Loading...
06 03 2025 CC Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 3, 2025 at 6:00 PM Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3.Pledge of Allegiance 4.Approval of the Agenda The Council, upon majority vote of its members, may make additions or deletions to the agenda. These items may be submitted after the agenda preparation deadline. 5.Public Comments - for items not on the agenda Public comments provide an opportunity to address the City Council on items which are not on the meeting agenda. All are welcome to speak. Individuals should address their comments to the City Council as a whole, not individual members. Speakers are requested to come to the podium and must state their name and address. Comments are limited to three (3) minutes. No action will be taken; however, the Mayor and Council may ask clarifying questions as needed or request staff to follow up. 6.Consent Agenda Items on the consent agenda are approved by one motion of the City Council. If a councilmember requests additional information or wants to make a comment on an item, the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. Items removed from the consent agenda will be taken up as the next order of business. a.Approve Minutes from the May 20, 2025, City Council Meeting b.Acknowledge Minutes from the March 31, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting c.Acknowledge Minutes from the September 18, 2024, Airport Relations Commission Meeting d.Acknowledge Minutes from the November 20, 2024, Airport Relations Commission Joint Meeting with the City of Eagan e.Approve Liquor License Renewals f.Approve Massage Therapist Licenses g.Approve Reciprocal Fire Service Agreement Page 1 of 86 h.Approve a Letter of Interest for Xcel Energy Thermal Energy Network Demonstration Project i.Approve Resolution 2025-30 Accepting a Donation to the Cliff Timm Memorial Fishing Derby j.Authorize Execution of a Purchase Order for 2025 Street Striping k.Approve Public Works Maintenance Parks Lead Worker Promotion l.Adopt Resolution 2025-31 Supporting a Request to the State of Minnesota Capital Budget for the City of Mendota Heights City Hall and Public Safety Facility Project m.Approve Claims List 7.Presentations 8.Public Hearings 9.New and Unfinished Business a.Concept Plan Review for a proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to the Lexington Heights PUD located at 2320 Lexington Avenue [Planning Case 2025-06] 10.Community / City Administrator Announcements 11.City Council Comments 12.Adjourn Next Meeting June 17, 2025 at 6:00PM Information is available in alternative formats or with the use of auxiliary aids to individuals with disabilities upon request by calling city hall at 651-452-1850 or by emailing cityhall@mendotaheightsmn.gov. Regular meetings of the City Council are cablecast on NDC4/Town Square Television Cable Channel 18/HD798 and online at TownSquare.TV/Webstreaming Page 2 of 86 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA DRAFT Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, May 20, 2025 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Levine called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilors Lorberbaum, Paper, Mazzitello, and Maczko were also present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Levine presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Mazzitello moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the public wished to be heard. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Levine presented the consent agenda and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Mazzitello moved approval of the consent agenda as presented, pulling items h and i. a. Approval of May 6, 2025, City Council Minutes b. Acknowledge Minutes from the March 11, 2025, Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting c. Approve Liquor License Renewals d. Approve Massage Therapist License Renewals and a Massage Business License Renewal e. Approve Out of State Travel Authorization – National Recreation and Park Association f. Authorize Internal Posting for Public Works Maintenance Lead Position and the Resulting Department Vacancy 6.a Page 3 of 86 May 20, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 of 17 g. Authorize the Signing of a Cost Share Agreement with Dakota County for New Election Hardware, Software, and Related Services h. Approve Amendment to the Professional Services Contract for the Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvements i. Approve Resolution 2025-27 Recognizing National Public Works Week j. Approve March and April Treasurer’s Report k. Approval of Claims List Councilor Maczko seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS H) APPROVE AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR THE FRIENDLY HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS Councilor Maczko commented that this item is related to construction management and inspection with a cost of $176,000, which he believed to be too expensive to be on the Consent Agenda. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that there are estimations of professional costs, which are typically 20 percent. He explained that this project was spread over two years, and only the first year of this professional service was included, therefore, the amendment would add the second year of construction management and inspection. He stated that the amended total would be equal to 12.2 percent and explained the portion of costs that would be charged to St. Paul Regional Water Service. He provided more information on the total project cost and indirect costs. He stated that there would be an additional $125,000 in indirect costs related to the financing. He noted that with the high level of interest in rain gardens, a third party may be hired to provide that service. He confirmed that the project would remain within budget. Councilor Maczko moved to approve AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR THE FRIENDLY HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 I) APPROVE RESOLUTION 2025-27 RECOGNIZING NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK Councilor Mazzitello stated that from May 18th to the 24th the nation recognizes Public Works Week. He commented on the great work that the Public Works Department provides to the community, which is often unrecognized. He thanked the Public Works Department of Mendota Heights as well as all other similar departments throughout the state and country. Councilor Maczko echoed those comments. He stated that Public Works provides a quality of life and the first impression of a community. He noted that they are the unsung heroes, the first to arrive in an emergency, and the last ones to leave. Page 4 of 86 May 20, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 of 17 Councilor Mazzitello moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2025-27 RECOGNIZING NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK. Councilor Maczko seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PRESENTATIONS A) NAME THE SNOWPLOW TRUCK SURVEY RESULTS Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence provided background information on the process of naming the new snowplows and the related survey. The two new snowplows will be named Mendotasnowta and Saltimus Prime. Mayor Levine commented that the City has been transitioning to snowplows that use brine before snow occurs, which is more effective and better for the environment. She stated that these are not additional vehicles, but replacements. PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) IVY HILLS PARK PLAYGROUND RECOMMENDATION Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence explained that the Council was being asked to approve a proposal from Webber Recreation (Miracle) for the replacement of the playground at Ivy Hills in the amount of $180,000. Councilor Lorberbaum asked for more information on the miracle machine referenced in the proposal. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence provided more information on the miracle machines. Councilor Lorberbaum commented that she does like the ADA accessibility and thanked the Parks and Recreation Commission for its thorough review, acknowledging that this park is for residents of all ages. She referenced the planned expansion of the container size and noted that the recommended proposal exceeds that amount. She asked if the additional expansion would occur to the north. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence confirmed that the contractor used the map as a guide and would expand slightly more to the north. Councilor Maczko commented that originally, he had some concerns related to the replacement of the playground and what they would be getting in return for the cost. He took photographs of the playground today and did not find anything wrong with the equipment as it exists today. He stated that he would guess the playground is only a year or two old, and was amazed that it is 18 years old. He did not have an issue replacing something that was needed, but did not believe that the playground needed to be Page 5 of 86 May 20, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 of 17 replaced and would like to see the maintenance records in support. He did not believe they were receiving an upgrade for the cost of $180,000 outside of the rubberized surface. He stated that he did watch the Park and Recreation Commission meeting and recognized the frustration of the Commission relating to the accessible feature. He stated that as an older person, he would not use a spinning feature. He was challenged to spend $180,000 for what appears to be little benefit. He stated that he fully supports accessibility for all but asked if there is another way they could do this. He referenced language on a park equipment inspection company website and asked if they could work with the City to revitalize the existing equipment without full replacement and would that be a better option. He noted a comment that he received from a resident who was concerned with the funds that would be spent and what would happen to the equipment that could perhaps be reused. He stated that he got the impression that the Commission was accepting this proposal because it provided the most accessibility, but that they were settling for this, and it was not the best option in their eyes. He stated that he would have a different view if the Park Commission had provided a strong feeling of support. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence recognized that seniors would most likely prefer the swing over the spinner, which was part of the Parks Commission discussion. She noted that the original recommendation from the Commission for the RFP was the requirement of an inclusive swing. She explained that the City Council changed the RFP to remove the requirement for the inclusive swing and changed that to require any inclusive item, including a merry-go-round. She explained that when the requirement for a swing is removed, they cannot expect that to be included in the proposals. She stated that staff review and inspect the playgrounds, completing the necessary maintenance. She stated that there is a certified playground inspector on staff to ensure that requirements are being met and that the equipment is safe. She commented that the Public Works department does not have the maintenance data as to when things are replaced or repaired, but they are looking to track that data in the future. She stated that even though the playground looks nice, it is starting to fail from a safety standpoint and therefore needs to be replaced to ensure safety moving forward. Councilor Mazzitello asked about the disposition of the current playground equipment and whether it could be repurposed. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence replied that the equipment could not be installed in another location as it does not meet the current safety standards. She stated that there are organizations that will take the equipment and send it to another country where the standards do not exist, but noted that this equipment will not qualify for that type of reuse. Councilor Paper stated that there was a QR code that was used and asked for the number of votes that were received from that source. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence replied that she did not have that information tonight, but perhaps the communication staff can gather that data. Councilor Paper commented that there was a robust number of voters and asked if those were unique voters or whether people could vote multiple times. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence replied that this was not a scientific survey, as the City did not pay for that service, so a person could have voted more than once. Page 6 of 86 May 20, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 of 17 Councilor Paper commented that proposal two received an overwhelming number of votes and noted that while that concept does have the accessible spinner, there is no way to accessibly reach the spinner without pushing a wheelchair through woodchips. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence replied that the concept did score highly with teens due to the height of the tower, but the Commission also recognized that there is no accessible way to reach the spinning feature. She stated that for that reason, the Park Commission did not recommend moving forward with that proposal. She stated that the poured-in-place surfacing could be added to provide a path, but that would have an additional cost. She recognized that while woodchips are technically considered ADA compliant, in reality, it is not feasible for someone to push a wheelchair through that type of material. Councilor Paper asked about the cost to add the rubber surfacing, as that seems to be a reasonably short distance to the feature. He noted that over 50 percent of those providing input chose this option and that should be highly considered as the residents are the ones who will be using the playground. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence estimated the cost to add the poured-in-place surfacing to be $12,235 which would be above the $180,000 budgeted amount. Councilor Paper asked if the feature could be moved closer to the entrance to reduce that cost. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence replied that it is her understanding that the placement of the feature provides the necessary use zone/fall area and therefore could not be moved closer to the entrance or other features. Councilor Paper asked if that would just be a walkway or whether it would also include turnaround space. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence replied that it is her understanding that the walkway would look similar to proposal one. She recognized that poured-in-place pricing is expensive, noting that $29,700 of option three is the poured-in-place surfacing. Councilor Paper asked about the useful life of the rubberized surface. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence replied that there is poured-in- place surfacing at Mendakota Park. She commented that staff do complete some patching of the material as necessary, but the hope is that the material will last the same amount of time as the equipment, which would be ten to 15 years. Councilor Paper asked if the poured-in-place was replaced when the playground was refurbished. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence replied that she was not on staff at that time and therefore was unsure. Page 7 of 86 May 20, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Page 6 of 17 Mayor Levine referenced the issue of shade, noting that there is an opportunity to look at additional tree planting. She noted that it has also been mentioned that teens like areas to hang hammocks. She asked whether trees could be planted to add shade, with a picnic table. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence stated that she met with the Natural Resources Coordinator, and they do plan to add trees after construction is completed. She stated that staff will determine where the trees could be best situated to provide shade throughout the park. Councilor Lorberbaum asked how often the playgrounds are inspected. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence replied that documented inspections occur once per month, but visual inspections are completed each time staff are at the site. She noted that they also receive notifications from residents when equipment is not working correctly, and they address those issues right away. Councilor Maczko asked for information on the boundary of the park property. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence identified the boundary of the park property. Councilor Mazzitello moved to approve A PROPOSAL FROM WEBBER RECREATION (MIRACLE) FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE PLAYGROUND AT IVY HILLS PARK IN THE AMOUNT OF $180,000. Councilor Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Further discussion: Councilor Paper stated that he agrees that when you look at the playground, it looks to be in good shape, but also recognized the importance of listening to staff when things need to be replaced. He commented on the public engagement that was completed and was concerned that this recommendation did not match the option desired by the public. He appreciated the work of the Parks and Recreation Commission, but noted that sometimes the Council does not always agree with the recommendation of the Commission. He stated that he is of the mindset to make the option the community wanted more accessible. He could not understand how difficult it would be to push someone in a wheelchair through woodchips and would like to find a way to move forward with option two with a rubberized surface to make the feature truly accessible. Councilor Maczko appreciated the comments of Councilor Paper. He stated that, being an engineer, he cannot overlook his experience with the shape of the equipment. He agreed that option two seems to have more amenities than option three. He also could not believe woodchips are considered accessible. He stated that he agrees with replacing items that are worn out, but perhaps there would be an option to leave the playground as is and add an accessible swing for a lower cost. He asked the warranty of the current equipment, noting that the miracle product states that it has a lifetime warranty. He stated that $180,000 is a lot of money, and he did not see much they would be gaining with this option. He suggested that they perhaps go back and start over. Councilor Mazzitello stated that he agrees with the statement that $180,000 is a lot of money, which is why they have a budget and forecast improvements in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). He stated that Page 8 of 86 May 20, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Page 7 of 17 he is also an engineer who has served this city as the Public Works Director, and recognized that in that role, he often replaced infrastructure items before they failed. He stated that while still functional, this playground is at a point where failure may be in the future, which is why it was prioritized to move forward. He noted that this playground was planned for replacement last year but was delayed due to budget constraints. He referenced the large capital hole they are still trying to get out of because of the previous history of the City, where staff made a recommendation, a Commission provided unanimous support for the project, and the City Council killed the project. He noted that this project has been a priority for years, and this is a lot of money. He stated that the public, by a plurality, chose a different option, but the City Council has to make the right decision for the playground. He stated that the correct choice would be to provide the option of accessibility within the allotted budget, which is why he supports the project. Councilor Lorberbaum stated that she agrees with Councilor Paper and would love to choose proposal two, but there is not true accessibility provided. She stated that while she likes the idea of what they could do to make it work, it would exceed the budgeted amount to provide the additional surfacing. She stated that she also believed that the park looks to be in good condition, but also trusts the recommendation of staff and supports the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission for option three. Mayor Levine noted her previous service on the Parks and Recreation Commission, noting that she brought forth the concept of community engagement during her time on the Commission. She stated that the Commission, Subcommittee, and Council provided input on the RFP, which then resulted in the proposals that were received. She stated that the public chose option two based on the proposals presented. She commented that the City has followed this process numerous times for playground replacement projects, and every time the Parks and Recreation Commission has supported the option chosen by the public. She noted that this would be the first time that the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission does not match the public engagement results. She believed that people would be upset if they do not listen to the community. She stated that if the vote was close, she could see that the Commission may choose one over the other, but in this case, option two has 134 more votes. She was unsure that she could choose an option that was not chosen by the public engagement process. She recognized that while this playground is not failing at this time, they are getting closer to the point where equipment could be taken offline. She considered the concept of Councilor Maczko to add an accessible feature, but noted that would create a Frankenstein playground where replacement is not on the same schedule and it is pieced together. She stated that there is an option to fix option two by adding the poured- in-place surfacing for the accessible feature. She recognized that would cause the project cost to exceed the budgeted amount, but noted that this would not be the first time that has happened. She preferred to move forward with option two, with the additional poured-in-place accessible surface to the feature. Councilor Lorberbaum stated that she likes the direction that Mayor Levine is moving but noted that she cannot support an option that is not accessible. She explained that having accessibility to the spinning feature is not enough for her. She stated that option three provides more options for accessibility. Mayor Levine commented that the Council released an RFP and did not put out an RFP for a fully accessible playground because it would be cost-prohibitive for this budget. Councilor Lorberbaum commented that option three includes more than one option for accessibility. Page 9 of 86 May 20, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Page 8 of 17 Mayor Levine stated that accessibility is more than mobility and includes features such as the communication board. She reviewed the ages and specifications that were mentioned within the RFP, noting that they must consider the entire community. She stated that the community wanted option two. Councilor Lorberbaum asked if the poured-in-place surfacing could be added at a later time if the playground is installed this year. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence replied that she was unsure and would need to speak with the contractor. She assumed that installation costs would increase if the surfacing was added through a secondary project. Mayor Levine asked if the communication board could be moved closer, if a poured-in-place surface were added for the spinning feature. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence replied that the communication board could be moved, perhaps to the other side of the merry-go-round near the container edge. She was unsure of the increase in cost for the poured-in-place surfacing to not just be a straight line, but also to access the communication board. She stated that in proposal three, the surfacing is not just a straight line, as it provides access to multiple features. She noted that if that information is desired, she would want to postpone action in order to receive a better estimate from the contractor on the cost to add poured-in-place surfacing. Councilor Lorberbaum asked if that information could be gathered between now and the next meeting, and whether that would postpone the project to next year. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence replied that she believes a two- week delay would be okay. Councilor Maczko commented that the memorandum states installation in September, which would be the end of the season. He stated that from his perspective, if they are going to spend the money, he could perhaps be talked into spending more money, as they have been discussing whether it would provide a better result. He explained that he is just asking staff to show the homework and records rather than not trusting staff. He stated that he could support the option that is desired by the community, but also recognized the desire of the Parks and Recreation Commission to provide accessibility. He recognized that the Commission could not modify the option as the Council is discussing, but the Council has the ability to choose to increase the budget to provide what the residents want and provide accessibility. He stated that option three, by far, provides more accessibility options. He stated that if they are going to spend the money, the additional poured-in-place surfacing added to option two would only increase the budget by ten percent. He wanted to ensure that they are choosing an option that everyone can support. Mayor Levine asked for more information as she does not want to delay for the purpose of delaying. She commented on the extensive process thus far, recognizing that the process is not perfect. She stated that they asked the community to vote and should support those results. She believed that they should then make option two work for everyone, creating more accessibility within that option, even if there is a higher cost. Page 10 of 86 May 20, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Page 9 of 17 Councilor Paper commented that this playground is the furthest from any parking in the city and therefore believed that should be considered when they discuss accessibility. He stated that if the focus is on accessibility, perhaps the playground should be moved towards the parking lot. He noted that the desire was for accessible features and not a fully accessible playground. Mayor Levine commented that there are asphalt trails, and therefore, someone with a wheelchair or stroller could easily access the playground area by the trails. She stated that she is opposed to moving the entire playground, as that would substantially increase the cost. She noted that they have followed the same process for each playground and recognized that there are changes that should be made to the process going forward. She believed they should move forward with option two, with the additional poured-in- place surface, and they could discuss other options if they desire. Councilor Paper commented that option three does not seem to offer many options for ages ten and above. Mayor Levine agreed that option two provides a wider appeal to residents of all ages because of the variety of features. She stated that the Council could then review how they could bring in the element of accessibility. Councilor Maczko recalled an email received from a resident who found option three to be the most accessible option, given their experience with a family member. He stated that people often choose things that appeal to them rather than consider the hardships of others. He stated that he would choose option two, with the ADA accessible area of option three. He stated that he would also want to replace the spinning feature with a swing that a grandparent and child could sit on. Councilor Mazzitello stated that 44.5 percent of the residents chose option two, but 55 percent of people did not choose that option. He stated that the City issued an RFP and received proposals; the job of the Council is to review the proposals, and they are free to reject all proposals. He noted that the survey was not scientific, and people could have voted multiple times, the data is meant to be one element the Council considers in this process. He stated that if they are going to ask a vendor to modify their proposal, he believes they should go back to all vendors and ask for similar modifications, which essentially starts the process over and pushes the project back yet another year. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence stated that staff attempt to build good relationships with the vendors to ensure they can receive parts and repairs when necessary. She stated that the vendors have spent time and money to design a playground and have not been paid for that. In order to provide fairness in the process, it would be important to allow all vendors to change their proposals if that is going to be offered to one vendor. She stated that the Council could table this, but she would need clear direction in order to move forward. Councilor Mazzitello withdrew his motion. Councilor Lorberbaum agreed and withdrew the second. Councilor Lorberbaum recognized that this is not perfect, and they could probably find a better option. She agreed that all vendors should be allowed to change their proposals. Page 11 of 86 May 20, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Page 10 of 17 Councilor Maczko asked what it would look like to allow all the vendors to change their proposals. He asked if it would be appropriate to provide the direction on what they liked from options two and three, along with a desire for the accessible swing rather than the spinning feature. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence replied that if the Council is going to ask for new requirements, they should develop a new RFP that aligns with the vision of the Council and allows all the vendors to redesign their proposals. She noted that two additional vendors did not move on to the second phase of engagement, and they should be allowed to rebid as well. She stated that if there are specifics that the Council likes, they should be specific in their RFP requirements. City Attorney Amy Schmidt stated that it sounds like the Council is changing the scope of the project, and therefore all bids should be rejected, and the process should start again. She noted that the proposals were included in the packet and therefore everyone’s bid was made public. She agreed that the Council should be very descriptive in what it wants through the new RFP. Mayor Levine asked for information on the timing of that process. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence replied that the Council could reject the bids this evening. She stated that they are starting engagement for the Master Plan, which will be presented to the Council in June. She stated that if the Council has specific criteria, she could most likely bring the RFP back to the second meeting in June, but questioned if that should go back to the Parks and Recreation Commission and its workgroup, who have also done significant work on the project. She estimated that the proposals would be back before the Council in the fall with a spring completion. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the direction of the Council includes features that have a high cost and asked if there would be a budget cap or whether the vendors would provide their estimated cost without that cap. Mayor Levine commented that the accessible swing feature has a high cost of $50,000 to $75,000, which is why vendors did not choose to include that feature. Councilor Paper commented that if this is delayed to next year, the price will continue to increase, and he did not want to see this project continue to be pushed out. Mayor Levine agreed that they were lucky to get the prices locked in now and kicking the can down the road would only increase the cost. Councilor Maczko asked if they could choose option two and include the rubberized material or whether that would be modifying the scope. City Attorney Amy Schmidt replied that it would still be a change in the scope, and if one proposer is allowed to submit a new proposal, then all vendors should be allowed to submit a new proposal. Councilor Maczko commented that it would seem that they would need to accept all proposals as they are or reject and start over. Page 12 of 86 May 20, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Page 11 of 17 Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence commented that she believes that modifications could be made as long as they align with the scope of the original RFP. City Attorney Amy Schmidt stated that if all the proposals are based on certain criteria and some proposals do not include all the components it would create an uncompetitive situation if one proposer is allowed to make changes to their proposal in order to address more elements. Councilor Maczko agreed that providing additional funding would open up options for all vendors. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence stated that it seems that the Council is not happy with the final proposals and would like to begin the process again. She agreed that if they were going to change the scope and rebid the project, they would need to look deeper at the budget. She explained that the vendors have already seen increases for equipment, and therefore, the equipment will have a higher cost in a few months. She noted that perhaps the accessibility elements could be funded through the special parks fund. She did not believe that $180,000 would be adequate to achieve the scope of the Council. Mayor Levine asked if they could move forward with option two, with the additional poured-in-place surfacing for a cost of $12,500. She stated that the other vendors could also submit updates to their proposal with the additional funds in that amount if desired. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence asked if the City Attorney would allow the additional poured-in-place surfacing to be added to option two. Mayor Levine commented that was done at Marie Park with the shade feature. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence explained at Marie Park that was included as a bid alternate in the original proposal. City Attorney Amy Schmidt replied that if the Council changes the budget for one proposal, that becomes an issue of fairness, as another proposal may have been able to include another feature for that cost. She stated that all the bidders need to be treated equally, and therefore, if one is given the option to change, all must be provided with that opportunity. She stated that it adds confusion to the process as no one knows what they are bidding on anymore, and would prefer to have a new, clear RFP that clearly describes what the Council is looking for. Mayor Levine commented that if the bids are rejected and they start over, the pricing also goes away. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence stated that in a quote from 2023, the accessible swing being discussed had a cost of $88,000 with the poured-in-place rubber for access to the swing. She noted that cost would be higher today. She did not believe $180,000 would be sufficient for the features the Council would like. She strongly encouraged the Council to provide a budget amount if the project is going to be rebid. Councilor Maczko moved to REJECT THE BIDS AND REBID THE PROJECT USING THE GUIDANCE OF THE COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND COMMUNITY INPUT FOR THE DESIRED Page 13 of 86 May 20, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Page 12 of 17 FEATURES AND ACCESSIBILITY, WITH A BID ALTERNATIVE TO REMOVE THE SPINNING FEATURE AND REPLACE THAT WITH THE ACCESSIBLE SWING ORIGINALLY REQUESTED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION WITH A BUDGET OF $200,000. Councilor Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Further discussion: Councilor Maczko explained that the accessible swing would be added as a bid alternate which would allow the Council to accept that feature above the budgeted cost, if that is a desire. Councilor Lorberbaum stated that she would want to ensure that the poured-in-place surfacing reaches more than one feature. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence commented that with a budget of $200,000, that could be a great playground even without the accessible feature. She stated that if the accessible swing is included in that budget, the Council would most likely not be happy with the outcome, as that would not leave much more in the budget for the other features. Mayor Levine clarified that the budget would be $200,000 and there would be a bid alternate for the accessible swing. She did not believe that this is a realistic direction given the budget constraints for the project. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that rather than giving options for the ADA feature, the merry-go-round would become the accessible feature, with the bid alternate replacing that feature with the accessible swing. He noted that they would also require the poured-in-place surfacing to reach more than one feature as part of the base bid. Councilor Lorberbaum asked if the representative from the Parks and Recreation Commission could provide input. Park Commissioner Schifsky stated that the poured-in-place surfacing keeps being mentioned as something for people in wheelchairs, but noted that surface also provides accessibility for people who are not steady on their feet. She also noted the community members who voted, noting that the neighborhood was interested in option three while the larger school community reflected the interest in option two. She was excited to hear the Council discuss the accessibility of poured-in-place surfacing and to have that surfacing reach more than one feature. She commented that the accessible swing would also be excellent for people of all ages. Councilor Paper asked for more information on the accessible swing and whether that would replace the existing swings or be in addition to those swings. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence commented that the swing would allow someone in a wheelchair to use the swing without leaving their chair. She explained that it allows for the feeling of motion without spinning. She commented that there have been issues of safety with some of these types of swings, which is why they are not offered by all vendors. She stated that they would still have the bank of swings and would swap the merry-go-round with the accessible swing if that were desired. Page 14 of 86 May 20, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Page 13 of 17 Councilor Paper stated that there is a reality that they could go back to the vendors and receive the same proposals for a higher cost. He stated that they will not gain anything with the additional funds that are proposed. Councilor Lorberbaum commented that they would gain accessibility. Councilor Maczko explained that the thought, with the increase in the cost was to provide sufficient space in the budget to allow the additional poured-in-place surfacing access desired. Mayor Levine acknowledged that it was a lack of specification by the Council to not require the poured- in-place surfacing for access. City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson added that the Council also changed the RFP from the requirement of an accessible swing to the encouragement of an accessible feature, which provided the option for the merry-go-round. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence confirmed that the Parks and Recreation Commission brought forth an RFP that required an inclusive swing, and the Council did not move forward with that and made the RFP less restrictive. She stated that the merry-go-round is a lower- cost option that takes up less space, which is why the vendors chose that option. She appreciated the input of the City Administrator as to how they got to this point and explained that this is why it is important to be clear with what the desired outcome is. She stated that costs will increase, and she did not want to see them back in this same position. She reviewed the potential calendar to start the process again. Mayor Levine commented that they have completed the community engagement, and they can utilize the information received from the public and the Parks and Recreation Commission to continue to move forward. She did not believe they needed to repeat the public engagement and Parks Commission review and believed that this should remain at the Council level. She stated that it was the misstep of the Council in not requiring poured-in-place surfacing around the accessible feature. She suggested that staff be provided direction to create an RFP based on the proposal that the public and Council favor, adding another $20,000 to the budget to add accessibility. Councilor Lorberbaum recognized that the Mayor does not believe additional public engagement is needed and asked whether this would go back before the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mayor Levine stated that she would be inclined to keep this at the Council level, as the input of the Commission has been communicated. Councilor Mazzitello cautioned on the verbiage as the Mayor pointed towards a proposal from one vendor. He noted that most of the people who liked that proposal were high school students, not residents of the neighborhood. He suggested that they start from scratch rather than pointing to a proposal they like. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence stated that they have completed public engagement and cautioned against moving forward without public engagement on new concepts. Page 15 of 86 May 20, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Page 14 of 17 Councilor Mazzitello stated that proposal three is good, and they are trying to make it perfect. He stated that they have gone through a process that they have completed at multiple parks, and they should continue to follow that process. He stated that the Council was brought an RFP and made changes to that, and received proposals that were compliant with that RFP. He stated that it would now seem that the Council would want to change it back to the original RFP that the Commission recommended to them, which is an example of why government looks bad to people. He stated that they should either approve proposal three or reject all proposals and move forward with a new concept in 2026. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence agreed that if the bids are rejected tonight, there is no way a playground would be built in 2025. She explained that if they reject the bids, she would not want to rush through this and would want to ensure the RFP meets the desires of the Council for the playground. She commented that a playground project should be fun and exciting, and it should provide accessible opportunities for kids and people of all ages to recreate. She confirmed that the pricing would no longer be locked in and would increase. Councilor Maczko asked if the poured-in-place surface could be installed at a later date, which would allow them to accept proposal two and later bid out the poured-in-place surface to be added later. He commented that it would seem to provide the best of both worlds. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence commented that she would assume that could be done, but noted that it would have additional costs. She stated that it would only provide access to the one inclusive feature. City Attorney Amy Schmidt stated that if the project is changing, then it is changing. She stated that the Council needs to vote on what is before them or reject the bids. She explained that if you take one project and make it two projects, that is still no longer a competitive bidding process. Councilor Maczko asked if they could proceed with the project as is, and then in 2026 add the poured-in- place surfacing to provide accessible access as a second project. Councilor Mazzitello commented that the motion on the floor is to reject all bids, resend the RFP, and called the question. Ayes: 3 Nays: 2 (Mazzitello and Paper) Mayor Levine commented that the bids have now been rejected. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence asked the Council to provide clear direction on what is desired to craft an accurate RFP. She summarized the previous input from the Council for a budget of $200,000 with a bid alternate for the accessible swing, and a requirement for poured-in-place surfacing for the accessible feature and one additional feature. She asked if the Council wants this to go back to the Parks Commission. She stated that the Commission has changed their June meeting to a work session to discuss the budget and recognized that the Council had strong feelings last time the recommendation from the Commission came from a work session. She asked if the Council Page 16 of 86 May 20, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Page 15 of 17 would want this to go to the Parks Commission at the July meeting or whether this would go directly back to the Council. She also asked if public engagement was desired. Councilor Lorberbaum commented that if this is going to be a 2026 project, there would be time to include the Parks and Recreation Commission and public engagement. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that ideally, they would still want this project completed in November or December so that the playground could be built in March and used by the residents. Mayor Levine asked if there would be time to include those processes. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence provided details on timing and commented that this project would not be constructed this year. City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson asked if there is a playground scheduled for replacement in 2026. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence confirmed that Valley Park is planned for 2026. City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson reviewed the specifications within the RFP released, specifically section D, and asked if the language for B is being kept along with the bid alternate for an accessible swing. Mayor Levine confirmed that is accurate. She stated that she will plan to move this back to the Parks Commission at its July meeting. Councilor Lorberbaum thanked the Parks Commission for their discussion, acknowledging that the Commission was also not happy with the choices. Councilor Maczko commented on the accessibility design from proposal three that he liked and asked if that could be included somehow in the RFP language. Mayor Levine thanked staff and the Parks Commission, recognizing that this has been a long process. B) RESOLUTION 2025-29 TO ESTABLISH JUNE AS GUN VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH Police Chief Kelly McCarthy provided a brief background on this item. The Council was being asked to consider approving Resolution 2025-29 establishing June as Gun Violence Awareness Month. She provided information on the actions of the Police Department to promote awareness during that time. Councilor Lorberbaum moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2025-29 ESTABLISHING JUNE AS GUN VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page 17 of 86 May 20, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Page 16 of 17 C) RESOLUTION 2025-28 CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN EASEMENT VACATION FOR LOT 6 AND 7, BLOCK 1 OF THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS INDUSTRIAL PARK Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided a brief background on this item. The Council was being asked to consider Resolution 2025-28 calling for a public hearing on an easement vacation request by petition. Evan Mattson, Endeavor, spoke in representation of the applicant and provided background information on the experience of the company and the desired redevelopment project. He explained that the vacation and relocation of the stormwater easement would accommodate the new 174,160 square foot modern business development, noting that a new stormwater easement would be established and a new stormwater pond with additional capacity would be constructed to serve the project and surrounding properties. Dan Sjoblom, Alliant Engineering, provided additional information on the existing stormwater pond and the proposed larger pond that would be located along the western property line. Councilor Mazzitello referenced the proposed new pond easement, which shows the retaining wall outside of the pond easement but the toes which wrap around the pond are within the easement. He asked if the retaining wall would belong to the City or the developer, or whether that would be a shared responsibility. Mr. Sjoblom replied that they would propose keeping the retaining wall outside of the easement. Mayor Levine asked who would be responsible for the maintenance of the pond after it was dredged the first time. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that this would be a new pond, and the dredging of the existing sediment would no longer be a task of the City. He stated that because this pond would provide regional benefits, the City would become the responsible party for maintenance. Councilor Maczko stated that the existing pond had a capacity of 312,000 cubic feet, and this new pond would slightly exceed the size of the original stormwater pond. He stated that the stormwater pond was originally built to address flooding on a regional basis. He stated that this action would provide something a little better than originally constructed, just in a slightly different location. Councilor Mazzitello moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2025-28 CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN EASEMENT VACATION COMMENCED BY PETITION FOR LOT 6 AND 7, BLOCK 1, MENDOTA HEIGHTS INDUSTRIAL PARK. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson announced upcoming community events and activities. COUNCIL COMMENTS Page 18 of 86 May 20, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Page 17 of 17 Councilor Maczko apologized for his part in the earlier discussion but also recognized the importance of having that discussion for the park and believed that it would ultimately bring about a better end result. He provided an update on the County 911 meeting he attended and commented on the great service that is provided through that program. Councilor Mazzitello apologized for being terse earlier, noting that he is a supporter of the process and following procedure. He spoke about the importance of Memorial Day, which is when they honor those who have given their lives for the greater good of the community. He stated that those who serve have the knowledge that they may have to give their lives for the freedom that others enjoy. He shared a quote from Abraham Lincoln. Councilor Lorberbaum stated that May is Get Caught Reading Month and was proud of the little free library outside of City Hall and found throughout the community. She shared a related quote from Mark Twain. She also apologized for her actions at the last Council meeting when she botched her happy wishes for Cinco de Mayo. She credited Parks and Recreation for the wonderful Touch a Truck event, noting that the sensory hour was well attended. She thanked NDC4, who developed a video of the now-famous turtles on the street, which is a wonderful piece. Councilor Paper thanked John Althoff and the Dakota County Regional Chamber of Commerce who sponsored the State of the City earlier tonight. He stated that NDC4 also created a great six-minute video which features the wonderful things in the community. Mayor Levine thanked all who came to the meeting tonight, recognizing that it has been a long day for both the Council and staff. ADJOURN Councilor Paper moved to adjourn. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m. ____________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Nancy Bauer City Clerk Page 19 of 86 This page is intentionally left blank March 31, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 4 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 31, 2025 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Monday, March 31, 2025, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Commissioners Cindy Johnson, Jeff Nath, and Steve Goldade. Those absent: Commissioners Brian Udell, Jason Stone, and Patrick Corbett. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Election of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair for Year 2025 Chair Field commented that this is a continued action from the previous meeting, and he would be willing to continue serving as Chair. Commissioner Goldade asked if this should again be tabled as there are now three absences at this meeting. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden recognized that there was a tie vote at the last meeting, and there is not necessarily a process within City Code related to that situation. She stated that the Commission tabled the decision before making the decision to reschedule the March meeting date to March 31st. She stated that the Commission could table the decision to the next meeting, recognizing that there may not be full attendance at the next meeting. She noted that there may not be an April meeting, and, therefore, the decision for a Chair and Vice Chair may end up at the May meeting. Commissioner Johnson believed that under Robert’s Rules of Order, if there is a tie vote, the Chair would be reappointed. COMMISSIONER GOLDADE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO ELECT LITTON FIELD AS CHAIRPERSON OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2025. FURTHER DISCUSSION: Commissioner Goldade asked Chair Field to provide some background information for the benefit of new member, Commissioner Nath. Chair Field provided background information on his experience on the Commission and in the role of Chair. AYES: 4 Page 20 of 86 6.b March 31, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 4 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER GOLDADE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NATH, TO TABLE THE ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR TO THE NEXT MEETING. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 Approval of February 25, 2025 Minutes COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GOLDADE, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2025. FURTHER DISCUSSION: Commissioner Goldade commented that he drove by Dodd and 62 and recognized that a significant amount of work would be needed to create a path in that area to Ridge Place. He wanted the public to understand that the approval was for the opportunity for that to be created, but it is not something that will happen quickly. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the County is leaning towards the north option for an underpass, which would have major impacts on vegetation to the northwest corner. He stated that in 2025 and 2026, they will complete the design and necessary acquisition, with construction planned in 2027. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 Chair Field welcomed Commissioner Nath to the Commission. Commissioner Nath introduced himself. Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2025-02 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the City is requesting consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Text and Map Amendment to its 2040 Comprehensive Plan, modifying the “Future Land Use Plan” and guided land use of 99.23 acres of land. The current land use of the 99.23 acres is I-Industrial, and the proposed land use is B-Business. The subject area was evaluated during the City’s Zoning Code Update project and found to contain a majority of existing uses that are more consistent with commercial zoning than industrial zoning. The proposed change in land use is consistent with the Zoning Map updates, which were adopted in September of 2024 and went into effect on January 1, 2025. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350 feet of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. Page 21 of 86 March 31, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 4 Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application, subject to review and approval by the Metropolitan Council, based on the findings of fact. Commissioner Goldade asked for clarification on the difference between business and industrial. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided details on the types of businesses that would be allowed with the change, recognizing that there is not a large difference between the two guidings. Commissioner Goldade asked the number of spaces that are vacant versus occupied in this area proposed for change. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that none of the buildings were 100 percent empty, but had some vacancies. She stated that there is one green vacant site within the area proposed for change. Commissioner Goldade asked how a place of worship would be considered and whether they could be located in this type of zoning. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that a place of worship is allowed in the public/semi-public overlay and as a conditional use within the residential districts. She stated that type of use is not currently listed as allowed in the business or industrial districts. Commissioner Johnson commented that this would seem to rename the district to better match the existing uses, but asked if that is necessary, as the current guiding seem to match. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the current guiding is a close match, but because the zoning of this area has already been changed, the guiding also needs to be changed to match. Commissioner Nath asked if this change would eliminate the ability for someone in this area to continue to run their business. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that the current uses in this area would not be in conflict with the change. Commissioner Goldade asked if the Bourn property is within this area. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the Bourn Lane properties are not included in this area. Page 22 of 86 March 31, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 4 Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER GOLDADE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NATH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER GOLDADE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its April 15, 2025, meeting. New and Unfinished Business Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided an update on recent actions of the City Council and other items of interest to the Commission. Adjournment COMMISSIONER NATH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:33 P.M. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 Page 23 of 86 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES September 18, 2024 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, September 18, 2024 at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Norling called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. Commissioners present: Norling, Sharma, Sloan, Dunn, Hamiel, Bobbitt, Neuharth. Staff present: City Administrator Jacobson and Administrative Coordinator Desmond. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approve Minutes from the May 15, 2024 Meeting b. Acknowledge Airport Operational Statistics Reports 1. Complaint Information 2. Runway Use Information 3. Noise Monitor Information Chair Norling approved the consent agenda. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS Rob Meyer, 1399 Clement St, had questions about why airplanes are flying over his area so much and why they were turning in the directions they were turning. He was also wondering about the 12L Total Operations spreadsheet and the 0% operations for July-August 2024, and if it would skew the data. He asked if the commission could make a chart without the no-flight time. He then questioned where the August complaint number for Mendota Heights came from. City Administrator Jacobson explained that the numbers were from the complaints submitted to the MAC Noise Office. He then asked if the committee could do anything about the flight patterns and how much they fly over the area. Commissioner Dunn explained that if the City receives more complaints than normal, the commission could make a comment to the airport to see if anything can be done. Dennis Anderson, 2336 Lemay Shores Drive, had questions about the Eagan Mendota Heights corridor and how long it is. The commissioners answered his question. He suggested to mitigate the noise that the airplanes should go the full three miles and then turn. In addition, sharing that the airplanes have been turning sharply before they are supposed to. Page 24 of 86 6.c Commissioner Bobbit stated that the turning was established years ago and that is the way it has always been. Commissioner Sharma stated that they are supposed to turn at 62 and Delaware Avenue. Commissioner Hamiel then explained that it is more about when the airplane gets to a certain altitude, then after it gets to that altitude, it can make a turn rather than getting to a specific area, and it has been in the agreement for the last 40 years. Chair Norling commented that she didn’t like how the Eagan Mendota Heights Corridor is named because it makes it seem like it is more industrial, but it is also residential. Michelle Ross from MAC explained that they do try to take the residential and industrial areas into account and consider the noise abatement best practices and weather. Scott Norling, 1280 Lakeview Ave, had comments about the FAA RNAV public meeting and that the flights should be more dispersed using the 90 and 120 headings more since the noise from the airplanes flying over his area are no longer just an annoyance. Michelle Ross from MAC stated that air traffic control gives the pilots the direction, and they do try to disperse the flights as much as they can depending on the flight traffic, weather and the flights destination. 4. BUSINESS a. MSP Airport Update City Administrator Jacobson stated that runway 12L is planned to reopen on September 21 and flight patterns are expected to go back to normal. City Administrator Jacobson stated that FAA closed the RNAV 30-day public comment period on September 15. City Administrator Jacobson stated that if the body has a request for the NOC Workplan the commission needs to put something together. Chair Norling agreed to write a draft of the requests and work with City Administrator Jacobson on it. Commissioner Bobbitt asked if the Commission should hold a special meeting to discuss and approve the request. City Administrator Jacobson stated that once the draft is completed, she will send it to the commissioners to get their input and a special meeting is not needed. 5. INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE Chair Norling received two emails from citizens regarding the noise increase around Dodd Road and questions about the corridor. 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Chair Norling stated that the FAA RNAV public meeting wasn’t fully helpful and that the FAA didn’t answer questions or comments made during the presentation. She also added that it didn’t have a lot of public engagement. Commissioner Bobbitt thanked City Administrator Jacobson for all of the dedication and work she has done for the city. Page 25 of 86 7. ADJOURN Motion by Bobbit and second by Dunn to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. Chair Norling adjourned the meeting at 7:20pm. Page 26 of 86 This page is intentionally left blank CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE CITIES OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSIONS November 20, 2024 A joint meeting of the Eagan and Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commissions was held on Tuesday, November 20 at 6:30 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. INTRODUCTIONS Members of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission and Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission introduced themselves. Staff present included Mendota Heights City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson and Eagan Assistant City Administrator Sarah Alig. Also present were Michele Ross and Brian Ryks of the MAC. 3. VISITORS TO BE HEARD No one from the public wished to be heard. 4. GUEST PRESENTATIONS a. State of the Airport Brian Ryks, CEO of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, shared an overview of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) and the MAC, highlighting the importance of the MAC’s system of airports to the region and the state. 5. UPDATES ON CURRENT EFFORTS Airport Commission members from both cities discussed current events, including last summer’s runway construction and the unexpected change in airplane noise in Mendota Heights. 6. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business presented. 7. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned 7:45 pm. Page 27 of 86 6.d This page is intentionally left blank 6.e REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 3, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Liquor License Renewals ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk ACTION REQUEST: Approve Liquor License Renewals. BACKGROUND: Current liquor licenses will expire on June 30, 2025. Two applications have been submitted for approval. On-Sale and On-Sale Sunday: Teresa's Mexican Restaurant The Copperfield Complete applications have been submitted for all applicants, and the license fees paid. The background investigations have been completed on all the applicants with no negative findings. If the renewal applicants are approved by the City Council, the liquor licenses will then be sent to the State Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division for their approval. Upon their approval, staff would then issue the liquor licenses. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 28 of 86 This page is intentionally left blank 6.f REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 3, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Massage Therapist Licenses ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: ACTION REQUEST: Approve three new massage therapist licenses. BACKGROUND: Three new massage therapist licenses have been submitted for approval. All three will be working at Hush Therapeutic Massage and are: Jesse Lee, Frances Mayer, and Samantha Marxen. All three have completed the application requirements and passed the background investigation. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 29 of 86 This page is intentionally left blank 6.g REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 3, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Reciprocal Fire Service Agreement ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Fire CONTACT: Dan Johnson, Fire Chief ACTION REQUEST: Approve the Reciprocal Fire Service Agreement with the Capital City Regional Firefighters’ Association. BACKGROUND: This agreement with the Capital City Regional Firefighters’ Association is designed to formalize mutual aid capabilities between 33 member fire departments. The agreement represents a collective effort to streamline and strengthen the regional response framework by enabling departments to request and provide mutual aid under clear, standardized terms. It was developed with input from municipal attorneys representing member departments and was created in alignment with the League of Minnesota Cities’ information memo, “Considerations in Mutual Aid Agreements.” Approval of the agreement will greatly enhance member departments' ability to support one another and to serve our communities more effectively during times of need. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Capital City Regional Firefighters' Association Reciprocal Fire Service Agreement CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 30 of 86 1 Capital City Regional Firefighters’ Association Reciprocal Fire Service Agreement THIS CAPITAL CITY REGIONAL FIREFIGHTER’S ASSOCIATION RECIPROCAL FIRE SERVICES AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made this __ day of ____________, 2025, by and between the members of the Capital City Regional Firefighter’s Association (“Association”) who have executed this Agreement and the City of Mendota Heights (“Mendota Heights”), hereafter collectively referred to as the “Parties” for mutual assistance in firefighting services. WHEREAS, the said governmental units desire to make available to each other their respective fire-fighting equipment and personnel in the case of emergencies, and each of said municipalities has legal authority to send its firefighting equipment and personnel into other communities. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements contained herein and subject to all applicable statutes, rules and regulations, the Parties agree as follows: 1.It is agreed that the Fire Department of the City of Mendota Heights shall provide mutual aid to any of the Fire Departments listed as members of the Association and who have executed an Agreement in this form. This Agreement shall be in effect when approved by the governing body and signed by the appropriate persons for the governmental unit. A list of all members of the Association signing this Agreement shall be furnished to each member of the Association. A list of current Association members is attached as Appendix A to this Agreement as “Capital City Regional Firefighters’ Association Region 1 Members”. 2.Any Fire Department of a governmental unit wishing to withdraw its membership from the Agreement, may do so by notifying every member department in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to termination of its membership in the Association. Purpose: The intent of this agreement is to make equipment, personnel, and other resources available to each Party who has signed this Agreement upon its request to the other Parties who have signed the Agreement. It is the intent of the parties that this Agreement does not constitute a joint powers agreement under Minnesota law. Definitions: 1.“Association” means all municipalities and independent nonprofit firefighting corporations that are members of the Region 1 Minnesota State Fire Department Association. 2.“Party” or “Parties” means one or more local government units or non-profit firefighting corporations that is a member of the Association who has signed this Agreement to provide assistance to other Parties. 3.“Requesting Official” means the person designated by a Party who is responsible for requesting assistance from other Parties. 4.“Requesting Party” means a Party that requests assistance from other Parties, normally the fire department of the jurisdiction in which an incident requiring assistance occurs. 5.“Responding Official” means the person designated by the Party who is responsible to determine whether and to what extent that Party should provide assistance to a Requesting Party. Page 31 of 86 2 6.“Responding Party” means a Party that provides assistance to a Requesting Party. Authorization: Each of the Parties participating in this Agreement hereby authorize their respective Fire Departments to respond to and receive mutual aid services pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and to otherwise take such actions as are needed to provide and receive assistance as provided herein. Procedure: 1.Request for Assistance. Whenever, in the opinion of the Requesting Official, there is a need for assistance from other Parties, the Requesting Official may call upon the Responding Official of any other Party to furnish assistance. 2.Response to Request. Upon the request for assistance from the Requesting Party, the Responding Official may authorize and direct its personnel to provide assistance to the Requesting Party. Whether the Responding Party provides assistance and, if so, to what extent shall be determined by the Responding Official. 3.Recall of Assistance. The Responding Official may at any time recall such assistance when in his or her best judgment or by an order from the governing body of the Responding Party, it is considered to be in the best interests of the Responding Party to do so. 4.Command of Scene. The Requesting Party or their designee shall be in command of the emergency scene. The personnel and equipment of the Responding Party shall be under the direction and control of the Requesting Party or their designee until the Responding Official withdraws assistance. In the event an emergency occurs in or crosses the boundaries of more than one jurisdiction, a joint command of the affected jurisdictions should be established. Charges to the Requesting Party: 1.Subject to the terms below, the Requesting Party agrees to compensate the Responding Party as outlined in this Agreement. The charges incurred by the Requesting Party will include the actual costs of salaries, overtime, materials, supplies, and other necessary expenses. Equipment cost will be at the rates specified in Appendix B. 2.A Responding Party shall not charge for assistance provided to the Requesting Party of this Agreement for the first twelve (12) hours of such assistance. If assistance provided under this Agreement continues for more than twelve (12) hours, the Responding Party may submit to the Requesting Party an itemized bill for the actual cost of any assistance provided after the initial twelve-hour period, including salaries, overtime, materials and supplies and other necessary expenses; and the Requesting Party will reimburse the party providing assistance for that amount. Such compensation is not contingent upon the availability of federal or state government funds. 3.Invoice to the Requesting Party. Within ninety (90) days of the return to the home work station of all labor and equipment of the Responding Party, the Responding Party shall submit to the Requesting Party an invoice of all charges for assistance provided under this agreement as described in paragraph 2 above. Payment of any undisputed amount shall be paid to Responding party within 30 days. Discretionary Assistance: 1. Providing assistance is entirely at the discretion of the Responding Party. The agreement to provide assistance is expressly not contingent upon a declaration of a major disaster or emergency by the federal government or upon Page 32 of 86 3 receiving state or federal funds. 2.It is the express understanding of the Parties that the first priority of the Responding Party’s fire department personnel is to provide fire protection within its respective jurisdiction. It is understood that the assistance contemplated in this Agreement shall be provided only if the fire department personnel requested to provide assistance can provide such assistance without jeopardizing the fire protection services within its respective jurisdiction. 3.This Agreement is intended to authorize requests for assistance only in emergency or other specifically requested situations. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as authorizing request for assistance for routine activities. Workers’ Compensation: Each Party shall be responsible for injuries or death of its own personnel. Each Party will maintain workers’ compensation insurance or self-insurance coverage, covering its own personnel while they are providing assistance pursuant to this Agreement. Each Party waives the right to sue any other Party for any workers’ compensation benefits paid to its own employee or volunteer or their dependents, even if the injuries were caused wholly or partially by the negligence of the other Party or its officers, employees, or volunteers. Damage to Equipment: Each Party shall be responsible for damage to its own equipment. Each party waives the right to sue any other Party for any damage to its equipment, even if the damage was caused wholly or partially by the negligence of any other Party or its officers, employees, or volunteers. Liability: 1.For the purposes of the Minnesota Municipal Tort Liability Act (Minn. Stat. Ch. 466), the employees and officers of the Responding Party are deemed to be employees (as defined in Minn. Stat. § 466.01, subd. 6) of the Requesting Party. 2.The Requesting party agrees to indemnify and defend against any claims brought or actions filed against the Responding Party or any officer, employee, or volunteer of the Responding Party for injury to, death of, or damage to the Party of any third person or persons, arising from the performance and provision of assistance in responding to a request for assistance by the Requesting Party pursuant to this Agreement. 3.Under no circumstances, however, shall a Party be required to pay on behalf of itself and other Parties, any amounts in excess of the limits on liability established in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 applicable to any one Party. The limits of liability for some or all of the Parties may not be added together to determine the maximum amount of liability for any Party. No Party waives any immunities or limits on liability it enjoys under Minnesota Statutes or common law. 4.The intent of this subdivision is to impose on each Requesting Party a limited duty to defend and indemnify a Responding Party for claims arising within the Requesting Party’s jurisdiction subject to the limits of liability under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. The purpose of creating these reciprocal duties to defend and indemnify is to simplify the defense of claims by eliminating conflicts among defendants, and to permit liability claims against multiple defendants from a single occurrence to be defended by a single attorney. 5.No Party to this Agreement nor any officer of any Party shall be liable to any other Party or to any other person for failure of any Party to furnish assistance to any other Party, or for recalling assistance, both as described in this Agreement. Page 33 of 86 4 6.Failure to provide assistance will not result in liability of a Party. General Provisions: 1. Amendment. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same Parties who executed and approved the original Agreement, or their successors in office. 2.General Compliance. Both Parties agree to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations governing any services provided under this Agreement. 3.Non-Discrimination. Both Parties agree to comply with the provisions of all applicable federal and state statutes and regulations pertaining to civil rights and nondiscrimination including, without limitation, Minnesota Statutes, Section 181.59. 4.Severability. Should a court of competent jurisdiction rule any portion, section or subsection of this Agreement invalid or nullified, that fact shall not affect or invalidate any other portion, section or subsection; and all remaining portions, sections or subsections shall remain in full force and effect. 5. Assignment. This Agreement is not assignable without the mutual written agreement of the Parties. 6.Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties and supersedes all prior communications, understandings and agreements relating the subject matter hereof, whether oral or written. 7.Data Practices. The Parties agree that they will abide by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and all other statutes or provisions of law related to data practices, data management and records retention. Each Party shall remain the exclusive responsible authority for its own data management for responses to data requests and for all aspects of records retention for any and all data that is collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by the Party as a result of any activity arising out of this Agreement. [The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank] Page 34 of 86 5 CITY OF: Mendota Heights By: (City Manager/Administrator/Clerk) By: (Mayor) Date: _____________________________________________ Page 35 of 86 6 CAPITAL CITY REGIONAL FIREFIGHTERS’ ASSOCIATION By: Alan Newman, President Capital City Regional Firefighters’ Association, Region 1 Appendix: A.Capital City Regional Firefighters’ Association Region 1 Members B.Equipment Rates Page 36 of 86 7 Appendix A Capital City Regional Firefighters’ Association Region 1 Members 1 Apple Valley 2 Bayport 3 Burnsville 4 Cottage Grove 5 Eagan 6 Forest Lake 7 Hastings 8 Hugo 9 Inver Grove Heights 10 Lake Elmo 11 Lake Johanna 12 Lakeville 13 Lino Lakes 14 Little Canada 15 Lower St. Croix Valley 16 Mahtomedi 17 Maplewood 18 Marine on St. Croix 19 Mendota Heights 20 Miesville 21 New Brighton 22 Newport 23 North Saint Paul 24 Oakdale 25 Rosemount 26 Roseville 27 Saint Paul 28 St. Paul Park 29 Scandia 30 Stillwater 31 Vadnais Heights 32 White Bear Lake 33 Woodbury Page 37 of 86 8 Appendix B Equipment Rates Equipment Description Rate Engine Minimum 1250 GPM $170 Engine Minimum 500 GPM $155 Engine/Tender Minimum 1250 GPM - Minimum 2000 Gallons $175 Tender Minimum 250 GPM - Minimum 1500 Gallons $140 Tender No Pump - Minimum 1500 Gallons $130 Ladder truck $230 Ladder truck - Aerial platform $250 Heavy rescue $120 Brush truck with skid unit $70 Utility truck $35 Command SUV or Pick up $50 Command transit van $60 UTV with skid unit $50 UTV - Tracked with skid unit $55 Boat – No Motor < 22' $20 Boat with motor < 22’ $30 Boat >22' with built in pump capacity $150 Airboat $60 Page 38 of 86 This page is intentionally left blank 6.h REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 3, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Approve a Letter of Interest for Xcel Energy Thermal Energy Network Demonstration Project ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Engineering CONTACT: Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Approve a letter of interest for the Xcel Energy Thermal Energy Network Demonstration Project. BACKGROUND: Xcel Energy is proposing a demonstration project in partnership with a community that will connect multiple buildings to a shared geothermal loop and evaluate its technical, economic, and environmental benefits. A Thermal Energy Network (TEN) system is a type of heating and cooling system that uses the natural heat in the ground to provide thermal energy for buildings. It connects multiple ground-source heat pumps together to form a shared loop network, which allows heat exchange between different buildings with different thermal needs. A networked geothermal system will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy efficiency for customers compared to conventional systems. If Mendota Heights is selected for this project, the city would collaborate by providing: 1. Assistance in identifying and selecting an appropriate site. 2. Potential use of municipal buildings in the pilot site, including access to buildings to perform energy audits and feasibility studies. 