07 01 2025 CC Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
July 1, 2025 at 6:00 PM
Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights
1.Call to Order
2.Roll Call
3.Pledge of Allegiance
4.Approval of the Agenda
The Council, upon majority vote of its members, may make additions or deletions to the
agenda. These items may be submitted after the agenda preparation deadline.
5.Public Comments - for items not on the agenda
Public comments provide an opportunity to address the City Council on items which are not
on the meeting agenda. All are welcome to speak. Individuals should address their
comments to the City Council as a whole, not individual members. Speakers are requested
to come to the podium and must state their name and address. Comments are limited to
three (3) minutes. No action will be taken; however, the Mayor and Council may ask
clarifying questions as needed or request staff to follow up.
6.Consent Agenda
Items on the consent agenda are approved by one motion of the City Council. If a
councilmember requests additional information or wants to make a comment on an item,
the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. Items
removed from the consent agenda will be taken up as the next order of business.
a.Approve Minutes from the June 17, 2025, City Council Meeting
b.Approve Minutes from the June 17, 2025, City Council Work Session Meeting
c.Acknowledge Minutes from the May 27, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting
d.Approve Resolution 2025-34 Proclaiming July 2025 as "Parks and Recreation Month"
e.Approve Resolution 2025-35 for a Joint Powers Agreement with the Bureau of
Criminal Apprehension Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program
f.Approve Bank Account Changes
g.Approve May 2025 Treasurer's Report
Page 1 of 555
h.Approve Claims List
7.Presentations
a.Recognition and Presentation of Life-Saving Award
8.Public Hearings
9.New and Unfinished Business
a.City of Mendota Heights FY2024 Audit Report
b.City Council Governing Principles
c.Resolution 2025-36 Approving a Preliminary Plat of McMillan Estates to subdivide
three (3) existing parcels into six (6) single-family residential parcels located at 1707
Delaware Avenue and its adjacent vacant parcels owned in common. (Planning Case
2025-03)
d.Resolution 2025-37 Approving a Variance to allow for the construction of a fence
exceeding 6-ft in height for the property located at 1341 Cherry Hill Road. (Planning
Case 2025-07)
e.Resolution 2025-38 Approving a Conditional Use Permit Amendment for Glenn
Baron (representing The Heights Racquet & Social Club) for the outdoor commercial
recreation use located at 1415 Mendota Heights Road. (Planning Case 2025-08)
f.Resolution 2025-39 Approving a Variance to the rear yard setback to allow for the
construction of a new three-season porch addition located at 2150 Aztec Lane
(Planning Case 2025-09)
g.Resolution 2025-40 Approving a MRCCA Permit and Conditional Use Permit
Amendment Application for Northern States Power Company (Xcel Energy) 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 (Planning Case
2025-10)
10.Community / City Administrator Announcements
11.City Council Comments
12.Adjourn
Next Meeting: July 15, 2025 at 6:00PM
Information is available in alternative formats or with the use of auxiliary aids to individuals
with disabilities upon request by calling city hall at 651-452-1850 or by
emailing cityhall@mendotaheightsmn.gov.
Regular meetings of the City Council are cablecast on NDC4/Town Square Television Cable
Channel 18/HD798 and online at TownSquare.TV/Webstreaming
Page 2 of 555
6.a
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DRAFT Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held Tuesday, June 17, 2025
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights,
Minnesota, was held at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Levine called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Councilors Paper, Mazzitello, and Maczko, were
also present. Councilor Lorberbaum was absent.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADOPTION
Mayor Levine presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Mazzitello moved adoption of the agenda.
Councilor Paper seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Sean Fahnhorst, 1767 Ridgewood Drive, presented a petition signed by himself and 18 neighbors
supporting better pedestrian/cyclist options for Delaware Avenue and Dodd Road. He recognized the
upcoming road projects for those roadways and hoped that safer pedestrian options could be included.
Mayor Levine commented that the Council just held a workshop on that topic and noted that staff will
accept the petition and can follow up with him.
