2024-07-16 City Council Work Session PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING AGENDA
July 16, 2024 at 4:30 PM
Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights
1.Call to Order
2.Discussion
a.Valley Park Streambank Stabilization and Trail Improvements
b.Park System Master Plan Project Update
c.Proposed Title 15: Environmental Standards
3.Adjourn
Alternative formats or auxiliary aids are available to individuals with disabilities upon request.
Please contact City Hall at 651-452-1850 or by email.
Page 1 of 108
This page is intentionally left blank
2.a
City Council Work Session Memo
MEETING DATE: July 16, 2024
DEPARTMENT: Engineering CONTACT: Ryan Ruzek, Public Works
Director
ACTION REQUEST:
Staff are seeking feedback from Council on the plans and impacts for a streambank stabilization
project through Interstate Valley Creek.
BACKGROUND:
In partnership with the Lower Mississippi River WMO and Dakota County, a feasibility study was
completed by WSB to assess the erosion and stormwater volume through the Interstate Valley Creek
(IVC) from the Friendly Hills neighborhood to the Mississippi River. The report was finalized in
January 2023 and identifies numerous streambank stabilization and volume reduction opportunities.
The first phase of improvements to the creek will focus on the segment north of Marie Avenue and
includes stabilization of two reaches, construction of a weir to manage flow and velocities through
the creek, as well as construction of a wetland basin in Valley Park to provide additional water
storage volume and sediment control prior to discharge to the creek.
This project was awarded a Clean water fund grant of $585,000 to implement the improvements and
required a $160,000 grant match. The grant match would be broken down as $100,000 from
Mendota Heights (shown in the Capital Improvement Plan), $50,000 from Dakota SWCD, and $10,000
from the LMRWMO.
Staff along with representatives of SEH, who are leading the engineering and design of the project,
will present the proposed improvements covering the project purpose, intent, high-level design,
construction impacts, scheduling, and funding.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. IVC Stabilization Access and Location Plan
Page 2 of 108
Page 3 of 108
2.b
City Council Work Session Memo
MEETING DATE: July 16, 2024
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation CONTACT: Meredith Lawrence, Parks and
Recreation/Assistant Public
Works Director
ACTION REQUEST:
The City Council is asked to discuss the preliminary data and initial results of the Park System Master
Plan and provide direction in regards to the consultant's initial findings and the next steps in
formulating the implementation plan.
BACKGROUND:
On January 9, 2024 the City Council approved a professional services contract for the Park System
Master Plan with Confluence/PROS. A Park System Master Plan is a common document found in
cities and is a roadmap for the next 15 years in regards to the planning and development of park
spaces, facilities, and recreation programs and services.
Over the past few months, city staff and the consultant have worked to foster unique opportunities
for residents and stakeholders to provide input on the future of the City's recreational spaces and
opportunities. Phase two of engagement for the Park System Master Plan will kick off in late-July,
providing a more in-depth opportunity for community engagement. The City plans to complete the
City's first Park System Master Plan in January, 2025.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Phase 1 Engagement Summary
2. Phase 1 Level of Service Assessment
3. Demographic and Trends Analysis
Page 4 of 108
SPRING 2024
PHASE 1
ENGAGEMENT
SUMMARY
Page 5 of 108
INFORM CONSULT INVOLVE EMPOWERCOLLABORATE
OVERVIEW
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of phase 1 engagement is to capture the community identified strengths and weaknesses of Mendota
Heights existing park system. Additionally, it is an opportunity for community members to share initial ideas for
improvement, preservation, and other long-term visions for the park system. To capture the varying voices within the
community, a range of engagement tools were used and the timeline for engagement was maximized.
METHODS
PARTICIPATION
Online Tools
Focus Groups
Pop-Up
Direct Connect
To provide the public with
balanced and objective
information to assist them in
understanding the
problems, alternatives,
opportunities and/or
solutions.
A Social Pinpoint engagement site was a digital home-base for this project. The major components utilized in the digital
engagement platform included a landing page with project information, on-line mapping application, survey, and idea wall.
A series of small groups including individuals with similar interests, passions, or relationships with the City. Discussions with
these groups are led by consultants to gain knowledge about the existing systems strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities
for improvement.
In-person conversations, maps, and other activities that inform community members about the project and provide them the
opportunity to give direct feedback on phase specific topics. Staff participated in 2 primary events for pop-up engagement
Frozen Fun fest and Touch-a-Truck.
Representatives from the City meet with high priority community members or those who historically have been underrepresented
in planning efforts where they are. Engagement included conversations with students at elementary, junior high, high school
students, Rotary Club, and active adult communities,
• 513 unique visitors participated in the online survey tools for a total of 680 contributions,
• 46 individuals participated in the focus group listening sessions.
• 120 teens and children were visited in their respective classes as part of the direct connect.
• 505 individuals engaged in coversation with staff during pop-up events
To obtain public
feedback on analysis,
alternatives and/or
decisions.
To work directly with
the public throughout
the process to ensure
that public concerns
and aspirations are
consistently
understood and considered.
To partner with the public in each aspect
of the decision
including the
development of
alternatives and the
identification of the
preferred solution.
To place final decision
making in the hands of
the public.
REFERENCE: International Association for Public Participation (IAP2). (2018). IAP2’s public participation spectrum. (On-line): https://iap2.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2018_IAP2_Spectrum.pdf (PDF 160KB).
01
02
03
04
TIMELINE
Phase 1 engagement began in late January 2024 and ended in May 2024.
Page 6 of 108
OVERVIEW
THEMES
At the end of Phase 1 Engagement, results were aggregated and reviewed. There were 5 primary themes shared
across all groups as seen in the following summaries.
1- Residents like the scale, condition, character and locations of the existing parks and want this preserved in the
future park system.
2- Connections between parks and neighborhood connections leading into parks should be improved for overall
safety and accessibility.
3- Park amenities should be diversified to better meet the needs and interests of all residents. Specifically, residents
are interested in passive recreation, community gathering, and connection to natural resources. There was also a
strong interest in aquatics programming.
4- Acessibility is a concern throughout the parks. Residents would like to see improvements that both meet
accessibility standards as well as offer unique, inclusive opportunities within the park system.
5- Residents want flexible community gathering spaces - both indoor and outdoor.
Page 7 of 108
ONLINE TOOLS
Approximately 600 individuals completed an online
survey via social pinpoint to share their opinions
about the current Mendota Heights Park System and
potential areas for improvement or diversification.
Overall residents appear to enjoy the park system
and express a great fondness of memories created
at the parks. However, residents also identified
needed improvements and desired additions that
could improve the overall system now and in the
future.
The trail system was identified as a primary
strength of the existing park system. The number
of trails and the length of the trail system was a
particular strength. Participants also named the
neighborhood parks including the number of, the
maintenance, cleanliness, and the proximity of
the parks to neighborhoods as a great community
resource that create a system that community
members like to use. Some residents reflected on
their usage of the parks, mentioning activities such
as watching sports events, enjoying nature, and
spending time with family and friends. Residents
in Mendota Heights seem to enjoy their abundance
of sports fields and have enjoyed the addition of
pickleball courts to the parks.
Residents did express frustrations with some
aspects of the parks and park system. The main
frustrations were limited diversity of amenities
connections between the park trails, unsafe
crosswalks/lack of sidewalks, baseball/softball
diamonds in need of updates, the youth sports
program not being adequate, and the lack of water
activities. Users expressed a particular need for a
wider variety of activities and more accessible play
environments. They praise the city for providing
many program facilities but mention that there is a
lack of variety in these programs. For example, there
is an abundance of baseball/softball diamonds
within the park system, but many residents would
like to enjoy other programs such as mountain
biking and cross-country skiing. Overall, residents
of Mendota Heights seem fond of their park system
but would like to see expansions to the programs
provided and more safety precautions.
01
ONLINE SURVEY
Page 8 of 108
MAINTENANCE
NUMBER
OF PARKS
NUMBER
OF TRAILS
PARK PROXIMITY
CLEANLINESS
PARK CONNECTIVITY
SAFETY
WATER
ACTIVITIES
DIAMOND UPDATES
YOUTH SPORTS
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
600
RESIDENTS
POSITIVES NEGATIVES
115 residents wrote that the
level of maintenance of the
parks is sufficient.
60 residents wrote the
parks’ trail system is not well
connected.
55 residents wrote that
safer road crossings to the
parks should be added.
34 residents wrote that the
parks are lacking water
activities.
26 residents wrote that the
baseball/softball diamonds
need updated.
23 residents wrote that the
youth sports program held at
the parks need improvement.
89 residents wrote that
there are a lot of parks.
84 residents wrote that
there are a lot of trails.
73 residents wrote that
the parks are conveniently
located.
68 residents wrote that the
parks are kept clean.
Page 9 of 108
HOW DO YOU USE THE PARKS
ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS
How frequently did you or others
in your household visit Mendota
Heights parks in the past year?
What new, updated, or additional amenities would you like for Mendota Heights Parks?
Which improvements could be made to EXISTING Mendota Heights Parks?
Would you favor or oppose
expanding recreational
opportunities?
Within the last year have you
traveled out of Mendota Heights
to use a recreation facility or
program?
Walking Trails
Add/Improve Trails
Add More Restrooms
Diversify Amenities
Improve Maintenance
Improve Accessibility
Diversify Programs
Improve Parking
Other
No Improvements Needed
Add Signage to Facilities
Add Picnic & Sitting Areas
Increase Beautification
Expand Parks & Open Space
Increase/Improve Amenities
Outdoor Pool
Splash Pad
Hiking Trails
Native Plant Gardens
Pickleball Courts
Baseball Fields
Bike Course
Updated Playgrounds
Open Space
Community Garden
Inclusive Playground
Fishing Pier
Dog Park
Multi-Sports Fields
Picnic Areas
Performance Area
Basketball Courts
Other
Sand Volleyball Courts
Soccer Field
Art Garden
Disc Golf
Bocce Courts
Teen Center
Outdoor Track
Football Fields
Tennis Courts
Cricket Fields
0%
0%
10%
10%
20%
20%
30%
30%
40%
40%
50%
50%
regional trails and parks. pools, sports
facilities, accessibile playgrounds,
recreation centers, and adjacent
community parks were common
destinations
Daily
Other
No
Yes
Favor
Oppose
Several Times a WeekWeekly-Biweekly
Monthly
Several Times a Year
Every Few Years
Never
12.04%
81.7%90.92%
9.08%17.47%
41.97%24.58%
8.7%
9.2%
1.84%1.67%0.83%
47.52%
37.26%
35.21%
30.77%
29.40%
29.06%
21.37%
20.17%
16.07%
11.28%
10.43%
9.74%
9.40%
8.89%
46.79%
39.69%
39.69%
33.80%
29.81%
26%
20.28%
19.76%
18.89%
17.68%
17.68%
17.16%
15.25%
15.08%
14.90%
14.56%
12.82%
12.65%
12.13%
11.79%
11.44%
10.75%
9.71%
9.53%
9.36%
8.67%
6.41%
5.20%
0.17%
Page 10 of 108
How do you get to the parks?
How do you and/or your family use Mendota Heights parks?
What keeps you from using the parks?
Walking
Car
Biking
Other
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
Free Play
No Barriers
Athletics
Not Enough Time
Nature Experiences
Trails not Safe
Health & Wellness
Facility not Offered
Specialty Parks (golfing)
Not Familiar with Parks
Events
Other
Organized Programs
Can’t Find Information on Parks
Group Gatherings
Parks are too Far Away
Other
Programs are Expensive
Physical Health Limitations
Lack of Transportation
0%
0%
10%
5%
20%
10%
30%
15%
40%
20%
50%
25%
60%
30%
70%
35%
80%
40%
73.70%
70.85%
47.40%
1.84%
72.18%
63.48%59.90%
52.90%
29.18%
27.30%
26.62%
19.80%
6.66%
35.58%
28.28%
23.78%
18.16%
8.61%
7.87%
5.81%
5.43%
2.81%
2.25%
1.69%
Page 11 of 108
MAPPING ACTIVITY
County of Dakota, Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Esri, TomTom, Garmin,SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS
0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles
CIVIC CENTER
DOG PARK
ROGER’S LAKE
FRIENDLY HILLS
MENDAKOTA
FRIENDLY MARSH
VALLEY PARK
WENTWORTH
IVY HILLS
MARIE PARK
VICTORIA HIGHLANDS
KENSINGTON
HAGSTROM-KING
MARKET SQUARE
GOLF COURSE
VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS
4
8 1 2 2
3
4
3 2
1
1
5 1
5 1
2 3 1
1
1
1
1
5 1 1
2 1 1
1 1 1
1 1
1 3 3
1
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK SYSTEM
Approximately 95 residents of Mendota Heights completed the online mapping activity through the engagement
website. Residents were able to leave pinpoint comments on the parks under four classifications; idea, favorite
park, more of this, and less of this. The majority of pinpoints left on the parks were under the idea classification.
The park with the most pinpoints was Hagstrom-King Park with 13 pinpoint comments.
Two topics that came up the most within this activity is the idea of adding irrigation systems and the idea of
adding more pedestrian crossings/pathways. Residents often brought up that the fields and diamonds are
very dry and bumpy and could benefit from an irrigation system to help maintain their condition. Additional
pedestrian pathways and crossings are heavily requested to make the commute to the parks safer and more
convenient.
IDEA!FAVORITE PARK MORE OF THIS LESS OF THIS
Page 12 of 108
FRIENDLY HILLS
HAGSTROM-KING
PARK
FRIENDLY MARSH
ROGER’S LAKE
GOLF COURSE
VALLEY PARK
KENSINGTON
PARK
MENDAKOTA
PARK
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Re-pave the bike path.
Add steps to access slide.
Needs a connecting pedestrian path.
Tennis courts could use better surfacing.
Add an accessible walkway.
Connect to access Viking Lakes.
Add path connecting Mendakota and Decorah.
New playground equipment would be great.
Add path connecting to Hampshire Dr.
Needs a connecting pedestrian path.
Replace tennis courts with pickleball courts.
Improve accessibility.
Solar light stop sign to control traffic.
Update baseball/softball fields to turf.
Install a new basketball hoop.
Barrier to prevent basketballs from getting lost.
Needs a connecting pedestrian path.
Rebuild playground to be accessible for all.
Please don’t create a boardwalk.
Expand parking.
Install field lighting for evening games.
Add irrigation to the fields.
Add path connecting to Hampshire Dr.
Groom ski trails on par 3.
Love the trails that parallel 35E.
Trail needs resurfacing.
Add rentable lockers.
Add a splash pad.
Install scoreboards.
The tennis courts are in great condition.
Add a scoreboard.
Add an accessible playground.
Basketball courts and hoops are great.
Fields are dead and dry.
Asphalt bike path is deteriorating.
Unsafe to cross the street to access the park.
Love the trails here.
Really enjoy walking through these trails.
Great, fun park.
Control weeds and mulch areas along path.
Renovate to accomodate youth baseball.
Field is not safe enough. Could use irrigation.
Beautiful natural trails.
Adding facilities like skate parks for teens.
Great connection.
Only focuses on baseball/softball.
Good pickleball courts.
Add educational components to bog.
This is an awesome park.
Great playground and zipline!
Love the pickleball courts.
Add bocce ball courts.
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Favorite Park
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Favorite Park
Favorite Park
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Favorite Park
Idea!
Idea!
More of this
Less of this
Less of this
Less of this
Favorite Park
Favorite Park
Favorite Park
Idea!
Idea!
Less of this
More of this
More of this
More of this
Less of this
Favorite Park
Idea!
Favorite Park
More of this
Favorite Park
Idea!
Page 13 of 108
IVY HILLS PARK
MARIE PARK
WENTWORTH
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Bring back the ice rink.
Put a fence by the playground near water.
Expand basketball court and update hoops.
Skating area in the winter.
Close to neighborhood.
Add a splash pad.
Basketball court needs updated.
Great playground.
Family uses park for birthdays and picnics.
Softball field needs updated.
Great playground and tennis court.
Softball field is in rough shape.
Basketball court needs updated.
Expanded basketball court.
Family walks to the park often.
Great playground with lots of options.
Really small park.
Love the pickleball courts.
Idea!
Favorite Park
Idea!
Idea!
Favorite Park
Favorite Park
Idea!
Favorite Park
Less of this
Idea!
More of this
Favorite Park
More of this
Less of this
More of this
VALLEY VIEW
HEIGHTS
CIVIC CENTER
DOG PARK
MARKET SQUARE
VICTORIA
HIGHLANDS
New playground is great.
Install lights for evening games.
This park is great for all.
More spaces like this to sit and gather.
Install irrigation system for fields.
Refurbished field looks great.
Baseball outfield is very bumpy and unsafe.
More of this
More of this
Less of this
Idea!
Favorite Park
More of this
Idea!
Page 14 of 108
FOCUS GROUPS
02
Athletic Associations +
Sports Clubs Active Adults
Partners
(schools, cities, non-profits, county)
A series of conversations were held with selected small groups of individuals with similar interests, background,
and relationships with the City staff and consultants. Consultants lead discussions to gain knowledge about
the existing system’s strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement as seen by their communities.
To assess the quality of the parks, a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis was
used to structure the conversations with the focus groups and get a robust assessment of the park system.
Overall, the conversations were very positive of the park system. Conversation really focused on the strengths
and opportunities of the park system. Common themes shared across the diverse groups included:
S.W.O.T.
FOCUS GROUPS INCLUDED:
Accessibility +
Inclusion
The Mendota Heights Park System contains many parks, trails,
and amenities that are valued resources to the community. The
number of facilities and the location in neighborhoods are of
particular value.
Park facilities are not diverse or accomodating for all groups
within the community. There is a particular lack in the diversity
of programming options outside of athletics, a need for flexible
indoor space, and infrastructure that supports all physical
needs and abilities.
The park system has an opportunity to expand and upgrade the
facilities and amenities to make them more inclusive and diverse-
this includes flexible indoor space. Strong relationships with
adjacent communities and other governmental agencies can
be leveraged to develop partnership programs or collaborative
programming.
The biggest threat to the Mendota Heights Park System is the
funding. There are concerns that the current funding will not
be enough to accomodate current needs and adequately plan
for the future,
S
W
O
T
STRENGTHS
WEAKNESSES
OPPORTUNITIES
THREATS
Page 15 of 108
There are many strengths of the Mendota Heights Park System. The parks are well placed, easily accessible,
safe, clean, and unique. The park facilities are well taken care of, especially the sports facilities. City partners
mention that they appreciate staff and their great communication and willingness to partner with other
organizations. Participants expressed their fondness for the natural aspects of the park system. They enjoy the
trail system and that the parks feel like they are in the countryside. Dakota County’s inclusive playground is a
strength and city partners would like to see more playgrounds like this added into the park system.
Three primary themes for opportunities were identified during the focus group meeting: inclusivity, connectivity,
and natural resources. Existing parks have primarily the exact same design and amenties throughout the
system and should be diversified to better serve the older adult population, those with more diverse interests,
and those with disabilities. The city partners also would like to see an overall improvement in park connections.
They point out opportunities to connect the parks to the river and add more trail connections between parks.
Finally, the group mentioned that they would appreciate a greater focus on the environment and natural
resources.
There are a few weaknesses that the group has noticed within the park system. One weakness is that there
are a lot of wants within the community regarding park updates and the current budget would not be able
to accomodate those wants. They also mention that infrastructure improvements are needed in general and
more shade needs to be added to the parks. Shade doesn’t have to be provided by structures, but can rather
be provided by adding more trees to the park system. There is also a lack of accessibility within the parks and
more inclusive playground equipment should be added. Finally, the group mentioned that there is a great need
to add a splash pad to the park system.
Some of the biggest threats to the Mendota Heights Park System include climate change, being unprepared
for changing trends & demographics, limited new development, maintenance of new facilities, high traffic, and
long term park funding. Hesitation and unwillingness to make changes may have a detrimental impact on the
park system.
CITY PARTNERS
STRENGTHS
OPPORTUNITIES
WEAKNESSES
THREATS
SWOT ANALYSIS
Page 16 of 108
The Mendota Heights Park System has ample space for their parks, including open space. The parks are very
clean, well-maintained, and generally feel very safe. The park system also has good exisiting amenities such as
the skate park, golf, and pickleball. There are activities for both children and adults at the parks and the bike
path system that’s separate from the road helps keep kids safe. There is also a dog park within the park system
that is very well-used and well-loved by the community. Overall, the park system is well-loved by residents
and the staff does a great job of responding to and addressing concerns.
The main opportunities with the park system include maintaining and improving what is already existing first.
There are many improvements that can be made to the park system as it is today, including improvements to
the golf course clubhouse, accessibility at the parks, lacrosse fields, pickleball courts, trails, weed control,
and the dog park. Mendota Heights may also benefit from adding facilities such as an indoor rec center, more
hockey rinks, and trail extensions. More signage in the parks would be beneficial and add more educational
opportunities.
There is very little variety of activities to do in the parks. Each park has very similar facilities and residents
would like to see different activities such as bocce ball introduced. There is also a concern with lake activities.
Roger’s Lake water quality is not great for recreational use and the fishing area at the lake could be improved.
There is also a lack of winter sports within the parks besides skating rinks. Residents often have to travel
outside of the park system to partake in other winter activities. There are also not enough bathrooms or seating
areas. Finally, maintenace of the landscape itself can be improved. Residents find the sports fields to be dry
and foliage to be overgrown.
The biggest threats to the Mendota Heights Park System involve circulation, funding, and vandalism. The trail
system within Mendota Heights can be improved to be safer for all residents. Some areas are considered to be
dangerous because the path is degrading. Car traffic is also a problem within Mendota Heights. Some parks are
located on busy roads with no crosswalk which makes traveling to the parks very dangerous for children. There
are also concerns that the current funding will not be sufficient to cover maintenance and future development.
Finally, there is a concern that the parks are not secure enough and vandalism will become an issue like the
vandalism found in Friendly Hills.
RESIDENTS AGE 55+
STRENGTHS
OPPORTUNITIES
WEAKNESSES
THREATS
Page 17 of 108
The main strengths of the Mendota Heights Park System is the ample amount of parks within the system and
the variety of facilities that are found at each park.
The Mendota Heights Park system has the opportunity to be an inclusive system for all to enjoy and expand
communications with accessibility groups. The park system should aim to incorporate accessibility into
the parks in a way that doesn’t isolate people with disabilities from the rest of the population. Everything
that is accomodating to these groups should be mixed in with the rest of the parks. There should also be
communication strategies to notify residents of which parks would best suit their needs. Park programs should
also aim to be more inclusive and diverse. Finally, more signage should be added to the parks to make the
areas safer for those with disabilities.
The park system is difficult to navigate for those with disabilities because some parks are considered accessible
and others are not. Another weakness of the parks is the surfacing. Some of the surfacing that is used in the
parks are not ideal for people who use wheelchairs. Surfaces that are too soft make it difficult for people
to access certain amenities such as playground equipment. There is also a lack of accomodations for older
people with disabilities. For example, there are no adult changing tables within the park system and there is a
lack of programming for teens to adults with disabilities. Adding developmental disability programming would
be beneficial to these groups and provide opportunities to feel included and build friendships.
Threats to the park system include lack of fencing and funding. It is crucial to add fencing to play areas to
keep kids safe especially when the play areas are near bodies of water. There is also a concern that the current
funding will not be able to accomodate the needs of disability groups.
ACCESSIBILITY GROUP
STRENGTHS
OPPORTUNITIES
WEAKNESSES
THREATS
Page 18 of 108
SPORT USER GROUPS
The Mendota Park System is described by residents as having a small town vibe. Residents enjoy that the parks
are quiet and feel secluded/remote. There is also a good amount of mixed-use facilities at the parks that allow
for a wider variety of activities. The smaller neighborhood parks are also loved by the community and provide
residents with space to socialize with their neighbors in a space that is not very busy. Finally, sport user groups
mentioned that they are fond of the sports setup at Mendakota Park and would like to see it maintained and
improved.
Mendota Heights has the opportunity to become more involved in both youth and adult sports. Sports programs
should be able to host events and tournaments in order to reduce fees and bring more people into the parks.
The concession stands should also be available for use for these events/tournaments to help raise money
for the programs. The sports programs could also benefit from getting annual sponsors. Finally, there is an
opportunity to expand certain sports programming such as lacrosse. The park system could greatly benefit
from adding more fields for lacrosse and soccer.
Overall there is a lack of space and facilities to accomodate sports programs. In order for these programs to
thrive they need to be able to hold events and tournaments which is currently not possible with the lack of space
and infrastructure in the parks as they are now. There is also not enough parking at the parks to accomodate
such events. Another weakness within the park system is that there is not enough lighting for sports fields/
courts at night, which limits the opportunity for night games and tournaments. Finally, more soccer/lacrosse
fields are needed. There are roughly 1,500 kids who play soccer within the community and there is not enough
space for these children to play as there are a limited amount of fields within the park system.
The main threat to the park system is the upkeep of the trails. Some residents find the degrading trails to not
only be dangerous but also limiting accessibility. Today the trails are rough and not easy to roll things like
carts, strollers, and wheelchairs on. This limits the ability for certain groups to visit the parks for every day use
and events.
STRENGTHS
OPPORTUNITIES
WEAKNESSES
THREATS
Page 19 of 108
High School teens from St. Thomas Academy and Two Rivers High School were asked questions on how they
use the parks in Mendota Heights and what they would like to see added to them. Teens from both schools
mentioned that they like to use the parks to hang out and play sports. They also mentioned that they would like
to start sports groups for teens where they could meet up with friends and play casual games/tournaments.
Teens from both high schools mentioned that they would like to see more programs meant for teens where
they could meet and socialize with others their age. Teens from Two Rivers High School would like an addition
of a community garden, farmer’s market, winter activities, and hammock areas. They also mentioned that they
would like more winter programming.
