion of the EMPLOYER to modify, establish or eliminate. ARTICLE VI UNION SECURITY 6.1 The EMPLOYER shall deduct from the wages of employees who authorize such a deduction in writing an amount necessary to cover monthly UNION dues. Such monies shall be remitted as directed by the UNION. 6.2 The UNION may designate employees from the bargaining unit to act as a Steward and an alternate and shall inform the EMPLOYER in writing of such choice and changes in the position or steward and/or alternate. 6.3 The EMPLOYER shall make space available on the employee bulletin board for posting UNION notice(s) and announcement(s). 6.4 The UNION agrees to indemnify and hold the EMPLOYER harmless against any and all claims, suits, orders, or judgments brought or issued against the EMPLOYER as a result of any action taken or not taken by the EMPLOYER under the provisions of this Article. ARTICLE VII EMPLOYEE RIGHTS GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 7.1 DEFINITION OF A GRIEVANCE A grievance is defined as a dispute or disagreement as to the interpretation or application of the specific terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT. 7.2 UNION REPRESENTATIVES The EMPLOYER will recognize REPRESENTATIVES, including union attorneys and business agents, as designated by the UNION as the grievance representatives of the bargaining unit having the duties and responsibilities established by this ARTICLE. The UNION shall notify the EMPLOYER in writing of the names of such UNION REPRESENTATIVES and of their successors when so designated. page 45 7.3 PROCESSING OF A GRIEVANCE It is recognized and accepted by the UNION and the EMPLOYER that the processing of grievances as hereinafter provided is limited by the job duties and responsibilities of the EMPLOYEES and shall therefore be accomplished during normal working hours only when consistent with such EMPLOYEE duties and responsibilities. The aggrieved EMPLOYEE and a UNION REPRESENTATIVE shall be allowed a reasonable amount of time without loss of pay when a grievance is investigated and presented to the EMPLOYER during normal working hours provided that the EMPLOYEE and the UNION REPRESENTATIVE have notified and received the approval of the designated supervisor who has determined that such absence is reasonable and would not be detrimental to the work programs of the EMPLOYER. 7.4 PROCEDURE Grievances, as defined by Section 7.1, shall be resolved in conformance with the following procedure: Step 1 - An EMPLOYEE, or a union representative with the consent of the EMPLOYEE, claiming a violation concerning the interpretation or application of this AGREEMENT shall, within twenty-one (21) calendar days after such alleged violation has occurred, present such grievance to the EMPLOYEE supervisor as designated by the EMPLOYER. Grievances and grievance responses will be allowed to be presented via email, fax, US Mail, or Hand Delivery. The EMPLOYER-designated representative will discuss and give answer to such Step 1 grievance within ten (10) calendar days after receipt. A grievance not resolved in Step 1 and appealed to Step 2 shall be placed in writing setting forth the nature of the grievance, the facts on which it is based, the provision or provisions of the AGREEMENT allegedly violated, the remedy requested, and shall be appealed to Step 2 within ten (10) calendar days after the EMPLOYER- designated representative final answer in Step 1. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 2 by the UNION within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. Step 2 - If appealed, the written grievance shall be presented by the UNION and discussed with the EMPLOYER- designated Step 2 representative. The EMPLOYER designated representative shall give the UNION the EMPLOYER Step 2 answer in writing within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of such Step 2 grievance. A grievance not resolved in Step 2 may be appealed to Step 3 within ten (10) calendar days following the EMPLOYER- designated representative final Step 2 answer. page 46 Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 3 by the UNION within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. Step 3 - If appealed, the written grievance shall be presented by the UNION and discussed with the EMPLOYER - designated Step 3 representative The EMPLOYER- designated representative shall give the UNION the EMPLOYER answer in writing within ten (10) calendar days following the EMPLOYER-designated representative receipt of Step 3 appeal. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 4 by the UNION within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. Step 3A- Mediation: if the Employer and UNION mutually agree, a grievance unresolved at step 3 may be submitted to the MN Bureau of Mediation Services ("BMS") within 10 days after UNION receipt of the Employer's response to Step 3. If the grievance is resolved through Mediation, the settlement shall be reduced to writing and signed by the UNION and the EMPLOYER. If the grievance is unresolved through Mediation, it may be appealed to Step 4 within 10 days starting the day following the Mediation Meeting Session. If either party elects to not go through with Mediation after initially agreeing, it must be withdrawn in writing; then the grievance can be appealed to Step 4 within 10 days starting the day following the party's written withdrawal from mediation. Step 4 - A grievance unresolved in Step 3 and appealed to Step 4 by the UNION shall be submitted to arbitration subject to the provisions of the Public Employment Labor Relations Act of 1971. The selection of an arbitrator shall be made in accordance with the Rules Governing the Arbitration of Grievances as established by the Bureau of Mediation Services. 7.5 ARBITRATOR AUTHORITY A. The arbitrator shall have no right to amend, modify, nullify, ignore, add to, or subtract from the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT. The arbitrator shall consider and decide only the specific issue(s) submitted in writing by the EMPLOYER and the UNION, and shall have no authority to make a decision on any other issue not so submitted. B. The arbitrator shall be without power to make decisions contrary to, or inconsistent with, or modifying or varying in any way the application of laws, rules, or regulations having the force and effect of law. The arbitrator's decision shall be page 47 submitted in writing within thirty (30) days following close of the hearing or the submission of briefs by the parties, whichever be later, unless the parties agree to an extension. The decision shall be binding on both the EMPLOYER and the UNION and shall be based solely on the arbitrator's interpretation or application of the express terms of this AGREEMENT and to the facts of the grievance presented. C. The fees and expenses for the arbitrator's services and proceedings shall be borne equally by the EMPLOYER and the UNION provided that each party shall be responsible for compensation of its own representatives and witnesses. If either party desires a verbatim record of the proceedings, it may cause such a record to be made, providing it pays for the record. If both parties desire a verbatim record of the proceedings, the cost shall be shared equally. 7.6 WAIVER If a grievance is not presented within the time limits set forth above, it shall be considered waived. If a grievance is not appealed to the next step within the specified time limit or any agreed extension thereof, it shall be considered settled on the basis of the EMPLOYER's last answer. If the EMPLOYER does not answer a grievance or an appeal thereof within the specified time limits, the UNION may elect to treat the grievances as denied at that step and immediately appeal the grievance to the next step. The time limit in each step may be extended by mutual written agreement of the EMPLOYER and the UNION in each step. ARTICLE VIII SAVINGS CLAUSE This AGREEMENT is subject to the laws of the United Stated, the State of Minnesota, and the City of Mendota Heights. In the event any provision of this AGREEMENT shall be held to be contrary to law by a court of competent jurisdiction from whose final judgment or decree to appeal has been taken within the time provided, or administrative ruling or is a violation of legislation or administrative regulations, such provisions shall be voided. All other provisions of this AGREEMENT shall continue in full force and effect. The voided provision may be renegotiated at the written request of either party. ARTICLE IX SENIORITY 9.1 Seniority shall be determined by the employee length of continuous employment as a sergeant for the EMPLOYER, referred to as IN CLASS SENIORITY. Seniority rosters will be posted in an appropriate location. page 48 9.2 During the one (1) year probationary period a newly hired or rehired employee may be discharged at the sole discretion of the EMPLOYER. During the one (1) year probationary period, a promoted or reassigned employee may be replaced in his previous position at the sole discretion of the EMPLOYER. 9.3 A reduction of work force will be accomplished on the basis of IN CLASS SENIORITY. Employees shall be recalled from layoff on the basis of IN CLASS SENIORITY. An employee on layoff shall have an opportunity to return to work within two years of the time of this layoff before any new employee is hired. 9.4 Qualified employees shall be given shift assignment preference after eighteen (18) months of continuous full-time employment based on IN CLASS SENIORITY. A shift bidding shall be posted annually. 9.5 One continuous vacation period shall be selected on the basis of IN CLASS SENIORITY until March 15th of each calendar year. ARTICLE X DISCIPLINE 10.1 The EMPLOYER will discipline employees for just cause only. Discipline will be in one or more of the following forms: a. Oral reprimand b. Written reprimand c. Suspension d. Demotion; or e. Discharge 10.2 Suspensions, demotions and discharges will be in written form. 10.3 Written reprimands, notices of suspension, and notices of discharge which are to become part of an employee's personnel files shall be read and acknowledged by signature of the employee. Employees and the UNION will receive a copy of such reprimands and/or notices. 10.4 Employees may examine their own individual personnel files at reasonable times under the direct supervision of the EMPLOYER. 10.5 An employee who is the subject of a disciplinary investigation will be given a reasonable opportunity to have a UNION representative present during questioning if he/she requests such representation. page 49 10.6 Grievance relating to this ARTICLE shall be initiated by the UNION in Step 3 of the grievance procedure under ARTICLE VII. ARTICLE XI WORK SCHEDULES 11.1 The normal work year is two thousand and eighty hours (2080) to be accounted for by employee through: a. Hours worked on assigned shifts b. Holidays c. Assigned training d. Authorized leave time 11.2 Holidays and authorized leave time are to be calculated on the basis of the actual length of time of the assigned shifts. 11.3 Nothing contained in this or any other Article shall be interpreted to be a guarantee of a minimum or maximum number of hours the EMPLOYER may assign employees. ARTICLE XII OVERTIME 12.1 Employees will be compensated at one and one-half (1-1/2) times the employee's regular base pay rate for hours worked in excess of the employee's regularly scheduled shift. Changes of shift do not qualify an employee for overtime under this Article. 12.2 Overtime will be distributed as equally as practicable. 12.3 Overtime refused by employees will for record purposes under article 12.2 be considered as unpaid overtime worked. 12.4 For the purpose of computing overtime compensation, overtime hours shall not be pyramided, compounded or paid twice for the same hours worked. 12.5 Overtime will be calculated to the nearest fifteen (15) minutes. 12.6 Employees have the obligation to work overtime or call back if requested by the EMPLOYER unless unusual circumstances prevent the employee from so working. 12.7 An employee may choose to receive compensatory time as compensation for overtime hours at the rate of 1.5 hours for each hour worked. The maximum allowable balance of such hours carried into the next calendar year shall be one hundred (100) hours. The EMPLOYER may cash out an employee balance in excess of the 100 hours maximum. page 50 12.8 An employee may cash out any portion of their compensatory time balance the second pay period in May and November if requested in writing with the submission of the employee time sheet. ARTICLE XIII COURT TIME 13.1 An employee who is required to appear in Court during his/her scheduled off duty time shall receive a minimum of three (3) hours pay at one and one half (1-1/2) times the employee base pay rate. An extension or early report to a regularly scheduled shift for Court appearances does not qualify the employee for the three (3) hour minimum. 13.2 An employee who is not notified of the cancellation of a scheduled court appearance by 4:00 pm the previous business day shall receive a minimum of two and one-half (2-1/2) hours of pay at one and one-half (1- 1/2) times the employee base pay rate. ARTICLE XIV CALL BACK TIME An employee who is called to duty during his scheduled off-duty time shall receive a minimum of two and one half (2.5) hours pay at one and one-half (1-1/2) times the employee base pay rate. An extension or early report to a regularly scheduled shift does not qualify the employee for the two and one half (2.5) hour minimum. ARTICLE XV WORKING OUT OF CLASSIFICATION Employees assigned by the EMPLOYER to assume the full responsibilities and authority of a higher job classification shall receive the salary schedule of the higher classification for the duration of the assignment. ARTICLE XVI INSURANCE The EMPLOYER will contribute up to a maximum of one thousand six hundred dollars ($1,600) per month toward health, dental, long term disability, short term disability, and term life (up to $50,000) insurance for 2018. There will be a reopener for 2019 insurance language. If any City of Mendota Heights employee group is awarded a higher amount in 2018 the UNION MEMBERS shall receive the higher amount. page 51 In the event the health insurance provisions of this Agreement fail to meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act and its related regulations or cause the Employer to be subject to a penalty, tax or fine, the Union and the Employer will meet immediately to bargain over alternative provisions so as comply with the Act and avoid any penalties, taxes or fines for the Employer. ARTICLE XVII STANDBY Employees required by the EMPLOYER to standby shall be paid for such standby time at the rate of one hour pay for each hour on standby. An employee shall be considered to be in standby status only if he or she is expressly directed to serve in such capacity by the Chief of Police or his/her designee. ARTICLE XVIII UNIFORMS The EMPLOYER shall provide required uniform and equipment items. Each employee shall also receive a maximum of three hundred ($300) dollars annual reimbursement for cleaning and maintenance of uniforms. Reimbursement shall be upon presentation of receipts for cleaning and maintenance services from any cleaners. ARTICLE XIX INJURY ON DUTY Employees injured during the performance of their duties for the EMPLOYER and thereby rendered unable to work for the EMPLOYER will be paid the difference between the employee regular pay and Worker Compensation insurance payments for a period not to exceed one hundred twenty (120) working days per injury, not charged to the employee vacation, sick leave or other accumulated paid benefits. ARTICLE XX EDUCATIONAL INCENTIVE 20.1 Supplementary pay based on educational degree will be paid to employees who have been employed by the City as a patrol officer for a period of at least 12 consecutive months prior to the promotion. Four year degree 9% Masters Degree 12% page 52 ARTICLE XXI WAIVER 21.1 Any and all prior agreements, resolutions, practices, policies, rules and regulations regarding terms and conditions of employment, to the extent inconsistent with the provisions of this AGREEMENT, are hereby superseded. 21.2 The parties mutually acknowledge that during the negotiations, which resulted in this AGREEMENT, each had the unlimited right and opportunity to make demands and proposals with respect to any term or condition of employment not removed by law from bargaining. All agreements and understandings arrived at by the parties are set forth in writing in this AGREEMENT for the stipulated duration of this agreement. The EMPLOYER and the UNION each voluntarily and unqualifiedly waive the right to meet and negotiate regarding any and all terms and conditions of employment referred to or covered in this AGREEMENT or with respect to any term or condition of employment not specifically referred to or covered by this AGREEMENT, even though such terms or conditions may not have been within the knowledge or contemplation of either or both of the parties at the time this AGREEMENT was negotiated or executed. ARTICLE XXII WAGE RATES The monthly base rate of pay without educational degree shall be: 2018 2019 At 0-12 months $7,005 $7,198 At 12-24 months $7,355 $7,557 At 24+ months $7,724 $7,936 At 240 months (total department service) $7,880 $8,097 If any group of employees within the City of Mendota Heights that has been formally certified as a bargaining unit by the BMS receives an across-the-board pay increase that is more than 2.75%, then the employees in the sergeant's bargaining unit will receive the same across- the-board percentage increase as the BMS certified bargaining unit that receives the highest percentage increase. ARTICLE XXIII VACATIONS Time accrued according to the following schedule: 0-5 years of service 10 days per year 6-10 years of service 15 days per year Over 10 years of service 1 additional day per year, not to exceed 20 days page 53 Accrued vacation shall be used in the year following the year which said time is earned. Employees may accrue vacation leave not to exceed a maximum of two hundred hours (200). On December 31st of each year any hours over 200 will be forfeited. No employee shall be permitted to waive vacation for the purpose of receiving double pay. ARTICLE XXIV HOLIDAYS Each employee shall be granted a total of eleven (11) paid holidays. Holiday leave time will be accounted for in a separate holiday leave bank and shall not accumulate from year to year. Any holiday leave time remaining in the employee holiday leave bank on December 31 shall be paid to the employee at their then current rate. If an employee works on a legal holiday, they shall be granted ½ hour of compensatory time for each hour worked, in addition to the holiday pay. Each employee shall be granted one floating holiday during the calendar year. The floating holiday is not eligible for carry-over or monetary compensation. ARTICLE XXV PERSONAL LEAVE/EXTENDED DISABILITY PROTECTION SICK LEAVE 25.1 PERSONAL LEAVE: Permanent full-time employees shall accrue personal leave at the rate of four (4) hours per month, to a maximum of 320 hours. Personal leave shall be available for use without restriction, except by prior approval of the supervisor. An employee shall not be allowed to use more than twenty (20) consecutive personal days, or a combination of twenty (20) consecutive personal and vacation days, without prior approval consistent with city personnel policies. Each December 1, any employee with an accrued Personal Leave balance in excess of 320 hours may convert the excess hours at a rate of 50%, to either additional cash compensation, or additional vacation time. The compensation will be made, or the extra vacation credited, with the second payroll in December. Beginning November 1st of each year beginning November 2012, all employees have agreed to contribute to the State of Minnesota's Post Employment Health Care Savings Plan as described below: Employees shall contribute 1% of pay, and the cash equivalent of 24 hours of personal time each year. page 54 All employees eligible for severance pay will contribute 75% of their severance payouts to their post-employment health care savings accounts. Upon separation, employees will be compensated for any unused Personal Leave, vacation and compensatory time balances accrued. 25.2 EXTENDED DISABILITY PROTECTION: Permanent full-time employees shall accrue extended disability leave at the rate of four (4) hours per month, to a cumulative maximum of 640 hours. Extended disability protection is available for use on the first day of a personal illness, and thereafter, or anytime for a work-related illness or injury. Employees are to keep their supervisor informed of their condition. The supervisor may require a letter or report from the attending physician. Claiming extended disability leave when physically fit may be cause for disciplinary action, including transfer, demotion, suspension or dismissal. In cases of extreme emergency involving employees with a record of meritorious service, who through serious or protracted illness have used up all accumulated personal leave, extended disability leave, vacation leave and compensatory time off, an extension of extended disability leave beyond the maximum provided in this resolution may be granted by the City Council. The resultant deficit will be repaid promptly through application of future personal, extended disability, vacation, and compensatory leave accruals. ARTICLE XXVI INDEMNIFICATION INSURANCE The City shall provide a policy to cover the employee for indemnification for civil liability cases arising out of and within the scope of the Employee's job duties. ARTICLE XXVII TRAINING 27.1 The employer shall be responsible for providing all training required by the POST Board to maintain the licensure as a certified police officer, and shall pay the cost of the POST licensure and shall pay employees for all time spent in such training at the applicable rate. 27.2 The EMPLOYER will allow employees to attend such other job- related training programs as may be mutually agreed upon by the EMPLOYER and individual employees. Employees scheduled to work during such a training session will be allowed time off without loss of pay for attendance and those attending during non- scheduled hours will be allowed compensatory time off or pay at page 55 straight time for time spent in training, unless the time is required to be compensated at time and one-half under applicable law. 27.3 The EMPLOYER shall reimburse employees for all reasonable costs incurred in obtaining EMPLOYER approved training, including but not limited to, registration, and license fees, mileage, and lodging and meals. 27.4 All training activities shall be subject to the prior approval of the Police Chief. ARTICLE XXX DURATION This agreement shall be effective as of January 1, 2018 and shall remain in full force and effect until the 31st day of December, 2019. FOR THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Mayor Date City Administrator Date City Clerk Date FOR THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Business Agent Date Steward Date page 56 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT This Memorandum of Agreement is entered into between the City of Mendota Heights (hereafter "City") and the Minnesota Public Employees Association (hereafter "Union") representing employees in the Sergeant's bargaining unit. WHEREAS, the City and the Union are parties to a collective bargaining agreement; and WHEREAS, the employees of the Licensed Sergeants Unit of the City of Mendota Heights will be working 12 hour shifts, a continuation from July 2016. NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Union agree as follows: 1. The contract in Article XI, Section 11.2 shall be interpreted to have employees accrual of holiday pay calculated on the basis of the actual length of time of the assigned shift. 2. The contract in Article 24 shall be interpreted to have employee's accrual of holiday pay calculated on the basis of actual length of time of the assigned shift. Employees will be granted 11 paid holidays (132 hours). 3. Employees who wish to cash out holiday time, may only cash out at a 9.5 hour rate per holiday. The remaining 2.5 hours would be held in an additional holiday bank, knowing that if this time is not used in the current calendar year, the time is lost. The maximum hours an employee could accrue in this additional holiday bank would be 27.5 hours. 4. All employees covered by the Union are still granted the 12th (non-compensatory) holiday, which must be used prior to the end of year calendar year. 5. All employees covered by the Union will accrue vacation time based upon the 9.5 hour rate. 6. This Memorandum of Agreement shall not constitute a precedent with regard to any subsequent negotiations or matters between the parties. 7. This Memorandum of Agreement represents the complete and total agreement between the parties regarding this matter. 8. This Memorandum of Agreement is effective from January 1, 2018 until December 31, 2018, unless its term is extended by the written agreement of the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the Memorandum of Agreement to be executed this day of , 20 . MINNESOT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS page 57 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: May 1, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Developers Agreement for The Oaks of Mendota Heights Dick Bjorklund Properties, LLC Introduction The City Council is asked to consider and approve the final [draft] of a Developer’s Agreement between Dick Bjorklund Properties, LLC (the “Developer”) and the City of Mendota Heights, for the new subdivision development to be known as “The Oaks of Mendota Heights.” Discussion On July 7, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2015-48, which approved the Preliminary Plat of The Oaks of Mendota Heights. This new subdivision proposed the re-platting of 2511 and 2525 Condon Court into five (5) new lots, one of which would be for a new single-family dwelling, while the other four lots would provide for two new twin-home dwellings (total of 5 residential units). After this preliminary plat action, the Developer began negotiations to secure easement rights from adjacent landowners and excess ROW property from MnDOT/State of MN. These easements and site utility issues appear to be finally resolved between the Developer, St. Paul Regional Water Services and MnDOT. On May 2, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2015-48, which approved the Final Plat of The Oaks of Mendota Heights. As part of this approval, a condition stated the Developer must enter into an agreement with the city. This agreement document has been reviewed by both the Developer’s attorney and city attorney; and all parties found this agreement to be acceptable. Budget Impact There are no impacts to the city budget. Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council adopt a motion to approve the DEVELOPER’S AGREEMENT FOR THE OAKS OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, located at 2511 AND 2525 CONDON COURT, and authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Mendota Heights. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 58 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THE OAKS OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS RE: Planning Case No. 2015-20 (2511-2525 Condon Court) THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ______ day of ________________, 2018, by and between the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the "City"), and Dick Bjorklund Properties, LLC, (the "Developer"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the subject property consists of approximately 1.34 acres in area; and is generally located in the southern-central most area of the city lying at the southwest corner of the intersection of Mendota Heights Road and Condon Court (and part of State Trunk Highway 149 (Dodd Road) right-of-way, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Property is guided MR Medium Density Residential in the City’s Land Use Plan and is zoned R-2 Medium Density Residential (Ord. No. 470, adopted 01/06/2015); and WHEREAS, the Developer proposes to plat a new subdivision consisting of five (5) new lots in Mendota Heights, to be known as “The Oaks of Mendota Heights” (the "Final Plat"), and attached Exhibit B; and the purpose of this plat is to provide a single lot for one (1) new single-family residential unit dwelling and two (2) new twin home dwellings (the "Development"), as illustrated in The Oaks – Preliminary Plat Exhibits dated 06/03/15 (the “Preliminary Plat”), and attached as Exhibit C; and WHEREAS, the City Council on May 2,, 2017 granted approval to the final plat upon a condition that the Developer enter into this Agreement stipulating the conditions for the development, including on-site improvements, hereinafter described, all in accordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual promises and conditions hereinafter contained, it is hereby agreed as follows: 1. DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS: The Developer will construct at Developer's expense the following improvements according to the following terms and conditions: A. The Developer shall do all site grading, common greenway and open spaces, storm water storage ponds, surface drainage ways and the sodding of boulevards when private driveways are constructed, all in accordance with the Final Grading, Drainage, Erosion & Sediment Control and Sanitary Sewer Construction Plans, dated 04/24/17 page 59 and revised 09/15/17 (the “Plans”), and attached as Exhibit D. The Plans are hereby approved by the City, except for building permit review and approval by city staff. Any changes to the Plans during construction shall be submitted to the City for approval and no changes shall be made by the Developer until approval is obtained from the City. B. The Developer shall control soil erosion ensuring: 1. The Developer has submitted an erosion control plan, detailing all erosion control measures to be implemented during construction as part of the Plans. 2. Appropriate control measures as required by the Public Works Department shall be installed prior to development and as may be necessary to control erosion. 3. Land shall be developed such that adequate erosion and siltation controls can be provided as construction progresses. 4. The Developer shall not locate its equipment within the public right-of-way adjacent to this development without the express written consent of the Public Works Director. C. The Developer shall place iron monuments at all lot and block corners and at all other angle points on boundary lines. Iron monuments shall be replaced after all street and lawn grading has been completed in order to preserve the lot markers. D. The Developer shall be responsible for maintaining the location of and protecting curb stops, water services and sewer services. Any service or curb stop damaged as a result of the construction work being performed by the Developer or any of its contractors or subcontractors shall be repaired or replaced, at the Developer’s expense, as specified by the City. The Developer shall make all adjustments to the curb stops to bring them flush with the topsoil (after grading) or driveway surface. E. The Developer shall be responsible for any damage to the Condon Court and Mendota Heights Road roadway systems resulting from construction equipment entering and leaving the Property or work being performed by the Developer or any of its contractors or subcontractors, including utility line connections, maintenance of curbs, boulevards, sod and street sweeping until the Development is complete. The Developer shall maintain all streets free of debris and soil that has resulted from the work being performed by the Developer or any of its contractors or subcontractors until the development is completed. Warning signs shall be placed when hazards develop in streets and directing attention to detours. The repair of any damage done to the streets or public utilities by Developer or any of its contractors or subcontractors, shall be at the cost of the Developer. F. The Developer shall be responsible for securing all necessary approvals and permits page 60 from all appropriate federal, state, regional and local jurisdictions prior to the commencement of site grading or construction, including but not limited to private utility agencies. The Developer shall secure appropriate permissions from MnDOT, for any work to be completed within any segments or parts of State Trunk Highway 149 (Dodd Road) right-of-way, as per the MnDOT Review Memo, dated 06/14/17, and attached as Exhibit E. G. Tree Protection and Clearing. Prior to the clearing operation being initiated, all clearing limits and trees to be protected as determined by Developer shall be clearly marked. Tree protection fencing shall be installed and maintained until after grading is complete. H. Site Improvements. The Developer shall complete all site improvements referenced in the Plans to include, but not limited to, grading, utility installation, storm sewer and treatment installation, landscaping, curb and gutter, and full pavement. If not completed, the City may complete site improvements and invoice the Developer for all work and cost in excess of deposited escrow amount described in Section 2. I. Warranty of Title. By its execution hereof Developer hereby warrants and represents that it will have exclusive and marketable fee title to the subject property before issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the first unit as provided herein. Developer further warrants and represents that there are no liens or encumbrances against the title, and that it is fully authorized to execute this agreement as the fee owner of the subject lands, provided however, the Developer has or expects to commence action to determine adverse claims to a portion of the subject property to correct an error in the legal description to a portion of the subject property. The City agrees that it will issue building and related permits to Developer and allow Developer to commence construction while the action to determine adverse claims is pending. J. Easements. The Developers shall dedicate to the City, upon approval of the final plat, at no cost to the City, all permanent or temporary easements necessary for the construction of Developer Improvements by the City, if any. All such easements required by the City shall be in writing, and in recordable form, containing such terms and conditions as the City shall determine. If within the platted area, all such easements shall be dedicated to the City and specifically described within the Plat. As it affects all easements located outside the platted area, the same shall be dedicated by separate easement conveyed to the City of Mendota Heights with the execution of the Development Agreement. K. Utility Locations in City Right of Way. In order to maintain compliance with regulations promulgated from the Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety, the Developer and its contractors, subcontractors, and agents shall comply with the following requirements: page 61 1. All right-of-way work, as identified in the Plans, shall require a minimum of 24-hour notice to the City prior to any work performed in the right-of-way areas. 2. The layout of utilities, including depths, off-sets and materials shall be documented during construction and confirmed with city public works staff during the installation process. 3. The Developer must provide professional as-built drawings confirmed by field survey, showing all required information. In addition engineering-grade GPS coordinates in the Dakota County coordinate system shall be supplied by the Developer. 4. The Developer shall hold harmless and indemnify the City of Mendota Heights from any and all loss or damage resulting from its failure to comply with these requirements including but not limited to expenses the City incurs in correcting errors in information provided by Developer its agents or contractors or remediating problems resulting there from in the right of way. 5. Upon failure to provide full documentation as required, the City shall notify the Developer who shall have 30 days to secure full compliance. Failure to comply will result in the work being assigned by the City to an outside professional for completion of the necessary work. Any costs incurred in resolving these requirements shall be assessed to the Development or offset from security required under this agreement. 6. City staff shall document the time and materials required to review, confirm and accept the installation documentation and shall invoice Developer for the costs based on the actual work involved or on a fee schedule adopted by the City Council. 2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS A. Final Plat Approval. The City has given final approval to the Final Plat of the Development known as “The Oaks of Mendota Heights” upon execution and delivery of this Agreement, and of all required documents and security, subject to compliance with the Ordinances of the City and terms and provisions hereof, permits may be issued by the City. B. Incorporation of Reference. All plans, special provisions, proposals, specifications and contracts for the improvements furnished and let pursuant to this Agreement shall be and hereby are made a part of this Agreement by reference as fully as if set out herein in full. Specifically the following Planning Reports and Engineering files and final documentation approved by the Public Works Director and Community Development Director are specifically incorporated by reference herein and included page 62 herein as if originally made part of this agreement: 1. Planning Staff Report made part of the June 23, 2015 Planning Commission packet; and follow-up City Council packet of July 7, 2015 (all of which are part of Planning Case No. 2015-20 on file with the City), which included Resolution No. 2015-48, approving the Preliminary Plat at 2511 and 2525 Condon Court, adopted by the City Council on July 7, 2015, and attached as Exhibit F. 2. City Council Memo Report, including all attachments as part of the May 2, 2017 City Council packet, which contained the Final Plat of The Oaks of Mendota Heights (all of which is part of Planning Case No. 2015-20 on file with the City), and includes Resolution No. 2017-32, a resolution approving Final Plat for The Oaks of Mendota Heights, adopted by the City Council on May 2, 2017, and attached as Exhibit G. C. Zoning. The proposed development is located in the R-2 Two Family Residential district. All future uses and developments of this site made by the Developer pursuant to this Agreement shall comply with the applicable provisions of the relevant zoning ordinance of the City of Mendota Heights relating thereto. D. Building Permits. As part of the building permit application, the City shall promptly review plans prepared by the Developer and shall use good faith efforts to review the plans and approve or disapprove within twenty-one (21) business days. The City’s approval of the plans shall not be unreasonably withheld and the Developer will promptly reply to requests for additional information or clarification on items requested by the City in order to ensure an efficient review process. The plans for the Developer Improvements shall be consistent with standard City practices. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Agreement, the written terms of the plans approved by the City shall control. E. Further Approvals and Permits; Utility Improvements. The Developer shall be responsible for securing all necessary approvals and permits from all appropriate federal, state, regional and county organizations, including any water management organizations and other miscellaneous local jurisdictions prior to the commencement of site grading or construction related to the Development and/or Development. The obtaining of necessary permits, if required, to extend sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water main services to the Development are all conditions precedent to construction of the final plat proceeding. All plans and specifications related to utility improvements constructed as part of the Minimum Improvements shall be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, before construction on such improvements may begin. F. Inspection. All of the work related to the final plat construction shall be under and subject to the inspection and approval of the City and, where appropriate, any other page 63 governmental agency having jurisdiction. City approvals will not be unreasonably withheld. Inspections will include but not be limited to monitoring of construction activities, consultation with the Developer and its engineer on Development status or site issues, coordination for final inspection and acceptance, monitoring the Development during the warranty period, and processing of request for reduction in security. Construction observation shall include part- or full-time inspection of proposed public utilities and street construction as determined by the City. G. Final Inspection. Upon completion of the Minimum Improvements, the Developer and the Public Works Director will make a final inspection of the work. The Public Works Director shall make the final decision that all work is satisfactorily completed in accordance with this Agreement and the approved plans and specifications for the Minimum Improvements, and at such time the Public Works Director shall submit a written statement attesting thereto. At such time the Developer shall submit certification that the work underlying the Development is free of all claims, liens and other encumbrances, as well as an “as built” cost summary of the improvements called for under the Plans noted herein. The City will also upon certification of completion by the Public Works Director issue in recordable form a certification that the Developer has performed its obligations related to the Plans improvements under this Agreement. H. Administrative and Miscellaneous Expenses. As to any and all administrative, legal or engineering costs which the Developer is expected to pay to the City, which costs may be offset against the financial security which the Developer has filed and provided to the City, the Developer shall be given the opportunity to review and comment on such costs prior to the application by the City for the payment of same. I. Park Dedication. In lieu of land dedication, Developer shall upon execution of this Developer's Agreement pay a park dedication fee in the amount of $ 8,100.00, payable to the City of Mendota Heights, MN. J. Landscaping. A landscaping plan has been developed and submitted to the City by Developer as part of the Plans. Final landscaping features and new plantings shall be provided as part of any new building permit review process, and verified prior to issuance of any certificate(s) of occupancy. 1. The owner, tenant and their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are shown on the approved landscape plan and which have died within one (1) year after completion and acceptance by the City shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions allow. K. Certificate of Occupancy. After the Developer has completed the construction of the Developer Improvements and other work required of it under this Agreement, the City page 64 shall issue a certificate of occupancy within twenty-one (21) days after written request from the Developer or other lot owner within the Development, unless denied as set forth below. The certificate of occupancy shall be in recordable form and may be recorded against the Development. Upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the Developer, its successors and assigns, and all future owners of the property shall be released from all obligations to construct the Developer Improvements under this Agreement, except that any warranty and maintenance obligations remaining thereafter shall continue to remain. If the City shall refuse or deny to provide a certificate of occupancy in accordance with the provisions of this Section, the City shall provide the requesting party with a written statement indicating in detail in what respects the construction of the Developer Improvements are not completed, or any other failure or default under this Agreement, and what measures or acts will be necessary, in the opinion of the City, in order to obtain a certificate of occupancy. The written refusal or denial of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall be provided by the City within the same 21- day period during which a certificate of occupancy would be issued. L. Transfer of Property. In the event that the Developer sells the Development to an independent third party, then, within 15 days after request by Developer, the City shall acknowledge and certify certain facts in connection with this Agreement and the status of construction of the Developer Improvements. The City shall provide this certification to Developer and any potential buyer of the Development. The certification shall reference the following: (i) that the Developer and buyer may rely on the representations and agreements made by the City in the certification; (ii) the status of the completion of the Developer Improvements; (iii) the amount of any Security remaining and that any remaining amounts will be returned to Developer and not the buyer; (iv) that the Developer and not the buyer remain responsible for obligations under this Agreement, and that buyer and any subsequent owners of the Development are hereby released from all obligations under this Agreement; (v) whether or not there exists any defaults, events of default, or conditions which with the passage of time or giving of notice would constitute a default under this Agreement; and (vi) if applicable, that this Agreement is completed and hereby terminated and of no further force and effect. M. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Developers shall indemnify and hold harmless the City of Mendota Heights, its agents and employees from and against any and all claims, damages, losses or expenses, including but not limited to attorney's fees, arising out of the issuance of this Developer's Agreement by the City of Mendota Heights and/or arising out of the performance or non-performance of its obligations hereunder by Developer. page 65 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Developer have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on the date and year first above written. DICK BJORKLUND PROPERTIES, LLC Date: By: Its: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN Neil Garlock, Mayor Date: Mark McNeill, City Administrator page 66 EXHIBIT A Legal Description – 2511 and 2525 Condon Court PID: 27-03500-80-010 and 27-03500-80-022 That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 28, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the south line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 35, with the center line of Trunk Highway No. 49, (formerly No. 88) thence west, along said south line, 450 feet, thence north 932 feet to the point of beginning; thence north 160 feet, thence east parallel with the south line of said Southeast Quarter, a distance of 295.3 feet, more or less, to the center line of Trunk Highway No. 49, as built, (formerly No. 88); thence southerly, along the center line of said highway, 160 feet, more or less, to a point on a line which is parallel with the south line of the said Southeast Quarter and passes through the point of beginning, thence west, parallel with the south line of said Southeast Quarter a distance of 305 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, Excepting therefrom that part which lies easterly of a line run parallel with and distant 162.5 feet westerly of the following described line, beginning at a point on the east and west quarter line of Section 2, Township 27, Range 23, distant 612.2 feet west of the east quarter thereof; thence run northerly at an angle of 88 degrees 5 minutes 30 seconds with said east and west Quarter line (when measured east to north) 325.9 feet, thence deflect to the left at an angle of 13 degrees 59 minutes for 2064.8 feet; thence deflect to the right on ten chord spiral curve of decreasing radius (spiral angle 1 degree 7 minutes 30 seconds) for 150 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 1 degree 30 minute circular curve (delta angle 22 degrees 54 minutes) for 1526.7 feet and terminating. Together with a strip 12.5 feet in width adjoining and westerly of the above described strip; beginning opposite a point on the above described line distant 633.5 feet southerly of its point of termination (when measured along said line) and extending northerly to the north line of the above described tract. And All that part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 28, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the southerly line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 35, with the center line of Minnesota State Highway No. 88 as used and existing on and prior to November 30, 1950; thence west along said southerly line of the Southeast Quarter for a distance of 450 feet; thence north for a distance of 1092 feet to the point of beginning of the land described; thence north for a distance of 273 feet; thence east and parallel with the southerly line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 301.8 feet, more or less, to the center line of Minnesota State Highway 88; thence southerly along the center line of said Highway for a distance of 273.3, more or less; thence west and parallel with the southerly line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 295.3 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, containing approximately 2 acres, subject to Highway. And That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 28, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the southerly line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 35, with the center line of Trunk Highway No. 88, (now known as Trunk Highway No. 149) as used and existing prior to November 30, 1950; thence West, along said southerly line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 450 feet; thence North for a distance of 1092 feet to the point of beginning of Tract A to be described; thence North for a distance of 273 feet; thence East and parallel with said southerly line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 301.8 feet, more or less, to the center line of said Trunk Highway No. 88; thence southerly, along the center line of said Highway for 273.3 feet, more or less; thence West and parallel with said southerly line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 295.3 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning; which lies easterly of the westerly right of way line of Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 19-53 as the same is on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for said County, and northerly, westerly, and southerly of Line 1 described below: Line 1 - Commencing at Right of Way Boundary Corner B7 as shown on said Plat Numbered 19-53; thence westerly on an azimuth of 275 degrees 26 minutes 38 seconds along the boundary of said plat for 12.50 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B8; thence northerly for 190.29 feet along the boundary of said plat on a non-tangential curve, concave to the east, having a radius of 3994.72 feet, a delta angle of 02 degrees 43 minutes 46 seconds and a chord azimuth of 06 degrees 48 minutes 30 seconds to the point of beginning of Line 1 to be described; thence on an azimuth of 89 degrees 49 minutes 44 seconds for 30.32 feet; thence northerly for 109.57 feet on a non-tangential curve, concave to the east, having a radius of 3964.72 feet, a delta angle of 01 degrees 35 minutes 00 seconds and a chord azimuth of 279 degrees 49 minutes 12 seconds for 30.00 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B9 