Loading...
2021-01-12 Council agenda packetCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Tuesday, January 12, 2021 6:00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall MN Stat. 13D.021 - Meeting by telephone or other electronic means: Conditions - MN stat. 13D.021 provides that a meeting of a public body may be conducted via telephone or other electronic means if meeting in a public location is not practical or prudent because of a health pandemic or declared emergency. At its meeting on March 17, 2020, the Mendota Heights City Council declared a local emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a part of this action, until further notice all City Council and committee meetings will be held by telephone or through other electronic means, with social distancing measures in place. All public meetings will continue to follow the requirements of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. Note that while all or most of the members of the City Council will be participating remotely, the Council Chambers will be open to the public during this meeting, assuming that social distancing protocols are followed. Interested individuals may access the meeting by using the meeting connection information below. With both the log-in or dial-in options, the line will be muted. Observers wishing to make comments on any of the agenda items will need to contact the City Clerk no later than 12 noon on the day of the meeting, and provide their contact information and the agenda item which they want to address. Note that any applicable long-distance telephone charges may apply. Public Attendance is available via telephone at: 1-312-535-8110 Meeting Access Code: 177 571 3255 ## For viewing City Council meetings, tune in to Comcast Cable Channel 18 or view online at https://www.townsquare.tv/webstreaming during the posted meeting times. Meetings can also be viewed on demand, after the original airing, at https://www.townsquare.tv/webstreaming . 1. Call to Order 2. Oath of Office – Mayor Levine and Councilmembers Miller and Paper 3. Roll Call 4. Pledge of Allegiance 5. Adopt Agenda 6. Consent Agenda a. Approve the December 14, 2020 City Council Work Session Minutes b. Approve the December 15, 2020 City Council Minutes c. Approve the December 30, 2020 City Council Special Meeting Minutes d. Acknowledge the November 24, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes e. Designation of Official Newspaper f. Designation of 2021 Acting Mayor g. Approve Resolution 2021-01 Reappointments to Advisory Commissions h. Approve City Council Appointments to Commissions • Approve Resolution 2021-05 Appointing NDC4 City Representatives i. Approve 2021 Financial Items • Resolution 2021-03 Establishing 2021 City Depositories of Funds • Resolution 2021- 04 Accepting Pledged Securities for 2021 • Authorize Finance Director to Execute Electronic Payments and Prepay Claims j. Approve the 2021 City Council meeting dates k. Approve Resolution 2021-06 Approving Application for FY 2021 Dakota County Community Development Block Grant Funding l. Approve an Amendment to the Families First Coronavirus Response Act Leave Policy m. Approve Resolution 2021-07 Approving Community Waste Abatement Application n. Approve 2021 Contractor Agreement for Building Official and Inspection Services to A to Z Home Inspection, LLC (Michael Andrejka) o. Approve Resolution 2021-08 Final Payment-Accept the Town Center/Village Retaining Wall Project p. Approve November 2020 Treasurer’s Report q. Approval of Claims List r. Approve 2020-12-08 Parks and Recreation Meeting Minutes s. Approve New Par 3 Logo t. Approve Resolution 2021-09 Authorize Grant Application to the Minnesota Historical Society (MHS) for a Heritage Partnership Program grant for use at Oheyawahi/Pilot Knob 7. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) *See guidelines below 8. Public Hearing a. Resolution 2021-02 Approving a Critical Area Permit to Dakota County for The Big Rivers Regional Trail Park, located at 1498 Mendota Heights Road 9. New and Unfinished Business a. Discussion of Selection Process for Commission Applicants b. Set Date for Goal Setting Work Session c. Update on COVID 19 Response in Mendota Heights 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.” CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Council Work Session Held Tuesday, December 14, 2020 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a workshop of the Mendota Heights City Council was held at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. Council members Duggan, Miller, Paper, and Mayor Elect Levine were present via Webex Video Conferencing. INTERVIEWS FOR COMMISSION OPENINGS The City Council interviewed candidates for one open position on the City Council, due to the resignation of Liz Petschel. The applicants interviewed were as follows: Patrick Corbett, Sally Lorberbaum, John Maczko, and John Mazzitello. Following the interviews, the council discussed the candidates. Each expressed their preference for first and second choices. Mayor Elect Stephanie Levine stated she would select 1. John Mazzitello, 2. Sally Lorberbaum. Councilor Paper stated that he would select 1. John Mazzitello, 2. Sally Lorberbaum. Councilor Miller stated that he would select 1. Patrick Corbett, 2. Sally Lorberbaum. Councilor Duggan stated that he would select 1. Sally Lorberbaum, 2. No preference given. Mayor Garlock stated that he would select 1. John Mazzitello, 2. John Maczko. The Councilors agree to discuss this further at the December 15, 2020 Council meeting and make the final appointment at that time. ADJOURN Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 7:45 pm. ____________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, December 15, 2020 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Councilors Duggan, Paper, Mazzitello (joined the Council at 6:10 p.m.) and Miller were also present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Mayor Garlock moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Councilor Paper aye Councilor Duggan aye Councilor Miller aye Mayor Garlock aye RESOLUTION 2020-89 APPOINTMENT TO FILL COUNCIL VACANCY City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that the City Council is asked to take action to appoint a candidate to fill the unexpired term of Elizabeth Petschel. Councilmember Petschel announced her resignation on November 4, 2020. The City Council declared that a vacancy existed on November 12, 2020. He reviewed the preferences expressed by the Council following the interviews the previous night. Councilor Miller commented that after having additional time to reflect, he would change his preference from Mr. Corbett to Ms. Lorberbaum. Mayor Garlock stated that with that change there is a vote of two for Mr. Mazzitello and two for Ms. Lorberbaum. December 15, 2020 Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 of 16 Councilor Duggan stated that he was concerned that Mr. Mazzitello indicated that he was needed in order to make a decision on the Culligan application tonight. He stated that Mr. Mazzitello stated that as a Ramsey County employee, he could not run for office in Mendota Heights in the 2022 election. He stated that some members of the Council were around when Mr. Mazzitello took the Planning Commission (of which he is currently a member), the City, and the Council to task in an inappropriate way. He also questioned the ability of the Mayor Elect to be a part of the process. Mayor Garlock stated that this process was run by the City Attorney and the Mayor Elect was allowed to participate in the interview process and provide a preference but noted that her preference does not count as a vote. He stated that only the current four members of the Council will be voting on the vacant seat. Mayor Garlock asked staff to poll the Council for their choice to fill the vacant seat. Councilor Duggan voted for Ms. Lorberbaum. Councilor Miller voted for Ms. Lorberbaum. Mayor Garlock voted for Mr. Mazzitello. Councilor Paper voted for Mr. Mazzitello. City Attorney Knetsch commented that if the vote ends in a tie, state law provides that the Mayor shall make the appointment. Mayor Garlock read aloud a portion of State Statute 412.02, Subd. 2A, which states that in a tie vote for appointment, the Mayor makes the appointment. He stated that after careful deliberation, he has decided to appoint John Mazzitello to the vacant Council seat. Mr. Mazzitello will serve the remainder of the unexpired term of Councilor Liz Petschel. SWEARING IN OF NEW COUNCIL MEMBER City Clerk Lorri Smith administered the Oath of Office to newly appointed Councilor John Mazzitello. Councilor Mazzitello then joined the Council. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Duggan moved approval of the consent calendar as presented, pulling item l. a. Approval of December 1, 2020 City Council Minutes b. Approval of December 8, 2020 Council Work Session Minutes c. Acknowledge November 10, 2020 Parks and Rec Minutes d. Approve Tobacco License Renewals e. Approve Resolution 2020-74 Designating Polling Locations for 2021 f. Acknowledge October 2020 Par 3 Financial Report g. Approval of the 2021 Seasonal Pay Matrix December 15, 2020 Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 of 16 h. Approve Resolution 2020-84 Adopt 2021 Pay Classification Plan for Non-Union Employees i. Approve Purchase Order for Demolition of Property at 2085 Valencour Circle j. Approve Resolution 2020-87 Adopt a Federal Grants and Awards Compliance Policy k. Approve Banking Authorization Signatory Change l. Approve Resolution 2020-85 Final Payment-Acceptance of Fire Station Addition/Remodel m. Approve Building Activity Report n. Approve Fire Synopsis Report o. Approval of Claims List Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Further discussion: Councilor Mazzitello noted that he would abstain from voting on items a and b, as he was not a member of the Council at that time. A roll call vote was performed: Councilor Miller aye Councilor Mazzitello aye (abstained from a. and b.) Mayor Garlock aye Councilor Paper aye Councilor Duggan aye PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS L) APPROVE RESOLUTION 2020-85 FINAL PAYMENT-ACCEPTANCE OF FIRE STATION ADDITION/REMODEL Councilor Duggan referenced the language “final payment” and asked how final that payment is. City Administrator Mark McNeill replied that these are for four contracts for the Fire Department. He noted that there was a total of 20 contracts for the project, and some items are still being resolved, but this action will close out these four contracts. Councilor Duggan moved to approve RESOLUTION 2020-85 FINAL PAYMENT-ACCEPTANCE OF FIRE STATION ADDITION/REMODEL. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Councilor Duggan aye Councilor Miller aye Councilor Mazzitello aye Mayor Garlock aye Councilor Paper aye PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the public wished to be heard. December 15, 2020 Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 of 16 RECOGNITION OF RETIRING ELECTED OFFICIALS 1) ELIZBETH PETSCHEL City Administrator Mark McNeill recognized the contributions of Liz Petschel to the City and as a member of the Council. He thanked Liz Petschel for her contributions. 2) MAYOR NEIL GARLOCK City Administrator Mark McNeill recognized the contributions of Mayor Garlock. He noted that this will be the final meeting of Mayor Garlock and thanked him for his service. He presented him with a plaque of recognition. He commented that Mayor Garlock also had perfect attendance for all regular, special and workshop meetings and presented an additional plaque for that. Mayor Garlock thanked the City. He stated that he was hired in 1990 as a Police Officer and then was promoted to Sergeant. He commended City staff, the Fire Department, the Public Works Department, and the Police Department. He thanked the residents of Mendota Heights for allowing him to serve. PUBLIC HEARING A) ORDINANCE NO. 560 AMENDMENTS TO THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2021 AND APPROVE THE SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE Councilor Mazzitello moved to open the public hearing. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Councilor Mazzitello aye Mayor Garlock aye Councilor Paper aye Councilor Duggan aye Councilor Miller aye City Clerk Lorri Smith explained that the Council was being asked to hold a public hearing and adopt a fee schedule for 2021. She noted five items are proposed to be deleted from the schedule because the city no longer provides that service, or the fee is paid directly to the vendor. Items recommended for deletion from the schedule include fees for car seat rental, dog impoundment, vehicle impound, vehicle storage, and basic property storage. There being no one coming forward to speak, Mayor Garlock moved to close the public hearing. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Mayor Garlock aye Councilor Paper aye Councilor Duggan aye Councilor Miller aye December 15, 2020 Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 of 16 Councilor Mazzitello aye Councilor Paper referenced the field reservation and prep fees for tournaments. He commented that those may not be reasonable and would like the Council to review those further. He stated that if the fees are comparable to other communities, then he could support them. Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence commented that staff will be meeting individually with the different recreation user groups in order to gain their input on the fees. City staff would come back to the Council to amend the fee schedule if needed. Councilor Paper commented that he is comfortable with that direction. Councilor Duggan stated his concern with the cost of on-sale liquor licensing fees in a time when they are not fully operational. He asked if a reduction could be provided. City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that the City Council did approve a 2-month reduction in on-sale liquor fees earlier this year and will be reducing the fees for at least one more month with the most recent shutdown. Mayor Garlock moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 560 ESTABLISH FEES AND CHARGES FOR 2021. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Councilor Paper aye Councilor Duggan aye Councilor Miller aye Councilor Mazzitello aye Mayor Garlock aye Mayor Garlock moved to approve THE SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 560. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Councilor Duggan aye Councilor Miller aye Councilor Mazzitello aye Mayor Garlock aye Councilor Paper aye NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) RESOLUTION 2020-82 DENYING/APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT OF VALLEY VIEW OAK 3RD ADDITION WITH A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - NW QUADRANT OF VICTORIA CURVE/GLENHILL ROAD Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Council was being asked to give final consideration of a resolution either approving or denying the proposed Preliminary Plat of “Valley View Oak 3rd Addition”, which includes a Critical Area Permit and a Conditional Use Permit. The subject property is generally located at the NW quadrant of Victoria Curve and Glenhill Road. Councilor Duggan moved to TAKE THIS ITEM FROM THE TABLE TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION. December 15, 2020 Mendota Heights City Council Page 6 of 16 Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Councilor Paper aye Councilor Duggan aye Councilor Miller aye Councilor Mazzitello aye Mayor Garlock aye Michelle Culligan, applicant, stated that since the last meeting they have gathered additional information. She stated that their request meets all of the City requirements and hopes that a vote of approval could be obtained with conditions that address any additional concerns. She stated that they have addressed feedback from neighbors and have reduced the scope of the original proposed development. She referenced the letter from the Department of Interior and other agencies that provided comments, noting that they have addressed those concerns. They feel that they have more than met the requirements and more than addressed the feedback with the reduced scope of the proposed development. She stated that this proposal does not suggest anything different than the City has approved in other Conditional Use Permit and Critical Area Permit applications. She stated that they are being asked to do extensive due diligence beforehand that other applicants have not been asked to do. She commented that the homes on Culligan Lane have existed for over 30 years with no issues. She noted that this proposal would not propose to be as close to the bluff as some of the other homes in the area. She recognized that people are interested in the project, but they would simply ask that the same requirements be applied to their proposal as they were to other proposals. Mike St. Martin, Loucks, recognized that there are concerns related to the storm water pond, erosion, and stability. He reviewed the proposed stormwater management and drainage plan which provides a 36 percent reduction in runoff. He provided an updated grading plan for the pond and reviewed the details. He stated that they have also changed the emergency overflow proposed for the pond and it is now proposed to go towards Victoria Curve and into the MnDOT storm system. Brian Ripp, Braun Intertec, identified the locations of the first soil borings that were done, noting that two of those locations were then drilled deeper to provide additional information that could lead to preliminary conclusions. He noted that was simply the preliminary phase and identified the locations that would have additional borings as the process moves forward. He stated that thus far they have arrived at a factor of safety of 1.7, noting that 1.5 is the industry standard for critical structures. Councilor Duggan asked what might cause the applicant to drill deeper than 61 feet. Mr. Ripp stated that depth was chosen for preliminary information. He stated that in the next phase they will bring those depths deeper in order to gain additional information. Councilor Duggan asked if there will be soil removal and replacement. Mr. Ripp replied that the analysis is based upon no placement of additional fill and would primarily be related to cut. He stated that the deeper borings would determine what is in the deeper levels. He noted that the areas would be cut for the homes, but there would not be additional fill. December 15, 2020 Mendota Heights City Council Page 7 of 16 Councilor Miller stated that during the previous presentations he did not hear a mention of phase two. Mr. Ripp stated that the preliminary report indicated that additional borings would be drilled, noting that the specifics were not provided. Councilor Paper asked about the similarities and the differences between this site and the site of the Mendota slope failure. Mr. Ripp stated that the bedrock was not as shallow as they anticipated for this site, but the plans were then modified to adapt to this site. He stated that this analysis is site specific and stated it is not unusual to modify the plans based on what is found in the borings. Councilor Paper asked which boring location is proposed to go to 130 feet. Mr. Ripp identified the proposed boring location, noting that it would be the middle of the three homes to the east. Councilor Paper referenced the proposed boring locations five, six and seven noting that they appear to be in the middle of building pads. He asked why the borings are not done at the backside of the area to be disturbed by construction. Mr. Ripp confirmed that the proposed borings would be in the middle of building pads in order to gain information for foundations and slope stability. He stated that they feel comfortable with the spacings. The locations are based on professional experience in order to gather as much information as possible. He stated that the soils would not change that much from the middle or back of the construction area. Councilor Paper asked for explanation on failure plane. Mr. Ripp stated that it is a circular plane that they have seen from actual slope failures and provided additional explanation, noting that it is the industry standard. Ms. Culligan stated that they take this process seriously and finds it critical that all the questions be answered. She stated that the President of Braun Intertec is also present to address questions. Bob Janssen, Braun Intertec, stated that he is a geotechnical engineer and has over 35 years of experience. He commented that the term failure plane can be misleading. He stated that stability analysis runs through different scenarios and finds the lowest factor of safety, drawing the line in that place. He stated that they do not anticipate any failures. He explained the purpose of taking borings to different depths, noting that it alleviates the concern that there is a soft condition below. Councilor Paper stated that it seems to make sense that the soil removed and the home to be constructed would have the same load but stated that it is not in the same place. He stated that he appreciates that the pond has been moved, and asked how he can be assured that the back wall of the pond would not blow out. Mr. Ripp stated that the loads of the water on the embankment will be taken into account. He stated that the pond will be lined, therefore the pond will not impact the soils below. Mr. Janseen stated that they would work with Loucks to design the pond. He explained that in any pond construction they ensure that the pond embankment would be stable enough to withstand the pressures from the water. He stated that they have a boring in the most critical point of the pond location. Councilor Miller asked for clarification on the intent for the impact of the load on the embankment of the pond. Mr. Ripp stated that the load from the water would still be there. Because the pond is lined, it December 15, 2020 Mendota Heights City Council Page 8 of 16 would not allow the water to percolate into the embankment or soils below. He stated that there would still be a physical load on the bottom and embankment of the pond. Mr. St. Marin provided details on how the pond would be dug and the berm/embankment that would be at the top. He stated that Braun would complete an analysis to ensure stability and would be completing tests along the way to ensure it is constructed properly. Councilor Miller asked for an approximate number of gallons of water the pond would hold. Mr. St. Martin replied that the pond would flow into the trunk storm sewer and in an overflow situation would flow to Victoria Curve. He provided the cubic feet of water storage that would be provided in ordinary water levels and at maximum capacity and also provided those figures in gallons. Councilor Duggan asked how much of the impervious surface water would be captured. Mr. St. Martin replied that most of the water would be captured with the exception of the water from the back of the homes or areas with elevations lower than the driveway. Councilor Duggan asked if engineering has stated that it is okay for the overflow to go to Victoria. Mr. St. Martin confirmed that the pond location and connection was recommended by City staff. Councilor Duggan asked the slope for the pond. Mr. Ripp replied that it would be a three to one slope, which is the industry standard. Councilor Mazzitello acknowledged that this is preliminary information to use clay to line the pond. He noted that the boring for the pond location has not yet been completed and asked if a fabric liner would be entertained, should the boring results support that option rather than a clay liner. He provided an example he encountered with problems with a clay liner in his line of work. Mr. Janssen confirmed that the pond would need to be sealed to prevent an introduction of more water into the area. He provided details on the different methods used to create a clay liner. He provided additional explanation on why the example Councilor Mazzitello provided failed. He confirmed that they would entertain a fabric liner if the soils dictated that method. Councilor Paper asked the type of guarantee that could be given that the backside of the pond would not fail. Mr. Ripp stated that they would analyze this as a dam, which are designed to handle multiple events. He stated that Loucks will determine the elevations of those events and a separate slope stability analysis will be completed for the pond. Mr. Janssen stated that they make assumptions based on soil borings that are spaced out and during construction they are confirming that the conditions they predicted actually exist in those locations. He stated that they not only do geotechnical analysis but also do onsite inspections and testing to ensure those assumptions are correct. Councilor Paper asked if there is concern that there would be a fracture on the hillside during construction from the equipment and compaction. Mr. Janssen replied that these soils are not susceptible to those types of activities. Mr. Ripp stated that there will be specifications within the report related to the size of equipment and locations where the equipment would be allowed. December 15, 2020 Mendota Heights City Council Page 9 of 16 Councilor Paper referenced the proposed boring locations for phase two and asked if that would complete the narrative. He asked why those results could not be provided before a decision is made. Mr. Janssen confirmed that the second round of borings would complete that narrative. He stated that it would not make sense to bring in that equipment, clear trees and take borings at this point. He stated that the house pad locations have to be known and it needs to be known whether the project would be feasible in order to bring that equipment out and take those additional steps. Councilor Paper asked if the statement could be made that there would not be a failure without those additional borings. Mr. Janssen stated that a stability analysis would be done for each individual lot and if the factor of safety cannot be reached, they would need to decide whether to redesign or eliminate the lot. He noted that information would all be known prior to the Final Plat approval by the City Council. Mr. Ripp stated that the answers Councilor Paper is looking for would be provided in the next step and would be known before the Final Plat approval. He stated that they are being pragmatic in this approach, noting their high level of experience in this area. He stated that they would not be making wild guesses and would continue to follow the typical process. Councilor Paper commented that he understands that they do not want to disturb additional areas in order to conduct additional borings but is challenged with not having that information. He stated that his concern remains for the safety of those living at the bottom of the hill and he would want the developer to say that there will not be a slope failure. He stated that he likes the location of the pond and overflow into the MnDOT system rather than having that overflow going down the hill. Ms. Culligan stated that everything they have been doing is part of the process and for the past 18 months they have worked with the City and would continue to do so. She stated that they share the same concern, although they do not expect a failure to happen, but the continued geotechnical analysis would provide those answers. She stated that the issue is with timing, noting that any other CUP or CAP did not require all of that work to be done in advance of a Preliminary Plat being awarded. She stated that typically those things are added as conditions in the Preliminary Plat and would be completed prior to Final Plat. She stated that there needed to be consideration of what is reasonable, fair, and consistent with any other application considered by the Council. She stated that the level and depth of what they will be doing does not suggest failure. She stated that the other homes were constructed without this amount of analysis and did not cause failure. Councilor Paper stated that he needed to be reassured that this will not fail. Mr. Ripp stated that he also needs to make decisions that allow him to sleep at night and his experience allows him to do so. He stated that as a professional engineer, the foremost concern is of health, safety, and welfare. Councilor Paper stated that he has no doubt that this would be a beautiful addition but is concerned with safety. Mayor Garlock stated that a 100 percent guarantee on anything is unrealistic. He stated that there is a certain amount of risk with everything. Chris Dolan, Fredrickson and Byron, spoke in representation of the applicant. He stated that Ms. Culligan has mentioned some of the legal concerns the family has. He stated that he has attended many of the previous meetings, although he has not spoken at those meetings. He stated that they are hopeful and optimistic that the issues can be resolved, but the family believes that the legal position should be December 15, 2020 Mendota Heights City Council Page 10 of 16 stated tonight. He noted that he himself was a Mendota Heights Planning Commission member for six years and is aware how emotional these land decisions can be. He commented that the involvement of the neighbors is generally a good thing, as those residents care about the City and their neighborhood but the emotion and opposition of a few neighbors cannot be the basis of the decision. The decision must be based upon the application of the law and with respect to the rules. He stated that the City Attorney has mentioned in previous meetings that this is a quasi-judicial decision as the Council is interpreting the ordinance. He stated that while the Council can make that interpretation, it must also be in line with the ordinance and City regulations and the Council cannot legally deny a plat application that meets the minimum standards of the Ordinance. He stated that the information presented shows that the site can be developed reasonably and in accordance with the ordinance. He stated that information has been provided from experts and the opponents of the application would like the Council to believe there is conflicting information when there is not. He stated that neighbors in opposition have not walked the property or completed these inspections. He stated that the Council has an obligation to enforce the ordinance consistently and fairly, and this applicant has been held a different standard than have other applications within the Critical Area. He stated that they realize that development in this area requires additional precautions and sensitivity. He stated that they have gone to great lengths to comply with those regulations and protect the protected areas. He stated that this can be a complicated decision but from a legal perspective, the decision is simple as the evidence establishes that the application meets the requirements of the City, and therefore should be approved. Sandra Krebsbach, 1230 Culligan Lane, stated that they are simply trying to find clarity and information. She stated that as a neighborhood they chose to invest in experts as they preferred to add information. She asked that the experts retained by the neighborhood be allowed to speak. Consultant Kelton Barr provided an image of where springs have been encountered in the area, noting that the water moves through the materials that make up the bluff. He stated that they are seeing seeps outside of the property owned by the developer and along the western boundary. He stated that there could be more seeps in wetter times. He noted that water is one of the factors in the stability of the materials and the bluff. He provided an updated figure from his earlier report related to the four soil borings that were taken on the site. He noted that each boring has a unique character compared to the others, which means that the composition of the soils are very different, even in close proximity to each other. He stated that the deeper borings encountered water at different levels. He noted that all of the borings have been filled and therefore the final water level could not be determined. He stated that the deeper borings note sand seams and provided additional comments on the boring results. Councilor Miller asked what sand seams or lenses are and why they are important. Mr. Barr replied that those are terms for a layer and provided additional explanation. He stated that there are thin layers of sand within the clay till that were encountered by the boring. Councilor Miller asked if the lenses or seams were found at consistent levels within the different borings. Mr. Barr replied that the information related to lenses were not called out and therefore that specific information is not known. Councilor Miller asked if that would be information that they would need to know. Mr. Barr replied that in hindsight it would have been better to have the information related to sand seams. December 15, 2020 Mendota Heights City Council Page 11 of 16 Councilor Miller asked if these are indications that water has flowed through and left the sand as a deposit. Mr. Barr confirmed that these sands were laid down and sorted by flowing water so that just the sands were left. Otto Strack, University of Minnesota Professor, provided additional explanation related to soil mechanics. He explained how groundwater can impact slope stability. He stated that often natural factors, such as roots and vegetation help to provide stability. He stated that he was involved in the Lilydale slope failure, noting that that slope was stable for a long time before the failure. He referenced the model used by the applicant to calculate the factor of safety, noting that if there is no vegetation the slope would lose stability. He provided details on the FLAC program which is far more sophisticated and requires more data than the slip circle analysis. He stated that this is a high risk and if they want to make this safe, a lot more information would be needed on the soils and a more sophisticated model should be used, such as FLAC. Councilor Paper asked Mr. Strack if he would move into a home built on this property. Dr. Strack replied that he would not. He stated that he is very conservative and would use caution and be careful as conditions continue to change. He stated that anything can be engineered but it would be a matter of cost. He believed that more data and sophisticated analysis would be needed for this site. Alan Olstein, 1954 Glenhill Road, stated that Professor Strack is being exceedingly modest in the presentation of his resume, noting the number of books that he has written related to vector analysis and soil mechanics. He commented that his is a matter of safety for the community. Brian Mielke, Mayor of the City of Mendota, shared some of the concerns the residents of Mendota have with this project. He noted that the majority of Mendota is within the bowl below the subject parcel. He commented that one of the property owners below this site has lived here for 50 years and noted that property owner did not have water issues before the original Culligan development was built. He stated that the water comes through the soil 365 days per year and they are concerned that these additional homes would further intensify the problems. He stated that in the 1980s this land was deemed unbuildable by Dakota County and asked why this is proposed to occur now. He noted that a lot of tree clearing would be necessary to support this development, which raises concerns for Mendota residents. He stated that placing a holding pond above Mendota that could hold two million pounds of water was a concern. He asked if this request would be grandfathered into the 2004 DNR standards, if approved tonight, rather than being required to meet the 2017 standards. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the City is currently operating under its current ordinance. He confirmed that if approved, this would be approved under the old rules and if the new ordinance is adopted prior to the submission of the Critical Area Permits for the individual lot construction, those lots would need to follow the new regulations. Mary Janish, 1935 Glenhill Road, stated that she was under the impression that the classification of non- buildable land meant non-buildable. She stated that it was not common knowledge to everyone that there would be development on this site. She stated that five days after moving into their home on Glenhill, there was a significant rain event that caused water issues. She stated that the homes in this area have their own issues with water. She referenced the comment that the applicant wants to be treated like everyone else and the other development sites. She stated that this site is unique because of December 15, 2020 Mendota Heights City Council Page 12 of 16 those that could be injured if there is a failure. She stated that there are experts that say that a guarantee cannot be provided. Kae Jewell, 1948 Glenhill Road, commented that buildings and lives are at stake with this proposal. She referenced the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, noting that section nine, page 15 describes a slope, the bluff impact zone and the appropriate rules which prohibit the placement of structures, most construction activities, vegetation removal, etc. She stated that she is confused with this discussion and what would happen in the future because of the language in the Comprehensive Plan. Bob Brewstal, Mendota resident, referenced the comment that 36 percent of the water would be collected. He stated that the remainder of the water will go downhill and that could decimate portions of Mendota. He stated that prior to the first Culligan development he did not have problems with water on his property, but since that time has had significant issues with water. He commented that it would be a true detriment if any portion of runoff from this development flows downhill to Mendota. He stated that he has worked with engineers and developers and they are not always right. Mr. Janssen stated that these are engineering issues that are dealt with in certain ways. He stated that Mr. Barr worked for Braun Intertec for many years and did not understand the concern with sand seams that are 50 to 100 feet below where the home would be constructed and are often found in these types of glacial features. He commented that bringing up sand seams is not relevant to this project or the structures downhill. He stated that those sand seams would be there whether the home is there or not. He stated that they handle things in an objective manner with industry standards and adding a home will not affect the seams and layers and streams that come out at the bottom of the slope. He stated that there is no engineering relevance to the sand seams. Mr. Ripp stated that they used conservative estimates assuming anything below the line is entirely saturated, when in reality it is not. He noted that the line on the model is higher than the measured groundwater levels and known springs. He stated that there is assumption that the slope would be clear cut but that will not happen, that vegetation will stay in place. He stated that there will be bare areas during construction but actions will be taken to prevent erosion during that time. He stated that FLAC is finite element analysis. He stated that he has taken lessons from others in this field and a renowned slope stability expert that he has known for 30 years. He provided information on a geotechnical conference he attended earlier this year noting that the industry continues to debate which analysis is better and preferred. He commented that a considerable amount of data is collected for FLAC but the results of the two methods provide similar results in the end. He stated that while Dr. Strack would not want to live in those houses, that is not the opinion he has. Dr. Strack commented that he was not concerned with erosion, but the equilibrium of material pushed out from inside the slope. He stated that forced equilibrium under the slope, tells you that will come out. He stated that FLAC does not involve finite elements and provided additional explanation. He confirmed that FLAC is a more advanced analysis. Mark Hunt stated that if the review of the proposal had due diligence from the onset, there would be no need for the neighbors to step in. He stated that the neighbors have done the work of the City in bringing forward additional materials and information that should be considered. He noted that the City’s Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial, and the Council denied the request. He December 15, 2020 Mendota Heights City Council Page 13 of 16 stated that rules and regulations change over time. He stated that the DNR has stated that this is a bad proposal, and everyone is wiser for the events of the past few decades. He stated that this property was dedicated as an unbuildable outlot and has been taxed for years as such. He stated that this bluff is unique and has its own considerations. He appreciated the additional research done by the applicant’s engineers but noted that there is opportunity for them to drill on a house pad without disturbing trees. He asked that the Council to listen to the experience of its Planning Commission, the DNR and the other experts that were brought forward tonight without vested interested in this project. He asked that the Council listen to the comments and protect its residents. Councilor Miller stated that under normal conditions nearly 450,000 pounds of water would be perched above Mendota in this pond and under maximum capacity that would increase to 2,500,000 pounds of water. He noted that it is a lot of weight and does not feel comfortable saying that this would be safe. He recognized that this is a unique site with many challenges and in light of those challenges, the proximity within the critical area, and the various findings, it has been a cacophonous discussion. He stated that the proposed plan has not met the burden of proof to show that this is safe for this community or the adjacent community. He stated that because of those reasons he could not support this project. Councilor Duggan referenced comments by Mr. Hunt asking how the Council is at this point when the application has been denied in the past. He asked for input from the City Attorney. City Attorney Knetsch explained that the Planning Commission makes a recommendation that is brought forward to the Council. He stated that at the last meeting the Council had a vote of 2-2 to approve, which means that action failed. He stated that if that would have been the last action taken by the Council it would have operated as a denial of the application. He stated that instead the Council chose to table the request to this date and directed staff to work with the applicant and Councilors that had concerns to determine if more information could be brought forth for the Council to make a decision tonight. Councilor Duggan referenced Mr. Dolan and asked if the City were to go forward with the implementation of the Critical Area ordinance, would it then be considered a taking of the land? Mr. Dolan stated that those sorts of actions can result in a taking action. He stated that he would need to review the law and apply it to the facts in order to make that determination. Councilor Duggan commented that the City has to rely on what is stated in the reports. He stated that he is not hearing clarity on whether or not this would be doable. He stated that the comment has been made that anything can be engineered with the right amount of money. He recognized the weight of the pond but believed that could be handled appropriately. He stated that there have been a lot of stories, but the engineers have said that all of the issues can be addressed. He referenced all of the challenges this review has had and asked the challenges that the City could face if this request is denied, other than getting sued. City Attorney Knetsch stated that these are the ordinances of the City and this is a quasi-judicial decision, where the Council determines if the request has met those ordinance requirements. He stated that there has been evidence on both sides, and it is the decision of the Council as to which side is more persuasive. He commented that everything that has been said is the record and the decision of the Council needs to be based on the record. He noted that there are findings which have been drafted both in approval and denial and the Council will decide which option to adopt. He stated that the record would support either option. December 15, 2020 Mendota Heights City Council Page 14 of 16 Councilor Duggan referenced the large building complexes right on the slope in Lilydale and is not aware of any incident where failures have occurred as a result. He asked if there is a difference in the soils, recognizing failures along Sylvandale. He stated that if there is not clear direction from staff and administration as to the fault or weakness in the application, he believes that this should move forward. Councilor Mazzitello stated that there has been a lot of information on this application. He stated that whenever he sees a case with conflicting information, he boils it down and when in doubt he goes to the Code. He referenced a portion of the zoning regulations which defines a lot as abutting a public street. He then referenced the definition of public street and the applicable regulations, noting that in that language, dead end streets are prohibited. He then referenced language in the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan which stated that infill development shall not rely on private streets. He stated that he does not believe that this application can be approved based on the City Code. Councilor Duggan commented that in the many years of these regulations they have been bent, broken, or changed. He stated that he does not believe that this would be a dead-end road and would come back out. He stated that the City has not always applied the rules and regulations as deciduous as it is right now. He stated that the Culligans own the land and want to develop it. He recognized that some rules and regulations have changed but the Culligans have owned the land prior to that time. He believed that the Council would need to come up with reasons to support a denial and does not believe that has been done. He stated that the applicant is attempting to abide by the direction given with significant changes to the proposal related to the number of lots, pond location and overflow route. He stated that a 100 percent guarantee is not possible, and the question is whether the issues raised could be addressed. He stated that he gets the sense that this development is doable. Mayor Garlock stated that there has been much discussion on this topic and asked for a member of the Council to bring forward a motion. Councilor Paper moved to approve RESOLUTION 2020-82 DENYING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF VALLEY VIEW OAK 3RD ADDITION WITH A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF GLENHILL ROAD AND VICTORIA CURVE. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Further discussion: Councilor Duggan referenced the resolution of denial and noted that there are many areas that he believes would be difficult to substantiate or justify and provided examples. Councilor Miller stated that he disagrees with the comments Councilor Duggan made. He stated that these findings are just that, findings of fact, that have been drawn by the information and discussion. A roll call vote was performed: Councilor Paper aye Councilor Duggan nay Councilor Miller aye Councilor Mazzitello aye Mayor Garlock nay December 15, 2020 Mendota Heights City Council Page 15 of 16 B) RESOLUTION 2020-88 COUNCIL MEETINGS START TIME City Administrator Mark McNeill provided a brief background on this item. The Council was being asked to discuss and determine the starting time for its regular meetings. He stated that staff recommends keeping the 6:00 p.m. start time, rather than changing the start time to 5:00 p.m. in January. Mayor Garlock moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2020-88 ESTABLISHING THE STARTING TIME OF REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Mayor Garlock aye Councilor Paper aye Councilor Duggan aye Councilor Miller aye Councilor Mazzitello aye COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that flooding of ice rinks began. He stated that an anticipated update from the Governor regarding pandemic restrictions will determine whether warming houses can be open. He provided an update on the Quarantine Challenge taking place again West St. Paul. He reviewed the upcoming closure of City Hall for the holidays and the special Council meeting scheduled for December 30th. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Paper wished Mayor Garlock well and welcomed Councilor Mazzitello. He appreciated everyone that applied for the position. He also wished everyone happy holidays. Councilor Duggan also wished Mayor Garlock well and recognized the contributions Mayor Garlock has made and will continue to make in the community. He wished blessings to everyone in the holiday season. Councilor Miller expressed congratulations to Councilor Mazzitello and appreciated his comments tonight. He stated that he appreciated that Mayor Garlock allows everyone to speak and be heard, which is important in society. He wished everyone a happy Hanukkah, which is a festival of lights in this dark time. Mayor Garlock stated that every member of the Council has done a great job. He stated that whether the members agreed or not, they have always come back and continued to do what is best for the City. He December 15, 2020 Mendota Heights City Council Page 16 of 16 commented that the City will be in good hands with the new members that have and will join the group. He expected the City to continue to march forward in its typical fashion and thanked everyone for allowing him to serve. Councilor Mazzitello stated that he is honored and humbled to be in the position to serve the City over the course of the next two years. He wished Mayor Garlock well. City Administrator Mark McNeill recognized that this was the first attempt at a hybrid meeting and commended staff and NDC4 for making this possible. ADJOURN Mayor Garlock moved to adjourn. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 9:34 p.m. ____________________________________ Neil Garlock Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Special Meeting Held Wednesday, December 30, 2020 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the special meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. Councilors Duggan, Paper, Mazzitello, and Miller were present via teleconferencing. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mark Culligan stated that he is one of the stakeholders of the Culligan farm property and has attended all of the meetings with the City in attempt to develop the property. He stated that he is coming forward because he feels that his family and the application to develop the property were treated. He appreciated Mayor Garlock attempting to ensure a fair hearing was held, and he appreciated the comments from Councilor Duggan, noting his voice of reason. He provided background information on his family, the property and family home on the property which still exists in the same place it was built on 100 years ago. He noted that portions of the property have been sold and developed since that time. He stated that they worked diligently with City staff to bring forward the development proposal for the last five homes. He stated that they had hoped to hold an open house to discuss the concerns of the neighboring property owners but that was not possible with the COVID virus. Instead, the neighbors mobilized in an attempt to block their right to develop the property. He referenced two applications with strikingly similar characteristics that did not receive the same lengthy discussion or concern from the Council. He stated that they find the arbitrary denial of their application mystifying. He made comments directed towards Councilor Miller and noted that the stormwater pond would hold a third of the water that currently drains straight towards Mendota under the current conditions. He referenced comments made by Councilor Paper and his suggestion for additional borings and work be done ahead of the preliminary plat, which is not the typical process. He stated that there are homes, condominiums, churches, and other structures along the bluff line throughout the river corridor. He noted that there are numerous homes on the steep slopes along Highway 13. These proposed homes would be set further back and on gentle slopes. He referenced Councilor Mazzitello noting that his vote of denial was related to a shared driveway but stated that a previous applicant received approval for a shared driveway. He stated that it was clear from the proceedings that some of the Councilors were not going to look at the facts and view this in a fair and consistent manner with other previous applications. He stated that as a taxpayer of Mendota Heights, over $10,000,000 could have been added to the tax roll with only adding five homes but instead the application was unfairly denied. He stated that the inconsistent application of the rules opens the City up to yet another lawsuit. December 30, 2020 Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 of 4 CONSENT CALENDAR A) CLAIMS LIST Councilor Duggan noted that he did not receive a copy of the claims list, and therefore did not have an opportunity to review the materials. Mayor Garlock moved approval of the CLAIMS LIST. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Councilor Paper aye Councilor Mazzitello aye Councilor Miller aye Mayor Garlock aye Councilor Duggan abstain Motion carried. B) CONSIDER PERSONNEL ACTION ITEM Mayor Garlock moved to approve THE PERSONNEL ACTION ITEM AS PRESENTED. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Councilor Paper aye Councilor Mazzitello aye Councilor Miller aye Mayor Garlock aye Councilor Duggan abstain Motion carried. DISCUSSION ITEMS A) APPROVE MODIFICATIONS TO 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that the Council was being asked to consider modifications to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and provided additional details. Councilor Duggan stated that there are differences in the noted size of Fort Snelling State Park and he believed that should be corrected. He noted that he has some additional comments that he could provide to staff to provide additional clarity. Councilor Mazzitello offered clarification on the aviation policy. He noted that the Planning Commission decided to remove that and instead move that language into the narrative of the chapter, rather than making it a policy. He stated that the decision was that the City is not in a position to allocate flights for MSP, as the decision is dependent upon weather. He referenced Chapter 9, noting that major modifications were made based on the DNR review letter. He believed that the new goals and policies were consistent with the DNR’s new rules and should move forward as presented. December 30, 2020 Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 of 4 Councilor Paper stated that he did not have concerns and was ready to move forward. Councilor Miller agreed with the comments of Councilor Mazzitello related to Chapter 9 moving forward. He stated that he agrees that the airport language is better suited in the narrative but believed that additional conversations should continue between the Council and the Airport Relations Committee. City Administrator Mark McNeill commented that discussion could be added to the next ARC agenda. Councilor Duggan provided grammatical suggestions and clarifications to the document. Jennifer Haskamp commented that some of the language is statutory language and therefore cannot be changed. Councilor Duggan referenced the section related to resilience and noted additional items that he believes could be added, such as application of vaccinations to seniors in Mendota Heights. He recognized that could not have been foreseen when this document was created but commented that it could still be added. He stated that carbon compliance also seems to be missing. City Administrator Mark McNeill commented that a study group reviewed the chapter and did not recommend adding carbon compliance into the chapter. Councilor Mazzitello commented that the Planning Commission discussed that issue and did not deem it significant enough to be added as the City does not own and operate carbon facilities. He commented that the City can still continue to take measures to reduce its carbon footprint even if it is not included. Councilor Duggan commented that he can support that position if it is the position of staff and other qualified individuals. Mayor Garlock noted that the facilities in other areas can be addressed by the plans of those entities. He stated that he would be fine leaving that out of this chapter. Councilor Duggan provided additional grammatical and clarifying suggestions. Ms. Haskamp provided context on why some data should not be changed as it is not included in the checklist from the Metropolitan Council and is not the data used to map some of the context. City Administrator Mark McNeill asked if the Council is accepting of the low-density residential guiding on D Street. Councilor Mazzitello stated that this item was discussed heavily during the planning process, noting that in previous plans this plot was not guided. He stated that County records show an industrial use and there are no bedrooms in the building on the property. He stated that if guided as residential, the existing use would become nonconforming, or the property could be guided as Industrial which would support the existing use. Councilor Duggan stated that he would support low density residential use. Jennifer Haskamp noted that this would be a resubmittal to the incomplete letter from the Metropolitan Council and there will most likely be another round of suggested changes from the Metropolitan Council before the document is ready for their approval. She stated that typos and non-policy related items can be updated and changed even as the Metropolitan Council is completing its review. She confirmed that members of the Council can submit those non-substantiative changes to staff. City Administrator Mark McNeill asked that the Council send those suggestions to Community Development Director Tim Benetti within the next week. December 30, 2020 Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 of 4 Councilor Garlock moved to APPROVE THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH THE CHANGES AS DISCUSSED AND DIRECT RESUBMISSION TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Councilor Mazzitello aye Councilor Miller aye Mayor Garlock aye Councilor Duggan aye Councilor Paper aye Motion carried. COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayor Garlock commented that this is officially his last meeting as Mayor. He thanked everyone for their hard work and support. ADJOURN Mayor Garlock moved to adjourn. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Mayor Garlock aye Councilor Duggan aye Councilor Paper aye Councilor Mazzitello aye Councilor Miller aye Motion carried. Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 2:02 p.m. __________________________________ Neil Garlock ATTEST: Mayor ________________________ ________________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk APPROVED 12/17/2020 November 24, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 19 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 24, 2020 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 24, 2020 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Mary Magnuson, Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Litton Field, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: Commissioner John Mazzitello. Approval of Agenda Chair Magnuson suggested moving Item B under Public Hearings to be considered as the first public hearing as that item will likely have less discussion. The agenda was approved as amended. Approval of October 27, 2020 Minutes COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2020 AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (Petschel) Hearings B) PLANNING CASE 2020-23 PAUL RICE AND KAITLIN GARDNER ON BEHALF OF FRANK KLEIN, 1826 VALLEY CURVE ROAD – LOT SPLIT AND VARIANCES Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Paul Rice and Kaitlin Gardner are requesting approval to subdivide the property located at 1826 Valley Curve Road. This subdivision request requires City approval before any plat or survey can be accepted and recorded by Dakota County. The property is owned by Frank Klein, the grandfather of Mrs. Gardner. The request also includes a wetlands permit and variance to the front lot line average setback rules. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through APPROVED 12/17/2020 November 24, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 19 the City’s website). Paul Rice and Kaitlin Gardner were present representing the applicant. Mr. Rice commented that they are excited to grow their family in Mendota Heights and this request would allow them to do so. Ms. Gardner commented that this would also give them the ability to live next door to her grandfather, who is aging. Chair Magnuson asked the amount of space that would be left for a backyard if the home is pushed back 43 feet. Mr. Rice commented that they are already considering not having a typical backyard in order to preserve the wetland area. Ms. Gardner commented that this option would also provide them to have the desired amount of square footage while preserving the wetland and buffer area. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE LOT SPLIT, WETLANDS PERMIT AND VARIANCE TO THE AVERAGE FRONT YARD SETBACK RULE, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1826 VALLEY CURVE ROAD, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS- OF-FACT THAT SUPPORT THE APPLICATIONS REQUESTED HEREIN AND NOTED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER CORBETT COMMENTED THAT THE CORNER LOT MAY BE AN UNUSUAL PLACEMENT TO USE FOR THE STRING TEST. HE COMMENTED THAT THE PLACEMENT SEEMS CONSISTENT WITH EVERY OTHER HOME ON THE STREET AND WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI STATED THAT IT WAS A 50/50 CALL FROM STAFF AND AGREED IT WAS A TOUGH CALL. HE STATED THAT IN ORDER TO COVER ALL BASES STAFF FELT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO REQUEST THAT VARIANCE. HE COMMENTED THAT STAFF BELIEVED THAT THIS WAS A REASONABLE REQUEST. COMMISSIONER FIELD COMMENTED THAT THE 25 FOOT BUFFER WOULD STILL BE FULLY MAINTAINED. APPROVED 12/17/2020 November 24, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 19 COMMISSIONER KATZ COMMENTED THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE HOMEOWNERS ALSO DESIRE TO BE PROTECTIVE OF THE CREEK. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 1, 2020 meeting. A) PLANNING CASE 2020-15 MICHELLE CULLIGAN (ON BEHALF OF LARRY AND MARY CULLIGAN), NW QUADRANT OF VICTORIA CURVE AND GLENHILL ROAD – PRELIMINARY PLAT, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this second supplemental report is related to the continuation of the “Valley View Oak 3rd Addition” subdivision request from Michelle Culligan, acting on behalf of her parents and landowners Larry and Mary Culligan. The original plat application requested nine new lots, eight of which would be for new single- family buildings, and one lot for the existing Culligan family dwelling property at 1941 Glenhill Road. The developer has now revised their subdivision application from nine to six lots, of which five would accommodate new single-family housing. This revised plat still includes the request for a critical area permit due to the location of this site in the Critical Area Overlay District, and a conditional use permit to develop and disturb areas on slopes between 18 and 40 percent throughout the site. The variances previously requested are no longer being requested. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Commissioner Corbett stated that there is a total of five requirements/conditions, and he is most concerned with Item E, which states that building areas must be on grades less than 18 percent. He stated that none of the proposed building areas are on slopes under 18 percent. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the slopes analysis shows the existing slopes, not the proposed. He explained that if approved, each lot builder would need to apply for a Critical Area Permit and provide for a buildable area of 18 percent or less slope. Commissioner Field stated that it would then seem that this would kick the can down the road in respect to buildable area. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that he would suggest that the applicant be allowed to respond to the ability to create those buildable areas. He stated that this application would be APPROVED 12/17/2020 November 24, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 19 reviewed under the existing rules and acknowledged that the building of the homes may fall under the new rules. Commissioner Petschel asked if this would be a situation where approving this request would create a situation in which a buildable lot could not be created in the future. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that would be a fair question to ask the developer to demonstrate that ability. Chair Magnuson stated that this request is to be reviewed under the existing code and rules. Commissioner Petschel asked if this would be buildable, assuming that the final lot approval would come in once the new DNR rules are adopted. Commissioner Corbett commented that he would believe that would fall to the developer/subdivider to demonstrate now rather than the individual lot builders. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the current City Code is at the 18 percent slope mark which is equal to the proposed code the DNR wishes the City to adopt and therefore that should be an equal comparison. Chair Magnuson stated that she is concerned with that provision as well and questioned if a Conditional Use Permit would even be allowable, as it would seem that the house pads and private road would need to be reviewed and it would need to be demonstrated that the pads and private roads could be constructed on slopes lesser than 18 percent. She stated that in her ten years on the Commission this has been the most difficult application to review and wanted to ensure that everyone understood the requirements of the existing code and what could be required under a revised code, acknowledging that the burden would be on the applicant. She commented that the applicant should demonstrate tonight that the building can occur on slopes of 18 percent of less for both house pads and roads. She commented that she has a problem hoping that the applicant can demonstrate that in the future under Critical Area Permits and would want to see that demonstration tonight. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that the Commission can require the developer to demonstrate that. Chair Magnuson referenced language from the staff report which states that the Conditional Use Permit can only be granted when the mentioned conditions are met, including that the use is consistent with the Critical Area District and Comprehensive Plan therefore that is another set of criteria that the Commission must consider. Michelle Culligan, applicant, stated that they heard the feedback from the Commission during the last review and made revisions to the plan based on that input. She stated that the custom home sites allow for custom grading rather than mass grading and she believes that the proposed plan meets the existing rules. She highlighted the revisions that were made to the plan to reduce density, remove variances, incorporating a more narrow private driveway rather than APPROVED 12/17/2020 November 24, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 19 public road to minimize tree and vegetation disruption, necessary easements provided, and the stormwater has been managed away from Mendota. She commented that the geotechnical analysis supports stability of the proposed project and the conservative setback from the bluff line achieves the objectives of the DNR recommended protection zone. She did not believe that the CUP request is different from any of the neighboring properties. She commented that she believes that these are buildable sites and commented that the proposed home sites are preliminary and could be shifted. She stated that they have spent a lot of time and analysis reviewing the slopes to ensure that these lots would be buildable. She stated that the private driveway is far less disruptive than separate driveways would be. Mike St. Martin, Loucks, commented that since the last review they reduced the number of lots to better configure the lots and incorporate a private driveway in order to have less disruption. He explained how the private driveway would move through the site and access the different proposed sites. He noted that the home sites could be adapted to be fully within the green areas of the slope analysis map. Chair Magnuson asked how lot one would be shifted as it is shown completely within the yellow area. Mr. St. Martin commented that the existing homes along Culligan Lane are within similar slopes and provided additional details on the grade of that site. He provided an overview of the changes that were made to the stormwater management and drainage and identified the pathway drainage would follow for collection. Commissioner Toth stated that it appears the water from three homes would be intercepted to the east and routed to the stormwater pond. He asked where the stormwater pond would be located. Mr. St. Martin identified the proposed location of the stormwater pond. Commissioner Toth asked if the stormwater pond would be in an area of slopes greater than 18 percent, which would be above the elevation of the proposed homes. He asked how many gallons of water the pond would hold at any time. Mr. St. Martin replied that the pond would be sized to hold a 100-year event. He provided details on what would occur in an overflow event. Commissioner Toth asked the stability of the soil/rock beneath the pond in the event the pond fails and whether that water would flow down the hill. Mr. St. Martin stated that this would be a constructed and lined pond that would be inspected. He stated that the pond would be lined with clay in order to prevent infiltration as the desired intent would be for the filtered stormwater to enter the storm sewer. Commissioner Petschel asked if the slope analysis is the existing or proposed conditions. He identified the top left lot which would have greater than 40 percent slopes. He asked how it is known that is manmade rather than natural. APPROVED 12/17/2020 November 24, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 19 Mr. St. Martin replied that Ms. Culligan is the daughter of the person that constructed that slope/building pad. He stated that the DNR letter indicated the protected area and noted that the appropriate map shows that area proposed to be protected identified in green. He provided details on the section view noting that they would be below the 35-foot elevation as required. Bryan Ripp, Braun Intertec, stated that within the report there are two scenarios but advised that the walls have been eliminated. He stated that during the initial evaluation they came to the conclusion that the borings were not deep enough, so deeper borings were drilled to depths they felt comfortable with based on the densities of the sands. He presented the double walk out scenario and advised that a factor of safety of 1.7 was reached. He stated that for structures of this nature a minimum factor of 1.5 is required and they are above that by 20 percent. Commissioner Field asked if the slope analysis is for any given site or specific sites. Mr. Ripp replied that this was mainly for the three homes on the western side of the property as those would be considered the more difficult portions of the site compared to the other home sites. He explained that borings were taken from different places on the site in order to provide the general information. He stated that they do recommend additional site-specific borings for each home site as this moves forward. Chair Magnuson asked if there is a map that shows the identification of where the borings were completed. Mr. Ripp confirmed that there is a map that identifies the locations of the borings, noting that the locations were chosen based on the different ground surfaces rather than the proposed lot locations. Chair Magnuson referenced the November 4th report. She stated that it would appear these would be double basement homes that could go down 16 feet and noted that the report mentioned groundwater levels as high as 20 feet. Mr. Ripp replied that in the slope stability analysis they were conservative in those groundwater models to allow for seasonal variation. He confirmed that groundwater was encountered at those locations. He stated that in the modeling they assumed the groundwater to be at the surface, or ten feet below. Commissioner Katz asked if the additional site-specific borings would be done at a depth of 60 feet. Mr. St. Martin stated that once the grading plan is known they would have the additional data to determine how deep the site-specific borings should be but confirmed the borings would be deeper than 25 feet. Commissioner Katz commented that it seems that the stability is based on the structure of the home and protecting the home and land around it. He stated that he has not seen a lot of information about the impact that could occur downhill to Mendota from the displacement and APPROVED 12/17/2020 November 24, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 19 additional weight that would be placed on this site. Mr. St. Martin stated that the stability analysis looks for the lowest factor of safety and the failure points did not extend to the downhill locations in Mendota. He explained that the walkout basements provide a cut in the slope and the removal of that material would provide a balance to the structure being built. He stated that the weight of the house is added, and the removal of the soil is accounted for in the modeling. Commissioner Katz stated that he would like to see more information showing that Mendota would be protected in this plan. Mr. Ripp provided details on the failure surface within the analysis, noting that the town of Mendota is well beyond that range. Commissioner Katz asked if the runoff water is accounted for in that modeling. Mr. Ripp replied that they modeled the groundwater, using conservative scenarios. He stated that the stormwater is on the surface and only impacts the stability if it infiltrates the groundwater. Commissioner Corbett asked if it can be shown how any of this development would not exacerbate the conditions in Mendota caused by natural springs. Mr. Ripp stated that with the proposed development, this would be the result. Commissioner Corbett asked if baseline water runoff in Mendota was calculated to ensure that this development would not make those conditions worse. He stated that this information shows that the ground would hold up with the digging for the construction of the homes but asked if there could be natural springs that may be impacted when digging out the sites for the basements that could cause bigger issues in Mendota. Commissioner Katz commented that the information shown has been great for Mendota Heights but asked if there is information showing the analysis that was done for Mendota and potential impacts on that town. Mr. Ripp stated that there is a scaling issue. He commented that if they would have seen the effects further down slope, there could be a point made but they did not see that. Chair Magnuson asked if they tested the slope further down for stability and groundwater. Mr. St. Martin displayed the stormwater map, explaining that they can intercept the surface water bringing that to the pond. He stated that new storm sewer would be installed to intercept groundwater to a certain depth. He noted that any water deeper than that would be essentially unaffected by this development. Commissioner Toth asked for more information on the water running off the slope shown in the APPROVED 12/17/2020 November 24, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 19 soils and slope analysis. Mr. St. Martin stated that they did not model the groundwater and instead artificially set that as high to provide a conservative plan. Commissioner Toth asked the margin of error in that analysis. Mr. Ripp stated that a safety factor of one would mean balance and in order to reduce that level of error the resistance is increased to at least 50 percent higher, but in this case, they went to 70 percent. Mr. St. Martin commented that they input a higher groundwater level in order to make the model conservative and estimate the failure plain. He stated that even with the more conservative approach they still have the safety factor of 1.7. Commissioner Toth stated that in theory this model would look good on paper but once you are on site and the conditions are more accurately known, adjustments would need to be made. He asked what the backup plan would be. Mr. Ripp stated that he cannot predict what would happen on site. He stated that once the site- specific borings are known, they can determine the adjustments that would need to be made. Mr. St. Martin reviewed some of the alternatives that could be considered once the individual borings are known. He commented that they have a lot of experience and many “tools” to work with in order to provide the best conditions for each site. Ms. Culligan acknowledged that this can be complicated and therefore they took a conservative approach in their modeling. She stated that they would be improving the water situation on the site. She recognized that Mendota is a factor to consider as well. She stated that this can be done as you look at all of the other homes that have been constructed in this area, some on slopes above 18 percent. She stated that the homes in Windy Ridge are larger and closer to the bluff. She stated that any builder will be building on the facts at that time to ensure the best quality product. She stated that a significant amount of time and money have been spent on the analysis to protect this process. Commissioner Petschel asked the definition of buildable area. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the building area is typically defined by the limits of the setbacks. Commissioner Petschel stated that if a tiny home were placed on a lot would that be considered buildable area. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the minimum buildable area is considered to be 1,000 square feet. Commissioner Petschel asked if the entire area would need to be under 18 percent slope, or APPROVED 12/17/2020 November 24, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 19 whether a portion or majority of that buildable area would need to be under 18 percent slope. He also asked whether the developer is able to correct the slope to bring it into conformance. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the existing Code does not define that. He stated that staff could look into the proposed rules from the DNR to determine if there is guidance that could be used. Commissioner Petschel commented that some of these areas identified as buildable areas do not comply with section E without that information it is difficult to evaluate. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Bob Bruestle, 370 G Street in Mendota, stated that he has not heard of a two-story basement before and asked for clarification on a double walk out. He stated that he has encountered a lot of surface water issues and would like to focus on the issue of storm water and surface water management. He stated that water runs downhill, and this development promises a 30 to 40 percent reduction in the runoff but commented that the remainder would continue to run downhill. He also believed that winter conditions should be considered. He stated that he lives behind what is currently called a pond, which was supposed to capture water for the Culligan addition. He stated that in the spring melt conditions water was running through his basement wall. He stated that the discharge that was coming from the pond above his property was inundating his yard before he plugged it. He stated that he has spent hundreds of hours trying to improve this issue. He stated that there are no guarantees with the stormwater pond and if it does release, that water will go downhill and commented that Mendota cannot handle any more water. Julie Hunt, 1224 Culligan Lane, stated that in October she and other neighbors submitted findings of fact and supported the Commission’s recommendation of denial. She stated that their concern is not with homes being constructed near their homes but with the catastrophic failure that could occur. She stated that this area is unique with homes above and below that would be susceptible to failure. She believed that staff should use all regulations available and not just the existing City Code. She believed that the Commission would want accurate and up to date information using current research and technological tools when making its decision. She focused on the research that she has done since the last review by the Commission. She stated that under the updated DNR rules, this area would not be considered developable and was identified as unbuildable through that process in 2017. She stated that the 2017 regulations of the DNR are much more accurate in protecting against slope failure. She stated that the DNR and Metropolitan Council require municipalities to adopt the new regulations. She stated that the City has stated that this development aligns with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. She stated that section nine of the Comprehensive Plan includes information on bluffs and bluff impact zones (BIZ), noting that those rules are more restrictive and provided an overview. She asked why this information has not been mentioned in previous staff presentations. She stated that one of the goals identified within that plan is to protect PCA’s from private development. She stated that this property, along with the property of the development her home is located in is within a PCA. She stated that when overlaying the BIZ data over the proposed development, only one proposed home location would be outside of the BIZ. She asked why the City did not APPROVED 12/17/2020 November 24, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 19 enact a moratorium earlier in order to allow updating of the City Code with the DNR adopted rules. She reviewed experts that she has spoken with during the past few months to gain additional information on this topic. She read portions of an article written about Dr. Carrie Jennings dated August 3, 2019, which provides background on her expertise with bluff failure. She then provided statements that she received from those different experts related to the development proposal on this site. She commented that there are other technologies available that will help to better answer the questions raised about this development and site. She found it confusing that the DNR identified this area within the BIZ which does not allow clear cutting or building but recognizes that the City must operate under its existing rules until the new rules are adopted. She reviewed some of the comments from those experts related to the slope risk analysis. She stated that the slope stability analysis is based off assumptions and if you use the wrong assumptions that will result in failure. She provided an example of a slope slide that occurred in a similar bowl area in Bloomington. She commented that while there were no homes below the slope in Bloomington that failed, there are homes below this slope in Mendota. She asked the Commission to consider the DNR studies. She stated that the decision of the Commission is being asked to be based on the Braun Intertec study that is not yet complete and does not consider the type of failure she provided data on tonight. She stated that Dr. Jennings is the lead expert in slopes and understanding failures and she is very concerned about this proposal. She stated that this area has been selected as one of the five critical areas in the State for additional study. She asked the Commission to consider section nine of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and ask that a full geotechnical study be done on this area before making a decision. Allen Olstein, 1954 Glenhill Road, commented that the previous speaker identified the large gaps within the engineering and geotechnical studies presented by the applicant. He stated that the supplementary report from the applicant stated that the proposed use would not be detrimental to the community and would ensure that slope stability would be provided through this design. He stated that the data the applicant collected is inadequate and there is too much uncertainty in the model used by the applicant. He stated that this development presents a serious risk to the entire community and urged the Commission to deny the CUP based on the adverse impacts this would have on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Brian Mielke, Mayor of Mendota, asked if Braun Intertec had studied the perspective of Mendota in its review but it does not appear that Braun came to Mendota to look at the existing springs and model the potential impact that could have on Mendota. He stated that Mendota remains concerns and opposed to any development that could lead to failure of the bluff. He stated that the likelihood of failure would be high, especially with the increase in the 100-year rain events. He stated that digging and disturbing of underground springs could exacerbate the issues that currently exist. He asked that Mendota Heights consider a moratorium in order to enact the new DNR rules. Steve Helmstetter, 1248 Culligan Road, stated that his home was built 37 years ago on quite a slope and in his seven years in the home he has experienced issues with his basement because of pressure from the slope. He stated that he continues to spend money to fight this issue and noted that his home would be similar to the conditions of three of the proposed homes. He stated that the soil on his property is very unstable and he is hesitant to remove invasive species APPROVED 12/17/2020 November 24, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 19 because it could lead to further instability. He commented that he is unsure how his home was allowed to be built because of the unstable soils. He stated that within the loop of his development there is a sewage pumping station and asked if there would be a sewage pumping system for the three homes on the western edge of the proposed development. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the three lots would be proposed to be served by individual grinder pump systems, which are privately owned pump lift stations and would not be City owned. Steven Douglas, 330 G Street in Mendota, stated that he purchased his home 30 years ago and, in that time, the underground water level has increased by at least five feet. He stated that the limestone rock is fractured, and water runs through those areas, which are 40 or 50 feet above the homes. He stated that he is worried about landslides and has also spent time attempting to move the water away from his home that flows down the bluff. He asked for details on the borings and whether those are creating additional holes that will run out to Mendota. He asked the Commission not to approve this request. Mark Hunt, 1224 Culligan Lane, encouraged the Commission to continue to press for specific boring locations. He stated that he would want to see borings from the furthest reach of where they would intend to build. He expressed a concern related to the retention pond, as if that were to fail that would have bigger implications. Kae Jewel, 1948 Glenhill Road, stated that the reality is that the City is operating on old information and there is new information out there. She stated that the residents asked for a public hearing to consider a moratorium but that was not approved. She stated that she spent her career analyzing risk and did not believe that this is a risk the City or its residents should take on as it cannot be managed or handled. She referenced a recent newspaper article in which someone put family land into a conservatorship with Dakota County. She encouraged the City and property owner to explore other options. She asked the Commission to deny this request. Sandra Krebsbach, 1230 Culligan Lane, commented that this is probably the most complex application that has come before the City. She stated that she does have experience in the development of the City during her time on the Commission and as an elected official. She stated that through previous development this parcel was labeled as an undevelopable outlot and has been taxed as since. She stated that her home is built on bedrock and they preserved the large trees on their property in order to be structurally solid. She stated that if this development is allowed and erodes that slope, it will not just be the top of the slope that erodes, but other properties as well. She noted that homeowners insurance does not cover this type of damage and asked the recourse for property owners if this property causes others to fail. She asked the Commission to take its time and do its due diligence to ensure specific information is provided to ensure that this property will not cause failure to others. Mark Culligan stated that he, his sisters, and their parents are the stakeholders for the property. He stated that he has been impressed with all of the technical information presented. He provided background on the use of the property over the years his family has owned it, noting that he has a 60-year perspective on the property. He referenced the river bluff landslide APPROVED 12/17/2020 November 24, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 19 that occurred in Bloomington, noting that is not the same type of slope as the subject property. He stated that the building sites are relatively flat, and they have spent a considerable amount of funds on engineering and studies. He stated that hydrostatic pressure occurs in many areas, including his home in Saint Paul. He stated that his family should not be responsible for water problems in the bowl of Mendota. He stated that this is a natural beautiful woodland property that people often trespass on and dump their yard waste on. He stated that while people have an attachment to the property, they are the rightful owners. He stated that their property rights have not been condemned. By the DNR. He stated that his family are stewards of the land and will not be clear cutting and have proposed this design in order to minimize the impacts to the land. He stated that stormwater management removes the water from the natural downhill flow and would improve the current conditions. He stated that there has never been a single landslide of any type on this property in the past 50 plus years that he has been involved in the property. He commented that this is not bluff and is instead a slope. He believed that credit should be given to the engineering team that has been involved in this project. Ms. Culligan stated that she believes it would be helpful for some of her team to be able to provide additional comments following the public comments made. Mr. Ripp commented that some of the information was perhaps taken out of context. He stated that there was an assertion that only soil samples were taken and reviewed the steps that were taken. He stated that it was considered preliminary because those are preliminary borings. He confirmed that a geotechnical analysis was completed and up to date technology was used. He stated that there was a question related to how the borings were backfilled and replied that the borings were backfilled according to the Minnesota Department of Health standards, providing details on that process which ensures that infiltration will not result from the borings. Commissioner Corbett asked if all the borings were backfilled or whether it was just the 60-foot borings that were backfilled. Mr. Ripp confirmed that all borings more than 15 feet are required to be backfilled and were backfilled. He confirmed that they studied and analyzed the possibility of rotational failure, which was mentioned by one of the residents. He stated that he did not see evidence of failures or movement when walking this site. He commented that the number of trees has most likely provided the balance to prevent that from occurring on this site. He stated that they feel comfortable with the results of the deeper borings that were completed in order to investigate the possibility of rotational failure. He stated that there are springs on this site, but the depths are well below the area that would be disturbed. He stated that there are sandy soils on the site and the team is aware of the potential for erosion, which is why they are attempting to minimize the areas to be disturbed. He reviewed the factors that tend to lead to slope failure and commented that those would not be factors in this proposed development or on this site. Commissioner Toth referenced the boring map locations and stated that there is no data on the borings for the area proposed for home construction. Mr. Ripp confirmed that to be correct. He stated that they intend to drill borings in those locations. APPROVED 12/17/2020 November 24, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 19 Commissioner Corbett stated that it appears four sites were selected for soil borings and then two of those were dug deeper. Mr. Ripp confirmed that to be true. He stated that when the initial slope stability analysis was done, they came to the realization that the borings were not deep enough. Commissioner Corbett stated that his attempt was to determine why two sites were listed twice. Commissioner Toth stated that there was mention that soil erosion will occur when you remove vegetation. He asked the controls that would be put in place once the vegetation would be removed during the construction process. Mr. St. Martin stated that they would have a stormwater pollution prevent plan (SWPPP) that would identify the steps that would be taken during construction and reviewed some measures that could be enacted to prevent erosion during construction. He stated that the contractor would have a licensed SWPPP inspector onsite daily and that entire process would be permitted by the MPCA. Commissioner Toth provide an example situation that could occur during construction once vegetation is removed and a June rain event occurs. He asked if silt fence would hold soils on a ten percent grade. Mr. St. Martin reviewed additional measures that could be taken to provide that protection. He stated that contractors are used to dealing with rain events during construction. Chair Magnuson referenced the report that was prepared by Barr Engineering and the major concern related to the location of the stormwater pond. She asked for a response from the applicant. Mr. St. Martin stated that they would work with Braun and would likely line the pond with a clay liner to create a bowl that would keep the water in the pond and would not allow seepage. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF VALLEY VIEW OAK 3RD ADDITION ALONG WITH A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NW QUADRANT OF APPROVED 12/17/2020 November 24, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 19 VICTORIA CURVE AND GLENHILL ROAD, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT CONFIRM THE APPLICANT FAILED TO MEET THE BURDEN(S) OF PROOF OR STANDARDS REQUIRED IN GRANTING SUCH APPROVAL OF THESE APPLICATIONS, NOTED AS FOLLOWS: THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE BUILDING AREA WOULD BE ON SLOPES LESSER THAN 18 PERCENT. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL COMMENTED THAT HE WOULD AGREE WITH THE DENIAL. HE STATED THAT HE STILL QUESTIONS THE BUILDABLE LOT AND WHETHER THAT IS INTENDED FOR THE EXISTING STATE OR PROPOSED FUTURE STATE. HE STATED THAT ANY LOT COULD BE ALTERED TO BECOME BUILDABLE WITH ENOUGH FILL AND DID NOT BELIEVE THE INTENT OF THE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE THAT THE SLOPE COULD BE ALTERED TO MEET THAT SLOPE REQUIREMENT. HE STATED THAT TWO OF THE FIVE LOTS WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC FROM THAT POINT OF VIEW. COMMISSIONER CORBETT STATED THAT HE AGREES WITH THAT INTERPRETATION, THAT THE SLOPE PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENT IS BEFORE ALTERATION. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT HE DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT ANYTHING PROPOSED IS OVERTLY DANGEROUS. HE STATED THAT WHILE HE APPRECIATES THE INPUT OF THE RESIDENTS, THESE ARE COMPLICATED TOPICS FOR EXPERTS AND THE ONLY ENGINEERS PRESENT TONIGHT ARE THOSE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. COMMISSIONER CORBETT APPLAUDED THE EFFORT FROM THE APPLICANT AND THEIR ENGINEERS BUT NOTED THAT HIS ROLE IS TO UPHOLD THE CODE AND HE STICKS TO THAT POINT THAT THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE CITY REQUIREMENTS. COMMISSIONER KATZ STATED THAT HE HAS CONCERN WITH THE ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE RELATED TO ROTATIONAL SLIDE. HE STATED THAT HE DOES NOT WANT TO DISMISS THE CONCERN AND APPRECIATES THE INPUT FROM THE ENGINEERING TEAM FROM THE APPLICANT BUT WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE TWO SIDES RECONCILED. CHAIR MAGNUSON STATED THAT THE COMMISSION WAS ASKED BY STAFF TO ADDRESS THE PRIVATE ROAD, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISCUSSED. SHE STATED THAT AS SHE READS THE CITY CODE, A LOT IS DEFINED AS A LOT THAT ABUTS A PRIVATE ROAD. SHE STATED THAT THIS WOULD NOT BE A PUBLIC STREET AND WOULD BE AN EASEMENT. SHE ASKED IF THIS WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCE FOR A PRIVATE ROAD. SHE STATED THAT WHEN REVIEWING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THE COMMISSION IS TASKED TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SHE NOTED THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STATES DISCOURAGES FROM INFILL DEVELOPMENT THAT RELIES ON A PRIVATE STREET OR FLAG LOT DESIGN. SHE STATED THAT APPROVED 12/17/2020 November 24, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 19 SHE HAS A HARD TIME RECONCILING THE CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WITH THE SLOPE PERCENTAGES. COMMISSIONER TOTH ASKED IF EMERGENCY SERVICES REVIEWED THE PRIVATE ROAD CONCEPT. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI REPLIED THAT THE FIRE MARSHAL REVIEWED THIS AND DID NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT BECAUSE OF THE THREE HYDRANTS THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED. HE STATED THAT THE FIRE MARSHAL FELT THAT THE TURNAROUND WOULD BE SUFFICIENT BUT WANTED TO REVIEW THAT WITH THE FIRE CHIEF TO ENSURE THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH SPACE. COMMISSIONER TOTH STATED THAT WITH WINTER CONDITIONS AND SNOW STORAGE, ALONG WITH VEHICLES THAT COULD BE PARKED ON A ROADWAY, THAT COULD PRESENT A SITUATION WHERE AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE COULD NOT TURN AROUND. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI NOTED THAT STAFF STATED THAT WITH THE NARROW ROADWAY, STAFF LISTED A CONDITION THAT WOULD NOT ALLOW PARKING ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ROAD. COMMISSIONER FIELD STATED THAT HE AGREES WITH THE COMMENTS OF CHAIR MAGNUSON AND COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL. HE STATED THAT THERE ARE SOME ISSUES BUT HE IS NOT CONVINCED THAT THOSE ISSUES COULD NOT BE RESOLVED AND WOULD BE WILLING TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT ADDITIONAL TIME TO ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THOSE ISSUES. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ASKED IF IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO ASK THE APPLICANT WHETHER THEY WOULD PREFER A VOTE OR FOR THE MATTER TO BE TABLED. MS. CULLIGAN COMMENTED THAT SHE WOULD PREFER A VOTE. SHE STATED THAT THEY HAVE DONE RESEARCH ON THE BUILDABLE AREA AND BELIEVE THEY CAN MEET THAT AND ARE THE SAME AS OTHER LOTS THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO BUILD. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL COMMENTED THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL LOTS AND SUBDIVISION. MS. CULLIGAN COMMENTED THAT SHE WOULD PREFER THE VOTE. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 1, APPROVED 12/17/2020 November 24, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 19 2020 meeting. Chair Magnuson briefly recessed the meeting at 9:55 pm. Chair Magnuson reconvened the meeting at 10:02 pm. C) PLANNING CASE 2020-24 STEVE NORTON AND KEITH OSTROSKY, 1680 LEXINGTON AVENUE – LOT SPLIT AND CRITICAL AREA PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Steve Norton, acting on behalf of the owner Keith Ostrosky, is requesting approval to subdivide the residential property located at 1680 Lexington Avenue. This subdivision request requires City approval before any plat or survey can be accepted and recorded by Dakota County. The critical area permit is required for any subdivision approval of properties situated in the Critical Area Overlay District. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; he reviewed the input that was received prior to the meeting. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Commissioner Katz commented that when determining the zoning for the Comprehensive Plan, he believes that this property was unique and wanted to ensure that was resolved. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that was reviewed during the Comprehensive Plan process but the request to change to a medium density residential land use was denied by the Council and therefore remains as low density residential. Commissioner Corbett asked if a variance would be needed to allow for a lot split of a flag lot. He stated that he would also like to see the data related to the slope of the land. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that this would not be a typical lot split, but the ordinance allows for the split as long as there would be frontage of 100 feet or more on a public roadway. He stated that both properties would have frontage at or above 100 feet and therefore would not be considered flag lots. He commented that the shared driveway would be memorialized in an agreement between the two properties and confirmed that would be a private agreement and not of the City. He stated that the City does not have anything that permits or prohibits shared driveways. Chair Magnuson asked if there is anything in the City Code that would require that access be provided from the parcel rather than from someone else’s parcel. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that there is no requirement that the driveway leading to a lot has to go through that frontage. He stated that there are other lots in APPROVED 12/17/2020 November 24, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 17 of 19 the City that have frontage on one roadway and access provided in another area. Chair Magnuson stated that this is within the Critical Area and therefore she would want to see the data related to the slope requirements. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the surveyors clearly delineated the new house pads outside of the 40-foot bluff setback. Commissioner Field asked for details on what the address would be. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that addresses are provided based off where access is for emergency services purposes. Steve Norton, applicant, stated that the area proposed to be developed is quite flat and noted that the building pads would be outside of the 40-foot bluff setback. He provided examples of shared driveways in Mendota Heights. He referenced the soil boring reports from their consultant, noting that this site has quite a bit of bedrock and therefore they anticipate that the building pads would be very stable. He commented that these would be modest size homes and would not take away from the views in the area. He believed that this application would be the best solution for everyone, rather than the previously considered medium density residential use. Commissioner Field commented that this seems to be an innovative solution. Chair Magnuson stated that she was curious that bedrock was found at four or five feet and asked if these would be slab on grade homes. Mr. Norton replied that they would not have to be slab on grade homes. He explained that they would be establishing building pads and it would be up to the end user as to the home they would want to build and noted that user would have to apply for and work within their own Critical Area Permit. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Bruce Westlund, 1700 Lexington Overlook, asked if the 40-foot slope was measured from the front of 14. Community Development Director Tim Benetti highlighted the delineation of the bluff and the 40- foot setback. Mr. Westlund asked the location of holding ponds on the property and whether that would cause tree removal. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that there are basins identified in two locations. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that in most conditions the basins would be dry APPROVED 12/17/2020 November 24, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 18 of 19 and would hold water after rain events that would then infiltrate. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Petschel stated that it appears there is only five feet of grade difference across the site. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that house pad two looks to be flat. He stated that house pad one seems to be right around 18 percent and the driveway appears to be near the ten percent allowed. He stated that there appears to be areas where retaining walls would be required but did not believe any variances would be required. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE LOT SPLIT FOR 1680 LEXINGTON AVENUE AND CRITICAL AREA PERMIT BASED ON THE FINDINGS-OF-FACT SUPPORTING SUCH APPROVAL, CONTINGENT UPON THE SITE NOT EXCEEDING THE 18 PERCENT SLOPE REQUIREMENT, AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE OWNER/DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE NEW DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ALONG THE PERIMETER OF EACH NEW LOT PER THE APPROVAL OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. 2. PARK DEDICATION FEE OF $4,000 WILL BE PAID BEFORE THE SUBDIVISION IS RECORDED WITH DAKOTA COUNTY. 3. CONNECTION CHARGES FOR SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN SHALL BE PAID PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. 4. AN INDIVIDUAL (OR JOINT) CRITICAL AREA PERMIT APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR ANY FUTURE SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON PARCEL A/PAD 1 AND PARCEL B/PAD 2. 5. THE APPLICANT MUST PREPARE A SHARED DRIVEWAY ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT IN A FORM APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, WHICH MUST BE AGREED TO BY BOTH PROPERTY OWNERS OF EACH NEW LOT, SIGNED, NOTARIZED, AND RECORDED AGAINST BOTH PROPERTIES PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. 6. ANY LAND DISTURBANCE ACTIVITIES MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. 7. ANY NEW GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES, AS WELL AS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. FULL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION MEASURES WILL BE PUT IN PLACE PRIOR TO AND DURING GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION WORK ACTIVITIES. APPROVED 12/17/2020 November 24, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 19 of 19 8. ANY AND ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK ON SITE IS LIMITED TO THE HOURS BETWEEN 7:00 A.M. AND 8:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY AND 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. WEEKENDS. 9. ALL DISTURBED AREAS IN AND AROUND THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE RESTORED AND HAVE AN ESTABLISHED AND PERMANENT GROUND COVER IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 1, 2020 meeting. Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review: • The draft calendar was included in the Commission packet and a potential conflict was identified for the September 2021 meeting. Chair Magnuson commented that she is not very comfortable sitting in a full room and asked about the agenda for the December meeting. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that staff is looking to hold that meeting virtually as there is only one potential permit to consider. Commissioner Field asked if there would be a way to submit public input. City Administrator Mark McNeill replied that they have not yet been setup well for live public input and reviewed the current options. Commissioner Field stated that he feels that it is important to have interaction between those providing input and the Commission. Community Development Director Tim Benetti asked if the Commission would like to move that meeting date to December 17th. It was the consensus of the Commission to hold the December meeting on December 17, 2020. Adjournment COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:41 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 DATE: January 12, 2021 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Designation of Official Newspaper COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to designate an Official Newspaper for the City for 2021. BACKGROUND Minnesota Statutes §412.831 requires that the City Council designate an official newspaper at the first meeting of each year. Ordinances, financial reports, public notices, and other information as required by law, as well as matters the Council deems necessary, shall be published in the City’s official newspaper. The St. Paul Pioneer Press is currently designated as the City’s official newspaper. This year we received two proposals. Both newspapers publish seven days a week, and would run the ads on their website legal section at no extra charge. Proposals Received for Official Newspaper Designation 2021 Rate Proposed 2020 Rate Ads Due Pioneer Press $6.30 per column inch $6.00 per column inch- one time publishing $5.50 per column inch- each add'l publication 1 day prior at 12 noon Star Tribune $ 1.31 per line (Equal to approx. $14.85 per column inch) 2 days prior at 4pm BUDGET IMPACT The proposal by the Pioneer Press is a $ .30 per column inch increase from 2020. RECOMMENDATION 2018 was the first year that the City used the Pioneer Press as its official newspaper. Having the flexibility of a daily newspaper as its legal newspaper has worked to the City’s advantage. We recommend that the City Council designate the Pioneer Press as the official City newspaper. ACTION REQUIRED The City Council should designate the St. Paul Pioneer Press as the city’s official newspaper for 2021. This action requires a majority vote of the City Council. . DATE: January 12, 2021 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Designation of Acting Mayor INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to appoint one of its members to serve as Acting Mayor. BACKGROUND Minnesota State Statute 412.121 requires the Council to choose an acting mayor at the first City Council meeting of the year. The law provides that the acting mayor shall perform the duties of the mayor during the disability or absence of the mayor from the city or in event of vacancy in the office of the mayor, until such time a successor has been appointed. The practice in Mendota Heights has been that the Mayor has recommended a candidate, and the Council then affirms the recommendation, or comes up with an alternate candidate. In recent years, the acting mayor position for the City of Mendota Heights has been held by the following councilmembers: 2020: Joel Paper 2019: Joel Paper 2018: Joel Paper 2017: Joel Paper 2016: Michael Povolny 2015: Liz Petschel 2014: Liz Petschel 2013: Liz Petschel RECOMMENDATION: Mayor Levine recommends the appointment of Councilor Joel Paper to be acting Mayor for 2021. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, appoint Joel Paper to serve as the acting mayor for 2021. If there a different councilor is nominated, the Council should make its decision from amongst those nominated. This action requires a majority vote. DATE: January 12, 2021 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Resolution 2021- 01 Reappointments to Advisory Commissions BACKGROUND The City Council is asked to reappoint the following members to their respective Commissions. The following commissioners are at the end of their current term and are eligible for reappointment. They have each requested to be reappointed. Planning Commission (3 year term, starting February 2021 - expiring January 2024): Patrick Corbett Parks and Recreation Commission (3 year term, starting February 2020 - expiring January 2023): Patrick Cotter Airport Relations Commission (3 year term, starting February 2021 - expiring January 2024): David Sloan Arvind Sharma William Dunn Per City Code Sections 2-1-2 and 2-2-2, members of the Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission are limited to 3 consecutive full terms. Planning Commission member Mary Magnuson and Parks and Recreation Commissioner Pat Hinderscheid have each served three full terms and cannot be reappointed. Those positions have been advertised to the residents and we are seeking applications. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council approve Resolution 2021-01 Reappointing Advisory Commission Members. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-01 A RESOLUTION REAPPONTING COMMISSIONERS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION, AND THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights benefits from the active participation of citizens in representing the City on boards and commissions; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission serves as an advisory body to the City Council. They advise the City Council on matters pertaining to comprehensive planning, amendments to the zoning code, conditional use permits, wetlands permits, and development plans; and WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission serves as an advisory body to the City Council. They advise the Council on matters pertaining to parks and recreational programs, the use and operation of parks and recreational facilities, and improvement of the parks and recreational facilities. WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the excellent service provided by the following commission members/representatives whose terms will expire January 31, 2021. Planning Commission (3 year term - February 2021 - January 2024): Patrick Corbett Parks Recreation Commission (3 year term - February 2021 - January 2024): Patrick Cotter Airport Relations Commission (3 year term - February 2021 - January 2024): David Sloan Arvind Sharma William Dunn NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that it reappoints Patrick Corbett to the Planning Commission for a 3 year term to expire on January 31, 2024; Patrick Cotter to the Parks and Recreation Commission for a 3 year term to expire on January 31, 2024; and David Sloan, Arvind Sharma, and William Dunn to the Airport Relations Commission for 3 year terms to expire on January 31, 2024. Adopted by the Mendota Heights City Council this 12th day of January, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ATTEST: ______________________________ Stephanie Levine, Mayor _____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk DATE: January 12, 2021 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: City Liaison Appointments Introduction: The Council is asked to discuss appointments to various liaison positions for the City. One of the appointments (for NDC4) requires passage of a resolution. Background: The following advisory boards require City Council action to designate appointments to represent the City. Mayor Levine recommends the following to fill the vacant positions: Traffic Safety Committee Planning Commission Representative— Patrick Corbett City Council Representative—John Mazzitello Citizen Representative – Jonathan Ehrlich Dakota Communications Center Board of Directors (2 Year Appointments) Primary Representative--Ultan Duggan Alternate –Stephanie Levine NDC4 Cable Commission (2 Year Appointments) Commissioner Representative--Mickey Kieffer Elected Official Representative--Joel Paper Dakota Broadband Board (2 year Appointments) Primary Representative—Stephanie Levine Alternate--Joel Paper Action Required The Council should, by motion, approve the reappointments as determined for the above advisory boards and liaison positions, with the exception of the NDC 4 members. The appointments to the NDC4 Commission must be made by approving the following resolution: Resolution 2021-05 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING REPRESENTATIVES TO THE NDC4 ADVISORY COMMISSION CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-05 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING REPRESENTATIVES TO THE NDC4 ADVISORY COMMISSION WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights benefits from the active participation of citizens in our advisory commissions; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the excellent service provided by the following commission member whose term expires on January 31, 2021. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota that the following commissioner is reappointed to a term on the NDC4 Commission: Mickey Kieffer - term starting February 1, 2021 and expiring January 31, 2023 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mendota Heights City Council does hereby appoint the following Councilmember to the NDC4 Commission: Joel Paper - term starting February 1, 2021 and expiring January 31, 2023 Adopted by the Mendota Heights City Council this 12th day of January, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ATTEST: ______________________________ Stephanie Levine, Mayor _____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk DATE: January 12, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director SUBJECT: 2021 Financial Items INTRODUCTION At its January 12th meeting, the City Council is asked to approve three routine financial actions. BACKGROUND There are 3 items that need to be reviewed by the council on an annual basis. Two of the items have attached resolutions and the other item need to be authorized and reviewed by the council. • Each year the city designates financial institutions that may be used as depositories for city funds. The attached resolution lists those institutions that may be used in 2021. • Minnesota statue 118A.03 requires that to the extent city funds in a financial institution exceed FDIC insurance amounts, a collateral security be pledged to cover the difference. The attached resolution states the collateral that is in place for the city at Deerwood Bank. • The council needs to authorize the finance director to execute electronic payments and prepay claims. This is not a change in process, but an acknowledgement that there are claims paid prior to your approval on the agenda. This item was recommended to be formally authorized by the city auditors. BUDGET IMPACT N/A ACTION REQUIRED The Mendota Heights City Council should, by motion, approve the attached resolutions designating city depositories and accepting pledged securities. In addition, the City Council should also, by motion, approve the finance director being given the authority to prepay claims. All of these actions requires a majority vote of the city council. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021 - 03 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2021 CITY DEPOSITORIES OF FUNDS BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Mendota Heights that the following institutions be designated as depositories for city funds and securities for 2021: Deerwood Bank Wells Fargo Bank Cherokee State Bank Gateway Bank U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray & Co. TCF National Bank TD Ameritrade Minnesota Municipal Money Market Fund Wells Fargo Advisors, Inc. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that investments of city funds be in any securities authorized by Minnesota Statutes Chapters 118A.04 and 427.02. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 12th day of January, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BY __________________________________ Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2021 – 04 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PLEDGED SECURITIES FOR 2021 WHEREAS, every designated depository of city funds must provide collateral or other security to the city to protect against financial loss, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 118A.03 and 427.01; and WHEREAS, all financial institutions designated as depositories for 2021 are members of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) which provides suitable security up to established limits; and WHEREAS, the city’s depositories in financial institutions routinely exceed these established limits necessitating the provision of additional security. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the following pledged securities be accepted by the city as additional collateral for calendar year 2021. Deerwood Bank $ 124,854 FHLB 2.500% due 08/01/2034 $3,240,000 FHLB 0.230% due 01/13/2021 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 12th day of January, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By _____________________________ Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Request for City Council Action DATE: January 12, 2021 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Approve 2021 Schedule of City Council Meeting Dates COMMENT: Introduction The Council is asked to review and approve the 2021 schedule of City Council meeting dates as listed below. The regularly schedule City Council meetings are the first and third Tuesday of the month. Some of the regularly scheduled meetings need to be changed due to conflicts. Council Meeting Date Meeting Date Rescheduled January 12, 2021 moved to 2nd Tues of January January 19, 2021 February 2, 2021 February 16, 2021 March 2, 2021 March 16, 2021 April 6, 2021 April 20, 2021 May 4, 2021 May 18, 2021 June 1, 2021 June 15, 2021 July 6, 2021 July 20, 2021 August 4, 2021 Night to Unite – moved to Wed August 17, 2021 September 9, 2021 Religious Holiday – moved to Thurs September 23, 2021 Religious Holiday – moved to Thurs October 5, 2021 October 19, 2021 November 3, 2021 School Election - moved to Wed November 16, 2021 December 7, 2021 December 21, 2021 Recommendation It is recommended that the Council review the list of 2021 meeting dates, amend as needed, and approve. Action Required Staff recommends that the City Council make a motion to approve the 2021 City Council meeting dates. Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: January 12, 2021 TO: Mayor Levine and City Council; City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding Application through Dakota County – Year 2021 Introduction The City Council is asked to adopt a resolution which would approve an application and gives support to the CDBG Program for 2021. Background Dakota County receives an annual allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, which is a federal program administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The program is designed to assist local governments with various community development projects and programs that primarily aid low- and moderate-income residents. Dakota County is considered an “Entitlement County”, and, as such, receives an annual allocation of federal CDBG funds. The Dakota County Board of Commissioners has chosen to allocate the CDBG funds amongst the various cities in the county; while the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) administers this program on behalf of Dakota County. The CDA will continue to administer all aspects of the loan program. Each year, the city’s CDBG allocation is rebalanced to account for updated information in the American Community Survey provided by the Census Bureau for each city. Per HUD rules, the CDBG allocation is based on three factors: a community’s population, people in poverty, and overcrowded housing units. Because these factors change over time, the allocation each city receives will change over time. The CDBG allocation Dakota County will receive for the 2021 Program Year is not yet known; however, it is anticipated the County will receive an amount of $1,928,049, which is similar to the amount received for the 2020 Program Year. The amount each city will actually receive for the upcoming 2021 Program Year is not known until the federal budget is approved. The estimated allocation for Mendota Heights is approximately $22,194 for FY 2021. In previous years, the County has used these CDBG funds to renovate up to two substandard homes per year, whose owners meet the criteria set forth in the program. The CDA requests every city that participates in this annual CDBG Program, to adopt a resolution of support and approval, which is attached hereto. Budget Impact There are no impacts to the city budget. Recommendation City staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving an application and support to the CDBG Program for 2021. Action Required Adopt RESOLUTION No. 2021-03 APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021 DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDING. This action requires a simple majority vote. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-06 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021 DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights is a participating jurisdiction with the Dakota County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Entitlement Program for Fiscal Year 2021 (ending June 30, 2022); and WHEREAS, the Dakota County Community Development Agency is a sub-grantee of Dakota County for the administration of the CDBG Program; and WHEREAS, the Dakota County Community Development Agency has requested federal fiscal year 2021 CDBG applications be submitted by January 15, 2021, based on allocation of funds approved in the Community Development Implementation Plan. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota that the following points be approved: 1. The Federal Fiscal Year 2021 CDBG application is approved for submission to the Dakota County Community Development Agency; 2. The City Administrator or Community Development Director for the City of Mendota Heights are authorized to execute the application and all agreements and documents relating to receiving and using the awarded CDBG funds; and 3. The Dakota County Community Development Agency is designated as the administrative entity to carry out the CDBG Home Rehabilitation Loans program on behalf of the City of Mendota Heights, subject to future Sub-Recipient Agreements that may be required for specific CDBG funded activities. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 12th day of January, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk APPLICATION FOR PROGRAM YEAR 2020 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS Application must be received by the Dakota County Community Development Agency NO LATER THAN JANUARY 1 5, 2021 For July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022 General Information Applicant Name: City of Mendota Heights DUNS #: 146-367-607 Contact Name: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director Applicant Address: 1101 Victoria Curve City, State, Zip: Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Phone: 651.255.1142 Email:timb@mendota-heights.com Proposed Activities Activity Funding Amount #1 Title: Housing Rehab Loans CDBG Request: $ $22,194.00 #2 Title: Click or tap here to enter text. CDBG Request: $ Click or tap here to enter text. #3 Title: Click or tap here to enter text. CDBG Request: $ Click or tap here to enter text. #4 Title: Click or tap here to enter text. CDBG Request: $ Click or tap here to enter text. #5 Title: Click or tap here to enter text. CDBG Request: $ Click or tap here to enter text. Total Request: $ 22,194.00 PLEASE NOTE: AT LEAST 50% of the proposed funding must qualify as a LOW/MOD benefit and NO MORE THAN 40% of the proposed funding can be for PUBLIC SERVICES, with the caveat that public services may not account for more than 15% of the County’s total funding. Because of this federal requirement, a municipality’s public service request may need to be decreased once all applications are submitted and reviewed by CDA staff. Please plan accordingly. Certification I certify that the information contained in this application is true and correct and that it contains no misrepresentations, falsifications, intentional omissions, or concealment of material facts. I further certify that no contracts have been awarded, funds committed, or construction begun on the proposed project(s), and that none will be made prior to notification from the Dakota County CDA based on HUD’s issuance of a Release of Funds Notice. Signature of Authorized Official Date Title of Authorized Official PLEASE ATTACH THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BODY SHOWING APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR CDBG FUNDS 1 Please complete the following Sections I-V for EACH proposed activity. (For example, if 3 activities are being proposed, there will be 3 sets of the following pages.) Activity # 1 Activity Title: Housing Rehabilitation Loans II. Activity Information Has this Activity received CDBG funding before? ☐ Yes ☐ No Check the eligible activity category of the proposed activity: (See attached definitions) Affordable Rental Housing ☐ Rehabilitation of Multi-Unit Residential ☐ Fair Housing Activities ☐ Energy Efficiency Improvements Public Services ☐ Senior Services ☐ Youth Services ☐ Transportation Services ☐ Operational Support Affordable Homeowner Housing ☐ Homeownership Assistance ☐ New (Re)Construction Homeowner Housing ☒ Rehabilitation/ Energy Efficiency Improvement of Single Unit Residential ☐ Fair Housing Activities Public Facilities ☐ Recreational Park Improvements ☐ Public Water/Sewer Improvements ☐ Street Improvements ☐ Sidewalks ☐ Assessment Abatement Homelessness ☐ Rapid Rehousing Assistance ☐ Homelessness Prevention ☐ Emergency Shelter Operations ☐ Addition of Permanent Supportive Housing Units ☐ Shelter Renovation/Construction Neighborhood Revitalization ☐ Acquisition of Real Property ☐ Clearance and Demolition ☐ Clean-up of Contaminated Site ☐ Address Water/Sanitation Hazards Economic Development ☐ Employment Training ☐ Economic Development Assistance ☐ Rehabilitation of Commercial/Industrial Buildings Planning and Administration ☐ Planning ☐ Administration I. Activity Title Describe the proposed activity in detail. Please be specific about purpose, location, number of people or households served, etc. Click or tap here to enter text. 2 Describe the activity schedule: Is this a continuation of a previously funded activity? ☒Yes ☐No Please note the start and end dates below for the activity. Proposed Activity Start Date: July 1, 2021 Proposed Activity Completion Date: June 30, 2022 CDBG funded projects/activities must meet one of the following program objectives. Check the objective for which the CDBG funds will be used. If you checked the Low/Mod Housing Benefit box, please answer the following: How many Low/Mod Households will benefit? 2 Households (Income eligibility must be verified by written documentation) Where will this activity occur? (Address of property, neighborhood, or citywide) To be determined by Dakota County CDA III. CDBG National Objective ☐ Low/Mod Area Benefit ☐ Low/Mod Limited Clientele Benefit ☒ Low/Mod Housing Benefit ☐ Low/Mod Jobs Benefit ☐ Slum/Blight Area Benefit ☐ Slum/Blight Spot Benefit ☐ Urgent Need (extremely rare; used only for emergencies): (Please explain) Click or tap here to enter text. If you checked the Low/Mod Area Benefit box, please answer the following: In what Census Tract/Block Group(s) do beneficiaries of your Activity live? (Please include map) Click or tap here to enter text. How many residents live in this area? Click or tap here to enter text. What is the percentage of low and moderate-income beneficiaries? Click or tap here to enter text.