3. Approval to install piping in public Rights of Way (ROW). 4. Approval for easements on municipally owned property. 5. Assistance with permitting and application processes. 6. Assistance with lease agreements for land under parking lots, lawn, or other suitable areas for borehole arrays. 7. Participation in outreach efforts and events to promote the demonstration and engage with the community. Page 39 of 86 8. Facilitated engagement with City Council 9. Facilitated partnership with the Natural Resource Commission 10. Outreach to residents and business owners to promote the pilot and answer questions. 11. A joint storytelling partnership to promote and advance this technology for future availability to all customers. Additional information is included in the attached information sheet. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The City of Mendota Heights is not asked to provide local funding for this pilot project but staff time may be needed, if selected. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Xcel Energy Utility Thermal Energy Network - Letter of Support 2.Utility Thermal Energy Network Information Sheet CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Environmental Sustainability & Stewardship Page 40 of 86 June 3, 2025 Dear Xcel Energy, We, the City of Mendota Heights, are writing to express our interest in partnering with Xcel Energy on the Thermal Energy Network demonstration project. We are excited about the potential of this technology to provide clean, efficient, and reliable heating and cooling for our homes and businesses. As a potential partner community, we are interested in collaborating with Xcel Energy by providing assistance in identifying and selecting an appropriate site, potentially utilizing municipal buildings in the pilot site, providing access to buildings for energy audits and feasibility studies, providing approval for the installation of piping in public Rights of Way, easements on municipally owned property, and assistance with permitting and application processes. Additionally, we would be prepared to assist with lease agreements for land under parking lots, lawn, or other suitable areas for borehole arrays. We understand that partner communities will be responsible for participating in outreach efforts and events to promote the demonstration and engage with the community, facilitating engagement with the city council, or other elected officials, and partnering with relevant local boards or committees. We would also be willing to lead outreach to residents and business owners to promote the demonstration and answer questions, and to create a joint story-telling partnership to promote and advance this technology for future availability to all customers. We believe that our community is an ideal candidate for this demonstration project, and we are eager to work with Xcel Energy to explore the potential of Thermal Energy Networks. By submitting this letter, we understand that Xcel Energy will consider our community for participation in this demonstration project. We understand that the purpose of this letter is to express our interest only and does not create or constitute any legally binding obligations. Thank you for considering our community as a potential partner for this demonstration project. Sincerely, Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor City of Mendota Heights Page 41 of 86 Word Document Title UTILITY THERMAL ENERGY NETWORK INFORMATION SHEET Page 42 of 86 XCEL ENERGY WORD DOCUMENT TITLE 2 © 2024 Xcel Energy Inc. Xcel Energy, a leading provider of clean electricity and natural gas in Minnesota, is committed to delivering advanced and innovative energy solutions to its customers. One of the technologies we are exploring is Thermal Energy Networks (TEN) – also known as Utility Thermal Energy Networks (UTEN), Community Ground Source Heat Pumps (CGSHPs), networked geothermal, or geogrids – which use the earth's constant temperature to heat and cool buildings. TENs are a type of district energy system – a system that provides heating and cooling to multiple buildings from a central source. TENs are a clean energy technology and serve customers with less energy while maintaining comfort and reliability of the electric and natural gas grid. The Natural Gas Innovation Act encourages the development of Thermal Energy Networks in the state. Xcel Energy is proposing a demonstration project in partnership with a community and/or large customer that will connect multiple buildings to a shared geothermal loop and evaluate its technical, economic, and environmental benefits. Networked Geothermal General FAQs, by HEET, 2023. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Page 43 of 86 XCEL ENERGY WORD DOCUMENT TITLE 3 © 2024 Xcel Energy Inc. WHAT’S INCLUDED IN THE PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY? Xcel Energy is dedicated to supporting the development of Thermal Energy Networks in Minnesota. We are actively looking for interested communities who want to partner with us and discover the potential of this technology for their homes and businesses. Partner communities can expect to collaborate by providing: 1.Assistance in identifying and selecting an appropriate site. 2.Potential use of municipal buildings in the pilot site, including access to buildings to perform energy audits and feasibility studies. 3.Approval to install piping in public Rights of Way (ROW). 4.Approval for easements on municipally owned property. 5.Assistance with permitting and application processes. 6.Assistance with lease agreements for land under parking lots, lawn, or other suitable areas for borehole arrays. 7.Participation in outreach efforts and events to promote the demonstration and engage with the community. 8.Facilitated engagement with city council/Board of Selectmen/other elected officials. 9.Facilitated partnership with relevant local boards or committees (environmental/energy/sustainability commission). 10. Outreach to residents and business owners to promote the pilot and answer questions. 11. A joint story-telling partnership to promote and advance this technology for future availability to all customers. WHAT ARE THERMAL ENERGY NETWOKS (TEN)? A TEN system is a type of heating and cooling system that uses the natural heat in the ground to provide thermal energy for buildings. It connects multiple ground-source heat pumps together to form a shared loop network, which allows heat exchange between different buildings with different thermal needs. A networked geothermal system will Page 44 of 86 XCEL ENERGY WORD DOCUMENT TITLE 4 © 2024 Xcel Energy Inc. reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy efficiency for customers compared to conventional systems. WHAT ARE THE COMPONENTS OF A TEN SYSTEM? There are two primary components of a TEN system: customer-sited heating and cooling equipment (consisting of water source heat pumps), and a central geothermal loop. WATER SOURCE HEAT PUMPS A heat pump uses electricity to move heat from one place to another. It can heat or cool a space by absorbing heat from the air, ground, or water. It typically has a compressor, refrigerant, and a fan or pump as its main parts. It works on the principle that when a gas is expanded, it gets colder; and, when a gas is compressed, it gets hotter. By expanding and compressing gas (the refrigerant) at different locations, it’s able to move heat from one location to another. Heat pumps are more efficient and environmentally friendly than traditional heating and cooling systems because they do not burn fuel to create heat. They are also more versatile because they provide both heating and cooling with one system. There are different types of heat pumps, such as air-source and water-source. They vary in how they collect and release heat from different sources. Air-source heat pumps extract energy from ambient air and are the most common for residential use. Ground - source heat pumps are a type of water-source heat pump that also includes buried pipes or other equipment to extract energy from the ground. Ground-source heat pumps are more expensive but more efficient than air-source heat pumps. The systems used in this demonstration will be water source heat pumps and will move heat from a central water loop to each individual building. Because heat pumps move heat, as each building is heated, the central water loop will get colder. The opposite is also true – as each building is cooled, the central water loop will get hotter. The second component of the system – the central geothermal loop – has the sole job of keeping the central water loop a mild enough temperature so each customer’s heat pump has enough thermal energy available to heat and cool their building. CENTRAL GEOTHERMAL LOOP The central loop component in a TEN system is a shared underground loop of pipes that circulates water and antifreeze. It keeps the temperature of the water loop mild enough to allow each building to extract enough thermal energy to heat or cool the Page 45 of 86 XCEL ENERGY WORD DOCUMENT TITLE 5 © 2024 Xcel Energy Inc. facility. Ideally, the temperature of the central water loop will stay as close to the ground temperature as possible. To maintain an adequate working temperature, the central geothermal loop must absorb thermal energy from the ground at the same rate as each connected building extracts thermal energy from the loop to heat or cool the facility. The geothermal loop relies o n boreholes to absorb energy from the ground. Boreholes are vertical holes drilled into the ground to access heat stored in the rock. They are used to transfer heat between the ground and the central water loop. The central loop component is key to the efficiency and performance of networked geothermal systems. It allows connected heat pumps to operate at optimal conditions, regardless of the outdoor air temperature. It also enables the system to balance heating and cooling loads among different buildings, reducing the overall energy consumption and costs. WHY IS XCEL ENERGY PURSUING NETWORKED GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS? THE SHORT ANSWER The Natural Gas Innovation Act (NGIA) in Minnesota establishes a framework for natural gas utilities to meet the state's greenhouse gas reduction and renewable energy goals through innovative resources. These resources include biogas, renewable natural gas, power-to-hydrogen, power-to-ammonia, carbon capture, strategic electrification, district energy, and energy efficiency. The NGIA allows utilities to pilot these technologies to reduce emissions and transition away from conventional natural gas. The act aims to help Minnesota achieve economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2050. As a leader in clean energy innovation, Xcel Energy is dedicated to supporting the development of Thermal Energy Networks in our service area. THE LONG ANSWER Xcel Energy has a vision to provide 100% carbon-free electricity and net-zero greenhouse gas emissions from its natural gas business by 2050. Thermal Energy Networks (TENs) can offer a new clean energy option for customers. (1)TENs electrify customers’ space heating and cooling needs while protecting customers from high heating costs. On the coldest days of the year, TENs pull heat out of the ground which is 2.4x more efficient than pulling Page 46 of 86 XCEL ENERGY WORD DOCUMENT TITLE 6 © 2024 Xcel Energy Inc. heat out of air. This saves customers’ money on their heating bills and also mitigates a massive amount of electric infrastructure that would be required to serve air source heat pumps. (2)TENs are the most efficient heating and cooling technology currently available. Besides the efficiency gain of pulling heat out the ground instead of the ambient air, these systems share a significant amount of heating and cooling energy between different building types connected to the loop. Because facilities connected to the loop are both consumers and producers of thermal energy, different building types help fill the energy need of another. The larger and more diverse the connected building stock is, the more efficient the system becomes. (3)TENs may save customers money on fuel costs while also protecting them from a volatile natural gas market. A typical residential natural gas bill is comprised of roughly 40% infrastructure costs (i.e. pipes), and 60% natural gas fuel costs (market commodity costs). By investing in infrastructure that offsets the need to burn fuel, the utility can increase one p ortion of the bill while simultaneously decreasing another, ideally resulting in a net neutral or decrease in costs. And while infrastructure costs have a lasting impact, fuel costs do not. Fuel is required year-over-year, season-over-season. (4)TENs take advantage of the natural gas utility, which may keep future natural gas rates lower for everyone. In our current state, infrastructure costs associated with the natural gas utility (i.e. pipes) are recovered through natural gas rates – the less natural gas our customers consume, the less infrastructure costs are recovered. As throughput of the natural gas system decreases over time, natural gas rates would need to increase to recover infrastructure costs. TENs utilize a separate network of pipes than our natural gas network, but they share the same core competencies (location in right of ways, installation, operation, and maintenance). In the future, these systems may be installed as an alternative option within our natural gas utility. Because TENs don’t rely on fuel, 100% of the fees associated with the service will be used to recover infrastructure costs. As TEN system(s) grow, installation costs and infrastructure recovery can be spread over the entire gas utility, leveraging economies of scale, and potentially keeping future rates lower for everyone. Additionally, TENs supply energy for cooling as well as heating, so infrastructure recovery will occur all year long, instead of only during the heating season. Page 47 of 86 This page is intentionally left blank 6.i REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 3, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Resolution 2025-30 Accepting a Donation to the Cliff Timm Memorial Fishing Derby ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation CONTACT: Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Willow Eisfeldt, Recreation Program Coordinator ACTION REQUEST: Approve Resolution 2025-30 Accepting a Donation to the Cliff Timm Memorial Fishing Derby. BACKGROUND: By state law, all donations to the City must be accepted by the City Council by means of a resolution. On August 9, the annual Cliff Timm Memorial Fishing Derby will be held at Rogers Lake Park in conjunction with this year's Heights Fest. This event has been a community favorite for many years and has been made possible by donations received from the community. The City is excited to include this event as part of the revitalized Heights Fest, taking the place of the Parks Celebration which has been an annual community celebration historically hosted the second weekend in August. The City received a $1,000 cash donation from the Cliff Timm Memorial Fund. The City is grateful for the generosity of this donation. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Resolution 2025-30 Formally Accepting Donation to the Cliff Timm Memorial Fishing Derby CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Inclusive Page 48 of 86 and Responsive Government Page 49 of 86 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2025-30 FORMALLY ACCEPTING DONATION TO THE CLIFF TIMM MEMORIAL FISHING DERBY WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to follow Minnesota Statute 465.03 “Gifts to Municipalities”; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Statute requires a resolution to accept gifts to municipalities; and WHEREAS, the City has previously acknowledged gifts with a resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights has duly considered this matter and wish to acknowledge the civic mindedness of citizens and officially recognize their donations. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights formally accepts the following donation: •Cliff Timm Memorial Fund: $1,000 Cash Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 3rd day of June, 2025. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 50 of 86 This page is intentionally left blank 6.j REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 3, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Authorize Execution of a Purchase Order for 2025 Street Striping ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Engineering CONTACT: Lucas Ritchie, Assistant City Engineer Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Authorize Staff to Execute a Purchase Order for 2025 Street Striping with Sir Lines-A-Lot. BACKGROUND: Funding for pavement markings is included in the Public Works Street Sweeping and Striping budget. Following the completion of annual seal coating and street sweeping operations, any remaining funds are allocated to pavement striping and roadway markings. The City of Mendota Heights secured striping services through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with other South Metro cities, led by the City of Burnsville as the coordinating agency. Under this agreement, city staff annually identify roadway segments that require seal coating and subsequent restriping to maintain clear and consistent pavement markings. Sir Lines-A- Lot was awarded the 2025 striping contract through the JPA process and submitted a quote of $19,962.60. No changes to existing pavement markings are proposed as part of this work. The 2025 striping effort will include the following roadway segments: •Mendota Heights Road from the I-35E bridge to Dodd Road •Crosswalks within the Kensington Neighborhood •Chippewa Avenue between Dodd Road and Annapolis Street FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The project costs will be funded through the Public Works Street Sweeping and Striping Budget which has sufficient funds to cover the project costs. The total cost for the 2025 Street Striping is $19,962.60. ATTACHMENTS: Page 51 of 86 1.Sir Lines-A-Lot Quote CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 52 of 86 To:Contact:City Of Mendota Heights Mendota Heights 2025 Epoxy StripingProject Name:Bid Number:H25-0787 Email: Address:Mendota Heights, MN Phone: Project Location:City Of Mendota Heights, MN Bid Date:5/23/2025 Total PriceUnit PriceUnitItem DescriptionItem #Estimated 1 1.00 LS $1,620.00 $1,620.00TEMPORARY RAISED PAVEMENT MARKINGS - EPOXY 2 6.00 EACH $175.00 $1,050.00PAVEMENT MESSAGE - EPOXY TURN ARROWS 3 6,028.00 LF $0.80 $4,822.404" SOLID LINE - EPOXY 4 1,047.00 LF $1.60 $1,675.204" DOUBLE SOLID LINE - EPOXY 5 3,475.00 LF $0.18 $625.504" BROKEN LINE - EPOXY 6 555.00 LF $7.30 $4,051.5012" SOLID LINE - EPOXY CROSSWALK 7 80.00 LF $10.00 $800.0024" SOLID LINE- EPOXY 8 63.00 LF $10.00 $630.0024" DOTTED LINE - EPOXY 9 504.00 SF $7.00 $3,528.00CROSSWALK - EPOXY 10 4.00 EACH $225.00 $900.00PAVEMENT MESSAGE - EPOXY YIELD 11 1.00 EACH $260.00 $260.00PAVEMENT MESSAGE - EPOXY STOP AHEAD Total Bid Price:$19,962.60 Notes: • 1. This quote includes one mobilization to complete. Additional, if requested, are $950.00 each. •2. Final quantities will be invoiced. ACCEPTED: The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. Buyer: Signature: Date of Acceptance: CONFIRMED: Sir-Lines-A-Lot Authorized Signature: Estimator:TJ Phillips (612) 434-0090 tj.phillips@linesalot.com Page 1 of 1 Page 53 of 86 This page is intentionally left blank 6.k REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 3, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Public Works Maintenance Parks Lead Worker Promotion ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Kelly Torkelson, Assistant City Administrator Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director John Boland, Public Works Superintendent ACTION REQUEST: Approve the promotion of Tom Weiss from Public Works Maintenance Worker to Public Works Maintenance Parks Lead Worker. BACKGROUND: The City conducted an internal hiring process for the replacement of the Public Works Maintenance Parks Lead Worker. Following the posting authorization from Council, public works staff were notified of the process and a panel of staff from various departments interviewed and recommended Tom Weiss for the Public Works Maintenance Parks Lead Worker position. Tom has worked for the City of Mendota Heights Public Works department since 2019. Staff have begun the posting process for replacing the public works maintenance worker position per previous city council authorization. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The Public Works Maintenance Parks Lead Worker position is a budgeted position. The pay for this position will follow the 2024-2025 Teamsters union contract, which has a range of hourly pay for 2025 of (step one) $41.67 to (step five) $47.82. Staff recommends hiring Tom Weiss at step one ($41.67 per hour) of the Lead Maintenance Worker pay scale. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 54 of 86 This page is intentionally left blank 6.l REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 3, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Adopt Resolution 2025-31 Supporting a Request to the State of Minnesota Capital Budget for the City of Mendota Heights City Hall and Public Safety Facility Project ITEM TYPE: Resolution DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator ACTION REQUEST: Adopt Resolution 2025-31 supporting a request to the State of Minnesota Capital Budget for the City of Mendota Heights City Hall and Public Safety Facility Project. BACKGROUND: All local units of government and political subdivision capital project requests are due to Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB) through the Capital Budget System by June 13. Part of the application submittal is a resolution of support from the governing body of the local unit of government or political subdivision. Given the timing of the State's deadline and the timing of city council meetings, approval of Resolution 2025-31 is being requested now. The State's capital budget, in addition to funding a variety of state projects, includes grants to local governments and political subdivisions for projects including repairs and construction of schools, parks, bridges, wastewater treatment facilities, and other types of local government facilities. The city has applied for funding in prior capital budget cycles, including in 2023 for the 2024 bonding bill, for the Mendota Heights City Hall and Public Safety Facility project. The Legislature failed to pass a bonding bill in 2024. Staff are working with ICS to complete an updated facility condition assessment and space utilization study. Phase 1 of the assessment is expected to be completed by the end of June. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: 1.Res. 2025-31 State Bonding Request Resolution of Support CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Page 55 of 86 Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 56 of 86 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2025-31 SUPPORTING A REQUEST TO THE STATE OF MINNESOTA CAPITAL BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY HALL AND PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights participates in Minnesota Management and Budget’s (MMB) biennial process for reviewing state capital investment requests; and WHEREAS, MMB is required by Minnesota Statute §16A.86, subd. 3a (6) to consider whether the governing body of the political subdivision requesting the project has passed a resolution in support of the project when reviewing capital improvement funding requests. MMB requests that all local unit government capital budget requests be submitted by June 13, 2025, for the 2026 State capital budget preparations; and WHEREAS, submitting project information is a vital component of the state capital investment process, and provides needed background to the Governor and Legislators in determining state investments; and WHEREAS, the city of Mendota Heights municipal campus includes the City Hall and Police Station facilities located at 1101 Victoria Curve in Mendota Heights and serves as a symbol of local identity and plays a critical role in the community and region; and WHEREAS, significant investment is required to address health and safety concerns, ensure compliance with current operational standards, and meet the evolving service expectations of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mendota Heights City Council supports, as its number one priority, a request to the 2026 State of Minnesota Capital Budget for funding the City of Mendota Heights City Hall and Public Safety Facility project. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 3rd day of June, 2025. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie B. Levine ATTEST: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 57 of 86 This page is intentionally left blank Page 58 of 866.m Page 59 of 86 Page 60 of 86 Page 61 of 86 Page 62 of 86 Page 63 of 86 Page 64 of 86 Page 65 of 86 Page 66 of 86 Page 67 of 86 Page 68 of 86 Page 69 of 86 Page 70 of 86 This page is intentionally left blank 9.a REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 3, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Concept Plan Review for a proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to the Lexington Heights PUD located at 2320 Lexington Avenue [Planning Case 2025-06] ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager ACTION REQUEST: The City Council is asked to review the Concept Plan for this Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment request, and provide advisory comments and recommendations to the applicant. This Concept Plan Review is not a formal decision or vote of the City Council, and is intended only to inform the applicant's decision-making and plan-preparation for future Planned Unit Development Amendment steps. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Condor Corporation, is seeking a Planned Unit Development - Concept Plan Review for an addition to the Lexington Heights Planned Unit Development located at 2320 Lexington Avenue. The subject site is currently zoned R-3, Multi Family Residential, and was developed as a Planned Unit Development in 1983 for a three-building, 225-unit apartment development. Once a PUD has been approved, it serves as a form of zoning category (overlay) on a site. The Planned Unit Development Ordinance requires that any extensions, alterations, or modifications to building envelopes or structures must be approved via the standard review process for a new Planned Unit Development, and that changes in the use of common open space may be authorized by an amendment to the Final Development Plan with a Zoning Amendment. The first step in the review of the establishment of a new PUD, or in this case, the amendment to an existing PUD which alters building structures or envelopes, and modifies common open space, is a Concept Plan review, which is submitted to the City as a Planning Application to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Applicant is proposing to construct a new multi-family building on their property as part of an expansion of the Lexington Heights development. The new building would be a 4-Story development with parking below, with 67-units of housing, bringing the total unit count within Page 71 of 86 the PUD area to 292 units. It is anticipated that this proposed Planned Unit Development will be requesting a deviation to the density requirements of the R-3 Zoning District, similar to what has already been approved on the site. Other deviations from the City Code may be reviewed once full civil and architectural plans are prepared for the site. A concept site plan has been provided by the applicant illustrating the location of the new building and its access from Lexington Avenue. The applicant has also provided preliminary floor plans of the layout of units within the building and possible amenities that would benefit residents. The Planning Commission reviewed this Concept Plan at their regular meeting on May 27, 2025. The Commission provided comments to the applicant suggesting additional efforts to preserve any existing trees on site, to incorporate buffer trees at the north property line where the drive aisle would be extended, and to consider outdoor pet relief areas if the building would be marketed as pet-friendly. The City Council is asked to continue providing development review comments to the applicant in an advisory manner. There is no formal action or vote required by the City Council. The City Council should consider the proposed request as it relates to the City's Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Not Applicable. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Planning Commission Staff Report 5-27-25 2.Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes 5-27-25 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy Page 72 of 86 Planning Commission Meeting Date: May 27, 2025 Agenda Item: CASE No. 2025-06 Concept PUD Application of Condor Corporation for a Planned Unit Development Amendment Concept Plan Review for the property located at 2320 Lexington Avenue Department: Community Development Contact: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Introduction: The applicant, Condor Corporation, is seeking a Planned Unit Development - Concept Plan Review for an addition to the Lexington Heights Planned Unit Development located at 2320 Lexington Avenue. The subject site is currently zoned R-3 Multi Family Residential, and was developed as a Planned Unit Development in 1983 for a three-building, 225-unit apartment development. Once a PUD has been approved, it typically serves as a form of zoning category (overlay) on a site. However, the apartment complex properties have remained under the R-3 High Density Residential District since their development, as all current and past zoning maps for the City have identified the sites as R-3 Zoning. This does not negate the fact that the City adopted a Resolution for a CUP for a PUD to establish the Lexington Heights Planned Unit Development. The City recently adopted a new zoning ordinance that modified the way that the City acknowledges and processes Planned Unit Developments. As this application moves forward in the Planned Unit Development Amendment review process, part of the requested approvals will be a rezoning request to acknowledge the Planned Unit Development Overlay District. The Planned Unit Development Ordinance requires that any extensions, alterations, or modifications to building envelopes or structures must be approved via the standard review process for a new Planned Unit Development, and that changes in the use of common open space may be authorized by an amendment to the Final Development Plan with a Zoning Amendment. The presentation and discussion this evening is related to the newly outlined process in Code for an amendment to a Planned Unit Development following completion of the Final Development Plan. The first step is a Concept Plan review, which is submitted to the City to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council. This item is intended only to be advisory to the Applicant. The Planning Commission may make recommendations regarding the Concept Plan and give reasons for that recommendation, but the discussion