as shown on said Plat No. 19-53 and there terminating; containing 3366 square feet, more or less. page 67 Exhibit B Final Plat of The Oaks of Mendota Heights page 68 KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Dick Bjorklund Properties, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, owner of the following described property: That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 28, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the south line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 35, with the center line of Trunk Highway No. 49, (formerly No. 88) thence west, along said south line, 450 feet, thence north 932 feet to the point of beginning; thence north 160 feet, thence east parallel with the south line of said Southeast Quarter, a distance of 295.3 feet, more or less, to the center line of Trunk Highway No. 49, as built, (formerly No. 88); thence southerly, along the center line of said highway, 160 feet, more or less, to a point on a line which is parallel with the south line of the said Southeast Quarter and passes through the point of beginning, thence west, parallel with the south line of said Southeast Quarter a distance of 305 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, Excepting therefrom that part which lies easterly of a line run parallel with and distant 162.5 feet westerly of the following described line, beginning at a point on the east and west quarter line of Section 2, Township 27, Range 23, distant 612.2 feet west of the east quarter thereof; thence run northerly at and angle of 88 degrees 5 minutes 30 seconds with said east and west quarter line (when measured east to north) 325.9 feet, thence deflect to the left at an angle of 13 degrees 59 minutes for 2064.8 feet; thence deflect to the right on ten chord spiral curve of decreasing radius (spiral angle 1 degree 7 minutes 30 seconds) for 150 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 1 degree 30 minute circular curve (delta angle 22 degrees 54 minutes) for 1526.7 feet and terminating. Together with a strip 12.5 feet in width adjoining and westerly of the above described strip; beginning opposite a point on the above described line distant 633.5 feet southerly of its point of termination (when measured along said line) and extending northerly to the north line of the above described tract. And All that part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 28, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the southerly line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 35, with the center line of Minnesota State Highway No. 88 as used and existing on and prior to November 30, 1950; thence west along said southerly line of the Southeast Quarter for a distance of 450 feet; thence north for a distance of 1092 feet to the point of beginning of the land described; thence north for a distance of 273 feet; thence east and parallel with the southerly line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 301.8 feet, more or less, to the center line of Minnesota State Highway 88; thence southerly along the center line of said Highway for a distance of 273.3, more or less; thence west and parallel with the southerly line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 295.3 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, containing approximately 2 acres, subject to Highway. And That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 28, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the southerly line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 35, with the center line of Trunk Highway No. 88, (now known as Trunk Highway No. 149) as used and existing prior to November 30, 1950; thence West, along said southerly line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 450 feet; thence North for a distance of 1092 feet to the point of beginning of Tract A to be described; thence North for a distance of 273 feet; thence East and parallel with said southerly line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 301.8 feet, more or less, to the center line of said Trunk Highway No. 88; thence southerly, along the center line of said Highway for 273.3 feet, more or less; thence West and parallel with said southerly line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 295.3 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning; which lies easterly of the westerly right of way line of Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 19-53 as the same is on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for said County, and northerly, westerly, and southerly of Line 1 described below; Line1 - Commencing at Right of Way Boundary Corner B7 as shown on said Plat Numbered 19-53; thence westerly on an azimuth of 275 degrees 26 minutes 38 seconds along the boundary of said plat for 12.50 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B8; thence northerly for 190.29 feet along the boundary of said plat on a non-tangential curve, concave to the east, having a radius of 3994.72 feet, a delta angle of 02 degrees 43 minutes 46 seconds and a chord azimuth of 06 degrees 48 minutes 30 seconds to the point of beginning of Line 1 to be described; thence on an azimuth of 89 degrees 49 minutes 44 seconds for 30.32 feet; thence northerly for 109.57 feet on a non-tangential curve, concave to the east, having a radius of 3964.72 feet, a delta angle of 01 degrees 35 minutes 00 seconds and a chord azimuth of 279 degrees 49 minutes 12 seconds for 30.00 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B9 as shown on said Plat No. 19-53 and there terminating; containing 3366 square feet, more or less. Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as THE OAKS OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS and does hereby dedicate to the public for public use the public ways and the drainage and utility easements as created on this plat. In witness whereof said Dick Bjorklund Properties, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company , has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this day of , 20 . Dick Bjorklund Properties, LLC By: its STATE OF COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me on day of , 20 , by , the of Dick Bjorklund Properties, LLC , on behalf of the company. County, Printed Name My commission expires I Marcus F. Hampton do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. Dated this day of , 20 ______________________________________________________________ Marcus F. Hampton, Licensed Land Surveyor, Minnesota License No. 47481 BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE WEST LINE OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SEC. 20, T. 114, R. 20 WHICH IS ^^hDdK,sZ/E'K&^ϬϬΣϭϭΖϭϱΗt 8+%+0+6;/#2 NOTE: NO MONUMENT SYMBOL SHOWN AT ANY STATUTE REQUIRED LOCATION INDICATES A PLAT MONUMENT THAT WILL BE SET WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE RECORDING DATE OF THIS PLAT. SAID MONUMENTS SHALL BE 1/2 INCH x 14 INCH IRON PIPES MARKED BY R.L.S. NO. 47481. DENOTES FOUND 1/2 INCH IRON MONUMENT DENOTES SET 1/2 INCH IRON MONUMENT WITH CAP MARKED R.L.S. NO. 47481 DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, ADJOINING LOT LINES, AND BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, ADJOINING RIGHT OF WAY LINES, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of , 20 , by Marcus F. Hampton. County, Printed Name My commission expires January 31, CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA This plat of THE OAKS OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS was approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of MENDOTA HEIGHTS, Minnesota at a regular meeting thereof held this day of , 20 , and said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2. By: Mayor Clerk DAKOTA COUNTY SURVEYOR I hereby certify that in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 11, this plat has been reviewed and approved this day of , 20 . By: Dakota County Surveyor DAKOTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION AND RECORDS Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 9, taxes payable in the year 20 on the land hereinbefore described have been paid. Also pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.12, there are no delinquent taxes and transfer entered this day of , 20 . By: Director Department Of Property Taxation and Records COUNTY RECORDER, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTA I hereby certify that this plat of THE OAKS OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS was filed in the office of the County Recorder for public record on this day of , 20 , at o'clock . M. and was duly filed in Book of Plats, Page , as Document Number . County Recorder page 69 Exhibit C Preliminary Plat of The Oaks of Mendota Heights page 70 page 71 page 72 page 73 page 74 page 75  page 76 page 77 Exhibit D Final Grading, Drainage, Erosion & Sediment Control and Sanitary Sewer Construction Plans page 78 †† † † zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz †††† page 79 †††† † † † page 80 †††† † † † †††† † † † page 81 †††I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. That this survey does not purport to show all improvements, easements or encroachments, to the property except as shown thereon. Signed this 21st day of April, 2017 _______________________________________ Marcus F. Hampton, Minnesota L.S. No. 47481 Orientation of this bearing system is based on the south line of the Southeast Quarter of Section 35 to have an DVVXPHGEHDULQJRI6ƒ : No specific soil investigation has been completed on this lot by James R. Hill, Inc. The suitability of soils to support the specific structure proposed is not the responsibility of James R. Hill, Inc. or by the Surveyor. This survey has been prepared without benefit of a title commitment or title opinion. A title search for recorded or unrecorded easements which may benefit or encumber this property has not been completed by the surveyor. The location and information shown regarding utilities serving this property or existing on this property as shown as a part of this survey, have been located by on site observation or taken from plans provided by others. For further information concerning these utilities please contact the city of Mendota Heights Engineering Department and or Gopher State One Call. Address of Parcel A is 2525 Condon Court, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120. Parcel Identification Number for Parcel A is 27-03500-80-022. Parcel A gross area is 47,927 square feet or 1.1003 acres. Area of right of way within Parcel A is 23,882 square feet or 0.5483 acres. Net area of Parcel A is 24,045 square feet of 0.5520 acres. Address of Parcel B is 2511 Condon Court, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120. Parcel Identification Number for Parcel B is 27-03500-80-010. Parcel B gross area is 80,888 square feet or 1.8569 acres. Area of right of way within Parcel B is 50,055 square feet or 1.1491 acres. Net area of Parcel B is 30,833 square feet of 0.7078 acres. Tract A area is 3,366 square feet or 0.0773 acres. Overall gross area = 58,244 square feet ot 1.3371 acres. Zoning Classification: R-2 per Resolution #2015-02. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE page 82 †††† † † †zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzz zz z z z z z z z zzzzz z z z z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz†††† † † † page 83 II.B. APPLICATION AND DURATION OF COVERAGE 1. Application Required. a. The and ƐŚĂůůƐƵďŵŝƚĂĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĂŶĚĂĐĐƵƌĂƚĞŽŶͲůŝŶĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌŵǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĨĞĞƚŽ the MPCA for each that disturbs one (1) or more acres of land or for a that will ultimately disturb one (1) or more acres. If the ĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚŝƐŶŽƚĂďůĞƚŽĂƉƉůLJŽŶͲůŝŶĞ͕ĐŽŶƚĂĐƚƚŚĞDWĨŽƌƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůĂƐƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽƌĂǁĂŝǀĞƌ͘ b. For certain or disturbing 50 acres or more, the application must be submitted at least 30 days before the start of . This requirement pertains to that have a discharge point on the that is within one mile () of, and flows to, a special water listed in Appendix A, Part B. or waters listed as impaired under section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (see the MPCA's website) where the identified pollutant(s) or stressor(s) are phosphorus (nutrient eutrophication biological indicators), turbidity, dissolved oxygen, or biotic impairment (fish bioassessment, aquatic plant bioassessment and aquatic macroinvertebrate bioassessment). Applicants of listed in this part must submit a complete and accurate application form and including all calculations for the Permanent DĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ^LJƐƚĞŵ;ƐĞĞWĂƌƚƐ///͘͘Ͳ͘Ϳ͘ 2. All persons meeting the definition of and are and must be listed on the application. The is responsible for compliance with all terms and conditions of this permit. The is responsible for ĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚWĂƌƚƐ//͕͘//͕͘///͘Ͳ&͕/s͕s͕ĂŶĚĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞrequirements found in Appendix A, Part C. of this permit and is jointly responsible with the for compliance with those portions of the permit. 3. Permit Coverage Effective Date: The commencement of any (e.g., land disturbing activities) covered under Part I.A. of this permit is prohibited until permit coverage under this permit is effective. a. For listed in Part II.B.1.a. permit coverage will become effective seven (7) calendar days after the electronic submittal date or the postmarked date of a complete application form. b. For listed in Part II.B.1.b. permit coverage will become effective 30 calendar days after the electronic submittal date, the postmarked date or MPCA date stamp (whichever is first) of the complete application. For incomplete applications (e.g., lack of fees or signature) or incomplete (e.g., missing calculations, specifications, estimated quantities of the or timing of installation narrative), the permit becomes effective 30 calendar days after all required information is submitted. 4. Coverage Notification: will be notified of coverage in a manner as determined by the ;Ğ͘Ő͕͘ĞͲŵĂŝů͕ŽŶůŝŶĞŶŽƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŽƌůĞƚƚĞƌͿ͘ 5. Change of Coverage: For construction where the or changes, (e.g., an original developer sells portions of the property to various homebuilders or sells the entire site to a new ) the current and the new or r shall submit a complete permit modification on a form provided by the . The form must be submitted prior to the new r or commencing on site or in no case later than 30 days after taking ownership of the property. The shall provide a to the new and that specifically addresses the remaining . II.C. TERMINATION OF COVERAGE 1. Termination of coverage when construction is complete: All must submit a to the MPCA on a form provided by the within 30 days after all activities required for (see Part IV.G.) are complete. The coverage under this permit terminates at midnight on the submission date of the . 2. Termination of coverage when transfer of ownership occurs: All must submit a on a form provided by the within 30 days after selling or otherwise legally transferring the entire site, including permit responsibility for roads (e.g., street sweeping) and infrastructure final clean out, or transferring portions of a site to another party. The coverage under this permit terminates at midnight on the submission date of the . may terminate permit coverage prior to completion of all if all of the following conditions are met. After the permit is terminated under this Part, if there is any subsequent development on the remaining portions of the site where was not complete, new permit coverage must be obtained if the subsequent development itself or as part of the remaining will result in land disturbing activities of one (1) or more acres in size. a. has ceased for at least 90 days. b. At least 90 percent (by area) of all originally proposed has been completed and established on those areas. c. On areas where is not complete, has been established. d. The site is in compliance with Part IV.G.2. and Part IV.G.3. and where applicable, Part IV.G.4. or Part IV.G.5. may terminate coverage upon approval by the MPCA if information is submitted to the MPCA documenting that termination is appropriate because the project is cancelled. III.B.SWPPP AMENDMENTS The must amend the as necessary to include additional requirements, such as additional or modified that are designed to correct problems identified or address situations whenever: 1. There is a change in design, construction, operation, maintenance, weather or seasonal conditions that has a significant effect on the discharge of pollutants to or . 2. Inspections or investigations by site or , USEPA or MPCA officials indicate the is not effective in eliminating or significantly minimizing the discharge of pollutants to or or that the discharges are causing water quality standard exceedances (e.g., nuisance conditions as defined in Minn. R. 7050.0210, subp. 2). 3. The is not achieving the general objectives of minimizing pollutants in discharges associated with , or the is not consistent with the terms and conditions of this permit. 4. At any time after permit coverage is effective, the MPCA may determine that the discharges may ĐĂƵƐĞ͕ŚĂǀĞƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůĞƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůƚŽĐĂƵƐĞ͕ŽƌĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚĞƚŽŶŽŶͲĂƚƚĂŝŶŵĞŶƚŽĨĂŶLJĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ͕Žƌ that the does not incorporate the applicable requirements in Part III.A.8., (Impaired Waters and TMDLs). If a water quality standard changes during the term of this permit, the MPCA will make a determination as to whether a modification of the SWPPP is necessary to address the new standard. If the MPCA makes such determination(s) or any of the ĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶƐŝŶWĂƌƚƐ///͘͘ϭ͘Ͳϯ͕͘ƚŚĞDWǁŝůůŶŽƚŝĨLJƚŚĞin writing. In response, the must amend the to address the identified concerns and submit information requested by the MPCA, which may include an individual permit application. If the MPCA's written notification requires a response, failure to respond within the specified timeframe constitutes a permit violation. III.E RECORD RETENTION The (original or copies) including, all changes to it, and inspections and maintenance records must be kept at the site during construction by the who has/have operational control of that portion of the site. The can be ŬĞƉƚŝŶĞŝƚŚĞƌƚŚĞĨŝĞůĚŽĨĨŝĐĞŽƌŝŶĂŶŽŶͲƐŝƚĞǀĞŚŝĐůĞĚƵƌŝŶŐŶŽƌŵĂůǁŽƌŬŝŶŐŚŽƵƌƐ͘ůůmust keep the following records on file for three (3) years after submittal of the as outlined in Part II.C. This does not include any records after submittal of the . 1. The final SWPPP 2. Any other related permits required for the 3. Records of all inspection and maintenance conducted during construction (Part IV.E. Inspections and Maintenance) ϰ͘ůůƉĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞĂŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚƐƚŚĂƚŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐĂůůƌŝŐŚƚͲŽĨͲǁĂLJ͕ĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚƐ͕ covenants and other binding requirements regarding perpetual maintenance and 5. All required calculations for design of the temporary and permanent Management Systems. III.F. TRAINING REQUIREMENTS The shall ensure the following individuals identified in this part have been trained in accordance with this Permit's training requirements. 1. Who must be trained: a. Individual(s) preparing the for the b. Individual(s) overseeing implementation of, revising, and amending the and individual(s) performing inspections as required in Part IV.E. One of these individual(s) must be available for an onsite inspection within 72 hours upon request by the MPCA. c. Individual(s) performing or supervising the installation, maintenance and repair of . At least one individual on a must be trained in these job duties. 2. Training content: The content and extent of training must be commensurate with the individual's job duties and responsibilities with regard to activities covered under this permit for the . At least one individual present on the permitted site (or available to the site in 72 hours) must be trained in the job duties described in Part III.F.1.b. and Part III.F.1.c. 3. The shall ensure that the individuals are trained by local, state, federal agencies, professional organizations, or other entities with expertise in , permanent management and the Minnesota ͬ^^ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌWĞƌŵŝƚ͘ŶƵƉĚĂƚĞƌĞĨƌĞƐŚĞƌͲƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐŵƵƐƚďĞĂƚƚĞŶĚĞĚĞǀĞƌLJƚŚƌĞĞ (3) years starting three (3) years from the issuance date of this permit. IV.A. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN The must implement the and the requirements of this part. The identified in the and in this permit must be selected, installed, and maintained in an appropriate and functional manner that is in accordance with relevant manufacturer specifications and accepted engineering practices. IV.B. EROSION PREVENTION PRACTICES 1. The must plan for and implement appropriate such as construction phasing, vegetative buffer strips, horizontal slope grading, inspection and maintenance of Part IV.E. and other construction practices that minimize erosion as necessary to comply with this permit and protect . The location of areas not to be disturbed must be delineated (e.g., with flags, stakes, signs, silt fence etc.) on the site before work begins. The must minimize the need for disturbance of portions of the that have . For those sloped areas which must be disturbed, the must use techniques such as phasing and practices designed for (e.g., slope draining and terracing). 2. The must all exposed soil areas (including stockpiles). must be to limit soil erosion whenever any has permanently or temporarily ceased on any portion of the site and will not resume for a period exceeding 14 calendar days. must be completed no later than 14 calendar days after the in that portion of the site has temporarily or permanently ceased. For that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has promulgated ͞ǁŽƌŬ ŝŶǁĂƚĞƌƌĞƐƚƌŝĐƚŝŽŶƐ͟ĚƵƌŝŶŐƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĞĚĨŝƐŚƐƉĂǁŶŝŶŐƚŝŵĞĨƌĂŵĞƐ͕ĂůůĞdžƉŽƐĞĚƐŽŝůĂƌĞĂƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞǁŝƚŚŝŶϮϬϬĨĞĞƚ of the water's edge, and drain to these waters must complete the activities within 24 hours during the restriction period. Temporary stockpiles without significant silt, clay or organic components (e.g., clean aggregate stockpiles, demolition concrete stockpiles, sand stockpiles) and the constructed base components of roads, parking lots and similar surfaces are exempt from this requirement but must be in compliance with Part IV.C.5. 3. If using conveyance channels , the must design the channels to route water around unstabilized areas on the site and to reduce erosion, unless . The must use erosion controls and velocity dissipation devices such as check dams, sediment traps, riprap, or grouted riprap at outlets within and along the length of any constructed ĐŽŶǀĞLJĂŶĐĞĐŚĂŶŶĞů͕ĂŶĚĂƚĂŶLJŽƵƚůĞƚ͕ƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂŶŽŶͲĞƌŽƐŝǀĞ flow velocity, to minimize erosion of channels and their embankments, outlets, adjacent stream banks, slopes, and downstream waters during discharge conditions. 4. The must the of any temporary or permanent drainage ditch or swale that drains water from any portion of the construction site, or diverts water around the site, within 200 lineal feet from the property edge, or from the point of discharge into any . of the last 200 lineal feet must be completed within 24 hours after connecting to a or property edge. The shall complete of the remaining portions of any temporary or permanent ditches or swales within 14 calendar days after connecting to a or property edge and construction in that portion of the ditch has temporarily or permanently ceased. Temporary or permanent ditches or swales that are being used as a sediment containment system during construction ;ǁŝƚŚƉƌŽƉĞƌůLJĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƌŽĐŬͲĚŝƚĐŚĐŚĞĐŬƐ͕ďŝŽƌŽůůƐ͕ƐŝůƚĚŝŬĞƐ͕ĞƚĐ͘ͿĚŽŶŽƚŶĞĞĚƚŽďĞduring the temporary period of its use as a sediment containment system. These areas must be within 24 hours after no longer being used as a sediment containment system. Applying mulch, hydromulch, tackifier, polyacrylamide or similar practices is not acceptable in any part of a temporary or permanent drainage ditch or swale. 5. Pipe outlets must be provided with temporary or permanent within 24 hours after connection to a . 6. Unless due to lack of pervious or vegetated areas, the must direct discharges from to vegetated areas of the site (including any in order to increase sediment removal and maximize infiltration. The must use velocity dissipation devices if necessary to prevent erosion when directing to vegetated areas. IV.C. SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES 1. The must employ practices as necessary to minimize sediment from entering , including curb and gutter systems and storm sewer inlets. a. Temporary or permanent drainage ditches and sediment basins that are designed as part of a sediment ĐŽŶƚĂŝŶŵĞŶƚƐLJƐƚĞŵ;Ğ͘Ő͕͘ĚŝƚĐŚĞƐǁŝƚŚƌŽĐŬͲĐŚĞĐŬĚĂŵƐͿƌĞƋƵŝƌĞpractices only as appropriate for site conditions. b. If the down gradient are overloaded (based on frequent failure or excessive maintenance requirement), the must install additional upgradient practices or redundant to eliminate the overloading, and the must be amended to identify these additional practices as ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚŝŶWĂƌƚ///͘ϭ͘Ͳϯ͘ 2. practices must be established on all down gradient perimeters and be located upgradient of any buffer zones. The perimeter ƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞŵƵƐƚďĞŝŶƉůĂĐĞďĞĨŽƌĞĂŶLJƵƉŐƌĂĚŝĞŶƚůĂŶĚͲĚŝƐƚƵƌďŝŶŐ activities begin. These practices shall remain in place until has been established in accordance with Part IV.G. A floating silt curtain placed in the water is not a to satisfy perimeter control requirements in this part except when working on a shoreline and below the waterline. In those cases, a floating silt curtain can be used as a perimeter control practice if the floating silt curtain is installed as close to shore as possible. Immediately after the short term construction activity (e.g. installation of rip rap along the shoreline) in that area is complete, an upland perimeter control practice must be installed if exposed soils still drain to the surface water. 