% How was this documented? ☐ HUD Data ☐ Survey (Please include a copy of survey) 3 If you checked the Low/Mod Limited Clientele Benefit box, please answer the following: How many Low/Mod People or Households will benefit? Number of People: Click or tap here to enter text. Number of Households: Click or tap here to enter text. (Please choose either People or Households for each project). How will income be verified? (check one of the boxes below) ☐ Income Verification Request Forms ☐ Eligibility Status for other Governmental Assistance program ☐ Self Certification (Must request source documentation of 20% of certifications and must inform beneficiary that all sources of income and assets must be included when calculating annual income) ☐ Presumed benefit (HUD presumes the following to be low and moderate-income: abused children, battered spouses, elderly persons (62+), severely disabled adults, homeless persons, persons living with AIDS, migrant farm workers) If you checked the Low/Mod Jobs Benefit box, please answer the following: To meet the requirements of the “Jobs” National Objective, the business being assisted must enter into an agreement showing commitment that at least 51% of jobs created or retained will be available to low/mod income persons. The business must also be prepared to provide a list of all jobs, detailed information about the jobs being created or retained, the selection and hiring process, and demographic information about the employees. Will this activity create or retain full time equivalencies (FTEs)? ☐ Create ☐ Retain For job(s) that are being retained, please provide evidence that the assisted business has issued a notice to affected employees or that the business has made a public announcement to that effect, OR an analysis of relevant financial records that shows the business is likely to cut back on employment in the near future without planned intervention. Will the job(s) created or retained require a special skill? ☐ Yes ☐ No What percent of permanent FTEs will be held by or available to low/mod income persons? Click or tap here to enter text. % If you checked the Slum/Blight Area or Slum/Blight Spot Benefit box, please answer the following: What are the boundaries of the slum/blight area or the address of the slum/blight spot? Click or tap here to enter text. (Please provide letter from building inspector or other documentation noting deficiencies and include photos) What deficiency will be corrected or the public improvement be? Click or tap here to enter text. If Slum/Blight Area, what percent of buildings are deteriorated? Click or tap here to enter text.% 4 IV. Proposed Objectives and Outcomes Indicate the proposed objective and outcome of the activity/project. Outcome #1 Availability/Accessibility Outcome #2 Affordability Outcome #3 Sustainability Objective #1 Suitable Living Environment ☒ Accessibility for the purpose of creating a suitable living environment ☒ Affordability for the purpose of creating a suitable living environment ☒ Sustainability for the purpose of creating a suitable living environment Objective #2 Decent Housing ☒ Accessibility for the purpose of providing decent housing ☒ Affordability for the purpose of providing decent housing ☒ Sustainability for the purpose of providing decent housing Objective #3 Economic Opportunity ☒ Accessibility for the purpose of creating economic opportunities ☒ Affordability for the purpose of creating economic opportunities ☒ Sustainability for the purpose of creating economic opportunities Indicate how the activity outcome will be measured and projected number of beneficiaries. ☐ People ☐ Households ☒ Housing Units 2 ☐ Public Facilities ☐ Jobs ☐ Businesses ☐ Organizations V. Project Budget Provide the total project cost and CDBG request. Total Project Cost: $ 22,194.00 Total CDBG Request: $ 22,194.00 CDBG Percent of Total Cost: Click or tap here to enter text.% Please list all funding sources including CDBG. Source of Funds Amount Committed Pending CDBG $ 22,194.00 ☐ ☐ Click or tap here to enter text. $ ☐ ☐ Click or tap here to enter text. $ ☐ ☐ Total: $ 22,194.00 ☐ ☐ 5 Please list all project/activity expenses, including CDBG. The following guidance may assist in determining project/activity costs. For acquisition/clearance, public facilities or improvements, slum/blight, assessment abatement, and similar: • Acquisition & Improvement Costs - Include purchase price, closing costs, site improvements, clearance of toxic contaminants, and other acquisition and improvement costs • Construction/Rehabilitation Costs - Include site improvements, construction (labor, materials, supplies), installation, permits and other construction/rehabilitation costs • Professional Fees and Personnel Costs - Include architectural, engineering and code inspection fees, surveys, appraisals, legal fees, hazardous materials surveys, project management, and other professional/personnel fees • Other Development Costs - Include relocation, financing costs, environmental reviews, environmental studies, and other development costs • Eligible Costs for Planning Projects - Include professional services, project management costs, and other planning costs For public services: • Operations Costs – Include cost of materials, supplies, facility rental, transportation cost, fees from vendors or subrecipients • Staff Costs – Include direct and indirect service costs, e.g. salary or hourly wages, benefits, vacation (cannot be accrued), flex leave. Please note, a CDBG subrecipient timesheet must be included with all reimbursement requests. * * * * * Please review each section for completeness. Each activity should have separate Sections I through V. Itemized Use of Funds/Expenses Costs CDBG Funds Requested Other Funding Sources Click or tap here to enter text. $ 22,194.00 $ 22,194.00 $ Click or tap here to enter text. $ $ $ Click or tap here to enter text. $ $ $ Click or tap here to enter text. $ $ $ Click or tap here to enter text. $ $ $ Total: $ 22,194.00 $ 22,194.00 $ 6 CDBG ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES DEFINITIONS The following are summary definitions of Community Development Block Grant Eligible Activities: Please Note: Although an activity may be deemed eligible for CDBG funding, it does not guarantee funding. The Community Development Needs for the CDBG Program in the Consolidated Plan sets forth the priority of needs and as such dictates which types of eligible activities may be funded in a given year. CDBG funds may NOT be used for costs attributable to a building used for the general conduct of government or used for political activities. Acquisition/Disposition: The use of CDBG funds to acquire real property, in whole or in part, by purchase, long-term lease, donation, or otherwise, for any public purpose. Real property to be acquired may include: land, air rights, easements, water rights, right-of-ways, buildings and other property improvements, or other interests in real property. Demolition/Clearance: Clearance, demolition, and removal of buildings and improvements including movement of structures to other sites. Economic Development Activities: Economic development activities may include, but are not limited to: (1) Construction by the grantee or subrecipient of a business incubator designed to provide inexpensive space and assistance to new firms to help them become viable businesses, (2) Loans to pay for the expansion of a factory or commercial business, and (3) Providing training needed by persons on welfare to enable them to qualify for jobs created by CDBG-assisted special economic development activities. The level of public benefit to be derived from the economic development activity must be appropriate given the amount of CDBG assistance. Rehabilitation: Rehabilitation related activities may include single-family rehabilitation, multi-family rehabilitation, energy efficiency improvements, public housing modernization, and rehabilitation of commercial properties. General Administration: CDBG funds may be used for the general administration costs incurred by a Subrecipient to administer their CDBG program. Administration costs directly associated with a CDBG activity should be part of the activity as project administration. Relocation: CDBG funds may be used for relocation payments and assistance to displaced persons, including individuals, families, businesses, non-profits, and farms, where required under section 570.606 of the regulations (pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Act). Public Facilities/Improvements: CDBG funds may be used by the grantee or other public or private nonprofit entities for the acquisition (including long term leases for periods of 15 years or more), construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation (including removal of architectural barriers to accessibility), or installation, of public improvements or facilities. Buildings for the general conduct of government cannot be acquired or improved with CDBG funds. This includes neighborhood facilities, firehouses, public schools, and libraries, as well as water and/or sewer treatment plants. The regulations further specify that facilities that are designed for use in providing shelter for persons having special needs are considered to be public facilities. Public Services: CDBG funds may be used to provide public services (including labor, supplies, and materials), provided that each of the following criteria is met: 1) The public service must be either a new service or a quantifiable increase in the level of service; and 2) The amount of CDBG funds obligated within a program year to support public service activities under this category may not exceed 40% of the City’s allocation and the total public services of all Subrecipients may not exceed 15% of the total grant awarded to Dakota County for that year. Planning: Includes studies, analysis, data gathering, preparation of plans, and identification of actions that will implement plans. The types of plans which may be paid for with CDBG funds include, but are not limited to: Comprehensive plans; Individual project plans; Community development plans, Capital improvement programs; Small area and neighborhood plans; Environmental and historic preservation studies; and Functional plans (such as plans for housing, land use, energy conservation, or economic development). Homeownership Assistance: Homeownership assistance activities may include financial assistance for down payments, closing costs or other part of the purchase process and counseling for pre-purchase, post-purchase or foreclosure prevention. DATE: January 12, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Amendment to the Families First Coronavirus Response Act Leave Policy INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to approve an extension of the leave provided for under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act Leave Policy. BACKGROUND The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) included the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act and the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act to assist employees and employers impacted by COVID-19. The FFCRA required that covered employers provide Emergency Paid Sick Leave and Public Health Emergency Leave under FMLA to eligible full and part-time employees. Leave provided for under the FFCRA went into effect on April 1, 2020 and expired on December 31, 2020. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, signed by the President on December 27, did not extend the mandatory paid leave provisions under the FFCRA or an eligible employee’s entitlement to FFCRA leave beyond December 31, 2020. As of January 1, 2021, covered employers are no longer legally required to provide FFCRA leave. RECOMMENDATION For City continuity of operations and to encourage employees to follow CDC and the Minnesota Department of Health quarantine and isolation guidelines relating to COVID-19 when needed, staff is recommending a voluntary extension of FFCRA leave. The voluntary extension is recommended through May 31, 2021. If the COVID-19 vaccine becomes readily available to the general public prior to May 31, the City Council can amend the voluntary extension of FFCRA leave to an earlier date. Attachments: FFCRA Leave Policy Draft (proposed amendments appear as underlined text) BUDGET IMPACT A voluntary extension of FFCRA leave does not increase the FFCRA leave available to an employee. An amendment to the City’s policy would only extend the deadline for use of the leave provided for under the existing policy. Actual cost of leave is included in the annual budget as employee wages. In order to recoup FFCRA leave expenses, private employers voluntarily choosing to extend leave provided under the FFCRA may be eligible for a payroll tax credit available until March 31, 2021. The tax credit, however, does not apply to government entities. ACTION REQUESTED If the City Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve an amendment to the City of Mendota Heights Families First Coronavirus Response Act Leave Policy to reflect an expiration date of May 31, 2021. City of Mendota Heights Personnel Code COVID- 19 Families First Coronavirus Response Act Leave Policy INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) requires government employers provide employees with paid sick leave and expanded family and medical leave for specified reasons related to COVID-19. In compliance with the requirements of the FFCRA, the City of Mendota Heights (the “City”), adopts the following policy for Emergency Paid Sick Leave and Emergency Family and Medical (Public Health Emergency) Leave effective April 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF LEAVE (AMENDED EFFECTIVE 01/01/2021) Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, covered employers are no longer mandated to provide leave under the FFCRA. To continue to ensure continuity of City operations, the City voluntarily extends the use of FFCRA leave by an eligible employee through May 31, 2021 for COVID eligible reasons. The voluntary extension of FFCRA leave does not increase the FFCRA leave available to an eligible employee. EMERGENCY PAID SICK LEAVE Employee Eligibility Full and part time employees of the City who have been employed for a minimum of one calendar day as of April 1, 2020 are eligible. An employee is eligible to take leave related to COVID-19, if the employee is unable to work or work remotely for the following reasons: 1. The employee is subject to a Federal, State, or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19. 2. The employee has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19. 3. The employee is experiencing symptoms of COVID- 19 and seeking a medical diagnosis. 4. The employee is caring for an individual who is subject to a Federal, State or local quarantine or isolation order or as advised to by health care provider. 5. The employee is caring for a son or daughter whose school or place of care has been closed, or the child care provider is unavailable, due to COVID-19 precautions. 6. The employee is experiencing any other substantially similar condition specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Labor. Page 2 Length of Leave Eligible employees will receive up to two weeks of Emergency Paid Sick Leave. Full-time employees qualify for up to 80 hours of leave. Part-time employees qualify for the average number of hours worked during a typical two-week period. The two-week period shall be determined by the City. An employee using Emergency Paid Sick Leave for qualifying reasons (1), (2), (3), (4) and (6) must take paid sick leave in full-day increments until either: 1) the full amount of leave is exhausted; or 2) there is no longer a qualifying reason for taking paid sick leave. Additionally, under these conditions an employee may qualify for Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave, which shall run concurrently with Emergency Paid Sick Leave, and all other regular FMLA policies and procedures shall apply. An employee using Emergency Paid Sick Leave for qualifying reason (5), may use the Emergency Paid Sick Leave intermittently or on a reduced schedule with the approval of the employee’s Department Head and Assistant City Administrator. Additionally, under this condition an employee may qualify for leave under the Public Health Emergency Leave. An employee may qualify for leave under two or more qualifying reasons, but an employee is only eligible for a maximum of 80 hours of Emergency Paid Sick Leave. An employee is not required to use other available paid leave before using Emergency Paid Sick Leave. Pay Benefits Under qualifying reasons (1), (2), and (3) an employee is paid 100% of their regular rate of pay up to $511 per day ($5,110 in total). Under qualifying reasons (4), (5), and (6) an employee is paid two-thirds of their regular rate of pay, up to $200 per day ($2,000 in total). Under these qualifying reasons, an employee may elect to supplement their pay with accrued vacation, extended disability, personal leave, or comp time, not to exceed 100% of their weekly gross salary. Emergency Paid Sick Leave Limits Emergency paid sick leave will expire on December 31, 2020 May 31, 2021. This leave will not carry forward and will not be paid to an employee upon separation of employment or at the end of the year use period. PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY LEAVE (EMERGENCY FMLA) Public Health Emergency Leave is a temporary expansion of the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and provides pay and benefit protection to an employee who is unable to work or work remotely due to caring for a son or daughter whose school or place of care has been closed, or whose child care provider is unavailable due a public health emergency. Employee Eligibility All current employees of the City who have been employed for a minimum of 30 calendar days as of April 1, 2020 are eligible for benefits under this section. Page 3 Length of Leave Public Health Emergency Leave provides for a combination of up to 12 weeks of unpaid and paid leave. Leave taken under this policy shall count towards an employee’s total allotment of leave, for any qualifying reason, in a 12-month period under FMLA. Leave may be used intermittently or on a reduced schedule with the approval of the employee’s Department Director and the Assistant City Administrator. Pay Benefits The first 10 days of Public Health Emergency Leave are unpaid. An employee may elect to use paid leave (e.g. vacation leave, personal leave, extended disability or comp time) during the 10-day unpaid period, or the 10 days may be paid using Emergency Paid Sick Leave, if taken for a qualifying reason. After the initial 10 days, an employee may be entitled to up to 10 weeks of job protected leave at two- thirds their regular rate of pay up to $200 per day ($12,000 in the aggregate over a 12-week period— two weeks of paid emergency sick leave followed by up to 10 weeks of paid expanded family and medical leave). An employee may elect to supplement their pay with accrued vacation, personal leave, extended disability, and comp time, not to exceed 100 percent of their weekly gross salary. OTHER RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER FFCRA LEAVE Notifying the City of the Need for FFCRA Leave An employee should make their request for leave known as soon as possible, by notifying their immediate supervisor or Human Resources and filling out a request from. If an employee is incapacitated, the employee’s representative should give verbal notice as soon as possible. Calling in “sick” does not qualify as adequate notice. An employee must provide sufficient information regarding the reason for an absence for the City to know that protection and benefits may exist under this policy. Generally, the City will require certification to verify the qualifying reason for the leave. An employee should be prepared to provide documentation such as a copy of any quarantine or isolation order, or written note by a health care provider advising self-quarantine, or a notice of closure of school or childcare provider. It is understood that requesting healthcare provider documentation may place additional burden on the medical community; therefore, if an employee is unable to obtain documentation, at a minimum, the name, address, and phone number of the employee’s treating healthcare provider must be provided. The City of Mendota Heights reserves the right to request additional documentation completed by a healthcare provider or childcare provider in situations where there is reason to believe an employee has fraudulently obtained leave or paid benefits. Rights Upon Return from FFCRA Leave An employee who takes FFCRA leave may be reinstated to the same job or an equivalent position upon completion of the leave. If an individual has exhausted all leave under this policy and is still unable to return to work, the situation will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine what rights and protections might exist. Page 4 The law provides that an employee has no greater rights upon return from leave than the individual would have had if they had continued to work. Therefore, an employee may be affected by a layoff, reorganization, furlough, change in job duties, or other change in employment if the action would have occurred had the employee remained actively at work. Adopted: April 21, 2020 Amended: January 12, 2021 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: January 12, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-07 Approving Joint Powers Agreement for Waste Abatement Community Funding with Dakota County COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve Resolution 2021-07, a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) for Waste Abatement Community Funding with Dakota County. BACKGROUND As part of the 2021 Waste Abatement Community Funding program through Dakota County, the following items are attached for review: 1. Resolution 2021-07 2. Joint Powers Agreement 3. 2021 Community Funding Application We are again requesting the maximum allowable funding of $24,000 in 2021. There is a new format for 2021 with West St. Paul acting as the fiscal agent for the joint cities of South St. Paul, Mendota Heights, Sunfish Lake, and Lilydale. The total requested funding for the group is $97,600. DISCUSSION Work plan goals for 2021 include the following: 1. Attendance at local solid waste group meetings. 2. Monthly recycling tips for all City employees to promote waste reduction in all facilities. 3. Newsletter articles in the Heights Highlights regarding recycling options. 4. Spring Clean-Up event. 5. Social media postings and information regarding recycling opportunities to residents. 6. Organics and recycling collection at the Parks Celebration. 7. Holiday lights and pumpkin recycling collection at City Hall. 8. Paper shred events The majority of the budget is for administrative costs to carry out the work plan. Other expenditures include the spring clean-up, printing, and postage. BUDGET IMPACT The 2021 proposed budget includes funding for recycling events as identified in the attached materials. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council approve the resolution for the Waste Abatement Funding program. ACTION REQUIRED Staff recommends that the city council pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 2021-07, “RESOLUTION APPROVING THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF DAKOTA AND THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOR 2021 WASTE ABATEMENT COMMUNITY FUNDING”. This action requires a simple majority vote. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-07 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF DAKOTA AND THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOR 2021 WASTE ABATEMENT COMMUNITY FUNDING WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Legislature has mandated that communities in the metropolitan area implement recycling programs in order to reduce the volume of waste being taken for burial in landfills; and WHEREAS, Dakota County has adopted a solid waste master plan which sets goals and targets for the accomplishment of solid waste recycling in each community in the county; and WHEREAS, Dakota County provides the local communities with grant funding for implementation and maintenance of local community recycling programs; and WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has participated faithfully and successfully in the Community Landfill Abatement Program from 1989 to 2020 and will continue to participate in 2021. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights does hereby approve the Joint Powers Agreement for 2021 Waste Abatement Community Funding. Adopted by the Mendota Heights City Council this 12th day of January, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ATTEST: ______________________________ Stephanie Levine, Mayor _____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Dakota County Contract #C0033574  2021 Grant Agreement  Page | 1 of 9    COMMUNITY WASTE ABATEMENT 2021 GRANT AGREEMENT This Community Waste Abatement Grant Agreement (Agreement) is made and entered into by and between the County of Dakota, acting through its Environmental Resources Department (County) and City of West St. Paul, acting as the fiscal agent for the Cities of South St. Paul, Mendota Heights, Sunfish Lake, and Lilydale (Grantee). WHEREAS, Metropolitan counties are responsible for waste management policy and programs (Minn. Stat. §115A.551); and WHEREAS, Dakota County Solid Waste Ordinance 110 requires each municipality in the County to have a solid waste abatement program that is consistent with the Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan (Master Plan); and WHEREAS; the Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan (Master Plan) governs all solid waste management in the County (Minn. Stat. § 115A.46); and WHEREAS, municipalities may not develop or implement a solid waste management activity that is inconsistent with the Master Plan (Minn. Stat. § 115A.46); and WHEREAS, the Master Plan supports performance-based funding for municipalities to develop and implement waste abatement programs, education, and outreach; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 19-577 (June 18, 2019), the Dakota County Board of Commissioners approved the Community Waste Abatement Grant Program; and WHEREAS, funding amounts are established by the County Board each year as part of the Environmental Resources Department (Department) budget; and WHEREAS, the Grantee agrees to perform all activities described in this Agreement and Dakota County Waste Abatement Community Grant Program Exhibits 1 (Guidelines) and 2 (Application) (collectively referred to as the “Exhibits”) to the satisfaction of the County. NOW THEREFORE, in reliance on the above statements and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained in this Agreement, the County and the Grantee agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide grant funding to eligible municipalities to implement solid waste abatement activities as described in this Agreement and the Exhibits. 2. ELIGIBILITY. Eligible municipalities include Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan, Farmington, Hastings, Inver Grove Heights, Lakeville, Lilydale, Mendota, Mendota Heights, Rosemount, South St. Paul, Sunfish Lake and West St. Paul. 3. PARTIES. The parties to this Agreement are the County and Grantee, collectively referred to as the “parties”. 4. TERM. Notwithstanding the dates of signatures of the parties to this Agreement, this Agreement shall commence on January 1, 2021 and terminate December 31, 2021, unless earlier terminated by law or according to the provisions of this Agreement. A. The activities identified in Exhibit 2 must be completed between January 1, 2021 and December 31, 2021. B. To obtain reimbursement for the activities identified in Exhibit 2, and completed between January 1, 2021 and December 31, 2021, a reimbursement request must be submitted on or before March 15, 2022. 5. GRANTEE OBLIGATIONS. The Grantee shall: A. Develop, implement, and operate a local comprehensive landfill abatement program that complies with the Master Plan, Dakota County Solid Waste Ordinance 110, this Agreement, and the Exhibits. B. Fulfill all responsibilities for Base and, if applicable, for Supplemental Funding as outlined in Exhibit 1. C. Report time, expense, and performance pursuant to responsibilities set forth in this Agreement using County report forms (Exhibit 2) and additional agreed-upon reporting tools provided by the County Liaison. 6. ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE EXPENSES. Grantee may use allocated funds only on eligible items as identified in Exhibit 1 and completed within the calendar year of this Agreement. Other waste abatement expenses may be eligible with prior written approval from the County Liaison. Dakota County Contract #C0033574  2021 Grant Agreement  Page | 2 of 9    7. FUNDING AMOUNT. Grantees receive performance-based funding in part from a pass-through grant from the State. Funding amounts are contingent upon available State and County funds and reflect the funding levels approved by the County Board as part of the annual budget. Base Funding is allocated for administration, residential communications, municipal facilities best management verification and employee education, and special collections. Optional Supplemental Funding is allocated for multifamily recycling, municipal facilities/parks infrastructure or reuse, in-person education, event recycling/organics, and to meet funding gaps in eligible grant categories. The allocated funding for the Grantee, or the fiscal agent of a legal entity acting on its behalf, shall be in the total amount not to exceed $96,827.70, as set forth in Exhibit 2. 8. FUNDING MATCH. Grantees shall provide a 25% match of the total reimbursed grant funding amount through a cash match, in-kind contribution, or combination thereof, to pay for any new or ongoing activities that are instituted by the grant (i.e., any eligible expenses, whether new or ongoing). 9. FUNDING SOURCE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. Provide funding source credit on all print materials, written as: Partially funded by Dakota County and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 10. RECORDS. The Grantee shall maintain financial and other records and accounts in accordance with requirements of the County and the State of Minnesota. The Grantee shall manage funds in a dedicated account, maintain strict accountability of all funds and maintain records of all receipts and disbursements. Such records and accounts shall be maintained in a form which will permit the tracing of funds and program income to final expenditure. All records and accounts shall be retained as provided by law, but in no event for a period of less than five years from the last receipt of payment from the County pursuant to this Agreement. 11. PERFORMANCE REPORTING AND REIMBURSEMENT. Grantees shall report performance of responsibilities set forth in this Agreement and the Exhibits on a report form provided by the County. Grantees may request reimbursement for eligible expenses, less revenues or other funds received, incurred in connection with the performance of activities in accordance with this Agreement and the Exhibits on a reimbursement form provided by the County. Reimbursement requests must be submitted to the County Liaison by July 15 of the grant calendar year and by January 15 following the grant calendar year. The Grantee must certify that the requested reimbursements are accurate, appropriate and eligible in accordance with this Agreement, that the Grantee has submitted complete documentation of the actual expenditures for which reimbursement is sought, and that such expenditures have not been otherwise reimbursed. Reimbursement requests must be supported by documentation such as vendor invoices, receipts, or detailed financial reports produced using municipal accounting software, itemizing all expenses related to the grant, including salary and benefits. Any reimbursement request for multiple municipalities must separately itemize the request for reimbursement for each individual municipality. Reimbursement request payment will not be made for activities with incomplete documentation. Complete reimbursement requests are reviewed by the County Liaison. Payment for approved reimbursement requests will be made to the Grantee within 30 calendar days of approved reimbursement request submissions. No reimbursements will be made for expenditures incurred prior to the effective date of this Agreement or for reimbursement requests received after February 15 following the grant calendar year. 12. FAILURE TO PERFORM. Upon review of each Grantee report, the County Liaison will notify the Grantee in writing of any unsatisfactory performance. Reimbursements will be authorized only for activities performed to the satisfaction of the County within the terms of this Agreement. 13. AMENDMENTS. The Dakota County Environmental Resources Director (Director) shall have the authority to approve modifications to the Funding Amount activities as requested by the Grantee, as long as the amount payable does not exceed the amount allocated in Section 7 and so long as the proposed modifications are consistent with the Agreement and Exhibits. The County Liaison shall have the authority to approve modifications to the Application activities and related expenses within a funding category as requested by the Grantee, so long as the proposed modifications are consistent with the Agreement and Exhibits. 