Joe Nunez, 2058 Acacia Drive, commented that he is the President of the Augusta Shores Townhome
Association and shared concerns with the impaired water designation of Lake Augusta. He commented
that people years ago swam and fished in the lake and noted the changes that have occurred, which have
impaired the water quality. He stated that because the lake does not have an outlet, there is no way for
the pollutants to be washed out. He referenced a study completed on the lake by Barr Engineering on
behalf of the Lower Mississippi Water Management Organization (LMWMO) and reviewed some of the
options included, which could improve the lake's water quality.
Phil Frosh, 2358 Lemay Shores Drive, commented that he is the President of the Lemay Shores HOA and
is speaking on behalf of his neighbors as well. He shared the concerns about the water quality of Lake
Page 3 of 555
June 17, 2025 Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 of 7
Augusta. He also referenced the Barr Engineering study and encouraged the City to move forward with
the implementation of the recommendations from the study. He recognized that the actions would have a
cost, but wanted to ensure that the natural resources in the community were maintained and protected.
Rodney Chena, 580 Sibley Memorial Highway, commented that he is requesting the support of the
Council to remove the no-parking signs posted on Garden Lane. He stated that the signs cause unnecessary
inconvenience to guests and neighbors. He stated that he obtained signatures from the two residents on
Garden Lane. He stated that this would allow for additional parking options for residents and guests,
noting that this street is the only street off the highway that does not allow parking. He submitted the
petition to staff.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Levine presented the consent agenda and explained the procedure for discussion and approval.
Councilor Mazzitello moved approval of the consent agenda as presented.
a. Approval of June 3, 2025, City Council Minutes
b. Acknowledge the February and March 2025 Fire Synopses
c. Acknowledge the April Par 3 Financial Report
d. Approve Liquor License Renewals
e. Approve Massage License Renewal
f. Appoint City Representatives to the Metropolitan Airports Commission Noise Oversight
Committee
g. Adopt Resolution 2025-32 to Approve Plans and Authorize Advertisement for Bids for the
Kensington East Street Improvements
h. Approve Purchase Order for Replacement of Pumps at St. Thomas and Culligan Lift Stations
i. Approval of Claims List
Councilor Paper seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
PRESENTATIONS
A) BADGE PINNING FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT TRAINING OFFICER BECKY JOHNSON
Fire Chief Dan Johnson explained that a badge pinning is a momentous occasion in the career of a
firefighter. He introduced the Assistant Chief.
Assistant Fire Chief Goldenstein introduced Becky Johnson and provided background information on her
career with the Fire Department.
Mayor Levine administered the Oath of Office, and Fire Chief Dan Johnson pinned the badge for Training
Officer Becky Johnson.
PUBLIC HEARING
Page 4 of 555
June 17, 2025 Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 of 7
A) RESOLUTION 2025-33 PUBLIC HEARING ON EASEMENT VACATION FOR MENDOTA
HEIGHTS INDUSTRIAL PARK
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the Council was being asked to hold a public hearing
and consider approval of an easement vacation commenced by petition for Lots 6 and 7, Block 1 of the
Mendota Heights Industrial Park. He noted that he did receive calls from three property owners, and he
was able to answer their questions, and they were happy to see something being done with the property.
Councilor Mazzitello moved to open the public hearing.
Councilor Maczko seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
There being no one coming forward to speak, Councilor Paper moved to close the public hearing.
Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Councilor Mazzitello moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2025-33 APPROVING AN EASEMENT
VACATION COMMENCED BY PETITION.
Councilor Maczko seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A) 2040 PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence explained that the Council was
being asked to review and accept the 2040 Park System Master Plan. She provided information on the
process that was followed and public input that was received throughout the process to create the plan.
She explained that accepting the plan is a procedural step and does not approve any of the projects or
programming within. She acknowledged that a large number of the comments received from residents
were related to a potential increase in the park user fees and explained that action is not before the Council
at this time and will be part of a future discussion.
Brad Aldrich and Mo Convery of Confluence and Leon Younger of PROS Consulting presented the 2040
Park System Master Plan.
Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence explained the next steps and
how the plan will be implemented in a phased approach.
Mayor Levine thanked the consultants and staff for their hard work. She also recognized the work of the
Park and Recreation Commission.
Councilor Maczko echoed the comments of praise for the work that has been done. He commented that
because he is new to the Council, he was not fully involved in the process, although he is a park user. He
Page 5 of 555
June 17, 2025 Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 of 7
asked how broad the study was on the programming, noting the local athletic association that handles the
youth sports programs.