3. The ƐŚĂůůƌĞͲŝŶƐƚĂůůĂůůpractices that have been adjusted or removed to ĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚĞƐŚŽƌƚͲƚĞƌŵĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐƐƵĐŚĂƐĐůĞĂƌŝŶŐŽƌŐƌƵďďŝŶŐ͕ŽƌƉĂƐƐĂŐĞŽĨǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐ͕ŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůLJĂĨƚĞƌƚŚĞ ƐŚŽƌƚͲƚĞƌŵĂĐƚŝǀŝƚLJŚĂƐďĞĞŶĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚ͘dŚĞƐŚĂůůĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĂŶLJƐŚŽƌƚͲƚĞƌŵĂĐƚŝǀŝƚLJƚŚĂƚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐ removal of practices as quickly as possible. The ŵƵƐƚƌĞͲŝŶƐƚĂůů ƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞŶĞdžƚƉƌĞĐŝƉŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĞǀĞŶƚĞǀĞŶŝĨƚŚĞƐŚŽƌƚͲƚĞƌŵĂĐƚŝǀŝƚLJŝƐŶŽƚĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞ͘ 4. All storm drain inlets must be protected by appropriate during construction until all sources with potential for discharging to the inlet have been . Inlet protection may be removed for a particular inlet if a specific safety concern (street flooding/freezing) has been identified by the or the jurisdictional authority (e.g., city/county/township/MnDOT engineer).The must document the need for removal in the 5. Temporary soil stockpiles must have silt fence or other effective , and cannot be placed in any or , including conveyances such as curb and gutter systems, or conduits and ditches unless there is a bypass in place for the 6. Where vehicle traffic leaves any part of the site (or onto paved roads within the site): a. The must install a vehicle tracking to minimize the track out of sediment from the construction site. Examples of vehicle tracking include (but are not limited to) rock pads, mud mats, slash mulch, concrete or steel wash racks, or equivalent systems. b. The must use street sweeping if such vehicle tracking are not adequate to prevent sediment from being tracked onto the street (see Part IV.E.5.d.). 7. The must install temporary sedimentation basins as required in Part III.C. of this permit. 8. The must minimize soil compaction and, unless , preserve topsoil. Minimizing soil compaction is not required where the function of a specific area of the site dictates that it be compacted. 9. The must preserve a 50 foot or (if a buffer is on the site) provide redundant when a is located within 50 feet of the earth disturbances and stormwater flows to the . are not required adjacent to road ditches, judicial ditches, county ditches, conveyance channels, storm drain inlets, and sediment basins. The is/are not required to enhance the quality of the vegetation that already exists in the buffer or provide vegetation if none exist. However, can improve the natural buffer with vegetation. 10. If the intend to use polymers, flocculants, or other sedimentation treatment chemicals on the site, the must comply with the following minimum requirements: a. The must use conventional erosion and prior to chemical addition to ensure effective treatment. Chemicals may only be applied where treated is directed to a system which allows for filtration or settlement of the floc prior to discharge. b. Chemicals must be selected that are appropriately suited to the types of soils likely to be exposed during construction, and to the expected turbidity, pH, and flow rate of flowing into the chemical treatment system or area. c. Chemicals must be used in accordance with accepted engineering practices, and with dosing specifications and sediment removal design specifications provided by the manufacturer or provider/supplier of the applicable chemicals. IV.D. DEWATERING AND BASIN DRAINING 1. The ŵƵƐƚĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƚƵƌďŝĚŽƌƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚͲůĂĚĞŶǁĂƚĞƌƐƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽor basin draining (e.g., pumped discharges, trench/ditch cuts for drainage) to a temporary or permanent sedimentation basin on the site unless . The may discharge from the temporary or permanent sedimentation basins to if the basin water has been visually checked to ensure adequate treatment has been obtained in the basin and that nuisance conditions (see Minn. R. 7050.0210, subp. 2) will not result from the discharge. If the water cannot be discharged to a sedimentation basin prior to entering the , it must be treated with the appropriate , such that the discharge does not adversely affect the receiving water or downstream properties. If the must discharge water that contains oil or grease, the ŵƵƐƚƵƐĞĂŶŽŝůͲǁĂƚĞƌ separator or suitable filtration device (e.g. cartridge filters, absorbents pads) prior to discharging the water. The must ensure that discharge points are adequately protected from erosion and scour. The discharge must be dispersed over natural rock riprap, sand bags, plastic sheeting, or other accepted measures. 2. All water from ŽƌďĂƐŝŶͲĚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐŵƵƐƚďĞĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞĚŝŶĂŵĂŶŶĞƌƚŚĂƚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚĐĂƵƐĞŶƵŝƐĂŶĐĞ conditions, erosion in receiving channels or on downslope properties, or inundation in causing significant adverse impact to the 3. If the is/are using filters with backwash water, the must haul the backwash water away for disposal, return the backwash water to the beginning of the treatment process, or incorporate the backwash water into the site in a manner that does not cause erosion. The Permittee(s) may discharge backwash water to the sanitary sewer if permission is granted by the sanitary sewer authority. The must replace and clean the filter media used in devices when required to retain adequate function. THE OAKS OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS - MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN TYPE OF PROJECT : 5 Lot Single/Mulit-Family Residential Construction TYPE OF WORK : Utility and Home Construction. TOTAL PLATTED AREA : 2.301 AC TOTAL DISTURBED AREA : 1.60 AC EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA : 0.51 AC PROPOSED (DESIGN) IMPERVIOUS AREA : 0.68 AC SPECIAL WATERS : There are no special or impaired water within one mile of the site. CONSTRUCTION PHASING The project is expected to be constructed in a single phase with utility construction followed by home construction. POTENTIONAL FOR EROSION AND DISCHARGE OF SEDIMENT As the home sites will be stripped of topsoil and vegetation for a period of several months during individual home construction, the potential for erosion will increase. The risk of discharge of sediment off of the site is moderate, due to the grade orientation and design. This can be controlled by heavy duty silt fence and temporary mulch. Contractor will be required to manage all slopes and stockpiles such that soil exposure is minimized. EROSION CONTROL BMPs The construction plans anticipate the use of, but are not limited to, the following Erosion Control BMPs: 1. Perimeter delineation to minimize disturbed areas 2. Temporary Rock Construction Entrance 3. Temporary straw mulch as needed. 4. Seed and mulch/sod 5. Minimize active or disturbed work areas SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPs The construction plans anticipate the use of, but are not limited to, the following Sediment Control BMPs 1. Silt Fence at project perimeter or toe of slopes 2. Inlet protection on existing catch basins 3. Linear control along back of new curb and gutter (bioroll or silt fence) 4. Routine street sweeping adjacent to construction entrance. Refer to plans for designated locations of BMPs, details and implementation notes. BASIN AND TRAP DEWATERING BMPs Should the need arise for basin or trap dewatering, contractor shall utilize a floating skimmer pump intake, such that the water is drawn from the surface of the basin. Pumped effluent shall not be discharged into Surface Waters in a turbid state. Turbid effluent shall be filtered with mechanical devices, chemical filtering, or a combination thereof, to a state of 50 NTUs or less. IV.E. INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE 1. The must ensure that a trained person (as identified in Part III.A.3.a.) will routinely inspect the entire construction site at least once every seven (7) days during active construction and within 24 hours after a rainfall event greater than 0.5 inches in 24 hours. Following an inspection that occurs within 24 hours after a rainfall event, the next inspection must be conducted within seven (7) days after the rainfall event. 2. All inspections and maintenance conducted during construction must be recorded within 24 hours in writing and these records must be retained with the in accordance with Part III.E. Records of each inspection and maintenance activity shall include: a. Date and time of inspections b. Name of person(s) conducting inspections c. Findings of inspections, including the specific location where corrective actions are needed d. Corrective actions taken (including dates, times, and party completing maintenance activities) e. Date and amount of all rainfall events greater than 1/2 inch (0.5 inches) in 24 hours. Rainfall amounts must be obtained by a properly maintained rain gauge installed onsite, a weather station that is within 1 mile of your location or a weather reporting system that provides site specific rainfall data from radar summaries. f. If any discharge is observed to be occurring during the inspection, a record of all points of the property from which there is a discharge must be made, and the discharge should be described (i.e., color, odor, floating, settled, or suspended solids, foam, oil sheen, and other obvious indicators of pollutants) and photographed. g. Any amendments to the proposed as a result of the inspection must be documented as required in Part III.B. within seven (7) calendar days. 3. Inspection frequency adjustment a. Where parts of the site have , but work remains on other parts of the site, the may reduce inspections of the areas with to once per month. b. Where construction sites have on all exposed soil areas and no is ŽĐĐƵƌƌŝŶŐĂŶLJǁŚĞƌĞŽŶƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͕ƚŚĞƐŝƚĞŵƵƐƚďĞŝŶƐƉĞĐƚĞĚĚƵƌŝŶŐŶŽŶͲĨƌŽnjĞŶŐƌŽƵŶĚĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐĂƚůĞĂƐƚŽŶĐĞƉĞƌ month for a period of twelve (12) months. Following the twelfth month of and no , inspections may be terminated until is once again initiated unless the is/are notified in writing by the MPCA that erosion issues have been detected at the site and inspections need to resume. c. Where work has been suspended due to frozen ground conditions, the inspections may be suspended. The required inspections and maintenance schedule must begin within 24 hours after runoff occurs at the site or 24 hours prior to resuming construction, whichever comes first. 4. The is/are responsible for the inspection and maintenance of temporary and permanent water quality management , as well as all and , until another has obtained coverage under this Permit according to Part II.B.5. or the has undergone , and an has been submitted to the MPCA. 5. The must inspect all and and Pollution Prevention DĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚDĞĂƐƵƌĞƐƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞŝŶƚĞŐƌŝƚLJĂŶĚĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞŶĞƐƐĚƵƌŝŶŐĂůůƌŽƵƚŝŶĞĂŶĚƉŽƐƚͲƌĂŝŶĨĂůůĞǀĞŶƚŝŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ͘ůů nonfunctional must be repaired, replaced, or supplemented with functional by the end of the next business day after discovery, or as soon as field conditions allow access unless another time frame is specified below. The must investigate and comply with the following inspection and maintenance requirements: a. All perimeter control devices must be repaired, replaced, or supplemented when they become nonfunctional or the ƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚƌĞĂĐŚĞƐŽŶĞͲŚĂůĨ;ϭͬϮͿŽĨƚŚĞŚĞŝŐŚƚŽĨƚŚĞĚĞǀŝĐĞ͘dŚĞƐĞƌĞƉĂŝƌƐŵƵƐƚďĞŵĂĚĞďLJƚŚĞĞŶĚŽĨƚŚĞŶĞdžƚďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐ day after discovery, or thereafter as soon as field conditions allow access. b. Temporary and permanent sedimentation basins must be drained and the sediment removed when the depth of ƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞďĂƐŝŶƌĞĂĐŚĞƐŽŶĞͲŚĂůĨ;ϭͬϮͿƚŚĞƐƚŽƌĂŐĞǀŽůƵŵĞ͘ƌĂŝŶĂŐĞĂŶĚƌĞŵŽǀĂůŵƵƐƚďĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚ within 72 hours of discovery, or as soon as field conditions allow access (see Part IV.D.). , including drainage ditches and conveyance systems, must be inspected for evidence of erosion and sediment deposition during each inspection. The must remove all deltas and sediment deposited in , including drainage ways, catch basins, and other drainage systems, and restabilize the areas where sediment removal results in exposed soil. The removal and must take place within seven (7) days of discovery unless precluded by legal, regulatory, or physical access constraints. The shall use all reasonable efforts to obtain access. If precluded, removal and must take place within seven (7) calendar days of obtaining access. The is/are responsible for contacting all local, regional, state and federal authorities and receiving any applicable permits, prior to conducting any work in surface waters. Ě͘ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶƐŝƚĞǀĞŚŝĐůĞĞdžŝƚůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŵƵƐƚďĞŝŶƐƉĞĐƚĞĚĨŽƌĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞŽĨŽĨĨͲƐŝƚĞƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚƚƌĂĐŬŝŶŐŽŶƚŽƉĂǀĞĚƐƵƌĨĂĐĞƐ͘ Tracked sediment must be removed from all paved surfaces both on and off site within 24 hours of discovery, or if applicable, within a shorter time to comply with Part IV.C.6. e. Streets and other areas adjacent to the ŵƵƐƚďĞŝŶƐƉĞĐƚĞĚĨŽƌĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞŽĨŽĨĨͲƐŝƚĞĂĐĐƵŵƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚ͘/Ĩ ƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚŝƐƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ͕ŝƚŵƵƐƚďĞƌĞŵŽǀĞĚŝŶĂŵĂŶŶĞƌĂŶĚĂƚĂĨƌĞƋƵĞŶĐLJƐƵĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚƚŽŵŝŶŝŵŝnjĞŽĨĨͲƐŝƚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐ;Ğ͘Ő͕͘ fugitive sediment in streets could be washed into storm sewers by the next rain and/or pose a safety hazard to users of public streets). 6. All infiltration areas must be inspected to ensure that no sediment from ongoing is reaching the infiltration area. All infiltration areas must be inspected to ensure that equipment is not being driven across the infiltration area. IV.F. POLLUTION PREVENTION MANAGEMENT MEASURES The shall implement the following pollution prevention management measures on the site: 1. Storage, Handling, and Disposal of Construction Products, Materials, and Wastes: The shall comply with the following to minimize the exposure to of any of the products, materials, or wastes. Products or wastes which are either not a source of contamination to stormwater or are designed to be exposed to stormwater are not held to this requirement: a. Building products that have the potential to leach pollutants must be under cover (e.g., plastic sheeting or temporary roofs) to prevent the discharge of pollutants or protected by a similarly effective means designed to minimize contact with . b. Pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers, treatment chemicals, and landscape materials must be under cover (e.g., plastic sheeting or temporary roofs) to prevent the discharge of pollutants or protected by similarly effective means designed to minimize contact with . Đ͘,ĂnjĂƌĚŽƵƐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͕ƚŽdžŝĐǁĂƐƚĞ͕;ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐŽŝů͕ĚŝĞƐĞůĨƵĞů͕ŐĂƐŽůŝŶĞ͕ŚLJĚƌĂƵůŝĐĨůƵŝĚƐ͕ƉĂŝŶƚƐŽůǀĞŶƚƐ͕ƉĞƚƌŽůĞƵŵͲďĂƐĞĚ products, wood preservatives, additives, curing compounds, and acids) must be properly stored in sealed containers to prevent spills, leaks or other discharge. Restricted access storage areas must be provided to prevent vandalism. Storage and disposal of hazardous waste or hazardous materials must be in compliance with Minn. R. ch. 7045 including secondary containment as applicable. d. Solid waste must be stored, collected and disposed of properly in compliance with Minn. R. ch. 7035. e. Portable toilets must be positioned so that they are secure and will not be tipped or knocked over. Sanitary waste must be disposed of properly in accordance with Minn. R. ch. 7041. 2. Fueling and Maintenance of Equipment or Vehicles; Spill Prevention and Response: The shall take reasonable steps to prevent the discharge of spilled or leaked chemicals, including fuel, from any area where chemicals or fuel will be loaded or unloaded including the use of drip pans or absorbents unless infeasible. The must conduct fueling in a contained area unless infeasible. The must ensure adequate supplies are available at all times to clean up discharged materials and that an appropriate disposal method is available for recovered spilled materials. The ŵƵƐƚƌĞƉŽƌƚĂŶĚĐůĞĂŶƵƉƐƉŝůůƐŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůLJĂƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚďLJDŝŶŶ͘^ƚĂƚ͘Αϭϭϱ͘Ϭϲϭ͕ƵƐŝŶŐĚƌLJĐůĞĂŶƵƉ measures where possible. 3. Vehicle and equipment washing: If the wash the exterior of vehicles or equipment on the site, washing must be limited to a defined area of the site. Runoff from the washing area must be contained in a sediment basin or other similarly effective controls and waste from the washing activity must be properly disposed of. The must properly use and store soaps, detergents, or solvents. No engine degreasing is allowed on site. 4. Concrete and other washouts waste: The must provide effective containment for all liquid and solid wastes generated by washout operations (concrete, stucco, paint, form release oils, curing compounds and other construction materials) related to the . The liquid and solid washout wastes must not contact the ground, and the containment ust be designed so that it does not result in runoff from the washout operations or areas. iquid and solid wastes must be disposed of properly and in compliance with MPCA rules. A sign must be installed adjacent to each washout facility that requires site personnel to utilize the proper facilities for disposal of concrete and other washout wastes. IV.G. FINAL STABILIZATION The must ensure of the site. is not complete until all ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨWĂƌƚƐ/s͘'͘ϭͲϱ͘ĂƌĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞ͗ 1. All soil disturbing activities at the site have been completed and all soils are by a uniform perennial vegetative cover with a density of 70 percent of its expected final growth density over the entire pervious surface area, or other equivalent means necessary to prevent soil failure under erosive conditions. 2. The permanent management system is constructed, meets all requirements in Part III.D. and is operating as designed. Temporary or permanent sedimentation basins that are to be used as permanent water quality management basins have been cleaned of any accumulated sediment. All sediment has been removed from conveyance systems and ditches are with . 3. All temporary synthetic and structural and (such as silt fence) have been removed on the portions of the site for which the is/are responsible. designed to decompose on site (such as some compost logs) may be left in place. 4. For residential construction only, individual lots are considered finally if the structure(s) are finished and and downgradient perimeter control has been completed and the residence has been sold to the homeowner. Additionally, the ŚĂƐĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚĞĚƚŚĞDWΖƐ͟͞to the homeowner to inform the homeowner of the need for, and benefits of, . 5. For construction on agricultural land (e.g., pipelines across crop, field pasture or range land) the disturbed land has been returned to its preconstruction agricultural use. STABILZATION BMPs The construction plans anticipate the use of, but are not limited to, the following Stabilization BMPs: 1. After utilities are installed, permanent seed and mulch can be applied over all disturbed areas 2. Apply temporary mulch to all soil stockpiles. 3. After homes and driveways are constructed sod remaining disturbed boulevard and lot areas not already stabilized. POLUTION CONTROL BMPs 1. Fueling: A fixed fueling station is not anticipated. Contractor will be required to implement BMPs for onsite re-fueling of equipment. 2. Concrete Washout: A suggested washout area will be specified on the plan. The developer has the ability to adjust location or to provide alternative washout containment. 3. There is not an anticipated need for storing chemicals, paints, solvents or other potentially toxic or hazardous materials on site. SEED & MULCH SPECIFICATIONS Seed and sod placed for permanent cover or final stabilization requires ´PLQLPXPWRSVRLOFRYHU0XOWLSOHVLWHYLVLWVZLOOEHUHTXLUHGWR accommodate permanent or temporary stabilization as required during the phases of home and utility construction. (1) General Seed & Mulch A. Seed: MNDOT 25-141 at a rate of 59 lb/acre B. Fertilzer: Type 3 slow release 10-10-10 at a rate of 200 lb/acre C. Mulch: MNDOT Type 1 at a rate of 2 tons/acre (2)Temporary Cover Crop (Slope Areas ) A. Seed: MNDOT 21-112 at a rate of 100 lb/acre B. Fertilzer: Type 3 slow release 10-10-10 at a rate of 200 lb/acre C. Mulch: MNDOT Type 3 at a rate of 2 tons/acre (3)Sod INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BMPs Routine Inspection 1. Rock Entrance - Inspect weekly. If rock becomes filled with sediment and tracked material to the extent the purpose ceases to function, remove the contaminated rock and replace with new rock. 2. Silt fence - Inspect weekly, particularly for damaged sections, breaches, down-gradient areas, flow concentration points, scour areas and sections adjacent to sensitive areas. Where capacity is filled to more than 50% of depth, sediment shall be removed to restore capture capacity. 3. Sediment traps and basins - Inspect weekly. Where capacity is filled to more than 50% of depth, sediment shall be removed to restore capture capacity within 72 hours of discovery. 4. Inlet Protection - Inspect weekly or more frequently as needed DIWHUPXOWLSOHUDLQIDOOVOHVVWKDQ´9HULI\LQWDNHFDSDFLW\LVQRW compromised. Where capacity is filled to more than 50% of depth, sediment shall be removed to restore capture capacity. 5. Inspect other site specific BMP's on a weekly basis minimum. Rain Event Inspection - Mandatory, within 24 hours after a rain event ´RUJUHDWHU&RPSOHWHDOOLWHPVDVVRFLDWHGZLWK5RXWLQH,QVSHFWLRQ Furthermore, inspect site for breaches, failures, scours and gullying. Take corrective actions as necessary to restore functionality to the BMP's. If a given situation is discovered to be prone to repetitive failure, advise the Engineer and Contractor for SWPPP and BMP amendments. ADDITIONAL SWPPP NOTES 1. All Erosion and Sediment Control facilities shall be maintained by the contractor during the construction operations. Any temporary facilities which are to be removed as called for on these plans and specifications shall be removed by the contractor at the time directed by the engineer. The contractor shall then restore the subsequently disturbed areas in accordance with these plans and specifications. 2. Wherever practical and feasible, the contractor shall protect and preserve existing natural trees, grass and other vegetative cover in effort to provide natural buffering and filtering of runoff. 3. Contractor shall be adaptable in adjusting construction schedules in anticipation of weather forecasts of precipitation, in order to minimize risk of erosion and sediment transport. 4. It is the responsibility of the contractor to keep public streets, travel ways, parking lots and trails utilized for ingress to and egress from the construction site free of dirt, sediment and debris, resulting from construction activity. Cost for this shall be considered incidental to the contract. 5. Adequate control of dust shall be maintained by the contractor. Cost for dust control shall be considered incidental to the contract. ADDITIONAL SWPPP NOTES (continued) 6. Perimeter controls shall not be removed until final stabilization of areas draining toward the control devices. 