Loading...
2021-08-17 Council agenda packetCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA August 17, 2021 – 6:00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Adopt Agenda 5. Consent Agenda a. Approve the August 4, 2021 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledge the July 27, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes c. Acknowledge the July 13, 2021 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes d. Acknowledge the July 15, 2021 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes e. Approve New Massage Therapist Licenses f. Accept Police Sergeant Resignation and Authorize the Position Recruitment Process g. Approve Resolution 2021-68 Approving Plans and Authorizing an Advertisement for Bids for the Ridge Place Sanitary Sewer and Streambank Repairs h. Approve the July 2021 Building Activity Report i. Approve the Claims List 6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) *See guidelines below 7. Presentations a. CERT Presentation by Police Sgt. Fleming 8. Public Hearings - none 9. New and Unfinished Business a. Resolution 2021-65 Approving a Variance and Conditional Use Permit to 650 Brookside Lane (Planning Case No. 2021-10 / Gerald Ziebol – Applicant) b. Resolution 2021-66 Approving an Interim Use Permit for an Outdoor Storage and Laydown Yard at Resurrection Cemetery – 2101 Lexington Avenue South (Planning Case No. 2021-11 / Xcel Energy - Applicants & Catholic Cemeteries – Owners) c. Resolution 2021-67 Approving a Lot Line Adjustment between 1892 and 1881 Orchard Heights Lane (Planning Case No. 2021-13 / Jamie Anderson & Josephine Bahl – Applicants) d. Award Consulting Contract for Oheyawahe/Historic Piot Knob Interpretive Plan 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 Regular Meeting Held Wednesday, August 4, 2021 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 Levine called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Councilors Duggan, Paper, Mazzitello, and Miller, were also present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Levine presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Mazzitello moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Levine presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Duggan moved approval of the consent calendar as presented, pulling items a., e., f., g., and j. a.Approval of July 20, 2021 City Council Minutes b.Acknowledge the June 22, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes c.Authorize Out-of-State Travel Request for Recreation Program Coordinator d.Authorize Assistant City Administrator Position Recruitment e. Approve Agreement with Inspectron for Septic System Inspection Services f.Accept the Retirement Notice of Firefighter Gordy Skjerven g.Accept the Retirement Notice of Firefighter Jeff Stenhaug h. Approve Fire Synopsis Report i.Approval of June 2021 Treasurer’s Report j.Approval of Claims List Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 August 4,2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 of 7 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A) APPROVAL OF THE JULY 20, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Councilor Duggan stated that in the minutes for the July 20th meeting, under the discussion on the use of lights at Marie Park, in the third paragraph, the name should state, “Tony Reese Ruiz…” Councilor Duggan moved to approve THE JULY 20, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES with the noted amendment. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 E) APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH INSPECTRON FOR SEPTIC SYSTEM INSPECTION SERVICES Councilor Duggan asked if this is an annual event for those with septic systems. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that this would be for people building or replacing a septic system. He noted that those with septic systems have to have their system inspected and pumped every three years. Councilor Duggan moved to approve the AGREEMENT WITH INSPECTRON FOR SEPTIC SYSTEM INSPECTION SERVICES. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 F) ACCEPT THE RETIREMENT NOTICE OF FIREFIGHTER GORDY SKJERVEN G) ACCEPT THE RETIREMENT NOTICE OF FIREFIGHTER JEFF STENHAUG Councilor Miller stated that as a young boy he was surrounded by firefighters in the neighborhood. He noted that his interactions with Mr. Skjerven and Mr. Stenhaug had an impact on him and their mentorship was central to his development as a firefighter. He commented that they have earned a great retirement and they will be missed. Councilor Duggan acknowledged the wisdom that these two firefighters will take with them. He suggested that the department ask if either would be willing to join the reserve. Councilor Miller moved to accept THE RETIREMENT NOTICE OF FIREFIGHTER GORDY SKJERVEN AND JEFF STENHAUG. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 August 4,2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 of 7 J) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS LIST Councilor Duggan referenced the payments being made for the fire station remodel and asked if this would be the last one. He noted another amount for the fire station of $1,600 which was listed separately. Finance Director Kristen Schabacker stated that those two items were approved at the last meeting and manual checks were written for them. She stated that the payment to Construction Results should be the last one to that company. City Administrator Mark McNeill noted that the overall fire station remodel project will come in under budget. Councilor Duggan asked for details on the payment to Great River Greening in the amount of $10,431. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted project was for a portion of the work completed at Copperfield Ponds, Rogers Lake and Valley Park. He noted that the City approved $30,000 through Great River Greening for those three parks. Councilor Duggan asked, in regards to the payment to Savatree, how many trees were serviced. Mr. Ruzek noted that would treat about 14 or 15 trees at approximately $900 per tree. Councilor Duggan asked for details on the payment to Electro Watchman to replace the alarm at the golf course, and asked if that included a warranty. City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that he would verify that and respond to the Council. Councilor Duggan moved to approve CLAIMS LIST. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the public wished to be heard. PUBLIC HEARINGS No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) RESOLUTION 2021-64 ADOPTING THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Council was being asked to adopt a resolution officially approving the Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan for the community. August 4,2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 of 7 Mayor Levine commented that the Council adopted this plan on December 30th and no changes have been made since that time. She noted that this has been thoroughly vetted and the technical work had been completed prior to December 30th. She noted that after the December 30th approval, the plan was sent to the Metropolitan Council for their approval. The Council just needs to finalize the plan with this adoption. Councilor Duggan noted that in a letter from the Metropolitan Council, they recommended that the stated population forecasts and the affordable housing need allocation be revised. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that they applied a downward forecast on employment numbers as they were above the numbers from three or four years ago. He stated that staff worked with the consultants and the Met Council representative agreed to a downward forecast on those numbers. Councilor Duggan referenced the projection of affordable housing units which equates to about 4.5 homes per year. He stated this is a challenge the City could rise to. He stated on in regards to roadways, there may be an indirect relationship to the Met Council comments and a proposal for Mendota Plaza. He stated that under roadways, the third paragraph down, there is a challenge between principal and arterial roadways. He believed that this language supports a comment that he made in regard to Mendota Plaza related to traffic counts and reports. He referenced the advisory comments from the Met Council, related to revisions to reflect only sewer forecasts and asked if that has been done. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that was an advisory comment from the Met Council and staff felt that the City’s numbers are accurate. No changes were made to the plan. Councilor Paper asked if the Metropolitan Council representative could attend a future Council meeting to establish that relationship. Mr. Benetti commented that he could extend an invitation. Councilor Paper thanked Community Development Director Tim Benetti for his work on this plan. Mayor Levine commented that Councilor Duggan is already applying this information when making decisions, as it is meant to be. She noted that this would be a living guiding document the City will use. Councilor Mazzitello moved to approve RESOLUTION 2021-64 APPROVING THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 B) PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A REQUESTED INTERIM USE PERMIT TO XCEL ENERGY ON RESURRECTION CEMETERY PROPERTY – 2101 LEXINGTON AVENUE SOUTH Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the Council was being asked to consider granting pre-approval to an Interim Use Permit request from Xcel Energy, which would allow for the temporary outdoor storage of supplies, equipment, vehicle parking. The storage site is located on Resurrection Cemetery property, at 2101 Lexington Avenue South. August 4,2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 of 7 Councilor Miller noted the administrative error that occurred in the publishing of the notice to the public. Mr. Benetti stated that all public hearings required a legal notice be published in the city’s legal newspaper, along with mailed notices to properties owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel. He stated that the letters were mailed out but the notice was not published. Councilor Miller stated that obviously the error was recognized but that staff should ensure that is in order to ensure that this does not happen again. City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that this is the first time this type of error has occurred. Councilor Duggan asked how high the stacks of materials would be on the site. Mr. Benetti commented on the materials that would be onsite, including poles, a job trailer, and vehicles. Mayor Levine asked for details on the approvals the Council is being asked to take. Mr. Benetti stated that tonight the Council is being asked to take a voice vote to authorize Xcel to use the site prior to an official resolution being presented at the next Council meeting. He stated that Xcel would like to start unloading materials at the site tomorrow. Councilor Paper asked if there would be construction fence installed for screening. Mr. Benetti commented that Xcel is willing to install fencing if required. Mayor Levine asked if staff has received any comments from the apartments which are across the street. Mr. Benetti commented that the notice was mailed and there were no inquiries or comments received. Mayor Levine asked the length of time the construction materials would be onsite. Mr. Benetti replied that the permit would run from August 5th through mid-December. Chris Berglund, Xcel Energy, stated that they do have their own fencing crews and could put up a ten- foot screening fence. He stated that they anticipate the project will be complete by the end of November and should have the site cleaned up by the end of December. Councilor Duggan asked and received confirmation that the site would be restored to its original condition. Mr. Berglund noted that he would have a signed agreement with the cemetery stipulating as such. Councilor Paper asked for details on the project being completed by Xcel. Mr. Berglund replied that the electrical power line is old and needs to be conditioned. He provided additional details on the project and the process. Mayor Levine stated that this is a temporary storage site. She stated that Xcel does a good job, cleans up and is a great partner to the community. Councilor Duggan asked if there would be implication to approving this preliminarily. City Attorney Elliot Knetsch commented that obviously this process is not typical. He stated that this approval would provide authorization for Xcel to begin but it is clear that the permit could be denied in the future should additional details come out at the scheduled public hearing. August 4,2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 6 of 7 Councilor Mazzitello moved to grant PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO XCEL ENERGY ON RESURRECTION CEMETERY PROPERTY, 2101 LEXINGTON AVENUE SOUTH. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS) is under a voluntary water restriction which could move to a required water restriction. He provided details on the additional steps that could come due to the current drought conditions. Mr. Ruzek stated that there will be construction signs on Delaware and Lexington related to overlays that will be completed by the County. Councilor Duggan asked if that construction information is available on the city’s website. Mr. Ruzek believed the information was available on the website. City Administrator Mark McNeill announced upcoming events including the Parks Celebration and summer concert at Mendakota Park. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Miller stated that the Night to Unite parties included the police and fire departments engaging with the community. He stated that one neighborhood had a live band. Councilor Paper thanked Mr. Benetti for his work on the Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Commission for the work they put into it. He stated that when he first joined the Council in 2016, work was starting on the plan, and it has now come to fruition. Councilor Duggan stated that the Comprehensive Plan runs through 2040. He stated that this process had a cost of about $100,000 and is a significant expenditure for the city. He stated that this will be a guide for the City for many years. He acknowledged the parties held in Mendota Heights for Night to Unite. He stated that everyone he spoke with believed that Mendota Heights is an exceptional city. Councilor Mazzitello stated that the City lives by its Comprehensive Plan. He stated that he looks forward to taking actions that implement items within the plan. He noted that he attended five Night to Unite parties, including one that was a joint party between the residents of Mendota Heights and West St. Paul. He stated that he was most impressed with the number of compliments from the residents. Mayor Levine stated that there were probably close to 50 parties in Mendota Heights. She stated that it was great to see the fire trucks pull up and the cheers that followed. She thanked everyone that signed up for the new organics recycling program, noting the high participation rate in our city. August 4,2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 7 of 7 ADJOURN Councilor Duggan moved to adjourn. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 6:51 p.m. ____________________________________ Stephanie Levine Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk July 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 8 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 27, 2021 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 27, 2021 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Sally Lorberbaum, Brian Petschel, and Michael Toth (arrived at 7:10 p.m.). Those absent: Commissioners Cindy Johnson and Andrew Katz Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of June 22, 2021 Minutes COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2021. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2021-10 GERALD ZIEBOL, 650 BROOKSIDE LANE – VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that notice was mailed for all the public hearings, but it was not published through the Pioneer Press, therefore all public hearings would be recommended to be continued to a special August 9th Planning Commission meeting to ensure the full notice process could be completed. Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Gerald and Yelena Ziebol, owners, and residents of 650 Brookside Lane, are requesting a variance to expand an existing legal, nonconforming residence in the R-1 Zone, and a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow for a covered porch in the FY setback area. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. July 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 8 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 opening the public hearing and then continuing it to the August 9th special meeting. Chair Field invited the applicant to address the Commission. Gerald Ziebol, applicant, was presented to address any questions. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that the report mentions that the extra bedroom would have access to the bathroom. Mr. Ziebol stated that on the plan the space labeled as office would have access to the bathroom and the additional bedroom would also have access to that bathroom. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Phil True, 660 Brookside Lane, stated that he fully supports the variance and recommended that the Commission support it as well. He noted that the home would fit well with the neighborhood. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO TABLE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE SPECIAL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2021. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 B) PLANNING CASE 2021-11 XCEL ENERGY/CATHOLIC CEMETERIES, 2101 LEXINGTON AVENUE SOUTH – INTERIM USE PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Xcel Energy is seeking an Interim Use Permit (IUP) to allow for temporary outdoor staging and laydown yard, located at the southeast corner or Resurrection Cemetery, 2101 Lexington Avenue South. Xcel plans to use this outdoor staging area for the outdoor storage of electrical poles, equipment, job trailer and employee/company vehicle parking. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. July 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 8 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 that this item be tabled to the August 9th special meeting. He noted that Xcel was planning to begin this project on August 5th. He stated that Xcel is asking for a preliminary recommendation to begin moving items into the storage area on August 5th, which will be slightly ahead of the official approvals that would be gained. He noted that staff would bring the preliminary recommendation to the Council at its August 4th meeting. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if the City would have the right to do so. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that the City Attorney has stated that the Council has the ability to grant that preliminary approval. Commissioner Petschel stated that if the Council is going to hear an action regardless of what is granted by the Commission, would the action of the Commission be necessary. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that staff would still like the recommendation from the Commission to go forward to Council for the preliminary review. He stated that if not approved preliminarily by the Council, the applicant would need to wait for the August 9th special Commission meeting and August 17th Council meeting. Commissioner Corbett commented that he would be interested in knowing what the urgency is. Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that a letter from Xcel was received and asked if there is something in writing stated that the cemetery supports this. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that the cemetery did sign the application as the property owner. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that a representative from the cemetery is present tonight. Commissioner Corbett stated that his original thought was to table this, but it appears that a recommendation should also be made. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that Xcel would like to start this project sooner and therefore if there are no issues related to the outdoor storage yard staff would ask that the Commission provide a preliminary approval that will be reviewed by the Council. He did not believe that this would set precedent as this is a special circumstance. Chair Field invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission. July 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 8 Chris Berglund, Xcel Energy, commented that they have schedule material delivery dates and if that needs to be changed it would result in additional costs and delays. He stated that the delay was not based on the applicant but the fact that the notice was not published in the Pioneer Press. Commissioner Toth stated that it would be fair to say this project was planned some time ago but did not happen. He recognized that materials have had delays recently. He asked for more information on the planning process. Mr. Berglund stated that they planned for months to move forward but needed a site to store the materials. He stated that once they found the cemetery was in agreement to allow them to store materials, he was alerted by the City that an Interim Use Permit would be necessary, and the process would take five to six weeks. He noted that typically their storage yards do not require IUP’s. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Ed Henn, 1288 Aspen Way, stated that a reference was made to Xcel’s Sibley Gas Plant site located off Highway 13, which had a similar temporary outdoor storage area approved about four years ago; and further stated that during that time Xcel was prompt and neat and the site was cleaned up when they were finished. He concluded he would be in favor of moving this forward. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, asked if this could be documented that this is not intended to set precedent but is instead caused by extraordinary circumstances. Dave Kemp, Catholic Cemeteries, commented that this temporary storage will not bother their site. He stated that he has been working with Xcel and has had no problems or conditions outside of the things they have already come to agreement on. He stated that the cemetery likes the project as the towers will be removed and it will become more modern. He recognized that they would have some disruption but believed that the outcome will outweigh that temporary disruption. He stated that they 100 percent support the project. Mr. Berglund thanked the Commission for their consideration. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM TO TABLE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE AUGUST 9, 2021 SPECIAL MEETING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that Xcel is asking for preliminary approval and therefore would be looking for a preliminary recommendation from the Commission that will go forward to the Council at its August 4th meeting. He noted that this matter will come back to the Commission at its special meeting on August 9th and then again to the Council on August 17th. He noted that this would allow Xcel to move forward with bringing materials and equipment onto the site. He confirmed that this would not set precedent value for other cases. July 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 8 Commissioner Corbett stated that he is not worried about precedent but is worried about what would occur if this were not eventually approved and the applicant has already brought materials on site. Commissioner Development Director Tim Benetti stated that staff is asking the Commission to forward this to the Council for its consideration. Chair Field noted that he would see this as the risk of the applicant. Commissioner Toth referenced the recommended conditions. He stated that there will be some wet months coming up and construction vehicles would be coming out of a dirt area and asked who would be responsible for cleaning up the streets. Chair Field stated that this discussion is only related to the preliminary period through August 17th and therefore that question should be delayed to the August 9th special meeting. Commissioner Petschel asked if this preliminary approval should sunset on August 18th which would allow one day to remove equipment if the final request is denied. Chair Field confirmed that would be implied. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE INTERIM USE PERMIT REQUEST THAT WILL SUNSET ON AUGUST 18, 2021, TO ALLOW DELIVERY OF EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS THAT WILL BE SUBJECT BY THE INTERIM USE PERMIT THAT WILL BE REVIEWED ON AUGUST 9, 2021 AND AUGUST 17, 2021; THIS IS DUE TO REASONS CAUSED BY THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND THEREFORE DOES NOT SET PRECEDENT. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER CORBETT ASKED IF THE MATERIAL WOULD BE SCREENED. HE ALSO ASKED THE INTENSITY OF THE USAGE. CHAIR FIELD ASKED IF THE CONDITIONS FROM THE REPORT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT HE WAS UNSURE THAT THE MOTION WAS INTENDED TO INCLUDE THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THE STORAGE WOULD LOOK LIKE. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL COMMENTED THAT THERE IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED. CHAIR FIELD RECOGNIZED THAT THERE WAS AN UNUSUAL ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR THAT IS CAUSING THIS DELAY. July 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 8 COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT HE FEELS THAT IF THE CONDITIONS ARE INCLUDED AT THIS TIME IT WOULD GRANT THE FULL APPROVAL, RATHER THAN WAITING UNTIL THE AUGUST 9TH MEETING TO DO SO. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM STATED THAT THIS COULD BE REMOVED FROM THE TABLE IN ORDER TO HEAR ADDITIONAL INPUT FROM THE APPLICANT. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT ASKED FOR DETAILS ON HOW THE SITE WOULD BE USED AND/OR SCREENED. MR. BERGLUND STATED THAT CONSTRUCTION MATS WOULD BE PLACED TO AVOID DISTURBANCE OF THE GROUND. HE NOTED THAT THERE IS A TEN FOOT FENCE BUT THEY COULD ADD ADDITIONAL FENCING/SCREENING. HE STATED THAT IF ANY MUD IS TRACKED ONTO THE STREET, XCEL WOULD CLEAN IT UP. COMMISSIONER TOTH COMMENTED THAT THERE ARE GOOD AND BAD CONSTRUCTION SITES. HE NOTED THAT THIS IS WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL AREA AND URGED XCEL TO DO AN EXCELLENT JOB. HE STATED THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT WALK THROUGH THE CEMETERY PROPERTY AND SUGGESTED THAT SIGNAGE BE POSTED ALERTING PEOPLE TO KEEP OUT OF THE CONSTRUCTION AREA. MR. BERGLUND STATED THAT THREE STRUCTURES WOULD BE WITHIN THE CEMETERY AND DESCRIBED THE PROCESS THAT WOULD BE FOLLOWED. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT TO TABLE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE AUGUST 9, 2021 SPECIAL MEETING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE CONDITIONS TWO THROUGH SEVEN OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 July 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 8 C) PLANNING CASE 2021-14 JAMIE ANDERSON, 1892 AND 1881 ORCHARD HEIGHTS LANE – LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Jamie Anderson, in cooperation with Ms. Josephine Bahl, are requesting consideration of a simple lot line adjustment between two properties located at 1892 and 1881 Orchard Heights Lane. 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 that this be tabled to the special August 9th Commission meeting. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked who came up with the shape. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that the shape is unusual but was a preferred choice between the property owners. Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that it would have been helpful to have a topography map. Commissioner Petschel asked if the City approved this platting or whether it came about as a result of the lawsuit. Chair Field commented that it was a result of the lawsuit. Commissioner Petschel asked if the line would be pinned with buried markers. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that would typically be the process. Jamie Anderson, 1892 Orchard Heights Lane, stated that the curved line is the property that wraps around the edge of the pond. He noted that they matched the curve to minimize the impact to the other lot. Commissioner Corbett asked if there was a width they were attempting to achieve. Commissioner Petschel asked and received confirmation that the property line would follow the terrain. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Josephine Bail, 1881 Orchard Heights, stated that she is fully supportive of the line as drawn as this mirrors the land and provides the Andersons access to the back portion of their land. July 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 8 Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO TABLE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE AUGUST 9, 2021 SPECIAL MEETING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 D) PLANNING CASE 2021-12 AT HOME APARTMENTS/MENDOTA HEIGHTS MALL ASSOCIATES LLC, LOT 1, BLOCK 1 MENDOTA PLAZA EXPANSION 2ND ADDITION – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDING THE PLAZA OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT & WETLAND PERMIT Item tabled by the applicant prior to the meeting. E) PLANNING CASE 2021-13 AT HOME APARTMENTS/MENDOTA MALL ASSOCIATES LLC, LOT 7, BLOCK 1 MENDOTA PLAZA EXPANSION ADDITION – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDING THE PLAZA OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Item tabled by the applicant prior to the meeting. New/Unfinished Business Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that approval was received from the Metropolitan Council on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and noted that the plan will be forwarded to the Council for final adoption in August. He provided an update on recent Council review of recommended actions by the Commission. Adjournment COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:01 P.M. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING JULY 13, 2021 The December meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on Tuesday, July 13, 2021, 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: Bob Klepperich, Jaffrey Blanks (arrived at 6:32 p.m.), and Stephanie Meyer; absent: Commissioner Amy Smith, Patrick Cotter, and Dan Sherer. Student Representative: Nico Hess. Staff present: Recreation Program Coordinator, Meredith Lawrence, Assistant City Administrator, Cheryl Jacobson and Public Works Director, Ryan Ruzek. Recreation Coordinator Meredith Lawrence stated that the Commission currently does not have a quorum of members present and therefore formal action cannot be taken unless another member arrives. She stated that staff presentations can still be provided, and resident comments can be received. Commissioner Blanks arrived and therefore quorum was achieved. 3. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 4. Approval of Agenda Motion Klepperich/second Meyer, to approve the agenda AYES 4: NAYS 0 5.a Approval of Minutes from May 11, 2021 Regular Meeting Commissioner Klepperich stated that in item 8B, it should state, “…the pleasure rink is light lit…” Motion Klepperich/second Blanks, to approve the minutes of the May 11, 2021 Parks and Recreation Commission Regular Meeting as amended. AYES 4: NAYS 0 6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) Bob Blumberg Jr., of 1740 James Road, stated that he lives near Marie Park and loves that park. He complimented the Commission on the new swing set. He stated that he noticed that there was previously a grill at the park that has been removed and asked if that would be replaced. He stated that he would highly recommend that the grill be replaced for use in the park. Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence commented that the grill was removed to make additional space for the larger playground. She noted that staff is reviewing the condition of the grill to determine if it could be relocated or whether a new grill should be purchased but advised that a grill will be reinstalled at the park. Mr. Blumberg recommended that the City look at a grill model that has one post with two back- to-back grills that would allow for two users. He stated that he is a senior citizen that loves the Par 3 Course and commented that it would be great to see carts available for use with the senior golf pass. Chair Goldade commented that the Commission can consider the use of carts with the senior pass when the annual review is done of the Par 3. Mr. Blumberg commented that he recently visited Valley Park to see the new pavilion and did not see any grills. He suggested that perhaps a review of all the parks be done related to grill availability. Chair Goldade stated that the Commission is doing a study to update the amenities at the parks and grills can be an included option. He thanked the resident for his input. 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 provided a brief update including turf conditions related to the drought, completion of aeration, golf camps and registrations, and senior golf pass. She reported that a Junior PGA event was held on July 6th with over 70 participants. She reviewed the details of the May 2021 Financial Report. Chair Goldade asked the percentage of the 70 participants that were from outside of Mendota Heights. Ms. Lawrence commented that Junior PGA events tend to bring participants from all over the state and estimated perhaps five or six Mendota Heights residents. 7.b Recreation Update Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence commented that recreation programing has been off to a good start, and they are looking to expand programing as they continue to move forward. She stated that information was included in the packet on the Officer Scott Patrick 5K Memorial event. She stated that the Park Celebration will occur in August. She stated that details were also provided within the packet on free programing provided in the parks. Commissioner Meyer asked if the Commission members would sign up for shifts for the Park Celebration event. Ms. Lawrence commented that they have attempted to expand the celebration beginning with a food truck festival on Friday night along with a band and then reviewed the events planned for Saturday. Commissioner Klepperich asked if the calendar within the packet could be shared with residents. Ms. Lawrence reviewed the upcoming City events. Chair Goldade asked if the Commission should assign representatives for each of the events for the weekend of the Park Celebration. Ms. Lawrence confirmed that could be done. Commissioner Meyer agreed it would be nice if each member of the Commission were involved with different parts of the celebration. 7.c Parks Improvement Update Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence noted that within the report was an update on the ribbon cutting for the new playground at Marie Park. She stated that there are still a few elements that will be added that were delayed. She stated that the two additional pickleball courts were added at Marie Park, for a total of six courts. She noted that staff is still working to complete the relining of the basketball courts and hope to have that completed in August. She noted that there was some work completed at the Skate Park in June and it looks to be a lot safer for those users as they continue to discuss the future of the Skate Park. She noted that staff will be completing a walk through with the Loss Control representative from the League of Minnesota Cities the following day. Commissioner Meyer referenced the Valley Park basketball hoop and asked where the hoop would be located on the court. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the hoop would be located on the outfield side, which would be the north side. Chair Goldade recognized former Mayor Garlock for the excellent work on the Scott Patrick Memorial 5k. He stated that people are very excited about the ribbon cutting at Marie Park and the new playground. He stated that he has received questions about the zipline and whether there should be platforms at both ends. Ms. Lawrence replied that it is technically not a zipline and is called a track ride. She stated that the construction is different than a zipline as it is meant to bring you back where you started. She noted that could follow up to determine if there should be another platform. Motion Meyer/second Klepperich to acknowledge the staff reports. AYES 4: NAYS 0 8. New Business 8.a Review Request for the Usage of Lights at Marie Park Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence stated that the Commission is asked to review a request from multiple residents, to use the existing hockey lights during the summer season for pickleball. She provided details on the light use during the winter months for hockey play. She stated that City Code establishes the park hours from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. She stated that she received a request from a resident in May for the lights to stay on until 10:00 p.m. She noted that this was considered by the Commission at its May 11th meeting where the Commission agreed to a trial program and reviewed the timeframe and allowed times of light use for the trial period. She stated that the Commission asked the Council for its consideration and at the May 18th meeting the Council directed staff to send out notification to surrounding residents to gather input. She stated that notices were sent to residents within 500 feet of the entire park boundary on June 7th asking residents to attend this meeting to provide any input on the potential use of lights for pickleball. She noted that the Commission would make a recommendation and the final decision would be of the City Council. She estimated a cost of $30 per month if the light use is approved. She provided written comments from residents that were unable to attend the meeting. Chair Goldade complimented City staff and the direction of the Commission for getting the mailing out to residents. He stated that whether someone is for or against the issue, he believed that this would be the correct process for the City to follow in order to gather input and make residents aware of the request. Ms. Lawrence commented that staff would ask the Commission to acknowledge receipt of resident comments at any time before a recommendation is made. Chair Goldade noted that four comments were received from three households opposed to the light use. Motion Meyer/second Blanks to acknowledge the resident comments received via email on this issue. AYES 4: NAYS 0 Bob Blumberg asked if the lights on the hockey rink would light up the basketball and tennis courts. Ms. Lawrence commented that will be part of the discussion tonight. She stated that there is ability to light the basketball court, but the tennis court does not have lighting available. Mr. Blumberg stated that if the pickleball courts are going to be lit, perhaps it would make sense for the basketball court. He also asked if those amenities would then be open until 10 p.m. Ms. Lawrence commented that the park hours are until 10 p.m. and therefore any sport could be played until that time. She stated that the residents requested that light use be allowed until 10 p.m. but the Commission is considering a pilot program that would allow light use until 8 p.m. She stated that the only courts that would be illuminated would be the hockey rink for pickleball, but the Commission could also choose to light the basketball court. She confirmed that users can be within the park until 10 p.m. regardless of whether the lights are on. Mr. Blumberg stated that he does not have an objection to lighting whether it is until 8 or 10 p.m. Chair Goldade stated that as originally proposed, the pilot program would be from mid- September to October 31st with the lighting on until 8 p.m. He stated that everyone would agree that Marie Park is a busy park but acknowledged that everyone reacts to that busyness differently. Student Representative Hess commented that it would be helpful to have access to the courts at later hours. He stated that younger people would tend to choose basketball over pickleball. He asked that if the pickleball courts are illuminated, the basketball courts should be lit as well. Commissioner Meyer commented that when reviewing the sunset times for September, the lights would not be on that long after sunset and therefore it would not be a huge amount of time. She was unsure that it would be worth having the lights on for a short period of time with the risk that the timer may not work correctly, and staff would need to correct that. She stated that perhaps it is more hassle than it would be worth but could go either way. Commissioner Klepperich agreed because of the sunset times for September and October, noting that much time would not be gained by the use of the lights. He stated that sunset would begin earlier at the end of October, but then weather conditions begin to set in. Chair Goldade asked for input from staff. Ms. Lawrence stated that she spoke with the parks lead and parks superintendent and they did not have a position and would be happy to support the recommendation of the Commission. She stated that she would be happy to complete the trial period if the Commission desires but would not have strong feelings if the Commission chooses not to recommend that. Commissioner Klepperich stated that if this does not move forward tonight, perhaps this be brought back again for consideration in the spring. Chair Goldade suggested a modification that would increase the time for people to play pickleball; changing the time period to use the lights during October and November, weather permitting. He also suggested changing the end time to 7 p.m. or 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Klepperich stated that he would prefer to vote on the original pilot program rather than making changes. Motion Klepperich/second Blanks to recommend allowing lighting at Marie Park for the pickleball courts until 8 p.m. during the months of September and October as needed to enhance pickleball play. Further discussion: Commissioner Meyer asked if the impact to wildlife has been considered from the lighting. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the request for lighting at Rogers Lake Park was denied for that reason but noted that light would have been on 24/7. A roll call vote was performed: Commissioner Meyer aye Commissioner Klepperich aye Chair Goldade aye Commissioner Blanks aye Motion carried. Motion Klepperich/second Blanks to recommend allowing lighting at Marie Park for the basketball court until 8 p.m. during the months of September and October. Further discussion: Commissioner Blanks asked and received confirmation that the Commission/City would have the ability to stop the lighting if issues arise. A roll call vote was performed: Commissioner Blanks aye Chair Goldade aye Commissioner Klepperich aye Commissioner Meyer aye Motion carried. Ms. Lawrence noted that this will move forward to the City Council next Tuesday, July 20th. Chair Goldade thanked all the residents that provided input during this process. 8.b Park Bench Donation – Skate Park Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that earlier this year the Commission put in a request to advertise the park bench donation program, which generated two park bench donations. He stated that tonight the Commission is asked to consider proposed locations for three park benches that have been donated. He provided details on the residents that donated the benches and the proposed locations. Chair Goldade asked for clarification on a proposed bench location. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided additional explanation. Chair Goldade suggested walking that trail when the Commission conducts park tours. He asked that the spelling be verified for one of the memorial plaques. Chair Goldade thanked all three families for donating and staff for advertising the program. He stated that people stop to remember loved ones and use the benches throughout the community. Motion Klepperich/second Meyer to accept the recommended locations for three donated park benches. AYES 4: NAYS 0 9. Unfinished Business 9.a Strategic Planning Update Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence stated that an update on the strategic planning for the parks was included in the packet. She thanked the members of the Commission for volunteering their time to participate in the planning sessions. She noted that the next step of the process will be to prioritize park improvements and recreational programming. She noted the upcoming worksession date. 10. Staff Announcements Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence shared the following announcements: • Announced the summer concert series • Other events and recreation opportunities can be found on the City’s website 11. Student Representative Update Student Representative Hess stated that the majority of teens using the parks has been focused on the skate park, trails, and basketball courts. He stated that he has also noticed teens using the athletic fields, tennis courts, and other park facilities. Chair Goldade commented that it seems the local coffee shop attracts a lot of youth. He noted that perhaps there would be an opportunity for youth programing at Market Square. He noted that there is property behind the preserve, Friendly Marsh, and asked if there could be something there for middle and high school students. 12. Commission Comments and Park Updates Commissioner Blanks • There has been a lot of baseball activity at his assigned parks. Commissioner Klepperich • Visited Ivy Hills and Civil Center Baseball parks and provided notes to staff. • Tennis lessons were being given at Ivy Hills. Commissioner Meyer • Marie Park has been very busy, in a positive way, being used by different people at different times of the day. • She is interested to see how the pilot lighting project goes, if approved by the Council. • Victoria Highlands saw more use when Marie Park playground was under construction. Chair Goldade • Marie Park has been busy, and people should be courteous of others and residents that live in the area. • He noticed a family grilling and enjoying the gazebo at Wentworth. • Acknowledged that a new sign was put up at Pilot Knob Hill Park. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided an update on a Dakota County park project which will be completed later this fall. 13. Adjourn Motion Klepperich/Second Meyer to adjourn the meeting at 7:41 PM AYES 4: NAYS 0 Minutes drafted by: Amanda Staple TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of Work Session Meeting Held Thursday, July 15, 2021 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Chair Goldade called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Commissioners Sherer, Blanks, Klepperich, Meyer and Cotter were also present. Assistant City Administrator Jacobson, Recreation Program Coordinator Lawrence, and Public Works Director Ruzek were also present. DISCUSSION OF PARKS AND RECREATION PROJECT PRIORITIZATION Assistant City Administrator Jacobson said that the purpose of the work session was to review and discuss park and recreation related projects for 2022. The commissioners reviewed and asked questions about the list of items staff was bringing to the City Council to review for the 2022 budget. ADJOURN Chair Goldade adjourned the meeting at 7:25 PM. Minutes Taken By: Meredith Lawrence Recreation Program Coordinator Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: August 17, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Massage Licenses COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve two new massage therapist licenses, contingent upon a successful background investigation that is in process. BACKGROUND Michelle Osborn and Christine Daniel have submitted applications for massage therapist licenses. Both applications are complete and all fees have been paid to the City. The police department is in the process of conducting a background investigation on each applicant. Christine Daniel has applied to work at Green Lotus Yoga and Healing Center, 750 Main Street. Michelle Osborn has applied to work at Heart to Home group homes located at 2370 Rogers Avenue and 2351 Pagel Road. If approved, the massage licenses would be valid through June 30, 2022. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Council approve massage therapist licenses for Christine Daniel and Michelle Osborn, effective through June 30, 2022, contingent upon no issues being found in the background investigation, and the approval from Police Chief McCarthy. Request for City Council Action DATE: August 17, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Kelly McCarthy, Chief of Police/Emergency Manager Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Police Sergeant Resignation and Position Recruitment INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to accept the resignation of Sergeant Tanner Spicer and authorize staff to begin the internal promotion process to fill the Sergeant position. BACKGROUND Tanner Spicer has resigned his position as Police Sergeant. Tanner has been a Sergeant with the Police Department since 2014. His resignation was effective August 6, 2021. To fill the vacant Sergeant position, staff is requesting authorization to begin the internal promotion process. The position announcement will open on or about August 20 and will consist of a resume review, interview and psychological testing. Sergeant minimum qualifications include: a Bachelor’s degree in law enforcement or equivalent field or currently working towards a four year degree; a minimum of five years full-time employment as a Minnesota POST licensed peace officer at the time of appointment, three of which must be consecutive years as an officer with the Mendota Heights Police Department. BUDGET IMPACT Funding for the position is provided for in the 2021 budget. ACTION RECOMMENDED Staff recommends that the City Council accept the resignation of Sergeant Tanner Spicer effective August 6, 2021, and authorize staff to begin the internal promotion process to fill the vacant position. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, accept the resignation of Sergeant Tanner Spicer effective August 6, 2021, and authorize staff to begin the internal promotion process. DATE: August 17, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-68 Approve Plans and Authorize Advertisement for Bids for the Ridge Place Sanitary Sewer and Streambank Repairs COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memo is to request that the Council approve the plans and specifications and authorize and advertisement for bid for the Ridge Place Sanitary Sewer and Streambank Repairs. BACKGROUND Mendota Heights constructed its sanitary sewer interceptor in 1966. The interceptor is a large diameter concrete pipe which makes up the backbone of the sewer system. A section of this system has sunk approximately 1.5 feet creating a sag. Floating sewage (mainly grease) is unable to pass through this sag area and builds up in the upstream manhole. City crews have had to regularly break up this blockage to prevent a backup. In 2016, Mendota Heights contracted with Foth Engineering on assessing the Sanitary Sewer Interceptor. The assessment was to replace the pipes upstream and downstream from the sunken manhole, stabilizing the pipe trench, and using lightweight fill. Adjacent to this interceptor is Interstate Valley Creek. Interstate Valley Creek is one of the major water ways which convey run-off to the Mississippi River. The creek starts at Friendly Marsh and flows under the Highway 62/Dodd Road intersection where it then meanders through Valley Park to the Mississippi River. The City excavated the channel from Friendly Marsh in 1963 to alleviate flooding in Friendly Hills. It is proposed that a stabilization project would begin at the undeveloped Ridge Place right-of-way and extend downstream approximately 1000 feet. Mendota Heights entered into a professional services contract with Barr Engineering on December 4, 2018 for design and inspection services of this contract. DISCUSSION The project plans and specifications provide flexibility in the construction schedule as a means to reduce costs. The contractor is allowed to perform the necessary work between October 2021 and May 2022. However, once the contractor begins its operations it will be required to complete the work within 30 days with the exception of some final repairs and restoration which may be completed in June of 2022. Due to the size of the plans and specifications, only the three plan sheets are provided in the Council packet. The complete bid package is available for review in the engineering department. Staff is also meeting with the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), Minnesota DNR, and the Army Corps on Monday August 23, 2021 to discuss the necessary permitting for working in the streambank. BUDGET The Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund has identified this need for several years and has reserved $315,000 for the sanitary sewer portion of the project. This may qualify for Federal ARP monies. The streambank stabilization of Interstate Valley Creek has been identified in the Storm Water Utility Fund and an estimated $150,000 has been reserved for the streambank portion of the project. Barr Engineering has provided an Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost and is estimating a contract of $346,000 for the project within a range of $330,000-$399,000. This estimate is within the budgeted range for the project. Staff does anticipate a professional services change order on this project as multiple designs have been considered based on working with the adjacent land owner and increased project scope. The original professional services contract was for $37,490. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council approve the plans and specifications for the Ridge Place Sanitary Sewer and Streambank Repairs, and authorize the advertisement for bids. ACTION REQUIRED If City Council wishes to implement the staff recommendations, pass a motion adopting A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE RIDGE PLACE SANITARY SEWER AND STREAMBANK REPAIRS. This action requires a super majority vote. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-68 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE RIDGE PLACE SANITARY SEWER AND STREAMBANK REPAIRS, PROJECT #201612 WHEREAS, the Public Works Director reported that the proposed improvements and construction thereof were feasible, desirable, necessary, and cost effective, and further reported on the proposed costs of said improvements and construction thereof; and WHEREAS, the City Council has heretofore directed the Public Works Director to proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications thereof; and WHEREAS, the Public Works Director has prepared plans and specifications for said improvements and have presented such plans and specifications to the City Council for approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED; by the Mendota Heights City Council as follows: 1. That the plans and specifications for said improvements be and they are hereby in all respects approved by the City. 2. That the Clerk with the aid and assistance of the Public Works Director be and is hereby, authorized and directed to advertise for bids for said improvements all in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes, such as bids to be received at the City Hall of the City of Mendota Heights by 2:00 P.M., Tuesday, September 14, 2021, and at which time they will be publicly opened in the City Council Chambers of the City Hall by the Public Works Director, will then be tabulated, and will then be considered by the City Council at its next regular Council meeting. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventeenth day of August 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST _________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk CADD USER: Eric P. Fitzgerald FILE: M:\DESIGN\23191421.00\23191421_G-01_TITLE SHEET.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1:2 PLOT DATE: 7/19/2021 10:12 AMBAR M:\AutoCAD 2011\AutoCAD 2011 Support\enu\Template\Barr_2011_Template.dwt Plot at 1 10/05/2010 14:03:50..CLIENTBIDCONSTRUCTIONABC0123REVISION DESCRIPTIONDATEAPP.BYNO. CHK.TO/FORRELEASEDDATE RELEASEDApprovedDesignedDrawnCheckedDateScaleDWG. No.BARR PROJECT No.CLIENT PROJECT No.REV. No.Minneapolis, MinnesotaPh: 1-800-632-2277Corporate Headquarters:DATELICENSE #SIGNATUREI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THESTATE OF MINNESOTA.BARR ENGINEERING CO.Project Office:PRINTED NAMEPh: 1-800-632-2277MINNEAPOLIS, MN 554354300 MARKETPOINTE DRIVEFax: (952) 832-2601www.barr.comSuite 200AS SHOWN07/19/2021EPFPJH2BARRJPHCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN.MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN.TITLE SHEET, PROJECT LOCATION, ANDSHEET INDEX23/19-1421.00201612G-01 B07/19/2021-JIM HERBERTGENERAL NOTES:1. CONTOUR DATA SHOWN IN THIS PLAN SET IS BASED ON 2019 LiDARTOPOGRAPHY AND SURVEY PERFORMED BY BARR ENGINEERING INSEPTEMBER 2020.2. IMAGERY; COPYRIGHT PICTOMETRY INTERNATIONAL CORP AND DAKOTACOUNTY, MINNESOTA, 2019.3. HORIZONTAL DATUM AND COORDINATE SYSTEM: DAKOTA COUNTYCOORDINATES, NAD83, US SURVEY FEET.4. VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88.GOPHER STATE ONE CALL:CALL BEFORE YOU DIG.1-800-252-11661-PLAN: PROJECT LOCATIONN05001,000SCALE IN FEET. . . . TITLE SHEET, PROJECT LOCATION, AND SHEET INDEXG-01. . . . EXISTING CONDITIONS, REMOVALS, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN. . . . SANITARY SEWER REPAIR - PLAN AND PROFILEC-02C-01C-04ENGINEER CONTACT:Jim Herbert, PEBarr Engineering Co.4300 Marketpoint Drive, Suite 200Minneapolis, MN 55435952-832-2784jherbert@barr.comOWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE CONTACT:Ryan Ruzek, PEPublic Works DirectorCity of Mendota Heights1101 Victoria CurveMendota Heights, MN 55118651-255-1152ryanr@mendota-heights.comCONTACTS:. . . . STABILIZATION DETAILSPROJECT LOCATIONDAKOTA COUNTYMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN. . . . EROSION CONTROL DETAILSG-03G-02. . . . STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP). . . . STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP)C-06HWY 35EC-03A EPF PJH207/19/2021ISSUED FOR REVIEWC-05CONSTRUCTION LIMITSJPHHWY 110 / HWY 62DODD RD.RIDGE PLACEMARIE AVE. W. . . . STREAM STABILIZATION - PLAN AND PROFILER-01. . . . SANITARY SEWER DETAILSB EPF PJH203/15/2021ISSUED FOR REVIEWJPH. . . . RESTORATION PLANWACHTLER AVE. WWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWT WT WT EUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEWTWTWTWTWTWT WTWT WTWTWTWTWTWT WTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWT WTWT WT WT WTWT WTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWT WTWTW T WTWTWTWTWT WTWTWTWTW T WTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWT WTWTWTW T WTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWT>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>UEUEUEUEUUEUEUEUUEUEUEUE>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>XXWWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWT WT WT UEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWT WTWT WT WT WTWT WTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWT WTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWT>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>UEU>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>UEUEUEUEUEUUEUUUUEUEUEUUEUU>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>XXXXSILT FENCE BAFFLESEECADD USER: Eric P. Fitzgerald FILE: M:\DESIGN\23191421.00\23191421_C-01_EROSION CONTROL PLAN.