Children aged 8-11 at an after school program and Mendota Elementary were asked to take a survey asking
about what they like to do at the parks. They were also asked to draw their ideas for their dream parks. Most
students reported enjoying playing at the playgrounds, playing sports, and meeting with their friends. The
children shared many ideas for the parks in their drawings, but the items that appeared the most were pools,
large slides, tall ziplines, trampolines, and basketball courts. The children also mentioned activities such as
rock climbing, walking/biking on trails, and different sports. Music festivals and food truck courts were also
a popular request. Children at the after school program specifically requested classes in the parks such as
anime and art class.
Young children at Mendota Height’s Touch-A-Truck event were asked the same questions as the elementary
children and were also asked to draw their dream parks. Similarly to the elementary students, most children in
this age group reported that they liked playing at the playgrounds the most. When asked to draw their dream
park most kids drew various types of play equipment. They specifically drew monkey bars and slides often. The
children also drew things such as pools, fishing, and other water activities.
DIRECT CONNECT
03
Youth and children are often underrepresented in engagement. To ensure their voices were captured and
amplified in this process, the City staff met with students at Two Rivers High School, St. Thomas Academy,
an after school program for kids in middle school, and students in the 4th grade at Mendota Elementary and
engaged them in conversation about their wants and needs in the park system. Young children were also
included in the process at the Touch-A-Truck event. This direct contract with students and children will be
repeated during the planning process.
16-18 YEARS OLD
8-11 YEARS OLD
3-6 YEARS OLD
Page 20 of 108
CHILD & YOUTH
ENGAGEMENT THEMES
16-18
Years Old
8-11 Years
Old
3-6 Years
Old
Teen sports leagues and
additional courts/fields
Farmer’s markets
More winter activities
16-18 Years Old
• Hammock locations
• Pickleball lessons &
tournaments
• Events for teens
• Outdoor classes
• More soccer fields
10-11 Years Old
• More soccer fields
• Playground
• Tournaments
• Football camps
• Large trees to climb
• Food trucks
• Art class
• Rock climbing
3-6 Years Old
• Walking/biking trails
• Splash pad
• Open space
• Merry-go-round
• Climbing wall
• Seesaws
More gathering
spaces
Community
Garden
Large Slides
Pools
Playground
Slides
Ziplines
Pool
Monkey Bars
Water Activities
Trampoline
Basketball
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS
PRIMARY THEME:
AMENITIES THAT SUPPORT
COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS AND
GATHERING
PRIMARY THEME:
AMENITIES THAT SUPPORT PLAY
AND RECREATION
PRIMARY THEME:
AMENITIES THAT SUPPORT PLAY
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
Page 21 of 108
POP-UP EVENTS
04
Method Community Engagement Name Age of Participants Date Time Amount Engaged Person
Postcard,
Sticker Board
Postcard,
Sticker Board
Postcard,
Sticker Board
Postcard
Kids Activity,
Postcard
Discussion
Postcard
Consultants
High School
Activity
High School
Activity
Kids Activity,
Postcard
Kids Activity,
Postcard
Survey,
Discussion
Frozen Fun Fest: Ice Block Party
Frozen Fun Fest: Valentine’s in the
Village
Frozen Fun Fest: Puzzle Competition
Mom’s Club (Informal)
School Age Care Engagement
Meeting with Augusta Shore
Residents
Rotary
Focus Groups
Upper School STEM Pathway at St.
Thomas Academy
Two Rivers Leadership Students
Mendota Elementary
Touch-A-Truck Event
TPAC - Senior Citizens
Families
Families
Families
Women, 50+
Children
Seniors
Adults
Varies: 4 Different
Groups
Juniors and Seniors in
High School
Juniors and Seniors in
High School
4th Grade Students
4-6 Year Olds
Seniors
02/09/2024
02/10/2024
02/11/2024
03/18/2024
04/11/2024
04/15/2024
04/17/2024
04/18/2024
04/26/2024
04/29/2024
05/07/2024
05/11/2024
05/16/2024
4:00-6:00pm
5:00-8:00pm
9:00am-3:00pm
10:30-11:30am
4:00-5:00pm
3:00-4:00pm
7:30-8:00am
1:00-7:00pm
1:00-2:00pm
12:00-1:00pm
1:00-2:00pm
10:00am-12:00pm
1:00-2:00pm
200
150
50
8
8
4
20
46
15
25
72
105
6
Meredith
Lawrence
Meredith
Lawrence
Meredith
Lawrence
Meredith
Lawrence
Meredith
Lawrence
Meredith
Lawrence
Meredith
Lawrence
Meredith
Lawrence
Meredith
Lawrence
Willow Eisfeldt
Meredith Lawrence,
Steph Meyer
Meredith Lawrence,
Ryan Ruzek
Meredith Lawrence,
Consultants
Page 22 of 108
Page 23 of 108
SUMMER 2024
LEVEL OF SERVICE
ASSESSMENT
PHASE 1
Page 24 of 108
County of Dakota, Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Esri, TomTom, Garmin,SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS
0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles
MENDOTA ELEMENTARY
TWO RIVERS HIGH SCHOOL
FRIENDLY HILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL
SOMERSET HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
CIVIC CENTER
DOG PARK
ROGER’S LAKE
FRIENDLY HILLS
MENDAKOTA
FRIENDLY MARSH
VALLEY PARK
WENTWORTH
IVY HILLS 9.1 ACRES
10.4 ACRES
6.7 ACRES
MARIE PARK
VICTORIA HIGHLANDS
KENSINGTON
HAGSTROM-KING
MARKET SQUARE
87.5 ACRES
6.6 ACRES
34.5 ACRES
19.7 ACRES
15.5 ACRES
9.2 ACRES
9.6 ACRES
14.4 ACRES
.6 ACRES
.24 ACRES 17.6 ACRES
8.2 ACRES
19.34 ACRES Mendota Heights Par 3
VALLEY PARK 6 ACRES
VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK SYSTEM
COPPERFIELD POND 8.4 ACRES
UNDEVELOPED CITY OWNED VACANT PARCEL 11.65 ACRES (ID: 27-04100-42-010)
UNDEVELOPED TOT LOT .93 acres
PARKLAND (ACRES)
MINI PARKS 0.24
90.3
43.30
130.4
283.58
12.58
296.16
MEETS STANDARD
96 ACRES
-
-
-
-
-
-
NEEDS EXIST
NA
NEEDS EXIST
MEETS STANDARD
0.02 ACRES PER 1,000 0.02 ACRES PER 1,000
7.74 ACRES PER 1,000 16 ACRES PER 1,000
4 ACRES PER 1,000
4 ACRES PER 1,000
26.02 ACRES PER 1,000
26.02 ACRES PER 1,000
3.71 ACRES PER 1,000
24.31 ACRES PER 1,000
25.39 ACRES PER 1,000
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
COMMUNITY PARKS
OPEN/NATURAL AREAS
TOTAL PARK ACRES
UNDEVELOPED PARK ACRES
TOTAL DEVELOPED PARK ACRES
MENDOTA HEIGHTS SERVICE LEVEL BASED ON CURRENT POPULATION RECOMMENDED SERVICE LEVELS FOR STUDY AREA
CURRENT INVENTORY CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE CURRENT NEEDS
ASSESSMENT ADDITIONAL NEED
NATIONAL LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD
SPECIAL USE PARKS 19.34
11.18 ACRES PER 1,000
2 ACRES PER 1,000
NEEDS EXIST
NEEDS EXIST
NEEDS EXIST
3 ACRES
4 ACRES
7 ACRES
20 ACRES
1.66 ACRES PER 1,000
NA1.08 ACRES PER 1,000
1/2 MILE PARK SERVICE AREA
AREA OUTSIDE OF PARK 1/2
MILE SERVICE AREA (PARK
SYSTEM GAP)
CURRENT PARK SYSTEM
COMMUNITY PARKS
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
OPEN/NATURAL AREAS
MINI PARKS
SPECIAL-USE PARK
Page 25 of 108
EQUITY PRIORITIZATION TOOL
PARK
MH DOG PARK 1 3.34 13.0%7.4%35.6%30.8%46.2%0.0%
30.7%
20.6%
17.6%
21.1%
23.5%
24.5%
7.3%
16.3%
7.4%
20.4%
20.8%
12.5%
12.3%
10.9%
8.7%
0
2
6
3
6
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
15.8%
3.4%
20.2%
7.5%
19.9%
13.8%
43.4%
21.2%
41.7%
18.3%
8.4%
15.5%
16.3%
10.9%
4.9%
18.9%
16.4%
18.5%
13.1%
20.3%
16.0%
19.2%
20.0%
18.7%
14.8%
13.2%
19.5%
19.3%
18.8%
17.7%
10.1%
11.3%
11.8%
9.1%
10.4%
9.6%
18.9%
10.5%
18.0%
9.9%
9.2%
10.4%
10.5%
10.5%
11.1%
10.8%
11.7%
10.6%
16.0%
12.5%
13.3%
7.7%
10.3%
7.7%
14.7%
15.6%
9.3%
9.2%
8.6%
7.3%
14.7%
14.4%
14.0%
11.8%
13.8%
13.0%
14.2%
14.2%
14.3%
11.8%
11.9%
14.5%
14.6%
14.9%
15.5%
3.19
3.16
2.86
2.78
2.76
2.75
2.60
2.55
2.51
2.50
2.45
2.08
2.07
1.89
1.65
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
WENTWORTH
PARK
IVY HILLS
PARK
MENDAKOTA
PARK
MARIE AVE
PARK
MARKET
SQUARE PARK
VALLEY VIEW
HEIGHTS
FRIENDLY
MARSH PARK
ROGER’S LAKE
PARK
CIVIC CENTER
VICTORIA
HIGHLANDS
COPPERFIELD
PONDS
FRIENDLY
HILLS PARK
KENSINGTON
PARK
HAGSTROM
KING
VALLEY PARK
IVY HILLS PARK
WENTWORTH PARK
VALLEY PARK
VICTORIA HIGHLANDS PARK
MARIE PARK
CIVIC CENTER
MENDAKOTA PARK
VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS
ROGER’S LAKE
MENDOTA HEIGHTS DOG PARK
MARKET SQUARE
FRIENDLY MARSH
COPPERFIELD PONDS
FRIENDLY HILLS
HAGSTROM-KING
KENSINGTON
7
12
5
11
4
8
10
1
EQUITY RATING COMBINED SCORE
POP.UNDER 18 YEARS OLD
BIPOC LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENTY
POP.OVER 75 YEARS OLD
HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOME <$50,000 PER YEAR
HOUSEHOLDS WHO RENT POP.WITH A DISABILITY
CURRENT PARK PROPERTY
1/2 MILE PARK SERVICE AREA
AREA OUTSIDE OF PARK
SERVICE AREA
3
2
6
9
13
14
16
15
Page 26 of 108
TOP 5 RANKED PARKS
01| MENDOTA HEIGHTS DOG PARK
02| WENTWORTH PARK
03| IVY HILLS PARK
04| MENDAKOTA PARK
05| MARIE PARK
The Mendota Heights Dog Park is 4.3 acres and is a dedicated spot for dogs and their owners. The
park features separate fenced in areas for small and large dogs. The park also offers off-leash
options. While the dog park is a unique, valable part of the existing park system, it is a limited
amenity for the adjacent community.
Wentworth park is a 6.5 acre neighborhood park. The park is highly programmed with a range of
amenities amenities including a basketball court, pickleball courts, hockey rink, picnic shelters, play
equipment, tennis court, and a youth softball field. The park also has a warming house for winter
activities and natural areas to enjoy. The park could benefit from more flexible all use and gathering
space to better accomodate a range of diverse activities.
Ivy Hills park is a 7.6 acre neighborhood park. The park contains a baseball/softball diamond,
basketball court, play equipment, and a tennis court. The park also has trails that allow visitors to walk
alongside natural areas and a pond. This park could benefit from overall accessibility improvements,
updates to group gathering infrastrcture, and flexible recreation areas.
Mendakota park is a 20.9 acre community park centrally located within the park system. The park’s
main features include a large softball/baseball area with fields, concession stand, and restrooms.
The park also has other amenities including a basketball court, picnic shelters, a playground,
soccer field, volleyball court, and trails. This park is centrally located within the community and well
positioned to host community events.
Marie park is a 7.4 acre neighborhood park. The park has many amenities including a basketball
court, hockey rink, playground, tennis court, youth softball field, and pickleball courts. The park also
features trails, natural areas, and warming house.
The Equity Prioritization Tool is a data-driven planning tool that identifies areas for park planning
and investment prioritization by determining which parks’ serve the highest concentration of
community members underrepresented in park use and/or historically underserved by park
systems throughout the greater metropolitan area. Integrating this tool into the planning process
helps ensure that future projects reduce barriers for participation, are developed to engage
underrepresented communities, and promote fairness and inclusivity. This integration of data-
driven equity prioritization is required to ensure consistency with larger regional park planning
priorities.
Page 27 of 108
County of Dakota, Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Esri, TomTom, Garmin,SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS
0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles
CIVIC CENTER
FRIENDLY HILLS
MENDAKOTA
VALLEY PARK
WENTWORTH
IVY HILLS
MARIE PARK
VICTORIA HIGHLANDS
HAGSTROM-KING
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
ROGER’S LAKE
VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS
KENSINGTON
DOG PARK
MARKET SQUARE
MENDOTA HEIGHTS DIAMONDS
MENDOTA ELEMENTARY
TWO RIVERS HIGH SCHOOL
FRIENDLY HILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL
SOMERSET HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
County of Dakota, Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Esri, TomTom, Garmin,SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS
FRIENDLY HILLS
MENDAKOTA
IVY HILLS
KENSINGTON
1
2
CIVIC CENTER
ROGER’S LAKE
HAGSTROM-KING
FRIENDLY MARSH
VALLEY PARK
WENTWORTH
VICTORIA HIGHLAND
MARIE PARK
MARKET SQUARE
VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTSDOG PARK
FRIENDLY HILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL
BASEBALL/SOFTBALL DIAMONDS
SPORTS FIELDS
Premier Baseball/Softball
Diamond (High quality field for
baseball or softball)
Baseball/Softball Diamond
(Field for baseball or softball but
the outfield may be used for
soccer or other sports)
Multi-Use Field (High quality
field for soccer, football, or
lacrosse, usually only accessible
by teams for games)
Premier Field (Open field that
allows for various field sports
including soccer, lacrosse, football,
and frisbee)
OUTDOOR FACILITIES
DIAMONDS 19 EXCEEDS STANDARD -1 FIELD PER 616 1 FIELD PER 4,000
SERVICE LEVEL BASED ON CURRENT POPULATION RECOMMENDED SERVICE LEVELS FOR STUDY AREA
CURRENT INVENTORY CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE CURRENT NEEDS
ASSESSMENT ADDITIONAL NEED
NATIONAL LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD
OUTDOOR FACILITIES
FIELDS 4*MEETS STANDARD -1 FIELD PER 3187 1 FIELD PER 4,000
SERVICE LEVEL BASED ON CURRENT POPULATION RECOMMENDED SERVICE LEVELS FOR STUDY AREA
CURRENT INVENTORY CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE CURRENT NEEDS
ASSESSMENT ADDITIONAL NEED
NATIONAL LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD
1/2 MILE PARK SERVICE AREA
*1/3 of the diamonds located at area schools were included in the current inventory.
1 diamond
12 diamonds
4 diamonds
4 diamonds
*1/3 of the fields located at area schools were included in the current inventory.
2 fields
1/2 MILE PARK SERVICE AREA
Page 28 of 108
County of Dakota, Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Esri, TomTom, Garmin,SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS
0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles
MARKET SQUARE
KENSINGTON
CIVIC CENTER
DOG PARK
FRIENDLY HILLS
MENDAKOTA
VALLEY PARK
WENTWORTH
IVY HILLS
MARIE PARK
VICTORIA HIGHLANDS
HAGSTROM-KING
VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS
ROGER’S LAKE
1
1
2 1
2 1
2 11
2 1 6
111
2 1 6
1
FRIENDLY MARSH
MENDOTA HEIGHTS SPORTS COURTS
6
MENDOTA ELEMENTARY
FRIENDLY HILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL
SOMERSET HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
County of Dakota, Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Esri, TomTom, Garmin,SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS
MARKET SQUARE
KENSINGTON
CIVIC CENTER
DOG PARK
FRIENDLY HILLS
MENDAKOTA
VALLEY PARK
WENTWORTH
IVY HILLS
MARIE PARK
VICTORIA HIGHLANDS
HAGSTROM-KING
VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS
ROGER’S LAKE
1
1
2 1
2 1
2 11
2 1 6
111
2 1 6
1
FRIENDLY MARSH
6
MENDOTA ELEMENTARY
FRIENDLY HILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL
SOMERSET HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PLAYGROUNDS
SPORTS COURTS
OUTDOOR FACILITIES
PLAYGROUNDS 12*MEETS STANDARD -1 SITE PER 973 1 FIELD PER 2,014
SERVICE LEVEL BASED ON CURRENT POPULATION RECOMMENDED SERVICE LEVELS FOR STUDY AREA
CURRENT INVENTORY CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE CURRENT NEEDS
ASSESSMENT ADDITIONAL NEED
NATIONAL LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD
OUTDOOR FACILITIES
BASKETBALL COURTSTENNIS COURTSPICKLEBALL COURTS
SAND VOLLEYBALL 2
7 *
14 *
18
MEETS STANDARD
MEETS STANDARD
MEETS STANDARD
MEETS STANDARD
-
-
-
-
1 COURT PER 5,832
1 COURT PER 1,669
1 COURT PER 835
1 COURT PER 648
1 COURT PER 3,729
1 COURT PER 2,805
1 COURT PER 3,252
-
SERVICE LEVEL BASED ON CURRENT POPULATION RECOMMENDED SERVICE LEVELS FOR STUDY AREA
CURRENT INVENTORY CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE CURRENT NEEDS
ASSESSMENT ADDITIONAL NEED
NATIONAL LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD
Basketball Court
Tennis Court
Pickball Court
Volleyball Court
Playground
1/2 MILE PARK SERVICE AREA
playground
playground
playground
*1/3 of theplaygorunds located at area schools were included in the current inventory.
basketball court
basketball court
12 tennis courts
basketball court
*1/3 of the courts located at area schools were included in the current inventory.
1/2 MILE PARK SERVICE AREA
Page 29 of 108
0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles
FRIENDLY HILLS
MENDAKOTA
VALLEY PARK
WENTWORTH
IVY HILLS
VICTORIA HIGHLANDS
HAGSTROM-KING
KENSINGTON
VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS
ROGER’S LAKE
11
1
MARKET SQUARE
1
11
111
1
1
11
1 1
FRIENDLY MARSH 176.4 ACRES
111
11
MARIE PARK
CIVIC CENTER
DOG PARK
MENDOTA HEIGHTS NATURE & TRAILS
County of Dakota, Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Esri, TomTom, Garmin,SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS
FRIENDLY MARSH
DOG PARK
FRIENDLY HILLS
WENTWORTH
MARIE PARK
2
IVY HILLS
VALLEY PARKVICTORIA HIGHLANDS
MENDAKOTA
ROGER’S LAKE
KENSINGTON
1
2
1
2
2
5 1
116
1 1
2 1
2 1 1
MARKET SQUARE
5
ND BBQ
VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS
HAGSTROM-KING
CIVIC CENTER
NATURE AND TRAILS
PICNIC AREAS AND BBQ
TRAILS
LAKES/PONDS
NATURAL AREAS
Picnic Area
Shelter
BBQ Station
TRAILS (MILES)
PAVED TRAILSUNPAVED TRAILS
35.23
6.84
MEETS STANDARD
MEETS STANDARD
-
-
3.02 MILES PER 1,000
0.59 MILES PER 1,000
3 MILES PER 1,000
0.5 MILES PER 1,000
SERVICE LEVEL BASED ON CURRENT POPULATION RECOMMENDED SERVICE LEVELS FOR STUDY AREA
CURRENT INVENTORY CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE CURRENT NEEDS
ASSESSMENT ADDITIONAL NEED
NATIONAL LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD
OUTDOOR FACILITIES
SHELTERS 10 MEETS STANDARD -1 site per 1,166 1 site per 2,000
SERVICE LEVEL BASED ON CURRENT POPULATION RECOMMENDED SERVICE LEVELS FOR STUDY AREA
CURRENT INVENTORY CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE CURRENT NEEDS
ASSESSMENT ADDITIONAL NEED
NATIONAL LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD
1/2 MILE PARK SERVICE AREA
1/2 MILE PARK SERVICE AREA
Page 30 of 108
0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles
ROGER’S LAKE
1 11
HAGSTROM-KING
FRIENDLY MARSH
MARKET SQUARE
VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS MENDAKOTA
FRIENDLY HILLS
VALLEY PARK
WENTWORTH
VICTORIA HIGHLANDS
MARIE PARK
IVY HILLS
CIVIC CENTER
DOG PARK
KENSINGTON
MENDOTA HEIGHTS WATER ACTIVITIES
County of Dakota, Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Esri, TomTom, Garmin,SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS
FRIENDLY HILLS
WENTWORTH
MARIE PARK
11
1
1
IVY HILLS
VALLEY PARK
VICTORIA HIGHLANDS
MENDAKOTA
FRIENDLY MARSH
MARKET SQUARE
VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS
ROGER’S LAKE
HAGSTROM-KING
KENSINGTON
DOG PARK
CIVIC CENTER
WATER ACTIVITIES
WINTER ACTIVITIES
NONMOTORIZED BOAT
LAUNCH
FISHING DOCK
Ice Rink
Sledding Hill
OUTDOOR FACILITIES
SPLASH PADOUTDOOR POOL
-
-
NEEDS EXIST
NEEDS EXIST
-
-
-
-
1 SITE PER 30,000
1 SITE PER 35,000
SERVICE LEVEL BASED ON CURRENT POPULATION RECOMMENDED SERVICE LEVELS FOR STUDY AREA
CURRENT INVENTORY CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE CURRENT NEEDS
ASSESSMENT ADDITIONAL NEED
NATIONAL LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD
OUTDOOR FACILITIES
ICE RINK 3 MEETS STANDARD -1 site per 3,888 1 SITE PER 50,000
SERVICE LEVEL BASED ON CURRENT POPULATION RECOMMENDED SERVICE LEVELS FOR STUDY AREA
CURRENT INVENTORY CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE CURRENT NEEDS
ASSESSMENT ADDITIONAL NEED
NATIONAL LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD
1/2 MILE PARK SERVICE AREA
1/2 MILE PARK SERVICE AREA
Page 31 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
1
CHAPTER ONE DEMOGRAPHIC AND TRENDS ANALYSIS
1.1.1 INTRODUCTION
The city of Mendota Heights is implementing a Park System Master Plan that will evaluate their parks and
recreation system including the staffing needs, inventory and condition of park facilities and amenities,
financial performance of the agency, program services offered, and demographic and trends of the
community to understand the community’s needs for parks and recreation services in the future. PROS
Consulting will utilize the parks’ data information and data from other agencies near Mendota Heights
that can be applied as a comparison to the demographics of the city along with recreational trends and
programs, services, activities and amenities residents of the community indicate they would like to see
provided in the future in Mendota Heights.
1.1.2 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
The Demographic Analysis describes the population within Mendota Heights’ service area. This
assessment is reflective of the city’s total population and its key characteristics such as: age segments,
race, ethnicity, and income levels. It is important to note that future projections are based on historical
patterns and unforeseen circumstances during or after the time of the analysis. This could have a
significant bearing on the validity of the projected figures. Data from the Census Bureau has been used in
this report and at the time this report was prepared, statistics from 2020 – estimate 2023 were used.
1.1.3 DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW
2020 Total Population
11,744
2020 Total Households
4,787
2020 Median Household Income
$120,257
2020 Race
89% White Alone
2020 Median Age 48.6 yrs. old
Page 32 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
2
1.1.4 METHODOLOGY
Demographic data used for the analysis was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau and from the
Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI), two of the largest research and development
organizations dedicated to Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and specializing in population
projections and market trends. All data was acquired in August 2019, and reflects actual numbers as
reported in the 2010 Census as well as estimates for 2020 and 2023 obtained by ESRI. Straight line linear
regression was utilized for 2029 and 2034 projections. The City’s boundaries shown below were utilized
for the demographic analysis (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Mendota Heights City Boundaries
Mendota
Heights
Page 33 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
3
1.1.5 SERVICE AREA POPULACE
POPULATION
The City of Mendota Heights’ population experienced an increase in growth within recent years,
increasing 7.34% from 2010 to 2020. Aside from the 2020 population to the estimated population in 2023
there is an estimated decrease of -0.23%). From the estimated population in the year of 2023 to the
projected population of 2038, the city of Mendota Heights is expected to have slight growth of 0.036%.
This is below the national annual growth rate of 0.85% (from 2010-2019). Similar to the population, the
total number of households also experienced an increase in recent years (1.17% since 2010) with 0.75%
average per year.
Currently, the population is estimated at 11,663 (2023) individuals living within an estimated 4,892
households. Projecting ahead, the total population is both expected to decrease slightly by 2028 and
rebound in 2033. The 2038 predictions expect to have 12,280 residents living in 5,398 households
(Figures 2 & 3).
Figure 2: Total Population of Mendota Heights
Figure 3: Total Number of Households
Page 34 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
4
AGE SEGMENT
Evaluating the City by age segments (Figure 4), the estimate for 2020, the service area has a higher
population in the 55-74 age segment (11%). This age segment is projected to comprise 15% of the
population in the next 15 years. The City of Mendota Heights median age is 48.6, which indicates that the
City may already be ahead of the aging national trend).
18%19%19%19%20%20%
19%16%16%15%14%13%
28%21%21%22%19%17%
27%33%33%31%34%35%
9%11%11%14%14%15%
2010
Census
2020
Census
2023
Estimate
2028
Projection
2033
Projection
2038
Projection
POPULATION BY AGE SEGMENTS
0-17 18-34 35-54 55-74 75+
Figure 4: Mendota Heights Population by Age Segments
Page 35 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
5
RACE AND ETHNICITY DEFINITIONS
The minimum categories for data on race and ethnicity for Federal statistics, program administrative
reporting, and civil rights compliance reporting are defined as below. The 2010 Census data on race is not
directly comparable with data from the 2000 Census and earlier censuses; therefore, caution must be
used when interpreting changes in the racial composition of the US population over time. The latest
(Census 2010) definitions and nomenclature are used within this analysis.