Mr. Younger explained that typically, the parks system provides the facilities, and youth sports govern
themselves and the programming. He explained the review that was done for programming and explained
that, because there are limited staff, that is a large burden for programming. He provided examples of
different types of programming found in parks departments. He stated that programming activates the
spaces within the park system.
Councilor Maczko commented that the parks staff does a great job and offers numerous programming
opportunities, noting that Mendota Heights provides more programming than any of the other benchmark
cities used for comparison. He stated that the City has community partnerships with the athletic
association and others, which ease the burden on the City. He stated that the report provides great
information, although it may not all be implemented.
Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence stated that the benchmark cities
used for comparison also do not provide youth sports and have similar partnerships with associations that
provide sports programming.
Mr. Younger commented that the programs suggested came out of the survey results.
Mr. Aldrich stated that they looked more broadly at programming outside of youth athletics. He explained
that if staff had more time, they could work with Dakota County and other partners to find additional
opportunities.
Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence commented that the school
district and community ed are also involved to ensure they are not duplicating programs.
Councilor Paper asked why Green River, Wyoming, was chosen.
Mr. Younger replied that is a gold medal city through the National Park and Recreation Association
(NPRA), which is similarly sized to Mendota Heights.
Councilor Paper commented that there was a robust group interviewed, but noticed a hole in the age group
of 12 to 15 and asked for more information.
Ms. Convery stated that historically, that is a tricky group to include in community engagement. She
stated that staff did a tremendous job of going to the schools to have sessions in the classrooms to obtain
information. She commented that it is unique for a staff person to be able to go into the school like that.
Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence commented that she did go to
the elementary school, and the students completed a handwritten survey. She stated that they also engaged
with students at the middle and high schools and through after-school programming. She noted that some
of the input was survey-based based while additional information was obtained through discussion.
Ms. Convery provided additional information on community engagement with youth.
Page 6 of 555
June 17, 2025 Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 of 7
Councilor Paper stated that adult sports and softball were mentioned, and asked how softball is separated
from sports.
Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence commented that adult softball
is one of the most common adult sports offered and is currently offered by the City. She stated that softball
is the only adult sport offered by the City.
Mr. Younger commented that the numbers in adult sports have decreased since the 1990s.
Mayor Levine commented that there are a lot of adults who engage in sports throughout the community,
recognizing the popularity of pickleball with adults. She stated that the infrastructure within the
community allows for informal sports, aside from organized sports. She stated that when they make
decisions going forward, they will continue to make the best decision for Mendota Heights.
Councilor Paper asked if Mendakota Park was being considered for an accessible park.
Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence commented that staff are
working on an ADA plan for parks and facilities. She agreed that Mendakota would make the most sense
for a fully accessible park because of its location, it has the most parking spaces, it has bathrooms with
running water, and has accessible elements.
Mayor Levine commented that when Mendakota Park was constructed, it was considered accessible and
acknowledged that what may be considered accessible is not always accessible in practice.
Councilor Paper stated that two out of three people who responded supported more funding for the parks
system and asked if that could be correlated to a majority of residents.
Ms. Convery stated that it was outside of the scope to do a statistically valid survey, but 67 percent of the
respondents did support some additional funding. She encouraged that a funding study be done to find
additional park funding.
Councilor Paper asked if kids were responding to the survey.
Ms. Convery replied that the age of the respondent was not asked, but because of the topic, she did not
anticipate that many children had completed the survey.
Councilor Maczko commented that the survey was very open-ended, which could have led to a positive
response. He acknowledged that there was good interaction from people on both sides of the issues.
Ms. Convery commented that they were surprised to get such a positive response when they were not
providing them with much detail. She noted that sometimes they include beautiful photos, and that could
lead to more support, but they were cautious not to include that type of detail. She stated that when there
are detailed plans or a potential project, that will bring more responses from residents as well.