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1:2 PLOT DATE: 7/19/2021 10:27 AMBAR M:\AutoCAD 2011\AutoCAD 2011 Support\enu\Template\Barr_2011_Template.dwt Plot at 1 10/05/2010 14:03:50..REVISION DESCRIPTIONDATEAPP.BYNO. CHK.TO/FORRELEASEDDATE RELEASEDApprovedDesignedDrawnCheckedDateScaleDWG. No.BARR PROJECT No.CLIENT PROJECT No.REV. No.Minneapolis, MinnesotaPh: 1-800-632-2277Corporate Headquarters:DATELICENSE #SIGNATUREI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THESTATE OF MINNESOTA.BARR ENGINEERING CO.Project Office:PRINTED NAMEPh: 1-800-632-2277MINNEAPOLIS, MN 554354300 MARKETPOINTE DRIVEFax: (952) 832-2601www.barr.comSuite 200AS SHOWN07/19/2021EPFPJH2BARRJPHCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN.MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN.EXISTING CONDITIONS ANDEROSION CONTROL PLAN23/19-1421.00201612C-01 B07/19/2021-JIM HERBERTNHWY 110RIDGE PLACE4C-02PLAN: EXISTING CONDITONS AND EROSION CONTROLSCALE IN FEET80400EXISTING 10' CONTOUREXISTING 2' CONTOURSYMBOL AND PATTERN LEGEND>EXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING SANITARY SEWERSILT FENCECONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROUTEEROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES:1. INSTALL PERIMETER EROSION CONTROL AT THE LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLANS PRIORTO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY LAND DISTURBANCE OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.2. BEFORE BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, INSTALL A TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTIONENTRANCE AT EACH POINT WHERE VEHICLES EXIT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.3. INSTALL INLET PROTECTION AT ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CATCH BASIN INLETS WHICHRECEIVE RUNOFF FROM THE DISTURBED AREAS. CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAN, REMOVESEDIMENT, OR REPLACE STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION DEVICES ON A ROUTINE BASISSUCH THAT THE DEVICES ARE FULLY FUNCTIONAL FOR THE NEXT RAIN EVENT. SEDIMENTDEPOSITED IN AND/OR PLUGGING DRAINAGE SYSTEMS IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THECONTRACTOR. HAY BALES OR FILTER FABRIC WRAPPED GRATES ARE NOT ALLOWED FORINLET PROTECTION.4. LOCATE SOIL OR DIRT STOCKPILES NO LESS THAN 25 FEET FROM ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATEROADWAY OR DRAINAGE CHANNEL. IF REMAINING FOR MORE THAN SEVEN DAYS, STABILIZETHE STOCKPILES BY MULCHING, VEGETATIVE COVER, TARPS, OR OTHER MEANS. CONTROLEROSION FROM ALL STOCKPILES BY PLACING SILT BARRIERS AROUND THE PILES.TEMPORARY STOCKPILES LOCATED ON PAVED SURFACES MUST BE NO LESS THAN TWOFEET FROM THE DRAINAGE/GUTTER LINE AND SHALL BE COVERED IF LEFT MORE THAN 24HOURS.5. NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY AND SOIL CONDITIONS MUST BE PROTECTED, INCLUDINGRETENTION ONSITE OF NATIVE TOPSOIL TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE.6. ADDITIONAL MEASURES, SUCH AS HYDRAULIC MULCHING AND OTHER PRACTICES ASSPECIFIED BY THE CITY MUST BE USED ON SLOPES OF 3:1 (H:V) OR STEEPER TO PROVIDEADEQUATE STABILIZATION.7. FINAL SITE STABILIZATION MEASURES MUST SPECIFY THAT AT LEAST SIX INCHES OFTOPSOIL OR ORGANIC MATTER BE SPREAD AND INCORPORATED INTO THE UNDERLYINGSOIL DURING FINAL SITE TREATMENT WHEREVER TOPSOIL HAS BEEN REMOVED.8. CONSTRUCTION SITE WASTE SUCH AS DISCARDED BUILDING MATERIALS, CONCRETETRUCK WASHOUT, CHEMICALS, LITTER AND SANITARY WASTE MUST BE PROPERLYMANAGED.9. ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS MUST BE MAINTAINED UNTILCOMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION AND VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED SUFFICIENTLY TOENSURE STABILITY OF THE SITE, AS DETERMINED BY THE DISTRICT.10. ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS MUST BE REMOVED UPON FINALSTABILIZATION.11. SOIL SURFACES COMPACTED DURING CONSTRUCTION AND REMAINING PERVIOUS UPONCOMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION MUST BE DECOMPACTED TO ACHIEVE A SOILCOMPACTION TESTING PRESSURE OF LESS THAN 1,400 KILOPASCALS OR 200 POUNDS PERSQUARE INCH IN THE UPPER 12 INCHES OF THE SOIL PROFILE WHILE TAKING CARE TOPROTECT UTILITIES, TREE ROOTS, AND OTHER EXISTING VEGETATION.12. ALL DISTURBED AREAS MUST BE STABILIZED WITHIN 7 CALENDAR DAYS AFTERLAND-DISTURBING WORK HAS TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY CEASED ON A PROPERTYTHAT DRAINS TO AN IMPAIRED WATER, WITHIN 14 DAYS ELSEWHERE.13. THE PERMITTEE MUST, AT A MINIMUM, INSPECT, MAINTAIN AND REPAIR ALL DISTURBEDSURFACES AND ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES AND SOILSTABILIZATION MEASURES EVERY DAY WORK IS PERFORMED ON THE SITE AND AT LEASTWEEKLY UNTIL LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY HAS CEASED. THEREAFTER, THE PERMITTEEMUST PERFORM THESE RESPONSIBILITIES AT LEAST WEEKLY UNTIL VEGETATIVE COVER ISESTABLISHED. THE PERMITTEE WILL MAINTAIN A LOG OF ACTIVITIES UNDER THIS SECTIONFOR INSPECTION BY THE DISTRICT ON REQUEST.14. CHANGES TO APPROVED EROSION CONTROL PLAN MUST BE APPROVED BY THE EROSIONCONTROL INSPECTOR PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDEINSTALLATION AND DETAILS FOR ALL PROPOSED ALTERNATE TYPE DEVICES..15. IF DEWATERING OR PUMPING OF WATER IS NECESSARY, THE CONTRACTOR ISRESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ANY NECESSARY PERMITS AND/OR APPROVALS PRIOR TODISCHARGE OF ANY WATER FROM THE SITE. IF THE DISCHARGE FROM THE DEWATERINGOR PUMPING PROCESS IS TURBID OR CONTAINS SEDIMENT LADEN WATER, IT MUST BETREATED THROUGH THE USE OF SEDIMENT TRAPS, VEGETATIVE FILTER STRIPS, OR OTHERSEDIMENT REDUCING MEASURES SUCH THAT THE DISCHARGE IS NOT VISIBLY DIFFERENTFROM THE RECEIVING WATER. ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MAY BEREQUIRED AT THE DISCHARGE POINT TO PREVENT SCOUR EROSION.16.ACTIVITIES MUST BE CONDUCTED SO AS TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL TRANSFER OFAQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES (E.G., ZEBRA MUSSELS, EURASIAN WATERMILFOIL, ETC.) TOTHE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE.EXISTING WETLAND DELINEATION>>WTSEDIMENT CONTROL LOGSPROTECT EXISTING TREECONSTRUCTION LIMITSSILT FENCESEE1C-02ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCESEE6C-02SEDIMENT CONTROL LOGSEE2C-02CONSTRUCTION ACCESSPROTECT EXISTING TREECONSTRUCTION LIMITSSILT FENCE BAFFLESEEMH-25MH-24MH-23STAGING AREASTAGING AREASILT FENCESEE1C-02COORDINATE CONSTRUCTIONACCESS LAYOUT TOPROTECT LANDSCAPINGCLIENTBIDCONSTRUCTIONABC0123A EPF PJH207/19/2021ISSUED FOR REVIEWJPHB EPF PJH203/15/2021ISSUED FOR REVIEWJPH4C-021- WTWT WTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWT WTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWT WTWT WTWT WTWTWTWTWTWT WT WTWT WT WT WT^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^T8058108158208258308058108158208258300+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00MH-2548" SANITARY MANHOLERE 824.74IE IN 808.50 (27")(E)IE OUT 807.83 (27")(N)MH-2448" SANITARY MANHOLERE 825.71IE IN 807.51 (27")(S)IE OUT 807.12 (27")(NW)27" RCP @ 0.20%27" RCP @ 0.28%MH-2348" SANITARY MANHOLERE 822.95IE IN 807.00 (27")(SE)IE OUT 806.19 (27")(NW)27" RCP @ 0.28%MH-2248" SANITARY MANHOLERE 819.11IE IN 806.10 (27")(SE)IE IN 805.78 (27")(N)CADD USER: Eric P. Fitzgerald FILE: M:\DESIGN\23191421.00\23191421_C-03_SANITARY SEWER.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1:2 PLOT DATE: 7/19/2021 10:33 AMBAR M:\AutoCAD 2011\AutoCAD 2011 Support\enu\Template\Barr_2011_Template.dwt Plot at 1 10/05/2010 14:03:50..Suite 2004300 MARKETPOINTE DRIVEFax: (952) 832-2601www.barr.comPh: 1-800-632-2277MINNEAPOLIS, MN 554351-PLAN: RIDGE CREEK SANITARY SEWER REPAIRSN SCALE IN FEET603002-PROFILE: RIDGE CREEK SANITARY SEWER REPAIRSHORIZ. SCALE IN FEET60300EXISTING SANITARY SEWER^^EXISTING STORM SEWER>EXISTING 10' CONTOUREXISTING 2' CONTOURSYMBOL AND PATTERN LEGENDEXISTING GAS LINEGASEXISTING WATER LINEWCONSTRUCTION LIMITSEXISTING WETLANDWTEXISTING FENCEX750752PROTECT EXISTING TREEREVISION DESCRIPTIONDATEAPP.BYNO. CHK.TO/FORRELEASEDDATE RELEASEDApprovedDesignedDrawnCheckedDateScaleDWG. No.BARR PROJECT No.CLIENT PROJECT No.REV. No.Minneapolis, MinnesotaPh: 1-800-632-2277Corporate Headquarters:DATELICENSE #SIGNATUREI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THESTATE OF MINNESOTA.BARR ENGINEERING CO.Project Office:PRINTED NAMEAS SHOWN07/19/2021EPFMTSBARRMTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNSANITARY SEWER REPAIRPLAN AND PROFILE23/19-1421.00201612C-03 B07/19/2021-MEGAN STAGENOTES:1. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO LOCATE AND FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BY AHYDROVAC OR OTHER POTHOLING DEVICE PRIOR TO WORK.2. ALL EXISTING ROADS, PARKING LOTS, TRAILS, FENCES, SIGNS, OR SIMILAR SHALL BEPROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION UNLESS DIRECTED TO BE REMOVED BY ENGINEER.3. CONSTRUCTION LIMITS AS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. FINAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS TO BECOORDINATED WITH THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND STAKED IN THE FIELD.4. ALL TREES WITHIN 25 FEET OF ANY CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE PROTECTED DURINGCONSTRUCTION USING APPROVED TREE PROTECTION, UNLESS IDENTIFIED FOR REMOVALPLAN OR DIRECTED BY ENGINEER.5. ADJUST ALL EXISTING MANHOLES BASED ON FINAL GRADES.6. REMOVE DESIGNATED TREES AND DISPOSE OFF-SITE.7. PROTECT ALL TREES EXCEPT AS NOTED FOR REMOVAL.PROPERTY LINE (TYP.)EXISTING GROUND1206VERT. SCALE IN FEETWETLAND DELINEATIONSTREAM THALWEGREPLACE EXISTING 27" RCPCONSTRUCTION LIMITSEXISTING PROPERTY LINESANITARY SEWER EASEMENT-WATERTIGHT PIPE CONNECTIONSEE1-WATERTIGHT PIPE CONNECTIONSEE1REMOVE RISER SECTION, LOWER CASTING,INSTALL NEW WATER TIGHT COVER ANDGRADE SOIL AROUND STRUCTURE, ASDIRECTED BY ENGINEERAFTER SUB-CUT, CONTACTENGINEER FOR SOIL TESTINGSTAGING AREASTAGING AREANOTE:STAGING AREA COULD INCLUDE STANDINGWATER AND MAY NOT BE USABLEDEPENDING ON PRECIPITATION.PROTECT EXISTINGGARDEN PLOTSPROTECT TREEREMOVE TREEREMOVE TREEPROTECT TREEREMOVE TREEREMOVE EXISTING TREECLIENTBIDCONSTRUCTIONABC0123A EPF PJH207/19/2021ISSUED FOR REVIEWJPHB EPF PJH203/15/2021ISSUED FOR REVIEWJPH 8158208258158208250+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 5+75 W T W T WT WTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEWT WTWTWTWT WTWTWT WTW T WTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWWTWTWTWTWTW T WTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWT WT WTWTWTW T WTWTWTWTWTWTWT^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^UEU>>>>^^^^^^^^XXXW T W T WT WTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTUEUEUEUEUEWT WTWTWTW WT WTWTWTUEUEWTWTWTWWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTTWTUEWTWTWTWT WT WTWTWW T WTWTWTWTWTWT^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^WTWTTWT WWTT WTWTWTWTWWWTWTTWTWWWWTWTWTTTWWWWWTWTWTWTWTTTTTTTT WWWWWWWW T W T W T W T WWWWWW WTWTWTWTWTWTWWWWWWWTWTWTWTWWTWWTTTTTTTWTWTWTWWTWWWTWTWTEWTTTTWTWWWWWWTWTWTTWWWWWWWWWWWWWWTWTWTWWWWWWTWTWTWTWWTWTTTTT0+001+002+003+004+005+005+75CADD USER: Eric P. Fitzgerald FILE: M:\DESIGN\23191421.00\23191421_C-04_STREAM STABILIZATION.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1:2 PLOT DATE: 7/19/2021 10:36 AMBAR M:\AutoCAD 2011\AutoCAD 2011 Support\enu\Template\Barr_2011_Template.dwt Plot at 1 10/05/2010 14:03:50..Suite 2004300 MARKETPOINTE DRIVEFax: (952) 832-2601www.barr.comPh: 1-800-632-2277MINNEAPOLIS, MN 554351-PLAN: STREAM STABILIZATIONSCALE IN FEET603002-PROFILE: STREAM STABILIZATIONHORIZ. SCALE IN FEET60300EXISTING SANITARY SEWER^^EXISTING STORM SEWER>EXISTING 10' CONTOUREXISTING 2' CONTOURSYMBOL AND PATTERN LEGENDEXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRICOECONSTRUCTION LIMITSEXISTING WETLAND DELINIATIONWTEXISTING FENCEX750752REVISION DESCRIPTIONDATEAPP.BYNO. CHK.TO/FORRELEASEDDATE RELEASEDApprovedDesignedDrawnCheckedDateScaleDWG. No.BARR PROJECT No.CLIENT PROJECT No.REV. No.Minneapolis, MinnesotaPh: 1-800-632-2277Corporate Headquarters:DATELICENSE #SIGNATUREI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THESTATE OF MINNESOTA.BARR ENGINEERING CO.Project Office:PRINTED NAMEAS SHOWN07/19/2021EPFPJH2BARRJPHMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNSTREAM BANK STABILIZATIONPLAN AND PROFILE23/19-1421.00-C-04 B07/19/2021-JIM HERBERTNOTES:1. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO LOCATE AND FIELDVERIFY ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BY A HYDROVAC OROTHER POTHOLING DEVICE PRIOR TO WORK.2. ALL EXISTING ROADS, PARKING LOTS, TRAILS, FENCES,SIGNS, OR SIMILAR SHALL BE PROTECTED DURINGCONSTRUCTION UNLESS DIRECTED TO BE REMOVEDBY ENGINEER.3. CONSTRUCTION LIMITS AS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE.FINAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS TO BE COORDINATEDWITH THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND STAKED INTHE FIELD.4. ALL TREES WITHIN 25 FEET OF ANY CONSTRUCTIONSHOULD BE PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTIONUSING APPROVED TREE PROTECTION, UNLESSIDENTIFIED FOR REMOVAL PLAN OR DIRECTED BYENGINEER.5. TOTAL RIPRAP TOE PROTECTION LENGTH: 1,150 FEET.PROPERTY LINE (TYP.)EXISTING STREAM THALWEG1206VERT. SCALE IN FEETWETLAND DELINEATIONSTREAM THALWEGESTABLISH NATIVE VEGETATIONBUFFER WITHIN 10' FROM TOPOF STREAM BANKCONSTRUCTION LIMITSEXISTING PROPERTY LINENDOGWOOD LIVE STAKESNATIVE VEGETATION PLANTINGESTABLISH NATIVE VEGETATIONBUFFER WITHIN 10' FROM TOPOF STREAM BANKINSTALL CROSS VANE(SINGLE BOULDER)6" ABOVE EXISTINGSTREAM GRADESEE1C-06RESHAPE STREAM BANK(STA. 2+00 TO 3+00) TOSMOOTH CURVE AND SHIFTTOP OF BANK SOUTH ASFEASIBLE, MAINTAIN MIN.8-FT. CHANNEL BOTTOMWIDTH.STREAM EASEMENTSANITARY SEWEREASEMENTWATERMAIN EASEMENTSTREAM EASEMENTWATERMAIN EASEMENTRIPRAP TOE PROTECTIONBOULDER CROSS VANEBOULDER CROSS VANE(CV-01)BOULDER CROSS VANE(CV-02)BOULDER CROSS VANE(CV-04)INSTALL DOGWOOD LIVE STAKES INTORIPRAP UPPER BANK (3-4 PER SY)SEE3C-06INSTALL CROSS VANE (SINGLE BOULDER)6" ABOVE EXISTING STREAM GRADESEE1C-06RIPRAP TOE PROTECTIONSEE2C-06RIPRAP TOE PROTECTIONSEE2C-06INSTALL CROSS VANE (SINGLE BOULDER)6" ABOVE EXISTING STREAM GRADESEE1C-06GRADE BANK TO PROVIDE DRAINAGE FROMOVERBANK WETLAND AREA INTO CHANNELPROTECT EXISTING TREE AND ROOTSTRUCTURE, ADJUST RIPRAPPLACEMENT AS NECESSARYPROTECT EXISTING TREEBOULDER CROSS VANE(CV-03)INSTALL CROSS VANE(SINGLE BOULDER)6" ABOVE EXISTINGSTREAM GRADESEE1C-06PROTECT EXISTING TREE AND ROOTSTRUCTURE, ADJUST RIPRAPPLACEMENT AS NECESSARYINSTALL DOGWOOD LIVE STAKES INTORIPRAP UPPER BANK (3-4 PER SY)SEE3C-06INSTALL DOGWOOD LIVE STAKES INTORIPRAP UPPER BANK (3-4 PER SY)SEE3C-06PROTECT EXISTING TREE AND ROOTSTRUCTURE, ADJUST RIPRAPPLACEMENT AS NECESSARYPROTECT EXISTING TREE AND ROOTSTRUCTURE, ADJUST RIPRAPPLACEMENT AS NECESSARYCLIENTBIDCONSTRUCTIONABC0123A EPF PJH207/19/2021ISSUED FOR REVIEWJPHB EPF PJH203/15/2021ISSUED FOR REVIEWJPH 8/11/2021 Mendota Heights Building Activity Report Mike Andrejka, Building Official July 1, 2021 thru July 31, 2021 January 1, 2021 thru July 31, 2021 January 1, 2020 thru July 31, 2020 January 1, 2019 thru July 31, 2019 Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected SFD 2 1,270,460.00$ $13,643.03 SFD 9 6,206,010.00$ $65,440.26 SFD 4 2,109,865.00$ $23,557.06 SFD 4 2,836,742.00$ 28,675.36$ Apartment 0 -$ $0.00 Apartment 0 -$ $0.00 Apartment 0 -$ $0.00 Apartment 1 9,135,000.00$ 63,519.64$ Townhouse 0 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 2 1,000,000.00$ $8,641.88 Townhouse 0 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 0 -$ -$ Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ -$ Misc 86 3,921,369.51$ 40,644.34$ Misc 497 11,126,539.20$ 134,024.38$ Misc 388 5,320,506.26$ 70,283.49$ Misc 429 6,040,238.73$ 112,801.93$ Commercial 4 602,269.00$ $7,575.72 Commercial 13 10,031,310.35$ $87,844.01 Commercial 8 1,070,090.00$ $9,832.44 Commercial 16 11,212,662.00$ 43,239.39$ Sub Total 92 5,794,098.51$ 61,863.09$ Sub Total 521 28,363,859.55$ 295,950.53$ Sub Total 400 8,500,461.26$ 103,672.99$ Sub Total 450 29,224,642.73$ 248,236.32$ Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Plumbing 17 $2,013.80 Plumbing 144 $14,393.32 Plumbing 113 $9,886.20 Plumbing 151 23,601.28$ Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 -$ Sewer 3 $225.00 Sewer 18 $1,350.00 Sewer 11 $825.00 Sewer 5 375.00$ Mechanical 39 $3,213.86 Mechanical 255 397.00$ $28,194.78 Mechanical 177 $16,190.37 Mechanical 179 20,269.98$ Sub Total 59 5,452.66$ Sub Total 417 43,938.10$ Sub Total 301 $26,901.57 Sub Total 335 44,246.26$ License No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Contractor 0 $0.00 Contractor 0 $0.00 Contractor 0 $0.00 Contractor 263 13,150.00$ Total 151 5,794,098.51$ 67,315.75$ Total 938 28,363,859.55$ 339,888.63$ Total 701 8,500,461.26$ 130,574.56$ Total 1048 29,224,642.73$ 305,632.58$ NOTE: All fee amounts exclude SAC, WAC and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan review fee and valuation totals Date: August 17, 2021 To: Mayor, City Council, City Administrator From: Kelly McCarthy, Police Chief Subject: CERT Presentation Comment: At its August 17th meeting, the City Council will hear a presentation about the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT). CERT is a joint program between the City’s Police and Fire Departments, and will prepare residents for assisting in response to disasters. The presentation at the City Council meeting will be by Sgt. Fleming. Kelly McCarthy Police Chief Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: August 17, 2021 TO: Mayor Levine and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-65 Approving a Variance and Conditional Use Permit for 650 Brookside Lane [Planning Case No. 2021-10] Introduction The City Council is asked to adopt a resolution approving a variance and conditional use permit to allow an expansion to an existing legal, nonconforming residence in the R-1 Zone, and a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow for a covered porch to encroach into the front yard setback. The applicant and property owner is Gerald and Yelena Ziebol. Background The subject parcel is generally located at the southeast corner of Brookside Lane and Laura Street, addressed as 650 Brookside Lane. The property contains an existing 994-sf. single-family dwelling, built in 1927, which does not meet current R-1 Zone setbacks (30-ft.) from either Laura Street or Brookside Lane roadways, thereby deeming this property [legal] non-conforming. The Ziebol’s are seeking to construct a new single-story addition of approx. 1,550-sf. in size on the east and south sides of the existing dwelling; along with a new 5’ x 10’ open covered porch, that will extend slightly into the front yard setback area, which is allowed by CUP approval (City Code Section 12-1D-4). On July 27, 2021, the Planning Commission held an initial public hearing on this item, whereby a planning report was presented and received by the commission, and comments from the Applicant and public were allowed, and this item was tabled to the August 9, 2021 Special Planning Commission meeting. At the August 9th meeting, the hearing was re-opened, with no additional comments or objections from the public. A copy of the 08/09/2021 planning staff report and meeting minutes are appended to this memo. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimously (6-0 vote) to approve the Variance and Conditional Use Permit for 650 Brookside Lane, with conditions and findings-of-fact supporting this approval. Action Requested If City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2021- 65 APPROVING A VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 650 BROOKSIDE LANE. Action on the resolution requires a simple majority vote. If the Council wishes to over-turn this recommendation, make a motion to table this matter; and direct city staff to prepare an alternative resolution of denial for consideration at the September 9, 2021 meeting. (note: the 60-day statutory review period for this application expires 09/12/2021) CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-65 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 650 BROOKSIDE LANE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2021-10) WHEREAS, Gerald and Yelena Ziebol (“Applicant”) applied for a Variance and a Conditional Use Permit for the property located at 650 Brookside Lane (“Subject Property”), legally described on attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and is situated in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property’s existing single-family dwelling, due primarily to its build date and pre-existing development on the property, does not meet current R-1 District setback standards, and is therefore deemed a legal, nonconforming property, per City Code 12-1D-1; and WHEREAS, the Applicant seeks a variance to construct a new living addition to the existing nonconforming structure on the subject property, which does not increase or add to any of the reduced setbacks created by the existing residential structure; and Applicant seeks approval to construct a new 5’ x 10’ covered unenclosed porch to the front, which will encroach five feet (5’) into the front-yard setback, which is allowed per the standards and approvals granted under City Code Section 12-1D-4; and WHEREAS, Title 12-1L-5 of the City Code (Variances) allows for the Council to grant variances or certain modifications from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code, and impose conditions and safeguards with variances if so needed or granted: and WHEREAS, Title 12-1L-6 of the City Code (Conditional Uses) allows for the Council to grant conditional use permits for certain uses or improvements subject to the provisions of the City Code, and impose conditions and safeguards with said permits if so needed or granted: and WHEREAS, on July 27, 2021, the Planning Commission held an initial public hearing on this item, whereby a planning report was presented and received by the commission, and comments from the Applicant and public were allowed, and this item was tabled to the August 9, 2021 Special Planning Commission meeting; and WHEREAS, on August 9, 2021, the Planning Commission re-opened the hearing, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this item with staff and the Applicant, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (6-0 vote) to approve the Variance and Conditional Use Permit with specific conditions and findings-of-fact as noted in this resolution. Mendota Heights Res. 2021-65 Page 2 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation from the Planning Commission is hereby affirmed, and the Variance and Conditional Use Permit requested under Planning Case No. 2021-10, is hereby approved, with the following findings of fact: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance for a reduced setbacks by the following supporting statements: i.) the proposed 1,550-sq. ft., single-floor addition to the existing property is consistent with other homes and properties throughout the surrounding neighborhood, and the overall use and enjoyment of the home and property does not change even with the variance to allow the reduced setbacks on the structure, and therefore the requested variance is considered a reasonable request. ii.) the subject property was originally built in 1927, creating some unique circumstances not created by the owner today, particularly with the placement of the existing home with reduced setbacks from the adjacent road ROW’s, which in turn generate some unique circumstances, difficulties or impediments to the Applicant for making a reasonable residential living space addition to an existing nonconforming structure, except by means of a variance. iii.) approving the Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as the neighboring properties and residential neighborhood area should not be affected by the approval of this variance; and iv.) This new addition authorized by this variance is considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans, goals and policy statements contained in the 2030 and 2040 Comprehensive Plans of the community. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5.E.1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not impact or pose any negative threats upon the neighborhood or the community in general. Mendota Heights Res. 2021-65 Page 3 D. Approval of the Variance is for 650 Brookside Lane only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by city staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. Pursuant to City Code 12-1D-4: Yards and Open Spaces, a covered entryways or porch may extend into the front yard setback with approval granted by means of a conditional use permit, subject to compliance with the following conditions: i.) such structure may not extend into the front or side yard more than 5-feet; ii.) such structure shall be limited in size to fifty (50) square feet; and iii.) such structure may not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building; and the City hereby determines this new porch/entryway as proposed under this application meets these parameters set by this section, and therefore can be approved. F. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2021-10, dated and presented July 27, 2021 and August 9, 2021 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into this Resolution No. 2021-65. G. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to this land use request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance and conditional use permit; and the conditions related to this transaction are as follows: 1) The new addition must match the architectural plans and designs presented in this variance request on the subject property. 2) The proposed residential addition and all other related improvements shall be constructed in compliance with all applicable City Code and State of Minnesota Building Code standards. 3) The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any excavation or construction of the new addition and/or porch improvement. 4) All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 5) Approval of the variance is contingent upon City Council approval of the application and corresponding site plan. If the variance is approved by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed addition within one (1) year from said approval date. Mendota Heights Res. 2021-65 Page 4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Variance and Conditional Use Permit applications for the property located at 650 Brookside Lane, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2021-10 is hereby approved. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 17th day of August, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk Mendota Heights Res. 2021-65 Page 5 EXHIBIT-A PROPERTY ADDRESS: 650 Brookside Lane Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 PID No. 27-69702-06-040 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 6 and 7, Block 6, T.T. Smith’s Subdivision No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. (Abstract property) Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Planning Case 2021-10 (Ziebol-VAR & CUP) Page 1 of 8 PLANNING STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: August 9, 2021 (Special Meeting) TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2021-10 VARIANCE & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICANT: Gerald Ziebol PROPERTY ADDRESS: 650 Brookside Lane ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: September 12, 2021 INTRODUCTION Mr. Gerald “Jerry” & Yelena Ziebol, owners and residents of 650 Brookside Lane, are requesting a variance to expand an existing legal, nonconforming residence in the R-1 Zone, and a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow for a covered porch in the FY setback area. The subject property is located at 650 Brookside Lane. This planning case is actually a partial continuation of an original variance requested by the Ziebol’s in July 2018. An explanation of this delay is provided in the “Background” section – below. A public hearing notice for this item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. The applicant provided a list of adjacent homeowners who support his variance request, which are appended to this report. There have been no other comments or objections received from neighboring residents. BACKGROUND The subject parcel is generally located at the southeast corner of Brookside Lane and Laura Street. The site is 125-ft. deep by 120-ft. wide, or 15,000 sq. ft. in area. The property contains an existing 706-sf. (foundation size) single-family dwelling with 994-sf. of finished floor area, built in 1927. According to the applicant’s survey (attached), the existing house sits 23.1 to 23.6 feet off Laura Street to the west; 17.0 – 17.3 feet off Brookside Lane to the north; approx. 77-ft. from the east line; and approx. 60-ft. from the south line. Planning Case 2021-10 (Ziebol-VAR & CUP) Page 2 of 8 The site also contains an existing (non-conforming) 20’ x 30’ two-car detached garage, which sits 5.9-ft. from Laura Street and 2.2-ft. off the south line. On July 24, 2018, the applicant appeared before the Planning Commission requesting consideration of a separate variance application (Case No. 2018-19), whereby he presented a plan to construct a new 1,008- sf. addition of living space on the east side of the dwelling; a full-extension deck along the south; plus a new 22’ x 24’ (528-sf.) two-car attached garage addition. The addition with new garage was shown with only a 10-ft. setback off Laura Street. The applicant further requested an allowance to keeping the existing detached garage, whereas under City Code Sect. 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures, any residential parcel under 0.75 acres in size is not allowed to have a second detached garage if an attached (or detached) garage is present. At the July 24th, 2018 hearing, it appeared a majority of the commissioners were not supportive of the requested variances by Mr. Ziebol; and suggested he table this request, work with city staff to come up with possible alternatives, and return to the commission when ready. Staff began working with Mr. Ziebol on these alternatives; however, due to some personal and medical reasons, Mr. Ziebol requested an open-ended delay and deadline to bring his request back at a later date; and city staff agreed and accepted a written waiver from Mr. Ziebol on the statutory (60-day) review period. Now three years later, Mr. Ziebol has revised his original plans to provide a substantial single-story addition of approx. 