• American Indian – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and
South America (including Central America), who maintains tribal affiliation or community
attachment.
• Asian – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Asia, Southeast Asia,
or the Indian subcontinent including for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia,
Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
• Black – This includes a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.
• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander – This includes a person having origins in any of the
original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
• White – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle
East, or North Africa.
• Hispanic or Latino – This is an ethnic distinction, a subset of a race as defined by the Federal
Government. This includes a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American,
or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.
Please Note: The Census Bureau defines Race as a person’s self-identification with one or more of the
following social groups: White, Black or African American, Asian, American Indian and Alaska Native,
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, some other race, or a combination of these. Ethnicity is defined
whether a person is of Hispanic/Latino origin or not. For this reason, the Hispanic / Latino ethnicity is
viewed separate from race throughout this demographic analysis.
Page 36 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
6
RACE
Analyzing race, the City’s current population is primarily White Alone (89%). The 2023 estimate shows
that 2% of the population falls into the Black Alone category, and Asian (2%) represents the next largest
population group. The City is less diverse than the national population, which is approximately (70%)
White Alone, (13%) Black Alone, and (7%) Some Other Race. The predictions for 2038 expect the City’s
population to be slightly more diverse and will become less (83%) for White Alone, (2%) Black Alone, and
(3%) Asian (Figure 5). From the estimates of 2023 to estimate of 2038 the White alone population
decreases by 5%, while the Black Alone population is projected to be the same at 2% with only a 1%
increase in the Asian population.
Figure 5: Population by Race
94%89%88%87%85%83%
2%
2%2%2%2%2%
2%
2%2%3%3%3%
1%1%1%2%2%2%
2%6%6%7%8%10%
2010
Census
2020
Census
2023
Estimate
2028
Projection
2033
Projection
2038
Projection
RACE
Two or More Races
Some Other Race
Native Hawaiian & Other
Pacific Islander Alone
Asian Alone
American Indian & Alaska
Native Alone
Black or African American
Alone
White Alone
Mendota Heights
Minnesota
Page 37 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
7
ETHNICITY
Mendota Heights’ population was also assessed based on Hispanic/Latino ethnicity and by the Census
Bureau definition which is viewed independently from race. It is important to note that individuals who
are Hispanic/Latino can also identify with any of the racial categories from above. Based on the current
estimate for 2023, those of Hispanic/Latino origin represent just 4% of the City’s current population, which
is much lower than the national average (18% Hispanic/ Latino). The Hispanic/Latino population is
expected to grow slightly over the next 15 years, to represent 6% of the City’s total population by 2038
(Figure 6).
Figure 6: Population by Ethnicity
Page 38 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
8
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
The City’s median household income ($120,257) is higher than the state ($83,993) and national ($74,755)
levels. The City’s per capita income ($72,744) is also higher than both the state ($68,840) and the national
($41,804) levels. This may indicate a higher rate of disposable income among the population served and
should be considered when evaluating financially sustainable opportunities of how the City of Mendota
Heights will address future community needs. (Figure 7 and Figure 8)
$120,257 $135,577 $150,897 $166,217
$72,744 $81,426 $90,108 $98,790
2023
Estimate
2028
Projection
2033
Projection
2038
Projection
MENDOTA HEIGHTS' INCOME CHARACTERISTICS
Median Household Income Per Capita Income
Figure 7 Income Charasterics
Figure 7: Service Area’s Demographic Comparative Summary Table
$72,744 $68,840
$41,804
$120,257
$83,993 $74,755
Mendota Heights State Data U.S.A.
2023 COMPARATIVE INCOME of State and Nation
Per Capita Income Median Household Income
Page 39 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
9
1.1.6 DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY
Researching the demographics of Mendota Heights, it bears saying that the recreation needs and priorities
should not be solely focused on those statistics alone. This data is to link the population in Mendota
Heights with appropriate programs, activities and amenities in order to evaluate recreation needs in the
City and determine if any alterations should be made to better serve residents.
Some potential inferences for Mendota Heights that were derived from research and data used in this
report:
Mendota Heights had negative population growth, compared to the National growth rate. From
previous population information in this report, the population growth rate percentage made very
slow growth. This indicates a near steady probable use in the park system, and with Mendota
Heights’ situation near St. Paul and its suburbs, outreach into these areas may stimulate other
community residents to visit the Mendota Heights Park System.
The average per person household size in Mendota Heights is projected at 2.37 persons per
household compared to the average per person average household size in the USA of 2.53
persons. While this change is insignificant, it may show an age appropriate segment of household
members are leaving the home to attend college or relocate outside of Mendota Heights. A
consideration may be to evaluate programming for empty nest parents.
Mendota Heights Average Household Size: 2.37 people
USA Average Household Size: 2.53 people
Page 40 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
10
AGE SEGMENTS
As age distribution is examined, it can stand to reason that as a particular age segment increases or
decreases, the number of program users may follow that age segment fluctuation. This is only an
observation of the research done for age segmentation, and the generalization of the recreation industry.
The three largest age segments
in Mendota Heights total 75% of
the population. These three
groups are the 55-74 year old
residents (33%) and a tie for the
1-19 with 21% and 35-74 (21%)
year old residents with a total of
42%). These three groups
benefit from programs directed
toward children, youth and
middle-aged adults and also the
“Active Seniors” that are 55-75
years old. With a total of 75% in
these age groups, programs for
children, youth and young adults should be the main areas of focus for Mendota Heights. The 0-
10 ages
21%
14%
21%
33%
11%
Mendota Heights Population by
Age Segments
0-19 Years 18-34 Years 35-54 Years
55-74 Years 75+ Years
Mendota Heights
Age Group
Segments
Change
Program Users
May Follow Age
Segments
Page 41 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
11
of the 0-19 age group will encompass the children of the lower side of the 35-54 year old young
adults. Family programs should be considered as a significant combination of these two age
groups
AGE DISTRIBUTION
Mendota Heights is 10% higher than
the USA in the 55-74 year old age
segment indicating this age group often
considered “Active Seniors” may be a
very involved group in programs and
activities. They may want programs that
are geared toward cardio fitness and
healthy exercise. The older age
segment 75+ in Mendota Heights (11%)
slightly higher than the 75+ age
segment in the US A (7%). The young
adults (ages 35 -54 years old at 33%) is
Mendota Heights is slightly lower than
that group in the USA (25%) of the
population, therefore, with this age
group in Mendota Heights and the USA being close, national recreation trends may be a guide for
selection of programs for this age group. The other age segments in Mendota Heights compared to the
USA statistics in age segment, 0-19, 20-34, local recreation trends should be a more suitable means of
planning programs and activities. The 55-74 age segment is much higher than the USA average, users
moving into that age group from the 35-54 will be interested in programs that fit their middle age lifestyle
with a family of youth age children.
RACE DISTRIBUTION
The percentages in the Mendota
Heights chart and the USA chart show
that the White Alone population is the
largest sector. Minorities of all races
other than White Alone in Mendota
Heights total nearly 12%, and in the
USA, all minorities other than White
Alone total 39%.
24%
20%
25%
23%
7%
USA Age Distribution
0-19 Years 20 - 34 Years 35-54 Years
55-74 Years 75+ Years
88.10%
1.80%
0.30%2.30%0%1.50%6.00%
Race Distribution: Mendota Heights
White Alone Black Alone American Indian
Asian Pacific Islander Some Other Race
Two or More Races
Page 42 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
12
Mendota Heights race distribution indicates a less diverse population than the US and may provide
opportunities for the park system to offer programs that offer more diversity and increase overall
attendance at programs and activities.
HISPANIC / LATINO DISTRIBUTION
Using the chart below, the Hispanic and Latino Population is compared to all other races combined.
Mendota Heights is considerably lower in this comparison than the population of the US for Hispanic and
Latino race in the community. Regarding all other races in Mendota Heights and the US, the comparison
is opposite with Mendota Heights nearly 20% higher than all other races in the US. More diverse
programming in for the Hispanic and Latino residents may incite them to participate in greater numbers.
60.60%12.60%1.10%
6.20%
0.20%
8.70%
10.60%
Race Distribution: USA
White Alone Black Alone American Indiana Asian
Pacific Islander Some Other Race Two or More Races
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
120.00%
Hispanic / Latino (any race)All Other
Hispanic / Latino Population Comparison
Mendota Heights USA
Page 43 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
13
INCOME
Mendota Heights is found to be higher in both per capita income and median income than the nation.
This difference is significant by $30,940 and $45,502 respectively. Higher income in these areas indicate
more disposable income for residents in Mendota Heights, allowing them to spend more money in
various areas and this could include recreational activities.
1.1.7 DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY
To support the preceding summary information and potential opportunities reflected in the
demographics, the City should examine the regional and national recreational and sports trends
defined in the next section while also considering their own communities’ market potential index.
$72,744
$120,257
$41,804
$74,755
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
Mendota Heights USA
Comparison of Income
Per Capita Income Median Household Income
Page 44 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
14
CHAPTER TWO NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PROGRAMMING TRENDS
2.1.1 PROGRAMS OFFERED BY PARK AND RECREATION AGENCIES (GREAT LAKES REGION)
NRPA’s Agency Performance Review 2019
summarize key findings from NRPA Park
Metrics. This benchmark tool compares the
management and planning of operating
resources and capital facilities within park and
recreation agencies. The report contains data
from 1,075 park and recreation agencies
across the U.S. as reported between 2016 and
2018.
Based on this year’s report, the typical agency
(i.e., those at the median values) offers 175
programs annually, with roughly 63% of those
programs being fee-based activities/events.
According to the information reported to the NRPA, the top five programming activities most frequently
offered by park and recreation agencies in the U.S. and regionally, are described in the table below.
2.1.2 LOCAL SPORT AND LEISURE MARKET POTENTIAL
MARKET POTENTIAL INDEX (MPI)
The following charts show the potential sports and leisure market data for City of Mendota Heights’
service area, as provided by ESRI. A Market Potential Index (MPI) measures the probable demand for a
product or service within the City. The MPI shows the likelihood that an adult resident of the target area
will participate in certain activities when compared to the U.S. national average. The national average is
100; therefore, numbers below 100 would represent lower than average participation rates, and numbers
above 100 would represent higher than average participation rates. The service area is compared to the
national average in four categories: general sports, fitness, outdoor activity, and commercial recreation.
As seen in the charts below, the following (sport or sports) and leisure trends are most prevalent for
residents within the service area. The activities are listed in descending order, from highest to lowest MPI
score. High index numbers (100+) are significant because they demonstrate a greater potential that
residents within the service area will actively participate in offerings provided by the City of Mendota
Heights Parks and Recreation Department.
Great Lakes Region
Page 45 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
15
96 101
113 117 119 121 124 126
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Zumba Jogging/
Running
Weight
Lifting
Swimming Pilates Walking for
Exercise
Yoga Aerobics
FITNESS MPI
Mendota Heights National Average (100)
Page 46 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
16
Page 47 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
17
2.1.3 NATIONAL CORE VS. CASUAL PARTICIPATORY TRENDS
GENERAL SPORTS
#%#%#%
Basketball 24,225 100%28,149 100%29,725 100%22.7%5.6%
Casual (1-12 times)9,335 39%13,000 46%14,405 48%54.3%10.8%
Core(13+ times)14,890 61%15,149 54%15,320 52%2.9%1.1%
Golf (9 or 18-Hole Course)24,240 100%25,566 100%26,565 100%9.6%3.9%
Tennis 17,841 100%23,595 100%23,835 100%33.6%1.0%
Golf (Entertainment Venue)9,279 100%15,540 100%18,464 100%99.0%18.8%
Baseball 15,877 100%15,478 100%16,655 100%4.9%7.6%
Casual (1-12 times)6,563 41%7,908 51%8,934 54%36.1%13.0%
Core (13+ times)9,314 59%7,570 49%7,722 46%-17.1%2.0%
Soccer (Outdoor)11,405 100%13,018 100%14,074 100%23.4%8.1%
Casual (1-25 times)6,430 56%7,666 59%8,706 59%35.4%13.6%
Core (26+ times)4,975 44%5,352 41%5,368 41%7.9%0.3%
Pickleball 3,301 100%8,949 100%13,582 100%311.5%51.8%
Casual (1-12 times)2,011 61%6,647 74%8,736 74%334.4%31.4%
Core(13+ times)1,290 39%2,302 26%4,846 26%275.7%110.5%
Football (Flag)6,572 100%7,104 100%7,266 100%10.6%2.3%
Casual (1-12 times)3,573 54%4,573 64%4,624 64%29.4%1.1%
Core(13+ times)2,999 46%2,531 36%2,642 36%-11.9%4.4%
Core Age 6 to 17 (13+ times)1,578 24%1,552 22%1,661 22%5.3%7.0%
Volleyball (Court)6,317 100%6,092 100%6,905 100%9.3%13.3%
Casual (1-12 times)2,867 45%2,798 46%3,481 50%21.4%24.4%
Core(13+ times)3,450 55%3,293 54%3,425 50%-0.7%4.0%
Badminton 6,337 100%6,490 100%6,513 100%2.8%0.4%
Casual (1-12 times)4,555 72%4,636 71%4,743 73%4.1%2.3%
Core(13+ times)1,782 28%1,855 29%1,771 27%-0.6%-4.5%
Softball (Slow Pitch)7,386 100%6,036 100%6,356 100%-13.9%5.3%
Casual (1-12 times)3,281 44%2,666 44%2,939 46%-10.4%10.2%
Core(13+ times)4,105 56%3,370 56%3,417 54%-16.8%1.4%
Soccer (Indoor)5,233 100%5,495 100%5,909 100%12.9%7.5%
Casual (1-12 times)2,452 47%3,144 57%3,411 57%39.1%8.5%
Core(13+ times)2,782 53%2,351 43%2,498 43%-10.2%6.3%
Football (Tackle)5,157 100%5,436 100%5,618 100%8.9%3.3%
Casual (1-25 times)2,258 44%3,120 57%3,278 58%45.2%5.1%
Core(26+ times)2,898 56%2,316 43%2,340 42%-19.3%1.0%
Core Age 6 to 17 (26+ times)2,353 46%2,088 38%2,130 38%-9.5%2.0%
Football (Touch)5,517 100%4,843 100%4,949 100%-10.3%2.2%
Casual (1-12 times)3,313 60%3,201 66%3,301 67%-0.4%3.1%
Core(13+ times)2,204 40%1,642 34%1,648 33%-25.2%0.4%
Gymnastics 4,770 100%4,569 100%4,758 100%-0.3%4.1%
Casual (1-49 times)3,047 64%3,095 68%3,315 70%8.8%7.1%
Core(50+ times)1,723 36%1,473 32%1,443 30%-16.3%-2.0%
Volleyball (Sand/Beach)4,770 100%4,128 100%3,917 100%-17.9%-5.1%
Casual (1-12 times)3,261 68%2,977 72%2,769 71%-15.1%-7.0%
Core(13+ times)1,509 32%1,152 28%1,148 29%-23.9%-0.3%
Track and Field 4,143 100%3,690 100%3,905 100%-5.7%5.8%
Casual (1-25 times)2,071 50%1,896 51%2,093 54%1.1%10.4%
Core(26+ times)2,072 50%1,794 49%1,811 46%-12.6%0.9%
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
Moderate Amount of Participants
(56-74%)
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
National Core vs Casual Participatory Trends - General Sports
% Change
5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend202220182023
Participation Levels
Activity
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Evenly Divided between Core and
Casual Participants (45-55%)Core vs Casual Distribution:Majority Amount of Participants
(75% or greater)
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
Page 48 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
18
GENERAL SPORTS (CONTINUED)
#%#%#%
Cheerleading 3,841 100%3,507 100%3,797 100%-1.1%8.3%
Casual (1-25 times)2,039 53%2,092 60%2,360 62%15.7%12.8%
Core(26+ times)1,802 47%1,415 40%1,438 38%-20.2%1.6%
Racquetball 3,480 100%3,521 100%3,550 100%2.0%0.8%
Casual (1-12 times)2,407 69%2,583 73%2,694 76%11.9%4.3%
Core(13+ times)1,073 31%938 27%855 24%-20.3%-8.8%
Ice Hockey 2,447 100%2,278 100%2,496 100%2.0%9.6%
Casual (1-12 times)1,105 45%1,209 53%1,458 58%31.9%20.6%
Core(13+ times)1,342 55%1,068 47%1,038 42%-22.7%-2.8%
Softball (Fast Pitch)2,303 100%2,146 100%2,323 100%0.9%8.2%
Casual (1-25 times)1,084 47%1,002 47%1,123 48%3.6%12.1%
Core(26+ times)1,219 53%1,144 53%1,201 52%-1.5%5.0%
Wrestling 1,908 100%2,036 100%2,121 100%11.2%4.2%
Casual (1-25 times)1,160 61%1,452 71%1,589 75%37.0%9.4%
Core(26+ times)748 39%585 29%532 25%-28.9%-9.1%
Ultimate Frisbee 2,710 100%2,142 100%2,086 100%-23.0%-2.6%
Casual (1-12 times)1,852 68%1,438 67%1,523 67%-17.8%5.9%
Core(13+ times)858 32%703 33%563 33%-34.4%-19.9%
Lacrosse 2,098 100%1,875 100%1,979 100%-5.7%5.5%
Casual (1-12 times)1,036 49%999 53%1,129 53%9.0%13.0%
Core(13+ times)1,061 51%876 47%850 47%-19.9%-3.0%
Squash 1,285 100%1,228 100%1,315 100%2.3%7.1%
Casual (1-7 times)796 62%816 66%927 70%16.5%13.6%
Core(8+ times)489 38%413 34%387 29%-20.9%-6.3%
Roller Hockey 1,734 100%1,368 100%1,237 100%-28.7%-9.6%
Casual (1-12 times)1,296 75%1,065 78%938 76%-27.6%-11.9%
Core(13+ times)437 25%303 22%298 24%-31.8%-1.7%
Rugby 1,560 100%1,166 100%1,112 100%-28.7%-4.6%
Casual (1-7 times)998 64%758 65%729 66%-27.0%-3.8%
Core(8+ times)562 36%408 35%384 35%-31.7%-5.9%
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
Moderate Amount of Participants
(56-74%)
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
National Core vs Casual Participatory Trends - General Sports
% Change
5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend202220182023
Participation Levels
Activity
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Evenly Divided between Core and
Casual Participants (45-55%)Core vs Casual Distribution:Majority Amount of Participants
(75% or greater)
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
Page 49 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
19
GENERAL FITNESS
#%#%#%
Walking for Fitness 111,001 100%114,759 100%114,039 100%2.7%-0.6%
Casual (1-49 times)36,139 33%38,115 33%38,169 33%5.6%0.1%
Core(50+ times)74,862 67%76,644 67%75,871 67%1.3%-1.0%
Treadmill 53,737 100%53,589 100%54,829 100%2.0%2.3%
Casual (1-49 times)25,826 48%26,401 49%27,991 51%8.4%6.0%
Core(50+ times)27,911 52%27,189 51%26,837 49%-3.8%-1.3%
Free Weights (Dumbbells/Hand Weights)51,291 100%53,140 100%53,858 100%5.0%1.4%
Casual (1-49 times)18,702 36%22,428 42%23,238 43%24.3%3.6%
Core(50+ times)32,589 64%30,712 58%30,619 57%-6.0%-0.3%
Running/Jogging 49,459 100%47,816 100%48,305 100%-2.3%1.0%
Casual (1-49 times)24,399 49%23,776 50%24,175 50%-0.9%1.7%
Core(50+ times)25,061 51%24,040 50%24,129 50%-3.7%0.4%
Yoga 28,745 100%33,636 100%34,249 100%19.1%1.8%
Casual (1-49 times)17,553 61%20,409 61%20,654 60%17.7%1.2%
Core(50+ times)11,193 39%13,228 39%13,595 40%21.5%2.8%
Stationary Cycling (Recumbent/Upright)36,668 100%32,102 100%32,628 100%-11.0%1.6%
Casual (1-49 times)19,282 53%15,424 48%15,901 49%-17.5%3.1%
Core(50+ times)17,387 47%16,678 52%16,728 51%-3.8%0.3%
Weight/Resistant Machines 36,372 100%30,010 100%29,426 100%-19.1%-1.9%
Casual (1-49 times)14,893 41%12,387 41%11,361 39%-23.7%-8.3%
Core(50+ times)21,479 59%17,623 59%18,065 61%-15.9%2.5%
Free Weights (Barbells) 27,834 100%28,678 100%29,333 100%5.4%2.3%
Casual (1-49 times)11,355 41%13,576 47%14,174 48%24.8%4.4%
Core(50+ times)16,479 59%15,103 53%15,159 52%-8.0%0.4%
Elliptical Motion/Cross-Trainer 33,238 100%27,051 100%27,062 100%-18.6%0.0%
Casual (1-49 times)16,889 51%14,968 55%13,898 51%-17.7%-7.1%
Core(50+ times)16,349 49%12,083 45%13,164 49%-19.5%8.9%
Dance, Step, & Choreographed Exercise 22,391 100%25,163 100%26,241 100%17.2%4.3%
Casual (1-49 times)14,503 65%17,096 68%18,179 69%25.3%6.3%
Core(50+ times)7,888 35%8,067 32%8,063 31%2.2%0.0%
Bodyweight Exercise 24,183 100%22,034 100%22,578 100%-6.6%2.5%
Casual (1-49 times)9,674 40%9,514 43%10,486 46%8.4%10.2%
Core(50+ times)14,509 60%12,520 57%12,092 54%-16.7%-3.4%
High Impact/Intensity Training 21,611 100%21,821 100%21,801 100%0.9%-0.1%
Casual (1-49 times)11,828 55%12,593 58%12,559 58%6.2%-0.3%
Core(50+ times)9,783 45%9,228 42%9,242 42%-5.5%0.2%
Trail Running 10,010 100%13,253 100%14,885 100%48.7%12.3%
Casual (1-25 times)8,000 80%10,792 81%12,260 82%53.3%13.6%
Core(26+ times)2,009 20%2,461 19%2,625 18%30.7%6.7%
Rowing Machine 12,096 100%11,893 100%12,775 100%5.6%7.4%
Casual (1-49 times)7,744 64%7,875 66%8,473 66%9.4%7.6%
Core(50+ times)4,352 36%4,017 34%4,302 34%-1.1%7.1%
Stair Climbing Machine 15,025 100%11,677 100%12,605 100%-16.1%7.9%
Casual (1-49 times)9,643 64%7,569 65%8,075 64%-16.3%6.7%
Core(50+ times)5,382 36%4,108 35%4,530 36%-15.8%10.3%
Pilates Training 9,084 100%10,311 100%11,862 100%30.6%15.0%
Casual (1-49 times)5,845 64%7,377 72%8,805 74%50.6%19.4%
Core(50+ times)3,238 36%2,935 28%3,057 26%-5.6%4.2%
National Participatory Trends - General Fitness
% Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:
5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
2018
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Participation Levels
2022
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
2023
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Majority Amount of Participants
(75% or greater)
Activity
Core vs Casual Distribution:Evenly Divided between Core and
Casual Participants (45-55%)
Moderate Amount of Participants
(56-74%)
Page 50 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
20
GENERAL FITNESS (CONTINUED)
#%#%#%
Cross-Training Style Workout 13,338 100%9,248 100%9,404 100%-29.5%1.7%
Casual (1-49 times)6,594 49%4,281 46%4,391 47%-33.4%2.6%
Core(50+ times)6,744 51%4,968 54%5,013 53%-25.7%0.9%
Boxing/MMA for Fitness 7,650 100%9,787 100%8,378 100%9.5%-14.4%
Casual (1-12 times)4,176 55%6,191 63%5,003 60%19.8%-19.2%
Core(13+ times)3,473 45%3,596 37%3,375 40%-2.8%-6.1%
Martial Arts 5,821 100%6,355 100%6,610 100%13.6%4.0%
Casual (1-12 times)1,991 34%3,114 49%3,481 53%74.8%11.8%
Core(13+ times)3,830 66%3,241 51%3,130 47%-18.3%-3.4%
Stationary Cycling (Group)9,434 100%6,268 100%6,227 100%-34.0%-0.7%
Casual (1-49 times)6,097 65%3,925 63%3,783 61%-38.0%-3.6%
Core(50+ times)3,337 35%2,344 37%2,444 39%-26.8%4.3%
Cardio Kickboxing 6,838 100%5,531 100%5,524 100%-19.2%-0.1%
Casual (1-49 times)4,712 69%3,958 72%3,929 71%-16.6%-0.7%
Core(50+ times)2,126 31%1,573 28%1,596 29%-24.9%1.5%
Boot Camp Style Cross-Training 6,695 100%5,192 100%5,434 100%-18.8%4.7%
Casual (1-49 times)4,780 71%3,691 71%4,003 74%-16.3%8.5%
Core(50+ times)1,915 29%1,500 29%1,432 26%-25.2%-4.5%
Barre 3,532 100%3,803 100%4,294 100%21.6%12.9%
Casual (1-49 times)2,750 78%3,022 79%3,473 81%26.3%14.9%
Core(50+ times)782 22%781 21%821 19%5.0%5.1%
Tai Chi 3,761 100%3,394 100%3,948 100%5.0%16.3%
Casual (1-49 times)2,360 63%2,139 63%2,748 70%16.4%28.5%
Core(50+ times)1,400 37%1,255 37%1,200 30%-14.3%-4.4%
Triathlon (Traditional/Road)2,168 100%1,780 100%1,738 100%-19.8%-2.4%
Triathlon (Non-Traditional/Off Road)1,589 100%1,350 100%1,363 100%-14.2%1.0%
National Participatory Trends - General Fitness
% Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:
5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
2018
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Participation Levels
2022
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
2023
