The URL can be used to link to this page

06242025 Planning Commission Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 24, 2025 at 7:00 PM Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes a. Approve meeting minutes from the May 27, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting. 4. Public Hearings a. CASE No. 2025-07 Variance Application of Daniel Michel for a Variance to allow for the construction of a fence exceeding 6-ft in height for the property located at 1341 Cherry Hill Road b. CASE No. 2025-08 Conditional Use Permit Amendment Application of Glenn Baron requesting an amended Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval for the outdoor commercial recreation use located at 1415 Mendota Heights Road c. CASE No. 2025-09 Variance Application of Darrel Tutewohl for a Variance to the rear-yard setback to allow for the construction of a three-season porch addition located at 2150 Aztec Lane d. CASE No. 2025-10 MRCCA Permit and Conditional Use Permit Amendment Application of Northern States Power Company – (Xcel Energy), requesting a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit and Amended Conditional Use Permit to allow for the construction of a new 24-ft x 24-ft concrete pad foundation and prefabricated structure at the property located at 800 Sibley Memorial Highway 5. New and Unfinished Business a. Tabled - CASE No. 2025-03 Preliminary Plat Application of Spencer McMillan for a Preliminary Plat of three (3) existing parcels into six (6) single-family residential parcels located at 1707 Delaware Avenue and its adjacent vacant parcels. 6. Updates/Staff Comments 7. Adjourn Page 1 of 310 Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aid. However, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests. Page 2 of 310 May 27, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 13 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 27, 2025 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 27, 2025, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Acting Chair Patrick Corbett, Commissioners Cindy Johnson (arrived at 7:20 p.m.), Brian Udell, Jason Stone, Jeff Nath, and Steve Goldade. Those absent: Chair Litton Field. Election of Planning Commission Vice Chair for 2025 Acting Chair Corbett commented that he appreciated that the item was tabled at the last meeting in his absence. He stated that while he has enjoyed serving as Vice Chair for the last few years, he would gladly provide the opportunity to someone else to serve. Commissioner Stone volunteered to serve. ACTING CHAIR CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GOLDADE, TO ELECT JASON STONE AS VICE CHAIR FOR 2025. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of March 31, 2025 Minutes COMMISSIONER GOLDADE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NATH, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 31, 2025. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2025-03 SPENCER MCMILLAN, 1707 DELAWARE AVENUE AND ADJACENT VACANT PARCELS – PRELIMINARY PLAT Page 3 of 310 May 27, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 13 Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the applicant is seeking a Preliminary Plat approval of the properties located at 1707 Delaware Avenue and two vacant parcels generally located at the north end of Ridgewood Drive. The residential property and two vacant parcels are all owned by Spencer McMillan, the applicant. The proposed plat is entitled McMillan Estates, and the subdivision would divide and redistribute the existing land within the three parcels into six new lots of record. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; seven written comments were provided in the packet, along with two additional written comments provided at the dais. 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). Commissioner Johnson arrived. Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Johnson asked for more details on the decision timeline related to the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). Community Development Manager Sarah Madden reiterated that the decision is still pending while that review is completed and confirmed that the related condition of approval would address that item. Acting Chair Corbett stated that much of the feedback received from residents was related to the potential wetland impacts. He clarified that is being reviewed under a separate application and is not part of the discussion tonight. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that is a separate application. She noted that there was a public comment period for the wetland request, which is why many of the comments were related to that topic. Acting Chair Corbett asked if there is a limit on the amount of wetland that can be impacted without replacement. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that is true. Acting Chair Corbett stated that while it appears the applicant’s request would be just under that maximum disturbance threshold, the narrative also mentions that additional wetland impacts may occur by each lot in the future, and asked for more information. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the applicant is requesting the full amount allowed under a de minimis request. She stated that if there were future wetland impacts Page 4 of 310 May 27, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 13 as the individual home lots are created, they would need to come forward with new wetland applications, as there would not be any further exemptions allowed. Acting Chair Corbett commented that he would not want to see three of these lots become unbuildable because of wetland impacts, but it seems that each lot would be buildable as proposed. He also asked for details on who makes the decision related to wetlands and impacts. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that wetlands two and three are adjacent to the potential driveways and, therefore, those wetland impacts had been accounted for. She explained that staff reviews an exemption request under the WCA Ordinance within the City Code. Commissioner Stone asked who would pay for the utility connections, roadways, fire hydrants, and stormwater management. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the developer/applicant would be responsible for the public improvements associated with the project. She commented that following construction and inspection, the City would take over management of those improvements. Commissioner Stone asked the definition of a heritage tree. Natural Resources Coordinator Krista Spreiter replied that a significant tree is six inches or greater, while a heritage tree is 24 inches or greater. She commented that there is more than one heritage tree, but only one is proposed for removal. Commissioner Stone asked how the residents in the area were made aware that the wetland process was separate from this public hearing. Natural Resources Coordinator Krista Spreiter replied that the WCA process does not have a notice requirement unless those property owners requested notification. She stated that anyone who expressed interest in this matter ahead of time was sent notice. Commissioner Stone recognized that many residents in that area are interested in the wetlands portion of the request and asked if they were not notified. Natural Resources Coordinator Krista Spreiter replied that the WAC notice is only done by request, but it is public information. She stated that the public comment period for the WCA ended on May 13th. Commissioner Udell referenced draft condition 14 and asked for clarification on the order of operations. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the street construction and utility installation would be the first step, and as part of that, the applicant would be required to remove the existing cul-de-sac to create a straight street. Page 5 of 310 May 27, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 13 Acting Chair Corbett asked if the additional land that is no longer used for the road would be dedicated to the neighbors. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the land is not automatically vacated as right-of-way. She stated that if the neighbors wanted to request the right-of-way to be vacated, they would need to make that separate request to the City. Commissioner Goldade referenced the culvert that would be placed and asked if that water is from Hidden Creek. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that staff refer to that drainageway as Marie Creek. He noted that Hidden Creek does not actually exist as it is groundwater. Commissioner Goldade asked who would document the conditions of the creek over time. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained the path the water flows prior to reaching this point, noting the water goes through pipes throughout that process until Nature Way, where it goes through a 36-inch culvert. Commissioner Goldade asked if that is taken into account as part of the wetland application. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that there is a stormwater management report, which is in a preliminary stage. He stated that the City is currently objecting to the current stormwater design and is requiring the water to be managed publicly rather than requiring treatment to be provided on individual lots. Commissioner Stone asked if the City has approved the stormwater management plan. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the Commission is reviewing the plat at this time, and the draft conditions would need to be corrected before a final plat application would be considered. Commissioner Stone asked if it would make sense for the City to approve that element before the Commission makes its decision. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that any approval of the Commission would be contingent upon meeting all the conditions as drafted prior to final plat. He commented that those issues do not need to be resolved prior to preliminary plat. Acting Chair Corbett asked if the culvert and stormwater management would be part of the wetland decision. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the WCA application only looks at the potential wetland impacts. He commented that the City will review the overall hydrology and stormwater management separately from the WCA request. Page 6 of 310 May 27, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 13 Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that the culvert construction is included in one of the potential wetland impacts because of the impact that construction would have on the wetland. She stated that the condition related to stormwater management was included for the applicant to address prior to final plat. Acting Chair Corbett referenced lot six and asked for clarification related to the easement and setback. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the driveway is five feet from the property line, which does meet the driveway setback. She stated that the easement width is 15 feet in that location, and therefore, the driveway will be within an easement. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the setback is met, and driveways are allowed within drainage and utility easements. Acting Chair Corbett stated that it seems like there is bad language within the cul-de-sac ordinance and asked whether that could be addressed or cleaned up, as it seems unenforceable. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that the language “shall not normally” exists several times in the subdivision ordinance, and perhaps the original intent was to allow flexibility. She stated that staff will be looking at all the subdivision ordinance language with the City Attorney as a separate project, noting that will come before the Planning Commission at a later time. She noted that this request must then be considered under the current ordinance language. Acting Chair Corbett asked why the language is included if it is not enforceable. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that it is assumed that the intent is related to turnaround access for a fire truck and related to safety. She stated that the Fire Marshall did review the request and has no concerns with the length or plan as currently drawn. Acting Chair Corbett opened the public hearing. Spencer McMillan, applicant, thanked staff for working with him over the past 18 months. He stated that he was told during the first round of review that there cannot be additional wetland impacts after the WCA plan is approved, and everything proposed must occur all at once. Natural Resources Coordinator Krista Spreiter stated that a future property owner could come in and request a replacement plan, but could not request further exemptions. Paul Pontinen, 1760 Ridgewood Drive, commented that they share a 320-foot boundary with lot six and therefore have concerns. He wanted a more accurate count of the significant and heritage trees along their property lines, so he measured the trees himself last week. He reported 18 significant trees and six heritage trees. He noted that he did not measure the trees or bushes under six inches, and also did not measure on the McMillan property. He provided information on the Page 7 of 310 May 27, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 13 critical root zone for trees and wanted to ensure that the trees, and their root zones, for his property and on the property line would be protected. He was concerned that the potential driveway for lot six could impact the critical root zone for those trees. Acting Chair Corbett commented that he was unsure where the driveway could be moved by 40 feet, but appreciated the concern. John Weikert, 1737 Delaware Avenue, stated that his concern is also related to lot six. He asked why anyone would want to put a home on the lowest, wettest, steepest, most environmentally sensitive portion of the property. He proposed that lot six be eliminated and that land be added to one of the other lots. He noted that the other lots have more desirable building areas, and removing lot six would remove a lot of the problems. He stated that area of the property often floods and was unsure why anyone would want to build on that area. He stated that if the City approves this, he believed the City would be setting itself up for problems in the future. Kris Fischer, 1775 Ridgewood Drive, was unsure of the measurements from Marie Avenue to the proposed new end of Ridgewood Drive and asked if there are any comparable cul-de-sac lengths in the community. Sean Fahnhorst, 1767 Ridgewood Drive, stated that two years ago, the City introduced a living streets policy that promised engagement with the stakeholders in the design of all streets, and commented that the process did not occur for this project. Commissioner Goldade asked the resident to share the three commonsense proposals that he included in his email. Mr. Fahnhorst reviewed his suggestions related to the living streets questionnaire, onsite mitigation for tree replacement should be required, and there should be a no net loss requirement for the wetlands. He commented that the wetland on this property also goes onto all of the adjacent properties, and he did not want to see impacts on any property as a result of this action. He asked the recourse that adjacent properties would have if the changes on this property causes flooding of another home as a result of this development. Commissioner Johnson asked the document the resident found the no net loss for wetlands. Mr. Fahnhorst replied that he did not have that information with him but could follow up with an email. Jonathan Deering, 1759 Ridgewood Drive, commented that his property is south of proposed lot one. He asked for clarification on the proposed routing of the road. He stated that it was mentioned that Ridgewood Drive would be the only access point. He asked if there was consideration made to provide access from Delaware to reduce the wetland impacts and concerns with the cul-de-sac length. He referenced the Orchard Heights case and stated that Judge did not rule against City Code, but found that the variance was met, therefore, he did not believe a Judge would rule against City Code. He stated that routing was approved because they were attempting to avoid wetland impacts. He referenced the intent to develop the Super Block 21 and stated that this could create Page 8 of 310 May 27, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 13 a cul-de-sac that is a full city block. He acknowledged the validity of the wetland delineation, but commented that if the date were seven days later, it would no longer be valid. He stated that delineation is as small as it would ever be, noting the dry conditions when it was completed. Susan Micevych, 1778 Ridgewood Drive, stated that a few years ago, there was a variance requested to build a stadium at Sibley Memorial High School, which brought forward concerns from this neighborhood because of the impacts. She felt that the neighborhood is being placed in a similar situation where it will face impacts. She noted that it took several years to mitigate the noise concerns from the stadium. She asked why this would be approved now if additional wetland impacts are anticipated and would be pushed on future property owners. She asked the Commission to delay the decision until more information is made available. She believed that their property values would be impacted by the construction process and the addition of six homes in the area. She asked who would be responsible for redoing the cul-de-sac and how it would be landscaped. She also noted the increased traffic that would come down the cul-de-sac and how that could increase further if it were extended to Foxwood Lane in the future. She was unaware that the wetland report had to be requested and therefore requested that the eight homes on Ridgewood be provided with that report. Jill Lipset, 1770 Ridgewood Drive, commented that she just moved to her property two months ago and therefore is still learning and appreciates the input that has been provided by her neighbors. She commented that she previously lived on Dodd Road and moved to her property to have more privacy, which would be impacted by the additional lots and construction. She asked for information on the length and phasing of construction. She stated that lot six would be most impactful to her property and seems to stick out as a sore thumb. She agreed that the lot should be removed. Jim Kolar, 1695 Delaware, stated that he has appeared before this Commission many times related to requests for the development of this property. He noted that this proposal is significantly different than the previous proposal from Mr. McMillan and this creates a much denser development. He stated that he has supported the requests for development that have been presented for this property with the stipulation that his interests not be adversely harmed nor his property become landlocked, whether intentionally or unintentionally. He stated that he has repeatedly asked the Commission and Council to take a comprehensive approach to the planning of the Super Block, which has not occurred, as he would remain the sole 10-acre owner if this proposal is approved. He stated that he is generally supportive of the request, and while he appreciated that the utility easement would be extended for both water and sewer, he would also want a similar 60-foot nub from the cul-de-sac towards his property. He stated that without that, he would be limited in the potential development of his property. He believed that Ridgewood provided foresight for development that he should be granted as well. He noted that the stub provided by Ridgewood provides access for the McMillan property, and he is asked for the same. He stated that he agreed with the five-acre lots previously proposed for the McMillan property but noted that this is a much denser proposal. He asked that the Commission think forward to allow future development to the north. He stated that the back acreage of his property could accommodate the development of four to five lots and could provide additional opportunity for the Bader property. He stated that if the access that was provided to the McMillans is similarly provided to him, he would then provide similar connectivity to the Bader property. He stated that Page 9 of 310 May 27, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 13 if a comprehensive approach is taken, a better public safety solution could be provided, noting that a fire gate could be installed in the future for emergency access at Foxwood. Acting Chair Corbett asked if the resident has concerns with more density as proposed. Mr. Kolar replied that he will match whatever density there is of the surrounding development. He stated that in the previous proposal, he would have matched a five-acre lot, but with this density proposed, he would expect to match that as well. He stated that he is not interested in developing in the near future, but does not want to be landlocked. Max Lipset, 1770 Ridgewood, echoed the comments his wife made related to a desire for privacy. He commented that the neighbors have been extremely welcoming to them as they joined the community. He referenced the renaming of the High School to Two Rivers and believed that wetlands near a school with that name should be preserved. He asked about the impacts that this development would have on the wildlife in the area. He asked if there has been a comprehensive study on potential endangered species that could be going through the property. He commented that he has known Mr. McMillan since high school and has no ill feelings towards him or his property rights, but also believes that there is value in maintaining the wetland. Mr. McMillan stated that they have been working on this project for about 16 months and have tried every alternative and option. He noted that there is a giant wall of wetland along Delaware, and therefore, providing access from Delaware would have a much greater impact on the wetland. He commented that there were normal precipitation levels during the wetland delineation, as noted in that report. He disagreed that this is similar to Foxwood, as the road in Foxwood is only 50 feet wide with buildings that do not meet the setback requirements. He commented that there were many variances in that proposal, which did not leave much room for future development. He stated that this plan meets the requirements of the City Code, and the request tonight is related only to the plat request and not the wetland request. He stated that there are 5.5 acres of wetland and he is trying to mitigate the impact to the extent possible, noting that there will be a very small impact that falls below the de minimis. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Acting Chair Corbett asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NATH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Goldade asked staff to review the implications of the wetland review, the decision tonight, and how those interact. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that the action tonight is a recommendation from the Commission to the City Council related to the preliminary plat. She stated that the wetland impacts and request for exemption are not the purview of the Planning Page 10 of 310 May 27, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 13 Commission. She explained how the WCA review is completed, involving the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) and the different agencies involved. Acting Chair Corbett asked for more information on the living streets policy and whether it should have been followed in this process. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the City developed that policy within the last 12 months. He stated that he reviewed the policy today, and the only element that would seem to apply is that the road width could be reduced. He noted that a narrower roadway could also reduce environmental impacts. Acting Chair Corbett asked staff for more information on the no net loss policy for wetlands. Natural Resources Coordinator Krista Spreiter stated that perhaps that is from the Surface Water Management Plan, or a similar document. She stated that it is always the goal of the City to conserve wetlands; however, under WCA, there are impacts allowed for development. Acting Chair Corbett referenced lot six and the neighboring property. He asked if the placement of that home could be challenged based on a previous decision of the Council that homes should not be placed so far back as to be out of continuity with the neighborhood. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the zoning code has been revised, and the applicant has met the building setback lines. He was unsure if they would need to look at the string lines for lot six, as that is a requirement of R-1, but this is zoned R-E. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden believed that only applies to R-1, but could find that information prior to the City Council meeting. She also noted the differences in home placement for the adjacent lots. Acting Chair Corbett stated that it appears that staff finds this request in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that to be true. Commissioner Johnson stated that the Comprehensive Plan speaks of development that does not prohibit or landlock other properties from future development and asked how that would be addressed. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that the proposal shows an easement extension and that the resident was requesting an extension of the right-of-way as well. She commented that a 60-foot easement width is provided on the current plans, and that condition could be amended to require the 60-foot easement and right-of-way. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that a second cul-de-sac could also be added to Delaware to provide access to the northern properties. Page 11 of 310 May 27, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 13 Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that they did review the option of access from Delaware, but that would require even more wetland impacts along with demolition of the existing home, and therefore, staff found the stub from the Ridgewood Drive cul-de-sac to be the feasible option. Commissioner Johnson asked how the Tree Preservation Ordinance would relate to the property line of lot six and the proximity to the property line. She stated that perhaps the driveway could curve away from the property line to lessen the impact on the trees. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that there is a driveway setback from the property line, but there is also a wetland buffer setback requirement that would come into play. Natural Resources Coordinator Krista Spreiter stated that within the forestry management plan, any trees to be preserved must have protections in place as shown on the plan. She stated that does not address neighboring property trees, but that could be added to the forestry management plan. ACTING CHAIR CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GOLDADE, TO TABLE CASE #2025-03 BASED ON NEW QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME TO LIGHT, POTENTIAL CONFLICTS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE ABILITY FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, AND THE POSITION OF LOT SIX RELATED TO CONTINUITY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BASED ON PREVIOUS RULING OF THE CITY COUNCIL. Further discussion: Commissioner Goldade stated that he is also interested in knowing the results of the WCA decision before making a decision. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Acting Chair Corbett commented that he will work with staff to address the concerns he brought forward before the Commission revisits this next month. New and Unfinished Business 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 Page 12 of 310 May 27, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 13 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). Jon 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. 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. Page 13 of 310 May 27, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 13 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. Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that she anticipates that the June meeting agenda will be robust. She provided an update on recent actions of the City Council and other items of interest to the Commission. Commissioner Johnson asked if the Commission should review the subdivision ordinance in a workshop setting. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that she originally planned to present that at the June meeting, but agreed that it would perhaps be best to review the draft in a workshop setting. She noted that she could send an email to determine the availability of the Commission. She provided additional information on the housing needs study completed by Dakota County CDA, and related specifically to Mendota Heights. She commented that the presentation is available during the recording of the May 6th City Council meeting. She noted that she also has a copy of the full report for the county. Adjournment Page 14 of 310 May 27, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 13 COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:39 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Page 15 of 310 4.a Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 24, 2025 Agenda Item: CASE No. 2025-07 Variance Application of Daniel Michel for a Variance to allow for the construction of a fence exceeding 6-ft in height for the property located at 1341 Cherry Hill Road Department: Community Development Contact: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Introduction: The applicant, Daniel Michel, is requesting a Variance to residential fence height standards for his property located at 1341 Cherry Hill Road. The applicant’s existing rear-yard fence in 9-ft in height, and the existing side-yard fence is 6-ft in height. The request is to replace the 6-ft segment of fencing on the side property line (north of the existing home) with fencing 9-ft tall consistent with the existing rear-yard segment, and tapering to 6-ft fencing as the fence segment proceeds west. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcels. As of the submittal of this report, the City has received no public comments related to this item. The applicant did seek signatures from some neighboring property owners, which have been attached to this report. Background: The subject site is located at the end of the Cherry Hill Road cul-de-sac. The property consists of 0.54 acres of land, and contains a 3,416-sf. two-story dwelling, with an in-ground swimming pool in the rear yard. In 2019, this property received Variance approval for the construction of a fence 9-ft tall on the east, rear property line of the parcel, which abuts Wachtler Avenue and an adjacent trail. This approval was granted based on the request demonstrating practical difficulties and a large aspect of the discussion centered around the grade difference between the trail on Wachtler Avenue and the backyard of the subject site. Resolution 2019-40 approving this Variance has been included as an attachment to this report. Analysis: City Code section 12-4A-10: Fences requires that “The maximum height of a fence erected on interior lot lines behind the front yard setback line and on any rear lot line is six feet (6') in height.” The proposed fence would replace the existing 6-ft privacy fence on the north side lot line with a new 9-ft privacy fence consistent with the 2019 Variance approval for the segment adjacent to the rear lot line and Wachtler Avenue. The applicant has indicated that the requested fence would provide additional privacy from the elevation changes on the property and sightlines Page 16 of 310 from Wachter Avenue, and then would taper down to 6-ft to maintain a consistent appearance with the surrounding residential fences. City Code Section 12-5B-7 governs variance requests. The city must consider a number of variables when recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i) practical difficulties; and (ii) impact to the community. The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality or neighborhood. It is also noted that economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. In addition, variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Section 12-5B-7(E)(1) further provides other issues the city may consider when granting or denying a variance, noted as follows: a. Practical Difficulties exist that apply to the structure or land in question that are unique to such property or immediately adjoining property; and b. Such Practical Difficulties do not apply generally to other land or structures in the Zoning District in which said land is located; and c. That the granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the Applicant; and d. That granting the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area; or e. That granting the proposed Variance will not in any other way impair health, safety, comfort, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this Zoning Ordinance; and f. That the granting of such Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the Applicant but is necessary to alleviate a Practical Difficulty. g. If all the conditions are met, then the City Council may grant such Variance and impose conditions and safeguards therein. When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have been met in granting a variance, and provide findings of facts to support such a recommendation to the City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to meet these standards, or has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings of fact supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined. As part of any variance request, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and findings, which for this case, are noted in the application materials (included in the attachments and noted below in italic text). 1. Are there any practical difficulties that help support the granting of this Variance? Applicant’s Response: In 2019 a Variance was granted for my backyard fence running parallel to Wachtler. I’m requesting a similar Variance to my sideyard fence running parallel to Farmdale Avenue. Because of the elevation of the walking path and street people can see into my backyard. I have a pool and children and this is a safety concern. Page 17 of 310 Staff’s Response: A question that must be considered in this case is whether or not the proposed 3-feet of additional fencing (from 6-ft. to 9-ft.) is reasonable on the north property line. The applicant has shown on the site plan that the entire segment of the existing north fence would be replaced with a 9-ft fence, with only the front-side yard segment being installed as a 6-ft fence. The existing fence meets the City Code requirements for at least a 5-foot high fence for security and safety reasons when surrounding a pool, and the side-front fence segment at 6-ft would be consistent with City Code. The location of the existing fence adjacent to Wachtler Avenue is impacted by grade and does provide a consistent look with neighboring fences when viewed from the street level at Wachtler Avenue. Staff is not supportive of the entire segment of north fencing being constructed at a height of 9-ft, as only a portion of the fence area is shown to be impacted by grades or by sight lines from Wachtler Avenue. The taper noted by the applicant, if applied after the first 15-ft of fence segment would be more adequately represented by a practical difficulty or unique circumstance of grade, as opposed to the entire north segment. The city will need to determine if this request is indeed reasonable or justifiable to extend the 9-ft fencing beyond the previously approved segment, or if additional conditions applied would provide a reasonable nexus to the practical difficulty claimed by the applicant. 2. Are there any circumstances unique to the property (not created by the owner) that support the granting of this Variance? Applicant’s Response: There is an average 5.8-ft decline from the street and walking path down to the middle of my side yard fence, caused by grading when the neighborhood was built, not giving me enough privacy with a 6-ft fence. Staff’s Response: The city must determine and substantiate if this grade change in the side yard is unique enough to support the granting of this variance. An alternative to the Variance request may exist, if the property owner opts instead to install evergreen trees or shrubs in the northeast corner to accomplish enhanced screening. The applicant has indicated that they have evaluated this option and would prefer not to attempt this type of screening in order to preserve the root zone of their existing established deciduous trees. The applicant has also indicated that a recent tree removal from the boulevard of an ash tree by Dakota County has also impacted the property’s privacy within the rear yard from Wachtler Avenue. 3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Applicant’s Response: Because of the elevation on the walking path and Wachtler Ave I have an average loss of 5.8-ft of elevation. A 9-ft fence will match my existing fence and blend in with the neighborhood’s 6-ft fences. Staff’s Response: The existing neighborhood is residential in character; and there are a few neighboring houses that have similar style fences of 6-feet in height. Staff is unaware if there are any residential fences greater than 6-feet in this neighborhood. Following the prior approval of the 9-ft fence Variance in 2019, the installation of the 9-ft fence at the toe of the slope on the subject property gave the appearance of a smaller fence when viewed from the adjacent road and trail system. However, when viewed from the north or the south, the difference in fence height is noticeable and may seem out of place. The north fence segment replacement, with a taper from 9-ft to 6-ft after the first 15-ft of the property line fence, would give an appearance of a blended fence and soften the change in fence height when viewed from the north. The city will need to determine if the higher fence would alter the essential character of this neighborhood. Page 18 of 310 Conclusion: Staff has evaluated the Variance request and finds that, with appropriate conditions relating to the specific dimensions of the taper from 9-ft height to 6-ft height, the applicant’s request for a Variance is reasonable, and that the subject property possesses a practical difficulty that impacts the property owner’s ability to reasonably enjoy the use of their property without such cause for a Variance, as the alternative option that exists for screening with plantings would impact existing established deciduous trees on site. Alternatives: 1. Recommend approval of the Variance request as proposed by the applicant, based on certain findings of fact as determined by the Planning Commission, with specific conditions of approval, noted as follows: 1.The proposed higher fence shall require a building permit (instead of zoning permit) as per Minnesota State Building Codes. 2.The proposed fence shall not exceed 9-ft in height, as measured at a point six inches (6") below the top of the supporting posts and as illustrated on the application materials presented in Planning Case 2025-07 2. Recommend approval of the Variance request, with certain conditions based on certain findings of fact as included herein, along with the following conditions: 1.The proposed higher fence shall require a building permit (instead of zoning permit) as per Minnesota State Building Codes. 2.The proposed fence shall not exceed 9-ft in height, as measured at a point six inches (6") below the top of the supporting posts. 3.The proposed fence shall taper from 9-ft to 6-ft, beginning at the point 15-ft inward to the west from the existing fence boundary adjacent to Wachtler Avenue. 3. Recommend denial of the Variance request, based on the findings of fact that confirm the Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A.Under Title 12-5B-7 of the City Code, the City may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B.The City hereby determines the Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a variance for increased fence height. The proposed higher fence is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; there is an alternative for privacy screening through the use of evergreen trees which would not require a Variance; and the assertion that the need for additional privacy requires a variance from normal fence height standards is not warranted under this case, and is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property. C.Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two Page 19 of 310 prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). 4. Table the request and request additional information from the applicant or staff. Staff will extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN Statute. 15,99. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed 9-ft fence height Variance request on the north side property line with certain conditions as noted in Alternative #2, based on the attached findings of fact. As noted in this report, the parameters of the fence tapering in height from east to west is included as a condition of approval in this alternative. Attachments: 1.Findings of Fact for Approval 2.Site Aerial Map 3.Narrative Letter 4.Variance Request - Response Form 5.Fence and Elevation Plans 6.Adjacent Neighbors - Consent 7.Resolution 2019- 40 Variance 1341 Cherry Hill Road Page 20 of 310 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Variance 1341 Cherry Hill Road The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: A.Under Title 12-5B-7 of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B.The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a Variance to allow a residential fence height increase from 6-ft. to 9-ft. along the northern side lot line, by the following: i.) The proposed increased fence height is a reasonable request on the subject property, due to the elevation change in the northeast corner of the property; ii.) Dakota County has recently removed a boulevard tree which acted as additional screening for the property, and thus created a unique situation for the homeowner to keep and maintain a certain level of privacy and screening measures from the abutting county roadway and trail system; iii.) The applicant’s request to expand the 9-ft fence from the rear property line to the north side property line would have a lesser impact on the established trees on the subject property than any additional installation of evergreen plantings for screening; iv.) Due to the grade differences between the existing 9-ft fence location on the east property line, and the northwest side yard of the subject property, approving the Variance for an increased fence height does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as the residential properties adjacent to the subject site will see a taper in fence height as the grade levels to the west. v.) The reason for the Variance request is to permit a reasonable request to extend the privacy fence higher than the 6-ft. height standard in order to retain privacy and screening from the county roadway and northeast corner of the subject property, and for this reason the request is not solely based on economic considerations. C.The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the Page 21 of 310 4a1. Planning Report: Case #2025-7 Page 2 risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D.Approval of this Variance is for 1341 Cherry Hill Road only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. Page 22 of 310 66666666666666666 6 6666! "" " ³ *" ³ ³ * ³ ³ " " * * ³"" "! *6666666666666666666666666666!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2!!2 !!2 1344 1341 813 811 807809 803 1360 1423 787 14101357 1435 1456 1352 1411 1442 1418 804 1407 13381342 1450 13471350 1420 810814 815 1396 1445 790796 1407 1395 1359 1387 1385 1383 1397 1381 1393 1426 1362 1391 784 818 1392 1407 1455 1432 806 FARMDALE RD WACHTLER AVECHERRY HILL RDPARK PLACE D R LOWER COLONIAL DR Nearmap US Inc, Dakota County, MN Site Location/Aerial Map1341 Cherry Hill Road Date: 6/19/2025 City ofMendotaHeights0125 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. Page 23 of 310 4a2. Page 24 of 3104a3. Page 25 of 310 Page 26 of 310 Page 27 of 3104a4. Page 28 of 3104a5. Page 29 of 310 Page 30 of 310 Page 31 of 310 Page 32 of 310 Page 33 of 310 Page 34 of 310 Page 35 of 310 Page 36 of 310 Page 37 of 310 Page 38 of 310 Page 39 of 310 Page 40 of 310 Page 41 of 310 Page 42 of 310 Page 43 of 310 Page 44 of 310 Page 45 of 310 Page 46 of 3104a6. Page 47 of 310 Page 48 of 310 Receipt:# 614718 RES $46.00 Return to: SIMPLIFILE 5072 NORTH 300 W PROVO UT 54604 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-40 3315767 Recorded on: 7/19/2019 8: 57 AM By: DRA, Deputy Office of the County Recorder Dakota County, Minnesota Amy A. Koethe, County Recorder RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1341 CHERRY HILL ROAD PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-12) WHEREAS, Charles "Chuck" Mastel (as "Applicant") applied for a variance for the property located at 1341 Cherry Hill Road (the "Subject Property"), and legally described on attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LR -Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and is located in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance to allow an oversized privacy fence of 9 - feet in height, which would exceed the maximum allowable sized fence height of 6 -feet in residential zoned properties, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-12; and WHEREAS, Title 12-1L-5 of the City Code (Variances) allows for the City of Mendota Heights (the "City") to grant variances or certain modifications from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code, and impose conditions and safeguards with variances if so needed or granted: and WHEREAS, on May 28, 2019 the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this item with staff and the Applicant, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (by 7- 0 vote) to approve the Variance as presented under Planning Case No. 2019-12, with certain findings of fact to support such approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation from the Planning Commission is hereby affirmed, and the Variance application proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-12 is hereby approved, with the following findings of fact and conditions: Page 49 of 310 4a7. A. Under Title 12 -1L -5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are practical difficulties" in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. Practical difficulties" consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties." B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite "practical difficulties" in order to justify the granting of a Variance to allow a residential fence height increase from 6 -ft. to 9 -ft. along the rear lot line, by the following: i.) the proposed increased fence height is a reasonable request on the subject property, due to the need to relocated the fence from an elevated area to a lower level of the property; ii.) Dakota County has ordered the removal of the fence from its current location next to the county trail system (and even after 32 years), and thus created a unique situation for the homeowner to keep and maintain a certain level of privacy and screening measures from the abutting county roadway and trail system; iii.) due to the grade differences from the current fence location to new, approving the Variance for an increased fence height does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as the subject property abuts residential properties on both sides, and the residential uses on the opposite side of Wachtler Avenue are situated far enough away that they will not be impacted by the higher fence; and iv.) the reason for the Variance request is to permit a reasonable request to extend the privacy fence higher than the 6 -ft. height standard in order to retain privacy and screening from the county roadway, and enhances safety for the homeowner. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12 -1L -5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. Res 2019-40 Page 2 Page 50 of 310 D. Approval of this Variance is for 1341 Cherry Hill Road only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019-12, dated and presented May 28, 2019 ( on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-40. F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his Variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows: i.) The proposed higher fence shall require a building permit (instead of zoning permit) as per Minnesota State Building Codes. ii.) The proposed fence shall not extend more than 9 -ft. above the level grade of the rear yard at the property line parallel with Wachtler Avenue; and must match the current shadow-box style or design of the existing residential fence on the subject property. iii.) Within one year of approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed fence. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Variance application for the property located at 1341 Cherry Hill Road, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-12, is hereby approved. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of June, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTE54) l Lorri Smith, City Clerk Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Res 2019-40 Page 3 Page 51 of 310 Exhibit A PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1341 Cherry Hill Road Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 PID No. 27-17151-03-040 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot Four (4), Block Three (3), Cherry Hill 2nd Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota Res 2019-40 Page 4 Page 52 of 310 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) S. S. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ) I, Lorri Smith, being the duly appointed City Clerk of the City of Mendota Heights, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution is an exact copy of the resolution on file in my office adopted by the Mendota Heights City Council. Signed and sealed by my hand on this 19th day of July, 2019. Page 53 of 310 4.b Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 24, 2025 Agenda Item: CASE No. 2025-08 Conditional Use Permit Amendment Application of Glenn Baron requesting an amended Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval for the outdoor commercial recreation use located at 1415 Mendota Heights Road Department: Community Development Contact: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Introduction: The applicant, Glenn Baron, represents The Heights Social and Raquetball Club in their request to modify their Conditional Use Permit approval for outdoor commercial recreation, which was approved by the City in February 2024. Outdoor commercial recreation use is a Conditional Use in the I-Industrial zoning district, when accessory to an approved indoor commercial recreation use. A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to all properties within 350-feet of the subject property. The city has not received any comments or objections to this land use request as of the submittal of this report. Background: The subject property is located on the northwestern corner of the intersection of Mendota Heights Road and Pilot Knob Road. It is also less than a mile from an I-494 onramp, Highway 13, and Highway 55. The site contains three access points off Mendota Heights Road to the south and one access off Pilot Knob Road to the east, with 155 marked or dedicated parking spaces spread throughout the property. The subject site and the adjacent properties on all sides are zoned and guided for Industrial uses. The Dog Tank (2415 Pilot Knob Rd) and Southview Design are current tenants on the subject property and all tenants share the parking and principal structure on the site addressed collectively with 1415 Mendota Heights Rd. In October 2022, the Applicant submitted a request for a CUP to construct a new indoor athletic club facility (to become The Heights Racquet & Social Club) inside the then vacant space within the multi-tenant building. The CUP was approved by Resolution 2022-82 (adopted 11/01/2022), and the Applicant obtained a certificate of occupancy in the late fall of 2023, allowing the club to open in December 2023. In February 2024, the City approved a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor commercial recreation, accessory to the permitted club facility. As part of this approval, The Heights could install 3,520 sq-ft of pickleball sorts, and 2,178 sq-ft of padel courts. Two pickleball courts were constructed in 2024, but the padel courts were not. Page 54 of 310 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The Applicant is proposing to construct an outdoor padel court, which requires a glass wall perimeter 10-ft in height. To enhance the club facility's ability to offer outdoor recreation, they are also proposing to install exterior lighting and increase their hours of operation from what was previously identified in their prior Conditional Use Permit approvals. These modifications to the outdoor commercial recreation use necessitate a Conditional Use Permit Amendment. As part of the overall site improvements, the applicant will also be installing a new retaining wall north of the proposed outdoor courts (requiring a separate building permit), and expanding their paved parking areas. Analysis: Pursuant to Title 12-5B-5, the city recognizes that the development and execution of Zoning Code is based upon the division of the city into districts within which regulations are specified. It is further recognized that there are special or conditional uses which, because of their unique characteristics, cannot be properly classified in any district or districts without consideration, in each case, of the impact of those uses on neighboring land or the public need for the particular location. To provide for these needs, the city may approve a conditional use for those uses and purposes, and may impose conditions and safeguards in such permits to ensure that the purpose and intent of this chapter is effectively carried out. Additionally, Per City Code section 12-4A-10: Fences, any fences over 6-ft in height in Business and Industrial Districts require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The proposed padel court enclosure is constructed of glass, not typical fencing material, however staff has made the determination that this requirement would include a gated enclosure for recreational sport in this planning case. The City may grant a conditional use provided the proposed use demonstrates the following: 1.Use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, 2.Use will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, 3.Use will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value, and 4.Use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan. A-C) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards; nor depreciate surrounding property value. Staff Response: The existing pickleball courts have not been reported to have any negative impacts on surrounding property owners, and the proposed expansion of the outdoor commercial recreation use use is not anticipated to have any negative impacts or effect upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants (of the multi-tenant building) or surrounding land uses; nor will the use be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community. The use will provide a nice facility expansion for the Club, and for bettering the health and welfare of the community by allowing expanded year-round athletic or fitness activities for the city’s residents. The private club use provides members and participants the ability to stagger their use hours which aids in mitigating potential congestion or parking issues on the site. Page 55 of 310 Furthermore, the additional court space will be installed in a largely industrial area, so noise generated will not be disruptive to any residential neighborhoods. The proposed outdoor lighting addition is illustrated to produce a foot-candle emission of below .2 at the neighboring property lines, which is within the allowable lighting standards for the I- Industrial District. 4.The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in conflict on an on-going basis. Staff Response: The subject property is guided I-Industrial in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Plan provides the following goal statement: Goal 3: Encourage and support industrial and commercial development in designated area s. 1.The city will use available resources to identify redevelopment needs. This will in clude cooperation with Dakota County and the Metropolitan Council to achieve r edevelopment objectives. 2.Transitions between adjoining land uses will be required for adjacent residential uses, and will be encouraged between compatible land uses (e.g. transition betw een a general manufacturing and retail use will be encouraged). 3.Amenities within the industrial and commercial districts will be encouraged to promote a more vibrant and attractive place for workers. Staff believes the proposed project is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan that encourages redevelopment of the industrial areas. The proposed use also supports an amenity within the industrial park that can be utilized by both residents and patrons/workers in the area. This type of use is compatible with the spirit and intent of the Industrial Zoning District and provides commercial reinvestment in an existing building. This fence, or wall, height is permitted by Conditional Use Permit in the I-Industrial zoning district, and the proposed exterior lighting addition is also consistent with City Code standards. Specific to the existing Conditional Use Permit approval, pursuant to Ordinance No. 579, outdoor commercial recreation is permitted in Industrial Districts, provided the following conditions are met: 1.The outdoor commercial recreation use must be accessory to a permitted or conditionally permitted principal use. 2.Outdoor recreation uses must be compatible and consistent with the principal use. 3.Adequate parking must be provided on site. The total area used for the outdoor commercial recreation use shall be used to determine the required number of stalls and calculation based on the principal use. 4.A site plan must be submitted to show the site layout, type and location of outdoor recreation uses proposed, the parking configuration, any proposed exterior lighting locations, and proposed landscaping. Page 56 of 310 5.An operations plan must be submitted that includes the proposed hours of operation. 1.The outdoor commercial recreation use must be accessory to a permitted or conditionally permitted principal use. Staff Response: Staff confirms that this condition is met. The proposed outdoor recreation amenities is accessory to the property’s permitted and principal commercial recreation use. 2.Outdoor recreation uses must be compatible and consistent with the principal use. Staff Response: Staff confirms that this condition is met. The proposed outdoor recreation amenities are in harmony with the property’s permitted and principal commercial recreation use. A Conditional Use Permit has been obtained for The Heights Racquet & Social Club indoor and outdoor operations, and this Permit will allow for additional services and expansion of the business consistent with prior approvals. 3.Adequate parking must be provided on site. The total area used for the outdoor commercial recreation use shall be used to determine the required number of stalls and calculation based on the principal use. Prior Conditional Use Permit approvals noted the racquet club facility as having 21,250 sq- ft of floor space for their athletic activities, with staff utilizing both the ‘Tennis Club’ and ‘golf or similar uses’ categories in the parking provisions of City Code to determine if adequate parking was available on site. Staff confirms that with this update to the approved site plan, the addition of the padel courts continues to be consistent with the prior approval and 155 parking spaces on site. In addition to the 155 spaces noted on the previously approved site plan, the applicant is proposing to add an additional 12 parking spaces on site, recognizing that the expanded outdoor courts will add an additional recreation space for up to 8 players. However, it should be noted that the prior approval included padel and pickleball courts that were not constructed and which were shown to be adequately served by the existing 155 parking spaces on site. Based on this, and the private club membership business model, staff confirms that the site can provide sufficient parking for the outdoor commercial recreation use. Staff recommends including a condition that all parking must be handled onsite for the multi-tenant building, including all activities associated with The Heights Racquet and Social Club, similar to what was approved in the 2024 Conditional Use Permit. Any indication that the site is under parked or any change of occupancy within the building which increases the minimum parking standards may result in a required amendment to this Permit, and a reasonable solution to accommodate all parking on site must be provided. 4.A site plan must be submitted to show the site layout, type and location of outdoor recreation uses proposed, the parking configuration, any proposed exterior lighting Page 57 of 310 locations, and proposed landscaping. Staff confirms that the Applicant provided a site layout plan, which included details about the location of the additional outdoor recreation amenities, which has been modified from the prior approval. The site plan also illustrates an area for additional paved parking, and proposed shrub landscaping. The previous Conditional Use Permit approval included no exterior lighting, and noted that the hours of operation on site would be from 7:00am to Dusk (for the outdoor component). With this new site plan and expansion of the facility’s services, the applicant has provided photometric information for the site, and has illustrated that the foot-candle is expected to be less than .2 when measured at the property lines. With these details, staff can approve the exterior lighting plan as it is within City Code standards. Following approval of the Conditional Use Permit by the City Council, the applicant must obtain all necessary permits from the City, including but not limited to a Grading Permit and Building Permit, and the applicant will be required to provide fully designed and detailed plans with elevations and stormwater management information. The parking improvements, retaining wall details, and erosion control plan will be reviewed as part of the administrative building permit process. The site will be reviewed for compliance with the Land Disturbance requirements, impervious surface, and any additional landscaping which may be proposed. The application is currently compliant with the impervious surface standard for the I- Industrial zoning district. 6.An operations plan must be submitted that includes the proposed hours of operation. With this proposal and the inclusion of exterior lighting, the hours of operation are proposed to be changed from the prior approval, which was seasonal and limited to daylight hours from 7:00am to Dusk. The applicant has indicated in their narrative letter that the new hours of operation will be 6:00am to 11:30pm. The subject site is an Industrial zoned and guided property and has no residential neighbors, and staff does not anticipate any concerns with the proposal as presented by the applicant. Staff believes the proposed project has met the Conditional parameters outlined in Ordinance No. 579, and with the conditions provided herein will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor cause any serious traffic congestion or hazards, nor depreciate surrounding property values. Alternatives: 1. Recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment with certain conditions and based on the findings of fact contained herein; or 2. Recommend denial based on the findings of fact(s) determined by the Planning Commission, that the Conditional Use Permit Amendment requested herein is not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan and may have negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood and/or properties; or 3. Table the application and request additional information from staff and/or the applicant. Staff will extend the review period an additional 60 days in conformance with Minnesota Statute 15.99 Page 58 of 310 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment for 1415 Mendota Heights Road, based on the attached findings-of-fact and with the following conditionals of approval: 1.All parking for the multi-tenant building must be accommodated on site. Any indication that the site is under parked may result in required amendments to the Site Plan and/or the Conditional Use Permit. 2.The hours of operation for the Outdoor Commercial Recreation (Padel and Pickleball Courts) shall be seasonal and limited to 6:00am to 11:30pm. 3.The exterior lighting shall not exceed a reading of .2 foot-candles when measured at the property lines. 4.Site Grading, Erosion Control, and Stormwater Management plans shall be provided with a building permit application which show existing contours, proposed grading elevations, stormwater management details, and erosion and sediment control. 5.All grading and construction activity must be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Attachments: 1.Findings of Fact for Approval 2.Site Aerial Map 3.Narrative Letter 4.Existing Conditions 5.Site Plan 6.Site Impacts and Improvements 7.Padel Court Rendering 8.Exterior Lighting Details Page 59 of 310 FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL Planning Case No. 2025-08 Conditional Use Permit for 1415 Mendota Heights Road The following Findings-of-Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit Amendment request to install outdoor padel courts: 1. The Proposed outdoor recreation use (padel and pickleball courts) is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance for property in the Industrial district. 2. The proposed principal and accessory use are an adaptive reuse of an industrial building which is consistent with the City’s goals for reinvestment and redevelopment with the industrial zoning district. 3. The proposed outdoor padel and pickleball courts are accessory to the principal use of The Heights Racquet and Social Club which is an indoor commercial recreation use. 4. With the conditions included herein, the site will provide adequate parking for the multi- tenant building. All parking will be accommodated on-site and no adverse impacts off-site are anticipated. 5. The proposed outdoor recreation use of padel courts is consistent with the prior Conditional Use Permit approval, and the surrounding light industrial uses, and will not adversely impact the value of surrounding properties. 6. Parking is adequately provided onsite, and there will not be negative impacts to traffic flow on the surrounding roadway network. Page 60 of 310 4b1. 66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 666666666666666666666666666666666666666 6 6666 666666666 6 66 6 6666 66666 6 6 6 666 66666666666666666FMFM FMFM FM FM FM FM FM FM F M FM 6NORTHLAND DRHIGHWAY 13MENDOTA HEIGHTS RD PILOT KNOB RDENTERPRISE DR SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYSIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYHIGHWAY 13Nearmap US Inc, Dakota County, MN Location Aerial Map1415 Mendota Heights Road Date: 1/23/2024 City ofMendotaHeights0310 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. Page 61 of 310 4b2.. Page 62 of 310 4b3. Page 63 of 310 Page 64 of 310 Pickleball 2(existing) Type text hereAttachment C Existing Site Plan with existing parking Page 65 of 310 4b4. Pickleball 2(existing) Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed PadelCourts Existing gravel lot - proposed to pave Proposed parking lot expansion (paved) Proposed SIte Plan with additional padel courts and expanded parking Drainage element Drainage Element Permeable path & viewing landscaping elements Leatherwoodshrubs (2) White Spruce Shrubs (2, in each location) (including landscaping element types) (retain existing mixed vegetation on berm) Page 66 of 310 4a1. 4a1. 4b5. Date 5/11/2025 Created with DIALux1415 Mendota Heights Road Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Contact: Glenn Baron (Managing Partner); 612-759- 1278; sgnerb@gmail.com Object The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Install two outdoor padel courts while expanding and paving adjacent parking. Install outdoor lights on the two padel courts and the two existing pickleball courts. Utilize high efficiency LED lighting with focused lenses. Model the lighting on courts and stray light distribution beyond the court. Page 67 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Table of Contents Cover 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of Contents 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contacts 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Images 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Heights Outdoor Padel Courts Luminaire layout plan 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Luminaire list 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Padel Court West / Light scene 1 / Perpendicular illuminance (adaptive)11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Padel Court East / Light scene 1 / Perpendicular illuminance (adaptive)12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PB Court West / Light scene 1 / Perpendicular illuminance 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PB Court East / Light scene 1 / Perpendicular illuminance 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Heights Site / Light scene 1 / Perpendicular illuminance 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Heights Outdoor Padel Courts - Building 4 Storey 1 Property to North / Light scene 1 / Perpendicular illuminance 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 68 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Contacts 3 Managing Partner Glenn Baron The Heights Racquet & Social Club 1415 Mendota Heights Rd Mendota Heights, MN 55120 T 612-759-1278 sgnerb@gmail.com Page 69 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project 4 Description Install two outdoor padel courts while expanding and paving adjacent parking. Install outdoor lights on the two padel courts and the two existing pickleball courts. Utilize high efficiency LED lighting with focused lenses. Model the lighting on courts and stray light distribution beyond the court. Managing Partner Glenn Baron The Heights Racquet & Social Club 1415 Mendota Heights Rd Mendota Heights, MN 55120 T 612-759-1278 sgnerb@gmail.com Page 70 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Images 5 Heights Outdoor Padel Courts 3D Night View Heights Outdoor Padel Courts False Colors Heights Outdoor Padel Courts Overhead Contours Entire Page 71 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Images 6 Heights Outdoor Padel Courts Overhead Contours Zoomed Quantitative Page 72 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Heights Outdoor Padel Courts Luminaire layout plan 7 Page 73 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Heights Outdoor Padel Courts Luminaire layout plan 8 Manufacturer LED Lighting Supply/DRK - sales@ledlightingsup ply.com Article name 2268-MLLG-LED- FLD5-150-CC-PC Fitting 1x / P 148.2 W ΦLuminaire 22860 lm Individual luminaires X Y Mounting height Luminaire -26.130 m 0.000 m 6.500 m 5 -16.265 m 0.000 m 6.500 m 6 -26.128 m -19.756 m 6.500 m 11 -16.263 m -19.756 m 6.500 m 12 Page 74 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Heights Outdoor Padel Courts Luminaire layout plan 9 Manufacturer Planet Power Tools Article No.PR-4x64-P30-200W- 5K-70CRI Article name Proyector TABLED 4x64 Fitting 1x LUXEON 3030 P 197.8 W ΦLuminaire 30034 lm Individual luminaires X Y Mounting height Luminaire -5.950 m 11.132 m 7.000 m 1 6.550 m 11.132 m 7.000 m 2 -5.950 m 1.132 m 7.000 m 3 6.550 m 1.132 m 7.000 m 4 -5.950 m -1.368 m 7.000 m 7 6.550 m -1.368 m 7.000 m 8 -5.950 m -11.368 m 7.000 m 9 6.550 m -11.368 m 7.000 m 10 Page 75 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Heights Outdoor Padel Courts Luminaire list 10 Φtotal 331712 lm Ptotal 2175.2 W Luminous efficacy 152.5 lm/W Luminous efficacyΦPpcs.Manufacturer Article No.Article name 148.2 W 22860 lm 154.2 lm/W4LED Lighting Supply/DRK - sales@ledlight ingsupply.com 2268-MLLG-LED-FLD5-150-CC-PC 197.8 W 30034 lm 151.8 lm/W8Planet Power Tools PR-4x64- P30-200W- 5K-70CRI Proyector TABLED 4x64 Page 76 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Heights Outdoor Padel Courts (Light scene 1) Padel Court West 11 Properties Ē Emin Emax Uo (g1 )g2 Index Padel Court West Perpendicular illuminance (adaptive) Height: 0.100 m 2.08 fc 14.4 fc 29.3 fc 6.92 0.49 RS1 Utilisation profile: DIALux presetting (5.1.4 Standard (outdoor transportation area)) Page 77 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Heights Outdoor Padel Courts (Light scene 1) Padel Court East 12 Properties Ē Emin Emax Uo (g1 )g2 Index Padel Court East Perpendicular illuminance (adaptive) Height: 0.100 m 2.09 fc 14.6 fc 29.4 fc 6.96 0.50 RS2 Utilisation profile: DIALux presetting (5.1.4 Standard (outdoor transportation area)) Page 78 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Heights Outdoor Padel Courts (Light scene 1) PB Court West 13 Properties Ē Emin Emax Uo (g1 )g2 Index PB Court West Perpendicular illuminance Height: 0.000 m 11.1 fc 3.05 fc 21.2 fc 0.27 0.14 CG1 Utilisation profile: DIALux presetting (5.1.4 Standard (outdoor transportation area)) Page 79 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Heights Outdoor Padel Courts (Light scene 1) PB Court East 14 Properties Ē Emin Emax Uo (g1 )g2 Index PB Court East Perpendicular illuminance Height: 0.000 m 8.97 fc 2.33 fc 16.9 fc 0.26 0.14 CG2 Utilisation profile: DIALux presetting (5.1.4 Standard (outdoor transportation area)) Page 80 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Heights Outdoor Padel Courts (Light scene 1) Heights Site 15 Properties Ē Emin Emax Uo (g1 )g2 Index Heights Site Perpendicular illuminance Height: 0.000 m 1.10 fc 0.00 fc 20.9 fc 0.00 0.00 CG3 Utilisation profile: DIALux presetting (5.1.4 Standard (outdoor transportation area)) Page 81 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Building 4 · Storey 1 (Light scene 1) Property to North 16 Properties Ē Emin Emax Uo (g1 )g2 Index Property to North Perpendicular illuminance Height: 0.000 m 0.004 fc 0.00 fc 0.12 fc 0.00 0.00 CG4 Page 82 of 310 Zoomed view of Photometric plot at north border of Property. Contours Indicate levels in units of foot-candles (fc). Page 83 of 310 Zoomed 3D view of Photometric plot at North property line Page 84 of 310 OPC Project Plan Legend Courts 1&2 Retaining wall (excavate to level within retaining wall and court area) Landscaped viewing Expanded parking and gravel to pave Drainage Mitigation Page 85 of 310 3 Existing Site within Industrial Neighborhood Attachment B Page 86 of 310 4b6. 4 Existing Site Page 87 of 310 5 Existing Site (With 1’ contours) Page 88 of 310 OPC Project Plan Legend Courts 1&2 Retaining wall (excavate to level within retaining wall and court area) Landscaped viewing Expanded parking and gravel to pave Drainage Mitigation Page 89 of 310 •Site pre-construction •Excavate part of berm to leveland install retaining wall (12-13’tall) •Install courts with permeablefoundations, extend gravelparking lot and pave Project Simulation Images Page 90 of 310 Padel court dimensions and structure A padel court has a base surface and net similar to tennis, but also has back walls, rear side walls, and side fencing that limit the area of play and allow the ball to be played off of a wall or side fence (after bouncing first on the court surface). The playing surface of an outdoor padel court is a permeable, “synthetic grass” carpet with sand infill. Outdoor padel court foundations are based on a reinforced, concrete ring foundation about the perimeter of the court (frost-protected), upon which the fencing, steel framing, and ½” thick tempered glass walls are mounted. LED lighting standards are integrated into the fencing frame. Padel courts are structurally designed to withstand high winds, inclement weather, and specifically winter weather (with multiple freeze-thaw cycles). Note: The entire court structure (glass, steel framing, fencing) weighs approx. 4 tons. That weight is distributed on the perimeter of the court’s foundation. 1 Attachment A Page 91 of 310 4b8. Padel Court Outdoor Installation Gallery 2 Helsinki, Finland Page 92 of 310 Date 5/11/2025 Created with DIALux1415 Mendota Heights Road Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Contact: Glenn Baron (Managing Partner); 612-759- 1278; sgnerb@gmail.com Object The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Install two outdoor padel courts while expanding and paving adjacent parking. Install outdoor lights on the two padel courts and the two existing pickleball courts. Utilize high efficiency LED lighting with focused lenses. Model the lighting on courts and stray light distribution beyond the court. Page 93 of 310 4b9. The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Table of Contents Cover 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of Contents 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contacts 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Images 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Heights Outdoor Padel Courts Luminaire layout plan 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Luminaire list 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Padel Court West / Light scene 1 / Perpendicular illuminance (adaptive)11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Padel Court East / Light scene 1 / Perpendicular illuminance (adaptive)12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PB Court West / Light scene 1 / Perpendicular illuminance 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PB Court East / Light scene 1 / Perpendicular illuminance 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Heights Site / Light scene 1 / Perpendicular illuminance 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Heights Outdoor Padel Courts - Building 4 Storey 1 Property to North / Light scene 1 / Perpendicular illuminance 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 94 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Contacts 3 Managing Partner Glenn Baron The Heights Racquet & Social Club 1415 Mendota Heights Rd Mendota Heights, MN 55120 T 612-759-1278 sgnerb@gmail.com Page 95 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project 4 Description Install two outdoor padel courts while expanding and paving adjacent parking. Install outdoor lights on the two padel courts and the two existing pickleball courts. Utilize high efficiency LED lighting with focused lenses. Model the lighting on courts and stray light distribution beyond the court. Managing Partner Glenn Baron The Heights Racquet & Social Club 1415 Mendota Heights Rd Mendota Heights, MN 55120 T 612-759-1278 sgnerb@gmail.com Page 96 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Images 5 Heights Outdoor Padel Courts 3D Night View Heights Outdoor Padel Courts False Colors Heights Outdoor Padel Courts Overhead Contours Entire Page 97 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Images 6 Heights Outdoor Padel Courts Overhead Contours Zoomed Quantitative Page 98 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Heights Outdoor Padel Courts Luminaire layout plan 7 Page 99 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Heights Outdoor Padel Courts Luminaire layout plan 8 Manufacturer LED Lighting Supply/DRK - sales@ledlightingsup ply.com Article name 2268-MLLG-LED- FLD5-150-CC-PC Fitting 1x / P 148.2 W ΦLuminaire 22860 lm Individual luminaires X Y Mounting height Luminaire -26.130 m 0.000 m 6.500 m 5 -16.265 m 0.000 m 6.500 m 6 -26.128 m -19.756 m 6.500 m 11 -16.263 m -19.756 m 6.500 m 12 Page 100 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Heights Outdoor Padel Courts Luminaire layout plan 9 Manufacturer Planet Power Tools Article No.PR-4x64-P30-200W- 5K-70CRI Article name Proyector TABLED 4x64 Fitting 1x LUXEON 3030 P 197.8 W ΦLuminaire 30034 lm Individual luminaires X Y Mounting height Luminaire -5.950 m 11.132 m 7.000 m 1 6.550 m 11.132 m 7.000 m 2 -5.950 m 1.132 m 7.000 m 3 6.550 m 1.132 m 7.000 m 4 -5.950 m -1.368 m 7.000 m 7 6.550 m -1.368 m 7.000 m 8 -5.950 m -11.368 m 7.000 m 9 6.550 m -11.368 m 7.000 m 10 Page 101 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Heights Outdoor Padel Courts Luminaire list 10 Φtotal 331712 lm Ptotal 2175.2 W Luminous efficacy 152.5 lm/W Luminous efficacyΦPpcs.Manufacturer Article No.Article name 148.2 W 22860 lm 154.2 lm/W4LED Lighting Supply/DRK - sales@ledlight ingsupply.com 2268-MLLG-LED-FLD5-150-CC-PC 197.8 W 30034 lm 151.8 lm/W8Planet Power Tools PR-4x64- P30-200W- 5K-70CRI Proyector TABLED 4x64 Page 102 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Heights Outdoor Padel Courts (Light scene 1) Padel Court West 11 Properties Ē Emin Emax Uo (g1 )g2 Index Padel Court West Perpendicular illuminance (adaptive) Height: 0.100 m 2.08 fc 14.4 fc 29.3 fc 6.92 0.49 RS1 Utilisation profile: DIALux presetting (5.1.4 Standard (outdoor transportation area)) Page 103 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Heights Outdoor Padel Courts (Light scene 1) Padel Court East 12 Properties Ē Emin Emax Uo (g1 )g2 Index Padel Court East Perpendicular illuminance (adaptive) Height: 0.100 m 2.09 fc 14.6 fc 29.4 fc 6.96 0.50 RS2 Utilisation profile: DIALux presetting (5.1.4 Standard (outdoor transportation area)) Page 104 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Heights Outdoor Padel Courts (Light scene 1) PB Court West 13 Properties Ē Emin Emax Uo (g1 )g2 Index PB Court West Perpendicular illuminance Height: 0.000 m 11.1 fc 3.05 fc 21.2 fc 0.27 0.14 CG1 Utilisation profile: DIALux presetting (5.1.4 Standard (outdoor transportation area)) Page 105 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Heights Outdoor Padel Courts (Light scene 1) PB Court East 14 Properties Ē Emin Emax Uo (g1 )g2 Index PB Court East Perpendicular illuminance Height: 0.000 m 8.97 fc 2.33 fc 16.9 fc 0.26 0.14 CG2 Utilisation profile: DIALux presetting (5.1.4 Standard (outdoor transportation area)) Page 106 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Heights Outdoor Padel Courts (Light scene 1) Heights Site 15 Properties Ē Emin Emax Uo (g1 )g2 Index Heights Site Perpendicular illuminance Height: 0.000 m 1.10 fc 0.00 fc 20.9 fc 0.00 0.00 CG3 Utilisation profile: DIALux presetting (5.1.4 Standard (outdoor transportation area)) Page 107 of 310 The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project Building 4 · Storey 1 (Light scene 1) Property to North 16 Properties Ē Emin Emax Uo (g1 )g2 Index Property to North Perpendicular illuminance Height: 0.000 m 0.004 fc 0.00 fc 0.12 fc 0.00 0.00 CG4 Page 108 of 310 4.c Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 24, 2025 Agenda Item: CASE No. 2025-09 Variance Application of Darrel Tutewohl for a Variance to the rear-yard setback to allow for the construction of a three- season porch addition located at 2150 Aztec Lane Department: Community Development Contact: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Introduction: The applicant, Darrel Tutewohl, is seeking to construct a new three-season porch onto the single-family home located at 2150 Aztec Lane, in the place of a currently existing rear deck. The request requires a Variance from rear yard setback requirements for such an addition in the R-1 Zoning District. This item is being presented under a duly noted public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to property owners within 350 feet from the subject property. As of the submittal of this report, the City has not received any public comments related to this item, however the applicant did seek signature in support of the Variance request from immediate neighbors, which has been attached to this report. Background: The subject parcel is approximately 9,582 square feet in size and contains a single-family dwelling. The property is zoned R-1 Low Density Residential and guided for low density residential development. The existing single-family home was built in 1957 and is part of the Friendly Hills Rearrangement subdivision. The applicant intends to construct a new porch in the rear yard, generally in place of the existing rear deck structure. The home currently is setback approximately 25-ft from the rear property line, with the existing deck located approximately 15-ft from the rear property line. The new three-season porch would be 120 sq- ft in size, and extend 10-ft from the rear of the home. As proposed, the portion of the three- season porch within the rear yard requires a Variance from the 30-ft rear yard setback requirement in the R-1 District. Analysis: City Code requires structures in the R-1 Low Density Residential District to be setback a minimum of 30-ft from the rear property line. The Code provides flexibility on all lots within the City for some encroachments into the rear yard in cases of decks, stoops, and uncovered porches. However, an enclosed three-season porch would not qualify for this type of allowed encroachment. The applicant’s existing deck currently encroaches 15-ft into the required rear- yard setback. The City was not able to locate any permit records for the existing deck, however a deck in this location appears to be visible on historical aerial photos prior to 1991. The proposed three-season porch would be located in the exact same location as the existing Page 109 of 310 non-conforming deck. The request is for a 15-ft Variance to the rear yard setback to authorize construction of the new three-season porch as a replacement of this deck structure. The porch is proposed to be a 10x12 covered structure with LP panel siding and screened windows. City Code Section 12-5B-7 governs variance requests. The city must consider a number of variables when recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i) practical difficulties; and (ii) impact to the community. The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality or neighborhood. It is also noted that economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. In addition, variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Section 12-5B-7(E)(1) further provides other issues the city may consider when granting or denying a variance, noted as follows: a.Practical Difficulties exist that apply to the structure or land in question that are unique to such property or immediately adjoining property; and b.Such Practical Difficulties do not apply generally to other land or structures in the Zoning District in which said land is located; and c.That the granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the Applicant; and d.That granting the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area; or e.That granting the proposed Variance will not in any other way impair health, safety, comfort, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this Zoning Ordinance; and f.That the granting of such Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the Applicant but is necessary to alleviate a Practical Difficulty. g.If all the conditions are met, then the City Council may grant such Variance and impose conditions and safeguards therein. When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have been met in granting a variance, and provide findings of facts to support such a recommendation to the City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to meet these standards, or has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings of fact supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined. As part of any variance request, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and findings, which for this case, are noted in the application materials (included in the attachments and noted below in italic text). Are there any practical difficulties that support the granting of the Variance? Applicant’s Response: The existing deck is rotting away. It has to be replaced by something Page 110 of 310 because of the drop off from house and the enhancement of having a structure there. A three season porch will be an upgrade within the same dimensions of the deck. Staff’s Response: The applicant’s desire to construct a three-season porch onto the existing single-family dwelling in place of the existing deck is a reasonable use of the property. The property is an existing lot platted prior to 1982 and is substandard in lot size, at 9,582 sq-ft. The City Code provides some flexibility in side-yard setbacks for existing homes on substandard lots, but does not explicitly address rear-yard setbacks. The City’s Comprehensive Plan also addresses flexibility in existing lots for the purposes of enhancements to the City’s housing stock. Alternatively, the City Code would allow the reconstruction of a deck of like size and like materials as a replacement of the non-conforming structure. The upgrade of the deck to a covered porch structure necessitates a Variance request. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. Applicant’s Response: The property behind ours has no residential homes, because its owned by CDA. Its woods! Staff’s Response: The subject site abuts land owned by the Dakota County CDA to the rear, which is currently vacant and there are no plans to develop the property. The uniqueness of this property is its substandard lot size and width. The property is 9,582 square feet in size and approximately 88-ft in width. The existing home was constructed in 1957, prior to current City Code standards for minimum lot size and setbacks from property lines. The existing home encroaches at least 5-ft into the rear yard setback. There is no alternative location for this porch structure which would not require a Variance. The Variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Applicant’s Response: Not all, but some homes have decks or porches, patios Staff’s Response: The proposed three-season porch extending into the rear yard will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. There is an existing deck in the same location as this proposed improvement, and a three-season porch is a reasonable upgrade and addition to the home. Based on aerial maps, it appears that nearby dwellings also contain similar improvements to their properties, and also would be considered substandard lots with encroachments into the rear yard setback for the home, porches, or decks. Conclusion: Staff has evaluated the Variance request and finds that the application does demonstrate practical difficulties in its substandard lot size and existing non-conformance to the rear-yard setback, which would make any porch improvements to the home require a Variance request and approval. The proposed upgrade to the home to install a three-season porch is consistent with neighborhood character, and with the reasonable use of a single-family home property within the City of Mendota Heights. Alternatives: 1.Recommend approval of the 15-ft (fifteen-foot) variance request for construction of the proposed porch, based on the attached findings of fact and specific conditions of approval as included herein; or Page 111 of 310 2.Recommend denial of the Variance request, based on the findings of fact that confirm the Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A.Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the City may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B.The City hereby determines the Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a variance for a 15-ft rear yard setback reduction. The existing deck may be replaced in its location with like materials without the need for a Variance, and the proposed three-season porch as opposed to a deck is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; there is an alternative for replacement of the dilapidated structure without the need for a Variance and the upgraded replacement structure is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property. C.Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood) 3.Table the request and request additional information from the applicant or staff. Staff will extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN Statute. 15.99. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval (Alternative #1) of the proposed 15-ft (fifteen-foot) rear yard setback variance as proposed by the applicant, based on the Findings of Fact as included herein, along with the following conditions: 1. The fifteen-foot setback Variance is exclusively for the construction of a 10x12 three- season porch in the rear yard. 2. The Applicant shall not deviate from the deck plan under this application review without first seeking and receiving city approvals, unless City Code provides for certain or allowable improvements to be made without any additional application review process. 3. No work begins on the proposed porch construction until a building permit has been issued by the City. Attachments: 1.Findings of Fact for Approval 2.Site Location Map 3.Site Aerial 4.Variance Response Form 5.Deck Plan 6.Neighbor Signatures Page 112 of 310 Page 113 of 310 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Variance 2150 Aztec Lane The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: A.Under Title 12-5B-7 of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B.The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a Variance to allow a three-season porch to be setback 15-ft from the rear property line, by the following: i.) The proposed upgrade from the existing deck to a new three-season porch is a reasonable use of the property consistent with a single-family residential property; ii.) The subject site is a substandard lot, platted prior to current City Code requirements for minimum lot size and setback dimensions; the existing home and deck encroach into the rear yard setback, and there is no location to construct a porch or other covered structure which would not encroach into the rear yard setback and require a Variance iii.) The reason for the Variance request is to permit a reasonable request to replace an aging deck structure with a modern enhancement to the property consistent with single-family home development and character, and for this reason the request is not solely based on economic considerations. C.The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D.Approval of this Variance is for 2150 Aztec Lane only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. Page 114 of 310 4c1. 666666 66 6666 66 6666666666666666"! " " " ³" ³ "666 6 666666666666 6666666 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 2191 730 2191 2165 783 2131 2124 2137 2130 2125 2136 2159 2129 2167 2123 2143 2147 2118 2158 2153 2142 2168 2138 2156 2130 2162 2124 2150 2144 2150 2163 2153 2174 2182 2145 2135 784 772 766 21192116 789 788 2188 2112790 2170 AZTEC LNFOX PLHOKAH AVE Nearmap US Inc, Dakota County, MN Site Location/Aerial Map2150 Aztec Lane Date: 6/19/2025 City ofMendotaHeights0125 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. Page 115 of 310 4c2. Page 116 of 3104c3. Page 117 of 3104c4. Page 118 of 3104c5. Page 119 of 3104c6. Page 120 of 310 4.d Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 24, 2025 Agenda Item: CASE No. 2025-10 MRCCA Permit and Conditional Use Permit Amendment Application of Northern States Power Company – (Xcel Energy), requesting a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit and Amended Conditional Use Permit to allow for the construction of a new 24-ft x 24-ft concrete pad foundation and prefabricated structure at the property located at 800 Sibley Memorial Highway Department: Community Development Contact: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Introduction: Xcel Energy (Northern States Power Company) is seeking approval of a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit and Conditional Use Permit, in order to authorize the construction of a new 24x24 electronic control center within the fenced compound area at the Sibley Propane Plant facility, located at 800 Sibley Memorial Highway. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters were mailed to all owners within 350- feet of the subject property. The city has not received any objection or comments related to this application as of the submission of this report. Background: The subject property is generally known or identified as the Sibley Propane Gas Plant facility, which is located south and east of State Trunk Highway 13, and abuts Valley Park to the south, commercial/office developments to the north, and Park Place and Summit residential neighborhoods to the east. The plant property contains two parcels comprising of approximately 25 total acres, which are all owned and operated by Xcel Energy (formerly Northern States Power Company). According to Xcel representatives, the plant use has existed in its current location since the mid-1950’s. The site is fairly open with security style fencing around its perimeter, and contains a number of support structures and buildings that house office/work spaces, maintenance areas, valve/mixing rooms, and includes 37 horizontal laying propane tanks on the back side of the plant site (referred to as the “Tank Farm”) The plant is used primarily to feed propane into the local natural gas line systems during periodic “spikes” or peak demand events, typically experienced in winter heating season months and only as needed. In 2016, the City approved a Conditional Use Permit and Critical Area Permit related to improvements to a structure on the Sibley Plant property. ‘Essential Services’ is a listed Conditional Use in the B-1A zoning district, and prior to that application the site did not have a Page 121 of 310 record of Conditional Use Permit approval for the use, due to the age and historical use of the property. In August 2021, Xcel received an Administrative Critical Area Permit, in order to complete some immediate and mandatory infrastructure improvements to this plant. These upgrades included replacing some outdated and worn out valves, pipes and equipment with new modern materials, equipment, pipes, valves and miscellaneous safety measures. Due to the importance of providing continued natural gas service to the community and region, and ensuring that gas is available to local customers when the cold/winter season comes, these equipment upgrades and the work proposed by Xcel were deemed essential to the general public, and the council elected to expedite this work under an Administrative Critical Area Permit approval. In May 2022, the City reviewed a full MRCCA Permit application for additional improvements to the tank facility, including replacing the propane loading facilities, improvements to the stormwater management on site, and a new fire suppression system. The fire suppression system included a new 12-inch watermain extension coming from the water main line underneath Farmdale Road to the east. At that time, drainage issues on site were also proposed to be addressed through a re- grading of the site, a new detention basin, and a network of concrete stormwater trenches within the tank field. In October 2024, the City reviewed another full MRCCA Permit application and site plan update under the site’s Conditional Use Permit approval to authorize a number of improvements, including a storm shelter, retaining wall, compound perimeter fencing expansion, and grading modifications surrounding the propane tanks as fire suppression. This specific MRCCA Permit application is to authorize the completion of a 24x24 concrete slab, which would house a new electronic control center for the property, within the fenced in compound area. The new electronic control center will be a prefabricated building from VP Buildings that will be placed on the concrete pad foundation and will contain all new life safety upgrades and existing controls for the facility. This new control center will be essential in consolidating equipment and upgrading the existing technology on site. After installation, the existing building will remain as a transfer point and will continue to store physical records. The maintenance and refurbishment of the facility is ongoing, with work taking place in 2025 that was reviewed as part of the prior MRCCA Permit. This proposed work is scheduled to take place this Summer 2025. The review and approval includes an update to their existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP), approved in 2016, which noted that future site alterations would need to be processed as an amendment to the CUP as well as any critical area permits needed. This aspect of the land use approval is coordinated as a site plan review within their MRCCA Permit submittal. Analysis: A majority of the plant site is situated in the MRCCA Overlay boundary, and is located within the SR-Separated by River District. 3DJHRI Along the westerly boundary of the site is where the mapped bluffs are located, identified as the cross-hatched areas – and the related 20-foot buffer or bluff impact zone (BIZ), as noted by orange-hatched areas (see MRCCA map image- above). Properties located in the SR District are characterized or governed by the following principles: Description. The SR district is characterized by its physical and visual distance from the Mississippi River. The district includes land separated from the river by distance, topography, development, or a transportation corridor. The land in this district is not readily visible from the Mississippi River. Management Purpose. The SR district provides flexibility in managing development without negatively affecting the key resources and features of the river corridor. Minimizing negative impacts to primary conservation areas and minimizing erosion and the flow of untreated storm water into the river are priorities in the district. In addition, providing public access to and public views of the river, and restoring natural vegetation in riparian areas and tree canopy are also priorities in the district. Per Section 12-6A-8. E., Public utilities must comply with the following standards: 1.High-voltage transmission lines, wind energy conversion systems greater than five (5) megawatts, and pipelines are regulated according to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 216E, 216F, and 216G respectively; and 2.If overhead placement is necessary, utility facility crossings must minimize the visibility of the facility from the river and follow other existing right of ways as much as practicable. 3.The appearance of structures must be as compatible as practicable with the surrounding area in a natural state with regard to height and width, materials used, and color. 