7. When temperatures do not exceed 40 degrees F, areas that require seed and mulch stabilization shall be dormant seeded. Application rate shall be two times the normal rate. No dormant VHHGLQJVKDOOEHGRQHRQLFHRUVQRZJUHDWHUWKDQ´LQGHSWK 8. Any areas that were seeded that do not achieve 70% coverage shall be reseeded at the contractor's expense, where coverage limitation is caused by lack of seed germination and growth. MPCA STORMWATER PERMIT - RESPONSIBILITY The Contractor will be required to become the Permittee for the project, until final stabilization and transfer of responsibility is completed. Transfer of responsibility shall be completed with the Permit Modification Form. OWNER: Dick Bjorklund - Dick Bjorklund Properties, LLC - (651)-261-9980 PERMITTEE: To Be Determined OPERATOR: To Be Determined OTHER CONTACTS ENGINEER: Kurt D. Quaintance, PE, Proj. Mgr - James R. Hill, Inc. - (612)-508-8890(c) TRAINING REQUIREMENTS Kurt D. Quaintance, P.E. Design of Construction SWPPP (Certification(2014-2017)) University of Minnesota Instructors : John Chapman Ryan Ruzek, P.E. City of Mendota Heights Public Works Director - (651)-255-1152(o) MPCA COMPLIANCE: Paul Erdmann - MPCA - (651)-757-2883 The Contractor shall follow the implementation sequence as described on these plans. Amendments shall be made as site conditions change. Amendments shall be proposed by contractor and reviewed by the engineer. All BMP's selected and implemented shall be appropriate for the time of year, the current site conditions and for the estimated duration of use. These plans shall be considered part of the project SWPPP. A copy of the SWPPP shall remain on site throughout active construction. ESTIMATED EROSION /SEDIMENT CONTROL QUANITITES ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE WITH FABRIC 1 EA HEAVY-DUTY SILT FENCE INCL MAINTENANCE 1,040 LF SEED & MULCH - MnDOT 25-141 (GENERAL SEED MIX) - 1.5X 5.0 AC SEED & MULCH - MnDOT 21-112 (TEMPORARY COVER CROP) 2.0 AC TEMPORARY MULCH - MnDOT TYPE 1 2.0 AC WIMCOS 1 EA INLET PROTECTION SEDIMENT LOG/BIOROLL 1 EA page 84 page 85 page 86 Exhibit E MnDOT Review Memo page 87 page 88 page 89 page 90 Exhibit F Resolution No. 2015-48 page 91 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2015-48 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT AT 2511 AND 2525 CONDON COURT WHEREAS, Dick Bjorklund Properties LLC has applied for a preliminary plat at 2511 and 2525 Condon Court as proposed in Planning Case 2015-20 and described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting on June 23, 2015. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the preliminary plat request as proposed in Planning Case 2015-20 is hereby approved based on the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed plat meets the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code, including proposed uses, lot size, lot width and setbacks. The lot widths for Lots 1, 2, and 3 meet the intent of the Code in terms of access and adequate spacing, even though they do not meet the letter of the Code definition. 2. The proposed plat meets the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Code, including -grading, drainage, and lot arrangement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the preliminary plat request as proposed in Planning Case 2015-20 is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. $8,100.00 Park Dedication Fee is to be paid to the City, prior to final plat approval. 2. A Developer's Agreement will be executed with the City detailing the responsibilities of all parties involved with development of the platted area. This will include a detailed description of municipal utility installation, landscaping and building and driveway placement. 3. All grading and construction activity and stormwater management facilities associated with future development of the platted area will be in compliance with all Federal, State, and Local Regulations and Codes, as well as in compliance with the City's Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 4. Construction activity will be in compliance with provisions outlined in City Code. 5. A final plat is submitted for City Council review. 6. A final landscape plan, including planting sizes, is included as part of the final building plans. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventh day of July, 2015. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbac ayor A71 Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 92 10.14 2411 Legal Description — 2511 and 2525 Condon Court PID: 27-03500-80-010 and 27-03500-80-022 SECTION 35 TWN 28 RANGE 23 PT OF SE 1/4 COM INT S LINE & C/L HGWY W ON S LINE 450 FT N 1092 FT TO PT OF BEG N 273 FT E PARR S LINE 301.8 FT TO CL HGWY S ON C/L 273.3 FT W PARR S LINE 295.3 FT TO PT OF BEG EX PARCEL 2B OF STH R/W PLAT NO 19-53 CONT 0.08 ACS SECTION 35 TWN 28 RANGE 23 PT OF SE 1/4 COM INT S LINE & C/L STH #49 W 450 FT N 932 FT TO PT OF BEG N 160 FT E 295.3 FT TO C/L HGWY S ON C/L 160 FT TO PT ON LINE PARR S LINE & PASSING THRU PT OF BEG W 306 FT TO PT OF BEG EX PT HGWY Res 2015-48 Page 2 page 93 Exhibit G Resolution No. 2017-32 page 94 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2017-32 RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR THE OAKS OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2511 AND 2525 CONDON COURT WHEREAS, Dick Bjorklund Properties, LLC has applied under Planning Case No. 2015-20 for a final plat of certain properties generally located at 2511 and 2525 Condon Court, and legally described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on the original preliminary plat of these properties at the regular meeting of June 23, 2015, whereby the Commission gave unanimous recommendation to the City Council to approve said preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, on July 7, 2015, the Mendota Heights City Council received this recommendation, and adopted Resolution No. 2015-48, a resolution approving the preliminary plat of The Oaks" and for the properties located at 2511 and 2525 Condon Court; and WHEREAS, on June 7, 2016, the City Council granted a twelve-month extension on the final plat approval to the developer, in order to give the developer additional time to resolve site utility and easement issues necessary for platting the subject properties. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the final plat request as originally proposed in Planning Case 2015-20 is hereby approved based on the following iindings of fact: 1. The proposed final plat is consistent with the general layout and overall design illustrated on the original and previously approved preliminary plat. 2. The proposed final plat meets the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code, including proposed uses, lot size, lot width and setbacks. The lot widths for Lots 1, 2, and 3 meet the intent of the Code in terms of access and adequate spacing, even though they do not meet the letter of the Code definition. 3. The proposed final plat meets the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Code, including grading, drainage, and lot arrangement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the final plat request as proposed in Planning Case No. 2015-20 is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. $8,100.00 Park Dedication Fee is to be paid to the City, prior to building permit approvals. 2. Building and grading permits are obtained from the City prior to construction. page 95 3. The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with associated easements, subject to review and approval by the Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 4. Construction activity will be in compliance with provisions outlined in City Code. 5. A final landscape plan, including planting sizes, is included as part of the final building plans. 6. A Developer's Agreement will be executed with the City detailing the responsibilities of all parties involved with development of the platted area. This will include a detailed description of municipal utility installation, landscaping and building and driveway placement. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2"d day of May, 2017. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ATTEST Neil Garlock, Mayor Lorri Smith, City Clerk Res 2017-32 page 2 page 96 EXHIBIT A Legal Description — 2511 and 2525 Condon Court PID: 27-03500-80-010 and 27-03500-80-022 That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 28, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the south line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 35, with the center line of Trunk Highway No. 49, (formerly No. 88) thence west, along said south line, 450 feet, thence north 932 feet to the point of beginning; thence north 160 feet, thence east parallel with the south line of said Southeast Quarter, a distance of 295.3 feet, more or less, to the center line of Trunk Highway No. 49, as built, (formerly No. 88); thence southerly, along the center line of said highway, 160 feet, more or less, to a point on a line which is parallel with the south line of the said Southeast quarter and passes through the point of beginning, thence west, parallel with the south line of said Southeast Quarter a distance of 305 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, Excepting therefrom that part which lies easterly of a line run parallel with and distant 162.5 feet westerly of the following described line, beginning at a point on the east and west quarter line of Section 2, Township 27, Range 23, distant 612.2 feet west of the east quarter thereof; thence run northerly at an angle of 88 degrees 5 minutes 30 seconds with said east and west Quarter line when measured east to north) 325.9 feet, thence deflect to the left at an angle of 13 degrees 59 minutes for 2064.8 feet; thence deflect to the right on ten chord spiral curve of decreasing radius (spiral angle 1 degree 7 minutes 30 seconds) for 150 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 1 degree 30 minute circular curve (delta angle 22 degrees 54 minutes) for 1526.7 feet and terminating. Together with a strip 12.5 feet in width adjoining and westerly of the above described strip; beginning opposite a point on the above described line distant 633.5 feet southerly of its point of termination (when measured along said line) and extending northerly to the north line of the above described tract. And All that part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 28, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the southerly line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 35, with the center line of Minnesota State Highway No. 88 as used and existing on and prior to November 30, 1950; thence west along said southerly line of the Southeast Quarter for a distance of 450 feet; thence north for a distance of 1092 feet to the point of beginning of the land described; thence north for a distance of 273 feet; thence east and parallel with the southerly line of said Southeast quarter for a distance of 301.8 feet, more or less, to the center line of Minnesota State Highway 88; thence southerly along the center line of said Highway for a distance of 273.3, more or less; thence west and parallel with the southerly line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 295.3 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, containing approximately 2 acres, subject to Highway. And That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 28, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the southerly line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 35, with the center line of Trunk Highway No. 88, (now known as Trunk Highway No. 149) as used and existing prior to November 30, 1950; thence West, along said southerly line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 450 feet; thence North for a distance of 1092 feet to the point of beginning of Tract A to be described; thence North for a distance of 273 feet; thence East and parallel with said southerly line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 301.8 feet, more or less, to the center line of said Trunk Highway No. 88; thence southerly, along the center line of said Highway for 273.3 feet, more or less; thence West and parallel with said southerly line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 295.3 feet, more or less, to the point of Res 2017-32 page 3 page 97 beginning; which lies easterly of the westerly right of way line of Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 19-53 as the same is on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for said County, and northerly, westerly, and southerly of Line 1 described below; Line 1- Commencing at Right of Way Boundary Corner B7 as shown on said Plat Numbered 19-53; thence westerly on an azimuth of 275 degrees 26 minutes 38 seconds along the boundary of said plat for 12.50 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B8; thence northerly for 190.29 feet along the boundary of said plat on a non-tangential curve, concave to the east, having a radius of 3994.72 feet, a delta angle of 02 degrees 43 minutes 46 seconds and a chord azimuth of 06 degrees 48 minutes 30 seconds to the point of beginning of Line 1 to be described; thence on an azimuth of 89 degrees 49 minutes 44 seconds for 30.32 feet; thence northerly for 109.57 feet on a non-tangential curve, concave to the east, having a radius of 3964.72 feet, a delta angle of 01 degrees 35 minutes 00 seconds and a chord azimuth of 279 degrees 49 minutes 12 seconds for 30.00 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B9 as shown on said Plat No. 19-53 and there terminating; containing 3366 square feet, more or less. Res 2017-32 page 4 page 98 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: May 1, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Grading Permit for 2455 Visitation Drive – Visitation School COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve a grading permit for Visitation School. BACKGROUND City Ordinance 14-1 requires that properties proposing any land disturbance activity in excess of 5,000 square feet apply for a grading permit if not part a separate approval process. DISCUSSION Visitation has been having issues with drainage in the northwest portion of their lot including washouts of the rock infields which has accumulated in the city ditch. Visitation School has submitted a grading request to the city. The proposed activities are intended to improve drainage between the softball fields. The plan identifies grading a swale between the existing softball fields and expanding a pond just east of the fields. A new curb is proposed along the north edge of the service drive off of Lake Drive which will direct water to an improved dry basin just south of the softball fields. This improvement should provide additional storm water treatment prior to discharging into Rogers Lake. A portion of the plans are attached. BUDGET IMPACT The Mendota Heights fee schedule identifies a $200 fee for this activity to cover staff time in reviewing and inspecting the improvements. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the council approve the grading permit for Visitation School. ACTION REQUIRED If Council wishes to implement the staff recommendations, pass a motion authorizing staff to issue the Grading permit for 2455 Visitation Drive. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 99 FL 892.0HP 892.4FL 892.2FL 892.0FL 891.3FL 890.5FL 892.25891.1891.9885.8885.0FL 889.0FL 888.0887.22% TYP.2% TYP.2% TYP.880.82.0%2.0%882 883.1883.3ENGINEERINGAnderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC13605 1st Avenue NorthSuite 100Plymouth, MN 55441763-412-4000 (o) 763-412-4090 (f)www.ae-mn.comENGINEERING ARCHITECTURE LAND SURVEYINGENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURENOT FOR CONSTRUCTION (REVIEW ONLY)GRADING, DRAINAGE, &EROSION CONTROL PLANC2KEY NOTES1LEGENDCONTRACTOR NOTESN020'40'1. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE ANDREMOVAL OF ALL APPLICABLE EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL ITEMS.2. SPECIFIED EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES ARE THE MINIMUM.ADDITIONAL PRACTICES MAY BE REQUIRED DURING THE COURSE OFCONSTRUCTION.3. THE TOTAL DISTURBED AREA IS EQUAL TO 1.17 ACRES. THIS IS ABOVE THE1.0 ACRE THRESHOLD, AND THEREFORE AN MPCA PERMIT IS WILL BEREQUIRED.4. THE TOTAL NEW IMPERVIOUS AREA IS EQUAL TO 975 SF.5. PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE TO TOP OF FINISHED SURFACE UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED.6. TAKE ALL NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS TO PROTECT EXISTING UTILITIES.LOCATIONS OF UTILITIES SHOWN BASED ON SURVEY AND AS-BUILTINFORMATION AND MAY NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL CONDITIONS.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR UTILIZING UTILITY LOCATES PRIOR TOSTARTING ANY WORK.7. INSTALL CATEGORY III EROSION CONTROL BLANKET IN ANY AREA AT A 3:1SLOPE OR GREATER.PROPERTY LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSEXISTING MINOR CONTOUREXISTING MAJOR CONTOURPROPOSED MINOR CONTOURPROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUREXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONSOIL BORING LOCATIONDRAINAGE ARROWPROPOSED B612 CONCRETE C&GSILT FENCEINLET SEDIMENT PROTECTIONROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCESPOT ELEVATIONFLOW LINE OF CURBTOP OF CURBHIGH POINTMATCH EXISTING ELEVATION879880879880MA 879.5±HP 882.7880.4FL 892.3TC 892.82C9INSTALL & MAINTAIN PERIMETER SEDIMENTPROTECTION (SILT FENCE IN TURF AREA, BIO-ROLL IN PAVED AREA, ETC.).INSTALL & MAINTAIN INLET SEDIMENT PROTECTIONINSTALL TEMP ROCK ENTRANCE AT CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE INGRESS &EGRESS LOCATION(S).SAWCUT LINE (TYP.)SANITARY RIM TO REMAIN AS ISCLEAN OUT DISPOSE OF INFIELD SEDIMENT BUILD UP WITHIN LAKE DRIVEDITCHBIO-ROLL DITCH CHECKS INSTALLED EVERY 100 LF O.C. FOR LENGTH OFSWALE.CONSTRUCT 3' WIDE CONCRETE SPILLWAY INTO RIP-RAP SPILLWAY232224434444SWALE℄SWALE℄CB-1R. 889.6I. 881.1I. 881.055PROPERTY LINECONSTRUCTIONLIMITS (TYP.)CONSTRUCTIONLIMITS (TYP.)LAKE DRIVELAKE DRIVE6666116C81C83C82C875C84C9777GENERAL NOTES1. THE ENTIRE SOFTBALL AREA IS SERVICED BY AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM. THESCHOOL IS TO MARK UP APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF MAIN TRUNK BEFORETHE START OF CONSTRUCTION. IF CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERS AND/ORDAMAGES IRRIGATION LINES DURING CONSTRUCTION, IRRIGATION LINESARE TO BE CUT CLEAN AT POINT OF DISRUPTION AND THE LOCATION IS TOBE FLAGGED WITH PAINTED STAKES. CONTRACTOR IS TO NOTIFY OWNER IFANY SUCH DISRUPTIONS HAVE OCCURRED.88PROTECT EXISTING TRAIL (TO REMAIN)I. 881.2page 100 ENGINEERINGAnderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC13605 1st Avenue NorthSuite 100Plymouth, MN 55441763-412-4000 (o) 763-412-4090 (f)www.ae-mn.comENGINEERING ARCHITECTURE LAND SURVEYINGENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURENOT FOR CONSTRUCTION (REVIEW ONLY)UTILITY & PAVING PLANC5KEY NOTES1LEGENDN020'40'7C9234I. 881.248" ROUND CB-1CASTING R-3067-LRIM. 889.6I. 884.6 (12" OUT)68 LF - 12"HDPE @ 5.0%I. 881.1I. 881.0(2) - 22 LF DUAL WALL 12"HDPE @ 0.5% CULVERTWITH METAL FLARED ENDSECTION1. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF THESOIL ENGINEER UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE.2. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE MOST CURRENT CITY OFMENDOTA HEIGHTS CODE AND STANDARDS, AND THE 2016 EDITION OFMNDOT STANDARD CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS (INCLUDINGSUPPLEMENTS) AND THE C.E.A.M. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS-2013EDITION UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE.3. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE MUNICIPAL,WATERSHED DISTRICT, COUNTY, MPCA, DEPT. OF HEALTH, AND MNDOTPERMITS.4. THE LOCATION AND TYPE OF EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ON THE PLANSARE FOR GENERAL INFORMATION ONLY. THE INFORMATION IS NOTWARRANTED TO BE ACCURATE OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR, INCOOPERATION WITH THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANY ORMUNICIPALITY, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION ANDDEPTH OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.5. HDPE PIPE CONNECTIONS INTO ALL CONCRETE STRUCTURES MUST BEMADE WITH WATER TIGHT MATERIALS UTILIZING AN A-LOK OR WATERSTOPGASKET OR BOOT, CAST-IN-PLACE RUBBER BOOT, OR APPROVED EQUAL.WHERE THE ALIGNMENT PRECLUDES THE USE OF THE ABOVE APPROVEDWATERTIGHT METHODS, CONSEAL 231 WATERSTOP SEALANT, ORAPPROVED EQUAL WILL ONLY BE ALLOWED AS APPROVED BY THEENGINEER.6. LOCATE AND PROTECT EXISTING UTILITIES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.7. SUBSTITUTIONS FROM INFO. SHOWN HEREON SHALL BE REVIEWED ANDAPPROVED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND CITY ENGINEER.8. ALL PORTIONS OF THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM LOCATED WITHIN 10 FEETOF A BUILDING OR WATER SERVICE LINE MUST BE TESTED INACCORDANCE WITH MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714 , SECTION 1109.0.TESTING OF WATER AND SEWER SHALL COMPLY WITH 2013 CEAMREQUIREMENTS.9. HDPE STORM SEWERS MUST MEET ASTM F714 (SEE MINNESOTA RULES,CHAPTER 4714 SECTION 1102.4 AND INSTALLATION STANDARD 1). WATERTIGHT JOINTS MUST BE USED AT ALL CONNECTION INCLUDINGSTRUCTURES. THE INSTALLATION MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM D2321.GENERAL NOTESPROPERTY LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSEXISTING WATERMAINEXISTING SANITARY SEWEREXISTING STORM SEWERPROPOSED STORM SEWERPROPOSED DRAINTILEPROPOSED STORM INLET6" PERFORATED DRAINTILEWITH SOCK SLOPED WITHPROPOSED SWALEDAYLIGHT DRAINTILE AT LAKE DRIVE DITCHWITH PRECAST CONCRETE HEADWALLEXISTING BITUMINOUS WALKEXISTING BITUMINOUS WALKEXISTING BITUMINOUS WALKBITUMINOUSPAVEMENTBITUMINOUSPAVEMENT WALKBITUMINOUSPAVEMENT WALKBITUMINOUSPAVEMENT WALKB612 CONC. C&G (TYP.)22REMOVE AND REPLACE FENCE IN-KIND AS NEEDEDSAWCUT LINE (TYP.)LINE REPRESENTS TRANSITION FROM BITUMINOUS SECTION TOBITUMINOUS WALK SECTION.INSTALL 3" DP ROCK MULCH WITH FABRIC BETWEEN BACK OF CURB ANDBITUMINOUS WALK. ROCK MULCH TO MATCH SIZE AND COLOR OF EXISTINGROCK MULCH FOUND AROUND CAMPUS. OWNER TO REVIEW AND APPROVESUBMITTAL.6' TRANSITION TO FLUSH CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTERPROTECT EXISTING ELECTRICAL AND LIGHTING POLES IN-PLACETHROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTIONPROTECT IN-PLACE EXISTING UTILITIES.FLUSH CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER.INSTALL RIP-RAP AROUND FES STRUCTUREINSTALL 3' WIDE CONCRETE SPILLWAY AT LOWPOINT12" METAL END SECTION (MES)567122223455556777LAKE DRIVELAKE DRIVE888PROPERTY LINECONSTRUCTION LIMITS (TYP.)CONSTRUCTION LIMITS (TYP.)94C95C92C93C91C91C91C996C9CONTRACTOR NOTES1. THE ENTIRE SOFTBALL AREA IS SERVICED BY AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM. THESCHOOL IS TO MARK UP APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF MAIN TRUNK BEFORETHE START OF CONSTRUCTION. IF CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERS AND/ORDAMAGES IRRIGATION LINES DURING CONSTRUCTION, IRRIGATION LINESARE TO BE CUT CLEAN AT POINT OF DISRUPTION AND THE LOCATION IS TOBE FLAGGED WITH PAINTED STAKES. CONTRACTOR IS TO NOTIFY OWNER IFANY SUCH DISRUPTIONS HAVE OCCURRED.110108C911111111page 101 BOTTOMELEVATION877.0ENGINEERINGAnderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC13605 1st Avenue NorthSuite 100Plymouth, MN 55441763-412-4000 (o) 763-412-4090 (f)www.ae-mn.comENGINEERING ARCHITECTURE LAND SURVEYINGENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURENOT FOR CONSTRUCTION (REVIEW ONLY)POND EXCAVATIONC6KEY NOTES1LEGENDN020'40'PROPERTY LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSEXISTING MINOR CONTOUREXISTING MAJOR CONTOURPROPOSED MINOR CONTOURPROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUREXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONSOIL BORING LOCATIONDRAINAGE ARROWPROPOSED CONCRETE C&GSILT FENCEINLET SEDIMENT PROTECTIONROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCESPOT ELEVATIONFLOW LINE OF CURBTOP OF CURBHIGH POINTMATCH EXISTING ELEVATION879880879880MA 879.5±HP 882.7880.4FL 892.3TC 892.8INSTALL & MAINTAIN PERIMETER SEDIMENTPROTECTION (SILT FENCE IN TURF AREA, BIO-ROLL IN PAVED AREA, ETC.).INSTALL & MAINTAIN INLET SEDIMENT PROTECTIONREMOVE AND REPLACE OUTFIELD FENCE IN-KINDPROTECT EXISTING BITUMINOUS WALKCLEAN OUT CONCRETE RIP-RAP OF SEDIMENT AND DEBRIS, EXISTINGCABLE CRETE TO REMAIN.REPLACE RIP-RAP SPILL WAY WITH CL III WITH GEOFACBRICTOP OF BERM AT ELEVATION 879.0NO HEAVY EQUIPMENT TO BE USED OVER UTILITY LINES WITHIN PONDAREA. PROTECT EXISTING UTILITY LINES THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION.POND EMERGENCY OVERFLOW AT ELEVATION 878.5 WITH CLASS IIIRIP-RAP.23LAKE DRIVEEXISTING BUILDINGCONSTRUCTION LIMITSRIDGE LINE ATELEVATION 880.51124567344EXISTING BIT. WALKCONCRETE CABLECRETE / RIP-RAP5PROPERTY LINE67I. 877.3I. 877.8I. 878.74:1 TY P.881C82C8997GENERAL NOTES1. BASED ON MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY (MPCA) GUIDANCE,THE EXISTING STORMWATER POND SEDIMENT HAS BEEN SAMPLED ANDTESTED FOR POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAHs), ARSENIC ,AND COPPER IN TWO LOCATION. PER LANDMARK ENVIRONMENTAL'SSEDIMENT SAMPLING REPORT DATED APRIL 11, 2018, THE POND SEDIMENTRESULTS ARE LESS THAN THE MPCA CLEANUP GOALS AND THE SOIL CANBE REUSED AS UNREGULATED FILL.page 102 ENGINEERINGAnderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC13605 1st Avenue NorthSuite 100Plymouth, MN 55441763-412-4000 (o) 763-412-4090 (f)www.ae-mn.comENGINEERING ARCHITECTURE LAND SURVEYINGENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURENOT FOR CONSTRUCTION (REVIEW ONLY)RESTORATION PLANC7KEY NOTESLEGENDN030'60'PROPERTY LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSMNDOT 25-131 SEED MIX AT 250 LB/ACWITH MNDOT TYPE 8 HYDRO MULCH.MNDOT 25-151 SEED MIX AT 150 LB/ACMNDOT 33-261 AT 50 LB/ACCOVER CROP: OATS AT 100 LB/AC3" DP ROCK MULCH WITH FABRICINSTALL MNDOT 3885 CATEGORY IV EROSION CONTROL BLANKET IN AREASWHERE SLOPES ARE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 3:1.WITHIN SWALE AREA USE MNDOT 25-131 SEED MIX AT 250 LB/ACRE WITHMNDOT TYPE 8 HYDRO MULCH. COVER WITH MNDOT 3885 CATEGORY IVEROSION CONTROL BLANKET.3" DP ROCK MULCH WITH FABRIC INSTALLED INBETWEEN BACK OF CURBAND EXISTING TRAIL. ROCK MULCH TO MATCH SIZE AND COLOR OFEXISTING ROCK MULCH FOUND AROUND CAMPUS, OWNER TO REVIEW ANDAPPROVE SUBMITTAL.LAKE DRIVE4C9LAKE DRIVEPROPERTY LINECONSTRUCTIONLIMITS (TYP.)CONSTRUCTIONLIMITS (TYP.)3" DP ROCK MULCHW/ FABRIC12316C82231. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THATNEW TREES MOVED ONTO THE SITE ARE DUGFROM SIMILAR SITES WITH SIMILAR SOILS TO THESOILS OF THIS PROJECT (HEAVY TO HEAVY, LIGHTTO LIGHT. HEAVY TO LIGHT SOILS). CONTRACTORSHALL REVIEW SOIL CONDITIONS/TYPES WITHOWNER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TOINSTALLATION.2. ALL PLANTINGS SHALL RECEIVE FERTILIZER ASFOLLOWS:2.1. SUMMER AND FALL PLANTING: 0-20-20GRANULAR (IN SAUCER AROUND PLANT ATTHE RATE OF 12 OZ. PER 2-3" CAL. TREE & 6OZ. PER SHRUB).2.2. SPRING PLANTING: 10-10-10 GRANULAR(APPLY ABOVE REFERENCED FERTILIZER AT ARATE OF 12 OZ. PER 1-1/2” CAL. TREE ORLARGER & 6 OZ. PER SHRUB & PERENNIAL.3. ALL PLANTINGS SHALL RECEIVE AN AMENDED SOILMIX CONSISTING OF THREE (3) PARTS:3.1. 