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Majority Amount of Participants
(75% or greater)
Activity
Core vs Casual Distribution:Evenly Divided between Core and
Casual Participants (45-55%)
Moderate Amount of Participants
(56-74%)
Page 51 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
21
OUTDOOR/ADVENTURE RECREATION
#%#%#%
Hiking (Day) 47,860 100%59,578 100%61,444 100%28.4%3.1%
Casual (1-7 times)37,238 78%44,154 74%45,336 74%21.7%2.7%
Core(8+ times)10,622 22%15,424 26%16,108 26%51.6%4.4%
Fishing (Freshwater)38,998 100%41,821 100%42,605 100%9.2%1.9%
Casual (1-7 times)21,099 54%23,430 56%23,964 56%13.6%2.3%
Core(8+ times)17,899 46%18,391 44%18,641 44%4.1%1.4%
Bicycling (Road)39,041 100%43,554 100%42,243 100%8.2%-3.0%
Casual (1-25 times)20,777 53%23,278 53%22,520 53%8.4%-3.3%
Core(26+ times)18,264 47%20,276 47%19,723 47%8.0%-2.7%
Camping 27,416 100%37,431 100%38,572 100%40.7%3.0%
Casual (1-7 times)20,611 75%28,459 76%29,060 75%41.0%2.1%
Core(8+ times)6,805 25%8,972 24%9,513 25%39.8%6.0%
Wildlife Viewing (>1/4 mile of Vehicle/Home)20,556 100%20,615 100%21,118 100%2.7%2.4%
Camping (Recreational Vehicle)15,980 100%16,840 100%16,497 100%3.2%-2.0%
Casual (1-7 times)9,103 57%10,286 61%9,801 59%7.7%-4.7%
Core(8+ times)6,877 43%6,553 39%6,695 41%-2.6%2.2%
Birdwatching (>1/4 mile of Vehicle/Home)12,344 100%15,818 100%16,423 100%33.0%3.8%
Fishing (Saltwater)12,830 100%14,344 100%15,039 100%17.2%4.8%
Casual (1-7 times)7,636 60%9,151 64%9,904 66%29.7%8.2%
Core(8+ times)5,194 40%5,192 36%5,135 34%-1.1%-1.1%
Backpacking Overnight 10,540 100%10,217 100%9,994 100%-5.2%-2.2%
Bicycling (Mountain)8,690 100%8,916 100%9,289 100%6.9%4.2%
Casual (1-12 times)4,294 49%4,896 55%5,434 58%26.5%11.0%
Core(13+ times)4,396 51%4,020 45%3,854 41%-12.3%-4.1%
Skateboarding 6,500 100%9,019 100%8,923 100%37.3%-1.1%
Casual (1-25 times)3,989 61%6,469 72%6,504 73%63.0%0.5%
Core(26+ times)2,511 39%2,559 28%2,418 27%-3.7%-5.5%
Fishing (Fly)6,939 100%7,631 100%8,077 100%16.4%5.8%
Casual (1-7 times)4,460 64%4,993 65%5,417 67%21.5%8.5%
Core(8+ times)2,479 36%2,638 35%2,659 33%7.3%0.8%
Archery 7,654 100%7,428 100%7,662 100%0.1%3.2%
Casual (1-25 times)6,514 85%6,202 83%6,483 85%-0.5%4.5%
Core(26+ times)1,140 15%1,227 17%1,179 15%3.4%-3.9%
Climbing (Indoor)5,112 100%5,778 100%6,356 100%24.3%10.0%
Roller Skating, In-Line 5,040 100%5,173 100%5,201 100%3.2%0.5%
Casual (1-12 times)3,680 73%3,763 73%3,840 74%4.3%2.0%
Core(13+ times)1,359 27%1,410 27%1,361 26%0.1%-3.5%
Bicycling (BMX) 3,439 100%4,181 100%4,462 100%29.7%6.7%
Casual (1-12 times)2,052 60%2,792 67%3,130 70%52.5%12.1%
Core(13+ times)1,387 40%1,389 33%1,332 30%-4.0%-4.1%
Climbing (Traditional/Ice/Mountaineering)2,541 100%2,452 100%2,568 100%1.1%4.7%
Climbing (Sport/Boulder)2,184 100%2,452 100%2,544 100%16.5%3.8%
Adventure Racing 2,215 100%1,714 100%1,808 100%-18.4%5.5%
Casual (1 time)581 26%236 14%405 22%-30.3%71.6%
Core(2+ times)1,634 74%1,478 86%1,403 78%-14.1%-5.1%
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Participation Levels
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
2023
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Majority Amount of Participants
(75% or greater)
Moderate Amount of Participants
(56-74%)
Participation Growth/Decline:
Core vs Casual Distribution:Evenly Divided between Core and Casual
Participants (45-55%)
National Participatory Trends - Outdoor / Adventure Recreation
Activity % Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
2018 2022 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Page 52 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
22
AQUATICS
#%#%#%
Swimming (Fitness)27,575 100%26,272 100%28,173 100%2.2%7.2%
Casual (1-49 times)18,728 68%18,827 72%20,620 73%10.1%9.5%
Core(50+ times)8,847 32%7,445 28%7,553 27%-14.6%1.5%
Aquatic Exercise 10,518 100%10,676 100%11,307 100%7.5%5.9%
Casual (1-49 times)7,391 70%8,626 81%9,298 82%25.8%7.8%
Core(50+ times)3,127 30%2,050 19%2,009 18%-35.8%-2.0%
Swimming on a Team 3,045 100%2,904 100%3,327 100%9.3%14.6%
Casual (1-49 times)1,678 55%1,916 66%2,280 69%35.9%19.0%
Core(50+ times)1,367 45%988 34%1,047 31%-23.4%6.0%
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
2022
Moderate Amount of Participants (56-74%)
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
2023
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Majority Amount of Participants (75% or
greater)Core vs Casual Distribution:Evenly Divided between Core and Casual
Participants (45-55%)
National Participatory Trends - Aquatics
Activity % Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:
2018 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Participation Levels
Page 53 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
23
WATER SPORTS/ACTIVITIES
#%#%#%
Kayaking (Recreational)11,017 100%13,561 100%14,726 100%33.7%8.6%
Canoeing 9,129 100%9,521 100%9,999 100%9.5%5.0%
Snorkeling 7,815 100%7,376 100%7,489 100%-4.2%1.5%
Casual (1-7 times)6,321 81%6,005 81%6,086 81%-3.7%1.3%
Core(8+ times)1,493 19%1,371 19%1,403 19%-6.0%2.3%
Jet Skiing 5,324 100%5,445 100%5,759 100%8.2%5.8%
Casual (1-7 times)3,900 73%4,151 76%4,490 78%15.1%8.2%
Core(8+ times)1,425 27%1,294 24%1,269 22%-10.9%-1.9%
Stand-Up Paddling 3,453 100%3,777 100%4,129 100%19.6%9.3%
Sailing 3,754 100%3,632 100%4,100 100%9.2%12.9%
Casual (1-7 times)2,596 69%2,633 72%3,117 76%20.1%18.4%
Core(8+ times)1,159 31%999 28%984 24%-15.1%-1.5%
Rafting 3,404 100%3,595 100%4,050 100%19.0%12.7%
Surfing 2,874 100%3,692 100%3,993 100%38.9%8.2%
Casual (1-7 times)1,971 69%2,444 66%2,655 66%34.7%8.6%
Core(8+ times)904 31%1,248 34%1,338 34%48.0%7.2%
Water Skiing 3,363 100%3,040 100%3,133 100%-6.8%3.1%
Casual (1-7 times)2,499 74%2,185 72%2,302 73%-7.9%5.4%
Core(8+ times)863 26%855 28%832 27%-3.6%-2.7%
Scuba Diving 2,849 100%2,658 100%3,063 100%7.5%15.2%
Casual (1-7 times)2,133 75%2,012 76%2,374 78%11.3%18.0%
Core(8+ times)716 25%646 24%689 22%-3.8%6.7%
Kayaking (White Water)2,562 100%2,726 100%2,995 100%16.9%9.9%
Wakeboarding 2,796 100%2,754 100%2,844 100%1.7%3.3%
Casual (1-7 times)1,900 68%2,075 75%2,119 75%11.5%2.1%
Core(8+ times)896 32%679 25%725 25%-19.1%6.8%
Kayaking (Sea/Touring)2,805 100%2,642 100%2,800 100%-0.2%6.0%
Boardsailing/Windsurfing 1,556 100%1,391 100%1,434 100%-7.8%3.1%
Casual (1-7 times)1,245 80%1,103 79%1,162 81%-6.7%5.3%
Core(8+ times)310 20%288 21%272 19%-12.3%-5.6%
Participation Levels
2022
Moderate Amount of Participants (56-74%)
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
2023
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Majority Amount of Participants (75% or
greater)
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Core vs Casual Distribution:Evenly Divided between Core and Casual
Participants (45-55%)
National Participatory Trends - Water Sports / Activities
% Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:
Activity 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend2018
Page 54 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
24
CHAPTER THREE RECREATION TRENDS ANALYSIS
3.1 RECREATION TRENDS ANALYSIS
The Trends Analysis provides an understanding of national, regional, and local recreational trends as well
recreational interest by age segments. Trends data used for this analysis was obtained from Sports &
Fitness Industry Association’s (SFIA), National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA), and Environmental
Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI). All trend data is based on current and/or historical participation
rates, statistically valid survey results, or NRPA Park Metrics.
3.1.1 NATIONAL TRENDS IN RECREATION
METHODOLOGY
The Sports & Fitness Industry Association’s (SFIA) Sports, Fitness & Leisure Activities Topline
Participation Report 2024 was utilized in evaluating the following trends:
• National Recreation Participatory Trends
• Core vs. Casual Participation Trends
The study is based on findings from surveys conducted in 2023 by the Sports Marketing Surveys USA (SMS),
resulting in a total of 18,000 online interviews. Surveys were administered to all genders, ages, income
levels, regions, and ethnicities to allow for statistical accuracy of the national population. A sample size
of 18,000 completed interviews is considered by SFIA to result in a high degree of statistical accuracy. A
sport with a participation rate of five percent has a confidence interval of plus or minus 0.32 percentage
points at a 95 percent confidence level. Using a weighting technique, survey results are applied to the
total U.S. population figure of 306,931,382 people (ages six and older).
The purpose of the report is to establish levels of activity and identify key participatory trends in
recreation across the U.S. This study looked at 124 different sports/activities and subdivided them into
various categories including: sports, fitness, outdoor activities, aquatics, etc.
Page 55 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
25
3.1.2 OVERALL PARTICIPATION
Approximately 242 million people ages six and over reported being active in 2023, which is a 2.2% increase
from 2022 and the greatest number of active Americans in the last 6 years. This is an indicator that
Americans are continuing to make physical activity more of a priority in their lives. Outdoor activities
continue to thrive. Recreation facilities are reopening. Fitness at home remains popular. Team sports
are slowly returning to pre-pandemic participation levels. The chart below depicts participation levels
for active and inactive (those who engage in no physical activity) Americans over the past 6 years.
CORE VS. CASUAL PARTICIPATION
In addition to overall participation rates, SFIA further categorizes active participants as either core or
casual participants based on frequency of participation. Core participants have higher participatory
frequency than casual participants. The thresholds that define casual versus core participation may vary
based on the nature of each individual activity. For instance, core participants engage in most fitness
activities more than fifty times per year, while for sports, the threshold for core participation is typically
13 times per year.
In each activity, core participants are more committed and tend to be less likely to switch to other
activities or become inactive (engage in no physical activity) than causal participants. This may also
explain why activities with more core participants tend to experience less pattern shifts in participation
rates than those with larger groups of casual participants. Increasing for the sixth straight year, 165
million people were considered CORE participants in 2023.
Figure 8 - Active vs. Nonactive Trend
Figure 9 - Total Core Actives
216.9 218.5 221.7 229.7 232.6 236.9 242.0
81.4 82.1 81.2 74.3 72.2 68.6 64.9
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS (MILLIONS)ACTIVITY AND INACTIVITY TREND
Total Actives Total Inactives
143.6 147.5 149.7 154.3 156.7 158.1 165.0
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS (MILLIONS)TOTAL CORE ACTIVES
Page 56 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
26
PARTICIPATION BY GENERATION
The following chart shows 2023 participation rates by generation. Fitness sports continue to be the go-
to means of exercise for Boomers, Gen X, and Millennials. Over half of the Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z
generation participated in one type of outdoor activity. Team sports were heavily dominated by
generation Gen Z and nearly a third of Gen X also participated in individual sports such as golf, trail
running, triathlons, and bowling.
HIGHLIGHTS
Pickleball continues to be the fastest growing sport in America by reaching 13.6 million participants in
2023 which is a 223.5% growth since 2020. The growth of pickleball participants (13.6 million) has nearly
reached the size of outdoor soccer participants (14.1 million). Following the popularity of pickleball,
every racquet sport except table tennis has also increased in total participation in 2023.
Group, full-body workout activities such as tai chi, barre and Pilates saw the biggest increase in
participation this past year. Americans continued to practice yoga, workout with kettlebells, started
indoor climbing, and while others took to the hiking trail. The waterways traffic had increases in
participation in all activities in the past year.
Over two-thirds (67.8%) of American’s participated in fitness sports followed by over half (57.3%) of
Americans participated in outdoor sports. Total participation for fitness, team, outdoor, racquet, water
and winter sports are higher than their pre-pandemic participation rates. Individual sports are the only
category still not at their pre-pandemic participation levels (45% in 2019 currently at 42.1% in 2023).
Figure 10 - Participation by Generation 68.6%23.8%45.3%8.6%5.5%9.4%4.0%66.9%32.7%54.2%14.1%17.8%14.5%9.8%68.2%43.8%61.3%21.1%33.4%19.7%17.5%56.5%46.1%61.6%24.5%55.9%18.4%20.6%FITNESS
SPORTS
INDIVIDUAL
SPORTS
OUTDOOR
SPORTS
RACQUET
SPORTS
TEAM
SPORTS
WATER
SPORTS
WINTER
SPORTS
2023 PARTICIPATION BY GENERATION
Boomers
(1945-1964)
Gen X
(1965-1979)
Millennials
(1980-1999)
Gen Z
(2000+)
Page 57 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
27
3.1.3 NATIONAL TRENDS IN GENERAL SPORTS
PARTICIPATION LEVELS
The top sports most heavily participated in the United States were basketball (29.7 million), golf (26.6
million), and tennis (23.8 million) which have participation figures well more than the other activities
within the general sports category. Playing golf at an entertainment venue (18.5 million) and baseball
(16.7 million) round out the top five.
The popularity of basketball, golf, and tennis can be attributed to the ability to compete with small
number of participants, this coupled with an ability to be played outdoors and/or properly distanced
helps explain their popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Basketball’s overall success can also be
attributed to the limited amount of equipment needed to participate and the limited space requirements
necessary, which make basketball the only traditional sport that can be played at most American
dwellings as a drive-way pickup game. Golf continues to benefit from its wide age segment appeal and
is considered a life-long sport. In addition, target type game venues or golf entertainment venues have
increased drastically (99%) as a 5-year trend, using golf entertainment (e.g., Top Golf) as a new
alternative to breathe life back into the game of golf.
FIVE-YEAR TREND
Since 2018, pickleball (311.5%), golf - entertainment venues (99.0%), and tennis (33.6%) have shown the
largest increase in participation. Similarly, outdoor soccer (23.4%) and basketball (22.7%) have also
experienced significant growth. Based on the five-year trend from 2018-2023, the sports that are most
rapidly declining in participation include roller hockey (-28.7%), rugby (-28.7%), and ultimate frisbee (-
23.0%).
ONE-YEAR TREND
The most recent year shares some similarities with the five-year trends; with pickleball (51.8%) and golf
- entertainment venues (18.8%) experiencing some of the greatest increases in participation this past
year. Other top one-year increases include court volleyball (13.3%), ice hockey (9.6%), and cheerleading
(8.3%).
Sports that have seen moderate 1-year increases, but 5-year decreases are cheerleading (8.3%), track
and field (5.8%), lacrosse (5.5%) and slow-pitch softball (5.3%). This could be a result of coming out of
the COVID-19 pandemic and team program participation on the rise. Like their 5-year trend, roller hockey
(-9.6%), sand/beach volleyball (-5.1%), and rugby (-4.6%) have seen decreases in participation over the
last year.
Page 58 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
28
CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN GENERAL SPORTS
General sport activities, basketball, court volleyball, and slow pitch softball have a larger core
participant base (participate 13+ times per year) than casual participant base (participate 1-12 times per
year). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, most activities showed a decrease in their percentage of core
participants, but these percentages for core users are slowly reaching their pre-pandemic levels. Please
see Appendix A for the full Core vs. Casual Participation breakdown.
2018 2022 2023 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Basketball 24,225 28,149 29,725 22.7%5.6%
Golf (9 or 18-Hole Course)24,240 25,566 26,565 9.6%3.9%
Tennis 17,841 23,595 23,835 33.6%1.0%
Golf (Entertainment Venue)9,279 15,540 18,464 99.0%18.8%
Baseball 15,877 15,478 16,655 4.9%7.6%
Soccer (Outdoor)11,405 13,018 14,074 23.4%8.1%
Pickleball 3,301 8,949 13,582 311.5%51.8%
Football (Flag)6,572 7,104 7,266 10.6%2.3%
Volleyball (Court)6,317 6,092 6,905 9.3%13.3%
Badminton 6,337 6,490 6,513 2.8%0.4%
Softball (Slow Pitch)7,386 6,036 6,356 -13.9%5.3%
Soccer (Indoor)5,233 5,495 5,909 12.9%7.5%
Football (Tackle)5,157 5,436 5,618 8.9%3.3%
Football (Touch)5,517 4,843 4,949 -10.3%2.2%
Gymnastics 4,770 4,569 4,758 -0.3%4.1%
Volleyball (Sand/Beach)4,770 4,128 3,917 -17.9%-5.1%
Track and Field 4,143 3,690 3,905 -5.7%5.8%
Cheerleading 3,841 3,507 3,797 -1.1%8.3%
Racquetball 3,480 3,521 3,550 2.0%0.8%
Ice Hockey 2,447 2,278 2,496 2.0%9.6%
Softball (Fast Pitch)2,303 2,146 2,323 0.9%8.2%
Wrestling 1,908 2,036 2,121 11.2%4.2%
Ultimate Frisbee 2,710 2,142 2,086 -23.0%-2.6%
Lacrosse 2,098 1,875 1,979 -5.7%5.5%
Squash 1,285 1,228 1,315 2.3%7.1%
Roller Hockey 1,734 1,368 1,237 -28.7%-9.6%
Rugby 1,560 1,166 1,112 -28.7%-4.6%
Participation Levels
National Participatory Trends - General Sports
Activity % Change
Participation Growth/Decline:Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Page 59 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
29
3.1.4 NATIONAL TRENDS IN GENERAL FITNESS
PARTICIPATION LEVELS
Overall, national participatory trends in fitness have experienced growth in recent years. Many of these
activities have become popular due to an increased interest among Americans to improve their health
and enhance quality of life by engaging in an active lifestyle. The most popular general fitness activities
in 2023 were those that could be done in multiple environments such as at home, gym or in a virtual
class setting. The activities with the most participation was walking for fitness (114.0 million), treadmill
(54.8 million), free weights (53.9 million), running/jogging (48.3 million), and yoga (34.2 million).
FIVE-YEAR TREND
Over the last five years (2018-2023), the activities growing at the highest rate were trail running (48.7%),
Pilates training (30.6%), barre (21.6%) and yoga (19.1%). Over the same period, the activities that have
undergone the biggest decline in participation include group stationary cycling (-34%), cross-training style
workout (-29.5%) and traditional/road triathlons (-19.8%).
ONE-YEAR TREND
In the last year, fitness activities with the largest gains in participation were group-related, slow,
intentional movements activities, tai chi (16.3%), Pilates training (15.0%), and barre (12.9%). This 1-year
trend is another indicator that participants feel safe returning to group-related activities. Trail running
(12.3%) also saw a moderate increase indicating trail connectivity continues to be important for
communities to provide. In the same span, fitness activities that had the largest decline in participation
were boxing/MMA for fitness (-14.4%), traditional/road triathlons (-2.4%) and weight/resistant machines
(-1.9%).
CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN GENERAL FITNESS
Participants of walking for fitness are mostly core users (participating 50+ times) and have seen a 1.3%
growth in the last five years. Please see Appendix A for the full core vs. casual participation breakdown.
Page 60 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
30
2018 2022 2023 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Walking for Fitness 111,001 114,759 114,039 2.7%-0.6%
Treadmill 53,737 53,589 54,829 2.0%2.3%
Free Weights (Dumbbells/Hand Weights)51,291 53,140 53,858 5.0%1.4%
Running/Jogging 49,459 47,816 48,305 -2.3%1.0%
Yoga 28,745 33,636 34,249 19.1%1.8%
Stationary Cycling (Recumbent/Upright)36,668 32,102 32,628 -11.0%1.6%
Weight/Resistant Machines 36,372 30,010 29,426 -19.1%-1.9%
Free Weights (Barbells) 27,834 28,678 29,333 5.4%2.3%
Elliptical Motion/Cross-Trainer 33,238 27,051 27,062 -18.6%0.0%
Dance, Step, & Choreographed Exercise 22,391 25,163 26,241 17.2%4.3%
Bodyweight Exercise 24,183 22,034 22,578 -6.6%2.5%
High Impact/Intensity Training 21,611 21,821 21,801 0.9%-0.1%
Trail Running 10,010 13,253 14,885 48.7%12.3%
Rowing Machine 12,096 11,893 12,775 5.6%7.4%
Stair Climbing Machine 15,025 11,677 12,605 -16.1%7.9%
Pilates Training 9,084 10,311 11,862 30.6%15.0%
Cross-Training Style Workout 13,338 9,248 9,404 -29.5%1.7%
Boxing/MMA for Fitness 7,650 9,787 8,378 9.5%-14.4%
Martial Arts 5,821 6,355 6,610 13.6%4.0%
Stationary Cycling (Group)9,434 6,268 6,227 -34.0%-0.7%
Cardio Kickboxing 6,838 5,531 5,524 -19.2%-0.1%
Boot Camp Style Cross-Training 6,695 5,192 5,434 -18.8%4.7%
Barre 3,532 3,803 4,294 21.6%12.9%
Tai Chi 3,761 3,394 3,948 5.0%16.3%
Triathlon (Traditional/Road)2,168 1,780 1,738 -19.8%-2.4%
Triathlon (Non-Traditional/Off Road)1,589 1,350 1,363 -14.2%1.0%
National Participatory Trends - General Fitness
Activity % Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)Participation Growth/Decline:Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Participation Levels
Page 61 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
31
3.1.5 NATIONAL TRENDS IN OUTDOOR/ADVENTURE RECREATION
PARTICIPATION LEVELS
Results from the SFIA report demonstrate rapid growth in participation regarding outdoor/adventure
recreation activities. Much like general fitness activities, these activities encourage an active lifestyle,
can be performed individually, and are not as limited by time constraints. In 2023, the most popular
activities, in terms of total participants include day hiking (61.4 million), freshwater fishing (42.6
million), road bicycling (42.2 million), camping (38.6 million), and wildlife viewing (21.1 million).
FIVE-YEAR TREND
From 2018-2023, camping (40.7%), birdwatching (33.0%), skateboarding (37.3%), BMX bicycling (29.7%),
and day hiking (28.4%) has undergone large increases in participation. The five-year trend also shows
that only two activities declined in participation, adventure racing (-18.4) and backpacking overnight (-
5.2%).
ONE-YEAR TREND
The one-year trend shows most activities growing in participation from the previous year. The most rapid
growth being indoor climbing (10.0%), BMX bicycling (6.7%), fly fishing (5.8%), and adventure racing
(5.5%). Over the last year, the only activities that underwent decreases in participation were road
bicycling (-3.0), overnight backpacking (-2.2%), RV camping (-2.0%), and skateboarding (-1.1%).
CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN OUTDOOR / ADVENTURE RECREATION
Although most outdoor activities have experienced participation growth in the last five years. It should
be noted that all outdoor activities participation, besides adventure racing, consist primarily of casual
users. Please see Appendix A for the full core vs. casual participation breakdown.
Page 62 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
32
2018 2022 2023 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Hiking (Day) 47,860 59,578 61,444 28.4%3.1%
Fishing (Freshwater)38,998 41,821 42,605 9.2%1.9%
Bicycling (Road)39,041 43,554 42,243 8.2%-3.0%
Camping 27,416 37,431 38,572 40.7%3.0%
Wildlife Viewing (>1/4 mile of Vehicle/Home)20,556 20,615 21,118 2.7%2.4%
Camping (Recreational Vehicle)15,980 16,840 16,497 3.2%-2.0%
Birdwatching (>1/4 mile of Vehicle/Home)12,344 15,818 16,423 33.0%3.8%
Fishing (Saltwater)12,830 14,344 15,039 17.2%4.8%
Backpacking Overnight 10,540 10,217 9,994 -5.2%-2.2%
Bicycling (Mountain)8,690 8,916 9,289 6.9%4.2%
Skateboarding 6,500 9,019 8,923 37.3%-1.1%
Fishing (Fly)6,939 7,631 8,077 16.4%5.8%
Archery 7,654 7,428 7,662 0.1%3.2%
Climbing (Indoor)5,112 5,778 6,356 24.3%10.0%
Roller Skating, In-Line 5,040 5,173 5,201 3.2%0.5%
Bicycling (BMX) 3,439 4,181 4,462 29.7%6.7%
Climbing (Traditional/Ice/Mountaineering)2,541 2,452 2,569 1.1%4.8%
Climbing (Sport/Boulder)2,184 2,452 2,544 16.5%3.8%
Adventure Racing 2,215 1,714 1,808 -18.4%5.5%
National Participatory Trends - Outdoor / Adventure Recreation
% Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Participation LevelsActivity
Page 63 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
33
3.1.6 NATIONAL TRENDS IN AQUATICS
PARTICIPATION LEVELS
Swimming is deemed a lifetime activity, which is why it continues to have such strong participation. In
2023, fitness swimming remained the overall leader in participation (28.2 million) amongst aquatic
activities.