4.Wireless communication facilities must comply with Section 12-3-5.B.6. There are no new high-voltage line, wind energy systems, pipelines or wireless communication systems proposed under this project. Pursuant to City Code Section 12-6A-3, no building permit, zoning approval, or subdivision approval shall be issued for any action or development located in an area covered by this chapter until a site plan has been prepared and approved in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. The new ordinance also provides for new rules and standards for new developments, which may include Land Alteration activities and Vegetation Management (removals and replanting). 3DJHRI The entirety of the work will take place within the fenced compound of the Sibley Plant which has been maintained as an asphalt and gravel surface, and contains no vegetated areas. No work is proposed in any Primary Conservation Areas (PCA’s) on the property and all existing vegetation outside the site compound will remain. The primary focus of the project is dedicated to installing a 24x24 concrete slab foundation, upon which a prefabricated structure will be placed which is planned to house a new electrical control center building. The building will be part of the essential utility service provided on site. The proposed building will be located to the east of the existing tank farm, northeast of the pipe bridge, and directly north of the vaporizer building. The 2022 and 2024 MRCCA approval evaluated changes in containment of stormwater runoff, and the applicant prepared a Storm Water Pollution Prevention (SWPP) plan at that time, which is included as an attachment to this report. The stormwater management plan is not impacted by the proposed improvement of the 24x24 concrete slab and foundation for the new service structure. The new structure will not be within any bluff setback or Bluff Impact Zone and no site impacts are anticipated. CUP/Site Plan Amendment The 2016 Conditional Use Permit approval established the ‘Essential Services’ use as the zoning use existing on the property, encompassing the service and delivery of the propane at the facility. This current proposal does not modify the primary structures or essential services of the site, but does encompass the addition of a small structure for an electrical control building for employee use. The existing approval included a condition that ‘future improvements on the subject property that expand, alter, or otherwise change the existing use or site conditions in any manner shall require an amendment to the conditional use permit, including a critical area permit if applicable.’ The proposed improvements do constitute a change in the site conditions due to the addition of an additional structure for the operations of the essential service function. No additional performance standards are noted with the essential services use in City Code, apart from the applicable provisions for all Conditional Use Permits within the City. The City may grant a conditional use provided the proposed use demonstrates the following: a) Use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, b) Use will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, c) Use will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value, and d) Use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan. The site is enclosed by a 10-foot-high, barbed-wire-topped, chain link security fence. The proposed improvements are within this secure site, and the proposed new electrical control building will not have any adverse effects on adjacent property owners, cause traffic congestion or hazards, and the essential services and public utility use is in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Staff is supportive of this site plan update, as required under the site’s existing Conditional Use Permit approval. The Conditional Use will not negatively affect resources identified in the City’s MRCCA Plan, such PCA’s, bluffs, wetlands, river overlooks, and parks and open space. The proposed improvements are consistent with the purpose of the MRCCA district in which it is located, and the provisions related to public facilities and utilities as outlined in 12-6A-8. The site is not visible from the river, and the river is not visible from the site, and the facility maintains its security and separation from neighboring uses through the utilization of fencing and buffered by natural vegetation. 3DJHRI INTERAGENCY REVIEW The city is required to give Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources and National Park Service at least 20-day notice of any new MRCCA Permit application request. These notices were emailed directly to the appropriate staff; and no response has been received as of the date of this report. Alternatives: 1. Approve the MRCCA Permit and amended Conditional Use Permit request to Xcel Energy and for 800 Sibley Memorial Highway, which would allow site improvements to construct a new 24x24 concrete slab and prefabricated electrical control center building, based on certain findings of fact as included herein and with specific conditions; or 2. Deny the MRCCA Permit request to Xcel Energy and for 800 Sibley Memorial Highway, based on the recommendation the application and project does not meet certain policies and standards of the MRCCA Ordinance and City Code, based on revised findings-of-facts determined by the Planning Commission; or 3. Table the application and request additional information from City Staff or the Applicant. Staff will extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN Statute 15.99. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed MRCCA Permit and amended Conditional Use Permit request from Xcel Energy and for the property located at 800 Sibley Memorial Highway, with the following conditions: 1.The new improvements and work described, illustrated and detailed on the “Sibley Propane Plant” plans, dated 05/27/2025, and any other plans related to this project, shall be the only work or improvements allowed and approved under this new MRCCA Permit. 2.Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3.All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. The Applicants must submit and receive a SWPPP Permit and NPDES Permit (if necessary) prior to start of any new construction work. 4.All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday through Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM weekends. Attachments: 1.Findings of Fact for Approval 2.Site Maps 3.Narrative 4.Site and Building Plans 5.SWPPP and Erosion Sediment Control Plan 3DJHRI FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL Miss. River Corridor Critical Area Permit and amended Conditional Use Permit for the Xcel Energy Sibley Gas Plant Facility 800 Sibley Memorial Highway The following Findings-of-Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed MRCCA Permit request: 1. The proposed 24x24 concrete slab and prefabricated electrical control building improvements planned for by Xcel Energy on the subject property, meets the general purpose and intent of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) District ordinances and standards. 2. The proposed work to construct the new electrical control building on the subject site is deemed minimally invasive and the proposed site modifications are all reasonable and within the spirit and intent established under the MRCCA Overlay District regulations. 3. The proposed work will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and also is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The overall construction of the building improvement will comply with all standards and regulations of the MRCCA Ordinance and any related Zoning Ordinance, State Building and Fire Codes, and other applicable ordinances; and represents a considerable investment by the Applicants (Xcel Energy) to an important utility service feature in the community. Page 126 of 310 4d1. XXcceel -GGaass PPlaanntt -880000 SSiibbleeyy MMeemm..HHwwyy.. Disclaimer:Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate,but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal,survey,yy or for zoning verification. Map Scale 11 iinncchh ==330000 ffeeeett 4/26/2022 Attachment 2 Page 127 of 310 4d2. 901 949 941 910 1600 815-871 869 821 819 1600 870 949 867 826 822 1392 868 815 901 1600 1381 818 1395 1600 1600 1383 1385 1387 797-813 815-871 1600 797-813 830 I- 3 5E SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYLI L Y D A L E R D FARMDALE RDSIB L E Y M E M O R I A L R A M P BLUFF CIR I-3 5 E R A M P I- 3 5E This imagery is copyrighted and licensed by Nearmap US Inc, which retains ownership of the imagery. It is being provided by Dakota County under the terms of that license. Under that license, Dakota County is allowed to provide access to the “Offline Copy Add-On for Government”, on which this image services is based, at 6-inch resolution, six months after the capture date, provided the user acknowledges that the imagery will be used in their normal course of business and must not be resold or 800 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWY. NSP / Xcel Energy Gas Plant MRCCA MAP City of Mendota Heights0250 SCALE IN FEET Legend Municipal Boundary MRCCA Boundary Bluff_Elem 18% and 75 Degree Bluffs 18% over 25 ft Bluffs 20 ft bluff buffer 75 Degree Bluffs Date: 4/26/2022 Attachment 3 Page 128 of 310 ? ? ???? ? ? ?((((((G!. G!.G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 ! " ! ! !! ! * ! ! "" " "" * * !! ! "" "" "" * * !* ** ! * ** *! ! *** ³6666 66666666666666666666666!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2!!2 !!2!!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !. !. 800 910 901 894 1368 1344 1366 1360 811 1392 813 1352 1395 1362 1396 1381 1385 1387 1383 1350 1342 809 815-71 1370 901 1357 1359 1407 1347 1373 815-71 815 479386 51735440936310029625023021 2 20 6 203 19819168187175 171 66 167 166 162 159 156154150149 139 9713594131 91 90123 8 8 118 11687120 86 84 11081 80 10778106105 76 10470 279 6785 65184 6461 60145 56 54 515 0 10848 4544 35 36 10233163302 9 27 24 20147 50 10010094501 3 9 100947 1103632010481100 81 811 5 0 150 9430 166154671549715917111812033150 150 150 10010011860150 150 120 150 97 68163 FARMDALE RDCHERRY HILL RDASPEN W AYThis imagery is copyrighted and licensed by Nearmap US Inc, which retains ownership of the imagery. It is being provided by Dakota County under the terms of that license. Under that license, Dakota County is allowed to provide access to the “Offline Copy Add-On for Government”, on which this image services is based, at 6-inch resolution, six months after the capture date, provided the user acknowledges that the imagery will be used in their normal course of business and must not be resold or distributed for the City Base Map Date: 4/26/2022 City of Mendota Heights0200 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. Attachment 4 Page 129 of 310 414 Nicollet Mall, 414-06 Minneapolis, MN 55401 1-800-895-499xcelenergy.comMay 27, 2025 Sarah Madden Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Circle Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: Sibley Plant Improvements Conditional Use Permit Amendment & MRCCA Permit Dear Sarah Madden, Please find this letter of intent and application materials for the MRCCA Permit and the Conditional Use Permit Amendment for the NSP (Xcel Energy) Sibley Gas Plant located at 800 Sibley Memorial Hwy with Parcel ID numbers of 270140075011, 270230002013, 270230002012, 271715102091, and 275660002081. The plant stores propane which can be inserted into the natural gas system during periods of peak demand in the winter. The plant has been in service since the 1950’s prior to the incorporation of the City of Mendota Heights. NSP is currently investing in this site and is seeking the following: •Amend the existing CUP to allow for the construction of a 24’ x 24’ concrete pad foundationt o situate a prefabricated structure to serve as the facility’s new electronic control center within the fenced compound.The property is in the southeast quadrant of land adjacent to I-35E and US Hwy 13. The site is irregularly shaped and additionally abuts Lilydale Road and Farmdale Road. The property is in the Critical Area Overlay Zone and includes steep slopes to the south and west and forested land surrounding the facility. NSP purchased additional buffer land to the east to help screen the facility from adjacent development. City parkland to the south and east provide additional screening and buffering. The site cannot be seen from the river, nor can the river be seen from the site. Control Center Foundation: The existing controls building serving the site is simply too small to accommodate file storage, existing control equipment, and additional upgrades to life safety equipment stored within. Furthermore, the existing building has become outdated and no longer meets the building standards of NSP considering all its current uses. The new electronic control center will be a prefabricated building from VP Buildings that will be placed on a 24’ x 24’ concrete pad foundation and will house all new life safety upgrades and existing controls for the facility. This new control center will be essential in consolidating equipment and upgrading the existing technology on site. After installation, the existing building will remain as a transfer point and will continue to store physical records. Page 130 of 310 4d3. 414 Nicollet Mall, 414-06 Minneapolis, MN 55401 1-800-895-499xcelenergy.comMRCCA Permit: NSP’s team of designers and engineers worked hard to limit the footprint of the proposed improvements to lessen any impacts on the river and its sensitive ecosystems. As the siting of the project is outside of all PCA’s within the property, and with the site fundamentally saying the same, the potential impacts to the river area will be minimal in completing this project. Construction Timing: The construction of the concrete pad foundation is expected to occur during the Summer of 2025. The proposed improvement is an important component for the efficient operation of the Sibley Plant and is a part of our commitment to provide safe and reliable natural gas to our customers and help ensure the safety of NSP employees, contractors, and the neighboring communities. Thank you for your consideration of our request to upgrade the Sibley Plant. The proposed improvement will minimally impact the natural environment and enhance the reliability and safety of the natural gas system in Mendota Heights and surrounding communities. Regards, Brian Sullivan Siting and Land Rights P: 612.330.5925 I C:612.366.0234 I F: 612.329.3096 Email: brian.e.sullivan@xcelenergy.com Page 131 of 310 414 Nicollet Mall, 414-06 Minneapolis, MN 55401 1-800-895-499xcelenergy.comPage 132 of 310 414 Nicollet Mall, 414-06 Minneapolis, MN 55401 1-800-895-499xcelenergy.comPage 133 of 310 414 Nicollet Mall, 414-06 Minneapolis, MN 55401 1-800-895-499xcelenergy.comPage 134 of 310 414 Nicollet Mall, 414-06 Minneapolis, MN 55401 1-800-895-499xcelenergy.comPage 135 of 310 414 Nicollet Mall, 414-06 Minneapolis, MN 55401 1-800-895-499xcelenergy.comPage 136 of 310 STRUCTURAL COVER SHEET DRAWING NUMBER REV TITLE DRAWING NUMBER REV TITLE DRAWING NUMBER REV TITLE DRAWING NUMBER REV TITLE 40000 4A STRUCTURAL COVER / INDEX 42000 0 STRUCTURAL KEY PLAN 44000 0 FOUNDATION DETAILS - TYPICAL DETAILS 4700 0 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - PIPE BRIDGE ELEVATION 40010 1 STRUCTURAL NOTES 42001 0 STRUCTURAL PLAN - TANK BANK 360 44001 0 FOUNDATION DETAILS - SLAB & SIDEWALK DETAILS 4701 0 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - PIPE BRIDGE TRUSS PLANS 40011 1 STRUCTURAL NOTES 42006 0 STRUCTURAL PLAN - TANK BANK 360 44002 0 FOUNDATION DETAILS - SLAB & SIDEWALK DETAILS 4702 0 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - PIPE BRIDGE SECTIONS & DETAILS 41000 3A FOUNDATION KEY PLAN 42007 0 STRUCTURAL PLAN - TANK BANK 360 44003 1 TYPICAL THRUST BLOCK DETAIL 4703 0 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - PIPE BRIDGE SECTIONS & DETAILS 41001 0 FOUNDATION PLAN - TANK BANK 360 42011 0 STRUCTURAL PLAN - TANK BANK 350 44004 0 FOUNDATION DETAILS - STAIR SECTIONS & DETAILS 4704 1 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS 41002 0 FOUNDATION PLAN - TANK BANK 360 42012 0 STRUCTURAL PLAN - TANK BANK 350 & 320 44005 0 FOUNDATION DETAILS - STAIR SECTIONS & DETAILS 4705 1 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS 41006 0 FOUNDATION PLAN - TANK BANK 360 42014 0 STRUCTURAL PLAN - TANK BANK 320 44006 0 FOUNDATION DETAILS - STAIR SECTIONS & DETAILS 4706 1 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS 41007 0 FOUNDATION PLAN - TANK BANK 360 42016 0 STRUCTURAL PLAN - TANK BANK 350 44007 0 FOUNDATION DETAILS - STAIR SECTIONS & DETAILS 4707 1 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS 41011 0 FOUNDATION PLAN - TANK BANK 350 42017 0 STRUCTURAL PLAN - TANK BANK 350 & 320 44008 0 FOUNDATION DETAILS - STAIR SECTIONS & DETAILS 4708 1 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - CABLE TRAY SUPPORT SECTIONS & DETAILS 41012 0 FOUNDATION PLAN - TANK BANK 320 & 350 42018 0 STRUCTURAL PLAN - TANK BANK 320 44009 0 FOUNDATION DETAILS - STAIR SECTIONS & DETAILS 4709 0 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - CABLE TRAY SUPPORT SECTIONS & DETAILS 41014 0 FOUNDATION PLAN - TANK BANK 320 42019 0 STRUCTURAL PLAN - TANK BANK 320 44010 0 FOUNDATION DETAILS - ELECTRICAL & LIFE SAFETY FOUNDATIONS 4710 0 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - CABLE TRAY SUPPORT SECTIONS & DETAILS 41016 0 FOUNDATION PLAN - TANK BANK 350 42021 0 STRUCTURAL PLAN - TANK BANK 340 44011 2 FOUNDATION DETAILS - PIPE & TRAY SUPPORT FOUNDATIONS 4711 1 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - PIPE SUPPORT SECTIONS & DETAILS 41017 0 FOUNDATION PLAN - TANK BANK 350 & 320 42022 0 STRUCTURAL PLAN - TANK BANK 340 & 310 44012 0 FOUNDATION DETAILS - CABLE TRAY FOUNDATION 4712 1 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - PIPE SUPPORT SECTIONS & DETAILS 41018 0 FOUNDATION PLAN - TANK BANK 320 42023 0 STRUCTURAL PLAN - TANK BANK 310 45000 0 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - TYPICAL CONNECTION DETAILS 4713 1 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - EAST PIPE BRIDGE ELEVATION 41019 0 FOUNDATION PLAN - TANK BANK 320 42024 0 STRUCTURAL PLAN - TANK BANK 310 45001 1 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - TYPICAL CONNECTION DETAILS 4714 1 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - EAST PIPE BRIDGE TRUSS PLANS 41021 0 FOUNDATION PLAN - TANK BANK 340 42027 0 STRUCTURAL PLAN - MANIFOLD & PUMPS 45002 0 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - PIPE RACK PLAN & SECTION 4715 1 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - SECTIONS & DETAILS 41022 0 FOUNDATION PLAN - TANK BANK 340 & 310 42028 0 STRUCTURAL PLAN 45003 0 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - PIPE RACK SECTIONS 4716 1 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - SECTIONS & DETAILS 41023 0 FOUNDATION PLAN - TANK BANK 310 42030 0 STRUCTURAL PLAN 45004 0 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - PIPE RACK SECTIONS 4717 1 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - SECTIONS & DETAILS 41024 0 FOUNDATION PLAN - TANK BANK 310 42031 0 STRUCTURAL PLAN 45005 0 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - TANK BANK PIPE SUPPOORT SECTIONS & DETAILS 4718 1 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - TRUCK UNLOADING SKID SECTIONS & DETAILS 41027 2 FOUNDATION PLAN - MANIFOLDS & PUMPS 42035 0 STRUCTURAL PLAN 45006 0 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - TANK BANK PIPE SUPPOORT SECTIONS & DETAILS 4719 1 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - PIPE SUPPORT SECTIONS & DETAILS 41028 0 FOUNDATION PLAN 4101 2 STRUCTURAL PLAN - VAPORIZER BUILDING 45007 0 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - TANK BANK PIPE SUPPOORT SECTIONS & DETAILS 4720 3 FOUNDATION DETAIL DIAGRAMS - PIPE BRIDGE SECTIONS & DETAILS 41030 0 FOUNDATION PLAN - SALES GAS 4102 2 STRUCTURAL PLAN - CABLE TRAY AND PIPE RACK 45008 0 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - CABLE TRAY SUPPORT DETAILS & SECTIONS 4721 0 FOUNDATION DETAIL DIAGRAMS - CONCRETE SECTIONS & DETAILS 41031 1A FOUNDATION PLAN 4103 1 STRUCTURAL PLAN - COMPRESSOR BUILDING AND PIPE RACK 45009 0 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - CABLE TRAY SUPPORT DETAILS & SECTIONS 4722 3 FOUNDATION DETAIL DIAGRAMS - CONCRETE SECTIONS & DETAILS 41035 0 FOUNDATION PLAN 4104 1 STRUCTURAL PLAN - COMPRESSOR BUILDING AND PIPE RACK 45010 0 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - ELECTRICAL RACK SECTIONS & DETAILS 4723 0 FOUNDATION DETAIL DIAGRAMS - CABLE TRAY SECTIONS & DETAILS 41036 0 FOUNDATION PLAN 4105 1 STRUCTURAL PLAN - BOILER BUILDING AND PIPE RACK 45011 0 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - ELECTRICAL SUPPORT SECTIONS & DETAILS 4724 0 FOUNDATION DETAIL DIAGRAMS - CONCRETE SECTIONS & DETAILS 4121 1 FOUNDATION PLAN - PIPE BRIDGE 4106 1 STRUCTURAL PLAN - EAST PIPE BRIDGE 45012 0 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - CROSSOVER PLATFORM DETAILS 4725 0 FOUNDATION DETAIL DIAGRAMS - CONCRETE SECTIONS & DETAILS 4122 1 FOUNDATION PLAN - VAPORIZER BUILDING 4107 1 STRUCTURAL PLAN - SLEEPER RACK 45013 0 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - CROSSOVER PLATFORM SECTIONS & DETAILS 4726 1 FOUNDATION DETAIL DIAGRAMS - CONCRETE SECTIONS & DETAILS 4123 2 FOUNDATION PLAN - CABLE TRAY AND PIPE RACK 4108 1 STRUCTURAL PLAN - SLEEPER RACK AND TRUCK UNLOADING 45014 0 STEEL DETAIL DIAGRAMS - TYPICAL STAIR & PLATFORM DETAILS 4727 0 PIPE SUPPORT SECTIONS & DETAILS 4124 1 FOUNDATION PLAN - COMPRESSOR BUILDING AND PIPE RACK 4109 1 STRUCTURAL PLAN - TRANSFER PUMP AREA 4728 0 PIPE SUPPORT SECTIONS & DETAILS 4125 1 FOUNDATION PLAN - BOILER BUILDING AND PIPE RACK 4729 0 PAD GAS COMPRESSOR PAD & PIPE SUPPORTS 4126 1 FOUNDATION PLAN - EAST PIPE BRIDGE 48000 2 RETAINING WALL PLAN & ELEVATION 4127 1 FOUNDATION PLAN - SLEEPER RACK 48001 RETAINING WALL SECTION 4128 1 FOUNDATION PLAN - SLEEPER RACK AND TRUCK UNLOADING 48002 RETAINING WALL SECTIONS & DETAILS 4129 1 FOUNDATION PLAN - TRANSFER PUMP AREA SERVICE CENTER: CAD FILE NAME: BY DRAWINGREVISIONS NO.DESCRIPTION DATE DESIGNED BY: APPROVED BY: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: TYPE: LOCATION: DIVISION:CITY/COUNTY :IN SERVICE DATE: HISTORY DATE FLOC: SIBLEY PROPANE PLANT STRUCTURAL COVER / INDEX 40000 4A D1_40000_Sibley Mounding.dwg NORTHERN MENDOTA HEIGHTS / DAKOTA FACILITY UNIT 00 GU-SPG NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY JMC 04/04/24 RSP 04/04/24 JG 05/24/24 RSP 12/19/24 1 ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION JMC 10/23/24 2 RE-ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION JMC 12/19/24 3 RE-IFC-UPDATED ANCHOR LAYOUT PJM 03/17/25 4A ISSUED FOR PERMIT - WEST ELEC BUILDING JMC 05/27/25 ® 44013 1 FOUNDATION DETAILS - PIPE & TRAY SUPPORT FOUNDATIONS 2 2 REVISION SUMMARY: 0. RETAINING WALL IFC ONLY 1. BALANCE OF PLANT IFC 2. UPDATED FOUNDATIONS NEAR RETAINING WALL DUE TO SHORING COORDINATION 3. UPDATED ANCHOR & BASE PLATE PER STEEL FABRICATION 4A. ADDED WEST ELECTRICAL BUILDING, ISSUED FOR PERMITTING 4A 4A 44014 FOUNDATION DETAILS - WEST ELECTRICAL BUILDING 44015 FOUNDATION DETAILS - WEST ELECTRICAL BUILDING 44016 FOUNDATION DETAILS - WEST ELECTRICAL BUILDING0A 0A 0A 4A 4A 4A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the Laws of the state of Minnesota. Signature: Typed or Printed Name: Randy S. Paul Date: License Number: 5663705/26/2025 Page 137 of 310 4d4. STRUCTURAL NOTES A.DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 1. GENERAL SITE INFORMATION: DAKOTA COUNTY, MN (44.90244167, -93.1311555) 2. DESIGN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CODES: a. MINNESOTA BUILDING CODE 2020, INCORPORATING 2018 IBC b. ASCE 7-16 c. A.C.I. 318-14 d. A.I.S.C. 360-16 3. RISK CATEGORY = IV 4. DESIGN LOADS: a. LIVE LOADS: I. PIPE RACK: PIPING LOADS PER PIPE STRESS II.CABLE TRAY: 75 PLF b. WIND LOADS: I. BASIC WIND SPEED (3-SECOND GUST) = 121 MPH II.EXPOSURE = C c. SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA I. SEISMIC IMPORTANCE FACTOR, I E = 1.5 II. SITE CLASS = D III.MAPPED SPECTRAL RESPONSE ACCELERATIONS, SS=0.05, S1=0.03 IV. MAPPED SPECTRAL RESPONSE COEFFICIENTS, SDS=0.05, SD1=0.05 V. SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY (SDC) = A d. LATERAL SOIL LOAD = 35 PCF EQUIV. FLUID PRESSURE A.EARTHWORK AND FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION 1. FOUNDATIONS SHALL BEAR ON UNDISTURBED, UNFROZEN SUBGRADE, AND ON COMPACTED ENGINEERED-FILL WHERE SPECIFIED ON PLANS. 2. SOIL ENGINEERING DESIGN PARAMETERS: PER SITE SPECIFIC SOIL REPORT NO. 00044.0011.0030 CONDUCTED BY CAMPOS EPC DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 2021 a. FROST DEPTH: 42 IN. b. ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY: 3,000 PSF (SHALLOW SPREAD FOOTINGS) c. FOUNDATION SYSTEM: SHALLOW SPREAD FOOTINGS, DEEP FOUNDATIONS. 3. EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL: a. ALL EXCAVATION AND GRADING WORK FOR FOUNDATIONS SHALL CONFORM TO THE SPECIFICATIONS HEREIN AND ALL LOCAL, COUNTY, STATE, AND FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS. ENTIRE AREA AROUND EACH FOUNDATION MUST BE THOROUGHLY PROBED FOR UNDERGROUND PIPE, CONDUIT, HIGH PRESSURE LINES, ETC. BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION BEGINS. b. WHENEVER POSSIBLE, EXCAVATION FOR CONCRETE FOUNDATION SHALL BE NEATLY CUT TO THE EXACT SIZE SPECIFIED. c. IF THE GROUND WATER LEVEL IS FOUND TO BE ABOVE THE BOTTOM OF THE FOUNDATION EXCAVATION, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURE SHALL BE FOLLOWED: I. EXCAVATE THE FOUNDATION 1' BELOW THE BOTTOM OF THE CONCRETE FOUNDATION AND 1' BEYOND THE FOUNDATION BASE ON EACH SIDE. II.THE WATER SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE EXCAVATED FOUNDATION. CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP EXCAVATED FOUNDATION FREE OF WATER AT ALL TIMES UNTIL THE BASE HAS BEEN PREPARED TO THE FINISHED ELEVATION OF THE FOUNDATION BASE. III. PLACE WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC MIRAFI 600X OR EQUAL 1' BEYOND THE FOUNDATION BASE ON EACH SIDE. IV.PLACE 12" OF CLASS II AGGREGATE BASE IN TWO SEPARATE 6" LIFTS, COMPACT TO 95% OF THE MAX DRY DENSITY PER ASTM D1557. V. BEFORE PLACING THE FORMS, REBAR AND CONCRETE POUR, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP THE EXCAVATED FOUNDATION FREE OF WATER. d. DURING AND UPON COMPLETION OF THE INSTALLATION OF ANY FOUNDATION, THE WORK SHALL BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BY THE OWNER OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE THE EXCAVATION IS BACKFILLED. AFTER SUCH APPROVAL, THE EXCAVATION, UNLESS REQUIRED TO BE LEFT OPEN FOR GOOD CAUSE, SHALL BE PROMPTLY BACKFILLED IN A SATISFACTORY MANNER PROVIDED THE FOUNDATION HAS ATTAINED SUFFICIENT STRENGTH. e.FORMS SHALL NOT BE STRIPPED UNTIL 3 DAYS AFTER THE POUR OR CONCRETE STRENGTH REACHES 75% F'C, WHICHEVER OCCURS LATER. f. STRUCTURAL BACKFILL SHALL CONSIST OF GRANULAR NON-EXPANSIVE SAND, GRAVEL AND SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES, WITH PLASTICITY INDEX BELOW 15, WITH 100% LESS THAN 3/4" SIZE ROCK AND MAX. 10% PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE PER MN DOT CLASS 5 BASE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS. IT SHALL BE PLACED IN 8" MAX. LIFTS. BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95% M.D.D. PER ASTM D1557. g. EXCAVATED SUBGRADE SHALL BE COMPACTED TO MINIMUM 95% OF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D1557, PRIOR TO STRUCTURAL OR COMMON BACKFILL. MINIMUM 1 (ONE) IN-SITU DENSITY TEST SHALL BE CONDUCTED PER CONCRETE STRUCTURE, UNLESS DEEMED OTHERWISE BY THE FIELD GEOTECHNICAL PROFESSIONAL. h. SUBGRADE CONDITIONS SHALL BE INSPECTED BY A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER PROR TO PLACEMENT OF ANY CONCRETE. STRUCTURAL FILL SHALL BE INSPECTED AND TESTED. B.DEMOLITION 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD-VERIFY ALL CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS (INCLUDING UTILITIES AND POSSIBLE PRESENCE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS) PRIOR TO STARTING WORK AND SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR ADDITIONAL WORK THAT MAY BE REQUIRED. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL SHORING, SHIELDING, TEMPORARY WALLS, WATER SPRAY, ETC., AS NECESSARY TO PROTECT EXISTING WORK TO REMAIN, AND TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF DUST AND DEBRIS. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DAMAGE TO SURROUNDING STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT DUE TO DEMOLITION WORK. THIS INCLUDES REQUIRED CLEANUP DUE TO SPREAD OF DUST AND DEBRIS. CONTRACTOR MAY WISH TO DOCUMENT CONDITION OF NEARBY STRUCTURES PRIOR TO BEGINNING DEMOLITION AS A DEFENSE AGAINST DAMAGE CLAIMS. 4. MATERIAL NOTED TO BE SALVAGED SHALL BE REMOVED AND HANDLED SO AS TO PREVENT DAMAGE. ALL MATERIALS FROM DEMOLITION NOT NOTED TO BE SALVAGED SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSED OF IN A LEGAL MANNER BY THE CONTRACTOR. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAFETY OF ALL WORKERS, TENANTS, AND THE PUBLIC DURING HIS WORK. BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, TRAFFIC CONTROL, ETC. SHALL BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED AS REQUIRED. D.CONCRETE AND GROUT (CAST-IN-PLACE) 1. CONCRETE MIX DESIGNS SHALL MEET THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMETS: a. CONCRETE F'C = 3,000 PSI AFTER 7 DAYS, 4,500 PSI MIN. AFTER 28 DAYS. CEMENT TYPE II. b. MAXIMUM SLUMP SHALL BE 4” (PLUS OR MINUS 1 INCH) BEFORE ADDITION OF SUPERPLASTICIZERS, OR ALL CONCRETE EXCEPT 6” TO 9” FOR DRILLED PIERS. c. ALL CONCRETE EXCEPT USED FOR INTERIOR SLABS, SHALL BE AIR ENTRAINED TO 6% PLUS OR MINUS 1.5%. INTERIOR FLOOR CONCRETE SHALL NOT BE AIR ENTRAINED. d. WATER/CEMENT RATIO SHALL NOT EXCEED 0.45 e. WATER USED IN MIXING CONCRETE SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM C1602 f. ADMIXTURES SHALL NOT BE USED WITHOUT PRE-APPROVAL BY ENGINEER. ADMIXTURES CONTAINING CHLORIDES SHALL NOT BE USED. g. MAXIMUM RATIO OF FLY-ASH TO TOTAL CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS SHALL BE 0.15 h. AGGREGATES SHALL BE CRUSHED STONE CONFORMING TO ASTM C33 i. CONCRETE MIX DESIGNS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT BEGIN CONCRETE INSTALLATION UNTIL CONCRETE MIX DESIGNS HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. 2. CONCRETE PROTECTION FOR REINFORCEMENT: CLEAR DISTANCE FROM FACE OF CONCRETE TO BAR SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. a. CONCRETE DEPOSITED AGAINST GROUND OR VOID FORM: 3” b. CONCRETE SURFACES EXPOSED TO WEATHER OR IN CONTACT WITH GROUND AFTER REMOVAL OF FORMS: 1 1/2" FOR #5 BARS AND SMALLER, 2" FOR #6 THROUGH #18. 3. REINFORCING SHALL BE DEFORMED, INTERMEDIATE GRADE NEW BILLET STEEL CONFORMING TO ASTM A615, GRADE 60 FY = 60,000 PSI (EXCEPT REINFORCEMENT TO BE WELDED SHALL BE ASTM A706). ALL WELDING OF REINFORCEMENT SHALL CONFORM TO THE STRUCTURAL WELDING CODES, REINFORCING STEEL AWS D1.4, CURRENT EDITION. 4. REINFORCEMENT DETAILING REQUIREMENTS a. ALL REINFORCING STEEL IN CONCRETE SHALL BE LAPPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACI STANDARD 318. WHERE BARS OF DIFFERENT SIZES ARE LAPPED, THE LAP LENGTH SHALL BE BASED ON THE SMALLER BAR. WHERE BARS ARE SHOWN SPLICED, THEY MAY RUN CONTINUOUS AT CONTRACTOR'S OPTION. b. REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE CONTINUOUS THROUGH CONSTRUCTION JOINTS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. c. PROVIDE BENT CORNER REBAR TO MATCH AND LAP WITH HORIZONTAL REBAR AT CORNERS AND INTERSECTIONS OF WALLS AND GRADE BEAMS. d. SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. REBAR FABRICATION SHALL NOT BEGIN UNTIL SHOP DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. ALL SPLICE LOCATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO ENGINEER'S APPROVAL. PLACE REBAR PER CRSI STANDARDS e. ALL BARS AND DOWELS SHALL BE SUPPORTED AND WIRED IN PLACE. DOWELS SHALL BE WIRED IN PLACE, NOT PUSHED INTO FRESH CONCRETE. WELDED WIRE REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE POSITIVELY SUPPORTED, NOT PULLED UP AFTER CONCRETE PLACEMENT. BAR SUPPORTS IN CONTACT WITH EXPOSED SURFACES SHALL HAVE PLASTIC TIPS. f. IF REINFORCING OR MESH IS FIELD CUT FOR SMALL OPENINGS, CONDUIT, ELECTRICAL BOXES, ETC. CUT REINFORCING SHALL BE REPLACED WITH AN EQUIVALENT AREA OF STEEL. ALL SUCH BARS SHALL EXTEND 24" MINIMUM (OR MESH LAP 2") BEYOND CORNER OR EDGE OF OPENING IF NECESSARY. REINFORCING SHALL BE BENT TO PROVIDE THIS MINIMUM EMBEDMENT. MAKE ALL BARS CONTINUOUS AROUND CORNERS. 5. REBAR NOTED TO BE DRILLED INTO CONCRETE AND SET WITH ADHESIVE TO USE HILTI ADHESIVE HIT-HY 200 V3 ADHESIVE “SAFE SET SYSTEM” AS DOCUMENTED BY CURRENT ICC-ES REPORT ESR-4868. CONTRACTOR MAY SUBMIT ALTERNATE FOR APPROVAL WITH ALLOWABLE LOAD VALUES EQUAL TO OR EXCEEDING THOSE FOR HILTI. 6. CONCRETE PLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS: a. CONCRETE SHALL NOT BE PLACED ON FROZEN GROUND. b. MECHANICALLY VIBRATE ALL CONCRETE WHEN PLACED. c. ALL EXPOSED EDGES SHALL BE CHAMFERED 3/4" UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 7. EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL FOR EXPANSION OR ISOLATION JOINTS SHALL BE PREMOLDED, BITUMINOUS IMPREGNATED FIBERBOARD.CONFORMING TO ASTM D994. JOINT THICKNESS SHALL BE 1/2" UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON DESIGN DRAWINGS. 8. JOINT SEALANT FOR ALL CONCRETE CONTROL, CONSTRUCTION AND ISOLATION JOINTS SHALL BE SIKAFLEX-1A BY SIKA CORP., OR APPROVED EQUAL. 9. WATERSTOPS SHALL BE TPER MATERIAL. WATER STOPS SHALL BE WIRED TO REINFORCEMENT TO PREVENT FOLDOVER DURING CONCRETE PLACEMENT. ALL JOINTS, EXCEPT STRAIGHT BUTT JOINTS, SHALL BE SHOP MADE BY THE MANUFACTURER. FIELD SPLICES SHALL BE HEAT-WELDED. 10. PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATION.GROUT USED FOR VARIOUS APPLICATIONS SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: a. GROUT USED FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL COLUMN BASE PLATES SHALL BE PREPACKED, HIGH-FLUIDITY NON-SHRINK, NATURAL AGGREGATE GROUT SUCH AS "MASTERFLOW 713 PLUS" BY BASF (FORMERLY MASTER BUILDERS) OR APPROVED EQUAL. FOLLOW MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS FOR INSTALLATION. SPACE BETWEEN THE ANCHOR RODS AND OVERSIZED HOLES IN THE BASE PLATE SHALL BE FULLY GROUTED WITH NON-SHRINK GROUT TO ASSURE PROPER SHEAR TRANSFER. GROUTING SHALL BE PERFORMED ONE BOLT AT A TIME, WHILE OTHER BASE PLATE RODS ARE FULLY TIGHTENED. b. GROUT USED FOR GROUTING COMPRESSORS, TURBINES, LARGE PUMPS, AND OTHER RECIPROCATING OR ROTATING EQUIPMENT THAT REQUIRES EPOXY GROUTING AS SHOWN ON DESIGN DRAWINGS SHALL BE "FIVE STAR HP" EPOXY GROUT BY FIVE STAR PRODUCTS, INC. OR APPROVED EQUAL, FOLLOW MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS FOR INSTALLATION. 11. VOID FORM SHALL BE “SURE VOID” OR APPROVED EQUAL. KEEP VOID FORM MATERIAL DRY DURING PLACEMENT AND INSTALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.VOID FORM SHALL BE BIODEGRADABLE AND CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING THE FLUID WEIGHT OF THE CONCRETE. 12. SIZES AND LOCATIONS OF EQUIPMENT BASES, SUMPS, AND EQUIPMENT ANCHOR BOLTS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS ARE APPROXIMATE; THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL SIZES AND LOCATIONS WITH MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL DIVISIONS. E.HELICAL PILES 1. HELICAL PILES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITHIN 1" OF COORDINATE (PLAN) LOCATIONS, AND WITHIN -1/2", +1/8" IN ELEVATION. SHIM AS REQUIRED. 2. IF HELICAL PILES ARE NOT ZINC COATED, DESIGN WALL THICKNESS AND OUTSIDE DIAMETER SHALL ACCOUNT FOR CORROSION LOSS OF 0.018" OF OUTSIDE WALL THICKNESS, AS INDICATED IN SECTION 3.9 OF AC358 "ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR HELICAL PILE SYSTEMS AND DEVICES". ZINC COATINGS, IF USED, SHALL COMPLY WITH ASTM A123, A153, B633, OR B695, AS APPLICABLE. 3. PILES SHALL BE DESIGNED TO LIMIT DEFLECTION UNDER SERVICE LOAD TO 1/2", AND PILE CAPACITY SHALL BE DESIGNED FOR 2X SERVICE LOAD. 4. PILE DESIGN CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE CUT SHEETS ON MATERIALS USED, CONFIGURATION OF SCREW PILES, AND INSTALLATION CRITERIA (TORQUE, DEPTH, ETC.) FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO FABRICATION. 5. ANY LOAD TESTING SHALL BE PERFORMED PER ASTM 1143 (COMPRESSION), ASTM 3689 (TENSION) AND ASTM 3966 (LATERAL), AS APPLICABLE. 6. CONTINUOUS INSPECTION BY QUALIFIED PERSONNEL IS REQUIRED FOR ALL PILE INSTALLATIONS. F.STRUCTURAL STEEL 1. MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON PLAN: a. WIDE FLANGE ASTM A992 (FY = 50KSI) b. CHANNELS, ANGLES, PLATES, AND BARS ASTM A36 (FY = 36 KSI) c. SQUARE AND RECTANGULAR HSS SHAPES ASTM A500 (FY = 46 KSI) d. PIPES ASTM A53 (FY=35 KSI) 2. CONNECTIONS: a. ANCHOR RODS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F1554, 36 KSI YIELD STRENGTH. COMMON ROD STOCK BARS SHALL NOT BE USED. b. BOLTED CONNECTIONS SHALL BE FASTENED WITH HIGH STRENGTH A-325 BOLTS DESIGNED FOR THREADS INCLUDED IN SHEAR PLANES (CONNECTION TYPE N) EXCEPT AS NOTED ON THE PLANS. c. WELDING SHALL CONFORM TO THE CURRENT AMERICAN WELDING SOCIETY CODE. WELDING ELECTRODES SHALL BE E70XX, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. ALL WELDING SHALL BE BY AWS CERTIFIED WELDERS. WELDS WHICH ARE FOUND TO BE FAULTY SHALL BE REWORKED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT NO COST. d. ADHESIVE ANCHORS FOR CONCRETE SHALL BE HAS-V-36 RODS (ASTM F1554 36 KSI) WITH HILTI HIT-HY 200 V3 ADHESIVE “SAFE SET SYSTEM” AS DOCUMENTED BY CURRENT ICC-ES REPORT ESR-4868. CONTRACTOR MAY SUBMIT ALTERNATE FOR APPROVAL WITH ALLOWABLE LOAD VALUES EQUAL TO OR EXCEEDING THOSE FOR HILTI. ANCHORS SHALL BE GALVANIZED. 3. FABRICATION: a. SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. STEEL FABRICATION SHALL NOT BEGIN UNTIL SHOP DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. b. STEEL SHALL BE FABRICATED IN AN A.I.S.C.-CERTIFIED STEEL FABRICATION SHOP UNLESS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. c. MILL REPORTS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL STEEL. 4. COATINGS: a. STRUCTURAL STEEL SHALL BE SHOT BLASTED, PRIMED, AND GALVANIZED. b. ALL STEEL SHALL BE HOT DIP GALVANIZED PER ASTM A123 (3-MIL MIN.) c. IF FIELD MODIFICATIONS REQUIRE REMOVAL OF HDG, THEN UTILIZE ZRC COLD GALVANIZATION PRODUCT TO PERFORM GALVANIZATION TOUCH-UPS. 5. ERECTION a. FIELD CUTTING OF STEEL OR OTHER FIELD MODIFICATIONS ARE PROHIBITED WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE ENGINEER. b. FABRICATOR SHALL FURNISH ALL FIELD BOLTS, BOLT SCHEDULE, CLIP ANGLES, AND TEMPORARY FASTENINGS REQUIRED FOR ERECTION. c. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TEMPORARY SUPPORT AND SAFE LIFTING SCHEMES FOR STEEL MEMBERS AS REQUIRED DURING ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION. d. ALL DAMAGED MATERIAL SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED AT NO EXTRA COST TO THE OWNER AND SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE OWNER OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. G.GENERAL CONSTRUCTION 1. THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER SHALL NOT HAVE CONTROL OR CHARGE OF, AND SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR: CONSTRUCTION MEANS, METHODS, TECHNIQUES, SEQUENCES OR PROCEDURES; FOR SAFETY PRECAUTIONS AND PROGRAMS IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK; FOR THE ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF THE CONTRACTOR, SUBCONTRACTORS, OR ANY OTHER PERSONS PERFORMING ANY OF THE WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 2. ANY TEMPORARY FACILITIES PLACED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS, SUCH AS CRANE BASES, TRAILERS, SHEET PILING, ETC., SHALL BE LOCATED SO AS NOT TO INTERFERE WITH PERMANENT BUILDING CONSTRUCTION. IF INTERFERENCE OCCURS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE OR RELOCATE HIS TEMPORARY FACILITIES AT HIS OWN EXPENSE. 3. DO NOT BACKFILL AGAINST BUILDING, TANK, OR TUNNEL WALLS BELOW GRADE UNTIL FLOOR (OR ROOF) SLAB HAS BEEN PLACED AND CURED FOR AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS AND WALLS HAVE ATTAINED A STRENGTH OF 3,000 PSI. PLACE BACKFILL EVENLY ON EACH SIDE OF WALLS TO PREVENT ECCENTRIC LOADING ON WALLS. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR STABILITY BRACING AND SHORING OF THE STRUCTURE DURING CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING ALL CONSTRUCTION LOADS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE LOCATION OF ALL FOUNDATION WORK WITH THE LOCATION OF ALL SUBGRADE MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL WORK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REINFORCEMENT AROUND ALL PENETRATIONS IN FOUNDATION WALLS. UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL WORK IS NOT PERMITTED TO BE EMBEDDED IN FOUNDATIONS OR PLACED BENEATH FOUNDATION BEARING. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE AWARE OF OVERHEAD POWER LINES, SUBFLOOR ELECTRICAL CONDUIT, AND SUBGRADE UTILITIES OR TUNNELS AT THE SITE. VERIFY UTILITY LOCATIONS WITH OWNER, GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL (651-454-0002), AND UTILITY COMPANIES. 6. ANY ENGINEERING DESIGN PROVIDED BY OTHERS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND SHALL BEAR THE SIGNATURE AND VALID REGISTRATION NUMBER OF A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSED IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD-VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS AT THE BUILDING AND/OR SITE. 8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COORDINATION OF ALL WORK PERFORMED BY SUBCONTRACTORS. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DOCUMENT AS-BUILT INFORMATION AND PROVIDE AS-BUILT DRAWINGS TO THE ENGINEER FOR ALL WORK PERFORMED. 10. SCALES NOTED ON DRAWINGS ARE ACCURATE FOR FULL-SIZE (22x34) DRAWINGS ONLY. H.SCHEDULE OF GENERAL AND SPECIAL INSPECTIONS (AS APPLICABLE) 1. SPECIAL INSPECTION: THE FOLLOWING ITEMS REQUIRE SPECIAL INSPECTION (PER SECTION 1704 OF THE IBC, PROVIDE MINIMUM 24-HOUR NOTICE TO INSPECTOR: a. EARTHWORK b. FOUNDATION CAPACITY c. CONCRETE CYLINDER (7 AND 28 DAY AND SPARE) AND SLUMP d. CONCRETE REINFORCING e. STRUCTURAL STEEL WELDING AND HIGH STRENGTH BOLTING f. EXPANSION AND ADHESIVE ANCHORS 2. INSPECTION AND TESTING REPORTS SHALL BE COMPLETED AND DISTRIBUTED AT THE COMPLETION OF EACH TASK. IF A TASK IS TO TAKE LONGER THAN THREE (3) DAYS, PROVIDE REPORTS FOR EACH DAY. PROVIDE COPIES OF REPORTS TO: CONTRACTOR, OWNER, AND THE ENGINEER OF RECORD. INSPECTOR TO KEEP A NON-COMPLIANCE LIST DOCUMENTING ITEMS INSPECTED NOT MEETING APPROVED CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND WHEN/HOW RESOLVED. SERVICE CENTER: CAD FILE NAME: BY DRAWINGREVISIONS NO.DESCRIPTION DATE DESIGNED BY: APPROVED BY: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: TYPE: LOCATION: DIVISION:CITY/COUNTY :IN SERVICE DATE: HISTORY DATE FLOC: SIBLEY PROPANE PLANT STRUCTURAL NOTES 40010 1 D1_40010_Sibley Mounding.dwg NORTHERN MENDOTA HEIGHTS / DAKOTA FACILITY UNIT 00 GU-SPG NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY JMC 04/04/24 RSP 04/04/24 JG 05/24/24 RSP 10/23/24 0 ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION - RET. WALL JMC 05/31/24 1 ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION JMC 10/23/24 ® PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the Laws of the state of Minnesota. Signature: Typed or Printed Name: Randy S. Paul Date: License Number: 5663705/26/2025 Page 138 of 310 ABBREVIATIONS: A.B. = ANCHOR BOLT B.O.C. = BOTTOM OF CONCRETE C.J. = CONSTRUCTION JOINT C.L. = CENTERLINE C.T. = CONTROL JOINT C.V. = COMPACTED VOLUME CLR. = CLEAR CONC. = CONCRETE CONT. = CONTINUOUS DET. = DETAIL DWGS. = DRAWINGS E.F.= EACH FACE E.J.= EXPANSION JOINT E.W.= EACH WAY ELEV. = ELEVATION EQUIP. = EQUIPMENT FDN. = FOUNDATION GALV. = GALVANIZE GRTG. = GRATING HORIZ. = HORIZONTAL I.F. = INSIDE FACE MAX. = MAXIMUM MFR. = MANUFACTURER MIN. = MINIMUM N.F.S. = NON-FROST-SUSCEPTIBLE O.C. = ON CENTER O.D. = OUTSIDE DIAMETER O.F. = OUTSIDE FACE REINF. = REINFORCEMENT REQ'D. = REQUIRED S.J. = SEALED JOINT S.S. = STAINLESS STEEL SPS. = SPACES T & B = TOP AND BOTTOM T.O.A. = TOP OF CONCRETE T.O.S. = TOP OF STEEL T.O.W. = TOP OF WALL TYP. = TYPICAL U.N.O. = UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE VERT. = VERTICAL 1. INSPECTION OF REINFORCING STEEL, INCLUDING PRESTRESSING TENDONS AND PLACEMENT. 2. INSPECTION OF REINFORCING STEEL WELDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH TABLE 1705.2.2, ITEM 2b. 7. AT THE TIME FRESH CONCRETE IS SAMPLED TO FABRICATE SPECIMENS FOR STRENGTH TESTS, PERFORM SLUMP AND AIR CONTENT TESTS AND DETERMINE THE TEMPERATURE OF THE CONCRETE. 8. INSPECTION OF CONCRETE AND SHOTCRETE PLACEMENT FOR PROPER APPLICATION TECHNIQUES. 3. INSPECTION OF ANCHORS CAST IN CONCRETE . 6.VERIFYING USE OF REQUIRED DESIGN MIX. 4. INSPECTION OF ANCHORS POST-INSTALLED IN HARDENED CONCRETE MEMBERS. INSPECTION REQUIRED Y/N Y Y Y INSPECTION REQUIRED Y/N VERIFICATION AND INSPECTION TASK CONTINUOUS DURING TASK LISTED PERIODICALLY DURING TASK LISTED INSPECTION AND VERIFICATION OF CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION FREQUENCY OF INSPECTION Y --- X N Y Y --- Y REFERENCED STANDARD ACI 318: 3.5, 26.6 Y Y --- X X --- --- X X X --- --- AWS D1.4 ACI 318: 26.6.4 ACI 318: 26.7 ACI 318: 26.7 ACI 318: 26.4 ASTM C 172 ASTM C 31 ACI 318: 26.12,26.13 ACI 318: 26.5 5. VERIFICATION OF ANCHOR MATERIAL CERTIFICATIONS.Y ---X AISC 360 X 10. VERIFICATION OF IN-SITU CONCRETE STRENGTH, PRIOR TO STRESSING OF TENDONS IN POST-TENSIONED CONCRETE AND PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF SHORING AND FORMS FROM BEAMS AND STRUCTURAL SLABS. 11. INSPECT FORMWORK FOR SHAPE, LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF THE CONCRETE MEMBER BEING FORMED. 9. INSPECTION FOR MAINTENANCE OF SPECIFIED CURING TEMPERATURE AND TECHNIQUES.--- --- --- X X X ACI 318: 26.5.3 ACI 318: 26.11 ACI 318: 26.11 VERIFICATION AND INSPECTION TASK CONTINUOUS DURING TASK LISTED PERIODICALLY DURING TASK LISTED ---X ---X ---X Y Y Y 1. VERIFY MATERIALS BELOW FOOTINGS ARE ADEQUATE TO ACHIEVE DESIRED BEARING CAPACITY. 2.VERIFY EXCAVATIONS ARE EXTENDED TO PROPER DEPTH AND HAVE REACHED PROPER MATERIAL. 3. PERFORM CLASSIFICATION AND TESTING OFCOMPACTED FILL MATERIALS. 4. VERIFY USE OF PROPER MATERIALS, DENSITIES AND LIFT THICKNESSES DURING PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION OF COMPACTED FILL. 5. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF COMPACTED FILL, OBSERVE SUBGRADE AND VERIFY THAT SITE HAS BEEN PREPARED PROPERLY. FREQUENCY OF INSPECTION INSPECTION AND VERIFICATION OF SOILS Y X --- ---XY INSPECTION REQUIRED Y/N VERIFICATION AND INSPECTION TASK FREQUENCY OF INSPECTION REFERENCED STANDARDCONTINUOUS DURING TASK LISTED PERIODICALLY DURING TASK LISTED 1. MATERIAL VERIFICATION OF HIGH-STRENGTH BOLTS, NUTS, AND WASHERS: Y A. IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS TO CONFORM TO ASTM STANDARDS SPECIFIED IN THE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. -X AISC 360 SECTION A3.3 AND APPLICABLE ASTM MATERIAL STANDARDS Y B. MANUFACTURER'S CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE REQUIRED.-X - 2. INSPECTION OF HIGH-STRENGTH BOLTING: Y A. SNUG TIGHT JOINTS.-X AISC 360 SECTION M2.5 N B. PRETENSIONED AND SLIP-CRITICAL JOINTS USING TURN-OF-NUT WITH MATCHMARKING, TWIST-OFF BOLT, OR DIRECT TENSION INDICATOR METHOD OF INSTALLATION. -X N C. PRETENSIONED AND SLIP-CRITICAL JOINTS USING TURN-OF-NUT WITHOUT MATCHMARKING, OR CALIBRATED WRENCH METHODS OF INSTALLATION. X - 3. MATERIAL VERIFICATION OF STRUCTURAL STEEL AND COLD-FORMED STEEL DECK: Y A. FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL, IDENTIFICATION MARINGS TO CONFORM TO AISC 360.-X - Y B. FOR OTHER STEEL, IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS TO CONFORM TO ASTM STANDARDS SPECIFIED IN THE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. -X APPLICABLE ASTM MATERIAL STANDARDS Y C. MANUFACTURER'S CERTIFIED MILL TEST REPORTS.-X - 4. MATERIAL VERIFICATION OF WELD FILLER MATERIALS: Y A. IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS TO CONFORM TO AWS SPECIFICATION IN THE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. -X AISC 360 SECTION A3.5 AND APPLICABLE AWS A5 DOCUMENTS Y B. MANUFACTURER'S CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE REQUIRED.-X - 5. INSPECTION OF WELDING: A.STRUCTURAL STEEL AND COLD FORMED STEEL DECK: N 1) COMPLETE AND PARTIAL PENETRATION GROOVE WELDS.X - AWS D1.1 N 2) MULTIPASS FILLET WELDS.X - N 3) SINGLE-PASS FILLET WELDS > 5/16".X - N 4) PLUG AND SLOT WELDS.X - Y 5) SINGLE-PASS FILLET WELDS ≤5/16".-X N 6) FLOOR AND ROOF DECK WELDS.-X AWS D1.3 B. REINFORCING STEEL: Y 1) VERIFICATION OF WELDABILITY OF REINFORCING STEEL OTHER THAN ASTM A706.-X AWS D1.4 ACI 318 SECTION 3.5.2 N 2) REINFORCING STEEL: RESISTING FLEXURAL AND AXIAL FORCES IN INTERMEDIATE AND SPECIAL MOMENT FRAMES, AND BOUNDARY ELEMENTS OF SPECIAL STRUCTURAL WALLS OF CONCRETE AND SHEAR REINFORCEMENT. X - Y 3) SHEAR REINFORCEMENT.X - Y 4) OTHER REINFORCING STEEL.-X 6. INSPECTION OF STEEL FRAME JOINT DETAIL FOR COMPLIANCE: Y A. DETAILS SUCH AS BRACING AND STIFFENING.-X -Y B. MEMBER LOCATIONS.-X Y C. APPLICATION OF JOINT DETAILS AT EACH CONNECTION.-X N 7. SFRS (SEISMIC FORCE RESISTING SYSTEM)X -- INSPECTION REQUIRED Y/N Y VERIFICATION AND INSPECTION TASK CONTINUOUS DURING TASK LISTED PERIODICALLY DURING TASK LISTED X 1. CONTINOUS INSPECTION SHALL BE PERFORMED DURING INSTALLATION OF HELICAL PILE FOUNDATIONS. INFORMATION SHALL BE RECORDED INCLUDING INSTALLATION EQUIPMENT USED, PILE DIMENSIONS, TIP ELEVATIONS, FINAL DEPTH, FINAL INSTALLATION TORQUE, AND OTHER PERTINENT INSTALLATION AS REQUIRED BY THE REGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBLE IN CHARGE. THE APPROVED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY THE REGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SHALL BE USED TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE. FREQUENCY OF INSPECTION INSPECTION AND VERIFICATION OF HELICAL PILE FOUNDATONS REFERENCED STANDARDS IBC SECTION 1705.9 INSPECTION AND VERIFICATION OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION SUBMITTALS: 1. ALL SUBMITTALS SHALL BE SENT TO THE ENGINEER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO PROCUREMENT, FABRICATION, OR CONSTRUCTION. 2. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ARE PROVIDED. a. STRUCTURAL FILL (A.3.f) b. CONCRETE MIX DESIGN (4010 D.1.i) c. REBAR SHOP DRAWINGS (4010 D.4.d) d. HELICAL PILE DESIGN & SUBMITTAL (4010 E) e. STRUCTURAL STEEL SHOP DRAWINGS (4010 F.3.a) f. ENGINEERING COMPLETED BY OTHERS (4010 G. 6) g. ANY MATERIAL THAT DIFFERS FROM WHAT IS SPECIFIED ON 4010, 4011, OR THE FOLLOWING STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. SERVICE CENTER: CAD FILE NAME: BY DRAWINGREVISIONS NO.DESCRIPTION DATE DESIGNED BY: APPROVED BY: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: TYPE: LOCATION: DIVISION:CITY/COUNTY :IN SERVICE DATE: HISTORY DATE FLOC: SIBLEY PROPANE PLANT STRUCTURAL NOTES 40011 1 D1_40011_Sibley Mounding.dwg NORTHERN MENDOTA HEIGHTS / DAKOTA FACILITY UNIT 00 GU-SPG NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY JMC 04/04/24 RSP 04/04/24 JG 05/24/24 RSP 10/23/24 0 ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION - RET. WALL JMC 05/31/24 1 ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION JMC 10/23/24 ® PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the Laws of the state of Minnesota. Signature: Typed or Printed Name: Randy S. Paul Date: License Number: 5663705/26/2025 Page 139 of 310 PLANT NORTH 1.02°TRU E N O R T H PROPOSED CONCRETE EXISTING FENCE EXISTING ABOVE GROUND PIPING & EQUIPMENT EXISTING UNDER GROUND PIPING & EQUIPMENT EXISTING STEEL/CONCRETE X LEGEND: 41001 41006 41011 41016 41021 41026 41030 41034 41002 41007 41012 41017 41022 41031 41035 41003 41008 41013 41018 41023 41028 41032 41036 41004 41009 41014 41019 41024 41029 41033 41037 41038 41041 41044 41047 41050 41053 41039 41042 41045 41048 41051 41054 41040 41043 41046 41049 41052 41055 41005 41010 41015 41020 41025 PLANT COORDINATE 0,0 N 1022497.52' E 2849480.46' PROPOSED STAIR & RAMP PROPOSED SIDEWALK, TYP. PROPOSED SUPPORT SLAB, TYP. PROPOSED STAIR PROPOSED DRAINAGE POND, SEE CIVIL TANK BANK 360 TANK BANK 350 TANK BANK 340 TANK BANK 310 PROPOSED STAIR & RAMP EXISTING PLC EXISTING VAPORIZER BLDG. EXISTING NG SUPPLY REG/METER EXISTING PDC EXISTING TRANSFORMERS EXISTING TRUCK UNLOAD EXISTING TRUCK UNLOAD EXISTING PLANT ACCESS ROAD EXISTING LPG TRANSFER PUMPS PROPOSED STAIR EXISTING PIPE BRIDGE EXISTING AIR RECIEVER EXISTING AIR DRYERS EXISTING COMPRESSOR BLDG EXISTING WEG COOLERS EXISTING BOILER BLDG NOTES: 1. ALL COORDINATES BASED ON NAD83 MINNESOTA STATE PLANE, SOUTH ZONE. 2.SEE THE FOLLOWING FOR OTHER DISCIPLINE KEY PLANS: 4300 FOR CIVIL, 6100 FOR MECHANICAL & PIPING, 7200 FOR CONDUIT, 7300 FOR ELECTRICAL, & 8000 FOR CONTROLS. EXISTING EAST PIPE BRIDGE PROPOSED MOUNDING GRADING, SEE CIVIL EXISTING TANKS TO BE BURIED, TYP. FIRE WATER LINE PROPOSED STAIR PROPOSED RETAINING WALL TANK BANK 320 SERVICE CENTER: CAD FILE NAME: BY DRAWINGREVISIONS NO.DESCRIPTION DATE DESIGNED BY: APPROVED BY: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: TYPE: LOCATION: DIVISION:CITY/COUNTY :IN SERVICE DATE: HISTORY DATE FLOC: SIBLEY PROPANE PLANT FOUNDATION KEY PLAN 41000 3A D1_41000_Sibley Mounding.dwg NORTHERN MENDOTA HEIGHTS / DAKOTA FACILITY UNIT 00 GU-SPG NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY JMC 04/04/24 RSP 04/04/24 JG 05/24/24 RSP 12/19/24 0 ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION - RET. WALL JMC 05/31/24 1 ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION JMC 10/23/24 2 RE-ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION JMC 12/19/24 3A ISSUED FOR PERMIT - WEST ELEC BUILDING JMC 05/27/25 ® 3A41027 PROPOSED WEST ELECTRICAL BUILDING REVISION SUMMARY: 3A. ADDED WEST ELECTRICAL BUILDING 3A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the Laws of the state of Minnesota. Signature: Typed or Printed Name: Randy S. Paul Date: License Number: 5663705/26/2025 Page 140 of 310 PLANT NORTH1.02°TRUE NORTHDRAWING LIMITS, FOR CONTINUATION SEE 41035 DRAWING LIMITS, FOR CONTINUATION SEE 41027 DRAWING LIMITS, FOR CONTINUATION SEE 41032DRAWING LIMITS, FOR CONTINUATION SEE 41030DRAWING LIMITS, FOR CONTINUATION SEE 420325'-614"7'-01 4"24'-103 4"3'-5"1'-1014"21'-6"CT-09EXISTING PLC BUILDING EXISTING BURIED PIPE, EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN, V.I.F. ADEQUATE CLEARANCE IS PROVIDED BETWEEN CT & PIPE PRIOR TO SUPPORT FABRICATION. EXISTING VAPORIZER BUILDING EXISTING PIPE BRIDGE CENTER OF EXISTING PIPE BRIDGE COLUMN SUPPORT LEGEND: SUPPORT FOUNDATION DETAILS: CT-9 & 11: F-8/44011 CT- 10: F-9/44011 SERVICE CENTER: CAD FILE NAME: BY DRAWINGREVISIONS NO.DESCRIPTION DATE DESIGNED BY: APPROVED BY: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: TYPE: LOCATION: DIVISION:CITY/COUNTY :IN SERVICE DATE: HISTORY DATE FLOC: SIBLEY PROPANE PLANT FOUNDATION PLAN 41031 1A D1_41031_Sibley Mounding.dwg NORTHERN MENDOTA HEIGHTS / DAKOTA FACILITY UNIT 14 GU-SPG NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY JMC 04/04/24 RSP 04/04/24 JG 05/24/24 RSP 10/23/24 0 ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION JMC 10/23/24 1A ISSUED FOR PERMIT - WEST ELEC BUILDING JMC 05/23/25 ®1'-134"CT-10CT-11N: 1022994.30 E: 2849718.57 PROPOSED CONCRETE EXISTING FENCE EXISTING ABOVE GROUND PIPING & EQUIPMENT EXISTING UNDER GROUND PIPING & EQUIPMENT EXISTING STEEL/CONCRETE X LEGEND: NOTES: 1. SEE 41000 FOR FOUNDATION KEY PLAN. 2.SEE 40010 & 40011 FOR STRUCTURAL NOTES. 3. ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SLAB LEGEND: 4" SIDEWALK / STAIRS 6" SLAB 12" SLAB 11'-0" 1A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the Laws of the state of Minnesota. Signature: Typed or Printed Name: Randy S. Paul Date: License Number: 5663705/26/2025 Page 141 of 310 SERVICE CENTER: CAD FILE NAME: BY DRAWINGREVISIONS NO.DESCRIPTION DATE DESIGNED BY: APPROVED BY: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: TYPE: LOCATION: DIVISION:CITY/COUNTY :IN SERVICE DATE: HISTORY DATE FLOC: SIBLEY PROPANE PLANT FOUNDATION DETAILS ISSUED FOR PERMIT - WEST ELEC BUILDING 44014 0A D1_44014_Sibley Mounding.dwg NORTHERN MENDOTA HEIGHTS / DAKOTA FACILITYGU-SPG NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY JMC 05/27/25 RSP 05/27/25 AT 05/27/25 RSP 05/27/25 0A ISSUED FOR PERMIT - WEST ELEC BUILDING JMC 05/27/25PLANT NORTH1.02°TRUE NORTH® NOTES: 1. SEE 41000 FOR FOUNDATION KEY PLAN. 2. SEE 40010 & 40011 FOR STRUCTURAL NOTES. 3. SEE 44015 FOR FOUNDATION SECTIONS & DETAILS 4. SEE 44016 FOR TYPICAL DETAILS 5. ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 10'-0"4'-0"10'-0"4'-0"4'-0"24'-0"24'-0"A B 2 1 6" THICK BUILDING SLAB-ON-GRADE WITH #4 @ 16" O.C. EA. WAY CENTERED IN SLAB C.T.C.T.C.T.C.T. C.T.C.T. C.T.C.T. TYP (4) @ SPREAD FOOTINGS TYP @ STEM WALLS TYP @ DOOR APRONS SINGLE DOOR APRON DOUBLE DOOR APRON 8'-6"7'-0"8'-6" F1 F1F1 F1 FOUNDATION FOR VARCO PRUDEN BUILDING JOB #25-008413-01 FOOTING SCHEDULE FOOTING LENGTH WIDTH DEPTH REINF. F1 4'-0"4'-0"1'-0"#5 @ 12" T&B E.W. WF-1 CONT.1'-8"1'-0"#5 @ 12" T&B E.W.WF-1WF-1WF-1 WF-1 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the Laws of the state of Minnesota. Signature: Typed or Printed Name: Randy S. Paul Date: License Number: 5663705/26/2025 Page 142 of 310 SERVICE CENTER: CAD FILE NAME: BY DRAWINGREVISIONS NO.DESCRIPTION DATE DESIGNED BY: APPROVED BY: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: TYPE: LOCATION: DIVISION:CITY/COUNTY :IN SERVICE DATE: HISTORY DATE FLOC: SIBLEY PROPANE PLANT FOUNDATION DETAILS ISSUED FOR PERMIT - WEST ELEC BUILDING 44015 0A D1_44015_Sibley Mounding.dwg NORTHERN MENDOTA HEIGHTS / DAKOTA FACILITYGU-SPG NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY JMC 05/27/25 RSP 05/27/25 AT 05/27/25 RSP 05/27/25 0A ISSUED FOR PERMIT - WEST ELEC BUILDING JMC 05/27/25 ® A, B (SIM)3" +/- V.I.F.2'-6" MIN.1'-0"2" CLR3" CLR6" MAX.2'-0" 1 2" EXPANSION MATERIAL W/ SEALED JOINT FINISHED GRADE #6 VERTS W/ STD HOOK #4 TIES @ 12" 2" CLR. T/SLAB & WALL EL. 808'-5" 10 MIL. VAPOR BARRIER BELOW SLAB 12" MIN. COMPACTED STRUCTURAL FILL R-7.5, 15 PSI COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (MIN) INSULATION, EXTEND 2'-0" HORIZONTALLY BELOW SLAB COMPACTED SUBGRADE PER 40010 #5 @ 12" E.W. TOP & BOTTOM 3" +/- V.I.F.2'-6" MIN.1'-0"3" CLRFINISHED GRADE 1'-6" T/SLAB & WALL EL. 808'-5" 10 MIL. VAPOR BARRIER BELOW SLAB 12" MIN. COMPACTED STRUCTURAL FILL R-7.5, 15 PSI COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (MIN) INSULATION, EXTEND 2'-0" HORIZONTALLY BELOW SLAB #4 VERT @ 12" O.C. W/ STD HOOK CTR IN WALL ALTERNATE HOOK DIRECTION TOP OF FTG, SEE PLAN (2) #5 #5 @ 12" O.C. COMPACTED SUBGRADE PER 40010 1, 2, A, & B 1 2" EXPANSION MATERIAL W/ SEALED JOINT 6"1 2" EXPANSION MATERIAL W/ SEALED JOINT #4 @ 12" O.C. E.W. PLACED MID-DEPTH IN SLAB SLOPE 2% MIN. T/SLAB FIELD DETERMINE INSTALL 12" COMPACTED STRUCTURAL FILL UNDER PADS #4 W. STD HOOK @ 12" O.C., 24" OVERLAP COMPACTED NATIVE SOIL/STRUCTURAL FILL BUILDING SLAB ON GRADE 2'-0" 1'-0"5"7"1'-8"912"5"512"3 4" Ø F1554 GR. 36 CIP GALVANIZED ANCHORS W/ 12" EMBED, 4" PROJ., "A"= 11 2"8"8"PROJ.EMBEDMENT"A"TACK WELD OR STAKE THREADS STANDARD THREADED ROD AS SHOWN STAKE THREADS (DO NOT WELD) HIGH STRENGTH THREADED ROD T.O. ROUGH CONC. (T.O.C.) HEAVY HEX NUT WITH PLATE WASHER (SEE TABLE & NOTES) HEAVY HEX NUT V.I.F. SUCH THAT T/FOUNDATION IS 1" TO 6" ABOVE EXISTING GRADE AROUND PERIMETER BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPLETED ON BOTH SIDES SIMULTANEOUSLY PER NOTE B.3 ON 40010 (TYP. @ BUILDING COLUMNS) #4 HORIZ. @ 12" MAX, PROVIDE LAP BARS @ CORNERS V.I.F. SUCH THAT T/FOUNDATION IS 1" TO 6" ABOVE EXISTING GRADE AROUND PERIMETER BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPLETED ON BOTH SIDES SIMULTANEOUSLY PER NOTE B.3 ON 40010 (TYP. @ WALLS)(TYP. @ DOOR APRONS) WALL REINF. (6) #6 VERTS W/ STD HOOKS #4 CLOSED TIES @ 12" MAX, (2) IN TO 5" PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the Laws of the state of Minnesota. Signature: Typed or Printed Name: Randy S. Paul Date: License Number: 5663705/26/2025 Page 143 of 310 SERVICE CENTER: CAD FILE NAME: BY DRAWINGREVISIONS NO.DESCRIPTION DATE DESIGNED BY: APPROVED BY: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: TYPE: LOCATION: DIVISION:CITY/COUNTY :IN SERVICE DATE: HISTORY DATE FLOC: SIBLEY PROPANE PLANT FOUNDATION DETAILS ISSUED FOR PERMIT - WEST ELEC BUILDING 44016 0A D1_44016_Sibley Mounding.dwg NORTHERN MENDOTA HEIGHTS / DAKOTA FACILITYGU-SPG NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY JMC 05/27/25 RSP 05/27/25 AT 05/27/25 RSP 05/27/25 0A ISSUED FOR PERMIT - WEST ELEC BUILDING JMC 05/27/25 ® SEE GENERAL NOTES FOR POUR LENGTH AND AREA LIMITS TYP. SLAB REINF., SEE 44014 PROVIDE TYP. TRIM REINF. AT ALL OPENINGS, NOTCHES, AND RE-ENTRANT CORNERS PROVIDE JOINT E.W. AT ALL RE-ENTRANT CORNERS CONTROL OR CONSTRUCTION JOINT 12'-0" MAX E.W. OFFICE SLAB ONLY SEE NOTE EXTEND REINFORCING THROUGH JOINT NOTE: 1. PROVIDE TOOLED JOINT OR SAW CUT AS SOON AS THE CONCRETE HAS HARDENED SUFFICIENTLY TO PERMIT CUTTING WITHOUT CHIPPING, SPALLING, OR TEARING (BUT NOT MORE THAN 12 HOURS AFTER CASTING). NON-COMPRESSIBLE FILL OVER UTILITIES STRIP FOOTING, SEE PLAN. UTILITIES MAY NOT BE LOCATED BELOW COLUMN SPREAD FOOTINGS. WHERE 1'-0" MIN DISTANCE FROM BOTTOM OF FOOTING TO TOP OF UTILITY CANNOT BE MET, DISCONTINUE STRIP FOOTING ABOVE UTILITY 2'-0" MAX 1'-0" MIN1'-0" MIN."D" NOTES: 1. DO NOT CORE OPENINGS. SLEEVE OPENINGS PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE. 2. DO NOT CUT REBAR AT PENETRATION LOCATIONS. REBAR MAY BE MOVED UP TO 8" TO ACCOMMODATE PENETRATIONS 3. SCH. 40 STEEL SLEEVES SHALL BE UTILIZED IN CRITICAL AREAS OF THE WALL AND SLABS AS DETERMINED BY EOR. 4. PENETRATIONS MAY NOT BE LOCATED THROUGH PEDESTALS. 6" MAX 2" CLR TO REINFORCING. TYP. EW. SEE NOTE 1 ALIGN PENETRATIONS VERT AND HORIZ.1' MIN6" FROM ALLEDGES, TYP.TOP OF FDN SEE PLAN GRADE FTG 2'-0" NO EXCAVATION PERMITTED TRENCH EXCAVATION TRENCH EXCAVATION 2 1 B/TRENCH EXCAVATION SHALL NOT EXTEND BELOW THIS LINENOTES: 1. KEY PLANN ILLUSTRATES CONSTRUCTION CONCEPTS ONLY. SEE PLAN FOR ACTUAL DIMENSIONS AND ARRANGEMENT. 2. PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONTROL JOINTS AT ABRUPT CHANGES IN THICKNESS AND LOCATIONS PRONE TO CRACKING, COORDINATE LOCATIONS WITH FLOOR FINISHES AND INTERIOR WALLS. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the Laws of the state of Minnesota. Signature: Typed or Printed Name: Randy S. Paul Date: License Number: 5663705/26/2025 Page 144 of 310 4d4. 1.0 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY INFORMATION: THIS STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) HAS BEEN PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MINNESOTA GENERAL STORMWATER PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY NO. MNR100001 (GENERAL PERMIT), AS REQUIRED BY THE MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY (MPCA) UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM/STATE DISPOSAL SYSTEM (NPDES/SDS) PROGRAM. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 800 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY IN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WILL TAKE PLACE WITHIN SECTION 23 TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH RANGE 23 WEST. THE APPROXIMATE CENTROID OF THE PROJECT HAS A LATITUDE OF 44.906177 AND A LONGITUDE OF -93.130502. THIS PROJECT INVOLVES NEW WATER LINES FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION, BURYING EXISTING PROPANE TANKS, AND IMPROVEMENTS TO STORMWATER ROUTING, STORAGE, AND DISCHARGE SYSTEMS. THE PROJECT IS NOT A PART OF A LARGER COMMON PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT. THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED HAS A TOTAL DISTURBANCE AREA OF 5.38 ACRES. EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES ARE REQUIRED TO MINIMIZE SEDIMENT FROM BEING TRANSPORTED INTO THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER, REFER TO PROJECT DRAWINGS FOR FURTHER DETAILS. (CSW PERMIT PART III.A.1) 1.1 PROJECT SIZE AND CUMULATIVE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: ·THE ANTICIPATED AREA OF DISTURBANCE IS APPROXIMATELY 5.38 ACRES. ·THE TOTAL AREA OF PRE-CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 3.93 ACRES. ·THE TOTAL AREA OF POST-CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 4.53 ACRES. ·THE TOTAL NEW IMPERVIOUS AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 0.60 ACRES. 1.2 DATES OF CONSTRUCTION: ·ANTICIPATED START DATE: SEPTEMBER 2024 ANTICIPATED END DATE: APRIL 2026 1.3 CONTACT INFORMATION: OWNER: XCEL ENERGY MAILING ADDRESS: 10326 S. ROBERT TRAIL, INVER GROVE HEIGHTS, MN 55076 CONTACT PERSON: RICHARD HYDE TITLE: SENIOR OPERATIONS MANAGER PHONE NUMBER: 651-265-7055 EMAIL ADDRESS: RICHARD.R.HYDE@XCELENERGY.COM OPERATOR / GENERAL CONTRACTOR (WILL OVERSEE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SWPPP): ___________________________________________ MAILING ADDRESS: _________________________________________ CONTACT PERSON: _________________________________________ TITLE: _______________________________________________________ PHONE NUMBER: ___________________________________________ EMAIL ADDRESS: ______________________________________________ PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR LONG-TERM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PERMANENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: XCEL ENERGY MAILING ADDRESS: 10326 S. ROBERT TRAIL, INVER GROVE HEIGHTS, MN 55076 CONTACT PERSON: RICHARD HYDE TITLE: SENIOR OPERATIONS MANAGER PHONE NUMBER: 651-265-7055 EMAIL ADDRESS: RICHARD.R.HYDE@XCELENERGY.COM 2.0 RECEIVING WATERS: WATERS WITHIN ONE MILE (NEAREST STRAIGHT LINE DISTANCE) THAT ARE LIKELY TO RECEIVE STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM THE PROJECT SITE (CSW PERMIT ITEM 5.10) INCLUDE: SPECIAL IMPAIRED PUBLIC WATER WITH WORK NAME OF WATER BODY TYPE (1)WATER BODY ID (2)WATER? (3)WATER? (3)IN WATER RESTRICTIONS? UNNAMED CREEK CREEK 07010206-542 NO NO NO MISSISSIPPI RIVER RIVER 07010206-505 NO YES NO (1) TYPE EXAMPLES: DITCH, POND, WETLAND, CALCAREOUS FEN, LAKE, STREAM, RIVER (2) WATER BODY IDENTIFICATION (ID) MIGHT NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR ALL WATER BODIES. USE THE SPECIAL AND IMPAIRED WATERS SEARCH TOOL AT: HTTPS://WWW.PCA.STATE.MN.US/WATER/STORMWATER-SPECIAL-AND-IMPAIRED-WATERS-SEARCH (3) REFER TO CSW PERMIT SECTION 23. IMPAIRED WATER FOR THE FOLLOWING POLLUTANT(S) OR STRESSOR(S): PHOSPHORUS (NUTRIENT EUTROPHICATION BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS), TURBIDITY, TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS), DISSOLVED OXYGEN, OR AQUATIC BIOTA (FISH BIOASSESSMENT, AQUATIC PLANT BIOASSESSMENT, AND AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE BIOASSESSMENT) 2.1 SPECIAL AND IMPAIRED WATERS: THE MPCA'S SPECIAL AND IMPAIRED WATERS SEARCH TOOL WAS USED TO LOCATE SPECIAL AND IMPAIRED WATERS WITHIN ONE MILE (AERIAL RADIUS MEASUREMENT) OF THE PROJECT SITE. THIS SEGMENT OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER HAS EPA-APPROVED IMPAIRMENTS FOR FECAL COLIFORM, MERCURY IN FISH TISSUE, MERCURY IN WATER COLUMN, NUTRIENTS, PCB IN FISH TISSUE, TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS, AND PERFLUOROOCTANE SULFUNATE (PFOs) IN FISH TISSUE. THESE IMPAIRMENTS ARE CONSIDERED CONSTRUCTION RELATED AND DO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) OR PLAN REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PERMIT. (CSW PERMIT ITEM 2.7 AND SECTION 23) ADDITIONAL BMPS OR OTHER SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION RELATED IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES IDENTIFIED IN AN APPROVED TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL) INCLUDE NEED TO UPDATE BASED ON TMDL - MIGHT INCLUDE THINGS LIKE IMMEDIATE STABILIZATION OF EXPOSED SOIL AREAS. (CSW PERMIT ITEM 5.19) 2.2 PUBLIC WATERS WITH WORK IN WATER RESTRICTIONS: THIS PROJECT DOES NOT INCLUDE WORK IN PUBLIC WATERS. (CSW PERMIT ITEM 5.11) 2.3 WETLAND IMPACTS: THIS PROJECT DOES NOT INCLUDE WETLAND IMPACTS. (CSW PERMIT ITEMS 2.4 AND 2.10, AND SECTION 22) 2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND OTHER REQUIRED REVIEWS: STORMWATER MITIGATION MEASURES ARE NOT REQUIRED AS A RESULT OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (E.G., EAW OR EIS), ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES REVIEW, ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE REVIEW, OR OTHER LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL REVIEW CONDUCTED FOR THE PROJECT. (CSW PERMIT ITEMS 2.8, 2.9, AND 5.16) 2.5 KARST AREAS OR DRINKING WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT AREAS: THE PRESENCE OF KARST IN THE VICINITY OF THE SITE RESULTS IN THE PROHIBITION OF INFILTRATION FEATURES FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN ORDER TO PROTECT GROUNDWATER STANDARDS. (CSW PERMIT ITEMS 16.19, 16.20, AND 18.10) 3.0 PROJECT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS: REQUIRED FEATURE SHEET NUMBER ·PROJECT LOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITS 4152 ·EXISTING AND FINAL GRADES, INCLUDING DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARIES, DIRECTIONS 4152 OF FLOW AND ALL DISCHARGE POINTS WHERE STORMWATER IS LEAVING THE SITE OR ENTERING A SURFACE WATER ·SOIL TYPES AT THE SITE 4151 ·LOCATIONS OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACES 4152 ·LOCATIONS OF AREAS NOT BE BE DISTURBED (E.G., BUFFER ZONES, WETLANDS, ETC.) 4152 ·LOCATIONS OF AREAS OF STEEP SLOPES 4152 ·LOCATIONS OF AREAS WHERE CONSTRUCTION WILL BE PHASED TO MINIMIZE DURATION N/A OF EXPOSED SOILS ·PORTIONS OF THE SITE THAT DRAIN TO A PUBLIC WATER WITH DNR WORK IN WATER 4152 RESTRICTIONS FOR FISH SPAWNING TIMEFRAMES ·LOCATIONS OF ALL TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL 4152 BMPS AS REQUIRED IN PERMIT SECTIONS 8 THROUGH 10 AND 14 THROUGH 19 ·BUFFER ZONES AS REQUIRED IN PERMIT ITEMS 9.17 AND 23.11 N/A ·LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL POLLUTION-GENERATING ACTIVITIES IDENTIFIED IN PERMIT 4152 SECTION 12 ·STANDARD DETAILS FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS TO BE INSTALLED 4153 AT THE SITE 4.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS): 4.1 EROSION PREVENTION PRACTICES: 1. BEFORE LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES BEGIN, THE LIMITS OF THE AREAS TO BE DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION WILL BE DELINEATED WITH FLAGS, STAKES, SIGNS, SILT FENCE, ETC. 2. TEMPORARY STABILIZATION OF SOILS AND SOIL STOCKPILES: (CSW PERMIT ITEMS 8.4, 8.5, AND 23.9) a. AREAS OF EXPOSED SOIL WILL BE STABILIZED WITH EROSION CONTROL BLANKET OR EQUIVALENT MEASURES. b. IF PRESENT, SOIL STOCKPILES WILL BE STABILIZED WITH FAST GROWING COVER CORP, MULCH SUCH AS STRAW MULCH OR EQUIVALENT MEASURES. c. TEMPORARY STOCKPILES WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT SILT, CLAY, OR ORGANIC COMPONENTS (E.G., CLEAN AGGREGATE STOCKPILES, DEMOLITION CONCRETE STOCKPILES, SAND STOCKPILES) AND THE CONSTRUCTED BASE COMPONENTS OF ROADS, PARKING LOTS, AND SIMILAR SURFACES ARE EXEMPT FROM THESE STABILIZATION REQUIREMENTS. 2. STABILIZATION OF DITCH AND SWALE WETTED PERIMETERS: (CSW PERMIT ITEMS 8.6 THROUGH 8.8) a. IF SOILS WITHIN EXISTING STORMWATER DITCHES OR SWALES ARE DISTURBED, THEY WILL BE STABILIZED WITH CHANNEL EROSION CONTROL BLANKET, RIPRAP, TURF REINFORCEMENT MAT OR EQUIVALENT MEASURES. b. MULCH, HYDROMULCH, TACKIFIER, POLYACRYLAMIDE, OR SIMILAR EROSION PREVENTION PRACTICES WILL NOT BE USED TO STABILIZE ANY PART OF AN EXISTING STORMWATER DITCH OR SWALE WITH A CONTINUOUS SLOPE OF GREATER THAN 2 PERCENT. c. THE LAST 200 LINEAL FEET OF LENGTH OF THE NORMAL WETTED PERIMETER OF ANY TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT DITCH OR SWALE THAT DRAINS WATER FROM ANY PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, OR DIVERTS WATER AROUND THE SITE, WITHIN 200 LINEAL FEET FROM THE PROPERTY EDGE, OR FROM THE POINT OF DISCHARGE INTO ANY SURFACE WATER WILL BE STABILIZED WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER CONNECTING TO A SURFACE WATER OR PROPERTY EDGE. d. STABILIZATION OF THE REMAINING PORTIONS OF ANY TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT DITCHES OR SWALES WILL BE COMPLETED WITHIN 14 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER CONNECTING TO A SURFACE WATER OR PROPERTY EDGE AND CONSTRUCTION IN THAT PORTION OF THE DITCH HAS TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY CEASED. 3. ENERGY DISSIPATION AT PIPE OUTLETS: ENERGY DISSIPATION AT PIPE OUTLETS WILL BE PROVIDED WITH ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOW METHODS: RIP RAP, SPLASH PADS, GABIONS, OR EQUIVALENT MEASURES. (CSW PERMIT ITEM 8.9) 4. EROSION PREVENTION IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINES: (CSW PERMIT ITEMS 5.4, 8.4 THROUGH 8.6, AND 23.9) a. SINCE THE SITE DRAINS TO A DISCHARGE POINT THAT IS WITHIN ONE MILE (AERIAL RADIUS MEASUREMENT) OF A SPECIAL OR IMPAIRED WATER (SEE SECTION 2.0), STABILIZATION OF EXPOSED SOIL AREAS (INCLUDING STOCKPILES) WILL BE INITIATED IMMEDIATELY TO LIMIT SOIL EROSION WHENEVER ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY HAS PERMANENTLY OR TEMPORARILY CEASED ON ANY PORTION OF THE SITE AND WILL NOT RESUME FOR A PERIOD EXCEEDING 7 CALENDAR DAYS. b. THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES CAN BE TAKEN TO INITIATE STABILIZATION: PREPPING THE SOIL FOR VEGETATIVE OR NON-VEGETATIVE STABILIZATION, APPLYING MULCH OR OTHER NON-VEGETATIVE PRODUCT TO THE EXPOSED SOIL AREA, OR SEEDING OR PLANTING THE EXPOSED AREA. 5. ADDITIONAL EROSION PREVENTION MEASURES: THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL EROSION PREVENTION METHODS WILL BE IMPLEMENTED AT THE SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION: (CSW PERMIT ITEMS 8.2, 8.3, AND 8.10) a. CONSTRUCTION PHASING WILL BE UTILIZED TO MINIMIZE THE AREA OF SOIL EXPOSED AT ANY ONE TIME. b. SOIL DISTURBANCE WILL BE MINIMIZED WHEREVER POSSIBLE TO AID IN EROSION PREVENTION. c. EXISTING VEGETATION WILL BE PRESERVED WHEREVER POSSIBLE TO LIMIT EXPOSED SOIL AND THUS WILL SERVE AS NATURAL VEGETATIVE BUFFERS. d. EXPOSED SOIL ON STEEP SLOPES (≤3H:1V) WILL BE STABILIZED USING EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS AND SEEDING. e. HORIZONTAL SLOPE GRADING WILL BE UTILIZED TO MINIMIZE EROSION POTENTIAL. f. TERRACING WILL BE USED TO MINIMIZED EROSION POTENTIAL. 4.2 SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES: 1. DOWNGRADIENT PERIMETER CONTROLS: (CSW PERMIT ITEMS 9.2 THROUGH 9.6) a. SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES WILL BE ESTABLISHED ON ALL DOWNGRADIENT PERIMETERS AND LOCATED UPGRADIENT OF ANY BUFFER ZONES. PERIMETER SEDIMENT CONTROLS WILL INCLUDE: SILT FENCE, SEDIMENT CONTROL LOGS / BIOROLLS (FILLED WITH COMPOST, WOOD CHIPS, ROCK, ETC.), VEGETATIVE BUFFERS (RETAIN EXISTING VEGETATION WHERE POSSIBLE) OR EQUIVALENT MEASURES. b. PERIMETER SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MUST BE INSTALLED BEFORE ANY UPGRADIENT LAND‐DISTURBING ACTIVITIES BEGIN AND REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL PERMANENT COVER HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. c. IF SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED OR REMOVED TO ACCOMMODATE SHORT‐TERM ACTIVITIES (SUCH AS CLEARING, GRUBBING, OR PASSAGE OF VEHICLES), THE CONTROLS MUST BE RE-INSTALLED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SHORT‐TERM ACTIVITY HAS BEEN COMPLETED. SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MUST BE RE-INSTALLED BEFORE THE NEXT PRECIPITATION EVENT, EVEN IF THE SHORT‐TERM ACTIVITY IS NOT COMPLETE. d. IF THE DOWNGRADIENT SEDIMENT CONTROLS ARE OVERLOADED (BASED ON FREQUENT FAILURE OR EXCESSIVE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT), INSTALL ADDITIONAL UPGRADIENT SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES OR REDUNDANT BMPS TO ELIMINATE THE OVERLOADING AND AMEND THE SWPPP TO IDENTIFY THESE ADDITIONAL PRACTICES. 2. SOIL STOCKPILE PERIMETER CONTROLS: TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILES WILL BE SURROUNDED BY: SEDIMENT CONTROL LOGS / BIOROLLS (FILLED WITH COMPOST, WOOD CHIPS, ROCK, ETC.) OR EQUIVALENT MEASURES, AND SHALL NOT BE PLACED IN ANY NATURAL BUFFERS OR SURFACE WATERS.(CSW PERMIT ITEMS 9.9 AND 9.10) 3. STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION: (CSW PERMIT ITEMS 9.7 AND 9.8) a. INLET PROTECTION BMPS WILL BE INSTALLED AROUND ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS DOWNGRADIENT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. b. STORM DRAIN INLETS WILL BE PROTECTED UNTIL ALL SOURCES WITH POTENTIAL FOR DISCHARGING TO THE INLET HAVE BEEN STABILIZED. c. INLET PROTECTION BMPS WILL BE: SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG, FILTER SACK, ROCK WITH FILTER FABRIC, FILTER FENCE BOX OR EQUIVALENT MEASURES. 4. VEHICLE TRACKING BMPS: (CSW PERMIT ITEMS 9.11 AND 9.12) a. VEHICLE TRACKING BMPS WILL BE INSTALLED TO MINIMIZE THE TRACKING OUT OF SEDIMENT FROM THE CONSTRUCTION AREA AND WILL INCLUDE: ROCK PADS OR AN EQUIVALENT SYSTEM. b. IF SUCH VEHICLE TRACKING BMPS ARE NOT ADEQUATE TO PREVENT SEDIMENT FROM BEING TRACKED ONTO THE PAVED ROAD, STREET SWEEPING WILL ALSO BE EMPLOYED. SEDIMENT WILL BE REMOVED BY SWEEPING WITHIN 24 HOURS. 5. PROTECTION OF INFILTRATION AREAS: IF NECESSARY, ADDITIONAL SEDIMENT CONTROLS (E.G., DIVERSION BERMS) WILL BE INSTALLED TO KEEP RUNOFF AWAY FROM PLANNED INFILTRATION AREAS WHEN EXCAVATED PRIOR TO ESTABLISHING PERMANENT COVER WITHIN THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA. (CSW PERMIT ITEMS 16.4 AND 16.5) 6. MINIMIZATION OF SOIL COMPACTION AND PRESERVATION OF TOPSOIL: SOIL COMPACTION WILL BE MINIMIZED AND TOPSOIL WILL BE PRESERVED WHERE POSSIBLE. (CSW PERMIT ITEMS 5.24, 9.14, AND 9.15) 7. PRIORITIZATION OF ONSITE INFILTRATION AND SEDIMENT REMOVAL: (CSW PERMIT ITEM 9.16) a. PRIOR TO OFFSITE DISCHARGE, INFILTRATION AND SEDIMENT REMOVAL WILL BE IMPLEMENTED ONSITE WHERE POSSIBLE. b. DISCHARGES FROM BMPS WILL BE DIRECTED TO VEGETATED AREAS OF THE SITE (INCLUDING ANY NATURAL BUFFERS) IN ORDER TO INCREASE SEDIMENT REMOVAL AND MAXIMIZE STORMWATER INFILTRATION. IF EROSION IS NOTED TO OCCUR AS THE RESULT OF SUCH A DISCHARGE, VELOCITY DISSIPATION BMPS WILL BE CONSIDERED AND INSTALLED AS NECESSARY TO PREVENT EROSION. 8. BUFFER ZONE OR REDUNDANT SEDIMENT CONTROLS TO PROTECT SURFACE WATERS: (CSW PERMIT ITEM 9.17) a. A 50-FOOT NATURAL BUFFER WILL BE PRESERVED IN CONSTRUCTION AREAS DISCHARGING TO A NON-SPECIAL/NON-IMPAIRED SURFACE WATER OR WETLAND. IF A NON-SPECIAL/NON-IMPAIRED SURFACE WATER OR WETLAND IS LOCATED WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE PROJECT'S EARTH DISTURBANCES AND STORMWATER FLOWS TO THE SURFACE WATER, OR WHEN A BUFFER IS INFEASIBLE, REDUNDANT SEDIMENT CONTROLS WILL BE PROVIDED. b. A 100-FOOT NATURAL BUFFER WILL BE PRESERVED IN CONSTRUCTION AREAS DISCHARGING TO A SPECIAL OR IMPAIRED SURFACE WATER. IF A SPECIAL OR IMPAIRED SURFACE WATER IS LOCATED WITHIN 100 FEET OF THE PROJECT'S EARTH DISTURBANCES AND STORMWATER FLOWS TO THE SURFACE WATER, OR WHEN A BUFFER IS INFEASIBLE, REDUNDANT SEDIMENT CONTROLS WILL BE PROVIDED. c. REDUNDANT PERIMETER CONTROLS WILL BE INSTALLED AT LEAST 5 FEET APART UNLESS LIMITED BY LACK OF AVAILABLE SPACE. 9. SEDIMENTATION TREATMENT CHEMICALS: NOT APPLICABLE; USE OF SEDIMENTATION TREATMENT CHEMICALS (E.G., POLYMERS, FLOCCULANTS, ETC.) IS NOT ANTICIPATED AS PART OF THE PROJECT. (CSW PERMIT ITEMS 5.22 AND 9.18) 10. TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASIN(S): THE PROJECT WILL NOT INCLUDE 10 OR MORE ACRES OF DISTURBED SOIL DRAINING TO A COMMON LOCATION OR 5 OR MORE ACRES DRAINING TO A COMMONLOCATION WITHIN 1 MILE OR A SPECIAL OR IMPAIRED WATER THEREFORE TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINS ARE NOT REQUIRED. (CSW PERMIT ITEMS 5.6, 9.13, AND 23.10 AND SECTION 14) 4.3 DEWATERING AND BASIN DRAINING: NO DEWATERING OR BASIN DRAINING ARE ANTICIPATED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT. (CSW PERMIT SECTION 10 AND ITEM 10.5) 4.4 BMP DESIGN FACTORS: THE FOLLOWING BMP DESIGN FACTORS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN DESIGNING THE TEMPORARY EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS: 1. EXPECTED AMOUNT, FREQUENCY, INTENSITY, AND DURATION OF PRECIPITATION: 2. NATURE OF STORMWATER RUNOFF AND RUN‐ON AT THE SITE, INCLUDING FACTORS SUCH AS EXPECTED FLOW FROM IMPERVIOUS SURFACES, SLOPES, AND SITE DRAINAGE FEATURES: 3. STORMWATER VOLUME, VELOCITY, AND PEAK FLOW RATES TO MINIMIZE DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS IN STORMWATER AND TO MINIMIZE CHANNEL AND STREAMBANK EROSION AND SCOUR IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF DISCHARGE POINTS: 4. RANGE OF SOIL PARTICLE SIZES EXPECTED TO BE PRESENT: 4.5 BMP QUANTITIES: ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE: 1 EA. SINGLE ROW SILT FENCE: 1,860 LF DOUBLE ROW SILT FENCE: 510 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG (SLOPE BREAKS): 200 LF (SEE PAGE 2 OF 2)CADD USER: OWEN Q. RICHEY FILE: \\EDI-CAD\CAD\DESIGN\23191480.00\SIBLEY\23191480_G-01_SWPPP.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1:2 PLOT DATE: 7/24/2024 4:02 PMSERVICE CENTER: BY DRAWINGREVISIONS NO.DESCRIPTION DATE DESIGNED BY: APPROVED BY: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: TYPE: PROJECT: DIVISION:CITY/COUNTY :IN SERVICE DATE: HISTORY DATE ® Suite 200 4300 MARKETPOINTE DRIVE Fax: (952) 832-2601 www.barr.com Ph: 1-800-632-2277 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55435 07/24/2024 07/24/2024OQR JPP BARR JPP NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY NORTH SIBLEY PHASE II FIRE SUPPRESSION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) MENDOTA HEIGHTS / DAKOTA 4150 4501038238 A ISSUED FOR REVIEW 07/24/2024 07/24/2024OQRISSUED FOR REVIEWA ---- ----07/24/2024 Page 145 of 310 4d5. 5.0 PERMANENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: A PERMANENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IS REQUIRED IF THE PROJECT RESULTS IN ONE ACRE OR MORE OF NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACES OR RESULTS IN A NET INCREASE OF ONE OR MORE ACRES OF CUMMULATIVE NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACES IN TOTAL OR IF THE PROJECT IS PART OF A LARGER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT. (CSW PERMIT ITEM 15.3) 5.1 A PERMANENT STORMWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM IS NOT REQUIRED. (CSW PERMIT ITEMS 5.15, 15.4-15.9, AND 23.14) 5.2 THIS IS NOT A LINEAR PROJECT WITH LACK OF RIGHT OR WAY. (CSW PERMIT ITEM 15.9) 5.3 THIS PROJECT DOES NOT DISCHARGE TO A TROUT STREAM (OR A TRIBUTARY TO A TROUT STREAM). (CSW PERMIT ITEM 23.12) 6.0 INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES: 6.1 PERSONS WITH REQUIRED TRAINING: TRAINED INDIVIDUALS INCLUDE THOSE PARTIES RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLING, SUPERVISING, REPAIRING, INSPECTING, AND MAINTAINING EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS AT THE SITE. TRAINED INDIVIDUALS ARE ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SWPPP AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PERMIT UNTIL THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ARE COMPLETE, PERMANENT COVER HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, AND A NOTICE OF TERMINATION (NOT) HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. (CSW PERMIT ITEMS 5.20, 5.21, AND 11.9 AND SECTION 21) THESE INDIVIDUALS WILL BE TRAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GENERAL PERMIT, INCLUDING THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE CONTENT AND EXTENT OF TRAINING WILL BE COMMENSURATE WITH THE INDIVIDUAL'S JOB DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. BELOW IS A LIST OF PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS PROJECT WHO ARE KNOWLEDGEABLE AND EXPERIENCED IN THE APPLICATION OF EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS. TRAINED INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY TRAINING ENTITY* TRAINING DATE JOSHUA P. PHILLIPS PREPARATION OF THE SWPPP UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA MAY 2023 _________________ OVERSIGHT OF SWPPP IMPLEMENTA- __________________ ________________ TION, REVISION, AND AMMENDMENT _________________ PERFORMANCE OF SWPPP INSPECTIONS __________________ _________________ _________________ PERFORMANCE OR SUPERVISION OF __________________ _________________ INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR OF BMPS *TRAINING DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. 6.2 FREQUENCY OF INSPECTIONS: A TRAINED PERSON WILL ROUTINELY INSPECT THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION SITE. (CSW PERMIT ITEMS 11.2, 11.10, AND 23.13) ·AT LEAST ONCE EVERY 7 DAYS DURING ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION ·WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER A RAINFALL EVENT GREATER THAN 0.5 INCHES IN 24 HOURS INSPECTION FREQUENCY MAY BE ADJUSTED UNDER THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES: ·WHERE PARTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION AREAS HAVE PERMANENT COVER, BUT WORK REMAINS ON OTHER PARTS OF THE SITE, INSPECTIONS OF THE AREAS WITH PERMANENT COVER MAY BE REDUCED TO ONCE PER MONTH. ·WHERE CONSTRUCTION AREAS HAVE PERMANENT COVER AND NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING ON THE SITE, INSPECTIONS CAN BE REDUCED TO ONCE PER MONTH AND, AFTER 12 MONTHS, MAY BE SUSPENDED COMPLETELY UNTIL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY RESUMES. ·WHERE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY HAS BEEN SUSPENDED DUE TO FROZEN GROUND CONDITIONS, THE INSPECTIONS MAY BE SUSPENDED. THE REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE MUST BEGIN WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER RUNOFF OCCURS AT THE SITE OR UPON RESUMING CONSTRUCTION, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST. 6.3 INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS: EACH CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER SITE INSPECTION WILL INCLUDE INSPECTION OF THE FOLLOWING AREAS: (CSW PERMIT ITEMS 11.3 THROUGH 11.8) ·ALL EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS AND POLLUTION PREVENTION MANAGEMENT MEASURES ·SURFACE WATERS FOR EVIDENCE OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT DEPOSITION ·CONSTRUCTION SITE VEHICLE EXIT LOCATIONS FOR EVIDENCE OF OFFSITE SEDIMENT TRACKING ·STREETS AND OTHER AREAS ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT FOR EVIDENCE OF OFF SITE ACCUMULATIONS OF SEDIMENT 6.4 MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS: MAINTENANCE OF THE FOLLOWING AREAS AND BMPS WILL BE PERFORMED AS FOLLOWS: (CSW PERMIT ITEMS 11.3 THROUGH 11.8) ·NONFUNCTIONAL BMPS WILL BE REPAIRED, REPLACED, OR SUPPLEMENTED WITH FUNCTIONAL BMPS BY THE END OF THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY AFTER DISCOVERY OR AS SOON AS FIELD CONDITIONS ALLOW ACCESS. ·PERIMETER CONTROL DEVICES WILL BE REPAIRED, REPLACED, OR SUPPLEMENTED WHEN THEY BECOME NONFUNCTIONAL OR THE SEDIMENT REACHES 1/2 OF THE HEIGHT OF THE DEVICE. ·TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SEDIMENTATION BASINS WILL BE DRAINED AND THE SEDIMENT REMOVED WHEN THE DEPTH OF SEDIMENT COLLECTED IN THE BASIN REACHES 1/2 THE STORAGE VOLUME. ·DELTAS AND SEDIMENT DEPOSITED IN SURFACE WATERS WILL BE REMOVED, AND THE AREAS WHERE SEDIMENT REMOVAL RESULTS IN EXPOSED SOIL WILL BE RE-STABILIZED. THE REMOVAL AND STABILIZATION WILL BE COMPLETED WITHIN 7 CALENDAR DAYS OF DISCOVERY UNLESS PRECLUDED BY LEGAL, REGULATORY, OR PHYSICAL ACCESS CONSTRAINTS. IF PRECLUDED DUE TO ACCESS CONSTRAINTS, REASONABLE EFFORTS TO OBTAIN ACCESS WILL BE USED. REMOVAL AND STABILIZATION WILL TAKE PLACE WITHIN 7 CALENDAR DAYS OF OBTAINING ACCESS. ·TRACKED SEDIMENT ON PAVED SURFACES WILL BE REMOVED WITHIN 1 CALENDAR DAY OF DISCOVERY. ·AREAS UNDERGOING STABILIZATION WILL BE RESTABILIZED AS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE REQUIRED COVER. 6.5 RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS: (CSW PERMIT ITEMS 11.11 AND 24.5 AND SECTIONS 6 AND 20) 1. ALL INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES WILL BE RECORDED IN WRITING WITHIN 24 HOURS OF BEING CONDUCTED AND THESE RECORDS WILL BE RETAINED WITH THE SWPPP. RECORDS OF EACH INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY WILL INCLUDE THE DATE AND TIME; NAME OF INSPECTOR(S); FINDINGS OF INSPECTIONS; CORRECTIVE ACTIONS (INCLUDING DATES, TIMES, AND PARTY COMPLETING MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES); AND DATE OF ALL RAINFALL EVENTS GREATER THAN 0.5 INCHES IN 24 HOURS AND THE AMOUNT OF RAINFALL FOR EACH EVENT. a. IF ANY DISCHARGE IS OBSERVED DURING THE INSPECTION, THE LOCATION AND APPEARANCE OF THE DISCHARGE (I.E., COLOR, ODOR, SETTLED OR SUSPENDED SOLIDS, OIL SHEEN, AND OTHER OBVIOUS INDICATORS OF POLLUTANTS) WILL BE DOCUMENTED AND A PHOTOGRAPH WILL BE TAKEN. 2. THE SWPPP WILL BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL OR MODIFIED BMPS TO CORRECT PROBLEMS OR ADDRESS SITUATIONS WHENEVER THERE IS A CHANGE IN DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, WEATHER, OR SEASONAL CONDITIONS THAT HAS A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS TO SURFACE WATERS OR GROUNDWATER. a. THE SWPPP WILL BE AMENDED WHEN INSPECTIONS OR INVESTIGATIONS BY THE SITE OWNER, OPERATOR, OR CONTRACTORS OR BY USEPA/MPCA OFFICIALS INDICATE THAT THE SWPPP IS NOT EFFECTIVE IN ELIMINATING OR MINIMIZING THE DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS TO SURFACE WATERS OR GROUNDWATER; THE DISCHARGES ARE CAUSING WATER QUALITY STANDARD EXCEEDANCES; OR THE SWPPP IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH A USEPA APPROVED TMDL. b. ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE SWPPP PROPOSED AS A RESULT OF THE INSPECTION WILL BE DOCUMENTED AS REQUIRED WITHIN 7 CALENDAR DAYS. c. AMENDMENTS WILL BE COMPLETED BY AN APPROPRIATELY TRAINED INDIVIDUAL. CHANGES INVOLVING THE USE OF A LESS STRINGENT BMP WILL INCLUDE A JUSTIFICATION DESCRIBING HOW THE REPLACEMENT BMP IS EFFECTIVE FOR THE SITE CHARACTERISTICS. 3. RECORDS RETENTION: THE SWPPP, INCLUDING ALL CHANGES TO IT, AND INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE RECORDS WILL BE KEPT AT THE SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION BY THE PERMITTEE WHO HAS OPERATIONAL CONTROL OF THE SITE. THE SWPPP CAN BE KEPT IN EITHER A FIELD OFFICE OR IN AN ON SITE VEHICLE DURING NORMAL WORKING HOURS. 4. RECORD AVAILABILITY: THE PERMITTEES WILL MAKE THE SWPPP, INCLUDING INSPECTION REPORTS, MAINTENANCE RECORDS, AND TRAINING RECORDS, AVAILABLE TO FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL OFFICIALS WITHIN THREE DAYS UPON REQUEST FOR THE DURATION OF THE PERMIT COVERAGE AND FOR THREE YEARS FOLLOWING THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION. 7.0 POLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES: 1. ANY CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS AND LANDSCAPE MATERIALS THAT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO LEACH POLLUTANTS WILL BE STORED UNDER COVER (E.G., PLASTIC SHEETING OR TEMPORARY ROOFS) TO PREVENT DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS THROUGH MINIMIZATION OF CONTACT WITH STORMWATER. STORAGE OF SUCH MATERIALS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA WILL BE MINIMIZED TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE. (CSW PERMIT ITEM 12.2) 2. PESTICIDES, FERTILIZERS, AND TREATMENT CHEMICALS WILL BE STORED UNDER COVER (E.G., PLASTIC SHEETING, TEMPORARY ROOFS, WITHIN A BUILDING, OR IN WEATHER-PROOF CONTAINERS) TO PREVENT DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS THROUGH MINIMIZATION OF CONTACT WITH STORMWATER. STORAGE OF SUCH MATERIALS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA WILL BE MINIMIZED TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE. (CSW PERMIT ITEM 12.3) 3. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND TOXIC WASTE (E.G., OIL, DIESEL FUEL, GASOLINE, HYDRAULIC FLUIDS, PAINT SOLVENTS, PETROLEUM-BASED PRODUCTS, WOOD PRESERVATIVES, ADDITIVES, CURING COMPOUNDS, AND ACIDS) WILL BE STORED AND DISPOSED OF IN COMPLIANCE WITH MINNESOTA RULES CHAPTER 7045, INCLUDING SECONDARY CONTAINMENT (AS APPLICABLE). HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WILL BE PROPERLY STORED IN SEALED CONTAINERS TO PREVENT SPILLS, LEAKS, OR OTHER DISCHARGES AND PREVENT PRECIPITATION FROM FALLING ONTO THE CONTAINERS OR STORED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. (CSW PERMIT ITEMS 2.3 AND 12.4) 4. SOLID WASTE WILL BE COLLECTED, STORED, AND DISPOSED OF PROPERLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH MINNESOTA RULES CHAPTER 7035. THIS INCLUDES STORAGE WITHIN COVERED TRASH CONTAINERS AND DAILY REMOVAL OF LITTER AND DEBRIS. STORAGE OF SOLID WASTE WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA WILL BE MINIMIZED TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE. (CSW PERMIT ITEM 12.5) 5. PORTABLE TOILETS WILL BE LOCATED AWAY FROM SURFACE WATERS AND POSITIONED AND SECURED TO THE GROUND SO THEY WILL NOT BE TIPPED OR KNOCKED OVER. SANITARY WASTE WILL BE DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 7041. PORTABLE TOILETS WILL BE PERIODICALLY EMPTIED AND THE WASTE HAULED OFF-SITE BY A LICENSED HAULER. (CSW PERMIT ITEM 12.6) 6. VEHICLE FUELING WILL ONLY OCCUR IN DESIGNATED AREAS. SPILL KITS SIZED APPROPRIATELY FOR THE AMOUNT OF REFUELING TAKING PLACE WILL BE LOCATED. SPILL KITS WILL BE CLEARLY LABELED AND CONTAIN MATERIALS TO ASSIST IN SPILL CLEANUP INCLUDING ABSORBENT PADS, BOOMS FOR CONTAINING SPILLS, AND HEAVY-DUTY PROTECTIVE GLOVES. SPILLS WILL BE REPORTED TO THE MINNESOTA DUTY OFFICER AS REQUIRED BY MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 115.061. (CSW PERMIT ITEMS 2.3 AND 12.7) a. ANY FUEL TANKS BROUGHT ON-SITE WILL HAVE PROPERLY SIZED CONTAINMENT AND WILL NOT BE TOPPED OFF TO AVOID SPILLS FROM OVERFILLING. FUEL TANKS WILL MEET INDUSTRY STANDARDS (DESIGNED TO HOLD FUEL TYPE, PROPERLY MAINTAINED, NOT ILLEGALLY MODIFIED, NOT MISSING LEAK INDICATOR FLOATS FOR DOUBLE WALLED TANKS, SIGHT GAUGES NOT USED, ETC.) OR BE REMOVED FROM THE WORK AREA. b. GUIDELINES FOR SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE INCLUDE: - TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO PREVENT THE DISCHARGE OF SPILLED OR LEAKED CHEMICALS, INCLUDING FUEL, FROM ANY AREA WHERE CHEMICALS OR FUEL WILL BE LOADED OR UNLOADED, INCLUDING THE USE OF DRIP PANS OR ABSORBENTS UNLESS INFEASIBLE; - PERFORM REGULAR PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE ON TANKS AND FUEL LINES; - INSPECT PUMPS, CYLINDERS, HOSES, VALVES, AND OTHER MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ON-SITE FOR DAMAGE OR DETERIORATION; - DO NOT WASH OR RINSE FUELING AREAS WITH WATER; - MAINTAIN ADEQUATE SUPPLIES TO CLEAN UP DISCHARGED MATERIALS AND PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATE DISPOSAL METHOD FOR RECOVERED SPILLED MATERIALS; - REPORT AND CLEAN UP SPILLS IMMEDIATELY AS REQUIRED BY MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 115.061, USING DRY CLEAN UP MEASURES WHERE POSSIBLE; AND - MAINTAIN COPIES OF SAFETY DATA SHEETS (SDSS) FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ON-SITE IN LOCATIONS READILY AVAILABLE TO EMERGENCY RESPONDERS. 7. IF VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT WASHING IS NECESSARY, A VEHICLE WASH STATION WILL BE LOCATED IN A DESIGNATED AREA. RUNOFF FROM THE WASHING AREA WILL BE CONTAINED IN A SEDIMENT BASIN AND WASTE FROM THE WASHING ACTIVITY WILL BE PROPERLY DISPOSED OF. ANY SOAPS, DETERGENTS, OR SOLVENTS WILL BE PROPERLY USED AND STORED. ANY DETERGENTS AND OTHER CLEANERS NOT PERMITTED FOR DISCHARGE WILL NOT BE USED. (CSW PERMIT ITEMS 2.3 AND 12.8) 8. THE PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN CONCRETE OR OTHER WASHOUT ACTIVITIES. IF NECESSARY, A DESCRIPTION OF THE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF CONCRETE AND OTHER WASHOUT WASTES SO THAT WASTES DO NOT CONTACT THE GROUND WILL BE ADDED. (CSW PERMIT ITEMS 2.3 AND 12.9) 8.0 PERMANENT COVER AND PERMIT TERMINATION CONDITIONS: 1. THE AREAS DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION WILL BE STABILIZED WITH PERMANENT COVER UPON COMPLETION OF WORK. PERMANENT COVER MAY BE VEGETATIVE OR NON-VEGETATIVE, AS APPROPRIATE. ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMANENT COVER MAY INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES: SEEDING, MULCHING, EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS. (CSW PERMIT ITEM 5.17) 2. FOR A CONSTRUCTION-SITE TO ACHIEVE “PERMANENT COVER”, THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS MUST BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO TERMINATION OF PERMIT COVERAGE: (CSW PERMIT SECTIONS 4 AND 13) a. ALL SOIL DISTURBING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND PERMANENT COVER HAS BEEN INSTALLED OVER ALL AREAS. VEGETATIVE COVER CONSISTS OF A UNIFORM PERENNIAL VEGETATION WITH A DENSITY OF 70% OF ITS EXPECTED FINAL GROWTH. VEGETATION IS NOT REQUIRED WHERE THE FUNCTION OF A SPECIFIC AREA DICTATES NO VEGETATION (SUCH AS IMPERVIOUS SURFACES OR THE BASE OF A SAND FILTER). b. ALL SEDIMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS, INCLUDING CULVERTS. c. ALL TEMPORARY SYNTHETIC EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS HAVE BEEN REMOVED. BMPS DESIGNED TO DECOMPOSE ON-SITE MAY BE LEFT IN PLACE. WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE TERMINATION CONDITIONS ARE COMPLETE, A NOTICE OF TERMINATION (NOT) FORM WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE MPCA. PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT LOCATION SCALE IN FEET 20,00010,0000 CADD USER: OWEN Q. RICHEY FILE: \\EDI-CAD\CAD\DESIGN\23191480.00\SIBLEY\23191480_G-01_SWPPP.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1:2 PLOT DATE: 7/24/2024 4:02 PMSERVICE CENTER: BY DRAWINGREVISIONS NO.DESCRIPTION DATE DESIGNED BY: APPROVED BY: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: TYPE: PROJECT: DIVISION:CITY/COUNTY :IN SERVICE DATE: HISTORY DATE ® Suite 200 4300 MARKETPOINTE DRIVE Fax: (952) 832-2601 www.barr.com Ph: 1-800-632-2277 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55435 07/24/2024 07/24/2024OQR JPP BARR JPP NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY NORTH SIBLEY PHASE II FIRE SUPPRESSION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) MENDOTA HEIGHTS / DAKOTA 4151 4501038238 A ISSUED FOR REVIEW 07/24/2024 07/24/2024OQRISSUED FOR REVIEWA ---- 07/24/2024 Page 146 of 310 XXXXX X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXOE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OEOEOEOEOEOEOE OEOEOE OE OE OE OE OEGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGAS W WWWWWWWWXGAS>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> 760760 765765 770770 775775 780780 785785 790790 795795 800800 805805 810810 81581582082082582582582581581582082082582583083083083082682682782782882882982983183183 2 83 2 8 3 3 8 3 3 8348348 1 5 8 1 5 8128128138138 1 4 8 1 4 8 1 6 8 1 6 8 1 7 8 1 7 8 1 8 8 1 8 8 1 9 8 1 9 795795 800800 805805 810810810810810810 820820825825810810810810815815820820825825820820 825825 810810815815820820825825810810815815820820825825815815 820820 825825 WWWWWWWWWWWWWW W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WWWW SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF SFSFSF SF X SF SF SF SF SF SF SF S F SF SF SF SF SF SF SF S FSF SFSFSFSFSFSFWWWWSEE VIEWPORT 2 CADD USER: Owen Q. Richey FILE: \\EDI-CAD\CAD\DESIGN\23191480.00\SIBLEY\23191480_G-03_EROSION CONTROL PLAN.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1:2 PLOT DATE: 7/24/2024 4:02 PM2 - PLAN: EROSION CONTROL NPROPERTY LINE (TYP.) 80400 SCALE IN FEET EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES: 1. INSTALL PERIMETER EROSION CONTROL AT THE LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLANS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY LAND DISTURBANCE OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 2. BEFORE BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, INSTALL A TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AT EACH POINT WHERE VEHICLES EXIT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY CLEARING/GRUBBING, REMOVAL, OR EARTHWORK ACTIVITIES. USE 2 INCH OR GREATER DIAMETER ROCK IN A LAYER AT LEAST 6 INCHES THICK ACROSS THE ENTIRE WIDTH OF THE ENTRANCE. EXTEND THE ROCK ENTRANCE AT LEAST 50 FEET INTO THE CONSTRUCTION ZONE USING A GEO-TEXTILE FABRIC BENEATH THE AGGREGATE TO PREVENT MIGRATION OF SOIL INTO THE ROCK FROM BELOW. 3. REMOVE ALL SOILS AND SEDIMENTS TRACKED OR OTHERWISE DEPOSITED ONTO PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PAVEMENT AREAS. AT A MINIMUM REMOVAL SHALL BE ONCE DAILY. SWEEPING SHALL BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND DONE IN A MANNER TO PREVENT DUST BEING BLOWN TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. 4. INSTALL INLET PROTECTION AT ALL CATCH BASIN INLETS WHICH RECEIVE RUNOFF FROM THE DISTURBED AREAS. CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAN, REMOVE SEDIMENT, OR REPLACE STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION DEVICES ON A ROUTINE BASIS SUCH THAT THE DEVICES ARE FULLY FUNCTIONAL FOR THE NEXT RAIN EVENT. SEDIMENT DEPOSITED IN AND/OR PLUGGING DRAINAGE SYSTEMS IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. HAY BALES OR FILTER FABRIC WRAPPED GRATES ARE NOT ALLOWED FOR INLET PROTECTION. 5. LOCATE SOIL OR DIRT STOCKPILES NO LESS THAN 25 FEET FROM ANY DRAINAGE CHANNEL. IF REMAINING FOR MORE THAN SEVEN DAYS, STABILIZE THE STOCKPILES BY MULCHING, VEGETATIVE COVER, TARPS, OR OTHER MEANS. CONTROL EROSION FROM ALL STOCKPILES BY PLACING SILT BARRIERS AROUND THE PILES. 6. MAINTAIN ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES IN PLACE UNTIL THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN STABILIZED. INSPECT TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES ON A DAILY BASIS AND REPLACE DETERIORATED, DAMAGED, OR ROTTED EROSION CONTROL DEVICES IMMEDIATELY. 7. TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY STABILIZE ALL CONSTRUCTION AREAS WHICH HAVE UNDERGONE FINAL GRADING, AND ALL AREAS IN WHICH GRADING OR SITE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS ARE NOT ACTIVELY UNDERWAY AGAINST EROSION DUE TO RAIN, WIND AND RUNNING WATER. STABILIZATION TO BEGIN IMMEDIATELY AND BE COMPLETED WITHIN 7 DAYS. USE SEED AND MULCH, EROSION CONTROL MATTIING, AND/OR SODDING AND STAKING IN GREEN SPACE AREAS. REMOVE ALL TEMPORARY SYNTHETIC, STRUCTURAL, NON-BIODEGRADABLE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES AFTER THE SITE HAS UNDERGONE FINAL STABILIZATION WITH PERMANENT VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT. FINAL STABILIZATION FOR PURPOSES OF THIS REMOVAL IS 70% ESTABLISHED COVER OVER DENUDED AREA. 8. CHANGES TO APPROVED EROSION CONTROL PLAN MUST BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE INSTALLATION AND DETAILS FOR ALL PROPOSED ALTERNATE TYPE DEVICES. 9. IF DEWATERING OR PUMPING OF WATER IS NECESSARY, THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ANY NECESSARY PERMITS AND/OR APPROVALS PRIOR TO DISCHARGE OF ANY WATER FROM THE SITE. IF THE DISCHARGE FROM THE DEWATERING OR PUMPING PROCESS IS TURBID OR CONTAINS SEDIMENT LADEN WATER, IT MUST BE TREATED THROUGH THE USE OF SEDIMENT TRAPS, VEGETATIVE FILTER STRIPS, FILTER BAGS (PUMP-IT TUBE DEWATERING BAGS OR EQUAL), OR OTHER SEDIMENT REDUCING MEASURES SUCH THAT THE DISCHARGE IS NOT VISIBLY DIFFERENT FROM THE RECEIVING WATER. ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MAY BE REQUIRED AT THE DISCHARGE POINT TO PREVENT SCOUR EROSION. 10. PLACE EROSION CONTROL BLANKET ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS. EROSION CONTROL BLANKET MUST BE 2-SIDED WITH NATURAL NETTING, MEETING MnDOT SPECIFICATIONS. 11. FINAL GRADING SHOWN ON CIVIL SHEETS. 12. DOWNSLOPE ARMORING AT STORM SEWER OUTFALL SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN SEMI-DRY CONDITIONS. IF THE FEATURE IS NOT ABLE TO BE CONSTRUCTIED AND STABILIZED WITH ARMORING IN A SINGLE DAY, EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SHALL BE PLACED OVER ANY DISTURBED CHANNEL AREAS UNTIL WORK RESUMES. 13. FOR ALL DISTURBED SLOPE AREAS ADJACENT TO DOWNSLOPE ARMORING, PROVIDE EROSION CONTROL BLANKET AND SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG (AS SLOPE BREAKS) WITHIN 7 DAYS OF COMPLETION OF WORK IN THE AREA. SEE DETAILS 2, 3, AND 5 ON SHEET 4153. EXISTING 10' CONTOUR EXISTING 2' CONTOUR SYMBOL AND PATTERN LEGEND EXISTING PROPERTY LINE EXISTING WATERMAIN SYMBOL AND PATTERN LEGEND XW GAS EXISTING GAS LINE 996 994 EXISTING FENCE OE EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC SF SILT FENCE SL SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SEE 4 G-04 FLOW DIRECTION PROTECT EXISTING FENCE (TYP.) CULVERT OUTLET (SEE CIVIL PLANS) ARMORING AT OUTFALL (SEE CIVIL PLANS) SERVICE CENTER: BY DRAWINGREVISIONS NO.DESCRIPTION DATE DESIGNED BY: APPROVED BY: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: TYPE: PROJECT: DIVISION:CITY/COUNTY :IN SERVICE DATE: HISTORY DATE ® Suite 200 4300 MARKETPOINTE DRIVE Fax: (952) 832-2601 www.barr.com Ph: 1-800-632-2277 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55435 07/24/2024 07/24/2024OQR JPP BARR JPP NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY NORTH SIBLEY PHASE II FIRE SUPPRESSION EROSION CONTROL PLAN MENDOTA HEIGHTS / DAKOTA 4152 4501038238 A ISSUED FOR REVIEW 07/24/2024 07/24/2024 07/24/2024OQRISSUED FOR REVIEWA W WATERMAIN ---- SILT FENCE SEE 1 G-04 FARMDALE RD. 2 -1 - PLAN: EROSION CONTROL N0 60 120 SCALE IN FEET ---- SEE VIEWPORT 1 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET 18" FLARED END SECTION FOR POND OUTLET (SEE CIVIL PLANS) 18" HDPE PIPE (SEE CIVIL PLANS) CONCRETE DRAINAGE PAN (SEE CIVIL PLANS) CONCRETE POND OUTLET (SEE CIVIL PLANS) 8" CONCRETE FOREBAY (SEE CIVIL PLANS) CONCRETE DRAINAGE PAN (SEE CIVIL PLANS) 18" HDPE PIPE (SEE CIVIL PLANS) 30" WIDE CONCRETE TRENCH (SEE CIVIL PLANS) 18" HDPE PIPE (SEE CIVIL PLANS) 18" FLARED END SECTION (SEE CIVIL PLANS) SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG (ALONG SLOPE), SEE 5 G-04 SILT FENCE SILT FENCE SILT FENCE DOUBLE ROW OF SILT FENCE, SEE 1 G-04 PROVIDE TEMPORARY SEDIMENT CONTROLS AROUND ANY WORK IN FARMDALE ROAD. 1 - Page 147 of 310 DETAIL: SILT FENCE - MACHINE SLICED - 1 NOT TO SCALE DOWNSTREAM VIEW SECTION VIEW24" MIN.EMBED POST5 FT. MIN. LENGTH POST AT 4 FT. MAX. SPACING GEOTEXTILE FABRIC, 36" MIN. MACHINE SLICE 8" TO 12" DEPTH (PLUS 6" FLAP) GRADE PLASTIC ZIP TIES (MIN. 50 LBS TENSILE STRENGTH) ON TOP 8" MIN. 3 PER POST RUNOFF FLOW DIRECTION MACHINE SLICE 8"-12" DEPTH (PLUS 6" FLAP) MACHINE SLICED SILT FENCE PER MN/DOT STD. SPECIFICATION 3886, INSTALL PER MN/DOT STD. SPEC. 2573 4' MAX. (TYP.) NOTES: 1. SILT FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY GRADING WORK IN THE AREA TO BE PROTECTED AND SHALL BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. SILT FENCE AND ANY ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FINAL GRADING AND SITE STABILIZATION. 2. SILT FENCE INSTALLATION AND MATERIALS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF MN/DOT SPECIFICATIONS 2573 AND 3886. 3. NO HOLES OR GAPS SHALL BE PRESENT IN/UNDER SILT FENCE. PREPARE AREA AS NEEDED TO SMOOTH SURFACE OR REMOVE DEBRIS. 4. WHEN SEDIMENT BUILD UP REACHES 1/2 OF FENCE HEIGHT, THE SILT FENCE SHOULD BE REMOVED OR A SECOND SILT FENCE INSTALLED UPSTREAM OF THE EXISTING FENCE AT A SUITABLE DISTANCE. 5. WHEN SPLICES ARE NECESSARY MAKE SPLICE AT POST ACCORDING TO SPLICE DETAIL. PLACE THE END POST OF THE SECOND FENCE INSIDE THE END POST OF THE FIRST FENCE. ROTATE BOTH POSTS TOGETHER AT LEAST 180 DEGREES TO CREATE A TIGHT SEAL WITH THE FABRIC MATERIAL. CUT THE FABRIC NEAR THE BOTTOM OF THE POSTS TO ACCOMMODATE THE 6 INCH FLAP. THEN DRIVE BOTH POSTS AND BURY THE FLAP. COMPACT BACKFILL. NOT TO SCALE 12' MI N DETAIL: CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE - ROCK AS R E Q UI R E D - NOTES: 1. MAINTAIN ENTRANCE THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD AND REPAIR OR REPLACE AS REQUIRED TO PREVENT TRACKING OFFSITE. 2. REMOVE ENTRANCE IN CONJUNCTION WITH FINAL GRADING AND SITE STABILIZATION. 4 LE N G T H A S R E Q U I R E D 50 ' M I N I M U M EXPAND FOR TURNING RADIUS AS REQUIRED 6" MINIMUM 1"-2" WASHED ROCK GEOTEXTILE FABRIC (OPTIONAL) FLOW SEDIMENT LOG WOOD STAKE 16" MINIMUMSEDIMENT LOG WOOD STAKE 16" MINIMUMDETAIL: EROSION LOG - STAKING - 3 NOT TO SCALE SIDE VIEW FLAT FRONT VIEW FLOW SEDIMENT LOG SIDE VIEW ON SLOPE 16" MINIMUM12" MINIMUM TOP VIEW WOOD STAKE OVERLAP ENDS NOTES: 1. INSTALL SEDIMENT LOG ALONG CONTOURS (CONSTANT ELEVATION). 2. NO GAPS SHALL BE PRESENT UNDER SEDIMENT LOG. PREPARE AREA AS NEEDED TO SMOOTH SURFACE OR REMOVE DEBRIS. 3. REMOVE ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT WHEN REACHING 1/2 OF LOG HEIGHT. 4. MAINTAIN SEDIMENT LOG THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD AND REPAIR OR REPLACED AS REQUIRED.4 2 6 2 3A 3B SLOPE INSTALLATION NOTES: 1. REFER TO MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STAPLE PATTERNS FOR SLOPE INSTALLATIONS. 2. PREPARE SOIL BY LOOSENING TOP 1-2 INCHES AND APPLY SEED (AND FERTILIZER WHERE REQUIRED) PRIOR TO INSTALLING BLANKETS. GROUND SHOULD BE SMOOTH AND FREE OF DEBRIS. 3. BEGIN (A) AT THE TOP OF THE SLOPE AND ROLL THE BLANKETS DOWN OR (B) AT ONE END OF THE SLOPE AND ROLL THE BLANKETS HORIZONTALLY ACROSS THE SLOPE. 4. THE EDGES OF PARALLEL BLANKETS MUST BE STAPLED WITH APPROXIMATELY 6" OVERLAP, WITH THE UPHILL BLANKET ON TOP. 5. WHEN BLANKETS MUST BE SPLICED DOWN THE SLOPE, PLACE BLANKETS END OVER END (SHINGLE STYLE) WITH APPROXIMATELY 6" OVERLAP. STAPLE THROUGH OVERLAPPED AREA, APPROXIMATELY 12" APART. 6. BLANKET MATERIALS SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED OR AS APPROVED BY ENGINEER. 2 - DETAIL: EROSION CONTROL BLANKET - INSTALLATION NOT TO SCALE FLOW 10' T Y P. B E T W E E N L O G S FLOWFLOW NOTES: 1. SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG SHALL BE INSTALLED SO THAT MIDDLE OF LOG IS APPROXIMATELY 6" LOWER (DOWGRADIENT) TO CREATE A NATURAL FUNNELING AND KEEP SEDIMENT OUT OF DOWNSLOPE ARMORING. 2. CORE MATERIAL SHALL BE BIODEGRADABLE OR RECYCLABLE, SUCH AS COCONUT FIBERS. CORE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPRESSED AND STUFFED INTO A NETTING. 3. CONTAINMENT MESH (NETTING) SHALL BE 100% BIODEGRADABLE MATERIAL SUCH AS BURLAP, TWINE, ETC. 4. SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG SHALL BE PLACED AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS AND WITHIN 24 HOURS OF VEGETATATION REMOVAL. 5. SECURE SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG IN A METHOD ADEQUATE TO PREVENT DISPLACEMENT AS A RESULT OF NORMAL RAIN EVENTS, SUCH THAT FLOW IS NOT ALLOWED UNDER THE SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG. ALL MATERIALS USED TO SECURE SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG SHALL BE 100% BIODEGRADABLE. 6. SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG SHALL BE NO LESS THAN 9" IN DIAMETER. 7. FOR SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG STAKING SEE 4 8 " MAX STAKES (TYP.) SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG FLOW FLOWFLOW FLOW A - SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG DETAIL: SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG (ALONG SLOPE) - 5 NOT TO SCALE 4153 3 A - SECTION: SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG (ALONG SLOPE) NOT TO SCALE PLAN VIEW MATCH LOG LENGTH TO AREA OF DISTURBANCE SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG 6" (TYP.)CADD USER: Owen Q. Richey FILE: \\EDI-CAD\CAD\DESIGN\23191480.00\SIBLEY\23191480_G-04_EROSION CONTROL DETAILS.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1:2 PLOT DATE: 7/24/2024 4:02 PMSERVICE CENTER: BY DRAWINGREVISIONS NO.DESCRIPTION DATE DESIGNED BY: APPROVED BY: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: TYPE: PROJECT: DIVISION:CITY/COUNTY :IN SERVICE DATE: HISTORY DATE ® Suite 200 4300 MARKETPOINTE DRIVE Fax: (952) 832-2601 www.barr.com Ph: 1-800-632-2277 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55435 07/24/2024 07/24/2024OQR JPP BARR JPP NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY NORTH SIBLEY PHASE II FIRE SUPPRESSION EROSION CONTROL DETAILS MENDOTA HEIGHTS / DAKOTA 4153 4501038238 A ISSUED FOR REVIEW 07/24/2024 07/24/2024OQRISSUED FOR REVIEWA ---- 07/24/2024 Page 148 of 310 5.a Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 24, 2025 Agenda Item: Tabled - CASE No. 2025-03 Preliminary Plat Application of Spencer McMillan for a Preliminary Plat of three (3) existing parcels into six (6) single-family residential parcels located at 1707 Delaware Avenue and its adjacent vacant parcels. Department: Community Development Contact: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Introduction: The applicant is seeking a Preliminary Plat approval of the properties located at 1707 Delaware Avenue and two vacant parcels generally located at the north end of Ridgewood Drive. The residential property and the two vacant parcels are all owned by Spencer McMillan, the applicant in this Planning Case. The proposed plat is titled McMillan Estates and the subdivision would divide and redistribute the existing land within the three parcels into six new lots of record. In 2021, an application was submitted to the City for the subject site (by a different applicant and property owner) with a very similar proposal for subdivision of the existing three parcels into three new lots of record (Planning Case No. 2021-19). That prior application was withdrawn before the public hearing at the Planning Commission. Within the prior applicant’s written notice of withdrawal, they indicated that the applicant team was unable to come to an agreement with the Seller and property owner regarding a request for dedicated right-of-way along Delaware Avenue for Dakota County. The property sold following this withdrawn application, and the item in this planning case is a separate application by the current applicant and property owner. This current property owner and applicant submitted a previous application in 2024, known as Planning Case No. 2024-01, which subdivided the subject site into three new lots of record. The Planning Commission reviewed that application at public hearings in March-June of 2024, and the City Council reviewed the application at their regular meetings in July-August, 2024. The City Council was not supportive of the applicant’s prior request to defer public improvements. Ultimately, the applicant withdrew the prior application in order to re-submit with greater detail and required information to the City relating to the construction of the cul- de-sac extension of Ridgewood Drive. This item was presented under a fully noticed public hearing process on May 27, 2025, with notices published in the Pioneer Press newspaper and notice letters mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the subject parcels. Nine residents spoke at the public hearing. Written public comments have also been received for this item and are included as an attachment to this report. As of the submittal of this report, Page 149 of 310 there were seven instances of public comment. Some of these public comments were received as part of submitted comments on the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Joint Water Resources Application. Those comments have been included in the total instances of public comments. Any additional comments received prior to the meeting will be provided to the Planning Commission and made part of the public record. Following the verbal comments provided at the May 27th public hearing, the hearing was closed, and the Planning Commission discussed the application amongst themselves and asked questions of staff. The Commission inquired about the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) process, the Comprehensive Plan policies that apply to this application request, and the Urban Forest Preservation Ordinance. Following their discussion, the Commission voted 6-0 to table the application request. Background: The subject site consists of 16.63 acres of combined land across three separate parcels (see aerial image – right). The primary property addressed as 1707 Delaware Avenue is a long, rectangular, unplatted parcel consisting of 10.06 acres, measuring 329.18-ft. in width along Delaware Avenue to the east. This parcel contains an existing single-family home. The remaining two parcels are known as Outlots A and B of Grappendorf Addition, which was approved in 1984. The two Outlots are situated at the end of Ridgewood Drive and consist of 4.5 acres (Outlot A) and 2 acres (Outlot B). Both outlots are vacant. The proposed subdivision requested by the applicant will dedicate new right-of-way for an extension of Ridgewood Avenue, ending in a new cul-de-sac, and create six new lots of record from these parcels. Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 are intended to be platted for future development of new single-family homes. The proposed Lot 4 would remain as the applicant’s residence but would be subdivided into a smaller parcel. In order to establish the required 125-foot of frontage on a city approved street for new platted lots in an R-E District, the applicant is proposing to dedicate 38,158 s.f. (.88 acres) of right-of- way extending north from the existing Ridgewood Drive right-of-way. The dedicated right-of- way would allow for the construction of an extension northward of Ridgewood Drive into the proposed subdivision, ending in a new cul-de-sac bulb. The street extension would be required to be constructed prior to the construction of any of the new single-family homes, and the work would include the removal of the existing cul-de-sac on Ridgewood Drive, to be replaced with a straight street extension. More information on this design will be provided in the Analysis section of this report. Additionally, 19,751 s.f. (.45 acres) of right-of-way is proposed to be dedicated along Delaware Avenue, to accommodate Dakota County’s request Page 150 of 310 for 60-ft of half right-of-way. A large portion of the subject site is encumbered by wetlands. Prior to this application, the previous property owner hired an environmental specialist to study, identify, and map out these wetlands on the property; an official Wetland Delineation Report dated 06/22/2021 was submitted to the City for review and was later accepted by the City Council on September 9, 2021. This report is valid for five years. The wetland impacts proposed under that prior application are no longer applicable to the site. The applicant has concurrently submitted a new Joint Water Resources Application to the City to request approval of the wetland impacts associated with this development. This topic is discussed in further detail in the Wetland Impacts section of this report. The application under review as part of this planning case is solely for the subdivision to be known as McMillan Estates, as outlined in the applicant’s proposal and Preliminary Plat documents attached to this report. If the Preliminary Plat is approved by the City Council and there are not any significant changes to the Final Plat from their approval, then the Final Plat will be reviewed at a later date by the City Council. Analysis: Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided RR-Rural Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The 2040 Plan includes the following general description for said uses in this land use category: RR – Rural Residential (0.1 - 1.45 DU/Acre) This land use is generally located in the east central part of the city. This designation is intended for large lot single-family residences and includes properties with and without city sewer. The Rural Residential areas are planned with a density not to exceed 1.45 units per acre. The corresponding zoning district classification is R-1A (One Family Residential). The overall site consists of 16.63 acres, and of that approximately 5.6 acres are encumbered by wetlands, leaving a net acreage value of 11.03 acres. The overall density created by the potential five new residences plus the existing residential unit calculates to a density of 0.54 units/acre, which is within the range outlined within the RR – Rural Residential land use category. In the 2040 Plan, the city also identified (based upon previous 2030 Plan and others) a number of specific properties in the city that were or are vacant, under-developed, under-utilized or identified as either potential infill or redevelopment areas. These sites or areas are referred to as “Focus Areas”. Infill means that the property has the opportunity to develop or redevelop beyond its current level. One of these focus areas is the Somerset Area, or #21 on Map 2-5: Focus Areas with Future Land Use Overlay Map (see map – Pg. 4). Page 151 of 310 21.Somerset Area: This area has been referred to as the “Superblock” due to its collection of large residential lots. It consists of over 20 separate parcels on approximately 90 acres located directly south of Somerset Country Club and Golf Course. The area is developed with single-family homes on large lots with private septic systems. The neighborhood is bounded on the east by Delaware Avenue, the north by Wentworth Avenue, and the south and west by smaller single-family lots. The neighborhood contains significant wetlands and woodlands. The area is guided RR - Rural Residential use. Due to the existing large lot configuration, the area has the potential to be further subdivided, provided public sewer, water and road systems would be extended to the area. Plat Standards Under Title 11, Subdivision Regulations, the intent and purpose of this section is to “safeguard the best interests of the city, and to assist the subdivider in harmonizing [their] interests with those of the city at large, this title is adopted in order that adherence to same will bring results beneficial to both parties. It is the purpose of this title to make certain regulations and requirements for the platting of land within the city pursuant to the authority contained in Minnesota statutes, which regulations the city council deems necessary for the health, safety and general welfare of this community.” City Subdivision Code Section 11-3-2 allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district, and meets the following standards: A. Lot Area, Width and Depth: The minimum lot area, width and depth shall not be less than that established by the zoning ordinance in effect at the time of adoption of the final plat. B. Corner Lots: Corner lots for residential use shall have additional width to permit appropriate building setback from both streets as required in the zoning ordinance. C. Side Lot Lines: Side lines of lots shall be approximately at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. D. Lot Frontage: Every lot must have the minimum frontage as required in the zoning ordinance on a city approved street other than an alley. E. Building Setback: Setback or building lines shall be shown on all lots intended for residential use and shall not be less than the setback required by the Mendota Heights zoning ordinance. On those lots which are intended for business use, the setback shall be at least that required by the zoning ordinance. For the R-E District, all new lots must have a minimum of 30,000-sf. of lot area. All three lots Page 152 of 310 significantly exceed the size minimum requirement, as illustrated in the table below. Proposed Lot 1 158,544 SF 3.64 Acres Proposed Lot 2 61,652 SF 1.42 Acres Proposed Lot 3 53,242 SF 1.22 Acres Proposed Lot 4 153,532 SF 3.52 Acres Proposed Lot 5 77,002 SF 1.77 Acres Proposed Lot 6 162,659 SF 3.73 Acres The proposed Preliminary Plat and preliminary plans provided by the applicant illustrate outlines of potential building areas on Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. In reviewing these outlined layouts, setbacks to front, side, and rear lot lines can be met due to the large acreage on all parcels. For the R-E District, all new lots require a minimum of 125-ft of lot width along a city approved street. Lot 4 (existing residence) will maintain its 329+ feet of frontage along Delaware Avenue. The remaining lots are proposed to have frontage and a lot width along the Ridgewood Drive extension of approximately 570-ft, ending in a new constructed cul-de-sac bulb and making the total cul-de-sac length approximately 1,220-ft in length. This dimension of the extension is measured from the existing north curb of the Ridgewood Drive cul-de-sac, to the proposed north curb of the new cul-de-sac. The proposed new single-family lots show compliance with the minimum 125-ft of frontage and lot width on this street and cul-de-sac extension. Lot width is defined as the maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot measured within the first 30' of the lot depth. Based on this definition, the proposed Lots 2 and 3 are able to meet the minimum 125-ft lot width standard based on the length of the arc at a 30-ft setback from the proposed cul-de-sac bulb, with the lot width of the proposed Lot 2 measured at 138-ft, and the width of the proposed Lot 3 measured at 126-ft. Dakota County Review Because this property fronts on a Dakota County road system (CSAH 63 – Delaware Avenue), this plat requires county review and approval. As mentioned in the “Introduction” section of this report, a previous plat of the subject site was reviewed in 2021, and right-of-way dedication along Delaware Avenue was required by Dakota County at that time. The former application did not move forward and cited the right-of-way dedication as the reason for their withdrawal. The previous iteration of this application was reviewed by the Dakota County Plat Commission in February 2024, and the County is currently reviewing this plat application internally related to the requested and provided right-of-way of 60-ft of half right-of-way, in accordance with their review procedures. The February 2024 memo from the Dakota County Surveyor’s Office is included as an attachment to this report. Dakota County has confirmed that no additional review is required. Street, Utility and Grading Plan The applicant has provided a full construction plan set for the grading of the site, as well as street and storm sewer plans, drainage details, and utility plans, attached to this report as Plan Sheets C6-C15. According to Title 11-3-8-A of the City Code: Slope Limitations: Subdivision design shall be consistent with limitations presented by steep slopes. Subdivisions shall be designed so that no construction or grading will be conducted on slopes steeper than twenty five percent (25%) in grade. The staff review of the provided grading and contour elevation markings illustrated on the preliminary plans did not identify any steep slopes or bluffs on the property, or slopes over 25% in the areas where the potential dwellings, or driveways are being proposed. The house locations as Page 153 of 310 shown on the provided plans are preliminary, and final house locations, grading, and impacts will depend on a final design for the respective houses. These future developments will be evaluated at the time that those applications come forward and will be subject to the City’s Zoning Ordinance requirements and any other applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. A condition has been included in the staff recommendation section of this report which reflects these requirements. There is an existing 6-inch watermain underneath Ridgewood Drive that was stubbed at the north end of the cul-de-sec roadway. The plans illustrate that the applicant will extend this watermain line into the proposed Ridgewood Drive right-of-way extension, terminating just north of the new proposed cul-de-sac bulb. The santitary sewer line will also be extended from the existing manhole north of the existing Ridgewood Drive cul-de-sac, to a new manhole within the proposed cul-de-sac. The proposed santitary sewer line is 8” within the extended street and will flow by gravity south to connect with the existing manhole and 9” service line installed in the existing Ridgewood Drive cul-de-sac. A new fire hydrant will also be installed in the right-of-way just north of the cul-de-sac extension. The plans show the ability for future service connections to be made into the main line for any future construction of homes on the five new vacant lots. All new lots will have perimeter drainage and utility easements provided, noted at 5’ in width at side and rear lot lines, and 10’ in width at front lot lines. The applicant has also provided a wider easement along the southern property line of Lot 6, measuring at 15-ft in width, based on the prior application’s recommendations from staff, the Planning Commission, and during the City Council’s review, to accommodate appropriate easement width for neighboring properties to petition for sanitary sewer extension to the east, if they so choose. The applicant has also provided a 60-ft utility easement directly north of the new cul-de-sac which could accommodate future utility extension to the north if petitioned by a northern neighboring property owner, or if additional future development north of this development site occurs. This easement area measures approximately 104-ft in length from the northern point of the cul-de-sac right-of-way to the northern edge of this subdivision. Lastly, additional easement width is provided at the shared property line between the proposed Lots 3 and 5, measuring 10-ft on each side, which could accommodate future utility services to 1707 Delaware Ave. All wetlands will be covered by similar drainage and utility easements, with varying widths. The City’s new Zoning Ordinance that went into effect January 1, 2025 references the new Title 15- Environmental Standards and the State of Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) rules, but also requires an average buffer depth of 25-ft, with a minimum dimension of 10-ft and a maximum dimension of 50-ft. The applicant has provided a buffer area which meets these requirements, with the shortest dimension of the buffer area located on the proposed Lot 6, where the applicant is proposing 467 SF of wetland impact. The Ordinance does require that any drive aisles must be setback a minimum of 5-ft from any required buffer area, unless otherwise permitted by the Title 15-Environmental Standards. Title 15, Chapter 4: Wetland Conservation permits a Buffer Setback area to be disturbed upon approval of the City. This Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) application is discussed later in this report. The wetland and wetland buffers’ easements, as well as the perimeter drainage and utility easements will be provided and officially dedicated under the final plat approval and recording, if approved. The building pad sites and associated driveway access points shown on the plans are potential, and final house locations, individual grading plans and impacts, and construction-level architectural plans for the homes, will be provided at the time of building permit for home construction following approval of this subdivision and construction of the public roadway and utility improvements. The proposed driveway of Lot 6 is shown to encroach on the 15-ft drainage and utility easement that the City requested on the south property line during the prior Page 154 of 310 application’s review period. This encroachment will be outlined in the Developer’s Agreement between the Applicant/Developer and the City. The proposed street construction will increase impervious surface by .43 acres overall. An additional acre of impervious surface is estimated for the future home construction improvements. Each of these individual lots will be evaluated for impervious surface requirements at the time of their building permit applications for the new homes. The required maximum impervious surface for the R-E Zoning District is 35%. The applicant’s plans propose that stormwater treatment for individual lot improvements will be provided at the time of construction. The City is not supportive of this request, and staff have provided a condition of approval that the stormwater management not be deferred to the individual single-family lots, and that the City will require stormwater management to be managed for the entire development and dedicated in a utility easement as part of the Final Plat. The single-family lots may be adequate for infiltration at the 1.1 inch BMP requirement, but water quality management would not be feasible for a single homeowner long-term. The stormwater improvements which are currently proposed include an infiltration basin on the proposed Lot 6, just east of the Ridgewood Drive extension. The basin includes a riprap stilling infiltration basin with two inlets, one to the west and one to the south. The applicant plans to seed the filtration basin with MnDot 33-261 seed mixture and to stabilize with appropriate erosion control. The elevations of the basin indicate 12” of planting media with volume for filtration above. The City will require a third-party inspection for compliance with stormwater requirements during construction, which would be outlined in the Developer’s Agreement with the City. Wetland Impacts The proposed plat identifies a number of large and smaller wetlands throughout the site, which are proposed to be dedicated as drainage and utility easements on the plat. The applicant’s plans also indicate a wetland buffer area (illustrated on the plans as hatching around wetlands) which is designed to meet the minimum 25-ft buffer averaging requirement of City Code. The total amount of buffer area which is required for the delineated wetlands on site is 75,504 SF, and the total amount of buffer area which is provided is noted at 75,609 SF. Signs denoting buffer areas will be addressed in the Developer's Agreement with the City. The Subdivision Title notes that the City shall review the subdivision proposal and design with respect to the limitations presented by wet soils, and that the approval of the subdivision will require an engineering analysis of the delineated areas, and that a permit is required to alter ditches, streams, and associated drainage path. It should be noted that the City Council approved a Joint Water Resources Application for Exemption, submitted by this property’s previous Developer/Applicant, on November 3, 2021, whereby approval was granted to remove up to 1,000 SF of wetlands for the driveway and the structure improvements which were proposed at that time. The extent of the previous structure improvements from the previous property owner’s application are not outlined in this planning case. Instead, the applicant is proposing to impact up to 2,170 SF of wetlands for the future driveways and planned Ridgewood Drive extension. The applicant has a new active Joint Water Resources application for exemption under the deminimus rules. Impacts include 1,315 SF of impacts directly north of the existing cul-de-sac, to accommodate the street extension and a culvert which would traverse east-west underneath the street extension connecting the two major wetland areas. Additional wetland impacts of 467 SF are shown on the proposed Lot 6, adjacent to the property’s potential driveway. This second impact area, if approved, would add fill to the wetland impact area, which would be altered and presented as the provided wetland buffer area. South of these impacts and designated buffer, the proposed driveway would then be setback approximately 7-ft from the Wetland and Wetland Buffer Page 155 of 310 alteration, meeting the zoning setback requirements for impervious surface installments such as drive aisles. The remaining wetland impacts are illustrated for driveway impacts on the proposed Lot 5, to accommodate any grading that may be required based on the preliminary building and driveway locations. If any additional wetland impacts are proposed by future property owners, they would be subject to their own future wetland impacts applications under state law. The applicant’s Joint Water Resources application under the WCA rules for proposed wetland impacts was submitted to the City in April, and the Notice of Application was sent on April 21, 2025 to the state, regional, and federal regulatory bodies that sit on the required Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) for WCA rules applications. The comment period for the application ended on May 13, 2025. The City is the Local Government Unit (LGU) for enforcing the WCA rules, and has met with the TEP to evaluate the application and establish recommendations and findings. The members of the TEP are recommending approval of the application. The 60-day decision deadline was June 20th for this WCA application, however based on revised application materials the City extended the review period to August 19, 2025. The administration and enforcement of any WCA Permit, including the Notice of Decision, is designated as the responsibility of the Natural Resources Coordinator and is not subject to City Council review. On the preliminary plans, the five new home sites will be placed in areas in dry, non-wetland areas of each parcel, according to the wetland mapping provided by Jacobson Environmental on the 2021 Wetland Delineation. The applicant does not have a finalized construction and development plan for homes on any of the proposed new single-family development properties, and those plans are not under the review of the City at this time. If the current Joint Water Resources Application is approved, and no work is conducted prior to the expiration of the Wetland Delineation and Notice of Decision, an updated Joint Water Resources Application for Exemption would need to be filed in accordance with state statute. Tree Inventory The Developer/Applicant has included a Tree Inventory of the site, which is included as an attachment to this report on Sheets C3-C5. The inventory outlines the species and diameter of the trees within the anticipated development area only, out of approximately 1,900 or more trees which exist on the property today. The anticipated removal of trees is illustrated on the inventory plans which would be removed as part of any construction activities for the street extension and future building and driveway improvements. Final tree impacts on the individual residential lots are to be determined with the full construction and building permit plan sets at the time an application and final site plan design comes forward for review. The City enacted new requirements in 2025 for a Forest Alteration Permit and Forest Management Plan. The applicant has provided the application materials for a Forest Alteration Permit as part of this subdivision request. The provided Sheet L-101 indicates the tree mitigation plans for the development site. Based on the tables provided by the applicant, 82 trees meeting the definition of a significant or heritage tree are proposed to be removed, amounting to 741 DSH (Diameter at Standard Height). One of the proposed removals is identified as a ‘Heritage Tree’, meaning it is a native tree, or cultivar of a native tree, which exceeds 24” in diameter. This specific tree to be removed is a 35” Cottonwood tree. Other trees which were in poor condition, were previously removed as part of work prior to the effect of the Urban Forest Preservation Ordinance, and identified Ash trees were removed from forest mitigation plan calculations. 3,774.5 DSH of the remaining surveyed trees are noted to be saved or preserved on the property, including 11 Heritage Trees. Based on the proposed removals, 555.8 total DSH is required to be replaced. The applicant will also be required to submit a Tree Replacement escrow to the City related to the Forest Management Plan. The applicant is currently proposing to not prepare a replacement landscape plan and has noted their intent to complete an off-site tree replacement agreement with the City. Page 156 of 310 The applicant cites the difficulty and feasibility of replacing the trees on-site, as the site is fully forested and the cleared areas will be replaced with street improvements. The City is not supportive of the request to not mitigate the removals with any replacement trees. The Urban Forest Preservation ordinance does allow for the City to approve alternative tree replacement measures, including the planning of trees at an alternate site if compliance with the tree replacement requirement is not feasible. City Staff is prepared to work with the applicant to create an alternative tree replacement measure, however the applicant must first attempt to mitigate a portion of the tree replacement on site consecutively with the development. A condition has been added that a Tree Replacement Plan be provided which would illustrate an attempt to comply with tree replacement measures prior to enacting an alternative mitigation plan with the City. In addition to the requirements of the Urban Forest Preservation Ordinance, all single-family residential uses developed in the City are required to submit a landscaping plan as part of the application for Building Permit indicating the location of existing trees and shrubs, and proposed planting details for new landscape features. A minimum of 25% of the land of each single-family home will be required to be landscaped with grass, ground cover, shrubbery, and trees, and new construction homes are required to plant a minimum of one overstory or deciduous tree per 50- feet of lineal frontage of public street in the front yard of the lot. These required trees may count toward a replacement plan. The landscape plans for each new home will be evaluated at the time of Building Permit for new home construction. Street Design City Code Title 11 – General Subdivision Provision provides for all the required standards related to new subdivisions, including streets, utilities, easements, etc. When Breckenridge Estates, the plat to the south of the subject site, was approved in 1969, it contained a variance request to allow lots less than 40,000-sq. ft. in area (required for R-1A district at that time), but did not include any variance or allowance for an over-length cul-de-sac. The plat was presented with the Ridgewood Drive roadway that exists today, and also included a small “nub” extension of 60-ft in width at the top of the road right- of-way circle (see plat image –left). This nub was likely created or called for based on the assumption that the properties to the north could be or would be similarly platted, and any future roadway extension would have likely come off the end of Ridgewood Drive and run northward into these properties. The Subdivision ordinance does require in Section 11-3-3: Streets and Alleys, that a tentative plan of a proposed future street system should be provided when reviewing a new Plat. Specifically, the general requirements provide guidelines for a proposed future street system, and alignment and availability of utilities. The approved Grappendorf Addition (see plat image – below) did not show or provide any plans for extending Ridgewood Drive into the plat or outlots, nor provided any plans for any other roadway inside this plat as well. However, it was noted within the City Council minutes of the review of that Plat application that access and utility extensions were only available to Outlot A from Ridgewood Drive. Page 157 of 310 Per current City Subdivision Code Section 11-3-3 Streets and Alleys: 1.3. When a tract is subdivided into larger than normal building lots or parcels, such lots or parcels shall be so arranged as to permit the logical location and openings of future streets and appropriate resubdivision, with provision for adequate utility connections for such resubdivision. The expectation within the City’s review of a subdivision on larger than ‘normal’ lots or parcels, is that the applicant/developer is responsible for arranging lots and parcels in such a way that would permit future and smaller subdivision of lots, as well as leaving space “open” for a future potential street, and potential future utility connections. This applies to making those connections only on the subject site, and does not specifically address neighboring land owners. The City must evaluate the ability for the new parcels to be subdivided again in the future, and evaluate if the infrastructure planned will be able to accommodate that potential future split. The applicant has provided a subdivision which places potential new single-family homes on the portions of this property that are not encumbered by wetlands, and each lot within the proposed subdivision is able to meet or exceed the required lot size and lot width for the R-E Zoning District. Based on the availability of dry buildable area, staff believes that the proposed lots are likely not able to be subdivided further based on the current requirements of City Code and that the applicant’s subdivision request and the layout of building pad sites, street extension, and utility connection complies with this standard. Under this plat request, the Applicant is seeking to provide an extension of this right-of-way at least 60-ft in width, and approximately 570-ft in length, ending in a new dedicated cul-de-sac bulb. The Developer/Applicant’s previous application in 2024 included a request to defer construction of any public improvements which was not supported by the City Council. The prior application was ultimately withdrawn as the applicant intended to come back with an application which complied with the public improvement standards of the Subdivision Ordinance. The current proposal under this Planning Case shows an intent to develop and construct the full street extension to the new cul-de-sac bulb, to re-construct the street segment at the existing cul-de-sac bulb, and to install public utility improvements in the dedicated right-of-way beneath the new street extension. Ridgewood Drive measures from the point coming off Marie Avenue to the end of the cul-de-sac as 649.58-feet in total length. From earlier [known] records of the City Code, the Subdivision Page 158 of 310 Code of 1956 indicated “dead-end streets shall not be longer than 400-feet…” while the Code of 1975 included: “…cul-de-sacs shall normally not be longer than 500-feet….” as seen today in the current Subdivision Code (noted below). Per current City Subdivision Code Section 11-3-3 Streets and Alleys: D. Dead End and Cul-De-Sac Streets: Dead end streets are prohibited, but cul-de-sacs will be permitted only where topography or other conditions justify their use. Cul-de-sacs shall normally not be longer than five hundred feet (500'), including a terminal turnaround which shall be provided at the closed end, with an outside curb radius of at least forty nine feet (49') and a right of way radius of not less than 60-ft. Some of the commissioners may recall giving consideration to a variance related to a cul-de-sac roadway, which was presented under the Orchard Heights plat in 2017. Under that case, the developers requested a variance to exceed the “normally not longer than 500-ft” standard to allow a new cul-de-sac of 950-feet in length. As part of the report on that case, it was noted that the city allowed a number of other subdivision developments throughout the city with over-length dead end and cul-de-sac streets (approximately 19 at that time); and it was unclear from research if the 500-foot standard was in place at the time of these various plat approvals or developments; or if variances were approved for these separate developments. Nevertheless, the city required the developer to submit and request a variance to exceed this 500-ft. standard, and although the planning commission and city council rejected this variance request, the development (and new roadway) was ultimately allowed by a Dakota County District Court ruling. In that ruling, it is noted that there was dispute on whether or not a Variance was required for the length of the cul-de-sac, as the City’s subdivision ordinance only states that cul-de-sacs “shall normally not” be longer than 500 feet. Existing Minnesota case law states that “Regulatory standards must be sufficiently precise to ensure the application of objective standards to similarly situated property, to adequately inform landowners of the requirements that they must satisfy to gain subdivision approval, and to allow a reviewing court to evaluate noncompliance.” When interpreting language in a zoning ordinance, the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms has generally been more favorable in court procedures. Because of the imprecise language within the subdivision ordinance regarding cul-de-sac length that “shall not normally” be longer than 500-ft, and because the existing length of Ridgewood Drive has already been approved through a prior subdivision, staff did not request the applicant to revise their application and incorporate a Variance request to the cul-de-sac length standard. The Final Plat will be subject to a Development Agreement between the Owner/Developer and the City, which would outline the timing and details of the installation of required improvements associated with the development. The subdivision ordinance requires that no application for building permits be filed for the private construction associated with this plat until all improvements required have been made or arranged for within the Development Agreement. A condition has been included in the recommendation section of this report that a Development Agreement for the public improvements and utilities be executed to the satisfaction of the City Council before the Final Plat is released for recording with Dakota County, and before the issuance of any permits. This includes the improvements to the street and cul-de-sac, as well as the required utility connections and extensions as outlined in the Utility and Grading Plan section of this report. While the City currently performs street and utility distribution improvements, they do reserve the right to request that developers make all necessary improvements at any time. Conclusion The applicant has provided the dedicated right-of-way to the City, and planned a constructed street and utility extension within this Plat to meet the minimum lot width, frontage, and access Page 159 of 310 requirements of the City Code. The proposed lots each meet or exceed the minimum of 125’ of lot width on a City-approved street and they exceed the minimum lot size requirements of 30,000 SF. The applicant’s revised plans under this current Planning Case application have illustrated an intent to comply with the City’s Subdivision Code by providing adequate extension of utilities into the dedicated right-of-way, and by arranging the lots and street alignment in such a manner that future resubdivision of the overlarge lots is not applicable at this time. The applicant has submitted the required Wetland Conservation Act permits to the City concurrently with this Planning Case application, which is not a factor in the review of this Preliminary Plat request. The Planning Commission should review the technical aspects of the proposed Plat, as it relates to the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and Comprehensive Plan. Alternatives: Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of McMillan Estates, based on certain findings-of-fact, along with specific conditions of approval as included herein; or 2. Recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat of McMillan Estates, based on revised findings-of-fact and conditions as determined by the Planning Commission and/or City Council; or 3. Table the plat application and request additional information from the applicant or staff. Staff will extend the application review period. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the application of Spencer McMillan for the Preliminary Plat of a six-lot residential subdivision to be known as McMillan Estates, based on the Findings of Fact as included herein, along with the following conditions: 1. The preliminary plans presented under this plat request do not represent or provide approval of building pad sites, setbacks, accessory structures, or driveway alignments. Final layouts must meet R-E Zone standards and shall be approved under separate building permits for each lot. 2. A building permit, including all new grading and drainage work, must be approved by the City prior to any new construction work. 3. The Developer/Applicant shall submit final grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with associated easements, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department and Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 4. All new construction and grading activities throughout this development site and on each new buildable lot shall be in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 5. Stormwater Management shall be managed for the entire development and dedicated in a utility easement as part of the Final Plat. Stormwater management for water quality management shall not be deferred to the individual single-family home lots. 6. Public utility easement locations, including easements for stormwater management facilities and Best Management Practices (BMP) area(S) must be established, approved by the City, and included in the Final Plat prior to release of the Final Plat for recording with Dakota County. 7. All wetland impacts shall be in compliance with the applicable federal, state, and local Page 160 of 310 regulations and codes, including Title 12-Zoning, Section 12-4A-4: Wetland Requirements and Title 15-Environmental Standards, Chapter 4: Wetland Conservation. 8.The Forest Management Plan shall be updated to include the replacement of tree removal impacts, in accordance with Title 15-Environmental Standards, Chapter 3: Urban Forest reservation. An attempt must be made to mitigate tree removal impacts on site prior to providing an alternative tree replacement measure to the City. 9.In lieu of land dedication, the Developer/Applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of $4,000 per unit (6 lots = 6 x $4,000/unit, or $24,000) is to be collected after City Council approval and before the Final Plat is released for recording with Dakota County, and before the issuance of any permits. 10.Any new or existing sanitary or water service lines must be reviewed by the Public Works Director and/or St. Paul Regional Water Services prior to issuance of any building permit. 11.The Applicant/Developer must provide a Best Management Practices (Stormwater Management) Agreement to the City as part of the building permit submittal and review process for each new home and new impervious surface. 12.A Development Agreement for the public improvements and utilities shall be executed to the satisfaction of the City Council before the Final Plat is released for recording with Dakota County, and before the issuance of any permits. 