45% APPROVED TOPSOIL (ONE SITEPREFERRED)3.2. 45% ORGANIC MATTER (TYPE 1 SPHAGNUMPEAT MOSS FINELY DIVIDED WITH A PH OF 3.1- 5.0.)3.3. 10% SAND (FINE CLEAN MASONRY SAND)4. AREAS TO RECEIVE SOD OR SEED SHALL HAVE A6” MINIMUM DEPTH OF TOPSOIL. TOPSOIL SHALLPROVIDE FERTILE, FRIABLE, NATURAL LOAM,SURFACE SOIL, REASONABLY FREE OF SUBSOIL,CLAY CLUMPS, BRUSH WEEDS AND OTHER LITTER,AND FREE OF ROOTS, STUMPS, STONE LARGERTHAN 1” IN ANY DIMENSION, AND OTHEREXTRANEOUS OR TOXIC MATTER HARMFUL TOPLANT GROWTH.5. ALL AREAS SPECIFIED AS "MNDOT 25-131" TO BESEEDED PER MNDOT RECOMMENDEDAPPLICATION RATES AND METHODS. "MNDOT25-131" OR APPROVED EQUAL IS A BASIS OFDESIGN. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALLEROSION CONTROL NEEDS TO ESTABLISHVIGOROUS GROWTH PER MNDOT 2014 SEEDINGMANUAL STANDARDS.GENERAL SODDING, SEEDING & TOPSOIL NOTES:SODDING ADD ALTERNATE1. INCLUDE AREAS DESIGNATED WITH THE MNDOT25-151 SEED MIX IN BID PROPOSAL AS AN ADDALTERNATE FOR SODDED AREA.5. SOD SHALL BE HIGHLAND SOD, 30" X 100' ROLLSPREFERRED WHERE APPLICABLE, TO BE LAIDPARALLEL WITH THE CONTOURS AND HAVESTAGGERED JOINTS. ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN3:1 OR DRAINAGE SWALES, THE SOD SHALL BESTAKED INTO THE GROUND. SCARIFY THEEXISTING GRADES WITH FIELD CULTIVATORPRIOR TO PLACING OF TOPSOIL AND FINISHGRADING FOR SOD. IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TOPLACING SOD, CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY 10-6-4FERTILIZER AT THE RATE OF 10 POUNDS PER1000 SQ. FT.page 103 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: May 1, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Grading Permit for 1179 Centre Pointe Circle COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve a grading permit for 1179 Centre Pointe Circle. BACKGROUND City Ordinance 14-1 requires that properties proposing any land disturbance activity in excess of 5,000 square feet apply for a grading permit if not part a separate approval process. Centre Pointe Business Park was approved in 1984 and this lot was part of a re-plat in 2003. DISCUSSION One of the last remaining lots in the Centre Pointe Business Park is proposed to be developed. The developer has submitted a wetlands permit which will be presented to Council at a future meeting. The developer is also working on finalizing the building plans for this site. This grading permit would normally be part of the building permit process but due to time constraints and soil corrections needed on the site, the developer is requesting to start the grading work ahead of being issued a building permit. The developer will install the necessary erosion control and will exclude grading operations within the Wetland setback until completion of the Wetland Permit process. The Developer is also proposing to begin installation of the utilities. Reduced Plans are included, full size plans are available at City Hall. BUDGET IMPACT The Mendota Heights fee schedule identifies a $200 fee for this activity to cover staff time in reviewing and inspecting the improvements. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the council approve the grading permit for 1179 Centre Pointe Circle. ACTION REQUIRED If Council wishes to implement the staff recommendations, pass a motion authorizing staff to issue the Grading permit for 1179 Centre Pointe Circle. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 104 page 105 page 106 page 107 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: April 17, 2017 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Scott Goldenstein, Assistant Fire Chief SUBJECT: March 2018 Fire Synopsis COMMENT: Fire Calls For March, the Mendota Heights Fire Department responded to 18 calls for service. Of those, 14 were located in Mendota Heights, two in Mendota and two in Lilydale. Of those 18 calls, they were made up of three medical calls, two calls that involved burnt food, one utility check, three false alarm calls due to either a dead battery at one, burnt food at the other, and an activated pull station at the third. We performed an extrication at a significant car accident on Dodd Road where we also requested South Metro at the response, we had one fully involved vehicle fire, and seven calls that were cancelled before our arrival. Department Training Opportunities – March Topics: SCBA & PPE - This is a mandatory class for all firefighters on an annual basis on the topic of their Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (their air pack on their back). It will also cover their Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) that they have available to them and when certain levels of PPE is required based on an incident type. MCI/Triage - This class was designed to sharpen firefighter’s skills when exposed to a mass casualty incident, how to triage the victims, mitigate the chaos, and give the victims the best possible outcome considering the circumstances encountered. Size-Ups - This class is meant to sharpen both firefighters and fire officer’s skills as to the proper radio protocol when first arriving at a scene. They will learn how to size up the situation using their resources the best way possible and when to potentially request additional resources from neighboring departments. Ladders - This class is offered to refresh firefighters on ladder components as well as the proper lifting, carrying, and deployment of our ladders. We carry up to five different types of ladders on each of our mainline trucks and proper use of these ladders is imperative. page 108 MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT MARCH 2018 MONTHLY REPORT FIRE CALLS NO. 18035 -18052 NUMBER OF CALLS:18 FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE ACTUAL FIRES Structure - MH Commercial $0 Structure - MH Residential $0 Structure - Contract Areas $0 Cooking Fire - confined 2 Vehicle - MH 1 $1,600 $400 $2,000 Vehicle - Contract Areas $8,000 Grass/Brush/No Value MH Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES MEDICAL Assist 3 $0 $0 Extrication 1 HAZARDOUS SITUATION FIRE LOSS TOTALS MENDOTA HEIGHTS Spills/Leaks Arcing/Shorting 1 ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$0 $10,000 Chemical Power Line Down MEND. HTS. ONLY STRUCT/CONTENTS $0 FALSE ALARM Residential Malfunction MEND. HTS. ONLY MISCELLANEOUS $0 Commercial Malfunction Unintentional - Commercial MEND. HTS. TOTAL LOSS TO DATE $0 Unintentional - Residential 1 Criminal/Malicilous/Mischievous 1 GOOD INTENT Smoke Scare Carbon Monoxide Incident 1 STRUCTURE CONTENT Steam Mistaken for Smoke Other 7 SPRINKLER ACTIVATION - MH 80,000.00$ 15,000.00$ MUTUAL AID TOTAL CALLS 18 LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS:TO DATE LAST YEAR MENDOTA HEIGHTS 14 40 33 MENDOTA 2 3 3 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH SUNFISH LAKE 0 1 3 LILYDALE 2 5 4 INSPECTIONS OTHER 0 3 3 INVESTIGATIONS TOTAL 18 52 46 RE-INSPECTION WORK PERFORMED HOURS TO DATE LAST YEAR MEETINGS FIRE CALLS 227 742 678 MEETINGS 25.5 169.25 96 ADMINISTRATION DRILLS 220.5 765 503.5 SPECIAL ACTIVITY 2.5 9.5 567.25 FIRE MARSHAL 49.5 139 TOTALS 475.5 1735.25 1983.75 REMARKS:SEE OTHER SIDE FOR SYNOPSIS MISC LOSS - TOTALS page 109 page 110 page 111 page 112 page 113 page 114 page 115 page 116 page 117 page 118 page 119 page 120 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: May 1, 2018 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council; City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Wetlands Permit for 954 Wagon Wheel Trail (Tuttle) Planning Case No. 2018-10 Introduction The City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution, which would approve a Wetlands Permit to Elevation Homes and Drs. Rob and SueMi Tuttle, for the property located at 954 Wagon Wheel Trail. Background City Code Section 12-2-6 requires a wetlands permit for any work conducted within 100-ft. of an adjacent wetland or recognized water feature. Elevation Homes plans to construct a new 5,500 sq. ft., two-story, home for the Tuttle’s, which will include a 1,193 sf. three-car attached garage and in-ground swimming pool. The property currently has a very small and old 810-sf. single-story home (circa 1939), which will be removed to make space for this new home. All new work should have very little, if any impacts to the adjacent lake or wetland features At the April 24, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, a planning staff report was presented on this item; and a public hearing was conducted by the commission. There were no comments, concerns or objections from the general public or neighboring property owners. A copy of the 04/24/18 planning report, along with the planning commission meeting minutes related to this item are appended to this memo. Discussion The City can use its legislative authority when considering action on a Wetlands Permit, 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. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval (7-0) of the application for the Wetlands Permit, with certain conditions and findings of fact to support said approval. If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2018-35 APPROVING WETLANDS PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 954 WAGON WHEEL TRAIL. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 121 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2018-35 RESOLUTION APPROVING A WETLANDS PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 954 WAGON WHEEL TRAIL WHEREAS, Elevation Homes (the “Applicants”), acting on behalf of Rob and SueMi Tuttle (the “Owners”) have applied for a Wetlands Permit under Planning Case No. 2018-10 for the property generally located on the north side of Rogers Lake, addressed as 954 Wagon Wheel Trail and legally described in attached Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, is situated in the R-1 One Family Residential District, and is located adjacent to an established wetland and Rogers Lake; and WHEREAS, the Applicants seek permission to construct a new 5,500 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with an attached three-car garage and swimming pool on the Subject Property, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 12-2-1 of the City Code, all new construction, related improvements, grading, and/or removals made within one-hundred (100) feet of a wetland or water resource-related area requires a wetlands permit; and WHEREAS, on April 24, 2018, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this item, the Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval (7-0 vote) of the Wetlands Permit for the property located at 954 Wagon Wheel Trail, with certain findings of fact and conditions of approval as noted herein. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the requested Wetlands Permit for the property located at 954 Wagon Wheel Trail, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-10, is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: A. The use of the subject parcel as a new single-family residential dwelling is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. B. The planned development of the new dwelling, garage and swimming pool is considered a reasonable request, and is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. C. The proposed residential home meets the required setbacks and other standards established under the R-1 One Family District. page 122 D. The proposed garage and residential structure will be compliant with the conditions included in the City Code. E. The proposed new residential home project and any related construction activities will not cause or create any negative impacts to the ecologically sensitive area of the wetlands or Rogers Lake area, due to the implementation of new wetland setback and unaltered shoreland areas; and the proximity and separation of the structure from said water features. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Wetlands Permit proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-10 is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. The new single-family development, including the dwelling structure, garage and swimming pool shall comply with all standards and rules under Title 9 Building Regulations (ref. Ch. 2 Swimming Pools) and Title 12 Zoning of the City Code. 2. The new single-family development shall comply with or exceed the applicable standards and conditions noted under Title 12, Chapter 2 Wetlands Systems of City Code. 3. The Applicant/Owners shall submit a final grading plan, utility plan and a dimensioned site plan subject to review and approval by the Engineering Department and Planning Department as part of any building permit application. 4. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 5. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work; site construction shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm.; and full erosion/sedimentation measures shall be installed prior to commencement of work and maintained throughout the duration of the construction project. 6. No disturbance, grading work or any type of construction activities, besides installation of erosion control measures and/or limited vegetation removal, shall occur within the 25-ft. buffer strip along the northerly wetland feature; or within the buffer area defined between the wetland setback line and the OHWM line of Rogers Lake to the south; or on slopes 25% or greater. 7. All new trees and wetland buffer areas shall be planted with approved native trees and pollinator friendly and wetland suitable plantings, as per the city’s Native Plant List. page 123 8. The Owner shall dedicate a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the eastern property line within the vacated Rogers Avenue right-of-way; and a new permanent drainage and utility easements over the entire northerly wetland area, which should include the 25-foot non-disturbance buffer strip from the delineated wetland edge, with said easements to be denoted on the Certificate of Survey or separate easement agreement submitted and recorded with Dakota County. 9. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established, protected and permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 1st day of May, 2018. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 124 EXHIBIT A Legal Description PID# 27-16400-00-160 Per Certificate of Title No. 79786 (Torrens) THE EAST TWO HUNDRED AND TEN (210) FEET OF LOT SIXTEEN (16) OF CAROLINE’S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF ON FILE AND OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS WITHIN AND FOR DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA; AND INCLUDING THE ADJACENT THIRTY FEET (30’) OF VACATED ROGERS AVENUE RIGHT OF WAY LYING SOUTHERLY OF WAGON WHEEL TRAIL RIGHT OF WAY (PER CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS RESOLUTION NO. 2017-88, ADOPTED AND DATED OCTOBER 17, 2017). page 125 Planning Report MEETING DATE: April 24, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2018-10 Wetlands Permit APPLICANT: Elevation Homes / Drrs. Rob & SueMi Tuttle PROPERTY ADDRESS: 954 Wagon Wheel Trail ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/ LR-Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: May 22, 2018 INTRODUCTION The applicants are seeking a Wetlands Permit to allow the construction of a new 5,500 sq. ft. (finished) single-family dwelling, with a three-car attached garage and an in-ground swimming pool. The subject property is generally located on the north side of Rogers Lake and addressed as 954 Wagon Wheel Trail. A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. BACKGROUND Pursuant to City Code Section 12-2-6; any work or development upon or which would otherwise alter a wetland or potentially impact a water related resource area, must obtain a written permit from the city. The following activities require a permit: 1. The deposit or removal or permitting the deposit or removal of any debris, fill or any other material over one hundred (100) cubic yards. 2. Any excavation over one hundred (100) cubic yards. 3. The digging, dredging, filling, or in any other way altering or removing any material from water bodies, watercourses, wetlands, floodplain, or natural drainage system. 4. The construction, alteration, or removal of any structure. 5. The removal of vegetation. 6. The altering of any embankment or ponding area or the changing of the flow of water or ponding capacity. 7. Permanently storing materials. 8. Disposing of waste materials, including, but not limited to, sewage, garbage, rubbish, and other discarded materials. 9. Installation and maintenance of essential services. page 126 The subject parcel consists of 4.02 total acres, with approximately 2.1 acres under Rogers Lake to the south (per Dakota Co. GIS), while the main upper portion of the parcel’s buildable area and adjacent wetland consists of approximately 1.97 acres in size (see image below). The property currently has an old, dilapidated 810 sf. single-story home built in 1939, which is scheduled to be removed to make space for this new home project. An existing and abandoned foundation just south of the home will also be removed, along with some old fencing. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Elevation Homes has provided a Survey/Site Plan of the site, which illustrates the general layout of the new dwelling structure. The structures front yard setback (from nearest projection point off the attached garage) is 132-feet from Wagon Wheel Trail; 15-ft. from the easterly property line; over 107-ft. from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) off Rogers Lake; and 106-ft. from the westerly property line. page 127 Elevation Homes plans to construct a new 5,500 sq. ft., two-story, home, with a 1,193 sf. three-car attached garage, and swimming pool (see partial elevation image – below): The site coverage calculations are indicated as 11,735 sq. ft. of hard surface areas (structures, decks, patios, driveway), which equates to only 13.8% of impervious cover. The proposed residence and garage will have direct access from Wagon Wheel Trail. On October 17, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-88, which authorized the partial vacation of Rogers Avenue ROW located south of Wagon Wheel Trail. Upon the approval of this vacation, a 30-ft. wide strip of land was conveyed over to each of the adjacent landowners at 954 and 940 Wagon Wheel Trail. The new survey/site plan submitted by the Applicant incorporates this 30-ft. strip of land, which provides the area for the new driveway/access into the property and part of the dwelling structure footprint. The survey/site plan illustrates the delineated edges of the northerly wetland feature and the edge along Rogers Lake to the south; and includes “wetland setback” lines and buffer areas from both the lake and wetland. The plan also identifies new landscaping and trees along the north and east areas of the property. ANALYSIS  Comprehensive Plan The subject property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed residential dwelling qualifies as a permitted use in the applicable zoning district, subject to full city approvals; and should remain compliant with the current 2030 Plan and the expected 2040 Comprehensive Plan update.  Wetlands Permit Pursuant to City Code Title 12-2-1 Wetlands Systems, this chapter applies to adjacent land within 100- feet of a wetland or water resource related area. This chapter also provides specific allowances, rules and standards for certain activities near these recognized water features, including a permit for the construction, alteration or removal of any structure. The purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter is to: 1. Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-related areas; 2. Maintain the natural drainage system; page 128 3. Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from excessive sedimentation; 4. Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and 5. Ensure safety from floods. City Code Title 12-2-7 provides a list of standards and conditions for the granting of a Wetland Permit within the City. These standards are appended to the bottom of this report. For the most part, it appears all major construction related to the building of the new home, garage, swimming pool and driveway all appear to have little, to no effect upon the wetland areas. The work along Rogers Lake appears to be separated by a wide buffer space with minimal disturbance or grading to be done near the lake. Some new grading is being planned near the north wetland area, but there should be no impacts to the physical portion of the wetland itself. The plan calls for all new grading work to be outside the wetland setback zone, with silt fence protection all along this area to be installed (which is required) prior to any construction in or around this wetland area. The Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP) provides certain guides and suggested standards for the city to follow or implement when dealing with new development near natural water features. The LSWMP recommends a 25-foot wetland setback, which essentially provides a no disturbance buffer zone and permits a natural vegetative planting and erosion/silt protection strip along the water body. The Plan also suggests any natural wetlands or ponds situated on private lands be dedicated with drainage and utility easements; that way the city will be responsible for the overall care and maintenance of such water features in the future. The plan identifies an approximate 25-foot wetland buffer (noted as “Wetland Setback” line) from the delineated wetland edges along Rogers Lake and the north wetland body. The plan also notes: “Existing Shoreland Vegetation to Remain Unaltered” along the wetland boundary areas along Rogers Lake. The setback area along the north wetland does not contain any added notes or provisions similar to the Rogers Lake area. The plan also includes a note: “Proposed New Brush Line to Clean-Out Buckthorn and Other Invasive Species” along the Rogers Lake edge. Staff acknowledges and commends the Owners desire to maintain an unaltered shoreland area and natural vegetative brush line along Rogers Lake; as water quality and protection of this natural resource is paramount to city leaders and residents who live near Rogers Lake. The large open (rectangular) area immediately to the west of the new home is planned to be a simple grass/sodded play area for the family. Along the northerly part of the new home, new grades will be established coming off the new driveway and garage structure, and staff assumes some of these areas will be seeded as turf or sodded. Staff recommends that no part of the wetland setback/buffer zones be planted with turf grass or sod; instead these buffers should be planted with pollinator friendly and wetland protective plantings, which are noted in the city’s Native Plant List, made part of the Pollinator Friendly Policy (adopted 2016). The Owners may also call upon the city’s Master Gardeners to provide suggestions and recommendations of certain, suitable plantings. City staff will provide the Applicant/Owners of said list and ensure the final building plans call for such plantings as necessary. The plan identifies a number of trees to be removed on the site, with approximately 26- 28 trees scheduled for removal, but also identifies a large number of trees to be saved or protected during construction. The trees marked for removal are in poor health and some are considered non-native or invasive. The new plan calls for 14 new deciduous trees and 10 new coniferous (evergreen) trees to be planted in and around the new home and driveway (primarily along the along the north and east sides of the new home site). Although the plan does not identify the type/species of new trees, Staff will work with the Applicant/Owners in providing suitable or recommended tree plantings, once again from the Native Plant List if necessary. page 129 Water and sanitary sewer are still available from the mains in the Wagon Wheel Trail ROW to the north. The old septic system appears to have been removed many years ago, so there should be no environmental impacts or clean-up related to any old septic system; and therefore, no related standards or conditions (per Title 12-2-7) are needed. Proposed erosion control measures (silt fencing) are shown on the Site Plan, and basically encircles the main developable portions of the parcel. The erosion control or stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) will be reviewed in greater detail by the Engineering Department as part of the building permit application. The scope and scale of this proposed new home project fits in nicely with the overall size of the property; and due to the proximity of the wetland and adjacent lake, most of the new work is being contained or limited to the area in and around where the old residential dwelling sat on the property. Due to this relatively minor scale of the project on this large parcel, the following statements are being presented for the Planning Commission to review and consider in your determination of this wetland permit: a) the work should have very little, if any impacts to the adjacent wetland feature; b) the Applicant/Owners will provide for the protection and preservation of the adjacent wetland/water resource feature by installing silt fence and stormwater run-off protection measures as per city staff direction; c) all natural drainage way systems will be maintained during and after the project is completed; and d) the Applicant/Owners will make every attempt to minimize disturbance of the area in order to protect and preserve the natural surroundings, avoid excess loss of vegetation, and avoid any impacts to wildlife and aquatic organisms. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the Wetlands Permit with certain conditions, based on the findings of fact that the proposed residential use will be compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable City Code requirements found under City Code Section 12-2-1 Wetlands Systems and other related City Code requirements; – OR – 2. Deny the requested Wetlands Permit based on revised finding(s) of facts as determined by the Planning Commission; – OR – 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, pursuant to MN State Statute 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a Wetlands Permit to Elevation Homes/ Rob and SueMi Tuttle, which would allow the construction of a new home with attached garage and swimming pool facility based on the attached findings of fact, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The new single-family development, including the dwelling structure, garage and swimming pool shall comply with all standards and rules under Title 9 Building Regulations (ref. Ch. 2 Swimming Pools) and Title 12 Zoning of the City Code. 2. The new single-family development shall comply with or exceed the applicable standards and conditions noted under Title 12, Chapter 2 Wetlands Systems of City Code. page 130 3. The Applicant/Owners shall submit a final grading plan, utility plan and a dimensioned site plan subject to review and approval by the Engineering Department and Planning Department as part of any building permit application. 4. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 5. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work; site construction shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm.; and full erosion/sedimentation measures shall be installed prior to commencement of work and maintained throughout the duration of the construction project. 6. No disturbance, grading work or any type of construction activities, besides installation of erosion control measures and/or limited vegetation removal, shall occur within the 25-ft. buffer strip along the northerly wetland feature; or within the buffer area defined between the wetland setback line and the OHWM line of Rogers Lake to the south; or on slopes 25% or greater. 7. All new trees and wetland buffer areas shall be planted with approved native trees and pollinator friendly and wetland suitable plantings, as per the city’s Native Plant List. 8. The Property Owner shall dedicate a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the eastern property line within the vacated Rogers Avenue right-of-way; and a new permanent drainage and utility easements over the entire northerly wetland area, which should include the 25-foot non- disturbance buffer strip from the delineated wetland edge, with said easements to be denoted on the Certificate of Survey or separate easement agreement submitted and recorded with Dakota County. 9. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established, protected and permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed. page 131 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Wetlands Permit 954 Wagon Wheel Trail The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1. The use of the subject parcel as a new single-family residential dwelling is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. 2. The planned development of the new dwelling, garage and swimming pool is considered a reasonable request, and is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed residential home meets the required setbacks and other standards established under the R-1 One Family District. 4. The proposed garage and residential structure will be compliant with the conditions included in the City Code. 5. The proposed new residential home project and any related construction activities will not cause or create any negative impacts to the ecologically sensitive area of the wetlands or Rogers Lake area, due to the implementation of new wetland setback and unaltered shoreland areas; and the proximity and separation of the structure from said water features. page 132 TITLE 12-2-7: STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS OF [WETLANDS] PERMIT: A. Specific Standards: No permits shall be issued unless it is determined that the proposed action within a W district complies with the following requirements: 1. Dredging and/or filling shall be located in areas of minimal vegetation. 2. Dredging activities shall not significantly reduce the water flow characteristics or ponding capacity. 3. The size of the dredged material shall be limited to the absolute minimum and said limits designated on the dredging/grading plan. 4. Disposal of the dredged material shall not result in a significant change in the current water flows, ponding, or in destruction of vegetation, fish spawning areas, or in pollution of water. 5. Earthwork will not be performed during the breeding season of waterfowl or the fish spawning season. 6. Only one boat channel or marina shall be allowed per large scale development or PUD. In other residential developments, dredging shall be located so as to provide for the use of boat channels and marina by two (2) or more adjacent property owners. The width of a boat channel to be dredged shall be no more than the minimum required for the safe operation of boats at minimum operating speeds. 7. No part of any septic tank system or any other sewage disposal system requiring on land or in the ground disposal of waste shall be located closer than fifty feet (50') from the edge of a W district boundary, unless it can be shown that no effluent can reach the wetland because of existing physical characteristics of the site. On-site sewage disposal systems shall be permitted only if they meet state and city regulations. 8. Runoff from developed property and construction projects may be directed to the wetland only when reasonably free of silt and debris and chemical pollutants, and at such rates such as not to disturb wetland vegetation or increase turbidity. 9. No deleterious waste shall be discharged in a wetland or disposed of in a manner that would cause the waste to enter the wetland or other water resource area. 10. W district lands may not be used for disposal of organic refuse or garbage material typically disposed of in a landfill. No part of a wetland should be used for a sanitary landfill. 11. Lowest floor elevation of buildings located within the W district must be at least three feet (3') above the highest known water level. 12. No development shall be allowed in the W district which will endanger the health, safety, and welfare of persons or which will result in unusual maintenance costs to road and parking areas or the breaking or leaking of utility lines. 13. Removal of vegetation shall be permitted only when and where such work within the W district has been approved in accordance with the standards of this chapter. 14. Removal of vegetation within the W district but outside the wetland shall be limited to that reasonably required for the placement of structures and the use of property. 15. The proposed action will not cause storm water runoff to take place at a rate which would exceed the natural rate of runoff occurring from a rainstorm of a twenty four (24) hour duration and a once in two (2) year frequency. 16. Any increase in runoff due to the proposed action will be detained on the site for infiltration through the soil to the water table. Detention of water shall be calculated on the basis of 100- year frequency rainfall published by the U.S. weather bureau. page 133 17. The quality of water infiltrated to the water table or aquifer shall remain undisturbed by the development of the site. a. Drainage water shall be directed in such a manner as to travel over natural areas rather than across contaminated surfaces. b. Treatment of runoff prior to release to natural drainage shall be provided for parking areas and land uses which manufacture products likely to contaminate ground water. c. No portion of any septic tank drain field shall be located closer than four and one-half feet (41/2') from the highest known water table on the site or underlying bedrock. 18. Land shall be developed in the smallest practical increment at any one time and for only the shortest practical period of time, not to exceed a single construction season. 19. Sufficient control measures and retention facilities shall be put in place prior to commencement of each development increment to limit gross soil loss from the development site to not more than five (5) tons per acre per year. 20. Existing wetlands shall not be used as sediment traps. 21. Sediment yield from construction sites adjacent to streams and lakes shall not exceed two (2) tons per acre per year. 22. The person seeking the development permit shall be required to demonstrate that after the development is completed the conditions on the site will be stabilized such that the yearly soil loss from the site will not be greater than 0.5 tons per acre. 23. Development of woodlands shall not reduce the existing crown cover by more than fifty percent (50%). The removal of trees seriously damaged by storms or other act of God, or diseased trees shall not be prohibited. (1981 Code 402 § 7) page 134 ? G!.G!. G!.66666666666666 66 ³³³* ³³" """* * * ³ " " " 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 666 6666 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2!!2 !!2 2270 954 954 940 945 940 954 945 940 953 2270 2301 945 2270 2275 954 987 900 954 2275 WAGON WHEEL TRL PRIVATE ROAD361' 20 2 ' 77' 109'100' 8''0''8''0''Dakota County GIS City ofMendotaHeights0100 SCALE IN FEETDate: 4/20/2018 GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 954 Wagon WHeel Trail (Tuttle Residence) page 135 Mr.  Tim  Benetti     Community  Development  Director     City  of  Mendota  Heights     Dakota  County   1101  Victoria  Curve,  Mendota  Heights,  MN       Dear  Mr.  Benetti,     My  name  is  Joe  Crowley  and  I  work  for  Elevation  Homes,  a  Division  of  Streeter  and  Associates.    Streeter  &  Associates  have  been  building  homes  in  the  Twin  Cities  area  for  over  35  years  as  a   company.    We  take  pride  in  delivering  homes  at  a  high  level  and  we’re  fortunate  to  work  with   and  build  relationships  with  multiple  municipalities  in  the  Metro  and  hope  to  continue  our   efforts  for  many  years  to  come.     We  are  acting  on  behalf  of  our  client,  Rob  and  SueMi  Tuttle  to  submit  a  wetland  Permit   Application  for  954  Wagon  Wheel  Trail,  located  off  of  Rogers  Lake.    Our  client  is  currently  a   Sunfish  Lake  resident  and  has  admired  Mendota  Heights  for  years;  while  monitoring  properties   in  the  area…  they  were  excited  to  see  an  opportunity  to  become  residents  present  itself  in  the   Spring  of  2017,  they  immediately  purchased  the  property  off  of  Roger’s  Lake  with  the  dream  of   building  their  forever  home.    The  property  currently  has  an  aging  (built  in  1939)  one-­‐story  single   family  home  with  810  square  feet,  it  was  built  in  1939  and  is  in  disrepair,  it’s  not  realistic  to   salvage  the  structure  to  support  the  Tuttle’s  young  family.    The  Tuttle’s  have  3  young  active  kids   that  excitedly  await  their  ability  to  put  the  roughly  3.7  acres  to  use,  however  2.4  are  considered   water  acres  and  are  perhaps  the  most  valuable  for  their  love  of  the  outdoors.     We  have  spent  the  last  year  preparing  the  property  for  submitting  for  a  building  permit,  we   delineated  the  wetland  on  the  property,  vacated  a  Right  of  Way  that  existed  on  the  property   and  have  designed  a  one-­‐of-­‐a-­‐kind  single  family  home  with  a  local  architecture  firm.    The   designed  home  is  in  line  with  the  premier  lot,  the  home  is  designed  to  be  nestled  into  the  lot   (behind  the  wetland  off  of  Wagon  Wheel  Trail)  within  the  notable  boundaries  (lot,  lake  and   wetland  setbacks)  and  city  code/ordinances  and  will  have  great  lake  appeal  while  respecting  the   native  vegetation.    The  approximate  finished  square  feet  of  the  home  is  5500SF  with  a  pool  and   terrace.     Please  find  our  submittal  attached  or  included  with  this  package.    Please  feel  free  to  contact  me   at  612-­‐868-­‐2777,  if  you  need  any  additional  information  or  clarification.    We  are  excited  to   continue  to  work  with  the  City  of  Mendota  Heights  and  hope  to  have  more  opportunities  in  the   future.     Sincerely,       Joe  Crowley     page 136 page 137 12 14 9'-118"1'-834"8'-10"1'-834"7'-8"124 18'-6" 21'-6" 23'-6" 3'-0" 2'-0"7'-11"14:12 6'-11"4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 1'-0"1'-0" 2 NORTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 NORTH GARAGE ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" 41 2" 41 2" 41 2"41 2" 41 2"41 2" 41 2"41 2" 2'-0" D H KJG A B C E F 12 4 124 12 4 1'-834"8'-5"7'-4"5" HALF ROUNG GUTTER 8/4X4 OVER 8/4X10 CELLULAR PVC FASCIA FIBER CEMENT SOFFIT W/ CONT. VENT ANGLED 8/4X8 CELLULAR PVC FREEZE 5/4X12 CELLULAR PVC TRIM 5/4X12 CELLULAR PVC TRIM CUT TO DIM. 8/4X8 CELLULAR PVC TRIM CUT TO DIM. 8/4X4 OVER 8/4X10 CELLULAR PVC FASCIA FIBER CEMENT SOFFIT W/ CONT. VENT SEE WINDOW TRIM 8/4X6 CELLULAR PVC FREEZE 5 3:12 LOWER ROOF TRIM DETAIL 1/2" = 1'-0" 4 3:12 DORMER TRIM DETAIL 1/2" = 1'-0" 3 14:12 TRIM DETAIL 1/2" = 1'-0" 8/4X4 OVER 8/4X10 CELLULAR PVC FASCIA FIBER CEMENT SOFFIT W/ CONT. VENT ANGLED 8/4X10 CELLULAR PVC FREEZE 5/4X12 CELLULAR PVC TRIM 5/4X12 CELLULAR PVC TRIM CUT TO DIM. 8/4X3 CELLULAR PVC TRIM CUT TO DIM. 8/4X2" CELLULAR PVC HEAD & CASE TRIM HEAD FLASHING 2"X8/4 CELLULAR PVC SILL ANGLED W/ DRIP KERF RIPPED IN BOTTOM 1"1" 6 TYP. WINDOW TRIM DETAIL 1/2" = 1'-0"MARKDATEDESCRIPTIONTuttle Residence954 Wagon Wheel TrailMendota Heights, MinnesotaSheet Title Issue NamePrepared ByCertificationIssue/RevisionProject NameDate © 2018 PLAAD, LLC. ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF PLAAD, LLC, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF PLAAD, LLC. April 6, 2018MARK2018-03-26DESIGN DEVELOPMENTMARK2018-04-06DESIGN DEVELOPMENTA200 Exterior Elevations page 138 9'-118"1'-834"1'-834"7'-11"9'-01316"1'-9116"1'-834"7'-11"8'-0"4:12 14:12 14:12 4:12 14:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 14:12 4:12 41 2" 41 2" 41 2" 41 2" 41 2" 41 2" 2 SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" LMN A BCEF8'-5"7'-4"8'-5"7'-4"MARKDATEDESCRIPTIONTuttle Residence954 Wagon Wheel TrailMendota Heights, MinnesotaSheet Title Issue NamePrepared ByCertificationIssue/RevisionProject NameDate © 2018 PLAAD, LLC. ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF PLAAD, LLC, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF PLAAD, LLC. April 6, 2018MARK2018-03-26DESIGN DEVELOPMENTMARK2018-04-06DESIGN DEVELOPMENTA202 Exterior Elevations page 139 12 14 21'-6" 12 4 9'-118"1'-834"1'-834"3'-0"18'-6" 23'-6"7'-11"14:12 14:12 1'-0"1'-0" 4:12 4:12 4:12 41 2" 2'-0" 2'-0" 3 WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 NOTH WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" 1413121011MN 1 2 3 12 4124 8'-5"7'-4"8'-10"7'-8"1'-834"8'-5"7'-4"MARKDATEDESCRIPTIONTuttle Residence954 Wagon Wheel TrailMendota Heights, MinnesotaSheet Title Issue NamePrepared ByCertificationIssue/RevisionProject NameDate © 2018 PLAAD, LLC. ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF PLAAD, LLC, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF PLAAD, LLC. April 6, 2018MARK2018-03-26DESIGN DEVELOPMENTMARK2018-04-06DESIGN DEVELOPMENTA203 Exterior Elevations page 140 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 24, 2018 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 24, 2018 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners John Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: None Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of March 27, 2018 Minutes COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 27, 2018, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2018-10 WETLANDS PERMIT ELEVATION HOMES / ROB & SUEMI TUTTLE, 954 WAGON WHEEL TRAIL Working from materials provided to the Commission prior to the meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Elevation Homes had applied for a Wetlands Permit on behalf of Drrs. Rob and SueMi Tuttle. They desire to construct a new single-family dwelling with a three-car attached garage and an in-ground swimming pool on their property located at 954 Wagon Wheel Trail. This property is located on the north side of Rogers Lake and any work done within 100 feet of a water feature requires a Wetlands Permit. A public hearing notice on this application was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. No comments or objections had been received prior to this meeting. Mr. Benetti then noted that the site is just over 4.0 acres with the buildable part consisting of just under 2.0 acres. The property currently has an 810 square foot single-story home which was built in 1939 and is in a dilapidated condition. This dwelling is scheduled for removal, as well as the existing and abandoned foundation and some old fencing. page 141 The planned setbacks for the site are 132-feet from Wagon Wheel Trail; 15-feet from the easterly property line; over 107-feet from the ordinary high water mark off Rogers Lake; and 106-feet from the westerly property line. As part of this plan, approximately 26 to 28 trees are to be removed with a number of trees being saved or protected; they also plan to install 10 new coniferous evergreens and 14 deciduous trees. The owners have no plans to alter the area near the lake. As recommended by staff, the plan shows an approximately 25-foot wetland buffer from the delineated wetland edges along Rogers Lake and the north wetland body. Mr. Benetti shared elevation images of the planned 5,500 square foot, two-story home; 1,193 square foot three-car attached garage, and swimming pool. This property would have direct access from Wagon Wheel Trail; water and sanitary sewer are available from the mains in the Wagon Wheel Trail right-of-way to the north; and the old septic system appears to have been removed many years ago. The Wagon Wheel Trail ROW was partially vacated under Resolution 2017-88, which conveyed a 30-foot wide strip of land over to this property owner. Mr. Benetti then reviewed the analysis of this property in the Comprehensive Plan; the City Code pertaining to Wetlands Systems; and the specific allowances, rules, and standards for a permit for the construction, alteration, or removal of any structure near these Wetlands Systems. He stated that his preliminary review revealed that this house is worth being built with the new grades being established, satisfactory to both engineering and zoning standards, and staff would verify or confirm these standards are met before a building permit is issued. Staff recommended approval of this Wetlands Permit application based on the Findings of Facts and with Conditions as noted in the staff report. Commissioner Magnuson asked about standards in the ordinance regarding swimming pools. With this pool being closest to Rogers Lake, she asked what the requirements are when it comes to draining the chlorinated water, backwashing the filtering system, and where do they go to ensure they are not being pumped into the wetland area or the buffer zone for Rogers Lake. Mr. Benetti deferred to Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, who replied that the engineering department had not addressed that yet. Staff agreed to do more research on this item and should they discover that it would adversely impact the lake they would request that the owners connect those systems to the sanitary sewer system. Commissioner Toth, knowing that the previous home had been built in 1939, asked about any existing septic or sewer systems on the property and the removal of any potentially contaminated soil around the old system. Mr. Benetti replied that this is usually handled by the demolition permit or by the contractor. These are usually capped before any work is started. The new builder would access or examine the existing sewer line to determine if it is reusable or if they would need to lay a new one. Mr. Ruzek also noted that the existing home is connected to city sewer and water. Commissioner Toth then asked if there would be any problems with potentially old fuel tanks inside the existing home. Mr. Benetti replied that if there were any, they would be handled under the demolition permit. All remediation efforts need to be done as part of that demolition permit. page 142 Commissioner Mazzitello clarified that if the draining of the pool or grade is a problem with that water getting Rogers Lake that it would have to go to the storm sewer system, not to the sanitary sewer system. Any pool water going into the storm sewer system would go through treatment ponds before reaching Rogers Lake. Mr. Ruzek also noted that pool water going through the pipes evaporates its chlorine fairly quickly but he would do additional research on the subject. Commissioner Mazzitello suggested that extra measures be taken next to Rogers Lake during construction for sediment control. Commissioner Toth asked for a walkthrough of Condition 8, which reads “The Property Owner shall dedicate a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the eastern property line within the vacated Rogers Avenue right-of-way; and a new permanent drainage and utility easements over the entire northerly wetland area, which should include the 25-foot no disturbance buffer strip from the delineated wetland edge, with said easements to be denoted on the Certificate of Survey or separate easement agreement submitted and recorded with Dakota County”, and how the drainage easement is going to be implemented; and the 25-foot setback on the wetlands side. Mr. Benetti, referring back to the site plan, noted that the city is requesting a 10-foot drainage and utility easement along the east side of the property; which used to be half of the ROW. The city is also asking for a permanent drainage and utility easement over the entire northerly wetland area – including the 25-foot no disturbance buffer. This way it is the city’s responsibility to maintain or take care of it, ensuring there are no adverse damages by the homeowner or anyone else to that area. Chair Field commented that in affect, the city is establishing control over that portion of the property next to Rogers Lake. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan asked if there was a condition that requires them to dedicate an easement off of the wetland. Chair Field referred him to the entirety of Condition 8. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mr. Joe Crowley of Elevation Homes, 909 Washington Avenue North, noted that they are a division of Streeter and Associates, which has been building homes in the metropolitan area for over 35 years. This division is going on their 12th year. He expressed his appreciation to Mr. Ruzek and Mr. Benetti and to the City of Mendota Heights for being extremely welcoming. Couple of points he wished to make: • Swimming Pool – in terms of water discharge, many times now they are underwater closes; so very minimal water has to be discharged unless the liner is being replaced. Water being removed from the top of the pool cover can be directed wherever the city would like. • Septic and Well – there was a well and a septic on site. The septic has been abandoned and the well has been capped. They are currently hooked up to city sewer and water. They will scope the lines to determine their condition for continued use or replacement. page 143 Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING 2018-10 WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICATION, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The use of the subject parcel as a new single-family residential dwelling is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. 2. The planned development of the new dwelling, garage and swimming pool is considered a reasonable request, and is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed residential home meets the required setbacks and other standards established under the R-1 One Family District. 4. The proposed garage and residential structure will be compliant with the conditions included in the City Code. 5. The proposed new residential home project and any related construction activities will not cause or create any negative impacts to the ecologically sensitive area of the wetlands or Rogers Lake area, due to the implementation of new wetland setback and unaltered shoreland areas; and the proximity and separation of the structure from said water features. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The new single-family development, including the dwelling structure, garage and swimming pool shall comply with all standards and rules under Title 9 Building Regulations (ref. Ch. 2 Swimming Pools) and Title 12 Zoning of the City Code. 2. The new single-family development shall comply with or exceed the applicable standards and conditions noted under Title 12, Chapter 2 Wetlands Systems of City Code. 3. The Applicant/Owners shall submit a final grading plan, utility plan and a dimensioned site plan subject to review and approval by the Engineering Department and Planning Department as part of any building permit application. 4. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 5. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work; site construction shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm.; and full erosion/sedimentation measures shall be installed prior to commencement of work and maintained throughout the duration of the construction project. 