FIVE-YEAR TREND
Assessing the five-year trend, all three aquatic activities saw moderate increases in participation.
ONE-YEAR TREND
In 2023, all aquatic activities saw moderate increases in participation which can be asserted to facilities
and programs returning to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels. Swimming on a team (14.6%) saw the highest
percentage increase in participation.
CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN AQUATICS
All activities in aquatic trends have undergone an increase in casual participation (1-49 times per year)
over the last five years. Please see Appendix A for full the core vs. casual participation breakdown.
2018 2022 2023 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Swimming (Fitness)27,575 26,272 28,173 2.2%7.2%
Aquatic Exercise 10,518 10,676 11,307 7.5%5.9%
Swimming on a Team 3,045 2,904 3,327 9.3%14.6%
National Participatory Trends - Aquatics
Activity % Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
Participation Levels
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Page 64 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
34
3.1.7 NATIONAL TRENDS IN WATER SPORTS / ACTIVITIES
PARTICIPATION LEVEL
The most popular water sports / activities based on total participants in 2023 were recreational kayaking
(14.7 million), canoeing (10.0 million), and snorkeling (7.5 million). It should be noted that water activity
participation tends to vary based on regional, seasonal, and environmental factors. A region with more
water access and a warmer climate is more likely to have a higher participation rate in water activities
than a region that has a long winter season or limited water access. Therefore, when assessing trends in
water sports and activities, it is important to understand that fluctuations may be the result of
environmental barriers which can influence water activity participation.
FIVE-YEAR TREND
Over the last five years, surfing (38.9%), recreational kayaking (33.7%), stand-up paddling (19.6%) and
rafting (19.0%) were the fastest growing water activities. From 2018-2023, activities declining in
participation were water boardsailing/windsurfing (-7.8%), water skiing (-6.8%), snorkeling (-4.2%) and
sea/touring kayaking (-0.2%).
ONE-YEAR TREND
In 2023, zero activities saw a decrease in participation. Activities which experienced the largest increases
in participation include scuba diving (15.2%), sailing (12.9%), and rafting (12.7%).
CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN WATER SPORTS/ACTIVITIES
As mentioned previously, regional, seasonal, and environmental limiting factors may influence the
participation rate of water sport and activities. These factors may also explain why all water-based
activities have drastically more casual participants than core participants, since frequencies of activities
may be constrained by uncontrollable factors. Please see Appendix A for the full core vs. casual
participation breakdown.
Page 65 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
35
2018 2022 2023 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Kayaking (Recreational)11,017 13,561 14,726 33.7%8.6%
Canoeing 9,129 9,521 9,999 9.5%5.0%
Snorkeling 7,815 7,376 7,489 -4.2%1.5%
Jet Skiing 5,324 5,445 5,759 8.2%5.8%
Stand-Up Paddling 3,453 3,777 4,129 19.6%9.3%
Sailing 3,754 3,632 4,100 9.2%12.9%
Rafting 3,404 3,595 4,050 19.0%12.7%
Surfing 2,874 3,692 3,993 38.9%8.2%
Water Skiing 3,363 3,040 3,133 -6.8%3.1%
Scuba Diving 2,849 2,658 3,063 7.5%15.2%
Kayaking (White Water)2,562 2,726 2,995 16.9%9.9%
Wakeboarding 2,796 2,754 2,844 1.7%3.3%
Kayaking (Sea/Touring)2,805 2,642 2,800 -0.2%6.0%
Boardsailing/Windsurfing 1,556 1,391 1,434 -7.8%3.1%
National Participatory Trends - Water Sports / Activities
% Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Activity Participation Levels
Page 66 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
36
APPENDIX A – CORE VS. CASUAL PARTICIPATION TRENDS
GENERAL SPORTS
#%#%#%
Basketball 24,225 100%28,149 100%29,725 100%22.7%5.6%
Casual (1-12 times)9,335 39%13,000 46%14,405 48%54.3%10.8%
Core(13+ times)14,890 61%15,149 54%15,320 52%2.9%1.1%
Golf (9 or 18-Hole Course)24,240 100%25,566 100%26,565 100%9.6%3.9%
Tennis 17,841 100%23,595 100%23,835 100%33.6%1.0%
Golf (Entertainment Venue)9,279 100%15,540 100%18,464 100%99.0%18.8%
Baseball 15,877 100%15,478 100%16,655 100%4.9%7.6%
Casual (1-12 times)6,563 41%7,908 51%8,934 54%36.1%13.0%
Core (13+ times)9,314 59%7,570 49%7,722 46%-17.1%2.0%
Soccer (Outdoor)11,405 100%13,018 100%14,074 100%23.4%8.1%
Casual (1-25 times)6,430 56%7,666 59%8,706 59%35.4%13.6%
Core (26+ times)4,975 44%5,352 41%5,368 41%7.9%0.3%
Pickleball 3,301 100%8,949 100%13,582 100%311.5%51.8%
Casual (1-12 times)2,011 61%6,647 74%8,736 74%334.4%31.4%
Core(13+ times)1,290 39%2,302 26%4,846 26%275.7%110.5%
Football (Flag)6,572 100%7,104 100%7,266 100%10.6%2.3%
Casual (1-12 times)3,573 54%4,573 64%4,624 64%29.4%1.1%
Core(13+ times)2,999 46%2,531 36%2,642 36%-11.9%4.4%
Core Age 6 to 17 (13+ times)1,578 24%1,552 22%1,661 22%5.3%7.0%
Volleyball (Court)6,317 100%6,092 100%6,905 100%9.3%13.3%
Casual (1-12 times)2,867 45%2,798 46%3,481 50%21.4%24.4%
Core(13+ times)3,450 55%3,293 54%3,425 50%-0.7%4.0%
Badminton 6,337 100%6,490 100%6,513 100%2.8%0.4%
Casual (1-12 times)4,555 72%4,636 71%4,743 73%4.1%2.3%
Core(13+ times)1,782 28%1,855 29%1,771 27%-0.6%-4.5%
Softball (Slow Pitch)7,386 100%6,036 100%6,356 100%-13.9%5.3%
Casual (1-12 times)3,281 44%2,666 44%2,939 46%-10.4%10.2%
Core(13+ times)4,105 56%3,370 56%3,417 54%-16.8%1.4%
Soccer (Indoor)5,233 100%5,495 100%5,909 100%12.9%7.5%
Casual (1-12 times)2,452 47%3,144 57%3,411 57%39.1%8.5%
Core(13+ times)2,782 53%2,351 43%2,498 43%-10.2%6.3%
Football (Tackle)5,157 100%5,436 100%5,618 100%8.9%3.3%
Casual (1-25 times)2,258 44%3,120 57%3,278 58%45.2%5.1%
Core(26+ times)2,898 56%2,316 43%2,340 42%-19.3%1.0%
Core Age 6 to 17 (26+ times)2,353 46%2,088 38%2,130 38%-9.5%2.0%
Football (Touch)5,517 100%4,843 100%4,949 100%-10.3%2.2%
Casual (1-12 times)3,313 60%3,201 66%3,301 67%-0.4%3.1%
Core(13+ times)2,204 40%1,642 34%1,648 33%-25.2%0.4%
Gymnastics 4,770 100%4,569 100%4,758 100%-0.3%4.1%
Casual (1-49 times)3,047 64%3,095 68%3,315 70%8.8%7.1%
Core(50+ times)1,723 36%1,473 32%1,443 30%-16.3%-2.0%
Volleyball (Sand/Beach)4,770 100%4,128 100%3,917 100%-17.9%-5.1%
Casual (1-12 times)3,261 68%2,977 72%2,769 71%-15.1%-7.0%
Core(13+ times)1,509 32%1,152 28%1,148 29%-23.9%-0.3%
Track and Field 4,143 100%3,690 100%3,905 100%-5.7%5.8%
Casual (1-25 times)2,071 50%1,896 51%2,093 54%1.1%10.4%
Core(26+ times)2,072 50%1,794 49%1,811 46%-12.6%0.9%
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
Moderate Amount of Participants
(56-74%)
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
National Core vs Casual Participatory Trends - General Sports
% Change
5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend202220182023
Participation Levels
Activity
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Evenly Divided between Core and
Casual Participants (45-55%)Core vs Casual Distribution:Majority Amount of Participants
(75% or greater)
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
Page 67 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
37
GENERAL SPORTS (CONTINUED)
#%#%#%
Cheerleading 3,841 100%3,507 100%3,797 100%-1.1%8.3%
Casual (1-25 times)2,039 53%2,092 60%2,360 62%15.7%12.8%
Core(26+ times)1,802 47%1,415 40%1,438 38%-20.2%1.6%
Racquetball 3,480 100%3,521 100%3,550 100%2.0%0.8%
Casual (1-12 times)2,407 69%2,583 73%2,694 76%11.9%4.3%
Core(13+ times)1,073 31%938 27%855 24%-20.3%-8.8%
Ice Hockey 2,447 100%2,278 100%2,496 100%2.0%9.6%
Casual (1-12 times)1,105 45%1,209 53%1,458 58%31.9%20.6%
Core(13+ times)1,342 55%1,068 47%1,038 42%-22.7%-2.8%
Softball (Fast Pitch)2,303 100%2,146 100%2,323 100%0.9%8.2%
Casual (1-25 times)1,084 47%1,002 47%1,123 48%3.6%12.1%
Core(26+ times)1,219 53%1,144 53%1,201 52%-1.5%5.0%
Wrestling 1,908 100%2,036 100%2,121 100%11.2%4.2%
Casual (1-25 times)1,160 61%1,452 71%1,589 75%37.0%9.4%
Core(26+ times)748 39%585 29%532 25%-28.9%-9.1%
Ultimate Frisbee 2,710 100%2,142 100%2,086 100%-23.0%-2.6%
Casual (1-12 times)1,852 68%1,438 67%1,523 67%-17.8%5.9%
Core(13+ times)858 32%703 33%563 33%-34.4%-19.9%
Lacrosse 2,098 100%1,875 100%1,979 100%-5.7%5.5%
Casual (1-12 times)1,036 49%999 53%1,129 53%9.0%13.0%
Core(13+ times)1,061 51%876 47%850 47%-19.9%-3.0%
Squash 1,285 100%1,228 100%1,315 100%2.3%7.1%
Casual (1-7 times)796 62%816 66%927 70%16.5%13.6%
Core(8+ times)489 38%413 34%387 29%-20.9%-6.3%
Roller Hockey 1,734 100%1,368 100%1,237 100%-28.7%-9.6%
Casual (1-12 times)1,296 75%1,065 78%938 76%-27.6%-11.9%
Core(13+ times)437 25%303 22%298 24%-31.8%-1.7%
Rugby 1,560 100%1,166 100%1,112 100%-28.7%-4.6%
Casual (1-7 times)998 64%758 65%729 66%-27.0%-3.8%
Core(8+ times)562 36%408 35%384 35%-31.7%-5.9%
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
Moderate Amount of Participants
(56-74%)
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
National Core vs Casual Participatory Trends - General Sports
% Change
5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend202220182023
Participation Levels
Activity
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Evenly Divided between Core and
Casual Participants (45-55%)Core vs Casual Distribution:Majority Amount of Participants
(75% or greater)
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
Page 68 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
38
GENERAL FITNESS
#%#%#%
Walking for Fitness 111,001 100%114,759 100%114,039 100%2.7%-0.6%
Casual (1-49 times)36,139 33%38,115 33%38,169 33%5.6%0.1%
Core(50+ times)74,862 67%76,644 67%75,871 67%1.3%-1.0%
Treadmill 53,737 100%53,589 100%54,829 100%2.0%2.3%
Casual (1-49 times)25,826 48%26,401 49%27,991 51%8.4%6.0%
Core(50+ times)27,911 52%27,189 51%26,837 49%-3.8%-1.3%
Free Weights (Dumbbells/Hand Weights)51,291 100%53,140 100%53,858 100%5.0%1.4%
Casual (1-49 times)18,702 36%22,428 42%23,238 43%24.3%3.6%
Core(50+ times)32,589 64%30,712 58%30,619 57%-6.0%-0.3%
Running/Jogging 49,459 100%47,816 100%48,305 100%-2.3%1.0%
Casual (1-49 times)24,399 49%23,776 50%24,175 50%-0.9%1.7%
Core(50+ times)25,061 51%24,040 50%24,129 50%-3.7%0.4%
Yoga 28,745 100%33,636 100%34,249 100%19.1%1.8%
Casual (1-49 times)17,553 61%20,409 61%20,654 60%17.7%1.2%
Core(50+ times)11,193 39%13,228 39%13,595 40%21.5%2.8%
Stationary Cycling (Recumbent/Upright)36,668 100%32,102 100%32,628 100%-11.0%1.6%
Casual (1-49 times)19,282 53%15,424 48%15,901 49%-17.5%3.1%
Core(50+ times)17,387 47%16,678 52%16,728 51%-3.8%0.3%
Weight/Resistant Machines 36,372 100%30,010 100%29,426 100%-19.1%-1.9%
Casual (1-49 times)14,893 41%12,387 41%11,361 39%-23.7%-8.3%
Core(50+ times)21,479 59%17,623 59%18,065 61%-15.9%2.5%
Free Weights (Barbells) 27,834 100%28,678 100%29,333 100%5.4%2.3%
Casual (1-49 times)11,355 41%13,576 47%14,174 48%24.8%4.4%
Core(50+ times)16,479 59%15,103 53%15,159 52%-8.0%0.4%
Elliptical Motion/Cross-Trainer 33,238 100%27,051 100%27,062 100%-18.6%0.0%
Casual (1-49 times)16,889 51%14,968 55%13,898 51%-17.7%-7.1%
Core(50+ times)16,349 49%12,083 45%13,164 49%-19.5%8.9%
Dance, Step, & Choreographed Exercise 22,391 100%25,163 100%26,241 100%17.2%4.3%
Casual (1-49 times)14,503 65%17,096 68%18,179 69%25.3%6.3%
Core(50+ times)7,888 35%8,067 32%8,063 31%2.2%0.0%
Bodyweight Exercise 24,183 100%22,034 100%22,578 100%-6.6%2.5%
Casual (1-49 times)9,674 40%9,514 43%10,486 46%8.4%10.2%
Core(50+ times)14,509 60%12,520 57%12,092 54%-16.7%-3.4%
High Impact/Intensity Training 21,611 100%21,821 100%21,801 100%0.9%-0.1%
Casual (1-49 times)11,828 55%12,593 58%12,559 58%6.2%-0.3%
Core(50+ times)9,783 45%9,228 42%9,242 42%-5.5%0.2%
Trail Running 10,010 100%13,253 100%14,885 100%48.7%12.3%
Casual (1-25 times)8,000 80%10,792 81%12,260 82%53.3%13.6%
Core(26+ times)2,009 20%2,461 19%2,625 18%30.7%6.7%
Rowing Machine 12,096 100%11,893 100%12,775 100%5.6%7.4%
Casual (1-49 times)7,744 64%7,875 66%8,473 66%9.4%7.6%
Core(50+ times)4,352 36%4,017 34%4,302 34%-1.1%7.1%
Stair Climbing Machine 15,025 100%11,677 100%12,605 100%-16.1%7.9%
Casual (1-49 times)9,643 64%7,569 65%8,075 64%-16.3%6.7%
Core(50+ times)5,382 36%4,108 35%4,530 36%-15.8%10.3%
Pilates Training 9,084 100%10,311 100%11,862 100%30.6%15.0%
Casual (1-49 times)5,845 64%7,377 72%8,805 74%50.6%19.4%
Core(50+ times)3,238 36%2,935 28%3,057 26%-5.6%4.2%
National Participatory Trends - General Fitness
% Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:
5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
2018
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Participation Levels
2022
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
2023
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Majority Amount of Participants
(75% or greater)
Activity
Core vs Casual Distribution:Evenly Divided between Core and
Casual Participants (45-55%)
Moderate Amount of Participants
(56-74%)
Page 69 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
39
GENERAL FITNESS (CONTINUED)
#%#%#%
Cross-Training Style Workout 13,338 100%9,248 100%9,404 100%-29.5%1.7%
Casual (1-49 times)6,594 49%4,281 46%4,391 47%-33.4%2.6%
Core(50+ times)6,744 51%4,968 54%5,013 53%-25.7%0.9%
Boxing/MMA for Fitness 7,650 100%9,787 100%8,378 100%9.5%-14.4%
Casual (1-12 times)4,176 55%6,191 63%5,003 60%19.8%-19.2%
Core(13+ times)3,473 45%3,596 37%3,375 40%-2.8%-6.1%
Martial Arts 5,821 100%6,355 100%6,610 100%13.6%4.0%
Casual (1-12 times)1,991 34%3,114 49%3,481 53%74.8%11.8%
Core(13+ times)3,830 66%3,241 51%3,130 47%-18.3%-3.4%
Stationary Cycling (Group)9,434 100%6,268 100%6,227 100%-34.0%-0.7%
Casual (1-49 times)6,097 65%3,925 63%3,783 61%-38.0%-3.6%
Core(50+ times)3,337 35%2,344 37%2,444 39%-26.8%4.3%
Cardio Kickboxing 6,838 100%5,531 100%5,524 100%-19.2%-0.1%
Casual (1-49 times)4,712 69%3,958 72%3,929 71%-16.6%-0.7%
Core(50+ times)2,126 31%1,573 28%1,596 29%-24.9%1.5%
Boot Camp Style Cross-Training 6,695 100%5,192 100%5,434 100%-18.8%4.7%
Casual (1-49 times)4,780 71%3,691 71%4,003 74%-16.3%8.5%
Core(50+ times)1,915 29%1,500 29%1,432 26%-25.2%-4.5%
Barre 3,532 100%3,803 100%4,294 100%21.6%12.9%
Casual (1-49 times)2,750 78%3,022 79%3,473 81%26.3%14.9%
Core(50+ times)782 22%781 21%821 19%5.0%5.1%
Tai Chi 3,761 100%3,394 100%3,948 100%5.0%16.3%
Casual (1-49 times)2,360 63%2,139 63%2,748 70%16.4%28.5%
Core(50+ times)1,400 37%1,255 37%1,200 30%-14.3%-4.4%
Triathlon (Traditional/Road)2,168 100%1,780 100%1,738 100%-19.8%-2.4%
Triathlon (Non-Traditional/Off Road)1,589 100%1,350 100%1,363 100%-14.2%1.0%
National Participatory Trends - General Fitness
% Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:
5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
2018
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Participation Levels
2022
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
2023
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Majority Amount of Participants
(75% or greater)
Activity
Core vs Casual Distribution:Evenly Divided between Core and
Casual Participants (45-55%)
Moderate Amount of Participants
(56-74%)
Page 70 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
40
OUTDOOR/ADVENTURE RECREATION
#%#%#%
Hiking (Day) 47,860 100%59,578 100%61,444 100%28.4%3.1%
Casual (1-7 times)37,238 78%44,154 74%45,336 74%21.7%2.7%
Core(8+ times)10,622 22%15,424 26%16,108 26%51.6%4.4%
Fishing (Freshwater)38,998 100%41,821 100%42,605 100%9.2%1.9%
Casual (1-7 times)21,099 54%23,430 56%23,964 56%13.6%2.3%
Core(8+ times)17,899 46%18,391 44%18,641 44%4.1%1.4%
Bicycling (Road)39,041 100%43,554 100%42,243 100%8.2%-3.0%
Casual (1-25 times)20,777 53%23,278 53%22,520 53%8.4%-3.3%
Core(26+ times)18,264 47%20,276 47%19,723 47%8.0%-2.7%
Camping 27,416 100%37,431 100%38,572 100%40.7%3.0%
Casual (1-7 times)20,611 75%28,459 76%29,060 75%41.0%2.1%
Core(8+ times)6,805 25%8,972 24%9,513 25%39.8%6.0%
Wildlife Viewing (>1/4 mile of Vehicle/Home)20,556 100%20,615 100%21,118 100%2.7%2.4%
Camping (Recreational Vehicle)15,980 100%16,840 100%16,497 100%3.2%-2.0%
Casual (1-7 times)9,103 57%10,286 61%9,801 59%7.7%-4.7%
Core(8+ times)6,877 43%6,553 39%6,695 41%-2.6%2.2%
Birdwatching (>1/4 mile of Vehicle/Home)12,344 100%15,818 100%16,423 100%33.0%3.8%
Fishing (Saltwater)12,830 100%14,344 100%15,039 100%17.2%4.8%
Casual (1-7 times)7,636 60%9,151 64%9,904 66%29.7%8.2%
Core(8+ times)5,194 40%5,192 36%5,135 34%-1.1%-1.1%
Backpacking Overnight 10,540 100%10,217 100%9,994 100%-5.2%-2.2%
Bicycling (Mountain)8,690 100%8,916 100%9,289 100%6.9%4.2%
Casual (1-12 times)4,294 49%4,896 55%5,434 58%26.5%11.0%
Core(13+ times)4,396 51%4,020 45%3,854 41%-12.3%-4.1%
Skateboarding 6,500 100%9,019 100%8,923 100%37.3%-1.1%
Casual (1-25 times)3,989 61%6,469 72%6,504 73%63.0%0.5%
Core(26+ times)2,511 39%2,559 28%2,418 27%-3.7%-5.5%
Fishing (Fly)6,939 100%7,631 100%8,077 100%16.4%5.8%
Casual (1-7 times)4,460 64%4,993 65%5,417 67%21.5%8.5%
Core(8+ times)2,479 36%2,638 35%2,659 33%7.3%0.8%
Archery 7,654 100%7,428 100%7,662 100%0.1%3.2%
Casual (1-25 times)6,514 85%6,202 83%6,483 85%-0.5%4.5%
Core(26+ times)1,140 15%1,227 17%1,179 15%3.4%-3.9%
Climbing (Indoor)5,112 100%5,778 100%6,356 100%24.3%10.0%
Roller Skating, In-Line 5,040 100%5,173 100%5,201 100%3.2%0.5%
Casual (1-12 times)3,680 73%3,763 73%3,840 74%4.3%2.0%
Core(13+ times)1,359 27%1,410 27%1,361 26%0.1%-3.5%
Bicycling (BMX) 3,439 100%4,181 100%4,462 100%29.7%6.7%
Casual (1-12 times)2,052 60%2,792 67%3,130 70%52.5%12.1%
Core(13+ times)1,387 40%1,389 33%1,332 30%-4.0%-4.1%
Climbing (Traditional/Ice/Mountaineering)2,541 100%2,452 100%2,568 100%1.1%4.7%
Climbing (Sport/Boulder)2,184 100%2,452 100%2,544 100%16.5%3.8%
Adventure Racing 2,215 100%1,714 100%1,808 100%-18.4%5.5%
Casual (1 time)581 26%236 14%405 22%-30.3%71.6%
Core(2+ times)1,634 74%1,478 86%1,403 78%-14.1%-5.1%
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Participation Levels
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
2023
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Majority Amount of Participants
(75% or greater)
Moderate Amount of Participants
(56-74%)
Participation Growth/Decline:
Core vs Casual Distribution:Evenly Divided between Core and Casual
Participants (45-55%)
National Participatory Trends - Outdoor / Adventure Recreation
Activity % Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
2018 2022 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Page 71 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
41
AQUATICS
#%#%#%
Swimming (Fitness)27,575 100%26,272 100%28,173 100%2.2%7.2%
Casual (1-49 times)18,728 68%18,827 72%20,620 73%10.1%9.5%
Core(50+ times)8,847 32%7,445 28%7,553 27%-14.6%1.5%
Aquatic Exercise 10,518 100%10,676 100%11,307 100%7.5%5.9%
Casual (1-49 times)7,391 70%8,626 81%9,298 82%25.8%7.8%
Core(50+ times)3,127 30%2,050 19%2,009 18%-35.8%-2.0%
Swimming on a Team 3,045 100%2,904 100%3,327 100%9.3%14.6%
Casual (1-49 times)1,678 55%1,916 66%2,280 69%35.9%19.0%
Core(50+ times)1,367 45%988 34%1,047 31%-23.4%6.0%
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
2022
Moderate Amount of Participants (56-74%)
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
2023
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Majority Amount of Participants (75% or
greater)Core vs Casual Distribution:Evenly Divided between Core and Casual
Participants (45-55%)
National Participatory Trends - Aquatics
Activity % Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:
2018 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Participation Levels
Page 72 of 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
42
WATER SPORTS/ACTIVITIES
#%#%#%
Kayaking (Recreational)11,017 100%13,561 100%14,726 100%33.7%8.6%
Canoeing 9,129 100%9,521 100%9,999 100%9.5%5.0%
Snorkeling 7,815 100%7,376 100%7,489 100%-4.2%1.5%
Casual (1-7 times)6,321 81%6,005 81%6,086 81%-3.7%1.3%
Core(8+ times)1,493 19%1,371 19%1,403 19%-6.0%2.3%
Jet Skiing 5,324 100%5,445 100%5,759 100%8.2%5.8%
Casual (1-7 times)3,900 73%4,151 76%4,490 78%15.1%8.2%
Core(8+ times)1,425 27%1,294 24%1,269 22%-10.9%-1.9%
Stand-Up Paddling 3,453 100%3,777 100%4,129 100%19.6%9.3%
Sailing 3,754 100%3,632 100%4,100 100%9.2%12.9%
Casual (1-7 times)2,596 69%2,633 72%3,117 76%20.1%18.4%
Core(8+ times)1,159 31%999 28%984 24%-15.1%-1.5%
Rafting 3,404 100%3,595 100%4,050 100%19.0%12.7%
Surfing 2,874 100%3,692 100%3,993 100%38.9%8.2%
Casual (1-7 times)1,971 69%2,444 66%2,655 66%34.7%8.6%
Core(8+ times)904 31%1,248 34%1,338 34%48.0%7.2%
Water Skiing 3,363 100%3,040 100%3,133 100%-6.8%3.1%
Casual (1-7 times)2,499 74%2,185 72%2,302 73%-7.9%5.4%
Core(8+ times)863 26%855 28%832 27%-3.6%-2.7%
Scuba Diving 2,849 100%2,658 100%3,063 100%7.5%15.2%
Casual (1-7 times)2,133 75%2,012 76%2,374 78%11.3%18.0%
Core(8+ times)716 25%646 24%689 22%-3.8%6.7%
Kayaking (White Water)2,562 100%2,726 100%2,995 100%16.9%9.9%
Wakeboarding 2,796 100%2,754 100%2,844 100%1.7%3.3%
Casual (1-7 times)1,900 68%2,075 75%2,119 75%11.5%2.1%
Core(8+ times)896 32%679 25%725 25%-19.1%6.8%
Kayaking (Sea/Touring)2,805 100%2,642 100%2,800 100%-0.2%6.0%
Boardsailing/Windsurfing 1,556 100%1,391 100%1,434 100%-7.8%3.1%
Casual (1-7 times)1,245 80%1,103 79%1,162 81%-6.7%5.3%
Core(8+ times)310 20%288 21%272 19%-12.3%-5.6%
Participation Levels
2022
Moderate Amount of Participants (56-74%)
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
2023
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Majority Amount of Participants (75% or
greater)
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Core vs Casual Distribution:Evenly Divided between Core and Casual
Participants (45-55%)
National Participatory Trends - Water Sports / Activities
% Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:
Activity 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend2018
Page 73 of 108
2.c
City Council Work Session Memo
MEETING DATE: July 16, 2024
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community
Development Manager
ACTION REQUEST:
Information only. The City Council is invited to discuss the proposed updates and provide comments.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council will hear an update from Jennifer Haskamp of Swanson Haskamp Consulting
regarding the current process of updating the City Code to incorporate a new Title 15: Environmental
Standards. The update is a part of the City's ongoing initiative to comprehensively update the Zoning
Code to be consistent with the adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Environmental Title DRAFT 07-11-2024
Page 74 of 108
DRAFT 07.11.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 1
DRAFT 07.11.2024 1
CHAPTER 1: TITLE, PURPOSE, AND CONFORMANCE
ARTICLE A. TITLE, PURPOSE AND INTERPRETATION
Title and Application
This Title shall be known, cited and referred to as the MENDOTA HEIGHTS ENVIRONTMENTAL STANDARDS or except
as referred to hereinafter, where it shall be known as this “Environmental Standards Ordinance”.