1,550-sf. in size on the east and south sides of the existing dwelling (yellow highlighted area – image right), along with a new 5’ x 10’ open covered porch on the north or front elevation with Brookside Lane (green highlighted area – image right). The original planned two-car garage addition of 2018 has been eliminated. The elevation plans for the new addition and porch are appended to this planning report. ANALYSIS The minimum lot and setback standards are noted in the table below: Height Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 1 and 2 stories 15,000 sq. ft. 100' 30' 10' on each side or 1/2 height of the structure, whichever is greater, to a maximum of 15'. 30' or 20% of the average lot depth, whichever is greater • Side yards abutting a street shall not be less than 30-feet in width. Planning Case 2021-10 (Ziebol-VAR & CUP) Page 3 of 8 The new addition is shown with a slightly reduced setback or “indent” from the existing home’s setback along Laura Street. The south side of the addition is approx. 44-ft. from the south line; approx. 49-ft. from the east line; and 30-ft. from the north line. The new addition does not exceed the setbacks already established by the existing house, which is commendable. Pursuant to City Code 12-1D-4: Yards and Open Spaces, “Covered and/or enclosed entryways (porches, decks, stoops, or similar)” that extend into the front yard setback shall require the approval of a conditional use permit, subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Such structure may not extend into the front or side yard more than five feet (5'). 2. Such structure shall be limited in size to fifty (50) square feet. 3. Such structure may not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building. The plans call for an approximate 5’ x 10’ (50-sf.) covered porch, which extends five-feet into the 30-ft. FY setback. At this time, the proposed front porch meets these parameters and conditions, and city staff does not have any other comments or analysis to provide on this structure improvement.  Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Land Title 12-1D-1(D)(4) allows for the normal maintenance of a legal nonconforming structure, which does not intensify the nonconformity. In this case, the applicant is seeking an addition with significant structural improvements, but maintain the pre-existing (reduced) setbacks established by the existing house. The subject property is currently identified with the following (general) zoning standards: Standard Existing Condition Conforming Lot Area 15,000-sq. ft. 15,000-sq. ft. YES Lot Width 100-ft. 120-ft. YES Front Yard 30 ft. 17-ft. / 23.6-ft.. NO Side Yard 10 ft. or ½ of the height of the structure 77-ft. (east YES Rear Yard 30 ft. or 20% of the average lot depth 70-ft. YES As noted previously, the parcel is 15,000 sf. in area with 125-ft. of width (along Brookside Ln.). This property meets/exceeds the 15,000-sf. min. lot area and 100-ft. lot with standards for R-1 zoned properties. However, the existing house does not meet the required 30-ft. setbacks from both Brookside Lane and Laura Street, and therefore must be considered nonconforming. Since the applicant is expanding this existing nonconforming structure, a variance is in order.  Variance Process City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variance requests. The city must consider a number of variables when recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i) practical difficulties; and (ii) impact to the community. The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality or neighborhood. It is also noted that economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. In addition, variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further provides other issues the city may consider when granting or denying a variance, noted as follows: • Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community. Planning Case 2021-10 (Ziebol-VAR & CUP) Page 4 of 8 • Existing and anticipated traffic conditions. • Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. • Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan. • Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate undue hardship or difficulty. When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have been met in granting a variance, and provide findings-of-facts to support such a recommendation to the City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to meet these standards, or has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings-of-fact supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined. As part of any variance request, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and findings, which for this case, are noted below (in italic text), followed by a brief staff response: 1. Are there any practical difficulties that help support the granting of this variance? (“practical difficulties” means the owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by City Code) Applicant’s Response: “The proposed variance request denoted in building plans, would address a practical difficulty by providing bedroom access to the existing bathroom. Additionally, if approved the existing attached deck connected to the home at the South-West corner would be removed, decreasing the current building footprint that extends past the city setback.” Staff’s Response: County Assessor records indicate the property was built over 94 years ago, probably at a time where setbacks may not have been followed very closely - or quite possibly may not have existed at that time. In any event, the existing home does not meet required setbacks, and is therefore considered a legal, non-conforming structure in its present state. The owner/applicant is making a noticeable attempt to reduce any further impact(s) caused by the current location of the home with the reduced setbacks along both road frontages, by placing the addition on the opposite sides, thereby eliminating any obvious visual impacts from the road. The property is also fortunate to have adequate or extra lot space to put the addition, and still meet all other setbacks (front, side and rear yard). Although the owner could easily tear down the old home and start from scratch (especially with the larger lot and other physical aspects of the lot), he has chosen to keep and maintain the old and add on accordingly. As such, an expansion of any existing single-family dwelling, especially where it creates additional living/usable space and value to the existing home, can be (and should be) viewed as a reasonable use of the property, and considered compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. In light of this, staff feels a new addition proposed by the applicant is a reasonable request and the property will remain to be used in a reasonable manner as prescribed by Code. 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. Applicant’s Response: “There is occupied space that currently extends past the city setbacks, specifically a bathroom and living space and deck that was constructed prior owners purchase of the home.” This property is one of many located in the “North End” neighborhood, which contain a number of non-conforming issues throughout this area. The reduced setbacks or non-conforming standards are a common and shared trait among many other properties in the “North End” neighborhoods of the city. Planning Case 2021-10 (Ziebol-VAR & CUP) Page 5 of 8 Even though it may have been recommended favorably in other planning reports where variances were considered, these approvals do not add any precedent value to a new variance request (i.e. variances should stand on their own merits and be determined individually), but it is acceptable for the city to allow or grant some flexibility and favorable weight to such physical circumstances with certain properties. The city acknowledges there are somewhat unique circumstances that exist on this property, due in large part to the location or placement of the home on the parcel, which was not created by the applicant. This property consists of two platted lots, which were likely combined a number of years ago to form one single parcel. Staff assumes the original house was built on one lot and the second interior lot contained a home at one time, which has since been removed. The current location of the dwelling on the subject parcel only creates a practical difficulty in expanding the structure as an existing legal, nonconforming structure. The applicant was recommended by the Planning Commission in mid-2018 to seek other alternatives or work with city staff in working out this expansion. Staff believes the applicant has adequately addressed this and presents a very reasonable alternative under this application. Staff finds there may be some or enough unique circumstances related to this property, particularly with the reduced setbacks on the home – which were “not created by the owner...” that lend support in the granting of a variance in this case; and also gives some added weight to creating or supporting the practical difficulties argument for the property owner. 3. The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Applicant’s Response: “Updates to existing home would better align with adjacent and neighboring homes. The proposed expansion of kitchen, living room and bedroom would raise finished square footage of the home to a level commensurate to adjacent homes. Lastly, if the variance is granted the existing attached deck connected to the home at the South-West corner would be removed, which would decrease the current building footprint that extends past the city setback.” The surrounding neighborhood is all but residential in character, and is not expected to see or experience any major changes in the foreseeable future. This new home addition represents a considerable investment by the Applicant to provide adequate and needed living space with the older home. Staff believes the Applicant has demonstrated through their architectural design plans that the new addition is nice and attractive; will not look out of place; or would detract from the overall design and feel of the existing dwelling, neighboring properties or the overall neighborhood. Staff believes the essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered by granting this variance. 4. Restrictions on Granting Variances. The following restrictions should be considered when reviewing a variance: a) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. When weighing the economic factor(s) of a variance application, taking economic considerations alone should not be the only reason for denying - or even approving a variance. In this particular case, the property owner is simply requesting to add living space that better suits his family’s needs. Adding to the back of the home does not add any reduced setbacks along the roadways. The new addition should not impact any neighboring properties. Although one can conclude this new and larger residential structure will provide some economic value to the owner by increasing the property value of the home and/or marketability (future sale), the Applicant has demonstrated other practical difficulties in this case, and some reasonable explanations for requesting this variance. It is not clear how economic considerations alone may affect the outcome of this variance request, as they do not appear to be the sole reason for rejecting this variance. Planning Case 2021-10 (Ziebol-VAR & CUP) Page 6 of 8 b) Variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff finds that the request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the R-1 One Family Residence district, as this proposed home addition (and porch) is consistent with and allowed as a permitted use in the underlying zoning. The city is not allowed to permit a variance on any use not allowed in the district where the property is located (i.e. “use variance”); and this variance is not requesting such use. The R-1 districts are most predominant throughout the community, and this district is intended to maintain the character of even older neighborhoods, like the North End in the community. The subject property is designated as LR-Low Density Residential in the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and the same is called for proposed 2040 Plan. Certain land use goals and policies are noted below: • LUG #1: Maintain and enrich the mature, fully developed residential environment and character of the community. • LUP #5: Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level in community development and building. • LUP #2.2.2: Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level in community development and building. • LUP # 2.2.6: Provide a mechanism to allow for the maintenance and reinvestment in select non-conforming properties. The guiding principles in the comprehensive plan provide for maintaining, preserving, and enhancing existing single-family neighborhoods. The requested variance would preserve the residential character of the neighborhood and would provide a substantial investment into a property to enhance its overall use and enjoyment by the owner. The proposed addition creates no additional impacts or poses any threats on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. This new home addition and request for variance can be viewed or considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans for the community. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION 1. Recommend approval of the variance and conditional use permit, based on the following findings-of-fact that support the granting of the variance and conditional use permit as requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance for a reduced setbacks by the following supporting statements: i.) the proposed 1,550-sq. ft., single-floor addition to the existing property is consistent with other homes and properties throughout the surrounding neighborhood, and the overall use and enjoyment of the home and property does not change even with the variance to allow the Planning Case 2021-10 (Ziebol-VAR & CUP) Page 7 of 8 reduced setbacks on the structure, and therefore the requested variance is considered a reasonable request. ii.) the subject property was originally built in 1927, creating some unique circumstances not created by the owner today, particularly with the placement of the existing home with reduced setbacks from the adjacent road ROW’s, which in turn generate some unique circumstances, difficulties or impediments to the Applicant for making a reasonable residential living space addition to an existing nonconforming structure, except by means of a variance. iii.) approving the Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as the neighboring properties and residential neighborhood area should not be affected by the approval of this variance; and iv.) This new addition authorized by this variance is considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans, goals and policy statements contained in the 2030 and 2040 Comprehensive Plans of the community. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5.E.1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not impact or pose any negative threats upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of the Variance is for 650 Brookside Lane only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by city staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. Pursuant to City Code 12-1D-4: Yards and Open Spaces, a covered entryways or porch may extend into the front yard setback with approval granted by means of a conditional use permit, subject to compliance with the following conditions: (i.) such structure may not extend into the front or side yard more than 5-feet; (ii.) such structure shall be limited in size to fifty (50) square feet; and (iii.) such structure may not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building. The city hereby determines this new porch/entryway as proposed under this application meets these parameters and conditions, and therefore can be approved. F. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2021- 10, dated and presented July 27, 2021 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2021-____. (final number to be assigned later) G. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to this variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows: 1) The new addition must match the architectural plans and designs presented in this variance request on the subject property. 2) The proposed residential addition and all other related improvements shall be constructed in compliance with all applicable City Code and State of Minnesota Building Code standards. Planning Case 2021-10 (Ziebol-VAR & CUP) Page 8 of 8 3) The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any excavation or construction of the new addition and/or porch improvement. 4) All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 5) Approval of the variance is contingent upon City Council approval of the application and corresponding site plan. If the variance is approved by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed addition within one (1) year from said approval date. 2. Recommend denial of the variance request and the related conditional use permit, based on the findings-of-fact that confirm the Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a variance for reduced setbacks. The proposed living space addition is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and therefore this variance is not considered a reasonable request on the property; and furthermore the applicant failed to adequately justify the need for granting this variance. C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration to Alternative No. 1, approval of the variance and conditional use permit, with findings-of-facts to support the granting of said variance and conditional use permit to Gerald Ziebol of 650 Brookside Lane, with the conditions noted therein. Attachments 1. Aerial/Site Location Map 2. Planning Application – with Variance Response (Narrative) 3. Petition List of Neighbor’s Support of Variance 4. Survey/Site Plan/ 5. New Addition/Porch Elevation Plans 650 Brookside Lane (Ziebol) Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. Map Scale 1 inch = 60 feet 7/19/2021 2021-10 $ 300.00 (VAR) * 350.00 (CUP)200.00 ** * Variance Fee from remaining escrow - PC Case #2018-19 / ** escrow remaining from PC Case #2018-19 07/13/2021 09/12/2021 HOf Victoria Curve ! Mem:.lot.i Heights, MN SS118 651.452.1850 phone f 651452,$940 fax www.mendot<1 ·he1ghts.com ,t#~jc,noe IJ/F 1] 14 • MEr--DDTA HEIGHTS PLANNING APPLICATION Office Use Only: Case #: Fees: (App) $ (Escrow): $ ------ Application Date: 60-Day Review Date: . ___ ........., _______ ____ Property Address/Location: ~ ~ Yi!IO,k. s,,J f. LIMie... 1 /11~u k ffe_,~J,,~MN <;s/16 Applicant Name: LJ-e.r-o-t cf ~ • e.JJ:J f Applicant Mailing Address: C, 5V f'jrot>ly.)J c_ L,t-,,.1~1'1. e.J<Jk.. fki~ ~ f:; I MliJ rr-1 / p Daytime Phone: & /2--7 'I 7 -9 BO K Cell Phone: S ~ E-Mail: f:j • 'l;; ,•e.Jool ct ~ j l,Vl-&c..i, '"/. ~ _____ ;;;;..._ _______ _ (If different from Applicant above): Property Owner----------------------------------- Owner Mailing Address:------------------------------- Daytime Phone: Cell Phone: -------------- E-Mail: -------------------------------------- Legal D~s. cription & PIN of Property: ,r~o["plete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) ~ (\'\lf1-, TT S u..bot 111, s r ~N NO '3 7 (p ;:Jy::.,v Z?-t:,9702-0~-010 Type of Request (fees noted on following page): D Rezoning ~ Conditional Use Permit D Interim Use Permit l}(I Variance D Lot Split / Lot Line Adjustment D Preliminary/Final Plat Approval D Zoning Appeal D Zoning Code Amendment D Comprehensive Plan Amendment D Wetlands Permit D Critical Area Permit D Other D Standard D Standard D Administrative D Administrative I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true and to the best of my knowledge. I/We further authorize city officials, including staff, planning commissioners and city councilmembers to inspect the above-referenced property during daylight hours. ~ 6/;,/~r---/(~ s· Date Planning Application (2020) Page 1 of4 Please answer the following questions as they relate to the variance request. You may fill-in this form or create your own. 1. In your opinion, does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? eYES ONO Why or why not? The proposed variance request denoted in building plans, would address a practical difficulty by providing bedroom access to the existing bathroom . Additionally, if approved the existing attached deck connected to the home at the South-West corner would be removed, decreasing the current building footprint that extends past the city setback. 2. Please describe the circumstances unique to the property (not created by you). There is occupied space that currently extends past the city setbacks, specifically a bathroom and living space and deck that was constructed prior owners purchase of the home . 3. In your opinion, will the variance, if granted, fit with the character of the neighborhood? e YES ONO Why or why not? Updates to existing home would better align with adjacent and neighboring homes. The proposed expansion of kitchen, living room and bedroom would raise finished square footage of the home to a level commensurate to adjacent homes. Lastly, if the variance is granted the existing attached deck connected to the home at the South-West corner would be removed , which would decrease the current building footprint that extends past the city setback. The City Council must make an affirmative finding on a// of the criteria listed above in order to grant a variance. The applicant for a variance has the burden of proof to show that all of the criteria listed above have been satisfied. Variance Application (modified 41512016) Page3of3 August 9, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 10 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 9, 2021 The special meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Monday, August 9, 2021 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Sally Lorberbaum, Cindy Johnson, Michael Toth, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: Commissioner Brian Petschel. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of July 27, 2021 Minutes COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2021. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM NOTED ON PAGE FOUR, FIFTH PARAGRAPH, REVISE “SIBLEY MEMORIAL” TO “…XCEL’S SIBLEY GAS PLANT SITE OFF HIGHWAY 13…” AND ON PAGE SIX, THE FIFTH PARAGRAPH, SHOULD BE REVISED “…IF ANY MUD WERE DRUG TRACKED ONTO THE STREET…” AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2021-10 GERALD ZIEBOL, 650 BROOKSIDE LANE – VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Chair Field stated that this is a continuation of the previous meeting. He asked if there is any additional public comment. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if the item would need to be formally reopened through motion because it was tabled. Chair Field stated that in the past he has handled it in a different manner but would be happy to entertain a motion. August 9, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 10 COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO REMOVE THIS ITEM FROM THE TABLE FOR DISCUSSION. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Gerald and Yelena Ziebol, owners, and residents of 650 Brookside Lane, are requesting a variance to expand an existing legal, nonconforming residence in the R-1 Zone, and a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow for a covered porch in the FY setback area. This planning case is actually a partial continuation of an original variance requested by the Ziebol’s in July 2018. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site and the applicant provided a list of neighbors in support of his request; 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. Chair Field invited the applicant to make any comments they may have. Gerald Ziebol, applicant, stated that the staff recommendation looks straightforward. He referenced the first condition and asked if the designer were to make subtle changes to the look of the building. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that the plans submitted should be followed as close as possible. He stated that if there are changes, they can be submitted to staff but if there are substantiative changes or changes to the footprint, that would come back to the Commission. Chair Field welcomed any additional comments from the public. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CORBETT, MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Johnson stated that she has reviewed the information within the packet and watched the last meeting as she was unable to attend. She commented that she was pleased to see the August 9, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 10 setbacks along the road were not reduced and the new addition should not impact any neighboring properties. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WITH FINDINGS OF FACTS TO SUPPORT THE RANTING OF SAID VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO GERALD ZIEBOL OF 650 BROOKSIDE LANE, WITH THE CONDITIONS NOTED THEREIN. 1. THE NEW ADDITION MUST MATCH THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED IN THIS VARIANCE REQUEST ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. 2. THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ADDITION AND ALL OTHER RELATED IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CITY CODE AND STATE OF MINNESOTA BUILDING CODE STANDARDS. 3. THE APPLICANT SHALL OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ADDITION AND/OR PORCH IMPROVEMENT. 4. ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES, AS WELL AS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. FULL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION MEASURES WILL BE PUT IN PLACE PRIOR TO AND DURING GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION WORK ACTIVITIES. 5. APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE IS CONTINGENT UPON CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION AND CORRESPONDING SITE PLAN. IF THE VARIANCE IS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, THE APPLICANT SHALL OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM SAID APPROVAL DATE. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 17, 2021 meeting. Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: August 17, 2021 TO: Mayor Levine and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2021-66 Approving an Interim Use Permit to Xcel Energy for Outdoor Storage Yard at Resurrection Cemetery [Planning Case No. 2021-11] Introduction City Council is asked to adopt a resolution approving an Interim Use Permit (IUP) request from Xcel Energy, which would allow the temporary outdoor storage of electrical poles, equipment, job trailer and employee/company vehicle parking, in an unused area of Resurrection Cemetery, 2101 Lexington Avenue South. The applicant is Xcel Energy, and the property owner is Catholic Cemeteries. Background The interim use designation allows an identifiable use or activity for a limited period of time that reasonably utilizes a property, where it is not reasonable to utilize it in the manner otherwise provided in the comprehensive plan or this code; or a use that is seasonal in nature. Xcel is currently in the beginning stages of replacing and upgrading their existing 115-kV transmission line between the Rogers Lake Substation (next to Mendakota Park) and MSP Airport. The plan is to begin work this August and finish by end of this year. Xcel is renting approximately 5-acres of vacant land at the southeast corner of the cemetery, immediately north of the Public Works/water tower site. On July 27, 2021, the Planning Commission held an initial public hearing on this item, whereby a planning report was presented and received by the commission, and comments from the Applicant and public were allowed, and this item was tabled to the August 9, 2021 Special Planning Commission meeting. At this July 27th meeting, Xcel made a special request by asking the commission to make a preliminary recommendation of approval on their IUP to the city council, due to expedited project scheduling and time constraints associated with this power line replacement project. This initial recommendation was presented to the council at the August 4th meeting; whereby the council unanimously agreed to provide this preliminary approval, subject to this item being presented back to the planning commission and city council for final approvals. At the August 9th meeting, the hearing was re-opened, with additional comments made by a representative from Xcel; and no additional comments or objections from the public. The commissioners suggested the addition of two new conditions regarding a screening fence and reducing the transfer of invasive species from the work zones (come clean/leave clean protocols), plus an assurance Xcel would provide some financial surety as part of this IUP approval. A copy of the 08/09/2021 planning staff report and meeting minutes are appended to this memo. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimously (6-0 vote) to approve the Interim Use Permit to Xcel Energy (and Catholic Cemeteries) for a temporary, outdoor storage yard area in Resurrection Cemetery, located at 2101 Lexington Avenue South, with conditions and findings-of-fact supporting this approval. Action Required If City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2021- 66 APPROVING AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO XCEL ENERGY TO USE PART OF RESURRECTION CEMETERY AS A TEMPORARY OUTDOOR ELECTRICAL LINE MATERIALS STORAGE YARD LOCATED AT 2101 LEXINGTON AVENUE SOUTH. Action on the resolution requires a simple majority vote. If the Council wishes to over-turn this recommendation, make a motion to table this matter; and direct city staff to prepare an alternative resolution of denial for consideration at the September 9, 2021 meeting. (note: the 60-day statutory review period for this application expires 08/27/2021, so the city would need to provide notice of our intention to extend this review period another 60-days.) CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-66 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO XCEL ENERGY FOR TEMPORARY OUTDOOR STORAGE YARD LOCATED IN RESURRECTION CEMETERY – 2101 LEXINGTON AVENUE SOUTH [PLANNING CASE NO. 2021-11] WHEREAS, Xcel Energy (as “Applicant”), in conjunction with Catholic Cemeteries (as “Owners”) are seeking approval of an Interim Use Permit, which would allow the temporary outdoor storage of electrical poles, equipment, job trailer and employee/company vehicle parking, by Xcel and its contractors, in an unused area of Resurrection Cemetery, 2101 Lexington Avenue South (the “Subject Property”), legally described on attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, on July 27, 2021, the Planning Commission held an initial public hearing on this interim use permit application, whereby a planning report was presented and received by the commission, and comments from the Applicant and public were allowed, and this item was tabled to the August 9, 2021 Special Planning Commission meeting; and WHEREAS, on August 9, 2021, the Planning Commission re-opened the hearing, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this item with staff and the Applicant, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (6-0 vote) to approve the proposed Interim Use Permit with specific conditions and findings-of-fact as noted in this resolution. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that Interim Use Permit to allow the temporary outdoor storage of electrical poles, equipment, job trailer and employee/company vehicle parking, by Xcel and its contractors, in an unused area of Resurrection Cemetery, located at 2101 Lexington Avenue South and as proposed under Planning Case No. 2021-11, is hereby approved with the following findings-of-fact: A. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor depreciate surrounding property values. B. The proposed interim storage use conforms to the general purpose and intent of this code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, provided all conditions are met and upheld by the property owners during the term of construction. C. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty. D. Applicant has agreed to any conditions that the city deems appropriate for permission of the use, including a condition that the owner will provide an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost of removing an interim use and any structures upon expiration or revocation of the interim use permit. Mendota Heights Res. 2021-66 Page 2 E. The subject property on which the use will be located is in compliance with all applicable city code standards; and will remain so upon completion or termination of this IUP. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Interim Use Permit for the property located at 800 Sibley Memorial Highway is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. The interim use permit (IUP) shall terminate by December 31, 2021. Any extension of this IUP must be submitted to the City of Mendota Heights at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date, and approved by City Council. 2. The Applicant shall provide a financial surety in an amount of $2,500 to the City, to cover the cost of removing all temporary trailers, vehicles, equipment and materials used under the IUP, and to ensure the subject site is completely restored and returned to its original condition. 3. No hazardous, caustic, or explosive materials shall be stored on the outdoor area; with no refuse, garbage or scrapped (junk) materials stored on the site. All electrical poles and related material shall be stacked or stored neatly, and stored as far away from Lexington Avenue as possible. 4. The Applicant (Xcel Energy and/or its subsidiaries) will ensure the job trailer is secured and well maintained; and the storage space area is kept clean of trash and debris, free of weeds, and well maintained throughout the duration of the permit term. 5. Any existing or additional lighting (if provided), shall be temporary only, with downcast, shielded light heads, and all lighting directed away from any adjacent residential areas. 6. Hours of operation for moving equipment in and out of the site shall be limited between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm, Monday thru Friday, with allowance of 9:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturday only. Any expanded hours, including Sunday or holiday hours must be approved by the City Council. 7. The interim use permit is shall comply with the provisions established under 12- 1L-6-1: INTERIM USES and the conditions approved herewith, and shall be periodically reviewed to ensure compliance with the applicable codes and policies and, if necessary, amended accordingly. 8. A screening fence shall be placed on the north and east sides of the storage area. 9. The applicant shall work towards establishing a come clean/leave clean protocol related to reducing or eliminating the inadvertent transfer of invasive species from work sites or the construction zones, and will declare and respond to council and city staff as needed. Mendota Heights Res. 2021-66 Page 3 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 17th day of August, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk Mendota Heights Res. 2021-66 Page 4 EXHIBIT A PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2101 Lexington Avenue South, Mendota Heights MN 55120 PID: 27-04100-41-012 Legal Description: LOTS 2 21 24 34 38 41 & LOTS 8 11 & 20 EX PT OF LOTS 2 8 11 & 20 SHOWN AS PARCEL 212 ON MN DOT R/W PLAT 19-1 & 19-2 & EX PT OF LOT 20 S'LY SE'LY & E'LY OF MN DOT R/W PLAT 19- 98 & 19-99 & PT LOTS 33 AND 40 LYING NE’LY OF LINE BEG NW COR LOT 32 SAID AUDITORS SUBDIVISION NO 34 S 40D19M49S E 1623.90 FT S 49D40M11S W 116.57 FT S 25D43M58S W 34.93 FT S 3D59M54S W 26.03 FT S 22D11M44S E 102.84 FT S 60D54M30S E 35.66 FT S 79D53M3S E 96.57 FT N 51D46M6S E 124.75 FT S 40D19M49S E 180.17 FT T, OF AUDITORS SUBDIVISION NO. 34, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. PLANNING STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: August 9, 2021 (Special Meeting) TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2021-11 INTERIM USE PERMIT APPLICANT: Xcel Energy / Catholic Cemeteries PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2101 Lexington Avenue South ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: September 28, 2021 INTRODUCTION Xcel Energy is seeking an Interim Use Permit (IUP) to allow for a temporary outdoor staging and laydown yard, located at the southeast corner of Resurrection Cemetery, 2101 Lexington Avenue South. Xcel plans to use this outdoor staging area for the outdoor storage of electrical poles, equipment, job trailer and employee/company vehicle parking. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcels. The city received no comments from the public related to this item. BACKGROUND & REQUEST Xcel Energy is an authorized (20-years) electric franchise operator in the community, approved under Ord. No. 463 (adopted 11/18/2014). Xcel is currently in the beginning stages of replacing and upgrading their existing 115-kV transmission line running between the Rogers Lake Substation (next to Mendakota Park) and the MSP Airport. The plan is to begin work this August and wrap-up by the end of this year. Xcel is seeking to rent or use approximately 5- acres of open, vacant cemetery land, located at the southeast corner of the cemetery and just north of the city’s Public Works/water tower site (see image – right and Street Map View - below). Planning Case 2021-11 (Xcel IUP – Resurrection Cem.) Page 2 of 7 Resurrection Cemetery consists of approximately 180 acres of total land area. This southerly section of cemetery land is unused and does not contain any graves or burial plots. The site is currently zoned R-1 One Family Residential. “Essential Service Structures” such as utility support buildings, power plants, substations, etc. are permitted by conditional use permit (CUP). This electrical line replacement work does not require any new structure(s), except for some power pole replacements, and does not require a new or amended CUP. Outdoor storage is not specifically identified as an allowed or permitted activity when related to such utility services. City Code Section 12-1D-13-5: Outside Storage In Residential Districts, provides for the outside storage of recreational equipment in all residential zoning districts; but it does not specifically address or identify this type of “outdoor storage” as requested by Xcel. In 2015, the City Council adopted an ordinance that allows interim use permits in certain zoning districts. The interim use designation allows an identifiable use for a limited period of time that reasonably utilizes the property where it is not reasonable to utilize it in the manner otherwise provided in the comprehensive plan or this code; or a use that is seasonal in nature. ANALYSIS - INTERIM USE PERMIT Title 12-1L-6-1 of the City Code includes the following standards for consideration of an interim use (Staff response or comments are noted after each standard): A. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property value. Staff Response: Staff does not believe the proposed interim use at this vacant section of cemetery lands would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community, as this will be a tightly controlled and monitored area by Xcel. The cemetery has two access points off Lexington Avenue, and the company vehicles/employees will be using the southerly access near the cemetery’s maintenance support building. No access will be allowed at the main (dual/split lane) entrance to the cemetery. Since the 115-kV line is situated in established easement corridors and crosses the cemetery near its mid-point, it is anticipated most of the work vehicles and work itself will be limited inside these easement spaces and the cemetery lands only, and not cause any hazards to the surrounding properties. Planning Case 2021-11 (Xcel IUP – Resurrection Cem.) Page 3 of 7 Xcel stated they do not have any plans to fence or screen the site at this time, due to the temporary nature of this interim use permit. Xcel representatives indicated they do not plan to store any hazardous chemicals or transformers in this area; however, with the amount of equipment and vehicles and value of the equipment planned to be stored in this site, the planning commission may wish to discuss or ask if Xcel would be willing to place a temporary fence to ensure no unauthorized personnel accesses the temporary storage yard during this period. B. The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in conflict on an on-going basis. Staff Response: City Code Title 12-1L-6-1 Interim Uses states that an interim use is allowed for a limited period of time that reasonably utilizes the property where it is not reasonable to utilize it in the manner otherwise provided in the comprehensive plan or this code; or a use that is seasonal in nature. The report acknowledged the subject site is located in the R-1 One Family Residential district, which allows for certain or defined “Essential Services” under a CUP. It seems reasonable that as part of Xcel’s efforts to replace and upgrade its electrical service lines in this area, they should be afforded some amount of special leeway or courtesy to provide on-site storage of their equipment, materials and job site trailers to help facilitate and serve their needs for conducting this project. The proximity of this storage yard to the planned work along this overhead power-line corridor, appears to be reasonable, suitable and adequate area to place such an area – provided it is temporary only. Since this Interim Use Permit is only granted for a short and limited period of time, there will be no long-term impacts or concerns by the City that this activity will be expanded, or the site will become a long-term storage facility that is not normally allowed under this R-1 District. Staff believe the proposed interim use at this location conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in conflict on an on-going basis. C. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty. Staff Response: The Applicant has indicated the gas line replacement work will begin in “… summer of 2021 and completed by end of the current year [2021].” Staff is recommending the IUP will be valid from date of City Council approval (planned date of review August 4, 2021 to December 31, 2021. Any extension or allowance to use the storage yard beyond that date will require city council approval. D. Permission of the use will not impose, by agreement, additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future. Staff Response: Staff does not believe the City would be burdened by any additional costs or expects any need for the public to take this property in the future. Xcel is a very well-established and successful utility company operating and serving this community, the metro area and state, so it seem highly unlikely the city would ever need to take this cemetery site or any other utility site at this or any other time in the future. Xcel Energy’s goal in this case is to be prompt and efficient with the electrical line replacement project, and return and fully restore the vacant cemetery space back to its original condition. E. The user agrees to any conditions that the city deems appropriate for permission of the use, including a condition that the owner will provide an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost of removing an interim use and any structures upon expiration or revocation of the interim use permit. Staff Response: This report provides certain conditions that will be imposed upon the Applicant as part of any interim use permit approval on this subject site. Most of these conditions are very Planning Case 2021-11 (Xcel IUP – Resurrection Cem.) Page 4 of 7 reasonable; and Staff does not have any reason to believe Xcel will not comply or follow these conditions as part of any approval related to this permit. Staff has not finalized any financial surety at this time, but does plan to negotiate a fair and reasonable amount to ensure that this IUP does cease and desist at the agreed upon expiration date, and the site is cleaned, restored and returned to its original condition (as needed). F. The use will not delay anticipated development or redevelopment of the site. Staff Response: To the best of our knowledge, Staff is not aware that Xcel plans to purchase this site from Catholic Cemetery; nor are we aware of any plans by Resurrection Cemetery to sell-off or offer this site for any similar or other development by third parties. Therefore, this new IUP should not affect or cause any delay to any anticipated development, since there is nothing planned at this time. G. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city code standards. Staff Response: To the best of our knowledge, Staff believes the subject property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city code standards. H. The use is allowed as an interim use in the applicable zoning district. Staff Response: The specific interim use requested by Xcel Energy on this site is not specifically identified or a use allowed as an interim use under the R-1 Zone; however, the interim use ordinance provides for limited/seasonal allowance of certain uses, provided they are reviewed and given full consideration by the Planning Commission under the standard public hearing process, and approved by the City Council. The use must also meet certain standards as noted herein; fulfill the conditions as prescribed by the City; and said use or operations must cease upon the approved deadline date. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the interim use permit request, based on the findings-of-fact that the proposed temporary storage yard for Xcel Energy and their proposed electrical line replacement project, complies with the policies and standards of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, with conditions; or 2. Recommend denial of the interim use permit request, based on certain findings-of-fact that the proposed use is not compliant with the City Code and is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; or 3. Table the request and direct staff and/or the applicant o bring more information to the next meeting (if necessary), and extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the interim use permit request in this case, based on the findings-of-fact that the proposed temporary storage yard for Xcel Energy and their proposed electrical line replacement project, complies with the policies and standards of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Alternative #1), with the following conditions: 1. The interim use permit (IUP) shall terminate by December 31, 2021. Any extension of this IUP must be submitted to the City of Mendota Heights at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date, and approved by City Council. 2. The Applicant shall provide a financial surety in an amount negotiated between Xcel and the City Administrator, to cover the cost of removing all temporary trailers, vehicles, equipment and Planning Case 2021-11 (Xcel IUP – Resurrection Cem.) Page 5 of 7 materials used under the IUP, and to ensure the subject site is completely restored and returned to its original condition. 3. No hazardous, caustic, or explosive materials shall be stored on the outdoor area; with no refuse, garbage or scrapped (junk) materials stored on the site. All electrical poles and related material shall be stacked or stored neatly, and stored as far away from Lexington Avenue as possible. 4. The Applicant (Xcel Energy and/or its subsidiaries) will ensure the job trailer is secured and well maintained; and the storage space area is kept clean of trash and debris, free of weeds, and well maintained throughout the duration of the permit term. 5. Any existing or additional lighting (if provided), shall be temporary only, with downcast, shielded light heads, and all lighting directed away from any adjacent residential areas. 6. Hours of operation for moving equipment in and out of the site shall be limited between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm, Monday thru Friday, with allowance of 9:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturday only. Any expanded hours, including Sunday or holiday hours must be approved by the City Council. 7. The interim use permit is shall comply with the provisions established under 12-1L-6-1: INTERIM USES and the conditions approved herewith, and shall be periodically reviewed to ensure compliance with the applicable codes and policies and, if necessary, amended accordingly. FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL INTERIM USE PERMIT TO XCEL ENERGY Resurrection Cemetery (Catholic Cemeteries) 2101 Lexington Avenue South The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor depreciate surrounding property values. 2. The proposed interim storage use conforms to the general purpose and intent of this code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, provided all conditions are met and upheld by the property owners during the term of construction. 3. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty. 4. Applicant has agreed to any conditions that the city deems appropriate for permission of the use, including a condition that the owner will provide an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost of removing an interim use and any structures upon expiration or revocation of the interim use permit. 5. The subject property on which the use will be located is in compliance with all applicable city code standards; and will remain so upon completion or termination of this IUP. Planning Case 2021-11 (Xcel IUP – Resurrection Cem.) Page 6 of 7 12-1L-6-1: INTERIM USES: A. Purpose: The purposes for allowing interim uses are to: 1. Allow a use for a limited period of time until a permanent location is obtained or while the permanent location is under construction. 2. Allow a use for a limited period of time that reasonably utilizes the property where it is not reasonable to utilize it in the manner otherwise provided in the comprehensive plan or this code. 3. Allow a use that is presently acceptable but that, with anticipated development or redevelopment, will not be acceptable in the future or will be replaced in the future by a permitted or conditional use allowed within the respective zoning district. 4. Allow a use that is seasonal in nature. B. Application For Permit: All applications for an interim use permit are subject to the requirements in subsection 12-1L-6B of this chapter. C. Referral To Planning Commission: All applications for an interim use permit are subject to the requirements in subsection 12-1L-6C of this chapter. D. Planning Commission Hearing And Recommendations: All applications for an interim use permit are subject to the requirements in subsection 12-1L-6D of this chapter. E. Action By City Council: 1. Grant Of Permit: In considering an application for an interim use permit under this chapter, the council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the planning commission and the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets, and the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan. The council may, by an affirmative vote of the majority of all members thereof, grant such interim use permit imposing conditions and safeguards therein if: a. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property value. b. The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of this code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in conflict on an ongoing basis. c. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty. d. Permission of the use will not impose, by agreement, additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future. e. The user agrees to any conditions that the city deems appropriate for permission of the use, including a condition that the owner will provide an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost of removing an interim use and any structures upon expiration or revocation of the interim use permit. f. The use will not delay anticipated development or redevelopment of the site. g. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city code standards. h. The use is allowed as an interim use in the applicable zoning district. Planning Case 2021-11 (Xcel IUP – Resurrection Cem.) Page 7 of 7 2. Denial Of Permit: Interim uses may be denied by resolution of the city council, and such resolution shall include a finding and determination that the conditions required for approval do not exist. No application for an interim use which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a period of six (6) months from the date of said order of denial, except on grounds of new evidence or proof of change of conditions found to be valid upon recommendation of the planning commission to the city council. F. Revocation Of Permit: An interim use permit may be revoked by any of the following; whichever occurs first: 1. A violation of any condition set forth in an interim use permit, which shall also be considered a violation of this code. 2. A violation of laws of the United States or the state of Minnesota, or this code. 3. If after approval it is discovered the permit was issued based on false, misleading, or fraudulent information. 4. An amendment to this code which prohibits the use. 5. The use becomes in conflict with the comprehensive plan. 6. The expiration date or occurrence of any event(s) stated in the permit for termination of the use. 7. The use has ceased for a continuous period of at least six (6) months. 8. The use has not commenced or a building permit for a structure to support the use has not been issued within one year after approval. G. Notice Of Revocation: Upon occurrence of the date or event for termination of the interim use permit, the city shall notify the permittee in writing that the interim use permit shall terminate not later than six (6) months after the date of such notice. H. Effect Of Permit: An interim use permit is effective only for the location specified in the application. The issuance of an interim use permit does not confer on the property any vested right. I. Permit Review: An interim use permit may be reviewed at any time if the city council is of the opinion that the terms and conditions of the permit have been violated or if one of the criteria for termination has been met or any other unintended consequences. J. Permit Extension: The city council shall have the right to extend the termination date for such additional periods as are consistent with the terms and conditions of the original permit. (Ord. 479, 7-7-2015) June 27, 2018 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: Interim Use Permit Application PID: 27-04100-41-012 Hello, Please find this letter of intent and application for an Interim Use Permit for the Catholic Cemeteries located on Lexington Ave. Xcel Energy is in the process of rebuilding a 115kV transmission line that runs between the Rogers Lake Substation and the Minneapolis−Saint Paul International Airport. The request is to use an existing grassy area located in the southeast area of the cemetery as a staging and laydown yard. Construction starts in the summer of 2021 and is scheduled to be completed by the end of the current year. Proposed uses will include a job trailer, storage of poles and equipment and parking for construction workers. Please review and let me know if you need additional information. Regards, Chris Berglund Senior Land Rights Agent Xcel Energy P: 612-330-6471 C:612-964-8827 christopher.d.berglund@xcelenergy.com Interim Use Permit –Lexington Ave View facing apartments at 2370 Lexington Ave View from front entrance of 2370 Lexington Ave View from south entrance of 2370 Lexington Ave View from north end of 2370 Lexington Ave View facing apartments at 2330 Lexington Ave View from front entrance of 2330 Lexington Ave View facing south –west edge of storage site View facing south from Lexington Ave August 9, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 10 B) PLANNING CASE 2021-11 XCEL ENERGY/CATHOLIC CEMETERIES, 2101 LEXINGTON AVENUE S – INTERIM USE PERMIT COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO REMOVE THIS ITEM FROM THE TABLE FOR DISCUSSION. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Xcel Energy is seeking an Interim Use Permit (IUP) to allow for a temporary outdoor staging and laydown yard, located at the southeast corner of Resurrection Cemetery, 2101 Lexington Avenue South. Xcel plans to use this outdoor staging area for the outdoor storage of electrical poles, equipment, job trailer and employee/company vehicle parking. 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 Lorberbaum stated that the applicant must provide financial surety but that has not been done as of yet and asked if the application would be considered incomplete. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that the other IUP’s that were approved by the City did not require payment of surety and provided additional details noting that Xcel was not required to provide surety through its last IUP. He stated that staff has not negotiated that, and the amount would be determined by the City Administrator if needed. He stated that is an open-ended requirement, but he could not find any precedent value or time the City has set that. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that it is a requirement and therefore it should be included. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that it is part of a condition, and the Commission could choose to set an amount. Commissioner Corbett asked if it is required through a condition or as part of the process. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that it is required as part of the process, but the amount is not stipulated, and the City has never charged it. Commissioner Corbett noted that a value of zero could be set. August 9, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 10 Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that perhaps the condition states that an amount shall be agreed upon between now and the Council meeting. Commissioner Corbett referenced the issue of screening and asked what the requirements would be for standard outdoor storage. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that screening is required from residential areas. Commissioner Corbett stated that he would recommend that screening as this location is across from a dense residential neighborhood. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that Xcel has agreed to that condition. Commissioner Toth asked if this would be screened on all four sides or only the Lexington side. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that he does not believe the public works facility site would require screening but would suggest screening on Lexington and the north side. Chair Field invited the applicant to provide comments. Jake Sedlacek, applicant, stated that these types of projects are not done very often. He stated that the structures in place now are original to the metro area and the new structures would have an even longer lifespan. He stated that this location is ideal for the Xcel project, and this will be a temporary use. He stated that they are open to the screening discussed in addition to the vegetation that exists. He noted that they typically do not use screening because visibility often brings about questions about the project and reliability along with security to ensure no one is in the area. He displayed some photographs of the site from adjacent sites showing the vegetative screening that already exists. He stated that they are open to suggestions related to financial surety, noting that typically that is done through staff after approval. Chair Field referenced the work that was done at the gas plant on Highway 13, where the laydown of materials was done along the road, noting that there was not a residential area adjacent to that site. Mr. Sedlacek confirmed that is a high traffic area. Commissioner Toth stated that he walked the trail and noticed a series of mats laid down on the trail up to the substation and asked if construction equipment would use that access. Mr. Sedlacek confirmed that they would use that area to access the substation. He stated that the matting will help to protect the trails and they will still ensure that the existing condition of trails are restored if damage occurs. He stated that the towers would be accessed by trails as well as they felt that using the transmission corridor would be more disruptive to vegetation. August 9, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 10 Commissioner Toth commented that he appreciates the proactive measures to ensure residents will be aware of the trail use. Commissioner Johnson asked the type of pole that would be installed. Mr. Sedlacek stated that they would be single monopoles and provided additional details. Commissioner Johnson stated that MnDOT has priority prevention for preventing the spread of invasive species through equipment and asked if Xcel has a similar protocol to reduce the spread of invasive species. Mr. Sedlacek stated that he is unsure of the answer. He noted that in Mendota Heights they are working on pollinator friendly habitat and restoring natural habitat. He noted that he would follow up on the protocols that Xcel follows. Chair Field welcomed additional comments from the public. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE INTERIM USE PERMIT REQUEST BASED ON THE FINDINGS-OF-FACT THAT THE PROPOSED TEMPORARY STORAGE YARD FOR XCEL ENERGY AND THEIR PROPOSED ELECTRICAL LINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, COMPLIES WITH THE POLICIES AND STANDARDS OF THE CITY CODE AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE INTERIM USE PLAN (IUP) SHALL TERMINATE BY DECEMBER 31, 2021. ANY EXTENSION OF THIS IUP MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AT LEAST 30 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE AND APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL. 2. THE APPLICANT SHALL PAY A FINANCIAL SURETY IN AN AMOUNT NEGOTIATED BETWEEN XCEL AND THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR, TO COVER THE COST OF REMOVING ALL TEMPORARY TRAILERS, VEHICLES, EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL USED UNDER THE IUP, AND TO ENSURE THE SUBJECT SITE IS COMPLETELY RESTORED AND RETURNED TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION. 3. NO HAZARDOUS, CAUSTIC, OR EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS SHALL BE STORED ON THE OUTDOOR AREA; WITH NO REFUSE, GARBAGE OR SCRAPPED (JUNK) August 9, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 10 MATERIALS STORED ON THE SITE. ALL ELECTRICAL POLES AND RELATED MATERIAL SHALL BE STACKED OR STORED NEATLY AND STORED AS FAR AWAY FROM LEXINGTON AVENUE AS POSSIBLE. 4. THE APPLICANT (XCEL ENERGY AND/OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES) WILL ENSURE THE JOB TRAILER IS SECURED AND WELL MAINTAINED; AND THE STORAGE SPACE AREA IS KEPT CLEAN OF TRASH AND DEBRIS, FREE OF WEEDS, AND WELL MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE PERMIT TERM. 5. ANY EXISTING OR ADDITIONAL LIGHTING (IF PROVIDED), SHALL BE TEMPORARY ONLY, WITH DOWNCAST, SHIELDED LIGHT HEADS, AND ALL LIGHTING DIRECTED AWAY FROM ANY ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL AREAS. 6. HOURS OF OPERATION FOR MOVING EQUIPMENT IN AND OUT OF THE SITE SHALL BE LIMITED BETWEEN 7:00 A.M. AND 7:00 P.M., MONDAY THRU FRIDAY, WITH ALLOWANCE OF 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. ON SATURDAY ONLY. ANY EXPANDED HOURS, INCLUDING SUNDAY OR HOLIDAY HOURS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. 7. THE INTERIM USE PERMIT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS ESTABLISHED UNDER 12-1L-6-1: INTERIM USES AND THE CONDITIONS APPROVED HEREWITH AND SHALL BE PERIODICALLY REVIEWED TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE CODES AND POLICIES AND, IF NECESSARY, AMENDED ACCORDINGLY. 8. A SCREENING FENCE SHALL BE PLACED ON THE NORTH AND EAST SIDES OF THE STORAGE LAYDOWN AREA. 9. THE APPLICANT SHALL WORK TOWARDS ESTABLISHING A COME CLEAN, LEAVE CLEAN PROTOCOL RELATED TO INVASIVE SPECIES AND WILL DECLARE AND RESPOND TO COUNCIL AND STAFF AS NEEDED. FURTHER DISCUSSION: PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR RYAN RUZEK PROVIDED ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION ON WHAT XCEL HAS PROVIDED FOR THE PROJECT, INCLUDING A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. CHAIR FIELD NOTED THAT AS MUCH AS COMMENTS MAY WANT TO BE PROVIDED ON THE OVERALL PROJECT, THIS ACTION ONLY APPLIES TO THE LAYDOWN YARD WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF EXPOSURE TO THE REST OF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. HE STATED THAT HE UNDERSTANDS THE CONCERN BUT THIS IS A LAYDOWN YARD AND NOT A CONSTRUCTION SITE. COMMISSIONER CORBETT STATED THAT BASED ON THE APPLICANT’S RESPONSE, IT SEEMS THAT THEY ARE AMENABLE TO THE CONDITION. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 17, 2021 meeting. Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: August 17, 2021 TO: Mayor Levine and City Council; City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-67 Approving a Lot Line Adjustment between 1892 & 1881 Orchard Heights Lane [Planning Case No. 2021-14] Introduction City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution approving a Lot Line Adjustment between two properties located at 1892 and 1881 Orchard Heights Lane. The applicants and owners are Jamie & Suzanne Anderson (1892) and Josephine Bahl (1881). Background The Anderson’s and Ms. Bahl are nearing completion of their new residential dwellings on each lot. The Anderson property contains a large stormwater pond and an adjacent [dry] over-flow basin in the rear yard. Due to this pond and the surrounding grades, the Anderson’s are seeking a way to cross over the Bahl property in order to safely traverse or walk around the pond, and access the farthest reaches of their lot. Ms. Bahl has agreed to convey to the Andersons the small, irregular shaped parcel of land as shown and described on the survey maps and documents appended to this memo report. City Code Section 11-1-5.C allows for lot line adjustments between properties, provided the division is only to permit the adding of a parcel of land to an abutting lot, and the newly created property line will not cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation of city code. This request meets this section. On July 27, 2021, the Planning Commission held an initial public hearing on this item, whereby a planning report was presented and received by the commission, and comments from the Applicant and public were allowed, and this item was tabled to the August 9, 2021 Special Planning Commission meeting. At the August 9th meeting, the hearing was re-opened, with one comment from a neighboring owner, and no objections from the public. A copy of the 08/09/2021 planning staff report and meeting minutes are appended to this memo. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimously (6-0 vote) to approve the Lot Line Adjustment between the properties located at 1892 and 1881 Orchard Heights Lane, with certain conditions and findings-of-fact to support said approval. Action Requested If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2021-67 APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1892 AND 1881 ORCHARD HEIGHTS LANE. Action on the resolution requires a simple majority vote. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-67 RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1892 AND 1881 ORCHARD HEIGHTS LANE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2021-14) WHEREAS, Jamie and Suzanne Anderson, the owners of 1892 Orchard Heights Lane, along with Josephine Bahl, owner of 1881 Orchard Heights Lane (as “Applicants”) are requesting approval of a lot line adjustment between their individually owned properties, (the “Subject Properties”), legally described on attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Subject Properties are both guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and situated in the R-1 One Family Residential zoning district; and WHEREAS, Title 11-1-5.C of the City Code (Subdivision Regulations) allows for the readjustment of lot lines between or within legal parcels of records, provided the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable and underlying zoning district; and WHEREAS, the owner of 1881 Orchard Heights Lane has agreed to deed a small, irregular shaped parcel to the neighboring owners of 1892 Orchard Heights Lane, which creates a minor lot line adjustment between the Subject Properties, and whereby the new parcel will only be added and combined with the 1892 Orchard Heights Lane property, as legally described and illustrated on the resulting parcel legal descriptions and survey shown on attached Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, on July 27, 2021, the Planning Commission held an initial public hearing on this item, whereby a planning report was presented and received by the commission, and comments from the Applicant and public were allowed, and this item was tabled to the August 9, 2021 Special Planning Commission meeting; and WHEREAS, on August 9, 2021, the Planning Commission re-opened the hearing, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this item with staff and the Applicant, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (6-0 vote) to approve the Lot Line Adjustment request between 1892 and 1881 Orchard Heights Lane, with specific conditions and findings-of-fact to support such approval, as noted in this resolution. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Lot Line Adjustment as proposed under Planning Case No. 2021-14 is hereby approved, with the following findings-of- fact: 1. The proposed lot line adjustment request in this case meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mendota Heights Res 2021-67 page 2 2. Approval of the lot line adjustment will have no visible impact on the subject properties; and poses no threat or creates any negative impacts on the character of the neighborhood. 3. The proposed adjustment does not cause any non-conformities on either parcel, based on the applicable zoning district standards for lot size and frontage requirements. 4. The new parcel to be created by the lot line adjustment cannot be used or allowed for separate development, due to the condition limits placed on this application. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Lot Line Adjustment for the properties located at 1892 and 1881 Orchard Heights Lane, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2021-14, is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1) Applicant shall file lot/parcel combination documents with Dakota County indicating the new parcel created by this line adjustment shall be added to or combined with 1892 Orchard Heights Lane, Parcel ID Number 27-7540-001-110. 2) All transfer or deed documents which convey the portion of lands under the lot line adjustment and lot split process shall be recorded with Dakota County. 3) Due to a majority of this parcel situated in a drainage and utility easement, no physical improvements (including but not limited to, grading/filling work, landscaping, retaining walls, fencing, stairways or walkways) are allowed in the parcel created by this lot line adjustment, unless authorized or permitted by the Public Works Director. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 17th day of August, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Mendota Heights Res 2021-67 page 3 EXHIBIT A (EXITING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS) 1892 ORCHARD HEIGHTS LANE PID No. 27-75400-01-100 LEGAL: Lot 10, Block 1, The Orchard, Dakota County, Minnesota. (abstract property) 1881 ORCHARD HEIGHTS LANE PID No. 27-75400-01-110 LEGAL: Lot 11, Block 1, The Orchard, Dakota County, Minnesota. (abstract property) Mendota Heights Res 2021-67 page 4 EXHIBIT B (LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS of PARCELS as a RESULT OF NEW LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT) Proposed Parcel A Description Lot 10, Block 1, THE ORCHARD, Dakota County, Minnesota, AND That part of Lot 11, THE ORCHARD, Dakota County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 11; thence North 0 degrees 12 minutes 40 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the east line of said Lot 11 a distance of 130.32 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence continue North 0 degrees 12 minutes 40 seconds West along the east line of said Lot 11 a distance of 192.88 feet; thence South 34 degrees 25 minutes 46 seconds West a distance of 56.30 feet; thence South 0 degrees 12 minutes 40 seconds East a distance of 73.68 feet; thence South 14 degrees 05 minutes 42 seconds East a distance of 58.40 feet; thence South 48 degrees 12 minutes 24 seconds East a distance of 24.21 feet to the point of beginning. Proposed Parcel B Description Lot 11, Block 1, THE ORCHARD, Dakota County, Minnesota, excepting therefrom the following: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 11; thence North 0 degrees 12 minutes 40 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the east line of said Lot 11 a distance of 130.32 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence continue North 0 degrees 12 minutes 40 seconds West along the east line of said Lot 11 a distance of 192.88 feet; thence South 34 degrees 25 minutes 46 seconds West a distance of 56.30 feet; thence South 0 degrees 12 minutes 40 seconds East a distance of 73.68 feet; thence South 14 degrees 05 minutes 42 seconds East a distance of 58.40 feet; thence South 48 degrees 12 minutes 24 seconds East a distance of 24.21 feet to the point of beginning. Mendota Heights Res 2021-67 page 5 EXHIBIT B PLANNING STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: August 9, 2021 (Special Meeting) TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2021-14 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: Jamie L. Anderson (w/ Josephine M. Bahl) PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1892 and 1881 Orchard Heights Lane ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: November 08, 2021 (120-day Review Period) INTRODUCTION Mr. Jamie Anderson, in cooperation with Ms. Josephine Bahl, are requesting consideration of a simple lot line adjustment between two properties located at 1892 and 1881 Orchard Heights Lane. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcels. The city received no comments from the public related to this item. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Jamie & Suzanne Anderson are the owners of 1892 Orchard Hts. Ln., while Josephine Bahl is the owner of the neighboring property of 1881 Orchard Hts. Ln. These properties are generally located at the end of Orchard Heights Lane, the cul-de-sac roadway built under The Orchard subdivision of 2017. Both properties are wrapping up new home construction projects on each parcel. A significant amount of grading was needed and performed in the back areas of these lots as part of the pre-development work and grading activity for The Orchard. The Anderson property contains a large infiltration basin/pond in the rear yard. Due to the limitations of this pond, and the topography, landscaping and vegetation between both properties, the Anderson’s are seeking a better and safer way to access (by foot) the rear section of their property. The solution worked out between 1881 1892 Planning Report: Case #2021-14 (J. Anderson / J. Bahl) Page 2 both property owners was the creation of this unusual shaped (but precise) parcel, in which Ms. Bahl will convey to the Andersons for their own benefit (see survey image – below). The parcel created by this line adjustment is approximately 0.11 acres (4,790-sf.) in area, and will not be used create a new, buildable lot for a future residential dwelling or any other development. ANALYSIS Title 11-1-5.C of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows lot line adjustments to take place, provided the following standards are met: Lot line adjustment request to divide a lot which is a part of a recorded plat where the division is to permit the adding of a parcel of land to an abutting lot and the newly created property line will not cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation with this title or the zoning ordinance. The newly described parcel descriptions on the applicant’s survey indicates the Bahl property will result in 1.35 acres of lot area, and the Anderson’s will reflect 4.13 acres of area. This request to modify each parcel’s boundary line meets this City Code section, as the resulting parcel will be added to the Anderson parcel only; and the line adjustment does not cause the subject lots to be in violation of the zoning ordinance. The Applicant’s properties remain unchanged along the public street frontage; and each lot will easily exceed the minimum lot size of 15,000 sq. ft. for parcels in the R-1 One-Family Residential district. This lot line adjustment will have little, if any impact upon the neighboring properties, the affected parcels, nor impede the normal use, enjoyment and purpose of the existing parcel or The Orchard neighborhood. Planning Report: Case #2021-14 (J. Anderson / J. Bahl) Page 3 ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the lot line adjustment, based on the attached findings-of-fact, with conditions; or 2. Recommend denial of the lot line adjustment, based on the findings-of-fact that the proposed adjustment is not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan and may have a negative impact on surrounding properties; or 3. Table the request; and direct city staff to provide more information to the commission at a later meeting date. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment based on the attached findings -of-fact supporting the request, with conditions noted as follows: 1) Applicant shall file lot/parcel combination documents with Dakota County indicating the new parcel created by this line adjustment shall be added to or combined with 1892 Orchard Heights Lane, Parcel ID Number 27-7540-001-110. 2) All transfer or deed documents which convey the portion of lands under the lot line adjustment and lot split process shall be recorded with Dakota County. 3) Due to a majority of this parcel situated in a drainage and utility easement, no physical improvements (including but not limited to, grading/filling work, landscaping, retaining walls, fencing, stairways or walkways) are allowed in the parcel created by this lot line adjustment, unless authorized or permitted by the Public Works Director. FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Lot Line Adjustment 1892 & 1881 Orchard Heights Lane (Anderson – Bahl Properties) The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed lot line adjustment request meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Approval of the lot line adjustment will have no visible impact on the subject properties; and poses no threat or creates any negative impacts on the character of the neighborhood. 3. The proposed adjustment does not cause any non-conformities on either parcel, based on the applicable zoning district standards for lot size and frontage requirements. 4. The new parcel to be created by the lot line adjustment cannot be used or allowed for separate development, due to the condition limits placed on this application. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY for: 202052 SISU LAND SURVEYING 2580 Christian Dr. Chaska, MN 55318 612-418-6828 CERTIFICATION JAMIE ANDERSON EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PROPERTY INFORMATION PROPOSED PARCEL A DESCRIPTION PROPOSED SPLIT/MERGE PROPOSED PARCEL B DESCRIPTION PARCEL AREAS Proposed Parcel A Description Lot 10, Block 1, THE ORCHARD, Dakota County, Minnesota, AND That part of Lot 11, THE ORCHARD, Dakota County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 11; thence North 0 degrees 12 minutes 40 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the east line of said Lot 11 a distance of 130.32 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence continue North 0 degrees 12 minutes 40 seconds West along the east line of said Lot 11 a distance of 192.88 feet; thence South 34 degrees 25 minutes 46 seconds West a distance of 56.30 feet; thence South 0 degrees 12 minutes 40 seconds East a distance of 73.68 feet; thence South 14 degrees 05 minutes 42 seconds East a distance of 58.40 feet; thence South 48 degrees 12 minutes 24 seconds East a distance of 24.21 feet to the point of beginning. Proposed Parcel B Description Lot 11, Block 1, THE ORCHARD, Dakota County, Minnesota, excepting therefrom the following: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 11; thence North 0 degrees 12 minutes 40 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the east line of said Lot 11 a distance of 130.32 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence continue North 0 degrees 12 minutes 40 seconds West along the east line of said Lot 11 a distance of 192.88 feet; thence South 34 degrees 25 minutes 46 seconds West a distance of 56.30 feet; thence South 0 degrees 12 minutes 40 seconds East a distance of 73.68 feet; thence South 14 degrees 05 minutes 42 seconds East a distance of 58.40 feet; thence South 48 degrees 12 minutes 24 seconds East a distance of 24.21 feet to the point of beginning. 1892 - 1881 Orchard Hts. Lane (2' Contour Map) Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. Map Scale 1 inch = 100 feet 8/5/2021 CURB CUTS (TYP) August 9, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 10 C) PLANNING CASE 2021-14 JAMIE L. ANDERSON, 1892 AND 1881 ORCHARD HEIGHTS LANE – LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO REMOVE THIS ITEM FROM THE TABLE FOR DISCUSSION. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Jamie Anderson, in cooperation with Ms. Josephine Bahl, are requesting consideration of a simple lot line adjustment between two properties located at 1892 and 1881 Orchard Heights Lane. 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 Johnson asked if landscape pins would be installed at the new boundaries. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that typically there would be a new pin up at each point to decide where the boundary begins and ends as part of the survey. Chair Field noted that would be the role of the surveyor and would not be a condition. Commissioner Katz stated that recently the issue of structures on sites was reviewed based on the overall amount of acreage. He asked if changing the lot size would impact what could be built. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that the added size would not put the lot over five acres. Chair Field invited the applicant to provide input. Josephine Bahl stated that she is fully supportive of this application as it would provide an easier path for the Andersons to get to the back of their property for mowing and is a portion of her property that she was not using. Chair Field invited members of the public to provide input. August 9, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 10 Tim Murphy, 1916 Hunter, stated that he was curious as to what the point of this split would be but now understands it would provide access to the back portion of the property. He asked if this would provide access for foot traffic or vehicle traffic. Ms. Bahl replied that it would be for foot traffic and would provide access to the Anderson to plant trees on the back portion of their lot. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BASED ON FINDINGS OF FACT SUPPORTING THE REQUEST WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. APPLICANT SHALL FILE LOT/PARCEL COMBINATION DOCUMENTS WITH DAKOTA COUNTY INDICATING THE NEW PARCEL CREATED BY THIS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT SHALL BE ADDED TO OR COMBINED WITH 1892 ORCHARD HEIGHTS LANE, PARCEL ID NUMBER 27-7540-001-110. 2. ALL TRANSFER OR DEED DOCUMENTS WHICH CONVEY THE PORTION OF LANDS UNDER THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND LOT SPLIT PROCESS SHALL BE RECORDED WITH DAKOTA COUNTY. 3. DUE TO A MAJORITY OF THIS PARCEL SITUATED IN A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT, NO PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, GRADING/FILLING WORK, LANDSCAPING, RETAINING WALLS, FENCING STAIRWAYS OR WALKWAYS) ARE ALLOWED IN THE PARCEL CREATED BY THIS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, UNLESS AUTHORIZED OR PERMITTED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 17, 2021 meeting. DATE: August 17, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician SUBJECT: Award professional services contract to the 106 Group for the completion of the Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob Preservation Site Interpretive Plan COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to accept the proposal submitted by the 106 Group (attached), to begin the development of an Interpretive Plan for the Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob Preservation site. BACKGROUND At the regular meeting of the City Council on January 12, 2021, the City Council authorized City Staff, the Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob Task Force, and Dakota County to submit an application to the Minnesota Historical Society (MHS) for a Heritage Partnership Program grant, for the development of an interpretation plan for the Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob Preservation site. The total project cost proposed by the 106 Group is $54,000. The City and its partners were awarded a Heritage Partnership Program grant from MHS in the amount of $44,500, which will be in addition to a cash match of $9,500. The cash match funds will be provided by: • City of Mendota Heights: $4,000 from operating budget • Private Donations: $1,500 pledged • Dakota County: $4,000 from 2021 County Parks Capital Improvement Program budget DISCUSSION The project entails the development of a conceptual design for interpretation, focusing on engagement with the indigenous community, and research and documentation of site history, in order to provide a thorough and comprehensive interpretation and educational experience for school groups, tour groups, and members of the public. A Request for Proposals was sent to known qualified firms, as well as posted on Quest CDN, and published in the Pioneer Press. Two proposals were submitted, and were reviewed and ranked by City Staff and Task Force members. The 106 Group was unanimously recommended by Staff and the Task Force based on the selection criteria; including the firm’s qualifications and experience, familiarity with the site, demonstrated ability to engage with Indigenous communities, and fee estimate. BUDGET IMPACT The grant agreement for the project requires a $4,000 cash match that the City would provide. These matching funds would be taken from the City’s operating budget. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposal submitted by the 106 Group for the Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob Interpretive Plan and authorize the 106 Group to begin the process of developing an interpretive plan for the site. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should approve a motion authorizing the Public Works Director to accept the proposal of, and issue a ‘not-to-exceed’ Purchase Order in the amount of $54,000 to the 106 Group. This action requires a simple majority vote. City of Mendota Heights July 30, 2021 Qualifications for Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob Preservation Site Interpretive Plan CONTENTS 4 Understanding and Approach 9 Project Schedule 10 Fee Estimate 12 Our Team 14 Project Team 24 Project Experience 36 References All images by 106 Group unless otherwise stated. Cover images courtesy of Kent Landerholm (top) and Laurie Shaull (bottom). Main Office 1295 Bandana Blvd N Suite 335 St Paul MN 55108 651–290–0977 106group.com Boston MA • Richmond VA • Washington DC Regine Kennedy Planning and Engagement Manager K. Anne Ketz CEO and Services Director Dear Mr. Ruzek, We are delighted to submit our proposal for the development of an Interpretive Plan for the Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob Preservation Site. Successful completion of this work will engage Indigenous voices in connecting people to the rich cultural and natural resources of this sacred place. This work is especially dear to us for many reasons. Foremost, we believe that it is essential for everyone to better understand that Indigenous people are still here, on this landscape that has been their home for millennia. 106 Group has worked extensively at places that are culturally significant to Dakota people in the Twin Cities. With nearly 30 years of experience and award-winning projects, our team offers you valuable insights informed by: • Collaboration with Indigenous Communities: We are experienced in working with and for Tribes and other Indigenous communities, in Minnesota and nationally. Our projects include collaboration with the four Minnesota Dakota Tribes around cultural resource preservation, heritage interpretation, and public education. Whether working with tribal leaders, historic preservation officers, artists, Elders, or other knowledge keepers, we have developed lasting relationships built on trust and respect. We interpret with, rather than for, communities - we are conduits for them to convey their own stories. • Established Team and Dakota-led Process: Our team includes Dakota educators Gwen Westerman and Glenn Wasicuna whose expertise in Dakota history, culture, and language will inform research, lead development of interpretive messaging and concepts, and support engagement. We recently collaborated with them in a comparable way at Big Rivers Regional Trail and Thompson County Park. Our team also includes architect Sam Olbekson of Full Circle Indigenous Planning. Sam will lead engagement, inform concept development, and guide recommendations for interpretive design. We are currently collaborating with Sam in the development of the Waḳáŋ Ṭípi Center at Bruce Vento Nature Sanctuary. • Knowledge of This Place and Its People: Our working knowledge at Bdote and around the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi rivers spans over 25 years. 