13.The Applicant/Developer shall install all public improvements, including the extension of the public street identified on the Plat as Ridgewood Drive and the necessary utility installations, in compliance with all City requirements, prior to the application of any building permit for private construction or improvements within the Plat. 14.The existing cul-de-sac "bulb" of the existing Ridgewood Drive must be removed and reconstructed to City street standards prior to applying for any building permit for private construction or improvements within the Plat. Attachments: 1.Findings of Fact for Approval 2.1707 Delaware - McMillan Estates - Aerial Site Map 3.Letter of Intent 4.McMillan Estates Preliminary Plat 5.McMillan Estates Construction Plans 6.McMillan Estates Final Plat 7.Public Comments (Received as of the submittal of this report) 8.Joint Water Resources Application 5-22-25 9.BWSR Response - McMillan Estates de minimis application, 5-30-25 10.Army Corps of Engineer Letter, 6-18-25 11.TEP Findings, 5-28-2025 Page 161 of 310 Planning Case 2025-03 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 15 of 15 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Preliminary Plat of McMillan Estates 1707 Delaware Avenue The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1.The proposed Preliminary Plat meets the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Ordinance. 2.The proposed Preliminary Plat request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with and supported by a number of goals and policy statements in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 3.The proposed lots will meet the minimum standards required under the R-E Residential Estate Zoning District. Page 162 of 310 5a1. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!. G!.666666 666666666666 6666666666666MARIE AVE DELAWARE AVERIDG EWOOD DR MARIE AVE W Nearmap US Inc, Dakota County, MN Location Aerial Map1707 Delaware Ave/McMillan Estates Date: 3/21/2024 City ofMendotaHeights0340 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. Page 163 of 310 5a2. 1 March 11th, 2025 Dear City of Mendota Heights, I am writing to inform you of our intent with this preliminary and final plat submission. My wife and I would like to re-plat the 3 parcels shown below. Current Parcels: Parcel Numbers Lot 1: 27-02400-78-010 Lot 2: 27-31100-00-020 Lot 3: 27-31100-00-010 Background: The Ridgewood Drive cul-de-sac butts up to current Lots 2 and 3 (Outlots B and A respectively). The cul- de-sac was dedicated in a plat in 1969 and included a 60 ft wide “nub” extension with frontage to both Outlots. Outlots A and B were approved by the City as part of the Grappendorf First Addition in 1985. Having approved the two Outlots, the city should approve a new subdivision which provides access and utilities for these Outlots. The code disallows a dead-end road extension and the existing 60 ft “nub” does not satisfy the 125 ft lot frontage requirement so the only means of access for these two Outlets is by an extension of Ridgewood Drive in the form of a new cul-de-sac dedication. Page 164 of 310 5a3. 2 Proposed Plat: We would like to replat the 3 parcels into 6 new lots. The new configuration is shown below. Dakota County Right of Way Dedication With this replatting, we are subject to Dakota County’s Contiguous Plat Ordinance. This ordinance requires us to dedicate a 60 ft of half right of way along Delaware Avenue. This proposal makes this dedication. Extended Cul-de-sac The current length of the Ridgewood cul-de-sac is roughly 650 ft. We are proposing to extend the cul- de-sac another roughly 570 ft, so the total length becomes roughly 1,220 ft. Section 11-3-3 of the zoning code states “Cul-de-sacs shall normally not be longer than five hundred feet (500’)”. However, the current cul-de-sac already exceeds 500 ft today, and was approved without any requirement for a variance. In addition, the specific language in the code is “shall normally not”. This language is not explicit in prohibiting cul-de-sacs over 500 ft. In litigation resulting from a request for a 950 ft cul-de-sac in the Orchard Heights plat in 2017, the court determined that this language does not mandate a 500 ft limit for cul-de-sacs. There are already 19 cul-de-sacs in Mendota Heights that exceed 500 feet. For these reasons, we are not requesting a variance for the longer cul-de-sac. Expected Outcome and Benefits 1. This proposal increases the number of available lots in Mendota Heights. Mendota Heights is a desirable place to live and this proposal increases the number of buildable lots from 2 to 6. Page 165 of 310 3 2. This proposal extends existing utility stubs on the existing cul-de-sac northward to the end of the new cul-de-sac. Future utility extensions are provided to serve lots to the north. Also, a 15 ft easement is provided for potential future utility services to homes along Delaware Ave to the east. 3. This proposal dedicates right of way along Delaware to Dakota County. 4. The proposal meets all Mendota Heights zoning requirements and does not require variances. It is consistent with the desired zoning of Mendota Heights. Thank you for your consideration, Spencer McMillan Page 166 of 310 MCMILLAN ESTATES 10105 5 Preliminary Plat1 1 202142Spencer McMillan1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114ZONING INFORMATION OWNER/DEVELOPER ENGINEER/SURVEYOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY PLAT PLAT AREAS Land Surveying & Engineering 2580 Christian Dr. Chaska, MN 55318 612-418-6828 MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MNWETLANDS PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WETLAND DELINEATOR UTILITIES STORMWATER SEE THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR GRADING, DRAINAGE, STREET, SANITARY SEWER, AND WATERMAIN FOR FOR DETAILED IMPROVEMENTS LEGEND TREE PRESERVATION Page 167 of 310 5a4. OWNER/DEVELOPERENGINEER/SURVEYORLEGENDMCMILLAN ESTATESMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNVICINITY MAPCONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR GRADING, STREET,STORM SEWER, SANITARY SEWER, AND WATERMAINSHEET INDEXTitle & LayoutC12580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanPage 168 of 3105a5. Page 169 of 310 Page 170 of 310 Page 171 of 310 2580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142Tree InventoryMCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, Dakota County, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanTag DBH Species Notes Status Tag DBH Species Notes Status Tag DBH Species Notes Status Tag DBH Species Notes Status Tag DBH Species Notes Status Tag DBH Species Notes Status1 6 Quaking Aspen Remove 81 6 Black Cherry Remove 336 17 Black Cherry Mostly Dead Save 416 13.5 BuckthornSave 1750 10 Black CherryRemove 1837 12 Red OakSave2 6 Quaking AspenRemove 82 7 Black CherryRemove 337 13 Box ElderSave 417 9 BuckthornSave 1751 8 Quaking AspenRemove 1838 7 Black CherrySave3 7 Black CherryRemove 83 8 Box Elder poor Remove 338 11 Buckthorn 2 stem Save 418 11 White AshSave 1752 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1839 6 Red OakSave4 6 Quaking AspenRemove 84 8 Black Cherry poor Remove 339 10 BuckthornSave 419 23.5 White AshSave 1753 8 Quaking AspenSave 1840 7 Black CherrySave5 6 Green AshRemove 85 10 Black CherryRemove 340 10.5 Buckthorn 2 stem Save 420 13 White AshSave 1754 7 Quaking AspenRemove 1841 7 Red OakSave6 6 Quaking AspenRemove 86 7 Box ElderRemove 341 17 CottonwoodSave 421 18 Green AshSave 1755 6 Green AshRemove 1842 6 Red OakSave7 7 Quaking AspenRemove 87 7 Black CherryRemove 342 16 White AshSave 422 12 Green AshSave 1756 7 Green AshRemove 1843 6 Red Oak poor Save8 8 Quaking AspenRemove 88 6 Bur OakRemove 343 6.5 White AshSave 423 8.5 Green AshSave 1757 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1844 7 Red Oak poor Save9 6 Quaking AspenRemove 89 8 Black CherryRemove 344 12 White AshSave 424 13 White AshSave 1758 9 Quaking AspenSave 1845 7 Red OakSave10 7 Quaking AspenRemove 90 15 Red OakSave 345 16.5 Hophornbeam 2 stem/dead Save 425 7 BuckthornSave 1759 9 Quaking AspenRemove 1846 10 BasswoodSave11 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 91 12 Red OakSave 346 13 American ElmSave 426 6Swamp White OaSave 1760 6 Quaking AspenSave 1847 10 Red OakSave12 8 Black Cherry poor Remove 92 8 Black CherrySave 347 8 White AshSave 427 16 White AshSave 1761 7 Quaking AspenRemove 1848 11 Red OakSave13 7 Green Ash poor Remove 93 6 American ElmSave 348 6 White AshSave 428 9 White AshSave 1762 7 Quaking AspenRemove 1849 6 Quaking AspenSave14 7 Black CherryRemove 94 9 Black CherrySave 349 10 Box ElderSave 429 17 White AshSave 1763 9 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1850 8 Quaking AspenSave15 12 Apple Save 95 9 Black CherrySave 350 9 Box ElderSave 430 6 BuckthornSave 1764 8 Green AshRemove 1851 7 Quaking AspenSave16 12 Black CherrySave 96 9 Quaking AspenSave 351 21 Buckthorn 5 stem Save 431 16 White AshSave 1765 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1852 8 Quaking AspenSave17 6 Green AshRemove 97 8 Quaking AspenSave 352 9.5 Box ElderSave 432 13.5 Box Elder 2 stem Save 1766 10 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1853 6 Quaking AspenSave18 10 Black CherryRemove 98 9 Quaking AspenSave 353 12 Box ElderSave 433 23 Green AshSave 1767 9 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1854 6 Quaking AspenSave19 6 Apple Remove 99 7 Quaking AspenSave 354 10 Box ElderSave 434 31.5 White Ash 2 stem Save 1768 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1855 6 Quaking Aspen poorSave20 6 Apple Remove 100 7 Black CherrySave 355 10 White AshSave 435 14 CottonwoodSave 1769 8 Quaking AspenRemove 1856 7 Quaking AspenSave21 8 Box Elder poor Save 101 6 Apple Save 356 8 Green AshSave 436 18.5 Box ElderSave 1770 11 Quaking AspenSave 1857 7 Red OakSave22 7 Apple Save 102 12 Black CherrySave 357 14 Black OakSave 437 13 Box ElderSave 1771 10 Quaking AspenSave 1858 7 Red OakSave23 9 Box ElderSave 103 8 Amur MapleSave 358 20.5 White AshSave 438 10 White AshSave 1772 8 Quaking AspenSave 1859 8 Red Oak poor Save24 7 Black CherrySave 104 8 Black CherrySave 359 22 White Ash 2 stem Save 439 11 Black CherrySave 1773 9 Quaking AspenSave 1860 7 Green Ash poor Save25 7 Black Cherry poor Save 105 12 Red OakSave 360 8 White AshSave 440 38 Buckthorn 10 stem Save 1774 8 Quaking AspenSave 1861 7 Black Cherry poor Save26 8 Black CherrySave 106 10 American ElmSave 361 8 White AshSave 441 16 Box ElderSave 1775 8 Quaking AspenSave 1862 8 Quaking AspenSave27 6 Green AshSave 107 6 Bur Oak poor Save 362 13.5 White AshSave 442 14 White AshSave 1776 8 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1863 6 Quaking AspenSave28 6 Green Ash poor Save 108 19 CottonwoodSave 363 9 White AshSave 443 8 BuckthornSave 1777 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1864 6 Quaking AspenSave29 7 Black CherrySave 109 7 Red Oak poor Save 364 14.5 American ElmSave 444 18 White AshSave 1778 7 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1865 8 Quaking AspenSave30 8 Box ElderSave 110 8 Quaking AspenSave 365 12 White AshSave 445 16.5 HophornbeamSave 1779 10 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1866 7 Quaking AspenSave31 7 Black CherrySave 111 9 Red OakSave 366 8 White AshSave 446 9 Green AshSave 1780 15 Quaking AspenRemove 1867 6 Quaking AspenSave32 8 Black CherrySave 112 13 Red OakSave 367 11 White AshSave 1701 21 CottonwoodRemove 1781 6 Green AshRemove 1868 6 Quaking AspenSave33 12 Black CherrySave 113 12 Red OakSave 368 10 White AshSave 1702 7 Black CherrySave 1782 6 Quaking AspenRemove 1869 8 Quaking AspenSave34 6 Apple Remove 114 6 Bur OakSave 369 6 White AshSave 1703 13 Green AshRemove 1783 7 Quaking AspenRemove 1870 10 Red OakSave35 8 Black CherrySave 115 8 American ElmSave 370 10 White AshSave 1704 7 Green AshRemove 1784 10 Black WalnutRemove 1871 6 Red OakSave36 6 Amur Maple poor Save 116 6 Apple Save 371 6 Green AshSave 1705 7 Green AshRemove 1786 8 Box ElderRemove 1872 7 Red OakSave37 6 Black CherrySave 117 19 Red OakSave 372 9.5 White AshSave 1706 12 Box ElderRemove 1787 12 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1873 7 Quaking AspenSave38 6 American Elm poor Save 118 31 CottonwoodSave 373 15 White AshSave 1707 19 CottonwoodRemove 1788 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1874 6 Black Cherry poor Remove39 7 Black Cherry poor Save 119 6 Green AshSave 374 15 Green AshSave 1708 7 CottonwoodRemove 1789 10 Box ElderRemove 1875 25 CottonwoodSave40 8 Black CherrySave 120 7 Green AshSave 375 10.5 White AshSave 1709 6 CottonwoodRemove 1790 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1876 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove41 11 Black CherrySave 121 6 Green AshSave 376 12 White AshSave 1710 7 American ElmSave 1791 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1877 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove42 10 American Elm poor Save 122 6 American ElmSave 377 8.5 White AshSave 1711 30 CottonwoodSave 1792 8 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1878 6 Quaking AspenRemove4310 (25')Scotch Pine poor Save 123 7 Green AshSave 378 8.5 White AshSave 1712 35 CottonwoodRemove 1793 11 Green AshRemove 1879 7 Quaking AspenRemove44 8 Black CherrySave 124 12 Red OakSave 379 15.5 Green AshSave 1713 6 Box ElderSave 1794 11 Black WalnutRemove 1880 7 Quaking AspenRemove45 6 Bur OakSave 125 11 Red OakSave 380 19 White Ash 2 stem Save 1714 6 Box ElderRemove 1795 9 Quaking AspenRemove 1881 7 Quaking AspenRemove46 4 Green Ash poor Save 301 8 Bur OakRemove 381 11.5 Green AshSave 1715 18 CottonwoodRemove 1796 7 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1882 6 Quaking AspenRemove47 6 Green AshSave 302 16 CottonwoodRemove 382 14.5 Green AshSave 1716 12 Box ElderSave 1797 9 Quaking AspenRemove 1883 9 Quaking AspenRemove48 6 Green AshSave 303 20.5 White AshSave 383 16 White AshSave 1717 10 Siberian ElmRemove 1798 12 Red OakSave 1884 6 Quaking AspenRemove49 6 Green Ash poor Save 304 9 Black Cherry 2 stem Save 384 23.5 White Ash 3 stem Save 1718 6 Siberian Elm poor Remove 1799 12 Quaking AspenSave 1885 6Quaking AspenRemove50 7 Green AshSave 305 9 Black Cherry 2 stem Save 385 32.5 White Ash 3 stem Save 1719 7 Box ElderRemove 1800 10 Quaking AspenSave 1886 7 Quaking AspenSave51 8 Apple Save 306 13 Green AshSave 386 17.5 White AshSave 1720 6 Black CherryRemove 1807 10 American Elm poor Save 1887 7 Quaking AspenSave52 6 Bur OakSave 307 17.5 Green AshSave 387 10 White AshSave 1721 7 Black CherryRemove 1808 11 Black Cherry poor Save 1888 12 Red OakSave53 6 Black CherrySave 308 6 Black CherrySave 388 25.5 White Ash 2 stem Save 1722 7 Black CherryRemove 1809 8 Black Cherry poor Save 1889 13 Black CherryRemove54 6 Bur OakSave 309 10 American ElmSave 389 7 White AshSave 1723 13 Box ElderRemove 1810 6 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1890 6 Red OakSave55 6 Green AshSave 310 42 CottonwoodSave 390 13.5 White AshSave 1724 7 Black CherryRemove 1811 12 Quaking AspenSave 1891 12 Red OakRemove56 6 Black CherrySave 311 77.5 Cottonwood 2 stem Save 391 22 White AshSave 1725 9 Black CherrySave 1812 7 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1892 7 Red OakSave57 14 Red OakSave 312 28 Slippery Elm splitting Remove 392 18 White AshSave 1726 8 Box ElderRemove 1813 6 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1893 8 Quaking AspenSave58 15 Red OakSave 313 6 White AshRemove 393 22.5 White AshSave 1727 7 Black CherryRemove 1814 28 Red OakSave 1894 7 Quaking AspenSave59 14 Red Oak poor Save 314 9.5 White AshRemove 394 30.5 White Ash 2 stem Save 1728 6 Black CherryRemove 1815 24 Red OakSave 1895 7 Quaking AspenSave60 7 Black WillowSave 315 22 CottonwoodRemove 395 10 White AshSave 1729 9 Box Elder poor Remove 1816 10 Red Oak poor Save 1896 8 Quaking AspenSave61 8 Green AshSave 316 7 Black CherryRemove 396 25 White AshSave 1730 8 Box ElderSave 1817 6 Red OakSave 1897 7 Quaking Aspen poor Save62 10 Green AshSave 317 14.5 Siberian ElmSave 397 12 Green AshSave 1731 10 Box ElderRemove 1818 7 Red Oak poor Save 1898 8 Quaking AspenSave63 6 Green AshSave 318 36 Box Elder 4 stem Save 398 26 White AshSave 1732 8 Box Elder poor Remove 1819 7 Red Oak poor Save 1899 6 American ElmSave64 10 Green AshSave 319 7 Box ElderSave 399 16.5 White AshSave 1733 10 Black CherrySave 1820 14 Red Oak poor Save 1900 10 Quaking AspenSave65 8 Green AshSave 320 9 Quaking AspenSave 400 21 White AshSave 1734 8 Box Elder poor Remove 1821 12 Red OakSave66 7 Green Ash poor Save 321 10 Black CherrySave 401 6.5 BuckthornSave 1735 12 Black CherrySave 1822 11 Red OakSave67 10 Green AshSave 322 14.5 Box ElderSave 402 7.5 BuckthornSave 1736 6 Box ElderRemove 1823 6 Red Oak poor Save68 10 Green AshSave 323 10 Box ElderSave 403 7 White AshSave 1737 14 Black CherryRemove 1824 7 Red Oak poor Save69 11 Green AshSave 324 8 Buckthorn 2 stem Save 404 12.5 White AshSave 1738 8 Box ElderRemove 1825 9 Red Oak poor Save70 21 Red OakRemove 325 9 Box ElderSave 405 8.5 White AshSave 1739 8 Quaking AspenRemove 1826 7 Black CherrySave71 7 Bur OakSave 326 8 Box ElderSave 406 10 Box ElderSave 1740 9 Quaking AspenRemove 1827 6 Black CherrySave72 9 Bur OakSave 327 37.5 Black Willow Half Dead Save 407 13.5 Box ElderSave 1741 8 Quaking AspenRemove 1828 9 Black CherrySave73 7 AppleSave 328 8 BuckthornSave 408 14 Green AshSave 1742 8 Quaking AspenRemove 1829 8 American Elm poor Save74 8 AppleSave 329 54 CottonwoodSave 409 15 White AshSave 1743 9 Quaking AspenRemove 1830 8 AppleSave75 6 Green AshSave 330 15 Box ElderSave 410 8.5 Box ElderSave 1744 6 Box ElderRemove 1831 8 Black CherrySave76 7 Green AshSave 331 8 Box ElderSave 411 7Amur Cork TreeSave 1745 12 American ElmRemove 1832 7 Black CherrySave77 6 Black CherryRemove 332 9 Box ElderSave 412 12 Box ElderSave 1746 8 Quaking AspenRemove 1833 8 Black CherrySave78 8 American ElmRemove 333 13 Box ElderSave 413 9 American ElmSave 1747 9 Black CherryRemove 1834 7 Black CherrySave79 9 Black CherryRemove 334 9 Box ElderSave 414 8.5 Black CherrySave 1748 9 Quaking AspenRemove 1835 10 Black CherrySave80 12 Black CherryRemove 335 63.5 CottonwoodSave 415 9 Black CherrySave 1749 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1836 12 Red Oak poor SaveSEE SHEET L-101 FOR TREEMITIGATION CALCULATIONSC5Page 172 of 310 L-100FOREST MITIGATIONPLAN - TREES SAVEDDWN BY:ISSUE DATE:PROJECT NO.:B0029-0001D:\Midwest Wetland Improvements, LLC\Midwest Wetlands - OneDrive - MWI\Projects\0029 McMillan, Spencer\0001 - Sullivan Estates\5_DESIGN\2_CAD\3 PLANSHEETS\L-100 Forest Mitigation Plan.dwg ISSUE NO.:SHEET NO.:SHEET TITLE:4/14/2025 1:32:36 PM CLIENT:SPENCERMcMILLANMcMILLAN ESTATES MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN PROJECT TITLE:HRMCHK'D BY:LNJAPP'D BY:LNJP.O. BOX 448VICTORIA, MN 55386PHONE: (952) 261-9990WWW.MIDWESTWETLANDS.COMDESCRIPTION:DATE:ISSUE NO.:CERTIFICATION:1707 DELAWARE AVENUEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118PHONE: (715) 698-7114DATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.LICENSE NO.: 5285604-18-2025Lucius Jonett04-18-20250104/18/2025 PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL 01 Page 173 of 310 L-101FOREST MITIGATIONPLAN - TREESREMOVEDDWN BY:ISSUE DATE:PROJECT NO.:B0029-0001D:\Midwest Wetland Improvements, LLC\Midwest Wetlands - OneDrive - MWI\Projects\0029 McMillan, Spencer\0001 - Sullivan Estates\5_DESIGN\2_CAD\3 PLANSHEETS\L-100 Forest Mitigation Plan.dwg ISSUE NO.:SHEET NO.:SHEET TITLE:4/14/2025 1:32:42 PM CLIENT:SPENCERMcMILLANMcMILLAN ESTATES MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN PROJECT TITLE:HRMCHK'D BY:LNJAPP'D BY:LNJP.O. BOX 448VICTORIA, MN 55386PHONE: (952) 261-9990WWW.MIDWESTWETLANDS.COMDESCRIPTION:DATE:ISSUE NO.:CERTIFICATION:1707 DELAWARE AVENUEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118PHONE: (715) 698-7114DATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.LICENSE NO.: 5285604-18-2025Lucius Jonett04-18-20250104/18/2025 PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL 01 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOREST MITIGATION NOTES1. Significant tree means a healthy tree measuring a minimum of six inches in diameter fordeciduous trees, 10 feet in height for conifer trees, and is not considered hazardous.2. Heritage tree means a tree of any native species or cultivar of a native species that is 24 inchesin diameter or greater, excluding invasive species.3. The applicant shall post a tree replacement escrow with the City. For every heritage treepreserved on site, the escrow may be reduced by $250.00.4. If seven (7) or more total significant or heritage trees on the property are removed, theapplicant shall mitigate all significant and heritage tree inches measured at DBH at a rate of75%. Example: 84 DBH inches removed x .75 = 63 DBH inches required to be replaced.5. Trees shall not be planted within 10 feet of property lines without written permission of theaffected adjacent property, nor shall trees be planted at lot corners in a way that obstructs adriver's line of sight. If compliance with the tree replacement requirement is not feasible, theCity may approve alternative tree replacement measures, including the planting of trees at analternate site. The alternate site must be public land, and at the choice of the city. The city mayrequire post-construction tree care.6. In order to preserve diversity and provide protection from tree disease and pests; where ten ormore replacement trees are required, not more than 20 percent shall be of the same family, notmore than 10 percent of the same genus, and not more than 5 percent of the same species,unless approved by the City. Tree species of the genus Acer shall be limited to 10 percent oftotal replacement trees planted, due to its over-abundance in the City's forest canopy. Aminimum of 50 percent of replacement trees must be species native to Minnesota orrecommended by the Department of Natural Resources or University of Minnesota Extension.7. When replacement trees are required, replacement trees shall be no less than a one-caliperinch deciduous or six-foot height conifer tree unless approved by the City. No more than threeconsecutive trees of the same species may be planted in a continuous row, including aroundcorners and in groupings.FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN1. Contact responsible for tree preservation during the course of the project:Spencer McMillan1707 Delware AvenueMendota Heights, MN 55118(715) 698-71142.Tree replacement escrow reduction = 11 heritage trees preserved x $250 =$2,7503. Onsite replacement of the total DBH to be replaced is not feasible as theremainder of the property is fully forested. We have intentionally not prepared areplacement landscape plan and will complete an off-site tree replacementagreement with the City.TREE SURVEY NOTES1. Tree removals excluded from forest mitigation plan calculations due to ash andSiberian elm tree species, poor tree condition, or being previously removed sincetree survey was complete and forest mitigation plan submittal.2. Poor tree condition denotes that the tree has less than 50% of a healthy crownremaining from diseased or dying tree due to age.Page 174 of 310 2X ROOT BALL DIA. MIN.SPECIES AS SHOWN ON PLANPRUNE ANY DAMAGED OR BROKEN BRANCHES. DO NOT CUT LEADER.ROOT FLARE MUST BE ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.DO NOT COVER ROOT FLARE WITH MULCHLOOSEN SIDES OF ROOT BALL. REMOVE ANY DEAD, DAMAGED,OR GIRDLING ROOTS.BACKFILL AROUND ROOT BALL WITH LOOSE SOIL. WORK SOILTO SETTLE AND REDUCE VOIDS OR AIR POCKETS.PLACE ROOT BALL ON SOIL BACKFILL SO TOP OF ROOTBALL IS ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.L-1101 DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL2X ROOT BALL DIA. MINSPECIES AS SHOWN ON PLANPRUNE ANY DAMAGED OR BROKEN BRANCHES. DO NOT CUT LEADER.ROOT FLARE MUST BE ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.DO NOT COVER ROOT FLARE WITH MULCHCONTAINER GROWN MATERIALS SHALL HAVE ROOTS HANDS LOOSENEDUPON PLANTING; PRUNE ANY DEAD OR DESICCATED ROOTSBACKFILL AROUND ROOTS WITH LOOSE SOIL. WORK SOILTO SETTLE AND REDUCE VOIDS OR AIR POCKETS.HOLE SHOULD BE EXCAVATED SUCH THAT ROOTS ARE VERTICAL ANDFULLY EXTENDED. SCARIFY BOTTOM OF PIT (6 IN. MIN.)2X ROOT BALL DIA. MIN.SPECIES AS SHOWN ON PLANPRUNE ANY DAMAGED OR BROKEN BRANCHES. DO NOT CUT LEADER.ROOT FLARE MUST BE ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.DO NOT COVER ROOT FLARE WITH MULCHLOOSEN SIDES OF ROOT BALL. REMOVE ANY DEAD, DAMAGED,OR GIRDLING ROOTS.BACKFILL AROUND ROOT BALL WITH LOOSE SOIL. WORK SOILTO SETTLE AND REDUCE VOIDS OR AIR POCKETS.PLACE ROOT BALL ON SOIL BACKFILL SO TOP OF ROOTBALL IS ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.2 SHRUB & CONTAINER PLANTING DETAIL3 CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAILDRIP LINE OF TREE.4 TREE PROTECTION FENCE DETAIL4' HIGH SAFETY FENCE ATTACHED TO STEEL POSTS ATDRIP LINE OF EXISTING TREES TO BE PROTECTED.4'18"NOT TO SCALEL-110 NOT TO SCALEL-110NOT TO SCALEL-110NOT TO SCALEL-110LANDSCAPE DETAILSDWN BY:ISSUE DATE:PROJECT NO.:B0029-0001D:\Midwest Wetland Improvements, LLC\Midwest Wetlands - OneDrive - MWI\Projects\0029 McMillan, Spencer\0001 - Sullivan Estates\5_DESIGN\2_CAD\3 PLANSHEETS\L-110 Landscape Details.dwg ISSUE NO.:SHEET NO.:SHEET TITLE:4/14/2025 1:32:39 PM CLIENT:SPENCERMcMILLANMcMILLAN ESTATES MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN PROJECT TITLE:HRMCHK'D BY:LNJAPP'D BY:LNJP.O. BOX 448VICTORIA, MN 55386PHONE: (952) 261-9990WWW.MIDWESTWETLANDS.COMDESCRIPTION:DATE:ISSUE NO.:CERTIFICATION:1707 DELAWARE AVENUEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118PHONE: (715) 698-7114DATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.LICENSE NO.: 5285604-18-2025Lucius Jonett04-18-20250104/18/2025 PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL 01 Page 175 of 310 Page 176 of 310 Page 177 of 310 Page 178 of 310 RIDGEWOOD DRIVEStreet and StormSewer PlanSEE SHEET 10NOTES:2580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanC9Page 179 of 310 RIDGEWOOD DRIVESEE SHEET 9NOTES:Street and StormSewer Plan2580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanC10Page 180 of 310 Page 181 of 310 RIDGEWOOD DRIVEUtility PlanSEE SHEET 13NOTES:SANITARY SEWER NOTES:ST. PAUL REGIONAL WATER SERVICES (SPRWS) NOTES:GENERAL NOTE:2580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanC12Page 182 of 310 RIDGEWOOD DRIVEUtility PlanSEE SHEET 13NOTES:2580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanC13Page 183 of 310 Future UtilityServicesNOTE:2580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanC14Page 184 of 310 NOTE:Future UtilityServices2580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanC15Page 185 of 310 Page 186 of 310 Page 187 of 310 Page 188 of 310 Page 189 of 310 SITE 24 60 149 MARIE AVE. 8DODD RD.WENTWORTH AVE.DELAWARE AVE.WACHTLER AVE.MCMILLAN ESTATES LOCATION MAP SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS SISU LAND SURVEYING KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Spencer McMillan and Breanna McMillan, husband and wife, owners of the following described property: Outlot A in Grappendorf First Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. And Outlot B in Grappendorf First Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. And the North Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 28, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota. Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as MCMILLAN ESTATES, and do hereby dedicate to the public for public use forever the public ways and drainage and utility easements as created herewith. In witness whereof said Spencer McMillan and Breanna McMillan, husband and wife, have hereunto set their hands this day of , 20 . Spencer McMillan Breanna McMillan STATE OF COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me on by Spencer McMillan and Breanna McMillan. Signature Printed Name Notary Public, County, Minnesota My Commission Expires 5 5 1010I Curtiss Kallio do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. Dated this day of , 20 . Curtiss Kallio, Licensed Land Surveyor, Minnesota License No. 26909 STATE OF COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me on by Curtiss Kallio. Signature Printed Name Notary Public, County, Minnesota My Commission Expires CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, STATE OF MINNESOTA This plat of MCMILLAN ESTATES was approved and accepted by the City Council of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, at a regular meeting thereof held this day of , 20 , and said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2. By Mayor Clerk COUNTY SURVEYOR, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTA I hereby certify that in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 11, this plat has been reviewed and approved this day of , 20 . By Todd B. Tollefson, Dakota County Surveyor BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTA We do hereby certify that on the day of , the Board of Commissioners of Dakota County, Minnesota approved this plat of MCMILLAN ESTATES and said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2 and pursuant to the Dakota County Contiguous Plat Ordinance. Attest Chair, County Board County Treasurer - Auditor DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION AND RECORDS, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTA Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 9, taxes payable in the year 20 on the land hereinbefore described have been paid. Also, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.12, there are no delinquent taxes and transfer entered this day of , 20 . , Amy A. Koethe, Director Department of Property Taxation and Records REGISTRAR OF TITLES, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTA I hereby certify that this plat of MCMILLAN ESTATES, was filed in the office of the Registrar of Titles for public record on this day of , 20 at o’clock M., and was duly filed in Book of Plats, Page , as Document Number . , Amy A. Koethe, Registrar of Titles OFFICIAL PLAT Page 190 of 310 4d4. 5a6. Page 191 of 310 5a7. Page 192 of 310 Page 193 of 310 Page 194 of 310 Page 195 of 310 Page 196 of 310 Page 197 of 310 Page 198 of 310 Page 199 of 310 Page 200 of 310 Page 201 of 310 Page 202 of 310 Page 203 of 310 Page 204 of 310 Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised September 2024 Page 1 of 8 Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota This joint application form is the accepted means for initiating review of proposals that may affect a water resource (wetland, tributary, lake, etc.) in the State of Minnesota under state and federal regulatory programs. Applicants for Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Public Waters permits MUST use the MPARS online permitting system for submitting applications to the DNR. Applicants can use the information entered into MPARS to substitute for completing parts of this joint application form (see the paragraph on MPARS at the end of the joint application form instructions for additional information). This form is only applicable to the water resource aspects of proposed projects under state and federal regulatory programs; other local applications and approvals may be required. Depending on the nature of the project and the location and type of water resources impacted, multiple authorizations may be required as different regulatory programs have different types of jurisdiction over different types of resources. Regulatory Review Structure Federal The St. Paul District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is the federal agency that regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (wetlands, tributaries, lakes, etc.) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and regulates work in navigable waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Applications are assigned to Corps project managers who are responsible for implementing the Corps regulatory program within a particular geographic area. State There are three state regulatory programs that regulate activities affecting water resources. The Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) regulates most activities affecting wetlands. It is administered by local government units (LGUs) which can be counties, townships, cities, watershed districts, watershed management organizations or state agencies (on state-owned land). The Minnesota DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources issues permits for work in specially-designated public waters via the Public Waters Work Permit Program (DNR Public Waters Permits). The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act certifies that discharges of dredged or fill material authorized by a federal permit or license comply with state water quality standards. One or more of these regulatory programs may be applicable to any one project. Required Information Prior to submitting an application, applicants are strongly encouraged to seek input from the Corps Project Manager and LGU staff to identify regulatory issues and required application materials for their proposed project. Project proponents can request a pre- application consultation with the Corps and LGU to discuss their proposed project by providing the information required in Sections 1 through 5 of this joint application form to facilitate a meaningful discussion about their project. Many LGUs provide a venue (such as regularly scheduled technical evaluation panel meetings) for potential applicants to discuss their projects with multiple agencies prior to submitting an application. Contact information is provided below. The following bullets outline the information generally required for several common types of determinations/authorizations. •For delineation approvals and/or jurisdictional determinations, submit Parts 1, 2 and 5, and Attachment A. •For activities involving CWA/WCA exemptions, WCA no-loss determinations, and activities not requiring mitigation, submit Parts 1 through 5, and Attachment B. •For activities requiring compensatory mitigation/replacement plan, submit Parts 1 thru 5, and Attachments C and D. •For local road authority activities that qualify for the state’s local road wetland replacement program, submit Parts 1 through 5, and Attachments C, D (if applicable), and E to both the Corps and the LGU. Page 205 of 310 5a8. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised September 2024 Page 2 of 8 Submission Instructions Send the completed joint application form and all required attachments to: U.S Army Corps of Engineers. Applications may be sent directly to the appropriate Corps Office. For a current listing of areas of responsibilities and contact information, visit the St. Paul District’s website at: http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory.aspx and select “Minnesota” from the contact Information box. Alternatively, applications may be sent directly to the St. Paul District Headquarters and the Corps will forward them to the appropriate field office. Section 401 Water Quality Certification: Applicants do not need to submit the joint application form to the MPCA unless specifically requested. The MPCA will request a copy of the completed joint application form directly from an applicant when they determine an individual 401 water quality certification is required for a proposed project. Wetland Conservation Act Local Government Unit: Send to the appropriate Local Government Unit. If necessary, contact your county Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) office or visit the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) web site (www.bwsr.state.mn.us) to determine the appropriate LGU. DNR Public Waters Permitting: In 2014 the DNR will begin using the Minnesota DNR Permitting and Reporting System (MPARS) for submission of Public Waters permit applications (https://webapps11.dnr.state.mn.us/mpars/public/authentication/login). Applicants for Public Waters permits MUST use the MPARS online permitting system for submitting applications to the DNR. To avoid duplication and to streamline the application process among the various resource agencies, applicants can use the information entered into MPARS to substitute for completing parts of this joint application form. The MPARS print/save function will provide the applicant with a copy of the Public Waters permit application which, at a minimum, will satisfy Parts one and two of this joint application. For certain types of activities, the MPARS application may also provide all of the necessary information required under Parts three and four of the joint application. However, it is the responsibility of the Applicant to make sure that the joint application contains all of the required information, including identification of all aquatic resources impacted by the project (see Part four of the joint application). After confirming that the MPARS application contains all of the required information in Parts one and two the Applicant may attach a copy to the joint application and fill in any missing information in the remainder of the joint application. Page 206 of 310 Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised September 2024 Page 3 of 8 Project Name and/or Number: McMillan Estates PART ONE: Applicant Information If applicant is an entity (company, government entity, partnership, etc.), an authorized contact person must be identified. If the applicant is using an agent (consultant, lawyer, or other third party) and has authorized them to act on their behalf, the agent’s contact information must also be provided. Applicant/Landowner Name: Spencer McMillan Mailing Address: 1707 Delaware Avenue, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Phone: 715-698-7114 E-mail Address:SMcMillan@McMillanElectric.com Authorized Contact (do not complete if same as above): Mailing Address: Phone: E-mail Address: Agent Name: Lucius Jonett, Midwest Wetland Improvements Mailing Address: P.O. Box 448, Victoria, MN 55386 Phone: 952-261-9990 E-mail Address:lucius@midwestwetlands.com PART TWO: Site Location Information County: Dakota City/Township: Mendota Heights Parcel ID and/or Address: 27-02400-78-010, 1707 Delaware Avenue, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Legal Description (Section, Township, Range): SECTION 24 TWN 28 RANGE 23 Lat/Long (decimal degrees): 44.894271/-93.107408 Attach a map showing the location of the site in relation to local streets, roads, highways. Approximate size of site (acres) or if a linear project, length (feet): 12 acres If you know that your proposal will require an individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you must provide the names and addresses of all property owners adjacent to the project site. This information may be provided by attaching a list to your application or by using block 25 of the Application for Department of the Army permit which can be obtained at: http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Portals/57/docs/regulatory/RegulatoryDocs/engform_4345_2012oct.pdf PART THREE: General Project/Site Information If this application is related to a delineation approval, exemption determination, jurisdictional determination, or other correspondence submitted prior to this application then describe that here and provide the Corps of Engineers project number. Describe the project that is being proposed, the project purpose and need, and schedule for implementation and completion. The project description must fully describe the nature and scope of the proposed activity including a description of all project elements that effect aquatic resources (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) and must also include plans and cross section or profile drawings showing the location, character, and dimensions of all proposed activities and aquatic resource impacts. Homeowner is subdividing land for residential lot development. A Wetland Delineation Report was completed on 6/22/2021. A stream feature worksheet was completed on 5/19/2025 for the drainage feature identified in the wetland delineation report. Design plans for preliminary plat, dated 4/07/2025, show project location and proposed wetland and channel impacts. All documents are attached in appendix B. Page 207 of 310 Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised September 2024 Page 4 of 8 Project Name and/or Number: McMillan Estates PART FOUR: Aquatic Resource Impact1 Summary If your proposed project involves a direct or indirect impact to an aquatic resource (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) identify each impact in the table below. Include all anticipated impacts, including those expected to be temporary. Attach an overhead view map, aerial photo, and/or drawing showing all of the aquatic resources in the project area and the location(s) of the proposed impacts. Label each aquatic resource on the map with a reference number or letter and identify the impacts in the following table. Aquatic Resource ID (as noted on overhead view) Aquatic Resource Type (wetland, lake, tributary etc.) Type of Impact (fill, excavate, drain, or remove vegetation) Duration of Impact Permanent (P) or Temporary (T)1 Size of Impact2 Overall Size of Aquatic Resource 3 Existing Plant Community Type(s) in Impact Area4 County, Major Watershed #, and Bank Service Area # of Impact Area5 Basin 1 – Area 1 Wetland Fill P 1,315 sq ft 3.55 acres Wet Meadow Dakota, Watershed 20, BSA 7 Basin 1 – Area 2 Wetland Fill P 467 sq ft 3.55 acres Wet Meadow Dakota, Watershed 20, BSA 7 Basin 1 – Area 3 Wetland Fill P 388 sq ft 3.55 acres Wet Meadow Dakota, Watershed 20, BSA 7 Unnamed Stream Stream tributary Tier 4 – short length of culvert pipe (fill) P 60 linear feet, 6’ x 60’ = 360 sq ft 185 linear feet, 6’ x 185’ = 1,110 sq ft Forested stream riparian vegetation. Dakota, Watershed 20, BSA 7 1If impacts are temporary; enter the duration of the impacts in days next to the “T”. For example, a project with a temporary access fill that would be removed after 220 days would be entered “T (220)”. 2Impacts less than 0.01 acre should be reported in square feet. Impacts 0.01 acre or greater should be reported as acres and rounded to the nearest 0.01 acre. Tributary impacts must be reported in linear feet of impact and an area of impact by indicating first the linear feet of impact along the flowline of the stream followed by the area impact in parentheses). For example, a project that impacts 50 feet of a stream that is 6 feet wide would be reported as 50 ft (300 square feet). 3This is generally only applicable if you are applying for a de minimis exemption under MN Rules 8420.0420 Subp. 8, otherwise enter “N/A”. 4Use Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin 3rd Ed. as modified in MN Rules 8420.0405 Subp. 2. 5Refer to Major Watershed and Bank Service Area maps in MN Rules 8420.0522 Subp. 7. If any of the above identified impacts have already occurred, identify which impacts they are and the circumstances associated with each: No impacts have occurred. 1 The term “impact” as used in this joint application form is a generic term used for disclosure purposes to identify activities that may require approval from one or more regulatory agencies. For purposes of this form it is not meant to indicate whether or not those activities may require mitigation/replacement. Page 208 of 310 PART FIVE: Applicant Signature [_] Check here if you are requesting a pre-application consultation with the Corps and LGU based on the information you have provided. Regulatory entities will not initiate a formal application review if this box is checked. By signature below, | attest that the information in this application is complete and accurate. | further attest that | possess the authority to undertake the work described herein. Signature: Srp Date: May 22, 2025 Spencer McMillan | hereby authorize Lucius Jonett to act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this application. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form — Revised September 2024 Page 5 of 8 Page 209 of 310 Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised September 2024 Page 6 of 8 Project Name and/or Number: McMillan Estates Attachment B Supporting Information for Applications Involving Exemptions, No Loss Determinations, and Activities Not Requiring Mitigation Complete this part if you maintain that the identified aquatic resource impacts in Part Four do not require wetland replacement/compensatory mitigation OR if you are seeking verification that the proposed water resource impacts are either exempt from replacement or are not under CWA/WCA jurisdiction. Identify the specific exemption or no-loss provision for which you believe your project or site qualifies: WCA de minimis exemption – MN Rule 8420.0420, Subp. 8 Provide a detailed explanation of how your project or site qualifies for the above. Be specific and provide and refer to attachments and exhibits that support your contention. Applicants should refer to rules (e.g. WCA rules), guidance documents (e.g. BWSR guidance, Corps guidance letters/public notices), and permit conditions (e.g. Corps General Permit conditions) to determine the necessary information to support the application. Applicants are strongly encouraged to contact the WCA LGU and Corps Project Manager prior to submitting an application if they are unsure of what type of information to provide: The proposed activity involves the permanent fill impact to wetland of approximately 2,170 square feet (0.05 acres) to establish roads, driveways and residential home building sites as part of a subdivision project. The property is situated within Dakota County in Minnesota that is classified as having less than 50% of its pre-settlement wetlands remaining. The project site is not located within a shoreland area as defined by Minnesota Rules. Pursuant to Minnesota Rule 8420.0420, Subpart 8, (2024 WCA Statute Changes) the activity qualifies for the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) de minimis exemption. This rule allows up to 2,178 square feet of wetland impact per project in non-shoreland areas within less than 50% wetland counties, provided other eligibility requirements are met. The following conditions are met for this exemption: 1.Area of Impact: The proposed wetland conversion does not exceed the de minimis exemption in non-shoreland, <50% wetland counties. 