15-1A-1 Intent and Purpose
A. This Environmental Standards Ordinance is adopted for the purposes of:
1. Implementing the Natural Resources Plan incorporated as part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
2. Protect the health and safety of residents.
3. Protect water quality and minimize stormwater runoff.
4. Prevent erosion and flooding.
5. Encourage renewable energy systems that have a positive impact in energy conservation and natural
resources, with limited adverse impact on the community.
6. Maintain slope stability and existing drainage patterns.
15-1A-2 Application and Interpretation
A. Minimum Requirements. In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this Environmental Standards
Ordinance shall be held to be the minimum requirements for the promotion of public health and safety.
B. This article shall apply to any person, developer or use that would alter or impact a natural resource which shall
be identified by, or included within, an:
1. Officially adopted map by the City, Minnesota DNR, FEMA which may include, but is not limited to the
MRCCA or Floodplain Overlay.
2. Wetland Delineation and any Mitigation or Replacement.
3. Identified public water as established by the MN Department of Natural Resources.
4. Significant or Heritage Tree Removal.
5. Forest Alteration
15-1A-3 Separability
It is hereby declared to be the intention that the provisions of this Environmental Standards Ordinance are separable in
accordance with the following:
A. If any court of competent jurisdiction shall judge any provisions of this Environmental Standards Ordinance to be
invalid, such judgement shall not affect any other provision of this Environmental Standards Ordinance not
specifically included in said judgment.
Page 75 of 108
DRAFT 07.11.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 1
DRAFT 07.11.2024 2
B. If any court or competent jurisdiction shall judge the application of any provision of this Environmental Standards
Ordinance to a particular property, building or structure, such judgement shall not affect any other property,
buildings or structures.
Page 76 of 108
DRAFT 07.11.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 2
DRAFT 07.11.2024 1
CHAPTER 2: ADMINISTRATION, ROLES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES
15-2-1 Administration and Enforcement Officials
This Environmental Standards Ordinance shall be administered and enforced by the Public Works Director, who may
designate the Zoning Administrator, Natural Resources Coordinator or assigns as referenced throughout this Chapter.
The following roles and responsibilities of the Public Works Director, or as may be assigned, are established:
A. Wetland Delineation Certification in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act.
B. Review and approval of any administrative permit for compliance with the requirements of this Environmental
Standards Ordinance.
C. All applications for any permit required by this Environmental Standards Ordinance are received, dated, and filed.
D. Coordinate the review process required by this Environmental Standards Ordinance which may include review and
recommendation by the Natural Resources Commission.
E. Issuance of any Administrative Permit or WCA Permit for boundary determination, exemption, and de minimis
permit decisions.
F. Permanent and current records of this Environmental Standards Ordinance are maintained, including, but not
limited to all maps, amendments, conservation easements, permit approvals, and required official actions.
G. The Public Works Director shall institute in the name of the City appropriate actions or proceedings against a
violator of this Environmental Standards Ordinance as provided by law.
15-2-2 Natural Resources Commission
The Natural Resources Commission ("NRC”) is established for the City on [XXXX, XXX]. The following is established:
A. Meetings, Procedures, Records.
1. The NRC shall be appointed by the City Council and shall serve as a recommending body to the city council
and planning commission.
2. The NRC shall publish a monthly meeting schedule on an annual basis. The NRC shall meet to conduct their
official business.
3. The NRC shall adopt rules for the transaction of business and shall keep a record of its recommendations,
transactions and findings, which record shall be maintained as a public record.
4. The NRC shall submit to the city council a true and correct copy of all its minutes, recommendations and
other reports.
B. Powers and Duties.
1. The NRC is a recommending body and shall not make any final determination or decisions, unless such
decision making is expressly granted by the City Code or directed by the City Council.
2. The NRC shall be responsible for the review, amendment or study of this Environmental Standards
Ordinance when directed by the City Council. Authorization must be granted by the City Council.
Page 77 of 108
DRAFT 07.11.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 2
DRAFT 07.11.2024 2
3. The NRC shall review and provide recommendations to the planning commission or City Council as required
by this Environmental Standards Ordinance or as required by Title 12: Zoning of the City Code.
4. The NRC shall provide recommendations on the following common applications:
a. Deviations or variances from the Landscape Standards in Section [12-4A-5].
b. Deviations or variances from the requirements established in Chapter 3: Urban Forest and Significant
Trees of this Environmental Standards Ordinance.
c. Deviations or variances from the Buffer requirements established in Section [12-4A-4.1].
d. Deviations or variances from the requirements established in Section [12-6A-12] MRCCA Site Plan
Requirements.
e. As may be requested from the planning commission or City Council.
15-2-3 Appeal of Public Works Director.
A. Board of Appeals. The City Council is designated as the Board of Appeals for any appeal of a decision made by
either the Public Works Director or it is assigned.
B. Time for Filing Appeal. An appeal to a decision made by the Public Works Director must be filed within 90 days.
The Applicant, Owner, other interested person, or officer of the City affected by the decision may appeal to the
City Council by filing a written notice stating the action and the specific grounds upon which the appeal is made.
C. City Council Action.
1. The City Council may conduct a hearing as it determines is necessary and will determine what notice, if any,
shall be given of such hearing.
2. If the City Council determines a hearing is necessary, the City Council shall set a date no earlier than seven
(7) days or more than 30 days after the determination is made.
3. Notice of the hearing before the City Council shall be mailed to all appellants.
4. The City Council shall take action to either uphold the decision of the Public Works Director or may overturn
in full or with certain conditions the initial decision.
Page 78 of 108
DRAFT 07.11.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 3
DRAFT 07.11.2024 1
CHAPTER 3: URBAN FOREST, SIGNIFICANT TREES AND TREE REPLACEMENT
15-3-1 In General.
Reserved.
15-3-2 Urban Forest, Significant Trees and Tree Replacement
A. Intent and Purpose. The city has determined that is important to preserve, protect and replace significant trees,
woodland areas and tree stands that support the urban tree canopy. The city intends to adopt a tailored ordinance
after it has studies specific characteristics of the city’s urban forest and tree canopy in coordination with other
chapters contained in this Environmental Standards ordinances.
B. Applicability. Any applicant, owner or developer shall be subject to the rules for vegetative removal, replacement
and landscaping as stated within this Environmental Standards ordinance, and Title 12: Zoning Chapter 4 and
Chapter 6.
C. In General. Where any required landscape plan, vegetation removal or replacement is required, a minimum of 50
percent of such replacement trees must be species native to Minnesota or recommended by the Department of
Natural Resources or University of Minnesota Extension.
Page 79 of 108
DRAFT 07.11.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 4
DRAFT 07.11.2024 1
CHAPTER 4: WETLAND CONSERVATION
15-4-1 Purpose
The purpose of this chapter to provide for the protection, preservation, maintenance, and use of Mendota Heights
wetlands and water resource related areas, to maintain the natural drainage system, to minimize the disturbance which
may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the
disturbance of the natural environment, or from excessive sedimentation; to provide for protection of probable fresh water
supplies; and to ensure safety from floods. (1981 Code 402 § 1)
15-4-2 Definitions
A. Applicant means the individual or entity submitting a land use application to the city.
B. Buffer setback means the minimum horizontal distance between a structure and the nearest edge of a structure
and the delineated wetland boundary.
C. Native vegetation means plant species indigenous to or naturalized to the Dakota County Region of the State of
Minnesota or plant species classified by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources as native in the
Minnesota Native Plant Database. Native Vegetation does not include Weeds as defined by this Section.
D. Non-native vegetation means species not indigenous to or naturalized to the Dakota County Region of the State of
Minnesota by the Department of Natural Resources.
E. WCA means the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, Minnesota Statutes Sections 103G222-2373. The
City of Mendota Heights shall be designated as the Local Government Unit for the purposes of the WCA.
F. Weeds means noxious weeds as defined and designated pursuant to the “Minnesota Noxious Weed Law,”
Minnesota Statutes Section 18.76 through 18.88, as amended from time to time.
G. Wetland means the definition as established by the Wetland Conservation Act and the Army Corps of Engineers,
which may be revised or amended from time to time. For the purposes of regulation under this chapter, the term
wetlands does not include public waters wetlands as defined in subdivision 15a.(c) Notwithstanding parach (a),
wetlands includes deepwater aquatic habitats that are not public waters or public waters wetlands. For purposes
of this paragraph “deepwater aquatic habitats” has the meaning given in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, United States Army Corps of Engineers (January 1987).
H. Wetland map means the city’s wetland map derived or compiled from available public data from Dakota County or
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the National Wetland Inventory (NWI).
15-4-3 Application of Provisions
A. This Chapter incorporates by reference the WCA and any future amendments to the WCA. In the event that any
requirements of this section are inconsistent with the WCA, the stricter provisions that provides the most
protection for Wetlands shall apply.
B. Any structure erected following the effective date of this Chapter shall be setback the greater of the following
distances:
1. The required setbacks from a Wetland are established in Section [Table 12-4A-4.1].
2. A minimum of 25 feet from the edge of the delineated Wetland, as approved by the City.
Page 80 of 108
DRAFT 07.11.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 4
DRAFT 07.11.2024 2
C. Applicability. The Buffer Setback requirements of this Chapter and Chapter 12 shall apply to all property
containing Wetlands in the following circumstances:
1. When any new development activity occurs on the property. For purposes of this chapter, “new development
activity” means:
a. Any subdivision, as defined by state law;
b. Any site plan review required by Mendota Heights City Code section [12-5B-4].
c. Any planned unit development.
d. Construction of a principal building on a vacant lot.
e. Redevelopment of a property where all the following conditions are met:
(1.) Results in the removal of more than 50 percent of the market value of the principal structure.
(2.) The building’s removal is followed by reconstruction (except as exempted by subsection 3 of this
section), and
(3.) Results in a net increase in the square footage of impervious surfaces that drain to a Wetland, or
results in the relocation of impervious surfaces closer to a Wetland, or results in changes to
drainage patterns (slopes, meander patterns, etc.) that the Public Works Director determines will
increase the velocity or rate of runoff to a Wetland.
f. Any project that involves the draining, filling, excavating, or altering of a Wetland except if:
(1.) Less than 50 cubic yards or 5,000 square feet of disturbance is completed, and
(2.) The city determines that the project improves drainage infrastructure and/or the function or value of
the Wetland.
g. Any other land use application which proposes more than 50 cubic yards or 5,000 square feet of
grading disturbance, which requires city review, and which is not specified above, including, but not
limited to, conditional use permits, variances, or
h. When the proposed activity or grading exceeds 50 cubic yards or the construction activity involves the
disturbance of more than 3,000 square feet.
i. When the proposed activity increases the amount of impervious surface within 50-feet of the Wetland by
more than 1,000 square feet.
D. Exemptions. The Buffer Setback requirements of this section shall not apply to the following:
1. Any plat which has received preliminary approval or any other land use application that has received final
approval by the city council prior to the effective date of this Ordinance.
2. Reconstruction of a legal non-conforming structure that was destroyed by fire or other peril that is permitted
to be reconstructed by city code and state statute.
3. Any previously buildable parcel existing prior to the effective date of this section which is rendered
unbuildable under city code because of the implementation of the Buffer Setback as required by this
Chapter.
Page 81 of 108
DRAFT 07.11.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 4
DRAFT 07.11.2024 3
15-4-4 Application for Wetland Delineation Report or Wetland Boundary Determination.
A. Any project or land alteration activity that meets the criteria established in Section [15-4-3] the Applicant must
submit the following materials for review and approval by the city’s designated representative that holds the
wetland delineator certification. When a project requires another Land Use Application such as a plat, conditional
use permit or variance, then the following materials may be submitted concurrently with the Land Use Application.
1. A grading plan (if grading is proposed) including the area and volume of land disturbance.
2. A Wetland delineation report. It is the responsibility of the Applicant to determine whether Wetlands exist on
the property by completing a Wetland delineation and submitting a Wetland delineation report. The following
shall apply to the Wetland delineation report:
a. The report shall delineate and document the boundaries of any Wetlands on the property in accordance
with the WCA requirements.
b. The Wetland delineation report must be performed by a certified Wetland delineator. The Wetland
delineation must be performed using the most current US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual and be acceptable to the Natural Resources Coordinator, or their assigns.
c. The Wetland delineation must be completed during the established growing season, or the delineation
may be deemed incomplete.
3. Certificate of Survey. A certificate of survey or to-scale site plan describing the proposed activity and
showing the Wetland and Buffer Setback boundaries.
4. Landscape Plan. A landscape plan for the Buffer Setback area, if any disturbance is proposed.
5. A plan identifying the measures to protect wetlands during the construction process. Measures may include
silt fencing, snow fencing, signage, or other measures agreed to by the city.
B. Exemptions: An Applicant may request an exemption for the requirements to prepare a full Wetland delineation
report if:
1. The Public Works Director and the Natural Resources Coordinator determine that the project or land
disturbance activity will not adversely affect any potential Wetland on the project site.
C. Variance. A Variance from the requirements of this Chapter may be granted by the city council in accordance with
the variance provisions established in city code Title 12: Zoning, so long as the variance does not violate the WCA
or any other applicable state statutes or rules.
15-4-5 Alterations within Wetland and Buffer Setbacks
A. The area within Wetlands and the Buffer Setbacks shall be preserved predominantly in their natural states, except
those exemptions stated within this Chapter.
B. Any alterations within the Wetland and Buffer Setbacks, except the permitted activities stated below, are
prohibited, including but not limited to the installation or placement of structures and impervious surfaces, the
operation of construction machinery, the destruction or removal of trees, shrubs or other vegetation, the
introduction of any Non-native Vegetation, any mowing, dredging or excavation activities and the placement or
storage of any fill material, manure, or trash and the application of fertilizer. The following activities are permitted:
1. Activities described within a Buffer Setback area landscaping or mitigation plan, or a WCA application that
was approved by the City.
Page 82 of 108
DRAFT 07.11.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 4
DRAFT 07.11.2024 4
2. The removal of Non-native Vegetation
3. Necessary alterations related to the establishment and maintenance of the native vegetation within the
Buffer Setback area.
4. Proposed alterations which are determined by the city to be consistent with the vegetative standards and
purposes of this Chapter.
5. The removal of dead or diseased trees, removal of any root structure for potential impacts is subject to WCA
rules.
6. The installation of utility poles, underground utility lines, light poles, traffic regulator signs and signals,
mailboxes, and other equipment that is determined by the City to provide an essential public service.
7. The installation of public and private flood control structures, ponding and drainage facilities and associated
accessory appurtenances as approved by the City,
8. The installation of environmental monitoring or control facilities, including those related to water quality and
wildlife regulation,
9. The mowing of or installation of permeable pathways not to exceed four feet in width to allow reasonable
access to the Wetland.
10. The installation of boardwalks, docks, or other structures to allow reasonable access to the Wetland. These
structures shall not exceed four feet in width or have poses greater than eight inches in diameter. If footings
are proposed, the Public Works Director shall make a determination as to whether a permit is required.
11. The installation of public trails, if required. The temporary and permanent trail disturbance shall not exceed
eight feet in width and may not exceed the de minimis exemption.
C. Any WCA required wetland banking or replacement plan shall be reviewed and approved by the city council.
15-4-6 Vegetation Performance Standards.
Buffer Setback areas shall meet the following vegetation performance standards:
A. Where acceptable natural vegetation exists in a Buffer Setback area, disturbance is allowed only with approval
from the city. A Buffer Setback area will be considered to have acceptable natural vegetation if it:
1. Is composed of less than 25 percent weeds;
2. Is covered by Native Vegetation with less than five percent exposed soil. Exposed soils may exceed 5% in
cases where native trees and shrub canopy closure of 75% or greater exists; and
3. Does not contain maintained turf grass.
B. Where a Buffer Setback area or a portion thereof is not considered acceptable or is to be disturbed, a Buffer
landscape plan must be submitted to the Natural Resource Coordinator for approval. At a minimum the
landscaping plan shall include the following information:
1. A plan sheet that shows the location of the Buffer Zone area. The plan must identify the buffer areas that are
acceptable and the areas that have been identified as unacceptable or disturbed. The city will require that all
acceptable buffer areas be protected with silt fence during construction to protect them from erosion and
disturbance.
Page 83 of 108
DRAFT 07.11.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 4
DRAFT 07.11.2024 5
2. The species, planting and seeding locations for the Buffer Zones for the unacceptable and/or disturbed
areas. The plan shall include a minimum of four species of native grasses and five species of native forbs
and a cover crop. The seed mix shall consist of at least 15 pounds of pure live seed (PLS) per acre and the
cover crop shall be at least 20 pounds per acre.
3. Detailed specifications that describe sequencing, scheduling, materials, installation of maintenance
execution for the seeding, planting or Weed removal.
C. In cases where a Buffer Setback landscaping plan is required, the city may require an approved form of a financial
guarantee.
15-4-7 Wetland and Buffer Setback Mitigation.
A. In cases where a Wetland or Buffer Setback alteration is approved by the city and mitigation is required, the
mitigation must result in equal or improved Wetland function and value. The following standards shall apply for any
Wetland or Buffer Setback mitigation:
1. Wetland mitigation must conform to the requirements of the WCA.
2. In cases where an approved WCA Application allows Wetland impacts, Buffer Setback areas shall be
required on the fill slope of the impact, but additional fill shall not be permitted to meet the Buffer Setback
requirements of this Chapter. Instead, expansion of the Buffer Setback area shall be required elsewhere
along the edge of the Wetland to meet the overall area of the required buffer.
3. The area of the Buffer Setback area required for Wetlands created is subject to an approved WCA Permit
Application and shall meet or exceed the area of required Buffer Setbacks by this Chapter and Section
[Table 12-4A-1.1] for the impacted Wetland.
4. Wetland and Buffer Setback area plantings that are completed for mitigation shall meet the vegetative
requirements of this Chapter.
5. Buffer Setback areas may be utilized for Wetland mitigation credits if they meet the requirements of the
WCA.
15-4-8 Fees
A. Fees: A base fee as set by resolution of the city council shall be paid by all applicants for review of a Wetland
Delineation Report.
B. Escrows: All applicants shall submit an escrow as determined by the city council to cover the staff and consultant
costs to review the Wetland Delineation Report and any associated mitigation plan.
15-4-9 Violation; Penalty
Any person failing to comply with the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction
thereof, shall be punishable as provided in section 1-4-1 of this code. (1981 Code 402 § 13; amd. 2003 Code)
Page 84 of 108
DRAFT 06.06.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 5
DRAFT 06.06.2024 1
CHAPTER 5: FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT
15-5-1 Statutory Authorization, Findings of Fact and Purpose
A. Statement Of Purpose: It is the purpose of this chapter to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare
and to minimize those losses in flood hazard areas by provisions contained herein.
B. Statutory Authorization: The legislature of the state of Minnesota has, in Minnesota statutes chapters 103F and
462 delegated the responsibility to local government units to adopt regulations designed to minimize flood losses.
Therefore, the city council of the city of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does ordain as follows.
C. Findings Of Fact:
1. Effects Of Flooding: The flood hazard areas of the city of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, are subject to
periodic inundation which results in potential loss of life, loss of property, health and safety hazards,
disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures or flood protection
and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and general
welfare.
2. Methods Used To Analyze Flood Hazards: This chapter is based upon a reasonable method of analyzing
flood hazards which is consistent with the standards established by the Minnesota department of natural
resources.
3. National Flood Insurance Program Compliance: This chapter is adopted to comply with the rules and
regulations of the national flood insurance program codified as 44 code of federal regulations parts 59-78, as
amended, so as to maintain the community's eligibility in the national flood insurance program. (Ord. 439,
11-1-2011)
15-5-2 General Provisions
A. Lands To Which Chapter Applies: This chapter shall apply to all lands within the jurisdiction of the city of Mendota
Heights shown on the official zoning map and/or the attachments thereto as being located within the boundaries of
the floodway and flood fringe districts.
B. Establishment Of Official Zoning Map: The official zoning map together with all materials attached thereto is
hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter. The attached material shall include the
"Flood Insurance Study, Dakota County, Minnesota And Incorporated Areas", flood insurance rate map panels
therein numbered 27037C0014E, 27037C0017E, 27037C0018E, 27037C0019E, 27037C0036E, 27037C0080E,
and 27037C0081E and the flood insurance rate map index (map number 27037CIND1A), all dated December 2,
2011, and prepared by the federal emergency management agency. The official zoning map shall be on file in the
office of the city clerk and the zoning administrator.
C. Interpretation:
1. In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this chapter shall be held to be minimum
requirements and shall be liberally construed in favor of the governing body and shall not be deemed a
limitation or repeal of any other powers granted by state statutes.
Page 85 of 108
DRAFT 06.06.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 5
DRAFT 06.06.2024 2
2. The boundaries of the zoning districts shall be determined by scaling distances on the official zoning map.
Where interpretation is needed as to the exact location of the boundaries of the district as shown on the
official zoning map, as for example where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and
actual field conditions and there is a formal appeal of the decision of the zoning administrator, the board of
adjustment shall make the necessary interpretation. All decisions will be based on elevations on the regional
(100-year) flood profile, the ground elevations that existed on the site at the time the community adopted its
initial floodplain ordinance or on the date of the first national flood insurance program map showing the area
within the 100-year floodplain if earlier, and other available technical data. Persons contesting the location of
the district boundaries shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case to the board of
adjustment and to submit technical evidence.
D. Abrogation And Greater Restrictions: It is not intended by this chapter to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing
easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this chapter imposes greater restrictions, the
provisions of this chapter shall prevail. All other ordinances inconsistent with this chapter are hereby repealed to
the extent of the inconsistency only.
E. Warning And Disclaimer Of Liability: This chapter does not imply that areas outside the floodplain districts or land
uses permitted within such districts will be free from flooding or flood damages. This chapter shall not create
liability on the part of the city of Mendota Heights or any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that
result from reliance on this chapter or any administrative decision lawfully made thereunder.
F. Severability: If any section, clause, provision, or portion of this chapter is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a
court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this chapter shall not be affected thereby.
G. Annexations: The flood insurance rate map panels adopted by reference into subsection B of this section may
include floodplain areas that lie outside of the corporate boundaries of the city of Mendota Heights at the time of
adoption hereof. If any of these floodplain land areas are annexed into the city of Mendota Heights after the date
of adoption hereof, the newly annexed floodplain lands shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter
immediately upon the date of annexation into the city of Mendota Heights. (Ord. 439, 11-1-2011)
15-5-3 Establishment Of Zoning Districts
A. Districts:
1. Floodway District: The floodway district shall include those areas designated as floodway on the flood
insurance rate map adopted in subsection 15-5-2B of this chapter.
2. Flood Fringe District: The flood fringe district shall include those areas designated as floodway fringe. The
flood fringe district shall include those areas shown on the flood insurance rate map as adopted in
subsection 15-5-2B of this chapter as being within zones AE but being located outside of the floodway.
B. Compliance: No new structure or land shall hereafter be used and no structure shall be constructed, located,
extended, converted, repaired, maintained or structurally altered without full compliance with the terms of this
chapter and other applicable regulations which apply to uses within the jurisdiction of this chapter. All uses not
listed as permitted uses or conditional uses in this code are prohibited. In addition, a caution is provided here that:
1. New manufactured homes, replacement manufactured homes and certain travel trailers and travel vehicles
are prohibited by this code.