106 Group completed a cultural resource evaluation for eligibility of Oȟéyawahe for listing as a traditional cultural property. In addition, team member Glenn Wasicuna was an advisor for the sculpted stones honoring the Seven Council Fires Overlook. We have also enjoyed long-term collaborations in Dakota County for trail, park, greenway, and corridor planning and interpretation. We would be honored to collaborate with you on this project. If you have any questions, please contact Regine at RegineKennedy@106Group.com or by phone at 651–403–8713. Sincerely, 4 UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH Project Understanding Supported by a Heritage Partnership Grant from the Minnesota Historical Society, the City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, and the Pilot Knob Preservation Association (the Partners) seek the development of a comprehensive Interpretive Plan for Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob that is guided by Dakota voices and grounded in Indigenous perspectives. This project requires a strategic and deeply collaborative planning process, built on a foundation of meaningful, sustained engagement with Minnesota Dakota communities. Any understanding of this project must begin with the recognition that Oȟéyawahe is a sacred site. For thousands of years, Dakota and other Indigenous peoples have used this place to gather together, strengthen kinship bonds, share cultural teachings, participate in ceremonies, bury their dead, and care for their ancestors. For Dakota people, this site is part of Bdote, the place where they came into being. Oȟéyawahe is one of many interconnected sites along the Minnesota and Mississippi rivers in the Dakota Homelands. With years of experience working throughout the Bdota landscape, our team understands the significance of this place. This land holds other stories as well. Over centuries of European colonization and American settlement, Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob has accumulated additional layers of historical significance. In recent years, as its protectors worked to preserve the hill and restore its native plant community, local residents have come here to connect with the natural world. As visitation increases, so does the need to help people understand the site’s complex history and ecological value as well as its meaning for Dakota people and other Indigenous communities. We have the expertise to interpret these stories in respectful and creative ways. The planning context for this project is also multi-layered and complex. It requires close collaboration between the Partners and Minnesota Dakota communities, as well as engagement with other stakeholders and community members. The Interpretive Plan is also one of multiple parallel planning processes for Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob that include capital improvements and natural resources restoration. In addition, the preservation and interpretive area known as Historic Pilot Knob is one part of a larger site that includes Acacia Park Cemetery and private landholdings. Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob also exists within a larger network of city, county, and regional parks, historic sites, and nature preserves in the Twin Cities area. Many of these sites are planning and implementing new interpretive programs that either incorporate or center Dakota stories and perspectives. A successful interpretive planning process for Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob requires holistic awareness of, and strategic connection with, other related initiatives in the Minnesota and Mississippi river corridors. Our team has the experience to coordinate, manage, and situate this project to ensure success. UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH 5 Photo of Oȟéyawahe, courtesy Laurie Shaull. Project Approach Our approach to this project is built on knowledge gained from working with and for Indigenous Nations across the country for almost three decades. In particular, it draws from our long experience of working with Minnesota Dakota communities to document, preserve, and interpret their history. We also apply insights gained from our work with city, county, and tribal agencies and non-profit organizations on planning, interpretive, and cultural resource projects across the Twin Cities and throughout Minnesota. A Dakota/Indigenous Place Both our planning process and our interpretive recommendations will center Indigenous relationships to, and Dakota people’s singular connection with, this culturally significant place. The Interpretive Plan also needs to recognize the site’s other stories and recognize the multiple perspectives on its history. Yet it should remain committed to Indigenous-centered interpretation. Above all, it must preserve Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob as a natural and sacred site. Our team can represent complex histories through focused messaging and thoughtful design that honor Indigenous relationships to place. We also know how to develop interpretive strategies for culturally and environmentally sensitive sites. We did this recently in a Visitor Experience Plan for the Shakopee Riverfront Cultural Trail, another place with a long, layered history and spiritual significance for Dakota people. To facilitate Indigenous engagement and center Dakota perspectives, our team includes Dakota educators Gwen Westerman (Sisseton Wahpeton Dakota Oyate and Cherokee Nation) and Glenn Wasicuna (Sioux Valley Dakota Nation). Their expertise in Dakota history, culture, and language will inform research, lead development of interpretive messaging and concepts, and support engagement. Our team also includes architect Sam Olbekson (White Earth Nation of Ojibwe) of Full Circle Indigenous Planning. His expertise in Indigenous-centered design, landscapes, and community planning will lead engagement, inform concept development, and guide recommendations for interpretive design. We have worked together with Gwen, Glenn, and Sam on past and current projects at sites that include Waḳáŋ Ṭípi, Thompson County Park, and Big Rivers Regional Trail. Commitment to Dakota-Led Process In all our interpretive planning, we believe the process is as important as the product. This is an especially appropriate approach for this project. We will devote significant time and creative energy to fostering collaboration among the Partners and building relationships between the Partners, 6 UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH Dakota communities, and other stakeholders. Consultation with the Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) for the four Minnesota Dakota tribes will be an essential part of this process. We also commit to broader engagement with other Indigenous organizations and community members who care about this site. Throughout the process, we will follow the guidance and amplify the voices of Dakota and other Indigenous partners. Our role is to facilitate, coordinate, synthesize, and manifest their vision, rather than impose our own. In this work, we will draw from our current experience facilitating the development of a Visitor Interpretive Experience Plan for the Wakan Tipi Center, in a process led by the Lower Phalen Creek Project and guided by a Steering Committee of Dakota THPOs and other community leaders. Planning in Context From startup through final deliverable, this project requires understanding of its multi-layered context, both at this site and along the Minnesota and Mississippi river corridors. We will build on the 2018 Historic Landscape Plan and research conducted for the NRHP nomination by drawing from the knowledge of Dakota history and culture experts and from our past work conducting cultural resource evaluation at Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob. We also will draw from cultural resource and interpretive work at other Dakota historical sites, including Flying Cloud Drive, the Mississippi River Gorge, Water Works, Minnehaha Parkway, the Great River Passage, the Shakopee riverfront, and Wakan Tipi, among others. We understand the cultural and historical relationships among these places. We also bring to this project our holistic awareness of the many planning, cultural resource, and interpretive projects currently active or in development across this landscape. Planning at Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob should not proceed in a vacuum; we will keep it contextualized and connected. Our team’s research and project management skills will also ensure success. We will draw from our experience managing similarly complex planning processes. Our recent work along the Shakopee riverfront involved a partnership among city, county, and tribal agencies and extensive engagement with diverse stakeholders and communities. At Thompson County Park and the Mendota Heights Overlook on the Big Rivers Regional Trail, we integrated interpretive planning and design into a larger park development project. Interpretive Experience Design Good interpretive planning centers the visitor experience. At Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob, “visitors” will include Dakota and other Indigenous people who come here to participate in ceremony, honor their ancestors, connect with the land, and care for their plant and animal relatives. There also will be neighborhood and Twin Cities residents who come to spend time in nature and find a new perspective on the city. Increasingly, there are school groups and organized tours that come to discover the site’s history. Our goal is that all visitors experience this as a Dakota place and understand it through Indigenous perspectives. We are committed to making the site experience accessible for all visitors. This includes all kinds of accessibility: physical, intellectual, and emotional. As leaders in interpretive accessibility, we know that applying universal design standards creates better experiences for everyone. As NAI-certified interpreters, we know how to maximize accessibility in concept, writing, design, and site development. While facilitating a meaningful visitor experience, we also must be good stewards of this place. At a recently restored sacred site such as this, the interpretation should rest lightly on the land. Balancing all these elements takes design experience and excellence. Our firm knows how to plan interpretive designs that are creative, buildable, environmentally sensitive, and responsive to engagement. Audio description makes exhibit content accessible for blind and low-vision visitors. UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH 7 Workplan Indigenous Engagement Throughout the project, we will work with a core engagement group comprised of the THPOs for the four federally recognized Minnesota Dakota Tribes as well as other Indigenous people with deep knowledge of and cultural connections to Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob. Early in the process, we will collaborate with them to refine our engagement plan. In our engagement work, we will be focused and clear about our expectations. This respects our engagement partners’ time and recognizes that many of them are consulting or engaging on multiple other projects. We anticipate having eight to ten members in this core engagement group. We have set aside $3000 in honoraria for those who are not THPOs, for sharing their knowledge and expertise. Our plan includes deep engagement in the early stages of the project, to inform our understanding of the site and guide development of the Interpretive Plan’s foundations and interpretive framework. We also plan for ongoing engagement with the core group, as well as an opportunity for additional Indigenous community members to participate in the process. • Site visit #1 will include members of the core engagement group. They will share their knowledge, vision, and concerns related to interpretation on site. We will also offer a virtual participation option. • Our team will facilitate two workshops with the core engagement group to collaboratively develop the foundations and interpretive framework. • Site visit #2 will gather members of the core engagement group to test and refine the interpretive locations, messaging, and methods drafted in the workshops. This event also will include an open house component for broader Indigenous community participation. We will also offer a virtual participation option. • While writing and revising the Interpretive Plan, we will communicate and consult with the core engagement group, to keep them updated and invite additional input. Our engagement work will conclude with a presentation of the Final Plan to the City Council and members of the public. Interpretive Plan Research Our research will include review of existing planning documents, research materials, and parallel planning efforts as well as identification of key audiences, in cooperation with the Partners. We also will draw from our team’s Dakota culture and history expertise as well as our firm’s internal research materials and institutional knowledge from working on related projects. We envision an initial site visit that includes our core Indigenous engagement group as well as representatives from the Partner organizations and the Technical Advisory Team. This visit will add to our understanding of the site’s history, cultural significance, physical characteristics, and local context. We also will assess possible interpretive locations and identify potential opportunities and challenges. Plan Development We build all of our interpretive plans on solid foundations and a carefully constructed interpretive framework. We will develop these essential components collaboratively with the members of our core Indigenous engagement team, submit them for review by the Partners, and revise them accordingly. • Foundations • Mission • Goals: Operational goals and visitor experience goals • Communities, audiences, and stakeholders • Challenges, opportunities, and resources • Interpretive messaging (themes, sub-themes, and stories) 8 UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH • Interpretive Framework • Interpretation locations • Interpretive methods and strategies • Interpretive messaging per location Draft Plan With the foundations and framework solidified, we will add these components to complete the Draft Plan: • Project background and planning process • Indigenous engagement outcomes • Draft concepts • Draft implementation plan Final Plan After review of the Draft Plan, we will revise all components according to feedback, and add estimated cost ranges for implementation. Meetings & Communication Kickoff meeting We will host a one-hour conference call or virtual meeting to introduce the project team, establish communication protocols, review the project schedule, identify research documentation, and discuss the Indigenous engagement approach. Biweekly check-ins Our project manager will participate in up to 15 biweekly check-ins. These might be completed via phone or video calls of 15-30 minutes or via email. Review meetings At least one member of our team will participate in three one-hour review meetings, either in-person or virtual, with the City and Partners. These meetings will take place after submittal of key deliverables: 1. Draft Foundations and Interpretive Framework 2. Draft Plan 3. Final Plan One member of our team can also participate in up to four hours in additional meetings, if needed. 26 | THOMPSON PARK INTERPRETATION | Final Design TCP05-001 TO 005 Spanish Name • Monarch B u tterfly • Da k o t a NameMariposa monarca • Monarc h B utterfly • ki ma mana• Abejorro de parche oxidado • Rusty P a tc h e d Bumble B e e • tuḣmaġa taŋkaAbeja cortadora de hoja s • Leafcutter B e e • tuḣmaġaEscarabajo soldado • S o l dier Beetle • wabduṡkadaColibrí de garganta roja • Ru b y -t h roated Hu m mi ngbird • tanaġidaŋInterpretive designs from Big Rivers Regional Trail (top) and Thompson County Park (bottom) developed in collaboration with team members Gwen Westerman and Glenn Wasicuna. PROjECT SCHEDULE 9 PROjECT SCHEDULE = Deliverable TASK 2021 2022 AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY INDIGENOUS ENGAGEMENT INTERPRETIVE PLAN Research Foundations & Framework Draft Plan Final Plan MEETINGS & COMMUNICATION MILESTONE COMPLETED BY Start Date Aug 20, 2021 Kickoff Meeting Aug 27, 2021 Site Visit 1 Sept 24, 2021 Engagement Workshop 1 Oct 8, 2021 Engagement Workshop 2 Oct 29, 2021 Site Visit 2 Nov 19, 2021 Foundations & Interpretive Framework Dec 3, 2021 Review Meeting 1 Dec 10, 2021 Review Comments Due Dec 24, 2021 Consultation with Core Engagement Group Feb 4, 2022 Draft Plan Feb 25, 2022 Review Meeting 2 Mar 4, 2022 Review Comments Due Mar 18, 2022 Consultation with Core Engagement Group Apr 15, 2022 Final Plan Apr 29, 2022 Review Meeting 3 May 6, 2022 Presentation May 20, 2022 End Date May 31, 2022 10 FEE ESTIMATE FEE ESTIMATE 106 Group can complete this scope of work for an amount not to exceed $54,000. Proposed payment schedule provided below. Our fee includes $3,000 for honoraria for members of our core Indigenous engagement group. Name Kennedy Reynolds Davis Rupp Olbekson Westerman Wasicuna Role PM/IP/  Engagement Engagement/  Research Interpretive  Planning Interpretive  Media /  Design Architecture Interpretation  & Translation Interpretation  & Translation  FEE BY TASK  106 GROUP  TOTAL  HOURS  ALL  FEE BY TASK  OTHER   FEE BY  TASK ALL  Rate $185 $100 $145 $100 $200 $250 $250 Task  PMT 11 2 10 0 4 4 4 3,685$              35 $2,800 6,485$         Engagement 22 10 30 2 50 18 18 9,620$              150 $19,000 28,620$       Interpretive Plan 12 12 50 7 11 4 4 11,370$            100 $4,200 15,570$       Expenses (mileage, meeting materials, etc.)325$            Honararia 3,000$         Hours by staff member 45 24 90 9 65 26 26 285 54,000$       FEE ESTIMATE 11 NameKennedy Reynolds Davis Rupp Olbekson Westerman Wasicuna RolePM/IP/  Engagement Engagement/  Research Interpretive  Planning Interpretive  Media /  Design Architecture Interpretation  & Translation Interpretation  & Translation  FEE BY TASK  106 GROUP  TOTAL  HOURS  ALL  FEE BY TASK  OTHER   FEE BY  TASK ALL  Rate$185 $100 $145 $100 $200 $250 $250 Task  PMT11210 0 4 4 4 3,685$              35 $2,800 6,485$         Engagement221030 2 50 18 18 9,620$              150 $19,000 28,620$       Interpretive Plan121250 7 11 4 4 11,370$            100 $4,200 15,570$       Expenses (mileage, meeting materials, etc.)325$            Honararia 3,000$         Hours by staff member452490 9 65 26 26 285 54,000$       12 OUR TEAM Cultural Heritage Planning • Master Planning • Strategic Planning • Preservation Planning • Tourism Planning • Community Engagement Cultural Resource Management • Archaeology • NHPA & NEPA Compliance • Tribal Consultation • Architectural History • Risk Assessment Interpretation & Exhibit Design • Interpretive Planning • Exhibits • Waysides & Wayfinding • Digital Experience Design • Universal Design & Accessibility OUR TEAM For nearly 30 years, 106 Group has guided the planning, management, and interpretation of natural, historical, and cultural resources. Built on the belief that communities are strongest when they evolve with a rooted sense of their own authentic heritage, we’ve developed innovative solutions to document resources and uncover powerful stories. Our company-wide commitment to preserve history and culture is the connecting thread that weaves through our diverse portfolio. 106 Group is delighted to continue our partnership with Sam Olbekson of Full Circle Indigenous Planning. We are currently working with Sam on development of the new Waḳáŋ Ṭípi Center, on the Mississippi River in St. Paul. We also continue our collaboration with Gwen Westerman and Glenn Wasicuna with whom we are working on a number of projects in Dakota County. 106 Group is a Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) and a certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise/Woman-owned Business Enterprise (DBE/WBE). OUR TEAM 13 Aligning Expertise to Create Innovative Native American Design and Planning Solutions Full Circle Indigenous Planning understands the cultural sensitivities required of all Native American projects. The aligned services of Full Circle Indigenous Planning and Cuningham provide a comprehensive approach that keeps culture and personalization at the heart of the design delivery process, while incorporating the latest innovations. The results are thoughtful and meaningful and offer quality design solutions for our collaborative tribal projects. Having worked with numerous Native American clients, we understand the importance of culturally relevant design expression and the central design issues involved in the development of Tribal projects. Native authorship, culturally specific references and tribal community involvement in design help fulfill tribal self-determination and sovereignty goals by allowing communities to control and shape the future of their communities from a truly Native perspective. As leaders in contemporary Native American design, Full Circle with the support of Cuningham, helps our clients determine culturally appropriate design expressions that achieve their goals while balancing cultural, social and economic priorities. Whether the goal is to subtly and indirectly honor culture or to celebrate and highlight a tribe’s visual and aesthetic history, we successfully help tribes reach design solutions that reflect and respect their community’s project visions. Full Circle Indigenous Planning Firm Profile Full Circle Indigenous Planning is a Native American- owned, research-based planning and visioning design firm serving tribal communities and economic development agencies throughout Indian Country. We help our clients complete the due diligence necessary for successful building projects through a thoughtful cultural visioning, pre-design planning and long-range master planning process—for cultural arts and landscape projects, community centers, schools, housing, libraries and gaming amenities. From small, culturally sensitive spaces in individual buildings, to large-scale casino resort projects and community master plans. Rooted in project fiscal responsibility, culture, landscape, tradition and innovation, our practice focuses on empowering and giving a voice to Native communities as they develop important cultural and economic development projects. Led by founder and CEO Sam Olbekson, White Earth Nation of Ojibwe, the Full Circle team is dedicated to helping communities plan and design projects from a Native perspective, with a sincere commitment to sustainability, quality and to improving the lives of tribal community members. Cuningham Firm Profile Cuningham has earned an outstanding reputation for delivering excellence in architecture, interior design, urban design, and landscape architecture in the places where people grow, heal, live, play, and work. Since our founding in 1968 we have focused on a working model of team architecture that is highly inclusive and incorporates extensive client, consultant, engineer, and contractor participation. This philosophy has led to the design of award-winning projects and a solid reputation for collaboration and design leadership. We provide the resources of a large firm while our studio approach— focused on key market areas and client types—provides a specialized team of professionals for each client and project. From offices in Minneapolis, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Denver, San Diego, Phoenix, Beijing, and Doha, Cuningham is dedicated to delivering inspired and sustainable design solutions for our clients, communities and the planet. PROjECT TEAM The team we’ve brought together for your project blends backgrounds in Indigenous knowledge, interpretive planning, and award-winning design expertise with a shared purpose for illuminating the stories of this place and its people. They also benefit from being a proven collaborative, currently working together on other interpretive planning projects in the Twin Cities. As Project Manager, 106 Group’s Regine Kennedy will be your primary point of contact and will weave together all of the voices. A skilled facilitator, she brings out the best in team members while planning towards meaningful results with audiences. In addition to keeping the project on schedule and within budget, she will provide guidance for structure of engagement activities. To facilitate Indigenous engagement and center Dakota perspectives, our team includes Dakota educators Gwen Westerman and Glenn Wasicuna. Their expertise in Dakota history, culture, and language will inform research, lead development of interpretive messaging and concepts, and support engagement. Our team also includes architect Sam Olbekson of Full Circle Indigenous Planning. His experience with Indigenous-centered design, landscape architecture, and community planning will lead engagement, inform concept development, and guide recommendations for interpretive design. Beyond our key personnel, we are able to draw from a wide pool of additional talent. As needed, we can call on our internal designers, archaeologists, historians, and planners. They increase the diversity of our experience and perspectives, and contribute to a system of institutional support that ensures quality results within proposed schedules. 