14. PROPERTY. Upon termination of this Agreement or unless otherwise specified, any eligible infrastructure purchased by the Grantee or by the County and provided to the Grantee to fulfill Grant obligations shall be the sole property of the Grantee. Dakota County Contract #C0033574  2021 Grant Agreement  Page | 3 of 9    15. INDEMNIFICATION. Each party to this Agreement shall be liable for the acts of its officers, employees or agents and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party, its officers, employees or agents. The provisions of the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 466 and other applicable laws govern liability of the County and Grantee. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 16. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES: The following named persons are designated as the Authorized Representatives of the Parties for purposes of this Agreement. These persons have authority to bind the party they represent and to consent to modifications, except that the Authorized Representatives shall have only the authority specifically granted by their respective governing boards. The parties shall provide written notification to each other of any change to the Authorized Representative. Notice required to be provided pursuant this Agreement shall be provided to the following named persons and addresses unless otherwise stated in this Agreement, or in a modification of this Agreement. TO THE COUNTY TO THE GRANTEE Georg T. Fischer, or successor, Director Dave Napier, or successor, Mayor Environmental Resources Department James Francis, or successor, Mayor 14955 Galaxie Avenue Apple Valley, MN 55124 Neil Garlock, or successor, Mayor Dan O'Leary, or successor, Mayor Warren Peterson, or successor, Mayor 17. LIAISONS. To assist the parties in the day-to-day performance of this Agreement, to ensure compliance, and provide ongoing consultation, a liaison shall be designated by the County and the Grantee. The County and the Grantee shall keep each other continually informed, in writing, of any change in the designated liaison. At the time of execution of this Agreement, the following persons are the designated liaisons: COUNTY LIAISON GRANTEE LIAISON Gena Gerard Cassandra Johnson Environmental Specialist Recycling Coordinator 952-891-7021 651-552-4118 gena.gerard@co.dakota.mn.us cjohnson@wspmn.gov 18. TERMINATION, GENERAL. Either party may terminate this Agreement for cause by giving seven days’ written notice or without cause by giving thirty (30) days’ written notice, of its intent to terminate, to the other party. Such notice to terminate for cause shall specify the circumstances warranting termination of the Agreement. Cause shall mean a material breach of this Agreement and any supplemental agreements or amendments thereto. Notice of Termination shall be made by certified mail or personal delivery to the Authorized Representative of the other party. In addition, notification to the County or the Grantee regarding termination of this Agreement by the other party shall be provided to the Office of the Dakota County Attorney, Civil Division, 1560 Highway 55, Hastings, MN 55033. Termination of this Agreement shall not discharge any liability, responsibility or right of any party, which arises from the performance of or failure to adequately perform the terms of this Agreement prior to the effective date of termination. 19. TERMINATION BY COUNTY FOR LACK OF FUNDING. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, the County may immediately terminate this Agreement if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota Legislature, Minnesota Agencies, or other funding source, or if its funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow payment of the amounts due under this Agreement. Written notice of termination sent by the County to the Grantee by email or facsimile is sufficient notice under this section. The County is not obligated to pay for any services that are provided after written notice of termination for lack of funding. The County will not be assessed any penalty or damages if the Agreement is terminated due to lack of funding. 20. USE OF CONTRACTORS. The Grantee may engage contractors to perform activities funded pursuant to this Agreement. However, the Grantee retains primary responsibility to the County for performance of the activities and the use of such contractors does not relieve the Grantee from any of its obligations under this Agreement. If the Grantee engages any contractors to perform any part of the activities, the Grantee agrees that the contract for such services shall include the following provisions: A. The contractor must maintain all records and provide all reporting as required by this Agreement. Dakota County Contract #C0033574  2021 Grant Agreement  Page | 4 of 9    B. The contractor must defend, indemnify, and hold harmless and save the County from all claims, suits, demands, damages, judgments, costs, interest, and expenses arising out of or by reason of the performance of the contracted work, caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission of the contractor, including negligent acts or omissions of its employees, subcontractors, or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable. C. The contractor must provide and maintain insurance through the term of this Agreement in amounts and types of coverage as set forth in the Insurance Terms, which is attached and incorporated as Exhibit 3, and provide to the County, prior to commencement of the contracted work, a certificate of insurance evidencing such insurance coverage. D. The contractor must be an independent contractor for the purposes of completing the contracted work. E. The contractor must acknowledge that the contract between the Grantee and the contractor does not create any contractual relationship between County and the contractor. F. The contractor shall perform and complete the activities in full compliance with this Agreement and all applicable laws, statutes, rules, ordinances, and regulations issued by any federal, state, or local political subdivisions having jurisdiction over the activities. G. The contractor must use County toolkits (i.e., text, content, images) and follow the County’s Waste Abatement Education and Outreach Style Guide to provide standardized messaging. 21. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS/STANDARDS. The County and Grantee agree to abide by all federal, state or local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations now in effect or hereafter adopted pertaining to this Agreement or to the facilities, programs and staff for which either party is responsible, including but not limited to Minn. Stat. § 115A, which requires cities to collect recyclable materials at all facilities under their control, wherever trash is collected, and to transfer the recyclable materials to a recycler. 22. EXCUSED DEFAULT – FORCE MAJEURE. Neither party shall be liable to the other party for any loss or damage resulting from a delay or failure to perform due to unforeseeable acts or events outside the defaulting party's reasonable control, providing the defaulting party gives notice to the other party as soon as possible. Acts and events may include acts of God, acts of terrorism, war, fire, flood, epidemic, acts of civil or military authority, and natural disasters. 23. CONTRACT RIGHTS CUMULATIVE NOT EXCLUSIVE. A. In General. All remedies available to either party for breach of this Agreement are cumulative and may be exercised concurrently or separately, and the exercise of any one remedy shall not be deemed an election of such remedy to the exclusion of other remedies. The rights and remedies provided in this Agreement are not exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law. B. Waiver. Any waiver is only valid when reduced to writing, specifically identified as a waiver, and signed by the waiving party’s Authorized Representative. A waiver is not an amendment to the Contract. The County’s failure to enforce any provision of this Contract does not waive the provision or the County’s right to enforce it. 24. RECORDS RETENTION AND AUDITS. Each party’s bonds, records, documents, papers, accounting procedures and practices, and other records relevant to this Agreement are subject to the examination, duplication, transcription and audit by the other party, the Legislative Auditor or State Auditor under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 5. If any funds provided under this Agreement use federal funds these records are also subject to review by the Comptroller General of the United States and his or her approved representative. Following termination of this Agreement, the parties must keep these records for at least six years or longer if any audit-in-progress needs a longer retention time. 25. MODIFICATIONS. Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing and signed by the authorized representatives of the County and Grantee. 26. ASSIGNMENT. Neither party may assign any of its rights under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party. Consent under this section may be subject to conditions. 27. GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES. For purposes of this Agreement, all data on individuals collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated shall be administered consistent with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13. 28. MINNESOTA LAW TO GOVERN. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the substantive and procedural laws of the State of Minnesota, without giving effect to the principles of conflict of laws. All proceedings related to this Agreement shall be venued in Dakota County, Minnesota or U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. Dakota County Contract #C0033574  2021 Grant Agreement  Page | 5 of 9    29. MERGER. This Agreement is the final expression of the agreement of the parties and the complete and exclusive statement of the terms agreed upon and shall supersede all prior negotiations, understandings, or agreements. There are no representations, warranties, or provisions, either oral or written, not contained herein. 30. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed severable. If any part of this Agreement is rendered void, invalid, or unenforceable, such rendering shall not affect the validity and enforceability of the remainder of this Agreement unless the part or parts that are void, invalid or otherwise unenforceable shall substantially impair the value of the entire Agreement with respect to either party. 31. ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES. Each party agrees that the electronic signatures of the parties included in this Contract are intended to authenticate this writing and to have the same force and effect as wet ink signatures. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which so executed and delivered counterpart is original, and such counterparts, together, shall constitute the same instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date(s) indicated below. FOR DAKOTA COUNTY (I represent and warrant that I am authorized to execute this contract on behalf of Dakota County.) By: _____________________________________ Georg T. Fischer, Director Environmental Resources Department Date of signature:__________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ Helen R. Brosnahan 12/23/20 Assistant County Attorney/Date KS-20-212-7 Dakota County Contract #C0033574 County Board Res. No. 19-577 CITY OF WEST ST. PAUL (I represent and warrant that I am authorized by law to execute this contract and legally bind the Grantee.) By: _____________________________________ Signature line Printed Name:_______________________ Title: ______________________________ Telephone:_________________________ Date of signature:_______________________ Attest: __________________________________ Title: ___________________________________ Date: ___________________________________ Dakota County Contract #C0033574  2021 Grant Agreement  Page | 7 of 9    CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS (I represent and warrant that I am authorized by law to execute this contract and legally bind the Grantee.) By: _____________________________________ Signature line Printed Name:_______________________ Title: ______________________________ Telephone:_________________________ Date of signature:_______________________ Attest: __________________________________ Title: ___________________________________ Date: ___________________________________ Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: January 12, 2021 TO: Mayor Levine and City Council; City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Renewal of Contractor Agreement for Building Official Services – Year 2021 Introduction The Council is asked to renew an agreement with A to Z Home Inspection, LLC (Michael Andrejka) for Building Official and inspections services for 2021. Background The City of Mendota Heights is required to have a designated Building Official. For the past 7 years, the City has contracted with Mike Andrejka, who serves as the city’s designated Building Official. Mr. Andrejka is an experienced and certified building inspector and has significant experience in Dakota County in monitoring and inspecting construction. Mike has worked as a contracted inspector with other companies, and has served as building inspectors for Apple Valley, Inver Grove Heights, Saint Louis Park, Minneapolis and Bloomington. In addition, Mr. Andrejka has been a home renovation contractor. Staff is very pleased with his professionalism, knowledge, level of work and service to the community. Budget Impact Mr. Andrejka is currently paid $72/hour under the 2020 contract; and provides an average of 25-30 hours per week for Mendota Heights. His compensation does not include mileage, holiday, vacation, or sick- leave. This fee is at or near the average rate of other [competing] inspection companies. This 2021 contract provides a new $75/hour rate, which reflects an approximate 3% cost of living increase, similar to what city staff received in 2021. The updated contract document is attached and has been reviewed by the city’s insurance risk advisors and the Human Resources Director for content. The contract had also been previously reviewed by the former City Attorney. The Building Official budget has an amount included for approximately 25 hours per week at $75/hour. If the average approaches 30 hours per week, the amount paid may be greater than budgeted. Even if the average is closer to 30 hours a week, it is likely the amount budgeted by revenues generated from building permit and plan review fees will be greater or adequate to cover any increased costs. Recommendation Staff recommends Council approve the attached contract with A to Z Home Inspection, LLC for year 2021. If Council agrees with the terms and compensation rate of this contract, please make a motion approving the attached contract. This action requires a simple majority vote. A-Z Building Official Contract-2021 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT Building Official Services Contract between A to Z Home Inspection (Michael Andrejka – Building Official Contractor) and the City of Mendota Heights - 2021 This Independent Contractor Agreement – Building Official Services Contract (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into as of this ____ day of ___________________, 2021 by and between Mike Andrejka, of A to Z Home Inspection, LLC hereafter referred to as “Contractor”, and the City of Mendota Heights, a Minnesota municipal corporation and political subdivision, hereafter referred to as “City”. This Agreement shall be deemed in effect immediately upon adoption by the Mendota Heights City Council. WHEREAS, the City regulates the construction, reconstruction, repair, remodel, alteration, and demolition of structures as defined by the Minnesota State Building Code, hereafter referred to as the “Code”; and WHEREAS, under Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3, Paragraph B of the City Code of the City of Mendota Heights (the “City Ordinance”), the “code enforcement officer” appointed by the City Council, specifically known as the “Building Official” shall have the responsibility for enforcing and administering the Code; and WHEREAS, the City requires the Building Official to administer and enforce the Code within the incorporated limits of the City and within the exterritorial limits as permitted by Minnesota Statutes §326B.121; and WHEREAS, Contractor and/or their agents is certified and qualified to administer and enforce the provisions and regulations set forth by the Code; and WHEREAS, the City desires to utilize Contractor’s services as an independent contractor in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, Contractor desires to provide these services to the City as an independent contractor and the City desires to utilize Contractor’s services for the purposes described in this Agreement. THEREFORE, for mutual consideration the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. During the term of this Agreement, as the City Council appointed ‘designated Building Official’ for the City, Contractor agrees to administer and enforce the provisions of the Code and other related duties as directed by the City Council or City staff. All parties understand that as the ‘designated Building Official”, Contractor is obligated to perform their duties and responsibilities to the best of their abilities under the laws of the Code. If an unresolvable conflict arises between the request of the City Council or City staff and the legal duties required by the Code, the Code shall dictate the actions of the Building Official. Administration and enforcement of the Code shall include the following duties: A-Z Building Official Contract-2021 a. Facilitate the issuance of Building, Plumbing, Mechanical, and other designated Permits for the City; b. perform plan review of construction documents and plans to ensure compliance with the Code; c. Perform required inspections and review specialized inspection reports as required by the Code or as deemed necessary by the Building Official; d. Perform investigations, inspections, and prepare reports and letters sent on behalf of the City Building Inspection Department; e. Attend meetings and submit reports as deemed necessary and pertinent by the City Council. This would include, at a minimum, a monthly Building Activity Report that summarizes the month's building permit activity. Permits and reviews for the following are excluded from this Agreement and are the responsibility of others: Minnesota Fire Code; Fire Suppression Systems; Minnesota Electrical Code; Minnesota Elevator Code; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) permits; and Subsurface Sewage Treatment System (SSTS) regulations. 2. The City agrees to provide Contractor with access to pertinent information, records, systems and data, as deemed necessary to perform all duties of this Agreement. 3. Contractor shall provide all tools, transportation, and communication devices deemed necessary to perform the duties of this Agreement. 4. The City will provide Contractor with a work station, city phone (land-line) with voice mail account, and a desktop computer with e-mail account. Additionally, Contractor will be provided access to office equipment (copier, scanner, fax, etc.) and supplies for use in performance of City Building Official duties, along with City business cards and a City photo identification card. 5. Contractor shall perform the duties of this Agreement at such locations and at such times as they deem appropriate to diligently, reasonably, and in good faith execute the terms of this Agreement. It is estimated that the work required to fulfill the terms of the Agreement will be approximately 30 hours per week on average. 6. Contractor shall provide the City with access to any books, documents, papers, and records which are directly related to the duties of this Agreement, for the purpose of performing an audit, examination or review of such documents. This obligation to provide the City access to such books, documents, papers, and records shall begin as of the date of this Agreement and shall extend up to three years after the termination of this Agreement, or as otherwise required by applicable record retention statutes and regulations in effect at the time of the termination. 7. All plans, diagrams, reports, and documents created in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall become the property of the City. Such use and retention by the City shall not relieve any liability on the part of Contractor. A-Z Building Official Contract-2021 8. Contractor shall comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (the “Act”), and all information supplied by Contractor to City is subject to the Act. Contractor acknowledges and agrees that the City shall be entitled to disclose data related to this Agreement as required by the Act and other applicable law. Such information shall become public data unless it falls into one of the exceptions of the Act. Contractor shall notify the City of any data that they believe should be classified as non-public data pursuant to the Act. 9. The laws of the State of Minnesota shall control this Agreement. Venue for all legal proceedings arising out of this Agreement or its breach shall be in Dakota County, Minnesota. 10. This Agreement, in conjunction with City Ordinance Title 9, contains the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the matters contained herein, and supersedes all other written and oral agreements between the parties with respect to such matters. 11. This Agreement is binding only when signed by both parties. Any modifications or amendments must be in writing and signed by both parties, and in the case of the City, approved by action of the City Council. 12. If any provision or provision of this Agreement shall be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 13. If a contract dispute regarding the terms of this Agreement arises, the prevailing party shall be entitled to collect its attorney’s fees and related costs. 14. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, any one of which shall be deemed to be an original, but such counterparts when taken together, shall constitute but one agreement. 15. Contractor represents and warrants that no member, official officer, nor employee of the City has or shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof. 16. This Agreement does not create a partnership relationship between Contractor and the City. Contractor does not have the authority to enter into contracts on the City’s behalf. 17. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to create an employer-employee relationship between the City and Contractor. At all times, Contractor shall act as an independent contractor and shall exercise independent supervision and control over the means and manner by which Contractor performs the services and duties under this Agreement. Contractor shall be responsible for the performance and completion of the services under this Agreement and shall be solely responsible for the setting of work hours and schedules necessary to complete the services set forth herein. The City does not provide training or instruction for Contractor, or financially reimburse Contractor for the same, without express written consent and approval by City Council. The services under this Agreement shall be performed at the locations selected by Contractor; A-Z Building Official Contract-2021 however, the City will provide a work station location at which the services under this Agreement can be administered and performed. Consistent with the relationship between the parties to this Agreement, the City will not be obligated to carry or provide for Contractor workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, health insurance, or any other benefits or prerequisites that the City accords to any of its employees; nor will the City withhold state or federal taxes on the fees paid to Contractor. Contractor agrees to supply its tax identification number or employer identification number from the Internal Revenue Service and, if applicable, Contractor’s state taxpayer identification number, and to comply with all tax laws applicable to the operation of a business such as Contractor’s, including but not limited to reporting of all gross receipts therefrom as income from the operation of the business, the payment of all taxes, compliance with all employment tax requirements from withholding on any employees hired by Contractor, and compliance with state employment workers’ compensation laws. Contractor acknowledges that payments by the City to Contractor will be subject to information reporting requirements (and backup withholding requirements, if and as applicable), as the same are imposed by applicable law. As an independent contractor, Contractor shall not receive any pension or fringe benefits, including but not limited to Public Employee’s Retirement Association (PERA) contributions, vacation, or sick/personal leave, disability, health, medical, or dental insurance, holiday pay or other benefits. The City does not provide equipment, supplies, tools, or materials necessary to perform the services under this Agreement except for those explicitly stated herein. The City shall provide to Contractor an IRS Form 1099 with respect to consideration paid to Contractor for services under this Agreement. Contractor is responsible to pay all state and federal taxes on the amounts they receive from the City. 18. Contractor shall provide evidence to the City of workers compensation or self-insurance evidence of $2,000,000 per occurrence in professional liability, $2,000,000 per occurrence in general liability, and personal automobile insurance. The City should be named as an additional insured on the general liability and automobile policies. 19. Contractor shall not enter into subcontracts for any of the services to be provided under this Agreement without prior knowledge and approval of the City. 20. The City places a priority on customer service; as such, Contractor agrees to respond to e-mail and voice mails as promptly as possible. In addition, plan reviews are to be completed in an expedient manner. As a rule-of-thumb, plan reviews (if subject application is deemed complete) should be completed and returned to the applicant within two (2) weeks of receipt for residential plans and within three (3) weeks of receipt for commercial plans. 21. Contractor and the City agree to abide to the obligations and conditions stipulated by Minnesota Rules, Section 1300.0110, Subp. 9, LIABILITY, and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 326B.121 and 326B.133, as well as all obligations and conditions that directly relate to the “Building Official” within the Code. 22. For the services provided by Contractor under this Agreement, the City agrees to make payments as set forth below: A-Z Building Official Contract-2021 a. As payment for Building Official services provided under this Agreement, Contractor shall receive from the City the hourly compensation of: $75.00. b. All work shall be billed on a bi-weekly basis and shall be due and payable from the City within thirty (30) days of receipt of such bill. c. Invoicing of this compensation shall be divided by Contractor and shown on the invoice divided into the following categories: • Building Permit Inspection • Plan Review • Meetings/Reports Monthly reports to the City Council, whether oral or written, and attendance at City Council meetings shall be considered on a case-by-case basis and may be billable to the City or directly to the permit applicant as determined by City staff. 23. Neither party shall assign this Agreement or any interest arising herein without consent of the other party. 24. The provisions of this Agreement shall become effective retroactive to January 1, 2021. This Agreement may be terminated by either party with or without cause upon thirty (30) days written notice. Such termination shall not affect the rights and obligations of the parties accrued prior to the termination date. Sections 6 and 18 shall survive the termination of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year written into this contract document. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA ___________________________________________ _____________________ Stephanie Levine, Mayor Date ATTEST: ___________________________________________ _____________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Date: A TO Z HOME INSPECTIONS, LLC ___________________________________________ _____________________ Mike Andrejka Date REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: January 12, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Final Payment and Acceptance of the Town Center/Village Retaining Walls COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve Resolution 2021-08, to accept work and approve the final payment for project #201810. The contract work for the Town Center/Village Retaining Wall project has been completed, inspected, and approved. The project is ready for final payment. This will start the one-year guarantee period. All required paperwork needed before the final payment can be issued has been submitted. BACKGROUND The City Council awarded the contract to Rosti Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. at their September 3, 2019, City Council meeting for their low bid of $324,883.00. DISCUSSION The final payment for this contract is $14,799.20. The total cost for this project was $295,984.00 which is $28,899.00 under the original contract amount. BUDGET IMPACT There are sufficient funds to cover the final payment. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve the attached Resolution No. 2021-08 “RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR PROJECT #201810, RETAINING WALL PROJECT” ACTION REQUIRED If Council concurs with the staff recommendation, they should pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 2021-08 “RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR PROJECT #201810 – RETAINING WALL PROJECT”, by simple majority vote. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2021-08 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR PROJECT #201810 –RETAINING WALL PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract with the City of Mendota Heights on September 3, 2019, with Rosti Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc, of Jordan, MN, has satisfactorily completed the improvements for the Town Center Retaining Wall Project #201810, in accordance with such contract. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the work completed under said contract is hereby accepted and approved; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby directed to issue a proper order for the final payment on such contract in the amount of $14,799.20, taking the contractor’s receipt in full. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 12th day of January 2021. ATTEST CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BY____________________________ BY___________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Stephanie Levine, Mayor CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING DECEMBER 8, 2020 The December meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on Tuesday, December 8, 2020, at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. 1. Call to Order – Chair Steve Goldade called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call – The following Commissioners were present: Chair Steve Goldade, Commissioners: Patrick Cotter, Bob Klepperich, Stephanie Meyer, and Amy Smith; absent: Commissioner Pat Hinderscheid and Dan Sherer. Staff present: Recreation Program Coordinator, Meredith Lawrence, Assistant City Administrator, Cheryl Jacobson and Public Works Director, Ryan Ruzek. 3. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 4. Approval of Agenda Motion Klepperich/second Cotter, to approve the agenda, removing Item 8a. AYES 5: NAYS 0 5.a Approval of Minutes from November 10, 2020 Regular Meeting Motion Klepperich/second Smith to approve the minutes of the November 10, 2020 Parks and Recreation Commission Regular Meeting. AYES 5: NAYS 0 6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) None. 7. Acknowledgement of Reports Chair Goldade read the titles of the three updates (Par 3, Recreation, and Park Improvement Updates) and polled the Commissioners for questions. 7.a Par 3 Update Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence briefly reviewed the 2020 October Financial Report and reviewed the total number of rounds and revenue received during the season. She noted that while November and December typically do not have revenue, they will continue to have expenses. Chair Goldade asked if there will be a time when the Commission can share ideas for 2021. Ms. Lawrence confirmed that there will be further discussion on marketing for 2021 later on tonight’s agenda. She noted that if desired the item could also be added to a future agenda. Chair Goldade commended staff for their ability to adapt to the COVID-19 regulations and have a successful season. 