Page 86 of 108
DRAFT 06.06.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 5
DRAFT 06.06.2024 3
2. Modifications, repair and maintenance, additions, structural alterations, normal maintenance and repair, or
repair after damage to existing nonconforming structures and nonconforming uses of structures or land are
regulated by the general provisions of this chapter and specifically section 15-5-11 of this chapter.
3. As built elevations for elevated or floodproofed structures must be certified by ground surveys and
floodproofing techniques must be designed and certified by a registered professional engineer or architect
as specified in the general provisions of this chapter and specifically as stated in section 15-5-10 of this
chapter. (Ord. 439, 11-1-2011)
15-5-4 Floodway District (FW)
A. Permitted Uses, Standards For Floodway And Flood Fringe Permitted Uses:
1. Permitted uses shall be any use of land which does not involve a structure, a fence, an addition to the
outside dimensions to an existing structure (including a fence) or an obstruction to flood flows such as fill,
excavation, or storage of materials or equipment.
2. The use shall not obstruct flood flows or increase flood elevations and shall not involve structures, fill,
obstructions, excavations or storage of materials or equipment.
B. Conditional Uses:
1. Conditional uses shall be permissible in the underlying zoning district and shall have low flood damage
potential.
2. Structures accessory to the uses listed in subsections A and B3 through B8 of this section.
3. Extraction and storage of sand, gravel, and other materials.
4. Marinas, boat rentals, docks, piers, wharves, and water control structures.
5. Railroads, streets, bridges, utility transmission lines, and pipelines.
6. Storage yards for equipment, machinery, or materials.
7. Placement of fill or construction of fences.
8. Structural works for flood control such as levees, dikes, and floodwalls constructed to any height where the
intent is to protect individual structures.
C. Standards For Floodway And Flood Fringe Conditional Uses:
1. All Uses: No structure (temporary or permanent), fill (including fill for roads and levees), deposit, obstruction,
storage of materials or equipment, or other uses may be allowed as a conditional use that will cause any
increase in the stage of the 100-year or regional flood or cause an increase in flood damages in the reach or
reaches affected.
2. Procedures And Standards: All floodway and flood fringe conditional uses shall be subject to the procedures
and standards contained in subsection 15-5-10D of this chapter.
3. Fill:
a. Fill, dredge spoil and all other similar materials deposited or stored in the floodplain and flood fringe
shall not cause a net decrease in storage capacity without providing compensatory storage. This shall
Page 87 of 108
DRAFT 06.06.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 5
DRAFT 06.06.2024 4
be determined by a professional engineer, or satisfied through a no-rise certification. If compensatory
storage is needed, creation of determined adequate storage shall be created before the proposed fill is
placed, unless it is demonstrated that doing so is impractical and that placement of fill and creation of
compensatory storage can be achieved concurrently.
b. Fill, dredge spoil and all other similar materials deposited or stored in the floodplain and Flood Fringe
shall be protected from erosion by vegetative cover, mulching, riprap or other acceptable method.
c. Dredge spoil sites and sand and gravel operations shall not be allowed in the floodway and flood fringe
unless a long term site development plan is submitted which includes an erosion/sedimentation
prevention element to the plan.
d. As an alternative and consistent with subsection C3b of this section, dredge spoil disposal and sand
and gravel operations may allow temporary, on site storage of fill or other materials which would have
caused an increase to the stage of the 100-year or regional flood but only after the governing body has
received an appropriate plan which assures the removal of the materials from the floodway and flood
fringe based upon the flood warning time available. The conditional use permit must be title registered
with the property in the office of the county recorder.
4. Accessory Structures:
a. Accessory structures shall not be designed for human habitation.
b. Accessory structures, if permitted, shall be constructed and placed on the building site so as to offer the
minimum obstruction to the flow of floodwaters:
(1.) Whenever possible, structures shall be constructed with the longitudinal axis parallel to the
direction of flood flow; and
(2.) So far as practicable, structures shall be placed approximately on the same flood flow lines as
those of adjoining structures.
c. Accessory structures shall be elevated on fill or structurally dry floodproofed in accordance with the FP-
1 or FP-2 floodproofing classifications in the state building code. As an alternative, an accessory
structure may be floodproofed to the FP-3 or FP-4 floodproofing classification in the state building code
provided the accessory structure constitutes a minimal investment, does not exceed five hundred (500)
square feet in size at its largest projection, and for a detached garage, the detached garage must be
used solely for parking of vehicles and limited storage. All floodproofed accessory structures must meet
the following additional standards:
(1.) The structure must be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of
the structure and shall be designed to equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls;
(2.) Any mechanical and utility equipment in a structure must be elevated to or above the regulatory
flood protection elevation or properly floodproofed; and
(3.) To allow for the equalization of hydrostatic pressure, there must be a minimum of two (2)
"automatic" openings in the outside walls of the structure having a total net area of not less than
one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding. There must be
openings on at least two (2) sides of the structure and the bottom of all openings must be no higher
Page 88 of 108
DRAFT 06.06.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 5
DRAFT 06.06.2024 5
than one foot (1') above the lowest adjacent grade to the structure. Using human intervention to
open a garage door prior to flooding will not satisfy this requirement for automatic openings.
5. Storage Of Materials And Equipment:
a. The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or potentially
injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited.
b. Storage of other materials or equipment may be allowed if readily removable from the area within the
time available after a flood warning and in accordance with a plan approved by the governing body.
6. Structural Works For Flood Control: Structural works for flood control that will change the course, current or
cross section of protected wetlands or public waters shall be subject to the provisions of Minnesota statute,
chapter 103G. Community wide structural works for flood control intended to remove areas from the
regulatory floodplain shall not be allowed in the floodway.
7. Structures In Floodway: A levee, dike or floodwall constructed in the floodway shall not cause an increase to
the 100-year or regional flood and the technical analysis must assume equal conveyance or storage loss on
both sides of a stream. (Ord. 439, 11-1-2011; amd. Ord. 556, 4-21-2020)
15-5-5 Flood Fringe District (FF)
A. Permitted Uses: Permitted uses shall be those uses of land or structures listed as permitted uses in the underlying
zoning use district(s).
B. Standards For Flood Fringe Permitted Uses:
1. All structures, including accessory structures, must be elevated on fill so that the lowest floor including
basement floor is at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The finished fill elevation for
structures shall be no lower than two feet (2’) below the regulatory flood protection elevation, unless
protection via floodproofing is provided, and the fill shall extend at such elevation at least fifteen feet (15')
beyond the outside limits of the structure erected thereon.
2. As an alternative to elevation on fill, accessory structures that constitute a minimal investment and that do
not exceed five hundred (500) square feet at its largest projection may be internally floodproofed in
accordance with subsection 15-5-4C(4) of this chapter.
3. The storage of any materials or equipment shall be elevated on fill to the regulatory flood protection
elevation.
C. Standards For All Flood Fringe Uses:
1. Fill shall be properly compacted and the slopes shall be properly protected by the use of riprap, vegetative
cover or other acceptable method. The federal emergency management agency (FEMA) has established
criteria for removing the special flood hazard area designation for certain structures properly elevated on fill
above the 100-year flood elevation - FEMA's requirements incorporate specific fill compaction and side slope
protection standards for multi-structure or multi-lot developments. These standards should be investigated
prior to the initiation of site preparation if a change of special flood hazard area designation will be
requested.
Page 89 of 108
DRAFT 06.06.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 5
DRAFT 06.06.2024 6
2. Floodplain developments shall not adversely affect the hydraulic capacity of the channel and adjoining
floodplain of any tributary watercourse or drainage system where a floodway or other encroachment limit has
not been specified on the official zoning map.
3. Commercial uses: Accessory land uses, such as yards, railroad tracks, and parking lots may be at
elevations lower than the regulatory flood protection elevation. However, a permit for such facilities to be
used by the employees or the general public shall not be granted in the absence of a flood warning system
that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area would be inundated to a depth and velocity such that
when multiplying the depth (in feet) times velocity (in feet per second) the product number exceeds four (4)
upon occurrence of the regional flood.
4. Manufacturing and industrial uses: Measures shall be taken to minimize interference with normal plant
operations especially along streams having protracted flood durations. Certain accessory land uses such as
yards and parking lots may be at lower elevations subject to requirements set out in subsection C3 of this
section. In considering permit applications, due consideration shall be given to needs of an industry whose
business requires that it be located in floodplain areas. (Ord. 439, 11-1-2011; amd. Ord. 556, 4-21-2020)
15-5-6 Reserved
15-5-7 Subdivisions
A. Review Criteria: No land shall be subdivided which is unsuitable for the reason of flooding, inadequate drainage,
water supply or sewage treatment facilities. All lots within the floodplain districts shall be able to contain a building
site outside of the floodway district at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation. All subdivisions shall have
water and sewage treatment facilities that comply with the provisions of this chapter and have road access both to
the subdivision and to the individual building sites no lower than two feet (2') below the regulatory flood protection
elevation. For all subdivisions in the floodplain, the floodway and flood fringe districts boundaries, the regulatory
flood protection elevation and the required elevation of all access roads shall be clearly labeled on all required
subdivision drawings and platting documents.
B. Removal Of Special Flood Hazard Area Designation: The federal emergency management agency (FEMA) has
established criteria for removing the special flood hazard area designation for certain structures properly elevated
on fill above the 100-year flood elevation. FEMA's requirements incorporate specific fill compaction and side slope
protection standards for multi- structure or multi-lot developments. These standards should be investigated prior to
the initiation of site preparation if a change of special flood hazard area designation will be requested. (Ord. 439,
11-1-2011)
15-5-8 Public Utilities, Railroads, Roads, And Bridges
A. Public Utilities: All public utilities and facilities such as gas, electrical, sewer, and water supply systems to be
located in the floodplain shall be floodproofed in accordance with the state building code or elevated to above the
regulatory flood protection elevation.
B. Public Transportation Facilities: Railroad tracks, roads, and bridges to be located within the floodplain shall comply
with sections 15-5-4 and 15-5-5 of this chapter. Elevation to the regulatory flood protection elevation shall be
provided where failure or interruption of these transportation facilities would result in danger to the public health or
safety or where such facilities are essential to the orderly functioning of the area. Minor or auxiliary roads or
railroads may be constructed at a lower elevation where failure or interruption of transportation services would not
endanger the public health or safety.
Page 90 of 108
DRAFT 06.06.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 5
DRAFT 06.06.2024 7
C. On Site Sewage Treatment And Water Supply Systems: Where public utilities are not provided: 1) on site water
supply systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the systems; and 2) new
or replacement on site sewage treatment systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of
floodwaters into the systems and discharges from the systems into floodwaters and they shall not be subject to
impairment or contamination during times of flooding. Any sewage treatment system designed in accordance with
the state's current statewide standards for on site sewage treatment systems shall be determined to be in
compliance with this section. (Ord. 439, 11-1-2011)
15-5-9 Manufactured Homes, Manufactured Home Parks, And Placement Of Recreational Vehicles
A. Manufactured homes are not permissible under this title.
B. Licensed and operable recreation vehicles are allowed only within residential districts and shall not be stored in
floodplain areas.
1. No structural additions or accessory structures may be attached to recreational vehicles in any zoning
district. (Ord. 439, 11-1-2011)
15-5-10 Administration
A. Zoning Administrator: A zoning administrator or other official designated by the governing body shall administer
and enforce this chapter. If the zoning administrator finds a violation of the provisions of this chapter the zoning
administrator shall notify the person responsible for such violation in accordance with the procedures stated in
section 15-5-12 of this chapter.
B. Permit Requirements:
1. Permit Required: A permit issued by the zoning administrator in conformity with the provisions of this chapter
shall be secured prior to the erection, addition, modification, rehabilitation (including normal maintenance
and repair), or alteration of any building, structure, or portion thereof; prior to the use or change of use of a
building, structure, or land; prior to the construction of a dam, fence, or on site septic system; prior to the
change or extension of a nonconforming use; prior to the repair of a structure that has been damaged by
flood, fire, tornado, or any other source; and prior to the placement of fill, excavation of materials, or the
storage of materials or equipment within the floodplain.
2. Application For Permit: Application for a permit shall be made to the zoning administrator on forms furnished
by the zoning administrator and shall include the following where applicable: plans drawn to scale showing
the nature, location, dimensions and elevations of the lot; existing or proposed structures, fill, or storage of
materials; and the location of the foregoing in relation to the stream channel.
3. State And Federal Permits: Prior to granting a permit or processing an application for a conditional use
permit or variance, the zoning administrator shall determine that the applicant has obtained all necessary
state and federal permits.
4. Certificate Of Zoning Compliance For A New, Altered, Or Nonconforming Use: It shall be unlawful to use,
occupy, or permit the use or occupancy of any building or premises or part thereof hereafter created,
erected, changed, converted, altered, or enlarged in its use or structure until a certificate of zoning
compliance shall have been issued by the zoning administrator stating that the use of the building or land
conforms to the requirements of this chapter.
Page 91 of 108
DRAFT 06.06.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 5
DRAFT 06.06.2024 8
5. Construction And Use To Be As Provided On Applications, Plans, Permits, Variances And Certificates of
Zoning Compliance: Permits, conditional use permits, or certificates of zoning compliance issued on the
basis of approved plans and applications authorize only the use, arrangement, and construction set forth in
such approved plans and applications, and no other use, arrangement, or construction. Any use,
arrangement, or construction at variance with that authorized shall be deemed a violation of this chapter,
and punishable as provided by section 15-5-12 of this chapter.
6. Certification: The applicant shall be required to submit certification by a registered professional engineer,
registered architect, or registered land surveyor that the finished fill and building elevations were
accomplished in compliance with the provisions of this chapter. Floodproofing measures shall be certified by
a registered professional engineer or registered architect.
7. Record Of First Floor Elevation: The zoning administrator shall maintain a record of the elevation of the
lowest floor (including basement) of all new structures and alterations or additions to existing structures in
the floodplain. The zoning administrator shall also maintain a record of the elevation to which structures or
alterations and additions to structures are floodproofed.
8. Notifications For Watercourse Alterations: The zoning administrator shall notify, in riverine situations,
adjacent communities and the commissioner of the department of natural resources prior to the community
authorizing any alteration or relocation of a watercourse. If the applicant has applied for a permit to work in
the beds of public waters pursuant to Minnesota statute, chapter 103G, this shall suffice as adequate notice
to the commissioner of natural resources. A copy of said notification shall also be submitted to the Chicago
regional office of the federal emergency management agency (FEMA).
9. Notification To FEMA When Physical Changes Increase Or Decrease The 100-Year Flood Elevation: As
soon as is practicable, but not later than six (6) months after the date such supporting information becomes
available, the zoning administrator shall notify the Chicago regional office of FEMA of the changes by
submitting a copy of said technical or scientific data.
C. Board Of Adjustment:
1. Rules: The board of adjustment shall adopt rules for the conduct of business and may exercise all of the
powers conferred on such boards by state law.
2. Administrative Review: The board of adjustment shall hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is
error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official in the
enforcement or administration of this chapter.
3. Variances: The board of adjustment may authorize upon appeal in specific cases such relief or variance
from the terms of this chapter as will not be contrary to the public interest and only for those circumstances
such as hardship, practical difficulties or circumstances unique to the property under consideration, as
provided for in the respective enabling legislation for planning and zoning for cities or counties as
appropriate. In the granting of such variance, the board of adjustment shall clearly identify in writing the
specific conditions that existed consistent with the criteria specified in this chapter, any other zoning
regulations in the community, and in the respective enabling legislation that justified the granting of the
variance. No variance shall have the effect of allowing in any district uses prohibited in that district, permit a
lower degree of flood protection than the regulatory flood protection elevation for the particular area, or
permit standards lower than those required by state law. The following additional variance criteria of the
federal emergency management agency must be satisfied:
Page 92 of 108
DRAFT 06.06.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 5
DRAFT 06.06.2024 9
a. Variances shall not be issued by a community within any designated regulatory floodway if any increase
in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result.
b. Variances shall only be issued by a community upon: 1) a showing of good and sufficient cause, 2) a
determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, and
3) a determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional
threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization
of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances.
c. Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary,
considering the flood hazard, to afford relief.
4. Hearings: Upon filing with the board of adjustment of an appeal from a decision of the zoning administrator,
or an application for a variance, the board of adjustment shall fix a reasonable time for a hearing and give
due notice to the parties in interest as specified by law. The board of adjustment shall submit by mail to the
commissioner of natural resources a copy of the application for proposed variances sufficiently in advance
so that the commissioner will receive at least ten (10) days' notice of the hearing.
5. Decisions: The board of adjustment shall arrive at a decision on such appeal or variance within sixty (60)
days. In passing upon an appeal, the board of adjustment may, so long as such action is in conformity with
the provisions of this chapter, reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or modify the order, requirement, decision
or determination of the zoning administrator or other public official. It shall make its decision in writing setting
forth the findings of fact and the reasons for its decisions. In granting a variance the board of adjustment
may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards such as those specified in subsection D6 of this
section, which are in conformity with the purposes of this chapter. Violations of such conditions and
safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the variance is granted, shall be deemed a violation
of this chapter punishable under section 15-5-12 of this chapter. A copy of all decisions granting variances
shall be forwarded by mail to the commissioner of natural resources within ten (10) days of such action.
6. Appeals: Appeals from any decision of the board of adjustment may be made, and as specified in this
community's official controls and also by Minnesota statutes.
7. Flood Insurance Notice And Recordkeeping: The zoning administrator shall notify the applicant for a
variance that: a) the issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood level will result in
increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as twenty five dollars ($25.00) for one
hundred dollars ($100.00) of insurance coverage and b) such construction below the 100-year or regional
flood level increases risks to life and property. Such notification shall be maintained with a record of all
variance actions. A community shall maintain a record of all variance actions, including justification for their
issuance, and report such variances issued in its annual or biennial report submitted to the administrator of
the national flood insurance program.
D. Conditional Uses: The city council shall hear and decide applications for conditional uses permissible under this
chapter. Applications shall be submitted to the zoning administrator who shall forward the application for
consideration.
1. Hearings: Upon filing with the zoning administrator an application for a conditional use permit, the zoning
administrator shall submit by mail to the commissioner of natural resources a copy of the application for
proposed conditional use sufficiently in advance so that the commissioner will receive at least ten (10) days'
notice of the hearing.
Page 93 of 108
DRAFT 06.06.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 5
DRAFT 06.06.2024 10
2. Decisions: The city council shall arrive at a decision on a conditional use within sixty (60) days. In granting a
conditional use permit the city council shall prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards which are in
conformity with the purposes of this chapter. Violations of such conditions and safeguards, when made a
part of the terms under which the conditional use permit is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this
chapter punishable under section 15-5-12 of this chapter. A copy of all decisions granting conditional use
permits shall be forwarded by mail to the commissioner of natural resources within ten (10) days of such
action.
3. Procedures To Be Followed By The City Council In Passing On Conditional Use Permit Applications Within
All Floodplain Districts:
a. Require the applicant to furnish such of the following information and additional information as deemed
necessary by the city council for determining the suitability of the particular site for the proposed use:
(1.) Plans drawn to scale showing the nature, location, dimensions and elevation of the lot, existing or
proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, floodproofing measures, and the relationship of the
above to the location of the stream channel; and
(2.) Specifications for building construction and materials, floodproofing, filling, dredging, grading,
channel improvement, storage of materials, water supply and sanitary facilities.
b. Transmit one copy of the information described in subsection D3a of this section to a designated
engineer or other expert person or agency for technical assistance, where necessary, in evaluating the
proposed project in relation to flood heights and velocities, the seriousness of flood damage to the use,
the adequacy of the plans for protection and other technical matters.
c. Based upon the technical evaluation of the designated engineer or expert, the city council shall
determine the specific flood hazard at the site and evaluate the suitability of the proposed use in relation
to the flood hazard.
4. Factors Upon Which The Decision Of The City Council Shall Be Based: In passing upon conditional use
applications, the city council shall consider all relevant factors specified in other sections of this chapter, and:
a. The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments.
b. The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands or downstream to the injury of others or they
may block bridges, culverts or other hydraulic structures.
c. The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems to prevent disease,
contamination and unsanitary conditions.
d. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such
damage on the individual owner.
e. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community.
f. The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location.
g. The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the proposed use.
h. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and development anticipated in the
foreseeable future.
Page 94 of 108
DRAFT 06.06.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 5
DRAFT 06.06.2024 11
i. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain management program
for the area.
j. The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles.
k. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the floodwaters expected
at the site.
l. Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of this chapter.
5. Time For Acting On Application: The city council shall act on an application in the manner described above
within sixty (60) days from receiving a completed application.
6. Conditions Attached To Conditional Use Permits: Upon consideration of the factors listed above and the
purpose of this chapter, the city council shall attach such conditions to the granting of conditional use
permits as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this chapter. Such conditions may include, but are
not limited to, the following:
a. Modification of waste treatment and water supply facilities.
b. Limitations on period of use, occupancy and operation.
c. Imposition of operational controls, sureties and deed restrictions.
d. Requirements for construction of channel modifications, compensatory storage, dikes, levees and other
protective measures.
e. Floodproofing measures, in accordance with the state building code and this chapter. The applicant
shall submit a plan or document certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the
floodproofing measures are consistent with the regulatory flood protection elevation and associated
flood factors for the particular area. (Ord. 439, 11-1-2011)
15-5-11 Nonconforming Uses
A. A structure or the use of a structure or premises which was lawful before the passage or amendment of this
chapter but which is not in conformity with the provisions of this chapter may be continued subject to the following
conditions. Historic structures, as defined by this chapter shall be subject to the following provisions:
1. No such use shall be expanded, changed, enlarged, or altered in a way that increases its nonconformity.
2. Any structural alteration or addition to a nonconforming structure or nonconforming use which would result in
increasing the flood damage potential of that structure or use shall be protected to the regulatory flood
protection elevation in accordance with any of the elevation on fill or floodproofing techniques (i.e., FP-1
through FP-4 floodproofing classifications) allowable in the state building code, except as further restricted
below.
3. The cost of all structural alterations or additions to any nonconforming structure over the life of the structure
shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the market value of the structure unless the conditions of this section
are satisfied. The cost of all structural alterations and additions must include all costs such as construction
materials and a reasonable cost placed on all manpower or labor. If the cost of all previous and proposed
alterations and additions exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the market value of the structure, then the structure
Page 95 of 108
DRAFT 06.06.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 5
DRAFT 06.06.2024 12
must meet the standards of section 15-5-4 or 15-5-5 of this chapter for new structures depending upon
whether the structure is in the floodway or flood fringe district, respectively.
4. If any nonconforming use is discontinued for twelve (12) consecutive months, any future use of the building
premises shall conform to this chapter. The assessor shall notify the zoning administrator in writing of
instances of nonconforming uses that have been discontinued for a period of twelve (12) months.
5. If any nonconforming use or structure is substantially damaged, as defined in subsection 15-5-3B(2) of this
chapter, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. The applicable
provisions for establishing new uses or new structures in section 15-5-4 or 15-5-5 of this chapter will apply
depending upon whether the use or structure is in the floodway or flood fringe district, respectively.
6. If a "substantial improvement" occurs, as defined in subsection 15-5-3B(2) of this chapter, from any
combination of a building addition to the outside dimensions of the existing building or a rehabilitation,
reconstruction, alteration, or other improvement to the inside dimensions of an existing nonconforming
building, then the building addition and the existing nonconforming building must meet the requirements of
section 15-5-4 or 15-5-5 of this chapter for new structures, depending upon whether the structure is in the
floodway or flood fringe district, respectively. (Ord. 439, 11-1-2011)
15-5-12 Penalties For Violation
A. Violation of the provisions of this chapter or failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of
conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of variances or conditional uses) shall constitute
a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined by law.
B. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the city of Mendota Heights from taking such other lawful action as is
necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. Such actions may include, but are not limited to:
1. In responding to a suspected chapter violation, the zoning administrator and local government may utilize
the full array of enforcement actions available to it including, but not limited to, prosecution and fines,
injunctions, after the fact permits, orders for corrective measures or a request to the national flood insurance
program for denial of flood insurance availability to the guilty party. The community must act in good faith to
enforce these official controls and to correct chapter violations to the extent possible so as not to jeopardize
its eligibility in the national flood insurance program.
2. When a chapter violation is either discovered by or brought to the attention of the zoning administrator, the
zoning administrator shall immediately investigate the situation and document the nature and extent of the
violation of the official control. As soon as is reasonably possible, this information will be submitted to the
appropriate department of natural resources and federal emergency management agency regional office
along with the community's plan of action to correct the violation to the degree possible.
3. The zoning administrator shall notify the suspected party of the requirements of this chapter and all other
official controls and the nature and extent of the suspected violation of these controls. If the structure and/or
use is under construction or development, the zoning administrator may order the construction or
development immediately halted until a proper permit or approval is granted by the community. If the
construction or development is already completed, then the zoning administrator may either: a) issue an
order identifying the corrective actions that must be made within a specified time period to bring the use or
Page 96 of 108
DRAFT 06.06.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 5
DRAFT 06.06.2024 13
structure into compliance with the official controls; or b) notify the responsible party to apply for an after the
fact permit/development approval within a specified period of time not to exceed thirty (30) days.
4. If the responsible party does not appropriately respond to the zoning administrator within the specified period
of time, each additional day that lapses shall constitute an additional violation of this chapter and shall be
prosecuted accordingly. The zoning administrator shall also upon the lapse of the specified response period
notify the landowner to restore the land to the condition which existed prior to the violation of this chapter.
(Ord. 439, 11-1-2011)
15-5-13 Amendments
The floodplain designation on the official zoning map shall not be removed from floodplain areas unless it can be shown
that the designation is in error or that the area has been filled to or above the elevation of the regulatory flood protection
elevation and is contiguous to lands outside the floodplain. Special exceptions to this rule may be permitted by the
commissioner of natural resources if he determines that, through other measures, lands are adequately protected for the
intended use.