and recommendation is not binding on the City, and no formal determination is made regarding the application request. Formal determinations on the full Planned Unit Development Amendment proposal would follow this Concept Plan review step. Page 73 of 86 Background: The Planned Unit Development (PUD) process is intended to provide a flexible zoning district for the design and development of land that is appropriate to the physical site characteristics of the development, and surrounding land uses. The flexibility that is granted by the City in approval of a Planned Unit Development is outlined through 'deviations' from City Code which would otherwise not be permitted, or might traditionally require a Variance approval. This flexibility is granted in return for a public benefit to the City and/or community, which may be other areas of zoning and city code requirements where standards are exceeded, or where a policy goal of the City is achieved. The Applicant would like to construct a new multi-family building on their property as part of an expansion of the Lexington Heights development. The new building would be a 4-Story development with parking below, with 67-units of housing, bringing the total unit count within the PUD area to 292 units. The Lexington Heights Planned Unit Development was authorized in 1983 by Resolution No. 1983-95. At that time, the property owner was granted a Variance from the density requirement for approximately 12.4 units per acre. The density today is approximately 13.9 units per acre. This proposed Planned Unit Development will at minium be requesting a deviation to the density requirements of the R-3 Zoning District, similar to what has already been approved on the site. Other deviations from the City Code may be reviewed once full civil and architectural plans are prepared for the site. The applicant has provided information on the existing conditions of the site, and has provided a concept plan showing the location of the new addition, potential layouts of units within the building, and the layout of the underground parking. A full analysis of the development has not been provided for the concept plan, as this application is intended to provide advisory comments and recommendations to the Applicant for their benefit in refining their project. However, the Applicant has provided in their proposed narrative a list of development standards for an R-3 site, and whether or not there is an anticipated PUD deviation, as of this concept stage review. Analysis: Alternatives: Staff Recommendation: The Planning Commission is asked to review the Concept Plan for this Planned Unit Development Amendment request, and provide advisory comments and recommendations to the applicant. Staff will compile the development review comments and share them with the City Council at their June 3, 2025 meeting to facilitate their step in this concept review process. Attachments: 1.Applicant Narrative 2.Lexington Heights PUD Concept - Existing 3.Lexington Heights PUD Concept - Concept Plan Page 74 of 86 2999 WEST COUNTY ROAD 42, SUITE 100 BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55306 PH. (952) 890-6044 JAMES R. HILL , INC. PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS Serving our Clients since 1976 MEMORANDUM Date: May 6, 2025 To: Sarah Madden Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 From: Brady Busselman, P.E. Project: Lexington Heights Apartments Subject: PUD Amendment – Concept Application Narrative Dear Ms. Madden, On behalf of the property owner, Condor Corporation, we are pleased to submit the application for an amendment to the 1983 Planned Unit Development (PUD) at Lexington Heights Apartments, 2320 Lexington Avenue South. The owner is proposing to construct a 67-unit apartment building on the site, in an underutilized area to the east of the northernmost building in the complex. This will bring the total unit count within the PUD area to 292 units, from the current PUD approved total of 225 units. The current density of 13.9 units per acre will increase to 18.1 units per acre. Required PUD Standards City code chapter 12-2C-2 states that a PUD must demonstrate compliance with the following: 1. That the development and design is an appropriate use for the property and is compatible with surrounding development. The proposed building will be situated in an underutilized portion of the site, between an existing parking lot and I-35E. The building is compatible with the existing multifamily buildings on site, and will provide below ground parking at a rate of 1 stall per unit. The existing parking lot at the north building currently has 126 total parking stalls. The concept plan shows a reconfiguration of the parking lot that provides an additional 38 Page 75 of 86 L e x i n g t o n H e i g h t s C o n c e p t P U D M a y 6 , 2 0 2 5 2 | P a g e stalls, for a total of 164 stalls. With a total of 88 bedrooms, the additional stall count (garage and surface) of 106 stalls (68 garage + 38 surface) exceeds the code minimum requirement of one 1 stall per bedroom. The building elevation will be designed to be consistent with the existing buildings. 2. That the streets and utilities are adequate and do not adversely affect the economical and efficient delivery of municipal services. According to the 1983 PUD approval, a 12” watermain is located adjacent to the site within Lexington Avenue South. Per city as-built plans, a 12” sanitary sewer is also within Lexington Avenue South adjacent to the site. It is anticipated that stormwater management will be accommodated on site via expansion of the existing pond or by utilizing existing open space to create a new pond. The current Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) on Lexington Avenue South at this location as of 2021 is 2,172. The projected increase in daily trips (see trip generation analysis below) is 364 trips. 3. That the scale of the development is compatible with adjacent land uses and is consistent with the standards established in Chapter 4 of this Zoning Ordinance. The underlying zoning district is R-3. The proposed building will be four stories over a subsurface garage. The current concept shows minimum unit size of 663 SF for one- bedroom units. However, the owner intends to update this design in the next submittal phase to meet the minimum area of 700 SF. Below is a summary of the current anticipated deviations under the PUD; these may change as the plans advance to the final application stage. Anticipated PUD Deviation?* A Minimum Lot Size 20,000 square feet No Minimum Lot Size Per Unit 3,500 square feet per unit Yes B Front Yard Setback 50 feet No C Side Yard Setback 40 feet No D Rear Yard Setback 40 feet No Height (maximum)60 feet; may exceed maximum with CUP No Impervious Surface Coverage (maximum) 50%, or up to 65% with approved Best Management Practices (BMPs)No Parking (minimum)One (1) space per unit or one (1) space per bedroom, whichever is greater No Enclosed Parking One space must be enclosed per unit No Surface Parking minimum setback 40 feet from public ROW and 10 feet from any Principal Building No Design Standards See Section [12-4B-3E.]No Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit Principal Building Standards Parking and Other Standards Table 12-2B-5.1 R-3 Dimensional and Lot Standards *As of Concept stage; subject to change at final application Page 76 of 86 L e x i n g t o n H e i g h t s C o n c e p t P U D M a y 6 , 2 0 2 5 3 | P a g e Proposed Financing The owner intends to self-finance the project. Schedule of Development The owner anticipates starting construction either in the fall of 2025 or spring of 2026. This schedule is primarily dependent on approval timing. Projected Traffic Below are daily and AM/PM peak hour trips based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10thEdition: Land Use Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate Trips Rate Trips Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 67 Dwelling Units 5.44 364 0.36 24 0.44 29 Totals: 364 24 29 Impervious Area For the purpose of impervious area calculation at this stage, the site is assumed to be the existing northern parcel, approximately 5.5 acres. Existing impervious area = +/-2.3 acres Net impervious area increase = +/-0.7 acres Total proposed impervious area = +/-3 acres Total proposed percent impervious = +/-54% Page 77 of 86 MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTALEXINGTON HEIGHTS APARTMENTSCONDOR CORPORATIONFOR2320 LEXINGTON AVENUE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120PROJECT NO. 24282 CAD FILE 5/6/2025 DATE REVISIONS DRAWN BY Page 78 of 86 kaas wilson architects Lexington Heights Apts. -Option 1 (4-Story + Plaza)COVER 0.0 11/15/21 Lexington Heights Apts. -Option 1 (4-Story + Plaza) 11/15/21 UNIT MIX - GROSS AREA Name Count Unit Gross Area Total Area %Main Floor 1BR Unit A1 23 663 ft² 15,243 ft² 34% 23 15,243 ft² 34% 1BR +D Unit B1 23 884 ft² 20,324 ft² 34% 23 20,324 ft² 34% 2BR Unit C1 13 1,037 ft² 13,483 ft² 19% Unit C2 8 994 ft² 7,953 ft² 12% 21 21,436 ft² 31% Grand total 67 57,004 ft² 100% PARKING Level Type Count Level -1 Garage Stalls 68 Garage Stalls 68 Level 1 Surface Stalls 164 Surface Stalls 164 232 GROSS AREA - TOTAL Level Area Level 4 17,446 ft² Level 3 18,032 ft² Level 2 18,032 ft² Level 1 18,032 ft² Level -1 21,793 ft² Grand total 93,335 ft² *1-BEDROOM UNITS WILL RANGE FROM -650-750sf **1-BEDROOM + DEN UNITS WILL RANGE FROM -850-950sf ***2-BEDROOM UNITS WILL RANGE FROM -1000-1250sf *** *** ** * *SQUARE FOOTAGE DOES NOT INCLUDE THE DESIGN DEVOLVEMENT OF UNITS AND THE BUILDING FACADES, LIKE BUMP-OUTS OR OTHER BUILDING ARTICULATIONS. * Page 79 of 86 1 2 3 4 E X I S T I N G 3 -S T O R Y B U I L D I N G E X I S T I N G 3 -S T O R Y B U I L D I N G E X I S T I N G P O O L B U I L D I N G PROPOSED 4-STORY 67 UNIT BUILDING 164 PARKING STALLS COLORED SITE PLAN PALETTE ASPH ALT SIDEW ALK 1 SIDEW ALK 2 GRA SS 1 GRA SS 2 WA TER BUILDI NG 1 BUILDING ENTRANCE 2 GARAGE ENTRANCE 3 ROOFTOP DECK 4 PLAZA BELOW SITE PLAN KEY kaas wilson architects Lexington Heights Apts. -Option 1 (4-Story + Plaza)SITE PLAN 2.0 11/15/21 1" = 60'-0"1 SD Site Plan Page 80 of 86 CoreSta irsGarage - 68 Parking Stalls Color Scheme Legend Circulation Core Garage StairsPlaza Above kaas wilson architects Lexington Heights Apts. -Option 1 (4-Story + Plaza)FLOOR PLANS 3.0 11/15/21 1" = 30'-0"1 Level -1 Page 81 of 86 Unit B1Unit A1Unit B1Unit C1 Unit C1 Unit B1 Unit A1 Unit A1 CoreS tairsStairsColor Scheme Legend 1BR 1BR +D 2BR Circulation Common Area Core Fitness Corporate Offices Unit C2 Lobby/Mail Corporate Offices / Community Room Unit C2 Unit A1 Unit A1 Unit B1 Unit B1 P l a z a kaas wilson architects Lexington Heights Apts. -Option 1 (4-Story + Plaza)FLOOR PLANS 3.1 11/15/21 1" = 30'-0"1 Level 1 Page 82 of 86 StairsStairsColor Scheme Legend 1BR 1BR +D 2BR Circulation Core Unit B1Unit A1Unit B1Unit C1 Unit C1 Unit B1 Unit A1 Unit A1 Core Unit C1 Unit B1 Unit C2 Unit A1 Unit C1 Unit C2 Unit A1 Unit A1 Unit B1 Unit B1 kaas wilson architects Lexington Heights Apts. -Option 1 (4-Story + Plaza)FLOOR PLANS 3.2 11/15/21 1" = 30'-0"1 Level 2 (Level 3 Similar) Page 83 of 86 Color Scheme Legend 1BR 1BR +D 2BR Circulation Common Area Core StairsStairsRoof Deck Sky Lounge Unit B1Unit A1Unit B1Unit C1 Unit C1 Unit B1 Unit A1 Unit A1 Core Unit B1 Unit C2 Unit A1 Unit C1 Unit C2 Unit A1 Unit A1 Unit B1 Unit B1 kaas wilson architects Lexington Heights Apts. -Option 1 (4-Story + Plaza)FLOOR PLANS 3.3 11/15/21 1" = 30'-0"1 Level 4 Page 84 of 86 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES EXCERPT FROM DRAFT/UNAPPROVED 5/27/25 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES B) PLANNING CASE 2025-06 CONDOOR CORPORATION, 2320 LEXINGTON AVENUE – CONCEPT PUD Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the applicant, Condor Corporation, is seeking a Planned Unit Development – Concept Plan Review for an addition to the Lexington Heights Planned Unit Development located at 2320 Lexington Avenue. The subject site is currently zoned R-3 Multi-Family Residential and was developed as a Planned Unit Development in 1983 for a three-building, 225-unit apartment development. Once a PUD has been approved, it typically serves as a form of zoning category (overlay) on a site, however, the apartment complex properties have remained under the R-3 High Density Residential District since their development, as all current and past zoning maps for the City have identified the sites as R-3 zoning. This does not negate the fact that the City adopted a Resolution for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and PUD to establish the Lexington Heights Planned Unit Development. The City recently adopted a new zoning ordinance that modified the way that the City acknowledges and processes PUDs. AS this application moves forward in the PUD Amendment process, part of the requested approvals will be a rezoning request to acknowledge the PUD overlay district. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). John Riley, applicant, commented that his family has owned the property for over 45 years, noting that his father originally developed and built the property. He stated that they do not have a lot of detail as this is a concept plan, but there is excess land on the north end of the site, and he believes a new apartment building would fit nicely into that area and provide nice amenities for the residents. He welcomed input from the Commission. Acting Chair Corbett commented that he appreciates the applicant bringing this forward early to obtain input. He asked for input on the change from 650 to 700 square feet. Mr. Riley replied that originally they envisioned corporate offices on the first floor, but believed they would be eliminating those offices, which would create space for larger units and/or more amenities. He stated that they believe the residents will desire larger units. Commissioner Goldade asked if the new building would go into the existing parking lot. Mr. Riley commented that the building would not go into that parking area, but the parking would be reconfigured. Commissioner Goldade asked if the trees to the north would be impacted. Page 85 of 86 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Mr. Riley commented that there are some trees there, and he would minimize the removal to the extent possible. He stated that there are not many trees in the area proposed for building, as there was previously a helipad in that location. Commissioner Goldade referenced the driveway furthest to the north, asking and receiving confirmation that the driveway would provide two-way access. He asked if the lost stalls to the east would be replaced with a 1:1 ratio in the north. Mr. Riley commented that it would not be a 1:1 replacement as the property is currently overparked. Commissioner Goldade asked why a four-story building would be put in when the others are three- stories. Mr. Riley replied that it would provide more units and more opportunities for people to live in the community. Commissioner Stone asked if the rent prices would be similar. Mr. Riley anticipated that the rent would be higher than the existing building, but in line with The Reserve and newer constructed properties. Commissioner Johnson asked if this would be a pet-friendly building. Mr. Riley stated that the rest of the property is not pet-friendly, but many of his developments in other communities are pet-friendly. He stated that decision is yet to be determined. Commissioner Johnson stated that if the building is going to accept pets, she would request a fenced outdoor area for pets to go to the bathroom. She encouraged the applicant to look at their tree and landscaping to provide natural species. She asked if the applicant would consider realigning the driveway to allow for a native buffer between the subject property and the neighboring property. She appreciated that the applicant would be increasing the bedroom unit range size, similar to other recently developed apartment complexes. Acting Chair Corbett asked if the applicant had watched the proceedings from the AtHome Apartment project. Mr. Riley commented that he is familiar with that development and its review. Acting Chair Corbett commented on some of the concerns the Commission had with the density, but recognized that it is ultimately a decision of the City Council. Mr. Riley thanked the Commission for their comments. Page 86 of 86