2.Cumulative Impact: These proposed wetland impacts account for the cumulative road and utility impacts of the current, proposed subdivision phase of the project. Plus the potential home/driveway construction impacts of future individual homeowner construction phases of the project. Based on these factors, the activity meets the requirements for the de minimis exemption under the WCA and does not require replacement, sequencing, or additional mitigation measures. The proposed activity also includes a Severity Tier 4 channel impact for the installation of a short length of culvert pipe for a driveway crossing the unnamed stream channel to a home building site. The linear foot threshold for Tier 4 impacts is 200 LF before mitigation is required. Page 210 of 310 Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised September 2024 Page 7 of 8 Attachment C Avoidance and Minimization Project Purpose, Need, and Requirements. Clearly state the purpose of your project and need for your project. Also include a description of any specific requirements of the project as they relate to project location, project footprint, water management, and any other applicable requirements. Attach an overhead plan sheet showing all relevant features of the project (buildings, roads, etc.), aquatic resource features (impact areas noted) and construction details (grading plans, storm water management plans, etc.), referencing these as necessary: Home owner is subdividing land for residential lot development. A Wetland Delineation Report was completed on 6/22/2021. A stream feature worksheet was completed on 5/19/2025 for the drainage feature identified in the wetland delineation report. Design plans for preliminary plat, dated 4/07/2025, show project location and proposed wetland and channel impacts. All documents are attached in appendix B. Avoidance. Both the CWA and the WCA require that impacts to aquatic resources be avoided if practicable alternatives exist. Clearly describe all on-site measures considered to avoid impacts to aquatic resources and discuss at least two project alternatives that avoid all impacts to aquatic resources on the site. These alternatives may include alternative site plans, alternate sites, and/or not doing the project. Alternatives should be feasible and prudent (see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 2 C). Applicants are encouraged to attach drawings and plans to support their analysis: The proposed subdivision site contains wetland basin with a tributary stream channel that flows into it, creating a natural barrier along the south portion of the property between the developable upland areas. In planning access to the remainder of the site, multiple on-site avoidance measures were considered to minimize and avoid impacts to aquatic resources. These included reviewing layout options that concentrate development on the north and east side of the basin and channel while leaving the southern portion undeveloped. However, full avoidance would require forgoing access to the site, making it infeasible given the project’s objectives. Two project alternatives that avoid all impacts to aquatic resources were considered: (1) an alternative site layout that clusters all development on the eastern uplands and leaves the southern portion as permanent open space; and (2) the no-build alternative, which would result in no impacts but would also eliminate the proposed housing and associated public infrastructure objectives. While both alternatives avoid direct impacts, they are not prudent for achieving the purpose and need of the project. The selected alternative minimizes impacts by reducing the crossing width and locating it at the narrowest portion of the channel and wetland, combined with construction methods designed to protect hydrology and habitat connectivity. Minimization. Both the CWA and the WCA require that all unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Discuss all features of the proposed project that have been modified to minimize the impacts to water resources (see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 4): To minimize unavoidable impacts to the wetland basins and tributary stream channel located in the southern portion of the subdivision site, the proposed project has incorporated several design modifications. The location of the new cul-de-sac and driveway access crossings were strategically selected at the narrowest points of wetland and channel impact to reduce the width of fill and overall disturbance. The crossings will utilize culvert designs that preserve base flow connectivity and minimize alteration of stream hydrology and aquatic organism passage. Roadway grades and alignments were adjusted to reduce the footprint of the crossing embankment and avoid unnecessary encroachment into adjacent wetland areas. Stormwater from the new road surface will be treated through an infiltration basin before discharge to adjacent aquatic resources, further reducing pollutant loading. Construction will follow best management practices to minimize sedimentation and erosion, and all disturbed areas will be promptly stabilized and restored with native vegetation. Page 211 of 310 Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised September 2024 Page 8 of 8 Off-Site Alternatives. An off-site alternatives analysis is not required for all permit applications. If you know that your proposal will require an individual permit (standard permit or letter of permission) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you may be required to provide an off-site alternatives analysis. The alternatives analysis is not required for a complete application but must be provided during the review process in order for the Corps to complete the evaluation of your application and reach a final decision. Applicants with questions about when an off-site alternatives analysis is required should contact their Corps Project Manager. Page 212 of 310 MCMILLAN ESTATES 10105 5 Preliminary Plat1 1 202142Spencer McMillan1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114ZONING INFORMATION OWNER/DEVELOPER ENGINEER/SURVEYOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY PLAT PLAT AREAS Land Surveying & Engineering 2580 Christian Dr. Chaska, MN 55318 612-418-6828 MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MNWETLANDS PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WETLAND DELINEATOR UTILITIES STORMWATER SEE THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR GRADING, DRAINAGE, STREET, SANITARY SEWER, AND WATERMAIN FOR FOR DETAILED IMPROVEMENTS LEGEND TREE PRESERVATION Page 213 of 310 Page 214 of 310 Page 215 of 310 Page 216 of 310 Page 217 of 310 Page 218 of 310 Page 219 of 310 Page 220 of 310 Page 221 of 310 Page 222 of 310 Page 223 of 310 Page 224 of 310 Page 225 of 310 Page 226 of 310 Page 227 of 310 Page 228 of 310 Page 229 of 310 Page 230 of 310 Page 231 of 310 Page 232 of 310 Page 233 of 310 Page 234 of 310 Page 235 of 310 Page 236 of 310 Page 237 of 310 Page 238 of 310 Page 239 of 310 Page 240 of 310 Page 241 of 310 Page 242 of 310 Page 243 of 310 Page 244 of 310 Page 245 of 310 Page 246 of 310 Page 247 of 310 Page 248 of 310 Page 249 of 310 Page 250 of 310 Page 251 of 310 Page 252 of 310 Page 253 of 310 Page 254 of 310 Page 255 of 310 Page 256 of 310 Page 257 of 310 Page 258 of 310 Page 259 of 310 Version April 2023 Description of Stream Features Worksheet The Corps encourages applicants to complete this worksheet to aid in the identification of streams within a project area. Provide representative photographs of the stream features outlined in this form in a separate attached document. Project ID Number: Latitude (DD): Feature ID: Longitude (DD): Waterbody Name*: Length of Reach (ft): Investigator (s): Top of Bank Width (ft): Inspection Date: OHWM Elevation: County/State: Special Designations: Site Description and Site History*: Associated Wetland(s)? If yes, provide a brief description below and attach figures of locations *Include Historic Aerial photographs and Topographic Maps (historic and current) of stream when appropriate (see instructions). Water Regime (check all that apply): ☐Perennial ☐Intermittent ☐Ephemeral Explain Reasoning (attach all supporting data): Other Evidence: List/describe an additional field evidence and/or lines of reasoning used to support your delineation McMillan Estates Reach 01 Unnamed Stream Lucius Jonett May 19, 2025 Dakota/MN 44.8927273 N 93.10846875 W 185 LF 12' 945.4' None Unnamed stream, called out as Drainage in attached wetlad delinetaion, flows into delineated wetlandBasin 1, a type 2 wet meadow. Site is a forested suburban lot managed by the landowner to clear brush and buckthorn. MN DNR Rivers and Streams GIS dataset Kittle Number: MAJ-070129482-B Kittle Name: None 1st order stream is a tributary to additional unnamed channels that ultimately drain to theMississippi River. Page 260 of 310 Version April 2023 Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Criteria: Check all that apply and provide representative photographs** of each checked criteria in an attachment. ☐Clear, natural line impressed on bank ☐Vegetation matted down, bent or absent ☐Leaf litter disturbed or washed away ☐Abrupt change in plant community☐Destruction of terrestrial vegetation☐Changes in soil characteristics☐Sediment deposition☐Sediment sorting☐Presence of litter or debris ☐Shelving☐Evidence of scouring☐Water staining on leaf debris/tree trunks List of Photo ID Numbers: Unique Features: Check all that apply and provide representative photographs of each checked criteria in an attachment. ☐Unstable Banks☐Rock Outcrop☐Riffles/Runs☐Bridge/culvert☐Steep Sideslopes☐Headcutting ☐Gravel Bars/Islands☐Riprap☐Diversion/Intake☐Buildings☐Erosion☐Channelization ☐Seeps☐Dams☐Pools☐Large Woody Debris☐Concentrated Flow Points (e.g. Tile) ☐Aquatic fauna (macroinvertebrates, fish etc.) ☐Submergent Aquatic Vegetation☐Undercut Banks List of Photo ID Numbers: Bed Material Characterization: Estimate percentages to describe the general sediment texture of the channel, provide representative photographs when conditions allow. Clay/Silt <0.05mm Sand 0.05- 2mm Gravel 2mm- 1cm Cobbles 1- 10cm Boulders >10cm Bed Material Notes/Description and Photo ID Numbers: rocks Left Bank 40%40%20% IMG_6654 IMG_6649, IMG_6651, IMG_6652, IMG_6653, IMG_6657 IMG_6658IMG_6659 Page 261 of 310 Version April 2023 Vegetation: Check boxes of the strata that are present in the reach and provide a brief description of the general vegetation characteristics. List the dominant species of each strata and describe which strata is dominant. Provide representative photographs of vegetation, including riparian buffer. ☐Tree ☐Shrub ☐Herbaceous ☐Bare Notes/Description and Photo ID Numbers: Riparian Area Width: Provide a general estimate in feet of the width of the riparian corridor that currently contains riparian vegetation and is free from any soil-disturbing land uses (MNSQT, 2019). Notes/Description and Photo ID Numbers: Notes: Provide any additional information below, all photographs and maps should be provided in an attached appendix. Dominant forest canopy with mature buckthorn tree understory. Not a lot of shrub growth dueto landowner management. Dominant spring ephemeral, fern and tree seedling growth on theherbaceous strata. IMG_6661 and IMG_6662 Fully vegetated riparian area width of 70' to 90', to the valley edges (natural hillslope).IMG_6661IMG_6662 Channel cross-section data Station Elevation0.0' 947.2' TOB - Left Bank1.0' 945.5' OHWL2.5' 945.2' WSE4.75' 945.2' WSE7.0' 945.4' OHWL8.0' 945.7'9.0' 946.0'10.0' 946.4'12.0' 947.2' TOB - Right Bank Page 262 of 310 Page 263 of 310 Page 264 of 310 Page 265 of 310 Page 266 of 310 Page 267 of 310 Page 268 of 310 Page 269 of 310 Page 270 of 310 Page 271 of 310 Page 272 of 310 Page 273 of 310 Page 274 of 310 From:Chesnut, Jed (BWSR) To:Krista Spreiter Cc:Holmen, David; Sarah Madden Subject:McMillan Estates de minimis application Date:Friday, May 30, 2025 9:39:08 AM Attachments:image001.png Krista, I have reviewed the McMillan Estates application for a de minimis exemption. I have the following comments: Per the 2024 Statute amendment of Section 103G.2241, subdivision 9; wetland impacts of 1/20 acre (2,178 square feet) or less outside of the shoreland wetland protection zone in a less than 50% area of the State do not require replacement. Therefore, the McMillian Estates de minimis application with the proposed wetland impact of 2,170 square feet qualifies for the de minimis exemption per Mn Statute 103G.2241, subdivision 9. Wetland impacts that are authorized under a Wetland Conservation Act exemption are not subject to the replacement requirements of Mn Rule 8420.0500 and therefore are not required to meet the sequencing standards of Mn Rule 8420.0520 or the replacement standards per Mn Rule 8420.0522. The 2024 Statute amendment of Section 103G.2241, subdivision 9 removed the requirement to consider the cumulative area drained or filled of a landowner’s portion of a wetland. The Joint Application Form (dated April 14, 2025) that accompanied the Notice of Application (dated 4/21/2025) contained supplemental information including a delineation report from 2021 that was completed by Jacobson Environmental. In that Jacobson Environmental delineation report (dated 6/22/2021), there is an additional application (Appendix D) that includes information related to a replacement plan application for proposed wetland impacts from what appears to be a previous site design and plan. That replacement plan application (dated 8/4/2021) should be removed from the current de minimis application since it is not relevant to the current proposed project. I recommend you request that the applicant revise their document and remove that embedded application and other non-relevant information. Based on my review of the McMillian Estates de minimis exemption application, I recommend the application be approved subject to the standard exemption approval conditions per Mn Rule 8420.0410. Thank you, Jed Chesnut | Wetland Specialist Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 520 Lafayette Road North | St. Paul, MN | 55155 Phone: 651-286-9334 Page 275 of 310 5a9. jed.chesnut@state.mn.us | www.bwsr.state.mn.us Page 276 of 310 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ST. PAUL DISTRICT ST. PAUL DISTRICT OFFICE 332 MINNESOTA STREET SUITE E1500 ST. PAUL MINNESOTA 55101 June 18, 2025 Regulatory File No. MVP-2021-01218-SSC Spencer McMillan 1707 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 SMcMillan@McMillanElectric.com Dear Spencer McMillan, We are responding to your request for authorization to discharge fill material in waters of the U.S. associated with the McMillan Estates residential development. The proposed work is located in Section 24, Township 028N, Range 023W, Dakota County, Minnesota. Project Authorization: The regulated activities associated with this project are detailed on the attached drawings and include: •Permanent discharge of fill material into 0.05 acre of wetland associated with a roadway to access upland for the residential development. •Permanent discharge of fill material into 0.01 acre of an unnamed tributary along 60 linear feet associated with the placement of culverted road crossing. We have determined that these activities are authorized by a Nationwide Permit (NWP) or a Regional General Permit (RGP), specifically, NWP 29, Residential Developments. Your project requires verification prior to starting work. This work is shown on the enclosed figures, labeled MVP-2021-01218-SSC Pages 1-2 of 2. Conditions of Your Permit: You must ensure the authorized work is performed in accordance with the enclosed applicable terms and conditions. You are also required to complete and return the enclosed Compliance Certification form within 30 days of completing your project. Please email the completed form to the contact identified in the last paragraph. A change in location or project plans may require re-evaluation of your project. Proposed changes should be coordinated with this office prior to construction. Failure to comply with all terms and conditions of this permit invalidates this authorization and could result in a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. You must also obtain all local, State, Tribal, and other Federal permits that apply to this project. Water Quality Certification: Page 277 of 310 5a10. Page 2 of 2 You must also comply with the enclosed Water Quality Certification conditions associated with this General Permit. Permit Expiration: The 2021 NWP is valid until March 14, 2026 unless modified, suspended, or revoked. If the work has not been completed by that time, you should contact this office to verify that the permit is still valid. Furthermore, if you commence or are under contract to commence this activity before the date of General Permit expiration, modification, or revocation, you have 12 months to complete the activity under the present terms and conditions of the General Permit. Jurisdictional Determination: No jurisdictional determination was requested or prepared for this permit decision. While not required for this project, you may contact the Corps representative listed below with any questions concerning jurisdictional determinations. Contact Information: If you have any questions, please contact Samantha Coungeris of the St. Paul at 651-290- 5268 or by email at Samantha.S.Coungeris@usace.army.mil. Sincerely, Samantha Coungeris Project Manager Enclosures Project Drawings, GP Conditions, WQC, Compliance Certification Form CC: Lucius Jonett, Midwest Wetland Improvements, LLC; lucius@midwestwetlands.com Page 278 of 310 MVP-2021-01218-SSC Page 1 of 2Page 279 of 3105a11. MCMILLAN ESTATES 10105 5 Preliminary Plat1 1 202142Spencer McMillan1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114ZONING INFORMATION OWNER/DEVELOPER ENGINEER/SURVEYOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY PLAT PLAT AREAS Land Surveying & Engineering 2580 Christian Dr. Chaska, MN 55318 612-418-6828 MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MNWETLANDS PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WETLAND DELINEATOR UTILITIES STORMWATER SEE THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR GRADING, DRAINAGE, STREET, SANITARY SEWER, AND WATERMAIN FOR FOR DETAILED IMPROVEMENTS LEGEND TREE PRESERVATION MVP-2021-01218-SSC Page 2 of 2 Page 280 of 310 29.Residential Developments. Discharges of dredged or fill material into non-tidal waters of the United States for the construction or expansion of a single residence, a multiple unit residential development, or a residential subdivision. This NWP authorizes the construction of building foundations and building pads and attendant features that are necessary for the use of the residence or residential development. Attendant features may include but are not limited to roads, parking lots, garages, yards, utility lines, storm water management facilities, septic fields, and recreation facilities such as playgrounds, playing fields, and golf courses (provided the golf course is an integral part of the residential development). The discharge must not cause the loss of greater than 1/2-acre of non-tidal waters of the United States. This NWP does not authorize discharges of dredged or fill material into non-tidal wetlands adjacent to tidal waters. Subdivisions: For residential subdivisions, the aggregate total loss of waters of United States authorized by this NWP cannot exceed 1/2-acre. This includes any loss of waters of the United States associated with development of individual subdivision lots. Notification: The permittee must submit a pre-construction notification to the district engineer prior to commencing the activity. (See general condition 32.) (Authorities: Sections 10 and 404) Page 281 of 310 2021 Nationwide Permits (NWP) St. Paul District Regional Conditions for Minnesota and Wisconsin To qualify for NWP authorization, the prospective permittee must comply with the following regional conditions, as applicable, in addition to any case specific conditions imposed by the division engineer. The St. Paul District Regulatory website will provide current information regarding NWPs and the necessary 401 Water Quality Certifications at https://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/missions/regulatory/nwp/. Every person who wishes to obtain permit authorization under one or more NWPs, or who is currently relying on an existing or prior permit authorization under one or more NWPs, has been and is on notice that all of the provisions of 33 CFR 330.1 through 330.6 apply to every NWP authorization. Note especially 33 CFR 330.5 relating to the modification, suspension, or revocation of any NWP authorization. The following NWPs have been revoked and are not available for use in St. Paul District: NWPs 8, 12, 14, 15, 21, 23, 24, 34, 48, 49, 50, 55, 56, 57, and 58. Information on other permits available for use in St. Paul District can be found at: https://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Permitting-Process-Procedures/. Any regulated activity eligible for authorization under a St. Paul District Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) general permit is not eligible for authorization by NWPs. The following regional conditions are applicable to all NWPs: A.Linear Projects: No linear utility or linear transportation projects are eligible for authorization by NWPs. These projects will be reviewed for authorization under the St. Paul District's regional general permits or an individual permit. B.Temporary Impacts: All regulated temporary impacts to waters of the U.S. must comply with the following criteria: (1)If the temporary impacts in waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that occur as a result of the regulated activity would remain in place for longer than 90 days between May 15 and November 15, a PCN is required. (2)Any PCN with temporary impacts must specify how long the temporary impact will remain and include a restoration and re-vegetation plan showing how all temporary fills and structures will be removed and the area restored to preconstruction contours and elevations. Native, non-invasive vegetation must be used unless otherwise authorized by a Corps NWP verification. C.PCNs for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore and Madeline Island: A project proponent must notify the District by submitting a PCN if the regulated activity would result in excavation, fill, or the placement of a new structure within the boundaries of Apostle Islands National Lakeshore and Madeline Island in Wisconsin. Regulated activities authorized under NWP 3 (Maintenance) are not subject to this condition unless they include bank shaping or excavation. D.Calcareous fens: WISCONSIN: No work in a calcareous fen is authorized by a NWP unless the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WI DNR) has approved a permit for the proposed regulated activity. Project proponents must provide evidence of an approved permit to the District. MINNESOTA: No work in a calcareous fen is authorized by a NWP unless the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) has approved a calcareous fen management plan specific to a project that otherwise qualifies for authorization by a NWP. Project proponents must provide evidence of an approved fen management plan to the District. A list of known Minnesota calcareous fens can be found at: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/wetlands/calcareous_fen_list.pdf. Page 282 of 310 E. Special Aquatic Resources: A project proponent must notify the District by submitting a PCN if a regulated activity would occur in any of the following aquatic resources: (1)State-designated wild rice waters 1,2; (2)Bog wetland plant communities1,3; (3)Fens1,3; (4)Coastal plain marshes1,4; (5)Interdunal wetlands1,4; (6)Great Lakes ridge and swale complexes1,4; (7)Aquatic resources within Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve; (8)Ramsar wetland sites, including: the Horicon Marsh, Upper Mississippi River Floodplain Wetland, Kakagon and Bad River Slough, Door Peninsula Coastal Wetlands, Chiwaukee Illinois Beach Lake Plain, and Lower Wisconsin Riverway. The complete up to date Ramsar list is available at https://rsis.ramsar.org. The following regional conditions are applicable to a specific NWP: F. NWP 52. Water-Based Renewable Energy Generation Pilot Projects: NWP 52 does not authorize structures or work in Lake Michigan and Lake Superior within the geographic regulatory boundaries of the St. Paul District. G. NWP 3, 33, and 41. Aquatic Resource Impacts: A project proponent must notify the District by submitting a PCN if a regulated activity, including but not limited to, filling, flooding, excavating, or drainage of waters of the U.S., involves: (1)A permanent loss of greater than 1/10 acre of waters of the U.S. for NWP 3 and 41; or (2)over 1/2 acre of temporary impacts to waters of the U.S. for NWP 3, 33, and 41. H.NWP 27. Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Establishment and Enhancement Activities: NWP 27 does not authorize the permanent conversion of forested, bog, fen, sedge meadow, or shrub-carr wetlands to other plant communities. A project proponent may request, in writing, a waiver from this condition from the District. The waiver will only be issued if it can be demonstrated that the conversion would restore wetland plant communities to the pre-settlement condition or a watershed approach and that the current landscape and hydrologic conditions would sustain the targeted community. 1 Information about Wisconsin plant community types for 1-6 above may be obtained from: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/EndangeredResources/Communities.asp?mode=group&Type=Wetland 2 Information regarding wild rice waters and their extent may be obtained from: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wildlife/shallowlakes/wildrice.html and https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/biota- wild-rice-lakes-dnr-wld in Minnesota, https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/rice.html in Wisconsin, and an interactive map is provided at: http://maps.glifwc.org/ (under Treaty Resources – Gathering). 3 Additional information on bog and fen communities can be found at: http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/missions/regulatory.aspx and in Minnesota at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/npc/classification.html. 4 Coastal plain marshes, interdunal wetlands, and Great Lakes ridge and swale complexes are specific to Wisconsin Page 283 of 310 2021 Nationwide Permit General Conditions 1. Navigation. (a) No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on navigation. (b) Any safety lights and signals prescribed by the U.S. Coast Guard, through regulations or otherwise, must be installed and maintained at the permittee's expense on authorized facilities in navigable waters of the United States. (c) The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States require the removal, relocation, or other alteration, of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his or her authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the permittee will be required, upon due notice from the Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate, or alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States. No claim shall be made against the United States on account of any such removal or alteration. 2. Aquatic Life Movements. No activity may substantially disrupt the necessary life cycle movements of those species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody, including those species that normally migrate through the area, unless the activity's primary purpose is to impound water. All permanent and temporary crossings of waterbodies shall be suitably culverted, bridged, or otherwise designed and constructed to maintain low flows to sustain the movement of those aquatic species. If a bottomless culvert cannot be used, then the crossing should be designed and constructed to minimize adverse effects to aquatic life movements. 3. Spawning Areas. Activities in spawning areas during spawning seasons must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Activities that result in the physical destruction (e.g., through excavation, fill, or downstream smothering by substantial turbidity) of an important spawning area are not authorized. 4. Migratory Bird Breeding Areas. Activities in waters of the United States that serve as breeding areas for migratory birds must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. 5. Shellfish Beds. No activity may occur in areas of concentrated shellfish populations, unless the activity is directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by NWPs 4 and 48, or is a shellfish seeding or habitat restoration activity authorized by NWP 27. 6. Suitable Material. No activity may use unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc.). Material used for construction or discharged must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts (see section 307 of the Clean Water Act). 7. Water Supply Intakes. No activity may occur in the proximity of a public water supply intake, except where the activity is for the repair or improvement of public water supply intake structures or adjacent bank stabilization. 8. Adverse Effects From Impoundments. If the activity creates an impoundment of water, adverse effects to the aquatic system due to accelerating the passage of water, and/or restricting its flow must be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. 9. Management of Water Flows. To the maximum extent practicable, the pre-construction course, condition, capacity, and location of open waters must be maintained for each activity, including stream channelization, storm water management activities, and temporary and permanent road crossings, except as provided below. The activity must be constructed to withstand expected high flows. The activity must not restrict or impede the passage of normal or high flows, unless the primary purpose of the activity is to impound water or manage high flows. The activity may alter the pre-construction course, condition, capacity, and location of open waters if it benefits the aquatic environment (e.g., stream restoration or relocation activities). 10. Fills Within 100-Year Floodplains. The activity must comply with applicable FEMA-approved state or local floodplain management requirements. 11. Equipment. Heavy equipment working in wetlands or mudflats must be placed on mats, or other measures must be taken to minimize soil disturbance. 12. Soil Erosion and Sediment Controls. Appropriate soil erosion and sediment controls must be used and maintained in effective operating condition during construction, and all exposed soil and other fills, as well as any work below the ordinary high water mark or high tide line, must be permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date. Permittees are encouraged to perform work within waters of the United States during periods of low-flow or no-flow, or during low tides. 13. Removal of Temporary Structures and Fills. Temporary structures must be removed, to the maximum extent practicable, after their use has been discontinued. Temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the affected areas returned to pre-construction elevations. The affected areas must be revegetated, as appropriate. 14. Proper Maintenance. Any authorized structure or fill shall be properly maintained, including maintenance to ensure public safety and compliance with applicable NWP general conditions, as well as any activity-specific conditions added by the district engineer to an NWP authorization. Page 284 of 310 15. Single and Complete Project. The activity must be a single and complete project. The same NWP cannot be used more than once for the same single and complete project. 16. Wild and Scenic Rivers. (a) No NWP activity may occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System, or in a river officially designated by Congress as a “study river” for possible inclusion in the system while the river is in an official study status, unless the appropriate Federal agency with direct management responsibility for such river, has determined in writing that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the Wild and Scenic River designation or study status. (b) If a proposed NWP activity will occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System, or in a river officially designated by Congress as a “study river” for possible inclusion in the system while the river is in an official study status, the permittee must submit a pre-construction notification (see general condition 32). The district engineer will coordinate the PCN with the Federal agency with direct management responsibility for that river. Permittees shall not begin the NWP activity until notified by the district engineer that the Federal agency with direct management responsibility for that river has determined in writing that the proposed NWP activity will not adversely affect the Wild and Scenic River designation or study status. (c) Information on Wild and Scenic Rivers may be obtained from the appropriate Federal land management agency responsible for the designated Wild and Scenic River or study river (e.g., National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Information on these rivers is also available at: http://www.rivers.gov/. 17. Tribal Rights. No activity or its operation may impair reserved tribal rights, including, but not limited to, reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights. 18. Endangered Species. (a) No activity is authorized under any NWP which is likely to directly or indirectly jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation, as identified under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), or which will directly or indirectly destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat or critical habitat proposed for such designation. No activity is authorized under any NWP which “may affect” a listed species or critical habitat, unless ESA section 7 consultation addressing the consequences of the proposed activity on listed species or critical habitat has been completed. See 50 CFR 402.02 for the definition of “effects of the action” for the purposes of ESA section 7 consultation, as well as 50 CFR 402.17, which provides further explanation under ESA section 7 regarding “activities that are reasonably certain to occur” and “consequences caused by the proposed action.” (b) Federal agencies should follow their own procedures for complying with the requirements of the ESA (see 33 CFR 330.4(f)(1)). If pre-construction notification is required for the proposed activity, the Federal permittee must provide the district engineer with the appropriate documentation to demonstrate compliance with those requirements. The district engineer will verify that the appropriate documentation has been submitted. If the appropriate documentation has not been submitted, additional ESA section 7 consultation may be necessary for the activity and the respective federal agency would be responsible for fulfilling its obligation under section 7 of the ESA. (c) Non-federal permittees must submit a pre-construction notification to the district engineer if any listed species (or species proposed for listing) or designated critical habitat (or critical habitat proposed such designation) might be affected or is in the vicinity of the activity, or if the activity is located in designated critical habitat or critical habitat proposed for such designation, and shall not begin work on the activity until notified by the district engineer that the requirements of the ESA have been satisfied and that the activity is authorized. For activities that might affect Federally-listed endangered or threatened species (or species proposed for listing) or designated critical habitat (or critical habitat proposed for such designation), the pre-construction notification must include the name(s) of the endangered or threatened species (or species proposed for listing) that might be affected by the proposed activity or that utilize the designated critical habitat (or critical habitat proposed for such designation) that might be affected by the proposed activity. The district engineer will determine whether the proposed activity “may affect” or will have “no effect” to listed species and designated critical habitat and will notify the non-Federal applicant of the Corps’ determination within 45 days of receipt of a complete pre-construction notification. For activities where the non- Federal applicant has identified listed species (or species proposed for listing) or designated critical habitat (or critical habitat proposed for such designation) that might be affected or is in the vicinity of the activity, and has so notified the Corps, the applicant shall not begin work until the Corps has provided notification that the proposed activity will have “no effect” on listed species (or species proposed for listing or designated critical habitat (or critical habitat proposed for such designation), or until ESA section 7 consultation or conference has been completed. If the non-Federal applicant has not heard back from the Corps within 45 days, the applicant must still wait for notification from the Corps. Page 285 of 310 (d) As a result of formal or informal consultation or conference with the FWS or NMFS the district engineer may add species-specific permit conditions to the NWPs. (e) Authorization of an activity by an NWP does not authorize the “take” of a threatened or endangered species as defined under the ESA. In the absence of separate authorization (e.g., an ESA Section 10 Permit, a Biological Opinion with “incidental take” provisions, etc.) from the FWS or the NMFS, the Endangered Species Act prohibits any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take a listed species, where "take" means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. The word “harm” in the definition of “take'' means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering. (f) If the non-federal permittee has a valid ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit with an approved Habitat Conservation Plan for a project or a group of projects that includes the proposed NWP activity, the non-federal applicant should provide a copy of that ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit with the PCN required by paragraph (c) of this general condition. The district engineer will coordinate with the agency that issued the ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit to determine whether the proposed NWP activity and the associated incidental take were considered in the internal ESA section 7 consultation conducted for the ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit. If that coordination results in concurrence from the agency that the proposed NWP activity and the associated incidental take were considered in the internal ESA section 7 consultation for the ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit, the district engineer does not need to conduct a separate ESA section 7 consultation for the proposed NWP activity. The district engineer will notify the non-federal applicant within 45 days of receipt of a complete pre-construction notification whether the ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit covers the proposed NWP activity or whether additional ESA section 7 consultation is required. (g) Information on the location of threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat can be obtained directly from the offices of the FWS and NMFS or their world wide web pages at http://www.fws.gov/ or http://www.fws.gov/ipac and http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/ respectively. 19. Migratory Birds and Bald and Golden Eagles. The permittee is responsible for ensuring that an action authorized by an NWP complies with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The permittee is responsible for contacting the appropriate local office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine what measures, if any, are necessary or appropriate to reduce adverse effects to migratory birds or eagles, including whether "incidental take" permits are necessary and available under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act for a particular activity. 20. Historic Properties. (a) No activity is authorized under any NWP which may have the potential to cause effects to properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places until the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) have been satisfied. (b) Federal permittees should follow their own procedures for complying with the requirements of section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (see 33 CFR 330.4(g)(1)). If pre-construction notification is required for the proposed NWP activity, the Federal permittee must provide the district engineer with the appropriate documentation to demonstrate compliance with those requirements. The district engineer will verify that the appropriate documentation has been submitted. If the appropriate documentation is not submitted, then additional consultation under section 106 may be necessary. The respective federal agency is responsible for fulfilling its obligation to comply with section 106. (c) Non-federal permittees must submit a pre-construction notification to the district engineer if the NWP activity might have the potential to cause effects to any historic properties listed on, determined to be eligible for listing on, or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, including previously unidentified properties. For such activities, the pre-construction notification must state which historic properties might have the potential to be affected by the proposed NWP activity or include a vicinity map indicating the location of the historic properties or the potential for the presence of historic properties. Assistance regarding information on the location of, or potential for, the presence of historic properties can be sought from the State Historic Preservation Officer, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, or designated tribal representative, as appropriate, and the National Register of Historic Places (see 33 CFR 330.4(g)). When reviewing pre-construction notifications, district engineers will comply with the current procedures for addressing the requirements of section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The district engineer shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to carry out appropriate identification efforts commensurate with potential impacts, which may include background research, consultation, oral history interviews, sample field investigation, and/or field survey. Based on the information submitted in the PCN and these identification efforts, the district engineer shall determine whether the proposed NWP activity has the potential to cause effects on the historic properties. Section 106 consultation is not required when the district engineer determines that the activity does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties (see 36 CFR 800.3(a)). Section 106 consultation is required when the district engineer determines that the activity has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. The district engineer will conduct consultation with consulting parties identified under 36 CFR 800.2(c) when he or she Page 286 of 310 makes any of the following effect determinations for the purposes of section 106 of the NHPA: no historic properties affected, no adverse effect, or adverse effect. (d) Where the non-Federal applicant has identified historic properties on which the proposed NWP activity might have the potential to cause effects and has so notified the Corps, the non-Federal applicant shall not begin the activity until notified by the district engineer either that the activity has no potential to cause effects to historic properties or that NHPA section 106 consultation has been completed. For non-federal permittees, the district engineer will notify the prospective permittee within 45 days of receipt of a complete pre-construction notification whether NHPA section 106 consultation is required. If NHPA section 106 consultation is required, the district engineer will notify the non- Federal applicant that he or she cannot begin the activity until section 106 consultation is completed. If the non- Federal applicant has not heard back from the Corps within 45 days, the applicant must still wait for notification from the Corps. (e) Prospective permittees should be aware that section 110k of the NHPA (54 U.S.C. 306113) prevents the Corps from granting a permit or other assistance to an applicant who, with intent to avoid the requirements of section 106 of the NHPA, has intentionally significantly adversely affected a historic property to which the permit would relate, or having legal power to prevent it, allowed such significant adverse effect to occur, unless the Corps, after consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), determines that circumstances justify granting such assistance despite the adverse effect created or permitted by the applicant. If circumstances justify granting the assistance, the Corps is required to notify the ACHP and provide documentation specifying the circumstances, the degree of damage to the integrity of any historic properties affected, and proposed mitigation. This documentation must include any views obtained from the applicant, SHPO/THPO, appropriate Indian tribes if the undertaking occurs on or affects historic properties on tribal lands or affects properties of interest to those tribes, and other parties known to have a legitimate interest in the impacts to the permitted activity on historic properties. 21. Discovery of Previously Unknown Remains and Artifacts. Permittees that discover any previously unknown historic, cultural or archeological remains and artifacts while accomplishing the activity authorized by an NWP, they must immediately notify the district engineer of what they have found, and to the maximum extent practicable, avoid construction activities that may affect the remains and artifacts until the required coordination has been completed. The district engineer will initiate the Federal, Tribal, and state coordination required to determine if the items or remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 22. Designated Critical Resource Waters. Critical resource waters include, NOAA-managed marine sanctuaries and marine monuments, and National Estuarine Research Reserves. The district engineer may designate, after notice and opportunity for public comment, additional waters officially designated by a state as having particular environmental or ecological significance, such as outstanding national resource waters or state natural heritage sites. The district engineer may also designate additional critical resource waters after notice and opportunity for public comment. (a) Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States are not authorized by NWPs 7, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 29, 31, 35, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 49, 50, 51, 52, 57 and 58 for any activity within, or directly affecting, critical resource waters, including wetlands adjacent to such waters. (b) For NWPs 3, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, and 54, notification is required in accordance with general condition 32, for any activity proposed by permittees in the designated critical resource waters including wetlands adjacent to those waters. The district engineer may authorize activities under these NWPs only after she or he determines that the impacts to the critical resource waters will be no more than minimal. 23. Mitigation. The district engineer will consider the following factors when determining appropriate and practicable mitigation necessary to ensure that the individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects are no more than minimal: (a) The activity must be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize adverse effects, both temporary and permanent, to waters of the United States to the maximum extent practicable at the project site (i.e., on site). (b) Mitigation in all its forms (avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing, or compensating for resource losses) will be required to the extent necessary to ensure that the individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects are no more than minimal. (c) Compensatory mitigation at a minimum one-for-one ratio will be required for all wetland losses that exceed 1/10- acre and require pre-construction notification, unless the district engineer determines in writing that either some other form of mitigation would be more environmentally appropriate or the adverse environmental effects of the proposed activity are no more than minimal, and provides an activity-specific waiver of this requirement. For wetland losses of 1/10-acre or less that require pre-construction notification, the district engineer may determine on a case- by-case basis that compensatory mitigation is required to ensure that the activity results in only minimal adverse environmental effects. (d) Compensatory mitigation at a minimum one-for-one ratio will be required for all losses of stream bed that exceed 3/100-acre and require pre-construction notification, unless the district engineer determines in writing that either Page 287 of 310 some other form of mitigation would be more environmentally appropriate or the adverse environmental effects of the proposed activity are no more than minimal, and provides an activity-specific waiver of this requirement. This compensatory mitigation requirement may be satisfied through the restoration or enhancement of riparian areas next to streams in accordance with paragraph (e) of this general condition. For losses of stream bed of 3/100-acre or less that require pre-construction notification, the district engineer may determine on a case-by-case basis that compensatory mitigation is required to ensure that the activity results in only minimal adverse environmental effects. Compensatory mitigation for losses of streams should be provided, if practicable, through stream rehabilitation, enhancement, or preservation, since streams are difficult-to-replace resources (see 33 CFR 332.3(e)(3)). (e) Compensatory mitigation plans for NWP activities in or near streams or other open waters will normally include a requirement for the restoration or enhancement, maintenance, and legal protection (e.g., conservation easements) of riparian areas next to open waters. In some cases, the restoration or maintenance/protection of riparian areas may be the only compensatory mitigation required. If restoring riparian areas involves planting vegetation, only native species should be planted. The width of the required riparian area will address documented water quality or aquatic habitat loss concerns. Normally, the riparian area will be 25 to 50 feet wide on each side of the stream, but the district engineer may require slightly wider riparian areas to address documented water quality or habitat loss concerns. If it is not possible to restore or maintain/protect a riparian area on both sides of a stream, or if the waterbody is a lake or coastal waters, then restoring or maintaining/protecting a riparian area along a single bank or shoreline may be sufficient. Where both wetlands and open waters exist on the project site, the district engineer will determine the appropriate compensatory mitigation (e.g., riparian areas and/or wetlands compensation) based on what is best for the aquatic environment on a watershed basis. In cases where riparian areas are determined to be the most appropriate form of minimization or compensatory mitigation, the district engineer may waive or reduce the requirement to provide wetland compensatory mitigation for wetland losses. (f) Compensatory mitigation projects provided to offset losses of aquatic resources must comply with the applicable provisions of 33 CFR part 332. (1) The prospective permittee is responsible for proposing an appropriate compensatory mitigation option if compensatory mitigation is necessary to ensure that the activity results in no more than minimal adverse environmental effects. For the NWPs, the preferred mechanism for providing compensatory mitigation is mitigation bank credits or in-lieu fee program credits (see 33 CFR 332.3(b)(2) and (3)). However, if an appropriate number and type of mitigation bank or in-lieu credits are not available at the time the PCN is submitted to the district engineer, the district engineer may approve the use of permittee-responsible mitigation. (2) The amount of compensatory mitigation required by the district engineer must be sufficient to ensure that the authorized activity results in no more than minimal individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects (see 33 CFR 330.1(e)(3)). (See also 33 CFR 332.3(f).) (3) Since the likelihood of success is greater and the impacts to potentially valuable uplands are reduced, aquatic resource restoration should be the first compensatory mitigation option considered for permittee-responsible mitigation. (4) If permittee-responsible mitigation is the proposed option, the prospective permittee is responsible for submitting a mitigation plan. A conceptual or detailed mitigation plan may be used by the district engineer to make the decision on the NWP verification request, but a final mitigation plan that addresses the applicable requirements of 33 CFR 332.4(c)(2) through (14) must be approved by the district engineer before the permittee begins work in waters of the United States, unless the district engineer determines that prior approval of the final mitigation plan is not practicable or not necessary to ensure timely completion of the required compensatory mitigation (see 33 CFR 332.3(k)(3)). If permittee-responsible mitigation is the proposed option, and the proposed compensatory mitigation site is located on land in which another federal agency holds an easement, the district engineer will coordinate with that federal agency to determine if proposed compensatory mitigation project is compatible with the terms of the easement. (5) If mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program credits are the proposed option, the mitigation plan needs to address only the baseline conditions at the impact site and the number of credits to be provided (see 33 CFR 332.4(c)(1)(ii)). (6) Compensatory mitigation requirements (e.g., resource type and amount to be provided as compensatory mitigation, site protection, ecological performance standards, monitoring requirements) may be addressed through conditions added to the NWP authorization, instead of components of a compensatory mitigation plan (see 33 CFR 332.4(c)(1)(ii)). (g) Compensatory mitigation will not be used to increase the acreage losses allowed by the acreage limits of the NWPs. For example, if an NWP has an acreage limit of 1/2-acre, it cannot be used to authorize any NWP activity resulting in the loss of greater than 1/2-acre of waters of the United States, even if compensatory mitigation is provided that replaces or restores some of the lost waters. However, compensatory mitigation can and should be used, as necessary, Page 288 of 310 to ensure that an NWP activity already meeting the established acreage limits also satisfies the no more than minimal impact requirement for the NWPs. (h) Permittees may propose the use of mitigation banks, in-lieu fee programs, or permittee-responsible mitigation. When developing a compensatory mitigation proposal, the permittee must consider appropriate and practicable options consistent with the framework at 33 CFR 332.3(b). For activities resulting in the loss of marine or estuarine resources, permittee-responsible mitigation may be environmentally preferable if there are no mitigation banks or in- lieu fee programs in the area that have marine or estuarine credits available for sale or transfer to the permittee. For permittee-responsible mitigation, the special conditions of the NWP verification must clearly indicate the party or parties responsible for the implementation and performance of the compensatory mitigation project, and, if required, its long-term management. (i) Where certain functions and services of waters of the United States are permanently adversely affected by a regulated activity, such as discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States that will convert a forested or scrub-shrub wetland to a herbaceous wetland in a permanently maintained utility line right-of-way, mitigation may be required to reduce the adverse environmental effects of the activity to the no more than minimal level. 24. Safety of Impoundment Structures. To ensure that all impoundment structures are safely designed, the district engineer may require non-Federal applicants to demonstrate that the structures comply with established state or federal, dam safety criteria or have been designed by qualified persons. The district engineer may also require documentation that the design has been independently reviewed by similarly qualified persons, and appropriate modifications made to ensure safety. 