All amendments to this chapter, including amendments to the official zoning map, must be submitted to and approved by
the commissioner of natural resources prior to adoption. Changes in the official zoning map must meet the federal
emergency management agency's (FEMA) technical conditions and criteria and must receive prior FEMA approval before
adoption. The commissioner of natural resources must be given ten (10) days' written notice of all hearings to consider an
amendment to this chapter and said notice shall include a draft of the chapter amendment or technical study under
consideration. (Ord. 439, 11-1-2011)
Page 97 of 108
DRAFT 06.06.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 6
DRAFT 06.06.2024 1
CHAPTER 6: SHORELAND ORDINANCE
15-6-1 In General.
Reserved.
15-6-2 Shoreland Ordinance
A. Intent and Purpose. The city has determined that a shoreland ordinance will help protect surface water quality,
near shore habitat, and the shoreland aesthetics. The city intends to adopt a tailored ordinance after it has studied
the specific characteristics of the city’s shoreland in coordination with the other chapters contained in this
Environmental Standards ordinance.
B. State Rules adopted by Reference. Until the city completes its study and adopts its regulations, it herein
incorporates by reference the applicable standards and regulations established by Minnesota Rules Chapter
6120.
1. Where any rule or regulation is in conflict with any other provision of this Environmental Standards
ordinance, the more restrictive standard shall apply.
Page 98 of 108
DRAFT 07.11.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 7
DRAFT 07.11.2024 1
CHAPTER 7: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
15-7-1 Chloride Reduction
A. Definitions. The following words, terms, phrases, when used in this section, shall have the meanings ascribed to
them in this subsection, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
1. Anti-icing means the application of a liquid deicer prior to the onset of a snow event.
2. Best Management Practice (BMP) means structural, vegetative, or managerial practices used to treat,
prevent, or reduce water pollution.
3. Certified Salt Applicator means an individual who apples deicer and has completed Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency Smart Salting training (Level 1 or 2).
4. Deicer means any substance used to melt snow and ice or used for it’s anti-icing effects.
5. Winter Maintenance Professional means an individual who applies deicer for hire (i.e. snow plow drivers, salt
truck drivers).
B. Intent and purpose.
1. The removal of snow and ice from roadways is essential to both public safety and to the local economy and
in order to protect the public safety, during and after winter storm events, the use of pavement deicing
chemical is a widely accepter means of keeping roadways passable; and
2. Pavement deicing is typically accomplished through the use of deicers which can be corrosive to vehicles,
roadway surfaces, and bridges and has been found to have adverse effects on the surface waters,
groundwater and to environmentally sensitive areas; and
3. The restoration of surface and ground water quality and ecosystems in such areas can be very difficult and
costly, if not impossible to rehabilitate through reverse osmosis, once the events of contamination occur; and
4. Proper utilization and management of deicing materials is critical to ensure that the environmental impacts of
related practices are reduced to the maximum extent possible; and
5. Negative environmental impacts may occur when salt and other deicers are not properly stored and
transported; and
6. One of the primary sources of chloride entering the ground water is salt spillage that is either plowed of
washed from maintenance yards, unloading and loading areas and it is necessary to regulate all persons
engaged in the storage and use of bulk deicing materials on their property and elsewhere in order to reduce
the costly impacts of such use to the surrounding vegetation, surface water and ground water.
C. Occupational Licensure for Winter Maintenance Professionals
1. Applicability. No person will engage in the operation of a winter maintenance business for the private
operation of a snowplowing service or the use or storage of salt and other deicing materials, or to assist
others in the same for the purpose of managing ice and snow from private roadways, parking areas, and
sidewalks on commercial, industrial, institutional, office, multi-family, and private single-family residential
dwellings without being in compliance with the terms and provisions of this chapter,
Page 99 of 108
DRAFT 07.11.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 7
DRAFT 07.11.2024 2
2. Certification Required.
a. All persons engaged in the operation of a winter maintenance business for the private operation of a
snowplowing service or the use or storage of salt or other deicing materials must employ an individual
who possesses current Smart Salting Level 1 and Level 2 Certification from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency. This individual must be responsible for the application of appropriate deicing material at
the proper amount and rate; the employment of correct procedures for temperature and conditions;
accurate record-keeping and data recordation; and calibration of equipment annually. In the event of a
major storm emergency, the licensing official may exempt winter maintenance professionals from the
requirements of this section for services completed under contract with the City of Mendota Heights.
3. Deicer Storage Requirements.
a. All persons must employ best management practices to minimize the discharge of polluted runoff from
salt and deicer storage and application as follows:
(1.) Designated salt and deicer storage areas must be covered or indoors.
(2.) Designated salt and deicer storage areas must be located on an impervious surface; and
(3.) Implementation of practices to reduce exposure when transferring material in designated salt and
deicer storage areas (e.g., sweeping, diversions, and/or containment).
4. Deicer Bulk Storage Facility Regulations.
a. Applicability.
(1.) The following sections apply to all indoor and outdoor bulk deicer storage facilities (temporary and
permanent) including salt piles, salt bag storage, sand piles and other storage of deicing materials.
Bulk storage, as regulated by this chapter, is defined as storage of any material used for deicing
and/or traction during winter conditions that is more than five tons in solid form (or 1,000 gallons in
liquid form).
b. General Requirements.
(1.) Indoor operations for the storage of deicing materials must be provided wherever possible in order
to prevent such materials from being affected by rain, snow and melt water.
(2.) All salt, sand and other deicing materials stored outdoors must be covered at all times.
(i.) When not using a permanent roof, a waterproof impermeable, flexible cover must be placed
over all storage piles (to protect against precipitation and surface water runoff). The cover
must prevent runoff and leachate from being generated by the outdoor storage piles. The
cover must be secured to prevent removal by wind or other storm events. Piles must be
formed in a conical shape and covered as necessary to prevent leaching.
(ii.) Any roof leaks, tears or damage should be temporarily repaired during winter to reduce the
entrance of precipitation. Permanent repairs must be completed prior to the next winter
season.
c. Facility Siting.
(1.) The facility must be in close proximity to the area in which the deicing materials are to be used, if
practical.
Page 100 of 108
DRAFT 07.11.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 7
DRAFT 07.11.2024 3
(2.) Each facility must be located outside of floodplains and 300 feet from lakes, streams, ditches,
storm drains, manholes, catch basins, wetlands and any other areas likely to absorb runoff. A
facility must not be located in close proximity to surface water features, water supplies, wells or
drywells.
(3.) A facility must be located on impermeable surfaces.
(4.) The property slope must be away from the facility’s salt, deicer, and sand storage area.
(5.) Salt vulnerable/intolerant natural areas should be avoided as storage facilities to the extent
possible. Where they cannot be avoided, specific measures should be instituted to protect
vulnerable areas. Salt vulnerable/intolerable natural areas include, but are not limited to:
(i.) Areas with salt sensitive vegetation.
(ii.) Areas serving as a source of drinking water (surface water and ground water)
(iii.) Areas with bodies of water with low dilution, low volume or salt sensitive species.
(iv.) Areas associated with ground water recharge zones or shallow water table, with medium to
high permeable soils.
d. Snow Piles
(1.) Snow piles must be located downslope from salt and deicer storage areas to prevent the snow melt
from flowing through storage areas and carrying material to the nearest drainage system or
waterway.
e. Deicer Tuck Wash Water
(1.) Deicer- and salt-containing truck wash water must be captured, treated, and recycled for use as
saltbrine in pre-wetting and anti-icing activities.
f. Transfer of Materials
(1.) Practices must be implemented in oder to reduce exposure (e.g., sweeping, diversions, and/or
containment when transferring salt or other deicing material.
D. Land Disturbance Permitting.
1. Chloride Management
a. An applicant for a permit for land-disturbing activity on property other than individual single-family home
sites must provide a plan for post construction management of chloride use on the site that includes, at
a minimum:
(1.) Designation of an induvial authorized to implement the chloride-use plan; and
(2.) Designation of a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Smart Salting-certified salt applicator
engaged in the implementation of the chloride-use plan for the site.
E. Parking Lot, Sidewalk and Private Road Sweeping Requirements.
1. Sweeping of Parking Lots, Sidewalk, and Private Roads
Page 101 of 108
DRAFT 07.11.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 7
DRAFT 07.11.2024 4
a. Every owner or occupant of any dwelling or other residential building, proprietor or lessee of any
business, commercial or public premises, or [insert other entities as appropriate such as homeowner’s
associations] within the City of Mendota Heights, must conform to ice and snow removal specified under
this section [12-7-1]. If dry deicing material is spread, it must be properly swept and disposed of
immediately after snow melt. If an owner, occupant, proprietor or lessee neglects or refuses to sweep
excess deicing material, the City of Mendota Heights may sweep such material or authorize some
person to do the same on behalf of the City of Mendota Heights. The City of Mendota Heights, in its
sole discretion, may issue notices of violation to an owner, lessee, proprotor, or occupant for violations
of this section.
15-7-2 Temporary Keeping of Goats for Prescribed Grazing and Invasive Vegetation Removal
A. Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to establish conditions under which the temporary and periodic use of a
limited number of goats for invasive and noxious vegetation control is permitted and to establish the requirements
for doing so in order to protect the environment and the health, safety, and welfare of the general population.
B. Prescribed Goat Grazing Permit Required: No goat may be kept, maintained, or harbored on any property in the
city unless a goat grazing permit has been approved and issued. A permit may be granted only for:
1. A parcel or lot of record that is 0.5 acres or more in size; or
2. A prescribed grazing area located on more than one parcel or lot provided the grazing areas on each
parcel/lot are contiguous and an aggregate of 0.5 acres or more in size.
C. Application for Permit: The applicant must submit the following information for the request to be considered.
1. The applicant shall complete an application form provided by the City and filed with the City Clerk. The
applicant shall also pay the application fee for the permit which shall be established by the City fee schedule.
Permit fees shall not be prorated or refundable.
2. A detailed site plan of the premises on which prescribed grazing is sought to occur, including the location
and the dimensions of the proposed grazing area, a list of the vegetation existing on the site and sought to
be controlled by the prescribed grazing.
3. The full name and address of the following persons:
a. The applicant; and
b. The owner(s) of the premises on which prescribed goat grazing is sought to occur and for which the
permit would apply.
4. The street address of the premises on which prescribed grazing is sought to occur and for which the permit
would apply.
5. The number of goats to be kept on the premises under the permit, not to exceed two (2) goats per every
one-tenth (0.10) acre of the prescribed grazing area.
6. A list of person(s) owning, providing, managing and monitoring the goats, including their full name, address,
and twenty-four (24)-hour contact information accompanied by evidence of liability insurance as required by
this Section.
7. The type of fencing to be used for the required enclosure, and date the temporary fence will be installed.
Page 102 of 108
DRAFT 07.11.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 7
DRAFT 07.11.2024 5
8. Date the goats will arrive on the premises for which the permit would apply, and the latest date the goats will
be removed from the premises for which the permit would apply.
9. A statement certifying whether the property's homeowners' association rules, if any, prohibit the keeping of
goats on the property for which the permit is sought.
10. The signature of the owner(s) of the premises or a homeowners' association board officers where the
prescribed grazing will occur.
11. Any other and further information as the City deems necessary.
D. Granting or Denying Issuance of Permit: The City may grant a permit under this Section provided the application
filed demonstrates compliance with the requirements of this section. The City shall deny a permit hereunder for
any of the following reasons:
1. The application is incomplete or contains false, fraudulent, or deceptive statements.
2. The applicant does not or has not complied with one or more of the provisions of this Section.
3. The premises for which the permit is sought, including, but not limited to, the proposed grazing area, is not in
compliance with any provisions of this subdivision, other City Code provisions or state laws relating to
zoning, health, fire, building, or safety.
4. The applicant or owner of the premises where the prescribed grazing is to occur has been previously
convicted of a violation under this Section within the past two (2) years.
5. The owner of the goats has violated any provision hereunder, or on more than two prior occasions, the
owner's goats have been found running at large.
E. Duration of Permit: The duration of a permit under this section shall be as follows:
1. Prescribed grazing shall not be permitted for more than thirty (30) consecutive days. No more than three (3)
prescribed grazing permits may be issued within one (1) calendar year for the same property. There shall be
a minimum of thirty (30) days between the expiration of the first permit issued and the second permit issued
in a twelve (12) month period.
F. Conditions of Permit: The keeping of goats is permitted pursuant to a permit granted under this Section, subject to
the following conditions:
1. Transferability of Permit: A permit issued hereunder shall be nontransferable and shall be solely for the
property listed on the permit.
2. Liability Insurance: The provider or owner of the goat(s) to be utilized under the permit shall have and
maintain insurance coverage for claims arising from prescribed grazing in the amount of one million dollars
($1,000,000) per occurrence and two million dollars ($2,000,000) general aggregate and shall provide to the
City proof of the required insurance coverage prior to issuance of the permit. The City shall have no liability
for any damages that may be caused by goats kept on a property pursuant to a prescribed grazing permit.
The permit holder shall be responsible for any damage caused by goats used for prescribed grazing
purposes.
Page 103 of 108
DRAFT 07.11.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 7
DRAFT 07.11.2024 6
3. Monitoring: Goat provider or owner must have staff available to respond to any emergency complaints or
concerns at all time of the day or night. Applicant will furnish an emergency contact number when applying
for any permit.
4. Right-of-Entry for Inspection: The premises for which a permit is issued shall, at all reasonable times, be
open to inspection by the city staff to determine compliance with the permit, other City Code provisions and
state laws relating to zoning, health, fire, building, or safety.
5. Number of Goats Permitted: No more than two (2) goats per every one-tenth (0.10) acre of the prescribed
grazing area shall be on the premises at one time under the permit.
6. Proper Enclosures: The prescribed grazing area shall be fully and securely enclosed with proper enclosures,
and fully maintained for the duration of the prescribed grazing permit, as required and provided herein.
Fencing must be designed to prevent escape by goats and to protect the goats from the intrusion of other
predatory animals. All sides of the enclosure(s) shall be of sufficient height and the bottom of the enclosures
shall be constructed or secured in a manner as to prevent the goats from escaping over or under the
enclosure(s). The prescribed grazing activity shall be fully and properly enclosed at all times. It is unlawful
and a violation of the permit for any goat to be allowed to run at large during the duration of this permit. An
enclosure shall meet the following requirements:
a. Permanent enclosures: Fences and structures constructed to enclose prescribed grazing goats, but
intended to remain at the expiration of the prescribed grazing activity, shall comply with the regulations
for the zoning district in which the prescribed grazing is located and shall be permitted separately from
the prescribed grazing activity.
b. Temporary enclosures:
(1.) Temporary fencing and structures for the sole purpose of enclosing prescribed grazing goats shall
be allowed for the duration of the prescribed grazing. All temporary fencing or structures shall be
removed within seven (7) days of the removal of the goats from the premises as required under the
permit;
(2.) Temporary fences must not exceed six-feet (6') in height;
(3.) Temporary fences may be electric or electrified as specified in the approved prescribed grazing
permit. Where electric fences are used, a double fence system with a non-electric outer fence,
maintained a minimum of three (3) feet from the electric fence, is required to serve as a safety
barrier to reduce the possibility of the public coming in contact with the electric fence. If an existing
natural barrier or permanent structure exist as to prevent contact with or serve as a barrier to the
electric fence, then the second outer fence may not be required for the applicable segment of
fencing; and
(4.) The outer fence may be allowed up to the property line of the premises on which the permit
applies, and shall not be located within any public or private right-of-way.
7. Signage, Temporary: The permit holder shall install and maintain temporary signs on the premises for the
duration of the permit as follows:
a. All signs must be located on each side of the enclosed area and visible to the public;
Page 104 of 108
DRAFT 07.11.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 7
DRAFT 07.11.2024 7
b. The signs must state the purpose of the goats and enclosure, and provide any caution or warning
message in a manner that is visible to the public;
c. The signs must contain emergency contact information of the owner of the goat(s);
d. The signs shall be setback a minimum of ten (10) feet from property line if freestanding, or placed on
the enclosure fence;
e. All signs shall be removed when goats are removed from the premises; and
f. Any electric or electrified fence in association with prescribed grazing must have a warning sign posted
on every boundary of the enclosure at least every fifty (50) feet along each side of the fence. The
warning sign shall clearly identify the electric fence. No single sign shall exceed four (4) square feet in
area. Each sign shall be clearly visible on the approach to the fence and be posted on or within one (1)
foot of the electric or electrified fence.
8. Shelter: Temporary shelters for the goats may be allowed as per the discretion of the provider.
9. Herd Specifics: Only females, neutered male goats, or unneutered male goats less than six months old that
accompany female goats are allowed.
10. Odor and Cleanliness: The property must be maintained in a clean, sanitary condition so as to be free from
offensive odors, fly breeding, dust, and general nuisance conditions.
11. Natural Resources Protection: Prescribed grazing shall not adversely affect significant natural resources.
Prescribed grazing activities shall comply with the following:
a. Prescribed grazing activities shall comply with the best management practices established by the
Minnesota Department of Agriculture, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Dakota County
Soil and Water Conservation District, and all other pertinent agencies;
b. Prescribed grazing activities shall not impair water quality as defined by the Federal Clean Water Act;
c. Threatened or endangered plant species shall be protected from grazing activities; and
d. No goats may be brought onto a property that is known to have the Invasive Jumping Worm (Amynthas
Z species).
12. Conservation Easements: If the proposed prescribed grazing area is within a conservation easement, all
requirements of the conservation easement must be met. If the terms of the conservation easements do not
allow prescribed grazing, then the permit will be denied.
G. Feeding of Goats: No supplemental feeding of grain based feed or foods will be allowed, except for vitamin or
mineral supplements. All goats on the premises shall be provided with and have daily access to fresh drinking
water.
H. Care of Goats: All goats used under the permit shall receive proper veterinary treatment and regular deworming.
In the event that a prescribed grazing goat becomes ill, hurt, or perishes, the permit holder and the owner of the
goat is responsible for immediate on-site care or removal of the goat from the property. Overall care of the goats
shall include the following:
Page 105 of 108
DRAFT 07.11.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 7
DRAFT 07.11.2024 8
1. Goats that become parasitized or otherwise unhealthy shall be removed off-site by the contractor or
provider.
2. To ensure the biosecurity of the grazing site, all goats introduced to the permitted grazing site must come
clean and leave clean.
I. Violation and Penalties: If a violation of the terms of this Section or the prescribed goat grazing permit is found, the
City shall give written notice thereof to the permit holder. If the violation is not remedied within ten (10) days of the
date of the notice, a misdemeanor citation may be issued and/or the prescribed goat grazing permit may be
revoked. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City may immediately revoke the permit and/or a misdemeanor
citation may be immediately issued if there is a violation of 15-7-2(G) or 15-7-2(H) or if a permit holder's goat(s)
have been found running at large on two (2) or more occurrences within the term of the permit. The City shall
notify the permit holder of the opportunity to appeal the revocation to the City Council in writing, and the City shall
specify the length of time the permit holder has to file an appeal. The permit holder shall file the request for the
hearing in front of City Council within ten (10) days of the date of the revocation or shall be deemed to have
waived the right to appeal. (Ord. 566, 7-6-2021)
15-7-3 Shade Tree Program
A. State regulations adopted:
1. Sections 1505.0010 through 1505.0600 of 3 Minnesota rules, department of agriculture, shade tree program,
together with amendments thereof to date, are hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this chapter
as if set out herein in full, except as hereinafter provided. A copy of said rules marked "Official Copy" is on
file in the office of the city clerk. (1981 Code 1008 § 1; amd. 2003 Code)
B. Stockpiling elm wood:
1. The stockpiling of bark bearing elm wood within the city limits of the city shall be permitted during the period
from September 15 through April 1 of any given year. Any such wood not utilized by April 1 of any year must
then be removed and disposed of as provided by this chapter and the regulations incorporated hereby.
(1981 Code 1008 § 2)
C. Conflicting provisions:
1. Where the provisions of this chapter conflict or are inconsistent with any other ordinance of the city, the
provisions of this chapter shall supersede except in instances where one regulation is more restrictive than
another, in which case, the more restrictive shall apply and control. (1981 Code 1008 § 3)
D. Violation; penalty:
1. Any person who shall violate any provision of this chapter shall, upon conviction thereof, be deemed guilty of
a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as provided in section 1-4-1 of this code. (1981 Code 1008 § 4;
amd. 2003 Code)
15-7-4 Weeds and Noxious Vegetation
A. Definition:
1. The word "person" as used in this chapter shall mean and include one or more persons of either sex, natural
persons, corporations, partnerships, associations, joint stock companies, societies and all other entities of
any kind capable of being sued. (1981 Code 1001 § 5)
Page 106 of 108
DRAFT 07.11.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 7
DRAFT 07.11.2024 9
B. Weeds and Noxious Vegetation Prohibited:
1. Height Restriction; Accumulations Prohibited: It shall be unlawful for any owner, lessee, or occupant, or any
agent, servant, representative or employee of any such owner, lessee, or occupant having control of any
occupied or unoccupied lot or land or any part thereof in the City to permit or maintain on any such lot or
land, or on or along the sidewalk, street, or alley adjacent to the same between the property line and the
curb or middle of the alley or for ten feet (10') outside the property line if there is no curb, any growth of
weeds, grass or other rank vegetation to a greater height than twelve inches (12"), or any accumulation of
dead weeds, grass or brush. (1981 Code 1001 § 1; amd. 2003 Code)
2. Exemption. Any ground cover vegetation located in the following areas is hereby exempt from height
restrictions:
a. Shore impact zones;
b. Areas within fifty feet (50') of a wetland or natural drainage way;
c. Bluff impact zones;
d. Areas of native plant communities; and
e. Significant vegetative stands, with said areas identified under Title 12 Zoning, Chapter 3, Mississippi
River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Overlay District ordinance.
Ground cover vegetation and any vegetation management within the MRCCA Overlay District shall comply
with the Vegetation Management requirements and standards of Section 12-6A-9 of City Code Title 12,
Chapter 6 and any Vegetation Management Permits approved by the City.
3. Poisonous Plants: It shall be unlawful for any such person or persons to cause, suffer, or allow poison ivy,
ragweed or other poisonous plant or plants detrimental to health to grow on any lot or land in such manner
that any part of such ivy, ragweed, or other poisonous or harmful weed shall extend upon, overhang or
border any public place or allow the seed, pollen, or other poisonous particles or emanations therefrom to be
carried through the air into any public place. (1981 Code 1001 § 1; amd. 2003 Code; Ord. 568, 9-23-2021)
C. Duty to Abate:
1. It shall be the duty of any owner, lessee or occupant of any lot or land to cut and remove or cause to be cut
and removed all such weeds, grass or other rank, poisonous or harmful vegetation as often as may be
necessary to comply with the provisions of section 15-7-4B of this chapter; provided, that cutting and
removing such weeds, grass and vegetation at least once in every three (3) weeks, between May 15 and
September 15 shall be deemed to be a compliance with this chapter. (1981 Code 1001 § 2)
D. Abatement Procedure:
1. Notice To Abate: If the provisions of sections 15-7-4B and 15-7-4C of this chapter are not complied with, the
weed inspector shall serve written notice upon the owner, lessee or occupant or any person having the care
or control of any such lot or land to comply with the provision of this chapter.
2. Abatement By City; Costs A Lien: If the person upon whom the notice is served fails, neglects or refuses to
cut and remove or to cause to be cut and removed such weeds, grass or other vegetation within five (5)
days after receipt of such notice, or if no person can be found in the city who either is or claims to be the
Page 107 of 108
DRAFT 07.11.2024
Mendota Heights
Title 15: Environmental Standards | Chapter 7
DRAFT 07.11.2024 10
owner of such lot or land or who either represents or claims to represent such owner, the weed inspector
shall cause such weeds, grass and other vegetation on such lot or land to be cut and removed, and the
actual cost of such cutting and removal, plus five percent (5%) for inspection and other additional costs in
connection therewith, shall be certified by the city clerk to the county auditor and shall thereupon become
and be a lien upon the property on which such weeds, grass and other vegetation were located and shall be
added to and become and form part of the taxes next to be assessed and levied upon such lot or land and
shall bear interest at the same rate as taxes and shall be collected and enforced by the same officer and in
the same manner as taxes. (1981 Code 1001 § 3)
E. Exemptions from Provisions:
1. Application For Exemption: An application for an annual exemption from the requirements of this chapter
may be filed with the weed inspector.
2. Grounds For Exemptions: The weed inspector may grant exemption from strict compliance with this chapter
if, in his determination, the property meets certain criteria.
a. The inspector will give consideration for exemption to properties which he determines to be wetland
areas, wooded areas, steep slopes, large undeveloped parcels, wildlife habitats, nature preserves or
properties adjacent thereto, or to those portions of developed residential lots which are designated as
natural and planted with decorative plants such as prairie grass and wildflowers.
b. Unimproved portions of city parks, state owned property, rights of way, and ditches are exempt from
compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
3. Revocation Of Exemption: Exemptions authorized by the weed inspector are subject to revocation should
any of the following conditions be determined to exist:
a. Noxious weeds are found to be present subsequent to the granting of an exemption;
b. The exemption results in creation of a sight obstruction or hydrant obstruction;
c. An unusual number of complaints are lodged with the weed inspector; or
d. The property becomes a disposal site for grass clippings, branches or other forms of debris. (Ord. 273,
3-5-1991)
F. Penalty:
1. Any person who shall neglect to cut and remove weeds, grass or other vegetation as directed in this chapter,
or who shall fail, neglect or refuse to comply with the provisions of any notice herein provided or who shall
violate any of the provisions of this chapter or who shall resist or obstruct the weed inspector or his
employees in the cutting and removal of weeds, grass and other vegetation, shall, upon conviction thereof,
be subject to a fine as provided in section 1-4-1 of this code, and each day on which such violation continues
shall constitute a separate offense. (1981 Code 1001 § 4; amd. 2003 Code)
Page 108 of 108