Councilor Mazzitello stated that the support for additional funding does not define what the additional
funding would look like, and recognized that will be a debate for the Council. He referenced goal six, to
Page 7 of 555
June 17, 2025 Mendota Heights City Council Page 6 of 7
develop a long-term sustainable funding model has been on his list as a member of the Council. He
appreciated that the plan refers to the parks as infrastructure and that they should be managed as such. He
referenced the scope provided to the consultants and believed that this plan provides the information that
will help guide future decisions. He explained that this information will help them to improve the park
system in the future. He commented that the answers to open-ended questions seem to show that the
public trusts them.
Mr. Younger confirmed that this community does have a strong trust in the City and its elected officials.
Councilor Mazzitello referenced the statement that typical capital investment in parks is three to five
percent of the total asset value. He asked if the total asset value was known.
Mr. Younger replied that they did have that discussion, but the answer was not known.
Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence commented on the work that
she has been doing to create an inventory and noted that staff will be bringing forward a Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP). She noted that part of that process would be to identify the value of the park
system.
Councilor Mazzitello commented that number will be important as they move forward and plan for needed
funding. He stated that missing piece will help staff to create the CIP. He stated that the Council must
find a sustained funding source for the park system. He thanked the people who sent in comments related
to the plan and hoped they reviewed the entire plan and not just the fee schedule. He explained that
adoption of the plan does not commit the City to any specific fee structure. He stated that TRAA will be
part of the discussion as they find something that works for both parties.
Mr. Younger commented on the importance of transparency in what the cost is to provide the service
and/or infrastructure. He stated that it is also important for an athletic association to share what they do
with its funds to provide the same level of transparency.
Councilor Maczko stated that he was surprised to see that the parkland and trails possessed by the
community are lower than the NPRA average. He stated that outside of Golden Valley, the City has
double the assets of the other benchmark communities.
Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence explained that the NPRA is
based on the national level of service, where the benchmarks are local communities.
Mayor Levine recognized that this is a lot of information to digest and gives information and data to have
additional conversations.
Councilor Mazzitello moved to accept THE 2040 PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN.
Councilor Maczko seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
Page 8 of 555
June 17, 2025 Mendota Heights City Council Page 7 of 7
City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson announced upcoming community events and activities.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilor Mazzitello offered deepest sympathies and condolences to the Hoffman and Hortman families.
He encouraged people not to become divided but instead find a way to come together. He stated that
Saturday was the 250th anniversary of the founding of the US Army and recognized the founding of the
US Air Force.
Councilor Maczko echoed the comments of sympathy and condolences. He thanked Police Chief Kelly
McCarthy, her team, and law enforcement as a whole for their ability to act quickly, protect others, and
bring the person to justice. He recognized the great work that law enforcement can accomplish in split-
second scenarios.
Councilor Paper thanked former Mayor Garlock for another successful Scott Patrick Memorial 5K, which
is a terrific community event. He commented that there was a robust turnout for the most recent session
of Coffee with the Council that he attended. He thanked everyone who participated in the engagement for
the Park System Master Plan, as that provides them with much-needed information. He also congratulated
Two Rivers graduate, Taylor Taurinkskas, for winning the State girls' high jump.
Councilor Mazzitello also congratulated the Cretin-Derham baseball team for winning the state
championship for the first time since 2007.
Mayor Levine congratulated Training Officer Becky Johnson on her new position.
ADJOURN
Councilor Paper moved to adjourn.
Councilor Maczko seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 7:46 p.m.
____________________________________
Stephanie B. Levine
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Nancy Bauer
City Clerk
Page 9 of 555
This page is intentionally left blank
June 17, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 1
6.b
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DRAFT Minutes of the City Council Work Session
Tuesday, June 17, 2025
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the Mendota Heights City Council was
held at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Levine called the work session to order at 4:30 pm. Councilors Maczko, Mazzitello, and
Paper were in attendance. Councilor Lorberbaum was absent.
Others present included: City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator Kelly
Torkelson, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, Finance Director Kristen Schabacker, Park and
Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence, Community
Development Manager Sarah Madden, Assistant City Engineer Lucas Ritchie, and City Clerk
Nancy Bauer.
Also in attendance were Dakota County Project Manager Hassan Hussein and Kimley Horn
Consultant/Project Manager Luke Moren.
DELAWARE AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION (MARIE AVENUE TO DODD ROAD)
Dakota County Project Manager Hassan Hussein and Kimley Horn Consultant/Project Manager
Luke Moren presented the Delaware Avenue Reconstruction & Butler Avenue Trail & Sidewalk
Improvements.