14 PROjECT TEAM John Reynolds Tribal Engagement Lead Glenn Wasicuna Interpretation, Engagement, Dakota Language Regine Kennedy Project Manager Chris Evans Interpretive Exhibit Designer Gwen Westerman Interpretation, Engagement, Dakota Language Sam Olbekson/Full Circle Indigenous Planning Engagement, Planning, Design City of Mendota Heights Julie Davis Interpretive Planner PROjECT TEAM 15 Regine is a resourceful planner, facilitator, and project manager whose award- winning work includes community engagement, facilitation, interpretive planning, and exhibit development. She applies a keen attention to detail in every project, while never losing sight of the bigger picture. As a result, Regine empowers clients and their stakeholders to create meaningful and effective solutions that transform challenges into opportunities. Regine consistently completes projects on-time and within-budget, making her a trusted collaborator of community organizations; state, local, and Tribal governments; state and national parks; and heritage sites throughout the country. Education M.U.E.P. Urban & Environmental Planning University of Virginia B.S. Interior Design, concentration in History University of Minnesota- Twin Cities Certifications Certified Interpretive Planner, National Association for Interpretation AICP, American Planning Association Specialized Training Transforming Community Spaces: Bending the Arc of Memory Toward Healing and Justice, Community Mediation & Restorative Services (2018) Mediation Theory & Skills Institute for Environmental Negotiation, University of Virginia (2008) Award Environmental Excellence award in the category of NEPA and/or Planning Integration for Flying Cloud Drive (CSAH 61) Reconstruction Regine Kennedy Project Manager Project Experience Waḳán Ṭípi Center Visitor Interpretive Experience Plan, MN (2021-present) PROjECT MANAGER Veterans Memorial Greenway (2020-present) PROjECT MANAGER & INTERPRETIVE PLANNER Big Rivers Regional Trail-Mendota Heights Trailhead, MN (2020–2021) PROjECT MANAGER & INTERPRETIVE PLANNER Spring Lake Park Reserve Bison Range, MN (2020-present) TRIBAL ENGAGEMENT LEAD Flying Cloud Drive (CSAH 61) Reconstruction, MN (2018-present) PROjECT MANAGER Garman Nature Preserve & Indian Mounds County Park, WI (2019-2020) PROjECT MANAGER 16 PROjECT TEAM Julie has built a hybrid career as a researcher, writer, educator, scholar, and public historian over the past twenty years. She has worked extensively in interpretation, exhibit development, and strategic planning for museums, parks, and historic sites. Julie is a careful listener and creative problem solver who collaborates with clients, stakeholders, and community members to articulate needs and meet goals. She excels at archival, oral history, and field research and is skilled at applying digital technologies to document and interpret history and cultural heritage resources. Julie offers expertise in U.S., Native American, and other Indigenous histories and has experience facilitating outreach with Native communities. Julie Davis Interpretive Planner Project Experience Waḳán Ṭípi Center Visitor Interpretive Experience Plan, MN (2021-present) INTERPRETIVE PLANNER Shakopee Riverfront Cultural Trail, MN (2020-present) INTERPRETIVE PLANNER & PROjECT COORDINATOR Swede Hollow Waysides along Bruce Vento Trail, MN (2020-present) INTERPRETIVE PLANNER & PROjECT COORDINATOR Nine Mile Canyon Exterior Exhibits, UT (2020-present) INTERPRETIVE WRITER El Camino Real de Los Tejas National Historic Trail, TX & LA (2019-present) INTERPRETIVE PLANNER Garman Nature Preserve and Indian Mounds County Park, OH (2019-2021) INTERPRETIVE PLANNER Education Ph.D. History (with honors) Arizona State University M.A. History University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign B.A. History (summa cum laude) Moorhead State University Specialized Training Crowdsourcing Cultural Humanities, Humanities Teaching & Learning Intensive Geographic Information Systems in the Humanities, Digital Humanities Summer Institute Certifications Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for History PROjECT TEAM 17 John is an accomplished cultural resources specialist who has worked at the intersection of tribal and government agencies for nearly a decade. His expertise with complex regulatory processes enables him to facilitate cooperation among agencies, Tribes, and other cultural resources professionals. John is proficient in the Dakota language, and brings comprehensive knowledge of American Indian history and archaeology to his work navigating these processes and professional relationships. His field experience includes archaeology, ethnography, and text-based oral history collections. Before joining 106 Group, John served as a Compliance Officer and Archaeologist within a Tribal Historic Preservation Office. John is a member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. Education M.S. Cultural Resource Management Archaeology St. Cloud State University (Anticipated 2021) B.A. American Indian Studies: Dakota Language Focus University of Minnesota- Twin Cities Professional Affiliations Dakhóta Iápi Okhódakičhiye (Dakota Language Society) John Reynolds Tribal Engagement Lead Project Experience Waḳán Ṭípi Center Visitor Interpretive Experience Plan, MN (2021-present) RESEARCHER & CULTURAL SPECIALIST Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Tribal Historic Preservation Office, MN (2016-2020) COMPLIANCE OFFICER & ARCHAEOLOGIST Water Works Park, MN (2017) ETHNOGRAPHER Lake Vermilion, MN (2016) ARCHAEOLOGIST Department of Anthropology, St. Cloud State University, MN (2016) GRADUATE ASSISTANT 18 PROjECT TEAM Chris is responsible for the overall communication and function of a project’s design. Once a story has been developed, Chris selects and tests the best media to convey its message. He places great emphasis on providing accessible and engaging content for a broad audience through innovative and interactive means. Chris knows how to utilize the latest technology to engage visitors, but also understands that not all exhibits have to be high tech to be highly engaging. Designing hundreds of interpretive waysides and dozens of exhibits, he has honed his skills in visual storytelling. Education A.A.S. Multimedia Web Design The Art Institutes International of Minnesota Presentations How to Implement Accessible Exhibits, National Association for Interpretation, CO (2019) Beginner Hacking— Wearables (workshop), Museum Computer Network National Conference, LA (2016) Stronger Together: How Digital Media Adds Layers to Guided Interpretation, National Association for Interpretation, VA (2015) Awards Blue Ridge Parkway Wayside Exhibits and Park wide Exhibit Plan, Media Award, Wayside Exhibits, National Association for Interpretation - (2014) Badlands National Park Interpretive Media Award, National Association for Interpretation (2015) Chris Evans Interpretive Exhibit Designer Project Experience Veterans Memorial Greenway, MN (2020-present) INTERPRETIVE EXHIBIT DESIGNER Big Rivers Regional Trail-Mendota Heights Trailhead, MN (2020–2021) INTERPRETIVE EXHIBIT DESIGNER Thompson County Park, MN (2020-2021) INTERPRETIVE EXHIBIT DESIGNER Flying Cloud Drive (CSAH 61) Reconstruction, MN (2013-present) MEDIA DESIGNER Garman Nature Preserve & Indian Mounds County Park, WI (2019-2020) EXHIBIT DESIGNER Schaar’s Bluff Gathering Center, MN (2018) EXHIBIT DESIGNER PROjECT TEAM 19 Gwen Westerman, Ph.D. is co-author of Mni Sota Makoce: The Land of the Dakota, which won two Minnesota Book Awards and an AASLH Leadership in History Award. Her poetry collection Follow the Blackbirds is written in English and Dakota, which is her heritage language. Dr. Westerman’s academic work has been recognized with a NEH Scholarly Editions and Translations grant; as well as an MSU Presidential Teaching Scholar award, the Douglas R. Moore Faculty Research Lectureship, and a Distinguished Faculty Scholar award. Previously, Gwen collaborated with 106 Group on projects at Minneopa and Blue Mounds state parks, and Richard T. Anderson Conservation Area (Flying Cloud Drive). She was the Dakota content subject-matter expert for new exhibits at Pipestone National Monument. Gwen Westerman, Ph.D. Site interpretation, engagement, Dakota language and culture Glenn Wasicuna Site interpretation, engagement, Dakota language and culture Glenn Wasicuna was born on the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation reserve near Griswold, Manitoba. After a career as a journalist in Canada, he became an educator focusing on Dakota history and culture. He has taught Dakota language at the four Dakota communities in Minnesota, as well as Sisseton Wahpeton College and Tiospa Zina Tribal School in South Dakota, and Gustavus Adolphus College. He also serves as the Lead Translator and Cultural Advisor for a scholarly edition of Dakota letters funded by a two-year grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. Wasicuna currently teaches Dakota language at Minnesota State University, Mankato. He was an advisor for the sculpted stones honoring the Seven Council Fires Overlook/Oceti Ŝakowiŋ. Glenn recently worked with 106 Group on interpretive projects at Thompson County Park and Big Rivers Regional Trail. Photo by The Free PressTake a look at Gwen’s recent exhibit “From These Hands” 20 PROjECT TEAM As an Indigenous architect with over 25 years of design, comprehensive planning, and cultural visioning experience, Sam serves tribal commmunities and Indigenous organizations by bringing a Native perspective to the design and planning process. With a sincere commitment to improving the lives of tribal community members, Sam brings a wealth of experience and cultural knowledge as a talented designer on a wide range of mixed-use, urban design, residential, institutional, hospitality, landscape, educational, and community-oriented projects. He is commited to help advance the cultural preservation, economic growth, health and well-being of Natie communities through sound planning and practical design strategies that are beautiful, innovative, sustainable, functional, and culturally specifc. Published nationally as a thought leader in contemporary Native American design theory, Sam is known as a progressive and skilled design thinker on culturally significant projects and produces unique and inventive design solutions that respond to cultural tradition in innovative and contemporary ways without relying on stereotypical imagery. Sam is also passionate about serving his community. He holds leadership positions with a number of American Indian organizations and has received numerous recognitions for both design and community service. SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE • Wakan Tipi Cultural Center at the Bruce Vento Nature Sanctuary, St. Paul, MN • Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Housing Plan, Prior Lake, MN • Sisseton Wahpeton College Comprehensive Plan, Agency Village, SD • Oglala Lakota College Comprehensive Plan, Kyle, SD • United Tribes Technical College, Comprehensive Plan, Bismark, ND • Anpetu Was’te Cultural Arts Landscape Design and Marketplace, Minneapolis, MN • American Indian Magnet PK-8 School, Saint Paul, MN • Deer River High School, Deer River, MN • El Colegio High School, Garden and Tribal Gathering Place, Minneapolis, MN • Abbott Northwestern Hospital Multi-cultural Child Care Center, Minneapolis, MN • Minneapolis American Indian Center Expansion and Renovation, Minneapolis, MN • Oshki Maaji Day Center, Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, L’Anse, MI • Leech Lake Tribal College Library, Cass Lake Minnesota • Leech Lake Tribal College Master Plan Update, Cass Lake MN • Red Lake Nation Longhouse & Cultural Center, Red Lake, MN • Mino-bimaadiziwin Affordable Housing, Minneapolis, Minnesota • American Indian Cultural Corridor Master Plan, Minneapolis, MN • All My Relations Contemporary Native American Art Gallery, Minneapolis, MN • Native American Community Clinic, Minneapolis, MN • Native American Community Development Institute, Minneapolis, MN • Ione Band of Miwok Community Master Plan, Plymouth, CA • Puyallup Tribe Master Plan, Tacoma, WA • Spokane Tribe Master Plan, Airway Heights, WA • Homeward Bound Temporary Living Shelter, Minneapolis, MN • Boys & Girls Clubs, Voyageur Environmental Center, Mound MN * * Prior Project Experience obtained prior to joining Full Circle / Cuningham Group SAM OLBEKSON, AIA, NCARB, AICAE, NOMA Full Circle Indigenous Planning | Founding Principal & CEO Cuningham Group | Principal and Director of Native American Design & Planning Professional Affiliations Registered Architect in Minnesota (no. 57586) National Council of Archtiectural Registration Board (NCARB) Additional Affiliations Enrolled Member, White Earth Band of Minnesota Ojibwe President, Minneapolis American Indian Center Board of Directors Chair, Board of Directors, Native American Community Development Institute Immediate Past President and Board Member, American Indian Council of Architects and Engineers Member, Minnesota American Indian Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, Minnesota Chapter, American Institute of Architects Education Master of Architecture, Harvard University Bachelor of Architecture, Cornell University PROjECT TEAM 21 REGISTRATIONS Registered Landscape Architect in Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota (no. 46692), Nevada EDUCATION Masters in Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota Bachelor of Architecture, I.T.E.S.M. Campus Sonora Norte, Mexico Ana has more than 20 years of experience as a Landscape Architect, Project Manager and serving as lead on projects. She has successfully led projects ranging from small-scale site design to large-scale campus, corridors, trails, open space and redevelopment planning efforts. Ana works directly with the project team and client to create engaging, sustainable and livable environments. Her commitment to an inclusive and collaborative approach, including active public participation, is key to the successful implementation of many projects. Select Project Experience Dakota County Mississippi River Regional Trail, Spring Lake Park Reserve Trail Segment* North Creek Greenway and Minnesota River Greenway Master Plans* Minneapolis Parks & Recreation Board Bde Maka Ska/Lake Harriet Master Plan* Bde Maka Ska Refectory Rebuild Levin Triangle Park Improvements* Park Siding Park Improvements* East of the River Service Area Master Plan* Kenilworth Trail Corridor Landscape Design Hillcrest Golf Course Redevelopment Master Plan, Saint Paul, Minnesota Boulder Lake Environmental Learning Center, Duluth, Minnesota* Saint Paul Public Schools, American Indian Magnet School, Saint Paul, Minnesota Minnehaha Academy Upper Campus, Minneapolis, Minnesota Rock Ridge Public Schools, Rock Ridge High School, Virginia, Minnesota *Project experience obtained prior to joining Cuningham Emerald Queen Casino, Tacoma, Washington Snoqualmie Casino - Hotel and Event Center Expansion, Snoqualmie, Washington The Village in Henderson Mixed-Use Project, Henderson, Nevada Minnesota State Fair - North End Event Center, Saint Paul, Minnesota Andrews Park Master Plan and Implementation, Champlin, Minnesota* Cascade Lake Master Plan, Rochester, Minnesota* Cross City Trail and Wayfinding Plan* (Munger Trail Extension) Duluth, Minnesota Gateway to Indiana Dunes Beach Trail and Wayfinding Plan* Porter, Indiana Dunes Kankakee Trail Implementation* Porter, Indiana Saint Anthony Falls Interpretive Plan* Minneapolis, Minnesota Ana Nelson ASLA, PLA Landscape Architect | Cuningham 22 PROjECT TEAM PROjECT TEAM 23 24 PROjECT EXPERIENCE PROjECT EXPERIENCE At 106 Group, we believe that we have a role in the community and a responsibility to help people understand the value of a place’s story—that having a connection to a specific place creates a more distinctive experience and link to the community. We seek to reveal these connections and unique stories; to bring together people + place + time. The following pages highlight examples of relevant work completed by the 106 Group team. All of these projects required teamwork, innovative thinking, effective communication, and a shared commitment to connecting communities and visitors in creative and meaningful ways. “Known to Dakota people as Oȟéyawahe, ‘the hill much visited,’ Pilot Knob is a place of distinctive historical, cultural, and environmental importance, a sacred site, a landmark of Minnesota’s beginnings.” PROjECT EXPERIENCE 25 Knowledge of Oĥéyawahe/ Pilot Knob We’ve worked extensively at and around this site, since 1994 when we provided historical documentation in support of the conversion of a segment of the former Soo Line Railroad to a bicycle trail. Since then, we’ve conducted extensive archaeological, historical, and cultural studies on this land. Our work has included interviews with Dakota leaders and elders, an archaeological survey, an evaluation of the area as a traditional cultural property, and an assessment of effects of proposed developments on many surrounding National Register properties. We recommended that Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob together with other traditional sites in the area of the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers be considered contributing properties to a larger Traditional Cultural District. Tribal Relationships & Trust Over the last two decades, we’ve partnered with American Indian Tribes in both formal and informal settings. We have worked closely with the Cherokee Nation and the Akwesasne Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe on a range of interpretive planning projects. Locally, we have worked with both the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community and the Lower Sioux Indian Community to create maps that accurately depict their Tribes’ sacred relationships to the land. Our work with Tribal representatives on the Flying Cloud Drive (CSAH 61) Reconstruction site, resulted in the completion of interpretive waysides that are translated into Dakota and include audio descriptions in English and Dakota. We have worked closely with Cherokee and Lakota Tribes to create bilingual interpretive text for wayside exhibits along the Blue Ridge Parkway and at Devils Tower National Monument, respectively. Together, we’ve worked to reveal the unique nuances of a Tribe’s history and culture, in addition to how, when, and if they would like these stories to be told. Cherokee Nation GIS Analyst and 106 Group Archaeologist c. 1823 map of Pilot Knob region 26 PROjECT EXPERIENCE Dakota County, through their Park System Plan and Greenway Guidebook, envisioned regional greenways connecting parks, schools, trails, and libraries. The greenway vision identifies 200 miles of regional greenway, which serve to improve water quality, connect wildlife habitat, provide recreation, and provide non-motorized transportation. 106 Group has collaborated with Dakota County staff and consultant teams to develop master plans for greenways throughout the county. Our historians and interpretive planners researched historical documents and developed interpretive frameworks for each plan, considering the specific resources, challenges, and potential of each greenway. Our work has supported Dakota County in implementing its progressive vision for a connected network of greenways. Most recently, we’ve developed interpretive panels along the Greenway to convey information about vegetation and habitat restoration and management, site geology, Native American presence, and park stewardship. Dakota County Greenways & Trail Corridors Dakota language interpretation at Schaar’s Bluff Trail PROjECT EXPERIENCE 27 Big Rivers Regional Trail - Mendota Heights Trailhead Etched stone map with Dakota names for places Big Rivers Regional Trail At the Big Rivers Regional Trail (BRRT) Mendota Heights Overlook, we developed interpretive features that integrate into the BRRT trailhead project. The development of the interpretation narrative was informed by and reflects the Minnesota River Cultural Resources Interpretive Plan. 106 Group provided interpretation services to enhance the visitor experience and promote understanding of the site’s cultural and natural history. We contributed our expertise during site inventory and analysis and in content development. We collaborated with the design team to integrate interpretation throughout the site, from self-guided features to a new structure and landscape designs. All this has been in partnership with our team members, Gwen Westerman and Glenn Wasicuna, who provided interpretive content, Dakota language translation, and English and Dakota audio. Through an on-going development process, interpretive concepts have been refined into final designs that share a larger story of the site’s cultural history as Dakota Homeland. 28 PROjECT EXPERIENCE Nine Mile Canyon Interpretive Plan The 46-mile-long Nine Mile Canyon is nationally significant for its concentration of prehistoric archaeological sites. These include numerous petroglyph and pictograph panels and habitation sites ranging from Archaic to the present. Nine Mile Canyon has been listed on the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s “America’s 11 Most Endangered Historic Places.” 106 Group has been engaged by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to lead an interpretive planning process for Nine Mile Canyon and its academic, resident, regional, and tribal partners. The process began during Covid, with a request for information from all partners and a site visit to document the visitor experience. Interpretive planning was completed with three subsequent rounds of documents and review. This specific contract also calls for draft text for 11 waysides, a process that is currently in review. Through interpretation and access, the BLM will increase appreciation for the resources of Nine Mile Canyon by focusing visitors on a few sites, building community pride, and above all strengthening respect and preservation. The Interpretive Plan outlines a wholistic visitor experience that meets the BLM Mission and Goals and those of stakeholders by emphasizing people beyond the rock art, encouraging curiosity, and building personal connections. View the Nine Mile Canyon Draft Interpretive Plan. Petroglyph and pictograph art at Nine Mile Canyon 30 PROjECT EXPERIENCE Take a look at the full Dakota Presence Map. PROjECT EXPERIENCE 31 Cloud Drive Reconstruction. As the project’s cultural resources consultant, 106 Group studied some remarkable archaeological sites that shed light on our knowledge of American Indian settlement in the Minnesota River valley. Early input was sought from the Tribal Historic Preservation Officers and Elders of four Dakota tribes with ancestral connections to the area. Tribal representatives helped guide and inform the archaeological data recovery, interpretation, and the telling of stories about the place, the people who lived here, and their connection to descendants who live in the area today. 106 Group collaborated with the Dakota communities to develop recommendations from the Interpretive Plan including interpretive waysides, a website, short film, and an audio exhibit as part of implementation of the project’s regulatory requirements. The project has been recognized with multiple awards, including an Environmental Excellence Award from the National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP). Cultural Heritage Planning in our Community Cultural Resources Planning for Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community 106 Group has worked with the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community to support a wide range of research, interpretation, mapping, and survey projects associated with the community’s historical and cultural preservation. We conducted Phase I archaeological surveys of tribal land, conducted ground penetrating radar to confirm location of a burial mound, prepared digital mapping of Inyan Ceyaka Otonwe (Village at the Rapids), a significant ancient Dakota village. Most noteworthy was the collaborative work with the community Elders to map ancestral sites along the Minnesota River valley. The map, called “Dakota Presence on the Minnesota River,” has heightened awareness of the strong presence of American Indians in this region. Flying Cloud Drive (CSAH 61) Reconstruction — Dakota Archaeology & Interpretation Our long-term partnerships with Dakota communities and our deep knowledge of their relationship with this land has led to involvement on numerous community efforts, including the Flying YOU ARE HERE www.website.com Here, for well over 1,000 years, people have fished, hunted, and harvested food; built houses, made tools, and prepared meals; raised families and buried those who passed on. Artifacts demonstrate great age, recent history, and everything in between. Wild ricing Spring Cultural objects not actual size.Trail to top of bluffs For more information about the cultural objects, visit shakopeedakota.org or mnhs.org. This pot was made at least 1,000 years ago. It is one of the oldest of the 5,000 artifacts recovered in preparation for reconstructing the highway. De ceġa waniyeṫu kekṫoṗawiŋġe waŋżi ced heehan kaġaṗi. Ṫaku taŋniŋ kekṫoṗawiŋġe zapṫaŋ iyeyaṗi tka de aṫaya ehaŋna kaġaṗi. De caŋku apiyaṗi ecaŋ iyeyaṗi. This decorative cone was crafted from tin that came from European traders, probably between 1820 and 1860. De mibeya pesṫo ayuwaṡṫeṗi ceḣska maza uŋ kaġaṗi. Waṡicu wopetoŋ hena ahiṗi keciŋṗi okitahedaŋ kekṫoṗawiŋġe waŋżi sam oṗawiŋġe ṡaḣdoġaŋ sam wikcemna nuŋṗa k’a kekṫoṗawiŋġe waŋżi sam oṗawiŋġe ṡaḣdoġaŋ sam wikcemna ṡakṗe. Ded omaka kekṫoṗawiŋġe waŋżi sampa hukuwaṗi, wihniṗi k’a woyuṫe kicaŋyaṗi, ticaġaṗi, wokicaŋye kaġaṗi k’a waṡpaŋyaṗi, ṡiceca icaḣwicayaṗi k’a uŋġe iyayaṗi hena wicaḣaṗi. Dena wookaġe nina taŋniŋ, uŋġe aṡkaṫada kaġaṗi k’a nakuŋ ṫaku owas okitahedaŋ. CONTINUITY 32 PROjECT EXPERIENCE Shakopee Riverfront Cultural Trail Visitor Experience Plan We created a Visitor Experience Plan to guide development and implementation of visitor-centered interpretive themes and experiential strategies for a trail along the Minnesota River in downtown Shakopee. Interpretation along the Trail will reveal the area’s rich American Indian, European American, and natural history. The plan was informed by robust collaboration and engagement with community, government agency, and tribal stakeholders, including the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community. The Shakopee riverfront has particular significance for Dakota people. Where the city of Shakopee now sits, Mdewakanton Dakota people lived in the summer village of Tiŋta Otuŋwe. The land along the Trail includes burial mounds, additional cemetery sites, and sacred springs. Here in their homeland, Dakota voices will speak clearly about their history, living heritage, and ongoing relationship to this sacred place. People from all backgrounds will encounter stories that connect them to the past, while building connections with each other. View the Shakopee Riverfront Cultural Trail Visitor Experience Plan. PROjECT EXPERIENCE 33 Garman Nature Preserve & Indian Mounds County Park Interpretive Exhibits 106 Group recently developed outdoor exhibits that interpret the natural resources and cultural history of Garman Nature Preserve and Indian Mounds County Park in Jefferson County, Wisconsin. In both parks, the county is preserving burial mounds built by ancestors of the Ho-Chunk People. Our exhibits interpret the history of the mound builders, highlight the sites’ ongoing significance for Ho-Chunk People, and encourage visitors to be good stewards of these sacred places. They also engage visitors with the parks’ unique glacial geology. We developed content in consultation with the Ho-Chunk THPO and contracted a Ho-Chunk/Anishinaabe artist to produce original illustrations for the exhibits. “The final documents for the Garman Nature Preserve and Indian Mounds Park look great.” Bill Quackenbush, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin Wayside artwork by Chris Sweet, Ho-Chunk/Anishinaabe artist 34 PROjECT EXPERIENCE CLIENT Lower Phalen Creek Project (LPCP) SCOPE OF SERVICES Master Planning Architecture CONSTRUCTION COST $9.3 Million As part of the restoration of the 27-acre Bruce Vento Nature Sanctuary, the LPCP uncovered the incredible but little known story of Wakáŋ Tipi as its nestled within a bluff at the far east end of the Sanctuary. The cave is a site of great cultural and historical importance in the region, and, as its significance became apparent, the LPCP reached out to the Dakota community and made the decision that the story of this place and area be told through an Indigenous lens. In 2018, LPCP was awarded $3 million in state bonding funds to design and build Wakan Tipi Center, which will be located at the entrance to Bruce Vento Nature Sanctuary, approximately one mile west of the sacred cave site. In April 2019, LPCP contracted with Full Circle Indigenous Planning and Cuningham to facilitate a community pre-design work group. Through the course of many meetings, the Dakota-led pre-design committee established some of the center’s highest priorities: Honor the significance of Wakan Tipi cave as a Dakota sacred site; Provide authentic Dakota interpretation of the culture and history of Dakota people in Saint Paul; Offer environmental education on the geology, urban ecology, restoration, and migration routes within and around Wakan Tipi, through an authentically Indigenous lens; Create space for cultural connections and healing through the arts and nature; and Serve as a bold leader in Indigenous, place-based environmental and cultural work in urban settings. The Design Team is currently working on the documentation phase of the project. Wakan Tipi Center Saint Paul, Minnesota PROjECT EXPERIENCE 35 mEXISTING ENTRANCE SIGN OVERLOOK - SHEET 25 DIRECTIONAL SIGN -Bud’s Landing Overlook -Schaar’s Bluff -Archery Trail / Camp Spring Lake DIRECTIONAL SIGN -Fischer Avenue -Pine Bend Trail -Schaar’s Bluff -Archery Trail / Camp Spring Lake DIRECTIONAL SIGN -Pine Bend Trail -Schaar’s Bluff -Archery Trail -Camp Spring Lake -add interpretive content to existing kiosk DIRECTIONAL SIGNS 2 -Schaar’s Bluff building -Archery Trail / Camp Spring Lake -Hastings Overlook plan indicates “interpretive signage mounted on overlook guardrail” DIRECTIONAL SIGN -Schaar’s Bluff -Archery Trail / Camp Spring Lake -Hilary Path DIRECTIONAL SIGN -Schaar’s Bluff -Archery Trail / Camp Spring Lake -Ranelius Point Overlook DIRECTIONAL SIGN -Lake Vista Overlook -Schaar’s Bluff building -Archery Trail / Camp Spring Lake REST STOP -2 BENCHES -2 BIKE LOOPS REST STOP -2 BENCHES -2 BIKE LOOPSOVERLOOK & STAIR ACCESS TO WATERFRONT REST STOP -2 BENCHES -2 BIKE LOOPS REST STOP -2 BENCHES -2 BIKE LOOPS OVERLOOK -SHEET 26 OVERLOOK -SHEET 27 FUTURE OVERLOOK ? K DIR -S -A Sp O Monument Sign - Dakota Co. Standard Entrance Sign A Proposed MRT Interpretive Node #6 “Spring Lake” Proposed MRT Interpretive Node #7 “Spring Lake II” SIGNAGE LAYOUT PLAN DRAFT 01.17.2014 SIGN TYPES: Interpretive Sign - Dakota Co. Standard Kiosk A Directional Sign (8) (7) (7)(4) Mile Marker Informational Sign 1 Informational Sign 2 CLIENT Dakota County SCOPE OF SERVICES Landscape Architecture PROJECT SIZE 4 Miles CONSTRUCTION COST $12 Million COMPLETION 2016 Ana was the lead Landscape Architect working with Dakota County to complete a new multi-use path along the banks of the Mississippi River. The four-mile SLPR trail is the final segment of a 26-mile trail system known as the Mississippi River Regional Trail, and part of the national Great River Road’s Mississippi River Trail which extends as far south as the Gulf of Mexico. Planning for the trail was vetted through a very inclusive process with stakeholders and the community to gain their feedback and consensus. The project was designed to follow the County’s Greenway design guidelines and to be closely integrated with the natural and cultural resources of the area. The project involved lead direction in siting and grading specific trail design amenities including various River and Ravine overlooks, waysides, bridge aesthetics, site amenities, wayfinding and interpretive signage, trailheads, etc. The project was particularly challenging because the trail alignment travels through a significant amount of rocky terrain and across a number of steep ravines which existing natural and cultural resources had to be studied carefully to lessen impacts and preserve as much as possible. *Project completed by Ana Nelson prior to joining Cuningham Mississippi River Regional TrailSpring Lake Park Reserve Segment* Dakota County, Minnesota 36 REFERENCES REFERENCES Cultural Planning in the Minnesota River Valley Client: Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, Hennepin County Location: Shakopee and Hennepin County, MN Projects: Various Cultural Resource Planning Services for Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, and Flying Cloud (CSAH 61) Reconstruction Leonard Wabasha Director of Cultural Resources Shakopee Mdewakanton Dakota Community 2330 Sioux Trail NW Prior Lake, MN 55372 952-496-6120 leonard.wabasha@shakopeedakota.org Flying Cloud Drive (CSAH 61) Reconstruction Client: Hennepin County Location: Eden Prairie and Chanhassen, MN Jason Staebel Parks Operations Supervisor Hennepin County Transportation Department 1600 Prairie Drive Medina, MN 55340 612-596-0371 jason.staebell@hennepin.us Three Rivers Park District Interpretation & Cultural Resources Client: Three Rivers Park District Location: Twin Cities, MN Bill Walker Cultural Resources Program Manager Three Rivers Park District 3000 Xenium Lane N. Plymouth, MN 55441-1299 763-694-2059 Bill.Walker@threeriversparks.org Shakopee Riverfront Cultural Trail Visitor Interpretive Experience Plan Client: Scott County Consortium Location: Shakopee Nicole Hendrickson Senior Planner Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community 2330 Sioux Trail NW Prior Lake, MN 55372 952-496-6160 Nicole.Hendrickson@ShakopeeDakota.org Main Office 1295 Bandana Blvd N Suite 335 St Paul MN 55108 651–290–0977 106group.com Boston MA • Richmond VA • Washington DC