25. Water Quality. (a) Where the certifying authority (state, authorized tribe, or EPA, as appropriate) has not previously certified compliance of an NWP with CWA section 401, a CWA section 401 water quality certification for the proposed discharge must be obtained or waived (see 33 CFR 330.4(c)). If the permittee cannot comply with all of the conditions of a water quality certification previously issued by certifying authority for the issuance of the NWP, then the permittee must obtain a water quality certification or waiver for the proposed discharge in order for the activity to be authorized by an NWP. (b) If the NWP activity requires pre-construction notification and the certifying authority has not previously certified compliance of an NWP with CWA section 401, the proposed discharge is not authorized by an NWP until water quality certification is obtained or waived. If the certifying authority issues a water quality certification for the proposed discharge, the permittee must submit a copy of the certification to the district engineer. The discharge is not authorized by an NWP until the district engineer has notified the permittee that the water quality certification requirement has been satisfied by the issuance of a water quality certification or a waiver. (c) The district engineer or certifying authority may require additional water quality management measures to ensure that the authorized activity does not result in more than minimal degradation of water quality. 26. Coastal Zone Management. In coastal states where an NWP has not previously received a state coastal zone management consistency concurrence, an individual state coastal zone management consistency concurrence must be obtained, or a presumption of concurrence must occur (see 33 CFR 330.4(d)). If the permittee cannot comply with all of the conditions of a coastal zone management consistency concurrence previously issued by the state, then the permittee must obtain an individual coastal zone management consistency concurrence or presumption of concurrence in order for the activity to be authorized by an NWP. The district engineer or a state may require additional measures to ensure that the authorized activity is consistent with state coastal zone management requirements. 27. Regional and Case-By-Case Conditions. The activity must comply with any regional conditions that may have been added by the Division Engineer (see 33 CFR 330.4(e)) and with any case specific conditions added by the Corps or by the state, Indian Tribe, or U.S. EPA in its CWA section 401 Water Quality Certification, or by the state in its Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determination. 28. Use of Multiple Nationwide Permits. The use of more than one NWP for a single and complete project is authorized, subject to the following restrictions: (a) If only one of the NWPs used to authorize the single and complete project has a specified acreage limit, the acreage loss of waters of the United States cannot exceed the acreage limit of the NWP with the highest specified acreage limit. For example, if a road crossing over tidal waters is constructed under NWP 14, with associated bank stabilization authorized by NWP 13, the maximum acreage loss of waters of the United States for the total project cannot exceed 1»3-acre. (b) If one or more of the NWPs used to authorize the single and complete project has specified acreage limits, the acreage loss of waters of the United States authorized by those NWPs cannot exceed their respective specified acreage limits. For example, if a commercial development is constructed under NWP 39, and the single and complete project includes the filling of an upland ditch authorized by NWP 46, the maximum acreage loss of waters of the United States Page 289 of 310 for the commercial development under NWP 39 cannot exceed 1/2-acre, and the total acreage loss of waters of United States due to the NWP 39 and 46 activities cannot exceed 1 acre. 29. Transfer of Nationwide Permit Verifications. If the permittee sells the property associated with a nationwide permit verification, the permittee may transfer the nationwide permit verification to the new owner by submitting a letter to the appropriate Corps district office to validate the transfer. A copy of the nationwide permit verification must be attached to the letter, and the letter must contain the following statement and signature: “When the structures or work authorized by this nationwide permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this nationwide permit, including any special conditions, will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this nationwide permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below.” _____________________________________________ (Transferee) _____________________________________________ (Date) 30. Compliance Certification. Each permittee who receives an NWP verification letter from the Corps must provide a signed certification documenting completion of the authorized activity and implementation of any required compensatory mitigation. The success of any required permittee-responsible mitigation, including the achievement of ecological performance standards, will be addressed separately by the district engineer. The Corps will provide the permittee the certification document with the NWP verification letter. The certification document will include: (a) A statement that the authorized activity was done in accordance with the NWP authorization, including any general, regional, or activity-specific conditions; (b) A statement that the implementation of any required compensatory mitigation was completed in accordance with the permit conditions. If credits from a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program are used to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements, the certification must include the documentation required by 33 CFR 332.3(l)(3) to confirm that the permittee secured the appropriate number and resource type of credits; and (c) The signature of the permittee certifying the completion of the activity and mitigation. The completed certification document must be submitted to the district engineer within 30 days of completion of the authorized activity or the implementation of any required compensatory mitigation, whichever occurs later. 31. Activities Affecting Structures or Works Built by the United States. If an NWP activity also requires review by, or permission from, the Corps pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 408 because it will alter or temporarily or permanently occupy or use a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) federally authorized Civil Works project (a “USACE project”), the prospective permittee must submit a pre-construction notification. See paragraph (b)(10) of general condition 32. An activity that requires section 408 permission and/or review is not authorized by an NWP until the appropriate Corps office issues the section 408 permission or completes its review to alter, occupy, or use the USACE project, and the district engineer issues a written NWP verification. 32. Pre-Construction Notification. (a)Timing. Where required by the terms of the NWP, the prospective permittee must notify the district engineer by submitting a pre-construction notification (PCN) as early as possible. The district engineer must determine if the PCN is complete within 30 calendar days of the date of receipt and, if the PCN is determined to be incomplete, notify the prospective permittee within that 30 day period to request the additional information necessary to make the PCN complete. The request must specify the information needed to make the PCN complete. As a general rule, district engineers will request additional information necessary to make the PCN complete only once. However, if the prospective permittee does not provide all of the requested information, then the district engineer will notify the prospective permittee that the PCN is still incomplete and the PCN review process will not commence until all of the requested information has been received by the district engineer. The prospective permittee shall not begin the activity until either: (1) He or she is notified in writing by the district engineer that the activity may proceed under the NWP with any special conditions imposed by the district or division engineer; or (2) 45 calendar days have passed from the district engineer’s receipt of the complete PCN and the prospective permittee has not received written notice from the district or division engineer. However, if the permittee was required to notify the Corps pursuant to general condition 18 that listed species or critical habitat might be affected or are in the vicinity of the activity, or to notify the Corps pursuant to general condition 20 that the activity might have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, the permittee cannot begin the activity until receiving written notification from the Corps that there is “no effect” on listed species or “no potential to Page 290 of 310 cause effects” on historic properties, or that any consultation required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (see 33 CFR 330.4(f)) and/or section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (see 33 CFR 330.4(g)) has been completed. If the proposed activity requires a written waiver to exceed specified limits of an NWP, the permittee may not begin the activity until the district engineer issues the waiver. If the district or division engineer notifies the permittee in writing that an individual permit is required within 45 calendar days of receipt of a complete PCN, the permittee cannot begin the activity until an individual permit has been obtained. Subsequently, the permittee’s right to proceed under the NWP may be modified, suspended, or revoked only in accordance with the procedure set forth in 33 CFR 330.5(d)(2). (b)Contents of Pre-Construction Notification: The PCN must be in writing and include the following information: (1) Name, address and telephone numbers of the prospective permittee; (2) Location of the proposed activity; (3) Identify the specific NWP or NWP(s) the prospective permittee wants to use to authorize the proposed activity; (4) (i) A description of the proposed activity; the activity’s purpose; direct and indirect adverse environmental effects the activity would cause, including the anticipated amount of loss of wetlands, other special aquatic sites, and other waters expected to result from the NWP activity, in acres, linear feet, or other appropriate unit of measure; a description of any proposed mitigation measures intended to reduce the adverse environmental effects caused by the proposed activity; and any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permit(s) used or intended to be used to authorize any part of the proposed project or any related activity, including other separate and distant crossings for linear projects that require Department of the Army authorization but do not require pre-construction notification. The description of the proposed activity and any proposed mitigation measures should be sufficiently detailed to allow the district engineer to determine that the adverse environmental effects of the activity will be no more than minimal and to determine the need for compensatory mitigation or other mitigation measures. (ii) For linear projects where one or more single and complete crossings require pre-construction notification, the PCN must include the quantity of anticipated losses of wetlands, other special aquatic sites, and other waters for each single and complete crossing of those wetlands, other special aquatic sites, and other waters (including those single and complete crossings authorized by an NWP but do not require PCNs). This information will be used by the district engineer to evaluate the cumulative adverse environmental effects of the proposed linear project, and does not change those non-PCN NWP activities into NWP PCNs. (iii) Sketches should be provided when necessary to show that the activity complies with the terms of the NWP. (Sketches usually clarify the activity and when provided results in a quicker decision. Sketches should contain sufficient detail to provide an illustrative description of the proposed activity (e.g., a conceptual plan), but do not need to be detailed engineering plans); (5) The PCN must include a delineation of wetlands, other special aquatic sites, and other waters, such as lakes and ponds, and perennial and intermittent streams, on the project site. Wetland delineations must be prepared in accordance with the current method required by the Corps. The permittee may ask the Corps to delineate the special aquatic sites and other waters on the project site, but there may be a delay if the Corps does the delineation, especially if the project site is large or contains many wetlands, other special aquatic sites, and other waters. Furthermore, the 45-day period will not start until the delineation has been submitted to or completed by the Corps, as appropriate; (6) If the proposed activity will result in the loss of greater than 1/10-acre of wetlands or 3/100-acre of stream bed and a PCN is required, the prospective permittee must submit a statement describing how the mitigation requirement will be satisfied, or explaining why the adverse environmental effects are no more than minimal and why compensatory mitigation should not be required. As an alternative, the prospective permittee may submit a conceptual or detailed mitigation plan. (7) For non-federal permittees, if any listed species (or species proposed for listing) or designated critical habitat (or critical habitat proposed for such designation) might be affected or is in the vicinity of the activity, or if the activity is located in designated critical habitat (or critical habitat proposed for such designation), the PCN must include the name(s) of those endangered or threatened species (or species proposed for listing) that might be affected by the proposed activity or utilize the designated critical habitat (or critical habitat proposed for such designation) that might be affected by the proposed activity. For NWP activities that require pre-construction notification, Federal permittees must provide documentation demonstrating compliance with the Endangered Species Act; (8) For non-federal permittees, if the NWP activity might have the potential to cause effects to a historic property listed on, determined to be eligible for listing on, or potentially eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places, the PCN must state which historic property might have the potential to be affected by the Page 291 of 310 proposed activity or include a vicinity map indicating the location of the historic property. For NWP activities that require pre-construction notification, Federal permittees must provide documentation demonstrating compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; (9) For an activity that will occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System, or in a river officially designated by Congress as a “study river” for possible inclusion in the system while the river is in an official study status, the PCN must identify the Wild and Scenic River or the “study river” (see general condition 16); and (10) For an NWP activity that requires permission from, or review by, the Corps pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 408 because it will alter or temporarily or permanently occupy or use a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers federally authorized civil works project, the pre-construction notification must include a statement confirming that the project proponent has submitted a written request for section 408 permission from, or review by, the Corps office having jurisdiction over that USACE project. (c) Form of Pre-Construction Notification: The nationwide permit pre-construction notification form (Form ENG 6082) should be used for NWP PCNs. A letter containing the required information may also be used. Applicants may provide electronic files of PCNs and supporting materials if the district engineer has established tools and procedures for electronic submittals. (d) Agency Coordination: (1) The district engineer will consider any comments from Federal and state agencies concerning the proposed activity’s compliance with the terms and conditions of the NWPs and the need for mitigation to reduce the activity’s adverse environmental effects so that they are no more than minimal. (2) Agency coordination is required for: (i) all NWP activities that require pre-construction notification and result in the loss of greater than 1/2-acre of waters of the United States; (ii) NWP 13 activities in excess of 500 linear feet, fills greater than one cubic yard per running foot, or involve discharges of dredged or fill material into special aquatic sites; and (iii) NWP 54 activities in excess of 500 linear feet, or that extend into the waterbody more than 30 feet from the mean low water line in tidal waters or the ordinary high water mark in the Great Lakes. (3) When agency coordination is required, the district engineer will immediately provide (e.g., via e-mail, facsimile transmission, overnight mail, or other expeditious manner) a copy of the complete PCN to the appropriate Federal or state offices (FWS, state natural resource or water quality agency, EPA, and, if appropriate, the NMFS). With the exception of NWP 37, these agencies will have 10 calendar days from the date the material is transmitted to notify the district engineer via telephone, facsimile transmission, or e-mail that they intend to provide substantive, site-specific comments. The comments must explain why the agency believes the adverse environmental effects will be more than minimal. If so contacted by an agency, the district engineer will wait an additional 15 calendar days before making a decision on the pre-construction notification. The district engineer will fully consider agency comments received within the specified time frame concerning the proposed activity’s compliance with the terms and conditions of the NWPs, including the need for mitigation to ensure that the net adverse environmental effects of the proposed activity are no more than minimal. The district engineer will provide no response to the resource agency, except as provided below. The district engineer will indicate in the administrative record associated with each pre-construction notification that the resource agencies’ concerns were considered. For NWP 37, the emergency watershed protection and rehabilitation activity may proceed immediately in cases where there is an unacceptable hazard to life or a significant loss of property or economic hardship will occur. The district engineer will consider any comments received to decide whether the NWP 37 authorization should be modified, suspended, or revoked in accordance with the procedures at 33 CFR 330.5. (4) In cases of where the prospective permittee is not a Federal agency, the district engineer will provide a response to NMFS within 30 calendar days of receipt of any Essential Fish Habitat conservation recommendations, as required by section 305(b)(4)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. (5) Applicants are encouraged to provide the Corps with either electronic files or multiple copies of pre- construction notifications to expedite agency coordination. Page 292 of 310 December 21, 2020 Chad Konickson U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch Chief, St. Paul District 180 Fifth Street East, Suite 700 St. Paul, MN 55101-1678 RE: Nationwide Permits – Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Dear Chad Konickson: This letter is submitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) under authority of Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), Minn. Stat. chs. 115 and 116 and Minn. R. chs. 7001.1400-7001.1470, 7050, 7052, and 7053. The MPCA examined the information furnished by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), including the proposed Nationwide Permits (NWPs) issued by USACE Headquarters on September 15, 2020, and regional conditions proposed by USACE St. Paul District September 18, 2020, and proposes requiring conditions through the 401 Water Quality Certification (401 Certification or Certification). Exclusion from 401 Certification of NWPs 1.Physical Alterations of 300 or More Linear Feet of a Stream or River The MPCA’s antidegradation standard (Minn. R. 7050.0270) requires that the MPCA issue control documents that protect and maintain existing and beneficial uses. For this reason, the MPCA denies certification without prejudice for projects resulting in permanent degradation (impacts longer than 12 months) for projects that will cause a physical alteration of 300 or more linear feet of a stream or river that are not covered under NWP 13, Bank Stabilization or projects that will result in a functional lift of waters impacted by the projects activities. Minn. R. ch. 7050.0255 subp. 30, defines “physical alteration” as “a physical change that degrades surface waters such as the dredging, filling, draining, or permanent inundation of a surface water.” The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7050.0255. Physical alterations to smaller streams can potentially have significant impact on overall water quality. The MPCA must individually review these projects for compliance with Water Quality Standards (WQS). 2.Exceptional Aquatic Life Use Waters (Attachment 1) The MPCA’s antidegradation standard (Minn. R. 7050.0270) requires that the MPCA issue control documents that protect and maintain existing and beneficial uses. For this reason, the MPCA denies certification without prejudice for projects resulting in permanent degradation (impacts longer than 12 months) for projects that will cause a physical alteration of Exceptional Aquatic Life Use Waters. Exceptional Aquatic Life Use Waters are very susceptible to disturbance. An increase in water temperature or sedimentation can effectively destroy this unique water habitat. Projects that will potentially impact Exceptional Aquatic Life Use Waters directly or indirectly by impacting stream hydrology, connectivity, chemistry and habitat are required to Page 293 of 310 Chad Konickson Page 2 December 21, 2020 obtain an individual Certification. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7050.0222 subps. 2c, 3c and 4c. Because Exceptional Aquatic Life Use Waters are very susceptible to disturbance, the MPCA must individually review projects for compliance with WQS for the following water bodies: More information on the water bodies is located at the 401 webpage: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/clean-water-act-section-401-water-quality-certifications. Water Body Name Miles Reach 1 Cross River 14.84 Fourmile Cr. To Lk Superior 2 Greenwood River 7.29 Greenwood Lk to Brule R 3 Irish Creek 7.07 Headwaters to Swamp River Reservoir 4 Kimball Creek 8.98 Headwaters to Lk Superior 5 Manitou River 11.07 S Br Manitou R to Lk Superior 6 Mistletoe Creek 4.56 Halls Pond to Poplar R 7 Two Island River 11.44 Unnamed Cr to Lk Superior 8 Little Devil Track River 2.71 Unnamed Cr to Devil Track R 9 Heartbreak Creek 3.79 Unnamed Cr to Temperance R 10 Houghtaling Creek 1.7 Unnamed Cr to Unnamed Cr 11 Caribou River 5.51 Amenda Cr to Unnamed Cr 12 Caribou River 1.18 Unnamed Cr to Unnamed Cr 13 Crown Creek 1.68 Fry Cr to Unnamed Cr 14 Cascade River 14.46 N Br Cascade R to Lk Superior 15 Spruce Creek (Deer Yard Creek) 3.21 Unnamed Cr (Ward Lk outlet) to Lk Superior 16 Bluff Creek 2.68 East Twin Lk (16-0145-00) to South Brule R 17 Elbow Creek 0.81 Unnamed Cr to Devil Track R 18 Wanless Creek 2.73 Headwaters (Dam Five Lk 38-0053-00) to Houghtaling Cr 19 Lullaby Creek 1.82 Headwaters (Lullaby Lk 16-0100-00) to Brule R 20 Manitou River, South Branch 5.42 Junction Cr to Manitou R 21 Sixmile Creek 3.32 Unnamed Cr to Temperance R 22 Swamp River 1.91 Stevens Lk to T63 R4E S20, east line 23 Brule River 12.58 BWCA boundary to South Brule R 24 Baptism River, West Branch 2.68 -91.3381 47.4702 to Crown Cr 25 Kadunce River (Kadunce Creek) 2.69 -90.1484 47.8261 to Lk Superior 26 Portage Brook 5.85 CSAH 16 to Pigeon R 27 Temperance River 15.05 T61 R4W S4, north line to Sixmile Cr 28 Baptism River, East Branch 3.28 Lk Twenty-three to Blesner Cr 29 Woods Creek 1.84 -90.2650 47.7964 to Devil Track R 30 Devil Track River 6.66 Devil Track Lk to Unnamed cr Page 294 of 310 Chad Konickson Page 3 December 21, 2020 31 Humphrey Creek 3.67 Headwaters to Boulder Cr 32 Coyote Creek 1 Unnamed Cr to Pequaywan Lk 33 Cloquet River 13.95 Headwaters (Katherine Lk 38-0538-00) to T57 R10 S32, south line 34 Cloquet River 26.44 T56 R10 S5, north line to W Br Cloquet River 35 Cloquet River 28.82 W Br Cloquet R to Island Lake Reservoir 36 Schoolcraft River 7.78 Frontenac Cr to Plantagenet Lk 37 Prairie River, West Fork 2.31 Hartley Lk to Prairie R 38 Willow River Ditch 3.3 Willow River Flowage to Moose R 39 Tamarack River 7.52 Little Tamarack R to Prairie R 40 Prairie River 11.31 Day Bk to Balsam Cr 41 Bee Creek (Waterloo Creek) 3.45 T101 R6W S29, north line to MN/IA border 42 Tulaby Creek 5.08 Tulaby Lk to McCraney Lk 43 Little Isabella River 11.02 Headwaters to Flat Horn Lk 44 Snake River 1.71 T61 R9W S7, south line to T61 R10W S12, north line 45 Jack Pine Creek 7.24 Headwaters to Mitawan Cr 46 Mitawan Creek 8.18 Kitigan Lk to T61 R9W S13, north line 47 Denley Creek 3.13 Nira Cr to Stony R 48 Cross River 3.79 Ham Lake Outlet to Gunflint Lk 49 Bezhik Creek 0.9 BWCA boundary to Moose R 3.Prohibited Outstanding Resource Value Waters (Attachment 2) The MPCA’s antidegradation standard (Minn. R. 7050.0270) requires that the MPCA issue control documents that “prohibit a net increase in loading or other causes of degradation to prohibited outstanding resource values waters ….” For this reason, the MPCA denies certification without prejudice for projects resulting in permanent degradation (impacts longer than 12 months) to prohibited outstanding resource value waters (ORVWs). The MPCA does not find that NWP authorizations for broad categories of activities, where specific impacts may vary, is appropriate for activities in these waters. Therefore, the MPCA excludes from this general 401 Certification of the NWPs any project taking place in whole or in part in a listed prohibited ORVW in Minnesota, as identified in Minn. R. 7050.0335, subp. 3, and listed below. Such projects, though authorized by the NWPs, require individual 401 Certification from the MPCA. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7050.0255 – 7050-0335. The MPCA needs to be able to individually review projects for compliance with WQS. Minn. R. 7050.0335 DESIGNATED OUTSTANDING RESOURCE VALUE WATERS. Subp. 3. Prohibited outstanding resource value waters. For the purposes of parts 7050.0250 to 7050.0335, the following surface waters are prohibited outstanding resource value waters: More information on the water bodies is located at the 401 webpage: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/clean-water-act-section-401-water-quality-certifications. A.Waters within the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness; Page 295 of 310 Chad Konickson Page 4 December 21, 2020 B.Those portions of Lake Superior north of latitude 47 degrees, 57 minutes, 13 seconds, east of Hat Point, south of the Minnesota-Ontario boundary, and west of the Minnesota- Michigan boundary; C.Waters within Voyageurs National Park; D.The following scientific and natural areas: 1)Boot Lake, Anoka County; 2)Kettle River in Sections 15, 22, 23, T.41, R.20, Pine County; 3)Pennington Bog, Beltrami County; 4)Purvis Lake-Ober Foundation, Saint Louis County; 5)Waters within the borders of Itasca Wilderness Sanctuary, Clearwater County; 6)Iron Springs Bog, Clearwater County; 7)Wolsfeld Woods, Hennepin County; 8)Green Water Lake, Becker County; 9)Black Dog Preserve, Dakota County; 10)Prairie Bush Clover, Jackson County; 11)Black Lake Bog, Pine County; 12)Pembina Trail Preserve, Polk County; and 13)Falls Creek, Washington County; and E.The following state and federal designated wild river segments: 1)Kettle River from the site of the former dam at Sandstone to its confluence with the Saint Croix River; and 2)Rum River from Ogechie Lake spillway to the northernmost confluence with Lake Onamia. 4.Restricted ORVWs (Attachment 2) The MPCA’s antidegradation standard (Minn. R. 7050.0270) requires that the MPCA issue control documents that “restrict net increases in loading or other causes of degradation as necessary to maintain the exceptional characteristics for which the restricted outstanding resource value waters…were designated.” The MPCA does not find that NWP authorizations for broad categories of activities, where specific impacts may vary, is appropriate for activities in these waters. Therefore, the MPCA excludes from this general 401 Certification of the NWPs any project taking place in whole or in part in a listed restricted ORVW in Minnesota, as identified in Minn. R. 7050.0335, subp. 1, and listed below. Such projects, though authorized by the NWPs, require individual 401 Certification from the MPCA. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7050.0255 – 7050- 0335. The MPCA needs to be able to individually review projects for compliance with WQS. NOTE: Projects that will potentially impact calcareous fens identified as restricted ORVWs in Minn. R. 7050.0335, subp. 1, are also required to have an approved Fen Management Plan from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) which is sufficient to ensure maintenance of the exceptional characteristics for which the fens were designated as restricted ORVWs. Page 296 of 310 Chad Konickson Page 5 December 21, 2020 Minn. R. 7050.0335 DESIGNATED OUTSTANDING RESOURCE VALUE WATERS. Subpart 1. Restricted outstanding resource value waters. For the purposes of parts 7050.0250 to 7050.0335, the following surface waters are restricted outstanding resource value waters: More information on the water bodies is located at the 401 webpage: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/clean-water-act-section-401-water-quality-certifications. A.Lake Superior, except those portions identified in subpart 3, item B, as a prohibited outstanding resource value waters. B.Those portions of the Mississippi River from Lake Itasca to the southerly boundary of Morrison County that are included in the Mississippi Headwaters Board comprehensive plan dated February 12, 1981. C.Lake trout lakes, both existing and potential, as determined by the Commissioner in conjunction with the DNR, outside the boundaries of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and Voyageurs National Park and identified in parts 7050.0460 to 7050.0470. D.The following state and federal designated scenic or recreational river segments: 1)Saint Croix River, entire length; 2)Cannon River from northern city limits of Faribault to its confluence with the Mississippi River; 3)North Fork of the Crow River from Lake Koronis outlet to the Meeker-Wright county line; 4)Kettle River from north Pine County line to the site of the former dam at Sandstone; 5)Minnesota River from Lac qui Parle dam to Redwood County State-Aid Highway 11; Mississippi River from County State-Aid Highway 7 bridge in Saint Cloud to northwestern city limits of Anoka; and 6)Rum River from State Highway 27 bridge in Onamia to Madison and Rice Streets in Anoka. 401 Certification of NWPs The MPCA proposes to certify the referenced general NWPs because there is reasonable assurance that the activities identified within them will be conducted in a manner that will not violate applicable water quality standards provided the work is done in accordance with the following conditions, which shall become conditions of the NWPs: Conditions for All NWP Activities 1.Mitigation required by an NWP must comply with Minn. R. ch. 7050.0186. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7050.0186, Minn. R. 7050.0155. This condition is needed to ensure unavoidable physical alterations are properly mitigated. 2.The applicant must ensure that all surface waters in or bordering the construction areas that are not authorized to be impacted by the project are clearly identified prior to construction. This may be done through demarcation of the construction area on plan sheets or through marking boundaries in the field, for example construction staking, flagging, or the use of silt fences along Page 297 of 310 Chad Konickson Page 6 December 21, 2020 boundaries. The applicant must not impact any non-construction areas while conducting activities under this permit. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7001.0150). This condition is needed to protect surface waters not within the project boundaries. 3.Applicants must install in-water best management practices (BMPs) necessary to minimize total suspended solids (TSS) and sedimentation for any work conducted below the ordinary high water level (OHWL) as defined in Minn. Stat. 103G.005, subd. 14 of any surface water. 4.The applicant must document the in-water BMPs to be used during the authorized work prior to disturbing any land at the site; this documentation may be stand-alone or part of an Erosion Control Plan, Construction Plan, or other relevant construction document. This documentation is not required to be submitted to the MPCA for the purpose of the 401 Certification, but must be kept on-site during active construction by the applicant or the applicant's contractor until the project is complete. Proper installation of BMPs is required before conducting the authorized in- water activities and properly maintained throughout the duration of the project's in-water work. While conducting the authorized work, the applicant must visually monitor the BMPs to ensure that the BMPs are working as intended to reduce TSS or sedimentation. Visual inspection should occur every seven days and within 24 hours after a rainfall event greater than ½ inch in 24 hours. If the project activities cause an observable increase in TSS or sedimentation as described in Minn. R. ch. 7050.0210, subp. 2 outside or downstream of the authorized defined working area, the project activities must immediately cease and any malfunctioning BMPs must be repaired, or alternative BMPs must be implemented. This Certification does not authorize the violation of applicable water quality standards outside or downstream of the defined work area. The MPCA Authority: Minnesota water quality standards are defined in Minn. R. ch. 7050 and 7052. BMPs need to be installed function properly in order to ensure compliance with state water quality standards. Information on BMPs that may be suitable for in-water work is located in the Minnesota DNR Manual titled Best Practices for Meeting DNR General Public Waters Work Permit GP 2004-0001, located at: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/pwpermits/gp_2004_0001_manual.h tml. The MPCA is responsible for interpretation of the requirements of this condition, determining compliance with the requirements of this condition, and may enforcement this condition independent of the general permit. The point of contact at the MPCA for questions regarding this condition is: 401Certification.pca@state.mn.us. 5.The applicant must ensure that any dewatering activities do not create nuisance conditions as defined in Minn. R. ch. 7050.0210, supb. 2. BMPs must be used that minimize TSS and sedimentation by removing solids in the water before discharging the water. If discharging to an upland area, the discharge must be directed to an onsite sediment basin prior to discharging and the discharge shall not cause erosion, and must not cause inundation, or sedimentation to the receiving water. The applicant must document the in-water BMPs prior to beginning any dewatering, this includes the point of withdrawal and the point of discharge; this documentation may be stand-alone or part of an Erosion Control Plan, Construction Plan, or other relevant construction document. This documentation is not required to be submitted to Page 298 of 310 Chad Konickson Page 7 December 21, 2020 the MPCA for the purpose of the 401 Certification. The applicant must ensure that properly installed BMPs are in place before conducting the authorized activities and maintained throughout the duration of the dewatering work. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7050.0210, subp. 2 and 7050.0150. BMPs need to be installed function properly in order to ensure compliance with state water quality standards. The MPCA is responsible for interpretation of the requirements of this condition, determining compliance with the requirements of this condition, and may enforcement this condition independent of the general permit. The point of contact at the MPCA for questions regarding this condition is: 401Certification.pca@state.mn.us. 6.The applicant must ensure any earthen material used to construct or improve temporary or permanent dikes or dams, including cofferdams, or any roads, is contained and stabilized in a manner that will prevent any of the earthen material from eroding. The applicant must completely remove temporary structures and restore original bathymetry, or contours at project completion. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7050.0270 and 7050.0150. BMPs need to be installed function properly in order to ensure compliance with state water quality standards. 7.It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that the authorized activities do not exacerbate any existing impairments of a CWA 303-(d) listed impaired waters. The following MPCA webpages contain more information and search tools available to determine which waters in Minnesota are impaired: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/lupg1125 and http://www.pca.state.mn.us/mvri1126. The MPCA Authority: Applicable water quality standards are located in Minn. R. ch. 7050. This condition is needed to ensure compliance with state water quality standards. The MPCA is responsible for interpretation of the requirements of this condition, determining compliance with the requirements of this condition, and may enforcement this condition independent of the general permit. The point of contact at the MPCA for questions regarding this condition is: 401Certification.pca@state.mn.us. 8.Projects permitted under any NWP must implement planning and prewashing of equipment, prior to entering the site, to minimize the spread of invasive or noxious species. Fill used in any surface water must be clean fill that is free of any solid waste, toxic or hazardous contaminants, and invasive species as defined in Minn. Stat. ch. 84D and Minn. R. ch. 6216, and noxious weeds as defined in Minn. Stats. 18.75-18.91. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7050.0270 and 7050.0150. This condition is needed to ensure compliance with state water quality standards. 9.The applicant must provide: a) a copy of this Certification; b) documentation of any required BMPs under condition 3 above; and c) any written demarcation of waters of the United States under condition 2; to any prime contractor responsible for completing the project's authorized activities. The applicant must also ensure that there is a mechanism in place requiring each prime contractor to provide the same information to all subcontractors, at any level, responsible for fabricating or providing any material for the project or performing work at the project site. In addition, copies of these documents and any other relevant regulatory authorizations related to impacts of surface waters, must be available at or near the project site for use by contractors or staff responsible for completing the project work and must be available within 72 hours when Page 299 of 310 Chad Konickson Page 8 December 21, 2020 requested by the MPCA staff. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7050.0270 and 7050.0150. This condition is needed to ensure that all contractor activities meet State water quality standards. 10.The applicant is responsible for compliance with all applicable conditions of this Certification. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. chs. 7050.0270 and 7050.0150. This condition is needed to ensure that all contractor activities meet State water quality standards. 11.This Certification includes and incorporates by reference the general conditions of Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp.3. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7001.0150. This condition is need to ensure the applicant follows state permitting requirements. Conditions Specific to Individual NWP Activities In addition to all other applicable Certification conditions, the following activities must also comply with the activity-specific conditions below. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7050.0270. •NWP 7, Outfall Structures and Associated Intake Structures The applicant must ensure that impacts associated with outfall and intake structures do not harm aquatic life outside of the permitted project area and do not result in an unauthorized loss of surface waters. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7001.0150). This condition is needed to protect surface waters not within the project boundaries. •NWP 16, Return Water from Upland Contained Disposal Areas The applicant must ensure that return water from Upland Contained Disposal Areas, that is returned to the original source water, meet the same water quality standards that apply to the original source water. If the return water is discharged into a receiving water that is not the original source water, then the applicant must ensure that the discharge water will meet the more stringent water quality standard of the receiving water and the original source water. The MPCA Authority: Discharges of return water must not violate the state water quality standard identified in Minn. R. 7050.0210, subp.2. This condition is needed to protect surface water from excess sediment in the form of TSS and any contaminants contained in the TSS. •NWP 19 Minor Dredging Projects exceeding 50 CY of impacts are not certified and require an individual review and 401 Certification. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7050.0305, and 7050.0270. This condition is needed to protect the beneficial and existing uses of surface waters. •NWP 27 Wetland and Riparian Restoration and Creation Activities For restoration and creation activities, the applicant must meet the following conditions: o Manage sediment to minimize downstream effects. o Use low-flow and winter construction when appropriate. o Provide mitigation for any conversion of surface waters to uplands. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7050.0305, and 7050.0270. This condition is needed to protect the beneficial and existing uses of surface waters. •NWP 53 Removal of Low-Head Dams Projects involving the removal of low-head dams must meet the following conditions: Page 300 of 310 Chad Konickson Page 9 December 21, 2020 o Manage sediment to minimize downstream effects. o Use low-flow and winter construction when appropriate. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7050.0305, and 7050.0270. This condition is needed to protect the beneficial and existing uses of surface waters. NOTIFICATIONS: The following notifications are not conditions of the MPCA CWA 401 Certification of NWPs. They provide practices that can help reduce the potential environmental impacts or they provide notification to the public in Minnesota, that certain discharges in Waters of the State, as defined in Minn. Stat.§ 115.01, subd. 22, or activities associated with discharges into Waters of the State, are also regulated under rules administered by the MPCA: 1.It is the applicant’s responsibility to fully comply with all MPCA rules governing waters of the state, including MPCA rules governing wetlands (Minn. R. 7050.0186) which require an applicant to provide compensatory mitigation for the project’s unavoidable physical alterations to wetlands, including those not subject to federal jurisdiction under section 404 of the CWA. 2.Minnesota water quality standards found in Minn. R. ch. 7050, apply in all water of the state, defined in Minn. Stats. 115.01 subd. 22, "Waters of the state" means all streams, lakes, ponds, marshes, watercourses, waterways, wells, springs, reservoirs, aquifers, irrigation systems, drainage systems and all other bodies or accumulations of water, surface or underground, natural or artificial, public or private, which are contained within, flow through, or border upon the state or any portion thereof. 3.Applicants should review Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) / Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) projects to determine if they are applicable to their project. A list of WRAPS/TMDL projects is available at: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/total-maximum- daily-load-tmdl-projects. 4.Any projects in Cold Water Habitat waters, not excluded in Exceptional Aquatic Life Use Waters above and identified as class 2A, 2Ae, or 2Ag in part Minn. R. ch. 7050.0470, are required by the Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, section 131.10, to reflect an existing beneficial use or a feasibly attainable beneficial use, that permits propagating and maintaining a healthy community of cold water aquatic biota and their habitats. Existing beneficial use for cold water habitats means a beneficial use that was attained in a water body on or after November 28, 1975. Any project that impacts a Cold Water Habitat water must ensure that the Beneficial and Existing Uses are maintained. 5.Minn. R. chs. 7001 and 7090 requires any activity that will disturb one acre or more of land must first acquire a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) General Stormwater Permit from the MPCA for discharging stormwater during construction activity. Both the owners and operators of construction activity disturbing one acre or more of land are responsible for obtaining and complying with the conditions of the NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit prior to commencing construction activities. Sites disturbing less than one acre within a larger common plan of development or sale that is more than one acre also need permit coverage. A detailed Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), containing both temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control plans, must Page 301 of 310 Chad Konickson Page 10 December 21, 2020 be prepared prior to submitting an application for the NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit. In addition, any project that will result in over 50 acres of disturbed area and has a discharge point within one mile of a special or impaired water is required to submit their SWPPP to the MPCA for a review at least 30 days prior to the commencement of land disturbing activities. If the SWPPP is out of compliance with the terms and conditions of the NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit, further delay may occur. For more information, please visit the following webpage: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/construction-stormwater. 6.Minn. R. ch. 7001.0030 requires that, prior to testing the structural integrity of any newly installed pipeline or any existing pipeline maintained or repaired that is authorized by NWPs, the applicant must obtain NPDES/SDS Permit coverage from the MPCA. The NPDES/SDS Permit regulates the discharge of water and trench waters associated with this activity. 7.Chloride from winter road salt affects water quality. The MPCA encourages public road authorities pursuing projects under the general permit to consider the use of BMPs to reduce the use of chloride. General information about chloride and water quality, including the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Chloride Management Plan, is located at: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/salt-applicators. 8.When riprap is used, the applicant should consider placing riprap in the following manner: a.Use natural rock (average between 6 inches and 30 inches in diameter) that is free of debris that may cause pollution or siltation. b.A filter of crushed rock, gravel, or filter fabric material can be placed underneath the rock. c.The riprap should be no more than 6 feet waterward of the OHWL as defined in Minn. Stat.§ ch. 103G.005, subd.14. d.The riprap should conform to the natural alignment of shore and should not obstruct navigation or the flow of water. e.The minimum finished slope waterward of the OHWL should be no steeper than 3 to 1 (horizontal to vertical). 9.Section 401 Certification does not release the applicant from obtaining all necessary federal, state, and local permits. It does not limit any other permit where requirements may be more restrictive. It does not eliminate, waive, or vary the applicant's obligation to comply with all other laws and state water statutes and rules through the construction, installation, and operation of the project. This Certification does not release the applicant from any liability, penalty, or duty imposed by Minnesota or federal statutes, regulations, rules, or local ordinances, and it does not convey a property right or an exclusive privilege. 10.This Certification does not replace or satisfy environmental review requirements, including those under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). In accordance with MEPA, Minn. Stat.§ 116D.04, subd. 2b, and related rules, projects that are required to complete an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), may not be started, and final governmental decisions to grant a permit, approve a project, or begin a project may not be made, until: •A petition for an EAW is dismissed. •A negative declaration on the need for an EIS has been made. •An EIS has been determined to be adequate. Page 302 of 310 Chad Konickson Page 11 December 21, 2020 •A variance has been granted by the state Environmental Quality Board. 11.The MPCA reserves the right to modify this Certification or revoke this Certification as provided in Minn. R. 7001.0170. 12.Pursuant to Minn. R. 7001.1450, failure to comply with any of the conditions in this Certification may result in the MPCA invalidating or revoking this 401 Water Quality Certification on a project-by-project basis. If you have any questions on this Certification, please contact Jim Brist at jim.brist@state.mn.us or 401Certification.pca@state.mn.us. Sincerely, Anna Hotz Supervisor Agency Rules Unit Resource Management and Assistance Division AH/JB:ds Attachments cc: Melissa Blankenship, EPA Dave Pfeifer, EPA Dana Rzeznik, EPA Dawn Marsh, USFWS Sarah Quamme, USFWS Tom Hovey, DNR Steve Colvin, DNR Kerryann Weaver, EPA Todd Vesperman, USACE Meghan Brown, USACE Page 303 of 310 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 304 of 310 Page 305 of 310 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 306 of 310 Page 307 of 310 COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION Regulatory File Number: MVP-2021-01218-SSC Name of Permittee: Spencer McMillan County/State: Dakota County, Minnesota Date of Issuance: 6/18/2025 Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation required by the permit, sign this certification and return it to the Corps contact identified in your verification letter within 30 days. Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers representative. If you fail to comply with this permit, you are subject to permit suspension, modification, or revocation. By signing below, the permittee is certifying that the work authorized by the above referenced permit has been completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, and any required mitigation was completed in accordance with the permit conditions. __________________________________ ______________________ Signature of Permittee Date Page 308 of 310 Page 309 of 310 Page 310 of 310