H. Hassan stated that the scope of the project consists of the reconstruction of Delaware Avenue
from Marie Avenue to Dodd Road, adding a multi-use trail on the west side of the roadway,
adding concrete curb/gutter, improve stormwater management, and sanitary sewer and
watermain improvements. Butler Avenue improvements include adding a multi-use trail along
the south side of Butler Avenue and adding a sidewalk.
The project goals were to engage the public, incorporate public input, improve pedestrian and
bike safety, urbanize the roadway, mitigate property impacts, and evaluate intersection and
roadway safety.
For public engagement two open houses were held. The one held on December 2, 2024, was to
present to the public the purpose, need, traffic/crash data and analysis, project consideration and
potential typical section improvements. The second open house on April 23, 2025, was to
present recommendations for the trail on the west side of Delaware Avenue including
3DJe RI
June 17, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 2
alternatives, receive feedback on the proposed sidewalk along the east side of Delaware Avenue
from Emerson Avenue to Dodd Road, and introduce the right-of-way acquisition process.
A hosted active website was launched to solicit feedback via an online interactive map and
solicit feedback via project surveys in December 2024 and April 2025.
Multiple property owner meetings were held with additional meetings to be held for the right-of-
way acquisition process.
Kimley Horn Consultant/Project Manager Luke Moren presented the analysis considered for the
project and stated they were driveways impacts (slopes, parking, etc.), regional connectivity,
private property impacts (easements), retaining walls, tree/vegetation impacts, private utility
impacts and the need for on-street parking.
A trail was recommended on the west side of Delaware Avenue due to significantly fewer
private property impacts between Wentworth Avenue and Dodd Road. Dakota County staff are
working directly with Somerset Country Club to discuss the impact of the project. Dakota
County has accepted minimum lane and shoulder widths to reduce impacts. Parking will be
maintained for on-street parking between Emerson Avenue and Dodd Road on the east side only.
The modified roadway elevation and cross slopes are used to balance impacts on both sides of
the roadway.
Mayor Levine asked about the width of the trail. L. Moren responded that the minimum trail
width is eight feet for ADA accessibility going both ways on the trail. A 10-foot width is
preferred by Dakota County, being that the trail is only on one side of the roadway.
The intersection safety improvements on Delaware Avenue and Wentworth Avenue include
additional signage, markings, lights, and geometric improvements. It is proposed to leave the
intersection as an all-way stop. There is no realignment of Emerson Avenue proposed. At Dodd
Road and Delaware Avenue a new right-turn lane is being proposed at Butler Avenue and Dodd
Road. A stormwater pond is being proposed in the southwest corner of the intersection.
H. Hussein stated that for easement acquisitions there are 71 impacted parcels along Delaware
Avenue and 10 impacted parcels along Butler Avenue. There are 35 proposed easement
acquisitions in Mendota Heights. These include permanent and temporary easements. The
easements are for tree clearing, driveway reconstruction, and yard grading for the proposed
multi-use trail. The process for the easement acquisitions is just beginning and is expected to
extend into the summer of 2025. The proposed design is considering retaining walls, roadway
elevation changes, and steeper front yard slopes to minimize work on private property.
The next steps are to finish the final design, hold another open house, work on the right-way
acquisitions, bid the project so construction can begin in 2027.
Councilor Paper asked about the speed limit on Delaware Avenue. L. Moren responded that a
speed study was not done as part of the process, and the speed limit should remain the same.
Page 11 of 555
June 17, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 3
Councilor Maczko said this would be the time to do a speed study and asked about the shoulder
width. L. Moren said that a narrower shoulder was discussed. Public Works Director Ryan
Ruzek responded that a five-foot shoulder would meet bike lane standards.
Councilor Maczko asked if the work would be substantially completed in the right-of-way and
asked if there would be temporary easements used. H. Hussein replied that to construct the trail
some permanent easements would need to be acquired.
Councilor Paper asked for more information about the pond and angle of the road that is being
proposed at Dodd Road and Delaware Avenue. L. Moren replied that at that intersection crash
issues were not as prevalent as they were at Emerson Avenue. Other concept plans for the
intersection were also studied.