7.b Recreation Update Ms. Lawrence provided a summary of the recreation update, noting that the current Executive Order from the Governor allows rinks to be flooded but does not allow for warming houses to be open. She stated that if the Executive Order changes, staff will reevaluate and work with the City Council for direction. She noted that the rinks will be flooded when temperatures allow. She stated that as of now organized sports groups are not allowed to use the outdoor rinks, but families will be able to use the rinks once flooded. She provided information on the new recreation activity, the “Quarantine Cup” which helps to get families active and is a friendly competition between Mendota Heights and West Saint Paul. She reported that Mendota Heights won the first challenge and provided details on the second challenge. Chair Goldade thanked staff for the creative idea of the “Quarantine Cup”. He encouraged staff to share the idea with area schools. He commented that the weather has been nice and suggested that the lights be turned on for a few evening hours at Marie Park to allow users to utilize the pickleball courts and roller hockey rink. 7.c Parks Improvement Update Ms. Lawrence stated that the report includes the minutes from the City Council works session which featured discussion on park related items. She noted that multiple Commission members attended the workshop and could provide further details if desired. She reported that nine proposals were received from vendors for the Marie Park RFP. She stated that the Canoe Rack Rental Policy was approved by the City Council, with the recommendations proposed by the Commission and advised that the updated policy has been posted to the City website. Chair Goldade asked if the Commission should be purposeful in identifying funding for park improvements, following the change in interpretation on how the funds can be spent. Ms. Lawrence commented that the existing projects that were proposed to use special parks funds are being reviewed and that funding will be discussed with the City Council. She stated that if there are ideas for new projects, staff could review the opportunity for funding. Commissioner Cotter stated that the special parks fund has been relied on for funding in the past and asked the role of the Commission in attempting to find new funding, as there has been a significant shift in how those improvements can be funded. He stated that perhaps that item could be placed on a future agenda to allow for further discussion. Chair Goldade provided examples of multi-family housing developments which contributed to the special parks fund and asked which park elements could be developed with those dollars that use those funds. Ms. Lawrence commented that new projects would be eligible for special park fund dollars. She noted that CIP planning will become important as some of the improvement projects will need to be levied for. She suggested that the Commission discuss this sometime after February when the new members have joined the Council and they’ve had time to discuss that topic. Commissioner Meyer asked if staff could send out the statutory language related to that interpretation. Ms. Lawrence confirmed. Motion Klepperich/second Meyer to acknowledge the staff reports. AYES 5: NAYS 0 8. New Business 8.a Valley Eagle Scout Service Project Presentation Item removed from the agenda. To be added to January meeting agenda. 8.b Par 3 Rebranding Discussion Ms. Lawrence stated that information on a Par 3 rebranding initiative was included in the packet including a new logo for the golf course. She stated that the Council provided input on the logo and directed staff to bring it forward to the Park and Recreation Commission for input and a recommendation. Commissioner Smith commented that it appears the rebranding would be done on the sign at the golf course and asked if there would be apparel or merchandise available with the new logo. Ms. Lawrence confirmed that the rebranding would apply not only to the sign but there would also be updates to marketing materials, scorecards, and other elements. Chair Goldade stated that he prefers Mendota Heights to be more prominent in the middle and not offset. He provided additional comments on the logo. He stated that he likes the colors and options for the merchandise. Commissioner Klepperich commented that he prefers straight lines rather than crooked lines. Commissioner Cotter stated that while he preferred the wrap around as it looks more like a golf ball, he could support either design. He stated that this is exciting and fitting for the revitalizing year the Par 3 had. Ms. Lawrence asked if the Commission could make a recommendation to bring forward to the Council. She noted the comment to have more space between the P and 3 and said it would be changed. Commissioner Smith commented that she prefers the family three logo. Commissioner Meyer commented that she prefers the family one logo. Commissioner Klepperich commented that he would prefer the family one logo but would be flexible. Commissioner Cotter commented that he prefers the family three logo. Chair Goldade commented that he would support the family three logo. Motion Smith/second Cotter to recommend the family three logo for the rebranding of the Par 3. AYES 5: NAYS 0 8.c Set Meeting Dates for 2021 Ms. Meredith Lawrence stated that the proposed 2021 meeting schedule was included in the packet. She noted a conflict for the January meeting date and suggested holding the January meeting on January 5, 2020. She stated that the City Council directed staff to conduct public meetings virtually and recommended that the Commission move to full virtual meetings beginning in January. Chair Goldade asked and received confirmation that the suggested January 5th date could be held virtually with a practice “meeting” to be completed the day prior to ensure that all Commissioners can log in and participate. It was confirmed that the practice “meeting” would be held Monday, January 4th at 6:30 p.m. Chair Goldade confirmed that other than the January meeting, all 2021 meetings would be held on the second Tuesday of the month and the dates have been verified to ensure that there are no conflicts with holidays. Motion Klepperich/second Smith to set the 2021 meetings dates as presented by staff. AYES 5: NAYS 0 8.d Solicit Applications for Student Representative Ms. Lawrence provided background on the student representative position on the Commission, which is a non-voting member. She stated that staff recommends posting the position and seeking applications from interested students. She asked for input from the Commission on how the position could be marketed. Chair Goldade asked the age range for the student position and whether that age range could be expanded to include 9th through 12th grades. He stated that he supports posting the position again on the website and suggested reaching out to the Skate Park student members and perhaps students that were interested in that group but were not appointed. Ms. Lawrence replied that the position is currently open to juniors and seniors, which preference is given to juniors as they could serve for a longer time. She stated that if the Commission desires to change the age range, that could be brought forward to the Council. She stated that she would not be opposed to recommending more than one student if there is interest from multiple students. Commissioner Cotter asked if the position could be advertised through the schools. Ms. Lawrence stated that last Spring she planned to present at the weekly meetings at local high schools but noted that COVID-19 prevented that. She confirmed that she would like to post the information on the website, on the Friday News, and within the local schools. Commissioner Cotter commented that posting within the schools and Activity Directors will probably provide the most interest. Chair Goldade stated that he would also support that option to reach out to students. He stated that perhaps the age range be extended to include sophomores as that could provide a longer range of service. Ms. Lawrence confirmed that she would be open to that as it would depend on the student’s maturity level. She commented that there has not been much interest in the position in the past and perhaps expanding the range a bit would provide more interest. Commissioner Smith asked if a student can be a resident but attend school outside of Mendota Heights. Ms. Lawrence stated that she would be open to that situation if it is supported by the Commission. Commissioner Klepperich stated that when he joined the Commission there were two student representatives and asked if that would be a possibility if multiple students were interested. Ms. Lawrence stated that there have not been many applicants in the past and confirmed that she would be open to two student representatives. Motion Cotter/second Meyer to approve the posting of the Student Representative position which should be expanded to include applicants that will be juniors in the 2021/2022 school year. AYES 5: NAYS 0 9. Unfinished Business 9.a Research Nordic Skiing Ms. Lawrence stated that information on the possibility of providing Nordic skiing was included in the Commission packet along with the cost to implement the program. She noted that those funds were not included in the approved 2020 budget, therefore if the Commission is interested in pursuing the amenity there would need to be additional discussion related to funding and staffing. Commissioner Klepperich commented that the grounds are available at minimal or no cost to the City, which makes it a nice resource to residents without expending budgetary funds. He stated that he would prefer that it remain the way it is, noting that residents typically setup their own tracks in the winter that others follow. Chair Goldade stated that he was looking for something easy and stated that perhaps rather than using a snowmobile, equipment could be used for grooming that could also be used by the golf course (like an ATV). He stated that he is okay with the staff recommendation. Commissioner Cotter commented that there is availability at Henry Sibley for Nordic skiing and recognized that while it would be nice to have another location there are not funds included in the budget for this purpose. He agreed that it would make sense to hold off this year. Commissioner Smith commented that the grooming is needed for skate skiing, whereas traditional cross-country skiing does not require that grooming. She stated that in order to recoup the costs within the staff report they would have to charge residents and was unsure that would be successful as residents are already doing this at their leisure. Chair Goldade stated that his idea perhaps involved a partnership where equipment could be shared, such as partnering with Henry Sibley. Commissioner Smith commented that in the past there were opportunities to snowshoe and use fat tire bikes at the Par 3, which she enjoyed. Ms. Lawrence commented that grooming opportunity was through a partnership with Saint Thomas Academy, as that school had the equipment to groom the Par 3. She stated that partnership has not been active in the past few years and the school is not interested in grooming the course. She stated that the golf course uses a utility cart that would not be successful in the snow and the golf course does not use for an ATV. She stated that if equipment were available for use, a staff person would need to be onsite. Chair Goldade suggested looking for partnerships with a local bicycle shop that could perhaps bring equipment for use on a certain day. It was the consensus of the Commission that this item not move forward at this time. 9.b Skate Park Work Group Update Ms. Lawrence stated that the group has continued to meet to address operational issues at the park. Commissioner Klepperich commented that the group has been meeting since September 28th and has met seven times. He reviewed the members of the group that have dedicated their time to serve on the group and have been fantastic to work with. He stated that there have been discussions related to location, surfacing, materials, and features. He stated that the preference is leaning towards a site at Mendakota Park with a concrete pad and wooden features and the possibility of some concrete features. He stated that the old features cannot be reused for safety reasons and could be replaced with options to add features in the future. He stated that the group also discussed whether to use a cooperative purchasing agreement or go out for bid, noting the difference that would occur on the timeline for the project. He stated that the group discussed whether the current skate park could be utilized for another summer without posing safety risks. He stated that a report and recommendation will be made to the Commission. Commissioner Smith echoed the comments of Commissioner Klepperich and commented that this has been a great group to work with. Chair Goldade asked when a recommendation would be made to the Commission. Ms. Lawrence commented that it would depend on the progress of the group, noting that an update could be made to the Commission in early 2021 if the report is not ready at that time. Commissioner Cotter asked when a decision would need to be made in order for the project to move forward and be completed in 2021. Commissioner Klepperich commented that if the cooperative purchasing agreement vendor is used, the project could begin in early 2021. Chair Goldade asked if costs have been discussed related to a new location versus updating the current location. Commissioner Klepperich commented that the group has been working around a budget of $125,000. He stated that there have been problems at the existing location and therefore if a new skate park is going to be constructed it should most likely be in another location. Chair Goldade asked if there has been discussion on implementing a fee for a future skate park. He asked if other skate parks charge a fee. Commissioner Smith commented that has not been a part of the discussion. Ms. Lawrence commented that tier one skate parks are most often found in municipalities and do not require waivers to be signed or staffing. She commented that staff does not recommend a tier two skate park that would require staff onsite to collect fees. Chair Goldade asked if users of the dog park are charged a fee for use. Ms. Lawrence replied that users are not charged a fee at the dog park. Commissioner Cotter asked where the skate park would be proposed for Mendakota. Commissioner Klepperich provided additional details on the proposed location on the west side of the playground, where pickleball courts were discussed. Chair Goldade thanked the Commissioners for the update and thanked all members of the group for their participation. Ms. Lawrence thanked Commissioners Klepperich and Smith and the other members of the group for their dedicated service. 10. Staff Announcements Recreation Program Coordinator Lawrence shared the following announcements: • Commissioner Hinderscheid will be completing his final term on the Commission, so this will create a vacancy. • Updates for the skating rinks and possible future use of warming houses can be found on the City website. • Other events can be found on the city’s website 11. Student Representative Update None. 12. Commission Comments and Park Updates Commissioner Smith • The soccer goals were removed at Friendly Hills in anticipation of the snow. • The holiday tree was installed at Market Square Park. Commissioner Meyer • The “Quarantine Cup" is a great idea. Commissioner Cotter • Parks are still being used with the lack of snow. • The dog park is phenomenal and is loved by its users. Commissioner Klepperich • Public Works did a great job clearing out scrub trees and brush on the north side of the Police parking lot which improved the view • There were some adults practicing softball earlier today at Mendakota Park. Chair Goldade • Thanked Commissioner Hinderscheid for his service to the Commission. • There was a beautiful upgrade at the Wentworth Park playground. • There seems to be increased interest at Valley Park but the police and other signs on the path seem to be confusing. He suggested that perhaps the Commission complete some visioning. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the police signage is related to the deer hunting opportunity that is available at the park. He noted that the other signage is related to unwanted BMX activity at that location. He provided additional information on the park and related partnerships. 13. Adjo urn Motion Cotter/Second Meyer to adjourn the meeting at 7:47 PM AYES 7: NAYS 0 Minutes drafted by: Amanda Staple TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Request for City Council Action DATE: January 12, 2020 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator, and Assistant City Administrator FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator Sharon Deziel, Communications Coordinator SUBJECT: Approval of Par 3 Logo and Rebranding Initiative INTRODUCTION Staff is proposing the implementation of a golf course rebranding initiative beginning with a new course logo. The current logo has been used since the City purchased the course and is in need of refreshing. BACKGROUND Over the summer, staff received feedback and comments from new and returning golfers about what the Par 3 offers. Comments such as welcoming, affordable, family-friendly, accessible, and community oriented were all used to describe the Par 3. The City’s Communications Coordinator used golfer feedback to develop a new logo to visually represent the Par 3. A new course logo will be used to establish an updated identity for the course, promote name recognition, and build on the momentum that the past COVID-19 season provided. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the proposed logo at their December meeting and the commission is recommending approval of the attached logo and for staff to begin rebranding the course for 2021. Attachments: Par 3 New Logo Design RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council approve a new Par 3 logo. ACTION REQUIRED If the City Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the new Par 3 logo, as attached. COMMUNITY GOLF COURSE COMMUNITY GOLF COURSE COMMUNI T Y G OLF COU R S E M E N DOTA H E I GHTS COMMUNI T Y G OLF COUR S E M E N DOTA H E I GHTS CMYK: C=100 M=58 Y=9 K=42 Digital: R=0 G=66 B=112 Mendota Heights Par 3 Proposed Logo Design Multiple formats to t various applications (signage, print materials, apparel, golf balls, ags, merchandise, etc.) Rev. 12/22/2020 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: January 12, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician SUBJECT: Authorize the submittal of an application to the Minnesota Historical Society (MHS) for a Heritage Partnership Program grant for use at Oheyawahi/Pilot Knob. COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to authorize the Oȟéyawahi/Pilot Knob Task Force and City staff to submit a pre-application, and if accepted, a final application, to the Minnesota Historical Society (MHS) for a Heritage Partnership Program grant in the amount of $35,000 for the development of a site Interpretation Plan. BACKGROUND In December, 2019, the City of Mendota Heights created a Task Force to make recommendations to the City Council regarding management, interpretation and development of the Oȟéyawahi/Pilot Knob Historical Site. The Task Force is recommending that the City of Mendota Heights partner with Dakota County and the Pilot Knob Preservation Association to apply for a Heritage Partnership Program grant from the Minnesota Historical Society in the amount of $35,000. Implementation of the proposed interpretation plan would require a later funding effort. The purpose of the MHS Heritage Partnership Program grant is to encourage collaboration and sharing resources between partners to enhance historic sites. The grant would fund hiring a consultant to assist in preparation of an Interpretation Plan that include the following elements: • Engage groups and individuals in discussion of interpretation content, with a focus on the perspectives of Indigenous people, and identify audiences for interpretation • Reach out to other organizations and sites with similar interpretation goals • Identify themes, sub-themes and specific stories to interpret • Conduct research on historical, cultural, and natural resources stories of significance to the site • Identify modes of interpretation best suited for the site and its history • Provide conceptual design for interpretive elements, installations, or waysides • Develop cost estimates for interpretive elements, installations, or waysides • Develop an implementation schedule DISCUSSION The Heritage Partnership Program grants have a two-stage application process, with a “pre- proposal” due on January 22, 2021 and a final proposal due on March 5, 2021. Between those two dates, MHS will work with the Task Force and applicant partners to refine the proposal and budget. A consultant will be chosen after a Request for Proposals (RFP) is issued by the City and the grant partners together choose a consultant. The work will be accomplished largely by the chosen consultant who will conduct a public engagement process that includes Indigenous individuals and tribes. A cash match is not required, however it is encouraged and is listed as an additional criterion by the MHS, as it demonstrates local buy-in and commitment to the project. The City of Mendota Heights is asked to provide $4,000 in cash match. An additional $4,000 will be provided by Dakota County, and $1,500 in private donations will also be provided as cash match. This would allow the budget for the project to total approximately $44,500 ($35,000 in requested grant funds plus $9,500 cash match). There will also be an-kind match provided by members of the Task Force and the Pilot Knob Preservation Association. If awarded, the grant period begins June 1, 2021, and ends June 30, 2022. BUDGET IMPACT The City is asked to contribute $4,000 in cash match funds. These cash matching funds would be taken from the City’s Invasive Species Control budget. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council authorize City staff to submit an application to the Minnesota Historical Society (MHS) for a Heritage Partnership Program grant in the amount of $35,000, and agree to provide a $4,000 grant cash match for the development of an Interpretation Plan. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the following: Resolution 2021-09 AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY HERITAGE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM GRANT FOR USE AT THE OHEYAWAHI/PILOT KNOB HISTORICAL SITE This action requires a simple majority vote. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2021-09 RESOLUTION SPONSORING A MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY HERITAGE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM GRANT FOR THE OHEYAWAHI/PILOT KNOB HISTORICAL SITE WHEREAS, the Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob site in Mendota Heights is a location of regional significance from historic, cultural, and natural resources standpoints; and WHEREAS, in 2019 the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights appointed a Task Force to study, recommend, and assist in the implementation of ways to further preserve, develop and promote Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob for the current and future generations, and WHEREAS, the Task Force has researched options, and recommends that the City partner with Dakota County and the Pilot Knob Preservation Association, and act as the legal sponsor for a pre- submittal of a Heritage Partnership Program grant, as offered by the Minnesota Historic Society; and WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has the legal authority to apply for this financial assistance, and has the capability to meet a cash match requirement of $4000, and ensure adequate financial and resource management and protection; and WHEREAS, if the application is approved, the City of Mendota Heights may then enter into an agreement with the Minnesota Historical Society for the above-referenced project, and the City of Mendota Heights would certify that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the grant agreement. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS that the City of Mendota Heights is hereby authorized to act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the Heritage Partnership Program, and that the City and its partners may submit a pre-application for the grant by January 22nd, and if approved, submit a final grant application by March 5, 2021. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, if accepted, an application for the final grant shall subsequently be submitted by the City to the Minnesota Historical Society on behalf of the City and its partners, and may execute such agreements as are necessary to accept and implement the project on behalf of the applicant. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 12th day of January 2021. ATTEST CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BY____________________________ BY___________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Stephanie Levine, Mayor Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: January 12, 2021 TO: Mayor Levine and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - Resolution No. 2021-02 Critical Area Permit for Big Rivers Regional Park - 1498 Mendota Heights Road [Planning Case # 2020-22] Introduction City Council is asked to adopt a resolution approving a critical area permit (CAP) to construct a variety of trail and recreation improvements to Big Rivers Regional Trail Park. This park is situated in the Critical Area Overlay District, and is located at 1498 Mendota Heights Road. Background The Big Rivers Regional Trail (BRRT) extends north from I-494 in Eagan, through Mendota Heights, Mendota, and to Lilydale where it enters Lilydale Regional Park in Saint Paul. Although this county park is in the city limits, it is situated on state-owned (DNR) lands, which is intended to be transferred from the state to Dakota County. The proposed improvements include a new restroom/picnic shelter facility, an information center kiosk, a larger parking lot, additional trail connections; bike charging station, WiFi technology and a special event use area and other natural resource improvements. At the December 17, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented with site plans, elevation plans and other supporting documents. A public hearing was conducted, with no comments received in this matter. A copy of the 12/17/2020 Planning Report and all related attachments, along with excerpt minutes from said meeting are appended to this memo. Discussion The City can use its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on certain land use or zoning decisions, such as this critical area permit and has broad discretion. A determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimously (5-0) to approve a Critical Area Permit to Dakota County and the Big Rivers Regional Trail park, based on the findings-of-fact and conditions of approval. Action Requested Pursuant to City Code Section 12-3-17.C, the City Council is required to hold a separate public hearing on critical area permit requests. The Council should open the public hearing; take any new comments, close the hearing, and give final consideration on this matter. If the City Council wishes to affirm the recommendation from the planning commission, and there are no other issues related to this application, it should make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2021-02 APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR BIG RIVERS REGIONAL TRAIL PARK – 1498 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-02 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR 1498 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD [PLANNING CASE NO. 2020-25] WHEREAS, Dakota County (the “Applicant”) requests approval of a critical area permit (CAP) as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-25, for the property located at 1498 Mendota Heights Road, and legally described in attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided State Park in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and identified as “SP-State Park” on the official zoning map for the City of Mendota Heights; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 12-3-1 of the City Code (Critical Area Overlay District), a critical area permit is required for all development activities necessitating a building permit or special zoning approval, and the Applicant is seeking permission to construct a new restroom/picnic shelter facility; information center kiosk, parking lot expansion, new trail connections, and other passive recreational and park improvements; and WHEREAS, on December 17, 2020, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed CAP application, and whereupon closing the hearing, recommended unanimously (5-0 vote) to approve the critical area permit, which would allow the Applicant to construct to construct the new restroom/picnic shelter facility and other related park improvements, with certain conditions and specific findings of fact to support said approval; and WHEREAS, on January 12, 2021, the Mendota Heights City Council conducted a separate public hearing on this matter, and whereupon closing that hearing, declared that the Critical Area Permit proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-25 be approved, based on the following findings of fact: A. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District, with little to no impacts to the river corridor, bluff area, adjacent waterway or surrounding properties. Res. 2021-02 Page 2 of 4 B. The proposed project meets and is supported by the goals and policies of the community’s own 2030 Comprehensive Plan and future 2040 Comprehensive Plan. C. The proposed work and areas of disturbance are in areas already developed or areas found not to be significant to cause irreparable damage(s) to the bluff or surrounding properties. The improvements are minimal, reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area. D. The proposed improvements are in keeping with the existing development and character of the park and trailhead area. E. The expansion and construction of this new shelter/restroom facility and other related park improvements are allowed under city zoning ordinance, and will comply with all standards and regulations of the State Building Code and other applicable ordinances. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the critical area permit as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-22 and for The Big Rivers Regional Trail Park, located at 1498 Mendota Heights Road, is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. The final grading plan, including new storm pond details and calculations, must be submitted to the Public Works Director prior to issuance of any grading or land disturbance permit. 2. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 3. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established and permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed. 4. A building permit must be approved by the City of Mendota Heights prior to the commencement of any new construction work on the shelter/restroom facility. 5. Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 6. Full erosion control plans and measures, including silt fence, bales and/or bio-filtration rolls must be in place prior to any construction and maintained throughout the duration of project. 7. The plans for the new parking lot and new access improvements must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director prior to start of any construction. 8. A SWPPP shall be developed for the project. Protected bluffs shall have a double silt fence installed for added protection in these areas. Res. 2021-02 Page 3 of 4 9. An NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit and a Minnesota Dept. of Transportation drainage permit is required. 10. No structures, hard-surfaced improvements, or tree and vegetation removals will be allowed within the 40-foot bluff impact zone. 11. Any future work to replace or improve the existing monument sign near the front entry must be reviewed and approved under separate sign permit application to the city. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 12th day of January, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Res. 2021-02 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT A Property Address: 1498 Mendota Heights Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Property ID No.: 27-03300-80-010 Legal Description: [Abstract Property] Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Planning Staff Report DATE:December 17, 2020 TO:Planning Commission FROM:Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT:Planning Case 2020-25 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT APPLICANT:Dakota County PROPERTY ADDRESS:1498 Mendota Heights Road ZONING/GUIDED:State Park / SP – State Park (2030 Comp Plan) ACTION DEADLINE:N/A DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Dakota County is seeking a Critical Area Permit to construct and install a number of new improvements to the Big Rivers Regional Trail park , located at 1498 Mendota Heights Road. This park is also referred to as Scenic Overlook Park on the city parks map. The subject property is situated in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, also known as the Critical Area Overlay District. Title 12-3-5 of the City Code requires a critical area permit for all development activities requiring a building permit or special zoning approvals in this overlay district. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters were mailed to all neighboring property owners within 350-feet of the subject property. The city received no objections or comments from the neighboring owners. BACKGROUND The current park/trailhead area is accessed off the intersection of Mendota Heights Road and Sibley Memorial Highway, and contains a small surface parking lot with 24 spaces. From this lot a short paved trail connection leads out to the half-circle shaped, lookout area, with picnic benches scattered throughout. Planning Case #220-25 (Dak. Co.) Page 2 The lookout area has a short (3-ft. high) rock wall along the out perimeter, The site also contains an public information/map board, and a single portable toilet inside a fenced enclosure. The Big Rivers Regional Trail (BRRT) extends north from I-494 in Eagan, through Mendota Heights, Mendota, and to Lilydale where it enters Lilydale Regional Park in Saint Paul. The primary access point to the BRRT is an existing trailhead located at 1498 Mendota Heights Road in Mendota Heights. Despite its high use, the site lacks several essential features such as drinking water, permanent restrooms, and sufficient parking. In addition to correcting these deficiencies, the site’s unique characteristics provide numerous opportunities to enhance the visitor experience and promote natural and cultural resource stewardship at the trailhead and along the greenway corridor. The proposed project includes a new restroom/picnic shelter facility; a new information center kiosk; parking lot addition; new trail connections; charging station; WiFi technology; and some special event use area and other natural resource improvements. Sanitary sewer and water service lines are available from Mendota Heights Road or Sibley Mem. Hwy. for future utility connections. One significant improvement will be a new, raised earthen berm to accommodate a new 30” high (ADA compliant) viewing platform (see image-below). Dakota County is hoping to let the project out to bid in February-March 2021, with construction to begin April thru November of 2021. ANALYSIS The subject parcel is guided “SP-State Park”in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan (yet to be adopted) identifies this same area as “P-Parks & Open Space”. Dakota County’s request to construct the proposed park and trail improvements aresupported by and consistent with the current 2030 Plan and the 2040 Plan, noted as follows: 2030 Plan Goals: 1. To provide the optimum amount of active and passive open space for the enjoyment of all Mendota Heights residents. Planning Case #220-25 (Dak. Co.) Page 3 2. To provide a park system that assures the quality of facilities will match residents’ desires and standards of living.. 3. To use the park system as a means to enhance the environment of each neighborhood and the City as a whole. 4. To support the Dakota County 2030 Greenway Corridors Plan/Vision. 2040 Plan Goals/Policies: Provide a park system that is safe, accessible, and equitable in its offerings to all Mendota Heights’ residents and visitors. 4.1.1 Create and maintain a park system that provides the optimum amount of active and passive open space for the enjoyment of all Mendota Heights residents. 4.1.2 Provide facilities and programs that allow people of varying ages and abilities to participate. 4.1.3 Build, maintain and retrofit park facilities and equipment to be safe for all users. 4.1.4 Plan and build safe connections for pedestrians and bicyclists within and between park facilities and major destinations in the community. 4.1.5 Strive to make all facilities and programs open and welcoming to people of all ages and diverse backgrounds. Provide a park system that assures high quality facilities, buildings, grounds, trails, amenities, and natural settings. 4.2.1 Keep the park system up-to-date in terms of facilities, activities and programs that are responsive to the community’s needs and wishes. 4.2.2 Support the park system adequately through the facilities, activities and programs offered. 4.2.3 Provide bicycle amenities in parks and along trails. Use the park system as a means to enhance and sustain the environment of each neighborhood and the city as a whole. 4.3.1 Provide facilities, programs and opportunities in the park system that bring people together and create community. 4.3.2 Ensure that stormwater is managed in park facilities in a manner that protects and preserves water quality and the ecology of the watershed. 4.3.3 Strive to make all park facilities, equipment and construction projects and materials environmentally friendly and sustainable. Cooperate with Dakota County and surrounding communities in park and recreation facilities and programming. 4.4.1 Support the Dakota County 2030 Greenway Corridors Plan/Vision. 4.4.2 Continue to cooperate with South St. Paul, West. St. Paul and other neighboring communities on park and recreation programs and facilities. Critical Area Overlay Zoning District The purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is to: “…prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource to promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas, to preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems…” [Title 12-3-2] The pertinent provisions of the Critical Area Overlay District that apply to this application are: Planning Case #220-25 (Dak. Co.) Page 4 Section 12-3-5. Site Plan Requirements A: Site Plan Required: No building permit, zoning approval, or subdivision approval permit or certificate shall be issued for any action or development located in an area covered by this chapter until a site plan has been prepared and approved in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. The site plans call for the placement of the new shelter/restroom building near the flat piece of land located just north of the walled, lookout area (see aerial image – below). The shelter facility measures approximately 38’ x 55’ (footprint), and will be opened on three sides, with a 24’ x 17.5’ fully enclosed restroom. A number of picnic tables will be placed under the shelter. The site plan includes a considerable expansion of the surface parking lot on the north side of the existing lot. The expansion will increase the current 24 space layout to 58 total spaces, with an additional driveway/entrance leading out to the north and back on to Sibley Mem. Highway (see plan image – below). Planning Case #220-25 (Dak. Co.) Page 5 A proposed storm water pond is planned near the northeast corner of the expanded parking lot. The plans did not include any details on this pond. The Public Works Director is requiring full engineering plans and details, including storm water calculations, be provide prior to commencement of any work. Section 12-3-8: Development Standards Objectives: The objectives of dimensional standards are to maintain the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi River corridor critical area. These standards are designed to protect and enhance the shoreline and bluff areas, as well as provide sufficient setback for on-site sanitary facilities, to prevent erosion of bluffs, to minimize flood damage and to prevent x Structure Setbacks: All new structures shall meet the following minimum setbacks: 1. Setback from Bluff Line: No structure shall be constructed less than forty feet (40') landward from the bluff line of the river. It appears the new shelter/restroom building will be setback approximately 53-ft. from the bluff edge, which meets this 40-ft. setback standard. 2. Setback from Normal High Water Mark: No structure or road shall be constructed less than one hundred feet (100') from the normal high water mark of any water body. Based upon aerial interpretation from Dakota County GIS mapping, it appears the structure will be over 410-ft. from the mapped wetland edge of the nearby Gun Club Lake water body located to the west (opposite side of the railroad tracks). Planning Case #220-25 (Dak. Co.) Page 6 x Height Of Structures: All new structures shall be limited to the lesser of the underlying zoning district regulations or thirty five feet (35'). Although the land is identified on the city’s official zoning map as “State Park”, there is no zoning section or development standards within current City Code. The plans call for the structure to be 17’- 1” to the peak, which easily meets the 35’ limit. x Protection Of Natural Features: The governing body may require the preservation of natural features such as large trees, watercourses, scenic points, historical sites and similar community assets and may decline approval of a subdivision or other development if provision is not made for preservation of these assets. The proposed project will not involve much grading work, except for the area for the new parking lot expansion. This area (shown in the site photo – below) is to take place in an area that appears to be a small, unmanaged stand of volunteer trees and vegetation. Staff determined in our on-site inspection of this area, there does not appear to be any significant trees that will be affected by this expanded lot, and no wetlands were present (note: the City’s Wetland Map does not identify any wetlands in this park, except for Gun Club Lake to the west). The large evergreen trees near the new shelter/restroom will be preserved as part of this project. There appears to be no other major impacts to any significant natural features or trees under this project. . INTERAGENCY REVIEW In addition to the public and private property owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel, public hearing notices and application materials were sent to the following agencies for review and comment: x Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) The DNR indicated they have no comments on this proposed project or improvements. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the Critical Area Permit request from Dakota County and for the property generally identified as The Big Rivers Regional Trail Park, located at 1498 Mendota Heights Road, which would allow the construction of a new park shelter/restroom facility, expanded parking lot and other trailhead park improvements, based on the findings-of-fact that the proposed project is compliant with certain criteria, policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District, with certain conditions; or Planning Case #220-25 (Dak. Co.) Page 7 2. Deny the Critical Area Permit request from Dakota County and for the property generally identified Big Rivers Regional Trail Park, located at 1498 Mendota Heights Road, based on findings-of-fact that the proposed project does not meet certain criteria, policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District, as determined by the Planning Commission; or 3. Table the request; direct staff to work with the Applicants to revise or refine the project plans, provide additional information later, and extend this land use application review period an additional 60 days (if necessary) and in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since there is very little, if any impact to the Mississippi River corridor area or the protected bluff area, staff recommends the Planning Commission consider Alternative No. 1 noted above, which would approve the requested Critical Area Permit to Dakota County for 1498 Mendota Heights Road, along with the following added conditions: 1. The final grading plan, including new storm pond details and calculations, must be submitted to the Public Works Director prior to issuance of any grading or land disturbance permit. 2. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 3. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established and permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed. 4. A building permit must be approved by the City of Mendota Heights prior to the commencement of any new construction work on the shelter/restroom facility. 5. Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 6. Full erosion control plans and measures, including silt fence, bales and/or bio-filtration rolls must be in place prior to any construction and maintained throughout the duration of project. 7. The plans for the new parking lot and new access improvements must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director prior to start of any construction. 8. A SWPPP shall be developed for the project. Protected bluffs shall have a double silt fence installed for added protection in these areas. 9. An NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit and a Minnesota Dept. of Transportation drainage permit is required. 10. No structures, hard-surfaced improvements, or tree and veget ation removals will be allowed within the 40-foot bluff impact zone. 11. Any future work to replace or improve the existing monument sign near the front entry must be reviewed and approved under separate sign permit application to the city. Planning Case #220-25 (Dak. Co.) Page 8 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Critical Area Permit for The Big River Regional Trail Park – 1498 Mendota Heights Road The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District, with little to no impacts to the river corridor, bluff area, adjacent waterway or surrounding properties. 2. The proposed project meets and is supported by the goals and policies of the community’s own 2030 Comprehensive Plan and future 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed work and areas of disturbance are in areas already developed or areas found not to be significant to cause irreparable damage(s) to the bluff or surrounding properties. The improvements are minimal, reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area. 4. The proposed improvements are in keeping with the existing development and character of the park and trailhead area. 5. The expansion and construction of this new shelter/restroom facility and other related park improvements are allowed under city zoning ordinance, and will comply with all standards and regulations of the State Building Code and other applicable ordinances. SITE PHOTOS (City of Mendota Heights) Planning Case #220-25 (Dak. Co.) Page 10 Planning Case #220-25 (Dak. Co.) Page 11 November 12, 2020 Letter of Intent for Big Rivers Regional Trail Mendota Trailhead Project To: Tim Benetti Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 (651) 255-1142 Mr. Benetti, As we have discussed Dakota County is proceeding with trailhead improvements at the Mendota Overlook along the Big Rivers Regional Trail at site at 1498 Mendota Heights Road. Per the Critical Area permit I am writing you to give you a summary of the project background and components. Background The Big Rivers Regional Trail (BRRT) extends north from I-494 in Eagan, through Mendota Heights, Mendota, and to Lilydale where it enters Lilydale Regional Park in Saint Paul. Part of the overall 17-mile Minnesota River Greenway Regional Trail corridor, the BRRT received an estimated 158,900 visitors in 2018. The primary access point to the BRRT is an existing trailhead located at 1498 Mendota Heights Road in Mendota Heights. Despite its high use, the site lacks several essential features such as drinking water, permanent restrooms, and sufficient parking. In addition to correcting these deficiencies, the site’s unique characteristics provide numerous opportunities to enhance the visitor experience and promote natural and cultural resource stewardship at the trailhead and along the greenway corridor. Two key plans guide development of the BRRT, including the Mendota Heights Trailhead. x The Minnesota River Greenway Plan1 was adopted by the Dakota County Board of Commissioners in 2011. The BRRT is referenced in this plan as Segment 1 of the Minnesota River Greenway, and the Mendota Heights Trailhead is referenced as the WPA Overlook. x The Minnesota River Greenway Cultural Resources Interpretive Plan2 was adopted by the County Board in 2017. The plan guides historic and cultural resource interpretation along the greenway corridor, including the Mendota Heights Trailhead (referenced as the WPA Overlook). The frameworks, concepts, and schematic designs presented in the plan should be considered but details may be revisited during the design process. 1 https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/parks/About/TrailPlanning/Documents/MinnesotaRiverMast erPlan.pdf 2 https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/parks/About/TrailPlanning/Documents/MinnesotaRiverCultur alResourcesInterpretivePlanDraft.pdf Parks, Facilities, and Fleet Management Dakota County Administration Center 1590 Highway 55 Hastings, MN 55033 651.438.4388 Fax: 651.438.8455 www.co.dakota.mn.uss Project Scope: The following improvements are identified as high-priority improvements for the Mendota Heights Trailhead and constitute and the scope of this RFP: x Restroom Facility – two fully accessible and inclusive gender-neutral restrooms with a general use picnic canopy with 2-4 tables with capacity for approximately 6-12 individuals. x Picnicking – one canopy/shaded general use picnic area with 2-4 tables with capacity for approximately 6-12 individuals (may be included as part of Restroom Facility); open picnicking for approximately 50 individuals; ample opportunities for observation at/around overlook. x Information Center/Kiosk – 4-sided information kiosk per County standard; intuitively-placed user-friendly site and greenway orientation (with design specifics to be informed by forthcoming wayfinding standards); County standard amenity package (e.g., bike fix-it station, seating, water, trash receptacles). The Information Center/Kiosk should integrate spatially with the broader site but also establish its own space. x Parking Lot – assess existing shortage and propose design to optimize parking in relation to other site improvements and add approximately 30 stalls for a total of 60 stalls; accommodate addition of electric vehicle charging stations and bike-sharing station. x Trails – provide accessible connectivity between greenway, parking, restrooms, picnic areas, overlook, and other use areas. A connection to the adjacent site of the WPA Camp should be designed as a potential future connection. Signage and wayfinding design specifics will be informed by the forthcoming wayfinding standards. x Security & Technology – provide appropriate lighting and security cameras; remote locking restroom facility doors; high-speed internet and WiFi throughout site to support security and visitor experience. Design should reflect CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) standards. x Special Event/Use Area(s) – because the greenway regularly supports special use permitted events (e.g., trail-oriented bike or running events) provide areas that can be utilized to support these activities with a capacity of 250+ individuals. x Natural Resource Improvements – design and implementation of natural resource improvements to trailhead’s recreational areas in consultation with County Natural Resources staff. x Interpretation – integrate interpretation in the design process and the improvements themselves. Preliminary Project Schedule: Schematic Design Approved Nov 2020 Design Development Approved by Core Team Dec 2020 Construction Documents Approved Jan 2021 Bidding Feb-Mar 2021 Construction Apr – Nov 2021 In general, the County seeks to create a resource for Mendota Heights, Dakota County and the region with this project. The proposed amenities and their increased service level for the area are consistent with Critical Area requirements and constitute a justifiable Critical Area Permit. Attached you will find the proposed site and building designs and the Project Planning Application. Let me know if you have any additional questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Josh Kinney, PLA, ASLA Senior Project Manager Capital Projects Management P 952-891-7016 W www.dakotacounty.us A 1590 Highway 55, Hastings MN 55033 c 612-387-6260 EU $1 666666666666666666 666666!! " " " " ! ! * * ! * " " * * 6 66 6666 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 1495 1480 1450 1455 1460 300'288'306'204 ' 207 ' 99' BIG RIVER REGIONAL TRAILHEAD (Scenic Overlook Park) 1495-1498 Mendota Heights Road City of Mendota Heights0190 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 12/3/2020 Big Rivers Regional Trail Trailhead - Site ConceptDakota CountyOctober 21, 2020, Revised 12/11/2020Big Rivers Regional TrailExpanded ParkingMendota Heights RdGathering + PicnicNew EntranceSidewalk + Pedestrian CrossingsInterpretive GardensViewing PlatformConstructed BermADA RampReading + Small GatheringsContemplation GardenInterpretive PathBluff LinePicnicADA Gravel PathStormwaterTreatmentTrail User PlazaExistingParkingEntry Plaza + Visitor Building52’ ŝŐZŝǀĞƌƐZĞŐŝŽŶĂůdƌĂŝůdƌĂŝůŚĞĂĚͲKǀĞƌůŽŽŬ^ĞĐƟŽŶ10’ WalkConstructed Berm w/ Prairie Grasses5% Existing Lawn30” High Viewing Platform w/ CurbExisting GradeHistoric Stone Wall6’ WalkĂŬŽƚĂŽƵŶƚLJKĐƚŽďĞƌϮϭ͕ϮϬϮϬ ŝŐZŝǀĞƌƐZĞŐŝŽŶĂůdƌĂŝůdƌĂŝůŚĞĂĚͲKǀĞƌůŽŽŬWůĂŶConstructed Berm w/ Prairie GrassesExisting LawnViewing PlatformExisting Oak5:1 Slope3:1 SlopeContemplation GardenĂŬŽƚĂŽƵŶƚLJKĐƚŽďĞƌϮϭ͕ϮϬϮϬ ŝŐZŝǀĞƌƐZĞŐŝŽŶĂůdƌĂŝůdƌĂŝůŚĞĂĚͲKǀĞƌůŽŽŬWĞƌƐƉĞĐƟǀĞĂŬŽƚĂŽƵŶƚLJKĐƚŽďĞƌϮϭ͕ϮϬϮϬ ŝŐZŝǀĞƌƐZĞŐŝŽŶĂůdƌĂŝůdƌĂŝůŚĞĂĚͲWůĂŶƚWĂůĞƩĞĂŬŽƚĂŽƵŶƚLJKĐƚŽďĞƌϮϭ͕ϮϬϮϬSpring - Early SummerMid SummerLate Summer - Autumn ŝŐZŝǀĞƌƐZĞŐŝŽŶĂůdƌĂŝůdƌĂŝůŚĞĂĚͲ^ŝƚĞDĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐĂŬŽƚĂŽƵŶƚLJKĐƚŽďĞƌϮϭ͕ϮϬϮϬBicyle Fix-it StationBicycle RackWaste Receptacle Drinking FountainBenchConcrete Paving Cut Stone Block Seating Lighting BollardParking Lot Light ŝŐZŝǀĞƌƐZĞŐŝŽŶĂůdƌĂŝůdƌĂŝůŚĞĂĚͲ^ŝƚĞ&ƵƌŶŝƐŚŝŶŐн>ŝŐŚƟŶŐĂŬŽƚĂŽƵŶƚLJKĐƚŽďĞƌϮϭ͕ϮϬϮϬBig Rivers Regional TrailEntry Plaza + Visitor Building• 4 Picnic Tables• 4 Bike Racks• 2 Waste + Recycling Stations• Limestone Block Seating• Drinking Fountain• Info KioskTrail User Plaza• Bike Fix-it Station• 4 Bike Racks• Waste + Recycling Station• Power Pedestal• 2 Existing Benches (Relocate)• 2 Existing Picnic TablesGathering + Picnic• 1 Bench• 4 Existing Picnic Tables• 3 Grills• Fire Ring w/ Seating Ring• Limestone Block SeatingSouth Picnic• 2 Picnic Tables• Waste + Recycling StationReading + Small Gatherings• 4 BenchesParking Lot LightLighting Bollard December 17, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 4 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 2020 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, December 17, 2020 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Litton Field, Andrew Katz, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: Chair Mary Magnuson and Commissioner John Mazzitello. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that the Commission is without a Chair or Vice Chair tonight and asked a member of the Commission to make a motion to nominate a temporary Chair for tonight’s meeting. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL TO APPOINT LITTON FILED AS TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR TONIGHT’S MEETING. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (Field) Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of November 24, 2020 Minutes COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24, 2020. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2020-25 DAKOTA COUNTY, 1498 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD– CRITICAL AREA PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Dakota County is seeking a Critical Area Permit to construct and install a number of new improvements to the Big Rivers Regional December 17, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 4 Trail park, located at 1498 Mendota Heights Road. This park is also referred to as Scenic Overlook Park on the City parks map. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Petschel asked if the semi-circular wall is going to be replaced. Commissioner Corbett asked for details on the grade of the bluff facing side of the building pad and whether there would be a fence or wall. He asked if work has already started at this location. Community Development Director Benetti replied that he also noticed the tire tracks and stated that perhaps that was related to the trail resurfacing. He noted that they also removed diseased trees. Commissioner Toth asked if some trees would be removed near the building site. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that the pine trees mentioned are planned to remain. Commissioner Katz asked if there are plans to add vegetation or enhance what is in the area. Josh Kinney, Dakota County, stated that this is a unique site with great features. He noted that the wall construction and planting of the pine trees occurred in 1938. He stated that the building pad will be drained north and south, rather than towards the river. He stated that there is no planned barrier between the bluff and structure and instead will plan prairie restoration for that area. Commissioner Petschel asked if the wall would be maintained or replaced. Mr. Kinney replied that the wall will be maintained and will be on the register of national historic sites. Commissioner Katz referenced the natural springs within the critical area and asked if there are any known springs in this area that would be impacted. Mr. Kinney stated that the tire tracks were a result of soil borings that were done in order to complete geotechnical analysis. He stated that the results showed that there were no springs and that there would not be fractures caused by this activity. Commissioner Katz asked where the limestone was discovered in the borings. December 17, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 4 Mr. Kinney replied that the depth to bedrock in this location was six feet. Commissioner Katz commented that it interesting how the depth to bedrock varies in different locations along the bluff line. Mr. Kinney stated that as part of the project they will be adding several plantings, focusing more on shrubs and herbaceous plantings and will look to maintain the large trees that exist on the site. Acting Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Acting Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED CRITICAL AREA PERMIT TO DAKOTA COUNTY FOR 1498 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE FINAL GRADING PLAN, INCLUDING NEW STORM POND DETAILS AND CALCULATIONS, MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY GRADING OR LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT. 2. ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES, AS WELL AS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. 3. ALL DISTURBED AREAS IN AND AROUND THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE RESTORED AND HAVE AN ESTABLISHED AND PERMANENT GROUND COVER IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED. 4. A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION WORK ON THE SHELTER/RESTROOM FACILITY. 5. CONNECTION CHARGES FOR SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN SHALL BE PAID PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS. 6. FULL EROSION CONTROL PLANS AND MEASURES, INCLUDING SILT FENCE, BALES AND/OR BIO-FILTRATION ROLLS MUST BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF PROJECT. 7. THE PLANS FO THE NEW PARKING LOT AND NEW ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR PRIOR TO START OF ANY CONSTRUCTION. December 17, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 4 8. A SWPPP SHALL BE DEVELOPED FOR THE PROJECT. PROTECTED BLUFFS SHALL HAVE A DOUBLE SILT FENCE INSTALLED FOR ADDED PROTECTION IN THESE AREAS. 9. AN NPDES (NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM) PERMIT AND A MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DRAINAGE PERMIT IS REQUIRED. 10. NO STRUCTURES, HARD-SURFACED IMPROVEMENTS, OR TREE AND VEGETATION REMOVALS WILL BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE 40-FOOT BLUFF IMPACT ZONE. 11. ANY FUTURE WORK TO REPLACE OR IMPROVE THE EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN NEAR THE FRONT ENTRY MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED UNDER SEPARATE SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION TO THE CITY. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Acting Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its January 12, 2021 meeting. Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review: • The Council considered the Culligan request at its last two meetings and the project was ultimately denied with a vote of 3-2 by the Council. The other lot split requests recommended for approval by the Commission were approved by the Council. • The Commission will most likely move to a hybrid operation in January if the same COVID restrictions exist. Acting Chair Field asked if the Culligans would be restricted from reapplying for six months because a Conditional Use Permit was involved in the request and denial. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that the applicant would be restricted from reapplying for a six-month period. Adjournment COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:22 P.M. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 DATE: January 12, 2021 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Discussion of Selection Process for Commission Applicants Comment: Introduction: The City Council is asked to establish a process to determine the selection of successful candidates for openings for two City commissions—the Planning Commission, and Parks and Recreation Commission. Background: In December, the Council was made aware that as there would be one vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Commission, and two on the Planning Commission. (One other sitting Commissioner from each group has sought re-appointment. That action is being taken elsewhere on this agenda.) As has been the City’s practice, an announcement of the vacancies was made in December, and applicants sought. As of the December 31st deadline, ten applications were received for consideration for the Planning Commission; six for the Parks and Recreation Commission, and three from other individuals who indicated an interest in serving on either commission. The total number of candidates—19—is large. By comparison, a year ago, a total of seven individuals had applied for consideration for one or both. In the recent past, the City Council has invited each candidate in for individual interviews. Those interviews lasted approximately 15 minutes each. Given the number of candidates, the Council should first decide if it is going to: • Adhere to past practice, and grant each candidate an individual interview. Those could either be virtual (and therefore be viewable by anyone who was interested), or done with candidates present in the Council Chambers, as was done for the Councilor interviews. • Narrow the number of candidates to a smaller number to interview. • Forego interviews, and make a decision based on submitted written material. If interviews are chosen to be done, out of consideration to possible work schedules for the candidates, the starting time should be in the later afternoon. In addition, if all are to be interviewed, it is recommended that it be done over the course of two days—the first day should be Parks and Rec candidates, and in the “either” category; the second session would be for Planning candidates. The appointments should be made at the February 2nd meeting, so that the new Parks and Recreation commissioner would be able to be seated by the February 9th Parks and Recreation Commission meeting date. Action Required: The Council should discuss, and give direction as to selection format, and, if applicable, determine interview dates and times. Mark McNeill City Administrator To: Mayor and City Council From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Subject: Workshop Date—Goal Setting Discussion Date: January 12, 2021 Comment: Introduction: The Council is asked to establish a time and date at which to hold the bi-annual goal setting workshop. Background: Following each City Council election, the new Council has had a practice of meeting to establish goals and objectives that the City should pursue over the ensuing two year term—while that body of elected officials holds office. These goals help to prioritize the City’s resources and efforts for a period longer than the priorities established in the annual budget. In the “off” years, a shorter session for annual updates has been held. Previously, an unpaid facilitator has been used for the bi-annual sessions. City staff could also coordinate the discussion. It is assumed that the meeting will be virtual, which will present some challenges, but it should be able to work. Department Heads and other key staff will also attend. There is no requirement as to when to hold this meeting; however, it is more helpful to do it early the two year term, so that the City will have the most time to pursue the identified priorities. Attached is a calendar of upcoming months. Recommendation: The Council should establish a date, and time at which to meet. Action Required The Council should by consensus establish a time and date in which to conduct the bi-annual goal setting meeting, and give direction as to whether an outside facilitator should be used. Mark McNeill City Administrator To: Mayor and City Council From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Subject: COVID -19 Update Date: January 12, 2021 Comment: Mayor Levine has asked that an update be made at the January 12th City Council meeting about thte staus of the COVID-19 response in Mendota Heights. Police Chief Kelly McCarthy will present. Mark McNeill City Administrator