6. No disturbance, grading work or any type of construction activities, besides installation of erosion control measures and/or limited vegetation removal, shall occur within the 25-ft. buffer strip along the northerly wetland feature; or within the buffer area defined between the wetland setback line and the OHWM line of Rogers Lake to the south; or on slopes 25% or greater. page 144 7. All new trees and wetland buffer areas shall be planted with approved native trees and pollinator friendly and wetland suitable plantings, as per the city’s Native Plant List. 8. The Property Owner shall dedicate a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the eastern property line within the vacated Rogers Avenue right-of-way; and a new permanent drainage and utility easements over the entire northerly wetland area, which should include the 25-foot non-disturbance buffer strip from the delineated wetland edge, with said easements to be denoted on the Certificate of Survey or separate easement agreement submitted and recorded with Dakota County. 9. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established, protected and permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 1, 2018 meeting. Announcements / Update on Developments Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that everything is progressing well on the new Gemini Medical site; and The Reserves of Mendota Heights (Plaza apartments) are doing well and wrapping up construction. Clean Up Day has been scheduled for Saturday, May 5, 2018 at Mendakota Park from 8:00 a.m. to Noon. Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) is hosting a large clean up event at Valley Park on Saturday, April 28, 2018 to do buckthorn busting and seed casts. They anticipate approximately 200 volunteers. Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:22 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 page 145 Request for City Council Action DATE: May 1, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Recreational Facility Reservation/Special Event Policy Amendment Introduction Staff is requesting City Council approval of an amendment to the Mendota Heights Recreational Facility/Special Event Policy, amending priority categories. Background The City of Mendota Heights coordinates and issues permits for the use of city fields and facilities. City fields and facilities are often used in a multi-purpose manner and are requested by a variety of sports providers and users each year. With a limited number of fields and facilities available, the City originally established criteria for priority use under City Council Resolution 04-10. The priority list was amended and included in the Mendota Heights Recreational Facility/Special Event Policy, which was approved by the City Council at its February 7, 2018 meeting. The priority classifications for field and facility reservations are as follows: 1. City of Mendota Heights programs 2. City of Mendota Heights Co-Sponsored Activities 3. Agreements with Public and Private Schools 4. Recognized Community Youth Organizations 5. Mendota Heights Residents Use of the Facilities for Personal Use 6. Mendota Heights-Based Businesses/Commercial Organizations 7. Non-Mendota Heights Organizations, Businesses and Individuals The City encourages cooperation and partnership among competing sports providers and users in the use of city fields and facilities. Due to the increasing demand for use by competing sports, the multi-purpose use of city fields and facilities, and deviation from traditional sports seasons, staff is recommending amending the priority categories, as follows: page 146 1. City of Mendota Heights programs 2. City of Mendota Heights Co-Sponsored Activities 3. Public and Private Schools 4. Youth Athletic Associations 5. Recognized Community Youth Organizations and Clubs 6. Mendota Heights Residents Use of the Facilities for Personal Use 7. Mendota Heights-Based Businesses/Commercial Organizations 8. Non-Mendota Heights Organizations, Businesses and Individuals The amended list separates city recognized youth athletic associations such as Mendota Heights Athletic Association from city recognized community youth organizations and clubs such the REV Soccer Club. The need for this separation became apparent in the assigning of fields and facilities for the 2018 sports season. Staff anticipates there will be continued demand and competition for limited field resources from existing and emerging sports. The amended priority list provides clarification to the administrative process for assigning fields. Provided is an attachment is the Mendota Heights Recreational Facility Reservation/Special Event Policy with proposed amendments. Budget Impact None. Recommendation Staff recommends that the city council approve the amended Mendota Heights Recreational Facility/Special Event Policy, which includes youth athletic associations as a separate priority category in the allocation of fields and facilities. Requested Action If the City Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the amended Mendota Heights Recreational Facility/Special Event Policy, as attached. This updates the priority classifications to include city recognized Youth Athletic Associations as a priority category. page 147 Mendota Heights Recreational Facility  Reservation/Special Event Policy  Approved:  February 7, 2018  Amended:  XXXX, 2018  page 148 2    Purpose:   This policy outlines the process, application materials, fees, and procedures of reserving a  recreational facility or hosting a special event in Mendota Heights.  General Reservation Information:   All permits are non‐transferable   Reservations cannot be sublet to a third party   All reservations/events require a permit   All special requests and arrangements must be made during the application process   Live or played music is allowed at the facilities as long as it is not disruptive to other  users and the surrounding community   Set up, preparation, and cleanup time must be considered and included in the permit  time frame    There must be sufficient adult supervision included with all reservations   Failure to follow all laws, rules, city ordinances, or regulations will result in a  cancellation of the reservation, no refund, fines, civil liability, or criminal prosecution   Vehicles must be parked in designated areas (no parking on the grass)   The renter must be in attendance at the event    The renter must have the permit in their possession   The permit holder assumes the responsibility of activities not limited to:  o Supervision and control of children  o Prevention of injury  o General maintenance of the facility    Any damage caused to the facility will be billed to the renter   o Properly disposing waste   Persons using Mendota Heights recreation facilities must adhere to the City of Mendota  Heights ordinances and state laws.    Applicants must be 18 years of age or older  Applications:  An application can be obtained at the Mendota Heights City Hall (1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota  Heights MN 55118) or online at http://www.mendota‐heights.com. A signed paper application  can be emailed, faxed, mailed or delivered to Mendota Heights City Hall. No reservation is  confirmed until the application is processed, payment is received, and the permit is issued.   Reservations shall be accepted by the City generally between January 1 and February 15.   Reservations shall be confirmed by March 1. Reservations received after February 15 will be  handled on a first come first serve basis.      page 149 3    Payment Options:  Payment can be made by cash, check, Discover, MasterCard or Visa. (Credit card payments  cannot be taken over the phone)   Insurance:  City of Mendota Heights staff reviews each request and will determine if insurance is necessary  for the permit.   Administrative Procedures:  The City of Mendota Heights Recreation Program Coordinator will administer the reservations,  and consult, as necessary, with the Assistant City Administrator.    Fees are subject to change each year at the discretion of the Mendota Heights City  Council.   If more than one request is made for the same location on the same date, the priority  policy will be used. In the case of a tie‐breaker, priority will be given to the reservation  with the highest number of Mendota Heights residents.   Any organization or individual who fails to provide/follow the guidelines or provide false  information on an application is subject to revocation of the permit at the discretion of  the Recreation Program Coordinator.  Disposing of Waste:  All renters are expected to dispose of waste in proper trash and recycling receptacles.   The City of Mendota Heights prides itself on being a clean, “green” community and  renters are asked to recycle as much of their waste as possible.                     page 150 4    I. Athletic Facility Scheduling Policy  The City of Mendota Heights is home to many athletic facilities for residents to enjoy. This  includes, but is not limited to outdoor tennis courts, baseball/softball fields, soccer fields,  hockey rinks, basketball courts, a golf course and many outdoor spaces. The City of Mendota  Heights takes ownership of scheduling their own facilities in order to provide fairness to  residents, attain maximum use of the facilities, while protecting them from overuse.   Athletic Facility Billing and Fees:  Fees are provided for in the City’s Fee Schedule, which is approved each year by City Council.  (See attached)   Golf Course Rental: For pricing please contact the Recreation Program Coordinator (651)  255‐1354.  Inclement Weather and Unplayable Fields:  Facility reservations may be cancelled and postponed due to weather. The permit holder will be  in contact with the Recreation Program Coordinator to determine if the fields are playable.   The City of Mendota Heights has the right to cancel a reservation if the facility is unsafe for  participants or if the weather will have a lasting impact on the facility. If the city does not  believe the facility could obtain safety vehicles due to ice, snow or water, the reservation will  be cancelled. If lightning is spotted, participants are not allowed to be outside using the facility  and must take shelter immediately. If an event is cancelled due to weather, it is not refundable.  But, the policy holder can reschedule the event in the same calendar year at no charge.   Athletic Facility Reservation Priority Classification:  The City of Mendota Heights has created a priority list to define users and create a reservation  policy that ensures the City is best meeting the needs of the community. Facilities will be  scheduled based off the scheduling priority policy that is established herein.  1. City of Mendota Heights Programs  a. This includes activities that are organized through the Mendota Heights Parks  and Recreation Department or directly sponsored by the City as a cooperative  program. Reservations for City sponsored activities, programs, games, practices,  leagues and tournaments can be taken at any time for any date. There are no  rental fees charged for City reservations.   2. City of Mendota Heights Co‐Sponsored Activities  a. This includes all City‐sponsored activities, programs, practices, leagues, games  and tournaments. An event is considered co‐sponsored when the City of  Mendota Heights’ staff is committed to one of the following:  i. Planning/coordinating the activity  page 151 5    ii. Taking reservations for the activity   iii. Providing leadership and staff for the activity   iv. Measure the impact of the individuals who have participated   3. Agreements with Public and Private Schools  a. This includes schools that are located within the City of Mendota Heights. There  must be an agreement in place that defines the City of Mendota Heights  reciprocal use of the school’s athletic facilities. If there is no agreement in place,  this priority shall be moved to after priority #45  4. Youth Athletic Associations   a. Youth Athletic Associations that are recognized by the City of Mendota Heights  including, but not limited to, Mendota Heights Athletic Association, Sibley Area  Youth Hockey Association.  4.5. Recognized Community Youth Organizations and Clubs   a. This includes yYouth organizations (youth 18 and under) that are recognized by  the City of Mendota Heights including, but not limited to, REV Soccer Club..   a. Currently, the two recognized associations are Sibley Area Youth Hockey  Association (SAYHA) and Mendota Heights Athletic Association (MHAA).   b. These Yyouth organizations must meet the following requirements on an annual  basis:  i. Must be a City of Mendota‐Heights based, non‐profit, 501c3 organization  as defined by the Internal Revenue Services (IRS). Proof of 501c3 status  (letter from IRS) will be necessary  ii. A copy of the board of directors contact information submitted to the  City of Mendota Heights   iii. The organization must be able to confidentially provide the following  items in the form of a letter to the City of Mendota Heights:  1. A copy of current bylaws, policies and procedures which govern  operations, shall be made available to the City of Mendota  Heights  2. A coach’s certification training   3. The association must not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnic  background, sexual orientation, religion or ability. Although team  assignments may be determined by ability. There must be a policy  for determining teams based on ability.   iv. The organization should have liability insurance in place in an amount  equal to the statutory maximum liability of a government unit with the  State of MN as set forth in state law naming Mendota Heights as an  additional insured. A copy of the insurance policy must be submitted to  the City of Mendota Heights.   v. Youth organizations may be charged a seasonal damage deposit for usage  of facilities.  page 152 6    v.c. In the event of competing requests from recognized organizations in this  category, the City reserves the right to request, for allocation purposes, the  organization’s previous year’s program roster which shall include the  participants name and complete address including city and zip code.    Facilities  will be allocated to organizations with the higher percentage of Mendota  Heights’ residents participating in the program.  5.6. Mendota Heights Residents Use of the Facilities for Personal Use   a. This includes residents of Mendota Heights using the facilities for personal use.   6.7. Mendota Heights‐Based Businesses/Commercial Organizations   a. This includes business and commercial organizations that have a Mendota  Heights office as evidenced by their address to use the facilities   7.8. Non‐Mendota Heights Organizations, Businesses and Individuals   a. This includes all non‐Mendota Heights residents, organizations, groups, and  businesses who want to use the facilities.   Concessions Sales:  No person or organization can sell or offer any product, food or service for sale without the  prior written approval of the Recreation Program Coordinator.   The City of Mendota Heights does not hold a concessions/food license. Groups wanting to use  the concession stand will have to obtain their own Food/Beverage License from the MN  Department of Health, if selling. The City of Mendota Heights will need a copy of this license to  obtain keys to the concession stand.   Cancellation Policy:   Reservations cancelled more than 30 days in advance will receive a 100% refund  (excluding the application fee)   Reservations cancelled 15‐30 days in advance will receive a 50% refund   Reservations cancelled 1‐14 days in advance will not receive a refund   Reservations cancelled due to inclement weather are not refundable, but may be  rescheduled in the same calendar year at no additional charge              page 153 7        II. Picnic Shelter Rental Policy  The City of Mendota Heights is home to beautiful park shelters, which are a great gathering  place for family reunions, birthday parties, graduation parties, class gatherings, etc. The park  shelters are open to the public, unless reserved for an event. The City of Mendota Heights takes  ownership of scheduling the park shelters in order to provide fairness to residents and attain  maximum use of the park shelters.   Park shelters must be booked at a minimum of two business days prior to the reservation.   Park Shelter Rental Fees:  Fees are provided for in the City’s Fee Schedule, which is approved each year by City Council.  (See attached)  Additional Charges:   Additional fees may be charged based on the size of the group and the additional  facilities requested  Renter’s Rights and Privileges:   Groups that rent out a picnic shelter are entitled to the sole use of the shelter building   o Individuals or groups without permits must leave the picnic shelter when proof  of the permit is presented   o The rest of the park does remain open to the public    If no permit is presented, the facility is open to users on a first‐come, first‐serve basis   Reasonable decorating of the shelter is allowed, however, all decorations must be  cleaned up by the end of the event  o Do not attach any objects, signs, banners or materials to trees, shrubs, or park  features. All signs must be removed from the property at the end of the event   Dunk tanks are not allowed   Air filled jumpers are not allowed   Cancellation Policy:   Reservations cancelled more than 7 days in advance will receive a 100% refund   Reservations cancelled less than 7 days in advance will not receive a refund   Reservations cancelled due to inclement weather maybe reschedule within the same  calendar year at no cost    If the date of an event changes, reservations may be rescheduled at no cost, but it must  be in the same calendar year   page 154 8     No refunds for unused dates of facilities    III. Special Event Policy  The City of Mendota Heights considers, but does not limit special events as company  celebrations, fundraising events, productions, exhibitions, festivals, entertainment, races, or  other events that require a high level of municipal services for its execution on City owned  property. If you are unsure whether your event is considered a “special event” in Mendota  Heights please call the Recreation Program Coordinator (651) 255‐1354.   Special Event Fees:   Application fee of $25, non‐refundable    Other fees may apply based on your event attendance and location    Applications must be submitted sixty (60) days prior to the event   Included with the application must be:    o Locations of all activities   o Site map  o For races the proposed race route must be included  Cancellation Policy:  Reservations that are cancelled more than thirty (30) days in advance will receive a 100%  refund. Reservations that are cancelled 15‐30 days in advance will receive a 50% refund.  Reservations cancelled 1‐14 days in advance will not receive a refund. The application fee of  $25 is non‐refundable regardless of the date cancelled.   If the event is cancelled due to inclement weather, the policy holder should contact the  Recreation Program Coordinator to reschedule the event. There are no refunds for weather  cancellations. The policy holder can reschedule the event in the same calendar year at no  charge.   Concessions Sales:  No person or organization can sell or offer any product, food or service for sale without the  prior written approval of the Recreation Program Coordinator.   The City of Mendota Heights does not hold a concessions/food license. Groups wanting to use  the concession stand will have to obtain their own Food/Beverage License, if selling.  The City of  Mendota Heights will need a copy of this license to obtain keys to the concession stand.   Public Safety or Staff Assistance:  page 155 9    Events requesting public safety assistance or assistance from city staff, shall contact the  Recreation Program Coordinator, early on in the reservation process.  No reservation is  guaranteed to obtain help from city staff or the Public Safety Department. Once an application  is submitted, staff will review requests to determine if there is a need and whether staff is  available. If available there may be a fee for staff and the Public Safety Department.   Approval of Event:  The City of Mendota Heights will review requests and determine if the request can be met. The  request will only be approved if the staff believes the location will be able to accommodate the  special event.   Other information:   A permit does not provide for exclusive use of bathrooms and parking lots. Groups that  have a permit are allowed to use the designated permitted space, yet public park area  does remain open for the public   The city does not lease or loan any equipment    Users are not allowed to attach any objects, signs, banners or materials to trees, shrubs,  or park features. All signs must be removed from the park property at the end of the  event    Do not mark any trails, streets, parking lots, paths, sidewalks, parking lots or buildings   The use of tents must be approved by the Recreation Program Coordinator  page 156 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: May 1, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Authorize Purchase Order for the Control of Invasive Plants in Valley Park and Rogers Lake Park and Prairie Management of Pilot Knob Preservation COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to authorize two purchase orders to Great River Greening for their 2018 work plan on Invasive Species Management and Prairie Management. BACKGROUND Mendota Heights has been working with Great River Greening on Invasive Species Management and Native plantings in Valley Park and Pilot Knob Preservation for several years. Great River Greening has also been working on invasive species management around Rogers Lake starting in 2017. DISCUSSION Valley Park Great River Greening began invasive species removal in 2009 in Valley Park. Mature plants have been cut and cleared from infested park areas and follow-up treatment is required to keep the species under control. Spraying of newly emerging one or two year old plants has proven to be very effective. The 2018 work in Valley Park will include a 200 person MPR community event and a 65 person 3M/Defend the Ice event. The city contribution for this work is $2,500 while also having private volunteer in-kind funds of $18,000. Mendota Heights Parks loads and hauls away the cut buckthorn. Rogers Lake This is the second year that Rogers Lake Park has been included in the work plan. Staff received many compliments for the work that began in 2017. The 2018 work plan in Rogers Lake will include three volunteer events and continue with control of buckthorn and garlic mustard. The city contribution for this work is $7,500 while also having private volunteer in-kind funds of $4,000. Mendota Heights Parks loads and hauls away the cut buckthorn. page 157 Pilot Knob Preservation Great River Greening has been instrumental in establishing the plantings since the city acquired this site. Great River Greening is currently implementing the Phase IV (2018-2022 work plan). The 2018 work plan in Pilot Knob Preservation will include one large seed cast event and pollinator shrub planting, rehabilitation the North half prairie, conservation haying, selective overspray and supplemental seeding. The city contribution for this work is $10,700 while also receiving $22,800 from the Minnesota Environment and Natural Resource Trust. BUDGET IMPACT City Council has annually included funding in city budgets for ‘Control of Invasive Plants’ in City Parks as well as a separate line item for management of Pilot Knob. The available amount in the 2018 City Budget in the Parks Maintenance Budget for this effort is $15,000 for Invasive Species work and $7,000 for Pilot Knob. Great River Greening’s proposal is $10,000 for the Invasive Species Control and $10,700 for the work at Pilot Knob. The 2017 work plan at Pilot Knob was also underspent by $2,000. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the council approve the purchase orders for invasive species control in Valley Park and Rogers Lake and Prairie Management of Pilot Knob per the 2018 Great River Greening work plans. ACTION REQUIRED Approve a motion authorizing the Public Works Director to issue a ‘not-to-exceed’ Purchase Order in the amount of $10,000 and a ‘not-to-exceed’ Purchase Order in the amount of $10,700 to Great River Greening. page 158 Rogers Lake and Valley Parks Proposed 2018 Work Plan Rogers Lake Highlights: • Conduct 3 private volunteer events to continue with buckthorn removal between west side rec trail and lake • uts Maintenance: • Monitor last year’s cut area for buckthorn sprouts and re-sprouts • Monitor garlic mustard infestation that we sprayed F2017 Budget: $7,500 City $4,000 $1.5K Other Private Funds and $2.5K volunteer in-kind $11,500 Total Valley Park Highlights: • Conduct 200 person MPR community event, removing buckthorn and then seeding. • Conduct 65 person 3M and Defend the Ice private event, removing buckthorn and then seeding. Maintenance: • GRG crew performing spot treatment of invasive species Budget: $2,500 City $18,000 $10K Other Private Funds and $8K volunteer in-kind $20,500 Total page 159 2017 Photos from Rogers Lake: From Xcel Energy, CBRE, and U of M Staff volunteer outings, July and September 2017. Family friendly event, opening up the view to the lake... .... and releasing majestic oaks GRG pre cuts and sprays stumps, volunteers bring buckthorn up hill to trailside, Public Works hauls it away page 160 L to R: untreated, treated page 161 Pilot Knob Hill Open Space Proposed 2018 Work Plan Highlights: • Re-do prairie reconstruction 8 ac: North half of phase II • Improve hill prairie grass component: conservation haying , selective overspray, supplemental seeding • Pollinator Shrub planting including 100 person volunteer event: Phase II east central • Complete updated management plan Maintenance: • Invasive species management • ROW management • Monitoring Budget: $10,700 City $22,800 Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund $33,500 Total page 162 Background: Estimates from 2017 Presentation: 2018 is on the high end, primarily due to • large event (spring 2018) and • moving Trust Fund Grant monies at a high rate. (Note: We left $2k on the table in 2017) page 163