R. Ruzek stated that staff wanted Council to be aware of this project as the acquisitions of rights-
of-way will be starting.
TITLE 11: SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden reported that rewriting the Title 11:
Subdivision Ordinance had been a priority for the Council. She stated that the purpose of the
revised subdivision ordinance was to clarify and modernize the language, improve enforcement,
and align it with current city documents.
S. Madden reviewed the key changes, noting which areas of this ordinance had been rearranged
or relocated. The application process has been updated for the required submittal materials for
an application.
Councilor Mazzitello liked the definition of street and said that in Title 12 it is defined as street,
public.
S. Madden commented that the permanent markers paragraph had been moved to the required
improvements. The word normally was removed and the word shall was used throughout the
revised ordinance so that it could be strictly enforced.
Changes to the design standards in the revised ordinance were discussed. Changes to the street
width and grade had been changed for the different street types upon the recommendation of
Engineering staff. The street width is defined as right-of-way width. More clarity for the street
definition would be added in the revised ordinance. The definition of developer and legal
property owner was also discussed.
Councilor Maczko asked about the section under streets, sanitary sewers, and water distribution.
S. Madden replied that current practice and preference is for the developer to install new utilities
in a new subdivision. The city will still have the right to install utilities, but it is preferred the
developer install the utilities by a developer agreement, as per past practice.
Page 12 of 555
June 17, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 4
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that if the city installs the utilities the City will assess
the properties. Councilor Maczko stated that it should be clearly written in the revised ordinance.
S. Madden stated that this section had not been completely written yet and is working with the
city attorney on the language.
S. Madden stated that the park dedication portion of the revised ordinance had been modified,
but the requirements remain the same. The requirements for park dedication were discussed.
Councilor Mazzitello stated it was an outstanding draft. Mayor Levine echoed those comments.
2026 BUDGET OUTLOOK/PREVIEW
City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson stated that staff will be preparing the 2026 budget and
provided an overview of anticipated budget challenges and opportunities. She noted that the
council’s number one priority is the city hall/police department building and the funding of
improvements. She highlighted the remainder of the council’s priorities, including developing a
sustainable long-term funding plan for capital improvements, enhanced cell coverage in the city,
completing an industrial park visioning plan, fiscal rightsizing, and developing performance
measures.
C. Jacobson continued that key revenue factors include utility franchise fees. She noted that the
first full year of utility franchise fees was in 2025. According to the Parks Master Plan, there is
concern for park user fees from field users and the council may want to consider charitable
gambling in the future.
Key expenditures will be public safety, which historically is approximately 50 percent of the
budget, and employee health insurance costs, with the costs likely to be higher than in 2025.
She highlighted the new State Paid Family Medical Leave Act, which will impact the 2026
budget with an estimated cost of $50,000 to $65,000.
Councilor Maczko asked if current benefits could offset the new family medical leave law.
Assistant City Administrator Kelly Torkelson replied that current leave benefits are not as robust
as the new law requirements and that staff are reviewing all options.
C. Jacobson noted that the Capital Improvement Plan includes street improvement projects,
replacement of the fire hall parking lot, vehicle replacements, and replacement of the 2,000-
gallon fire department tanker. She highlighted that known 2026 projects with budget impacts are
the 2050 Comprehensive Plan process, administration of the 2026 election, and sustainability
efforts.
C. Jacobson concluded with an overview of the budget timeline, stating that the preliminary
budget approval is set for the September 16 City Council meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Page 13 of 555
June 17, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 5
Councilor Mazzitello made a motion to adjourn the work session, and the motion was seconded
by Councilor Paper. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:53 pm.
_________________________
Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________
Nancy Bauer, City Clerk
Page 14 of 555
This page is intentionally left blank
May 27, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 13
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
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 15 of 555
6F
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 16 of 555
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 17 of 555
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 18 of 555
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 19 of 555
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 20 of 555
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 21 of 555
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 22 of 555
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 23 of 555
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 24 of 555
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 25 of 555
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 26 of 555
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 27 of 555
This page is intentionally left blank
6.d
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 1, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Approve Resolution 2025-34 Proclaiming July 2025 as "Parks and Recreation
Month"
ITEM TYPE: Resolution
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation CONTACT: Meredith Lawrence, Parks and
Recreation/Assistant Public
Works Director
ACTION REQUEST:
Approve Resolution 2025-34 Proclaiming July 2025 as "Parks and Recreation Month"
BACKGROUND:
Nationally, July is designated as Park and Recreation month to emphasize the importance of
parks, community gathering spaces, and recreation programs, and to recognize the dedicated
professionals who work to maintain these spaces and provide these unique resources to their
community. This year's theme of "Build Together, Play Together" is especially significant to
Mendota Heights' Parks and Recreation staff, who work tirelessly to deliver high-quality
recreation programs and events, clean and safe park amenities and infrastructure, and
opportunities for our residents to build a strong, vibrant community.
We extend our gratitude to our Parks and Recreation staff for the wonderful job they do in
maintaining and improving all the amenities within the Mendota Heights parks system, as well
as coordinating programs and events that create memories that last a lifetime. Together, we
are committed to enhancing the vitality of our community.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Resolution 2025-34 Proclaiming July as Parks and Recreation Month
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure,
Environmental Sustainability & Stewardship, Inclusive and Responsive Government
Page 28 of 555
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2025-34
PROCLAIMING JULY 2025 AS “PARKS AND RECREATION MONTH”
WHEREAS, parks and recreation programs are an integral part of communities
throughout this country, including Mendota Heights; and
WHEREAS, our parks and recreation facilities and programs are vitally important
to establishing and maintaining the quality of life in Mendota Heights, improving the
physical, mental and emotional health of all citizens, and contributing to the economic
and environmental well-being of our community; and
WHEREAS, the parks and recreation programs increase our community’s
economic prosperity through increased property values, expansion of the local tax base,
increased tourism, the attraction and retention of businesses, and crime reduction; and
WHEREAS, parks and recreation are fundamental to the environmental well-
being of our community because they improve water quality, protect groundwater,
prevent flooding, improve air quality, provide vegetative buffers to development, and
produce habitats for wildlife; and
WHEREAS, the National Recreation and Park Association has celebrated the
annual Park and Recreation Month since 1985, and the City of Mendota Heights
recognizes the benefits derived from parks and recreation resources.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota, does hereby proclaim the month of July
2025 as Parks and Recreation Month.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 1st day of July, 2025.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor
Page 29 of 555
ATTEST:
_________________________
Nancy Bauer, City Clerk
Page 30 of 555
This page is intentionally left blank
6.e
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 1, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Approve Resolution 2025-35 for a Joint Powers Agreement with the Bureau
of Criminal Apprehension Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force
Program
ITEM TYPE: Resolution
DEPARTMENT: Police CONTACT: Wayne Wegener, Police Captain
ACTION REQUEST:
Approve Resolution 2025-35 for a Joint Powers Agreement with the Bureau of Criminal
Apprehension Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program.
BACKGROUND:
The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) oversees an Internet Crimes Against Children Task
Force program (ICAC). This program implements a three-pronged approach of prevention,
education, and enforcement to combat internet crimes against children. The Mendota Heights
Police Department currently investigates these types of cases and works to combat this
increasing type of crime. By partnering with the BCA through a JPA with ICAC, the department
will have access to related training, additional resources, and potential reimbursement for
investigations of certain related crimes.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
There is no financial impact on the budget. The Mendota Heights Police Department currently
investigates these types of crimes, so there is not a negative impact on departmental
resources.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Res. 2025-35 Approving State of MN JPA with Mendota Heights Police Regarding the MN
Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force (ICAC)
2.State of MN JPA for MN Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive and Responsive Government
Page 31 of 555
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2025-35
APPROVING STATE OF MINNESOTA JOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS WITH THE
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ON BEHALF OF ITS POLICE DEPARTMENT
REGARDING THE MINNESOTA INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN TASK
FORCE (ICAC)
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights on behalf of its Police Department desires to
enter into Joint Powers Agreements with the State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety,
Bureau of Criminal Apprehension to utilize applicable state and federal laws to investigate and
prosecute crimes committed against children and the criminal exploitation on children that is
committed and/or facilitated by or through the use of computers.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City
of Mendota Heights approves the State of Minnesota Joint Powers Agreements by and between
the State of Minnesota acting through its Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal
Apprehension and the City of Mendota Heights on behalf of its Police Department.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 1st day of July, 2025.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Nancy Bauer, City Clerk
Page 32 of 555
SWIFT Contract Number: 271450
ORI: MN0190400
1
ICAC Police Department JPA Template (revised April 2025)
STATE OF MINNESOTA
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
MINNESOTA INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN TASK FORCE
This Joint Powers Agreement (“Agreement”) is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Public
Safety on behalf of the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (“BCA” or “Lead Agency”), and the City of Mendota Heights on
behalf of its Police Department at 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 (“Governmental Unit” or “Affiliate
Agency”). The BCA and Governmental Unit may be referred to jointly as “Parties.”
Recitals
Under Minnesota Statutes § 471.59, BCA and Governmental Unit are empowered to engage in agreements that are
necessary to exercise their powers. Governmental Unit wishes to participate in the Minnesota Internet Crimes Against
Children (“ICAC”) Task Force. The Parties wish to work together to investigate and prosecute crimes committed against
children, including the criminal exploitation of children committed and/or facilitated by or through the use of computers.
The Partiers further wish to disrupt and dismantle organizations engaging in these activities. This Agreement identifies
what the Parties, either individually or jointly, will provide under this Agreement and identifies the consideration to be paid
by BCA to Governmental Unit, if any, for equipment, training, and expenses (including travel and overtime) incurred by
Governmental Unit as a result of investigations conducted pursuant to this Agreement.
Agreement
1.Term of Agreement
1.1 Effective Date. This Agreement is effective on the date BCA obtains all required signatures pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes § 16C.05, subdivision 2.
1.2 Expiration Date. This Agreement expires five (5) years from the date it is effective unless terminated earlier
pursuant to Clause 13.
2.Purpose
Governmental Unit and BCA enter into this Agreement for the purpose of facilitating the Governmental Unit’s
participation in the ICAC Task Force, which implements a three-pronged approach of prevention, education, and
enforcement to combat internet crimes against children. This Agreement also provides the mechanism to reimburse
Governmental Unit for equipment, training, and expenses (including travel and overtime), if any, that it incurs as a
result of its participation in the ICAC Task Force.
3.Definitions
3.1 “Affiliate” or “Affiliate Agency” is an agency that is working with a Lead Agency as part of a regional or state
ICAC Task Force. An Affiliate has agreed in writing to adhere to these Standards. Governmental Unit is the
Affiliate Agency for purposes of this Agreement.
3.2 “Authorized Personnel” are those who lack powers of arrest but have been authorized to participate in
Investigations directed by law enforcement personnel (e.g., agency personnel, digital evidence experts, etc.).
3.3 “Commander” means the BCA Special Agent in Charge (“SAIC”) who serves as the leader of the ICAC Task
Force.
3.4 “Contraband Image” is a visual depiction of any kind (including computer generated) in any form (including
live streaming) that depicts or conveys the impression that: (1) a minor or purported minor is engaged in
Page 33 of 555
SWIFT Contract Number: 271450
ORI: MN0190400
2
ICAC Police Department JPA Template (revised April 2025)
Sexually Explicit Activity; or (2) an adult is engaging in Sexually Explicit Activity in the presence of a minor or
purported minor.
3.5 “CGI” is a wholly computer-generated visual depiction in any form (including printed/digital or video).
3.6 “Crime” is any offense (or group thereof) Investigated by law enforcement that involves (or involve) the
exploitation/victimization of children facilitated by technology.
3.7 “Deconfliction” is a process whereby law enforcement can submit Investigative information to each other
and/or to ICAC-related databases in order to determine whether other Members or other law enforcement
agencies have information concerning the same targets or Crimes.
3.8 “Employee” is a sworn or compensated individual of a law enforcement agency who is working under the
direction and control of a law enforcement agency.
3.9 “Investigation” is an investigation into a Crime. Likewise, “Investigate,” “Investigated,” “Investigating,” and
“Investigative” are used within the same context.
3.10 “Investigative Persona” any identity established or created by an Employee to aid an Investigation.
3.11 “Investigator” is a Member who is a part of the Sworn Personnel of a Task Force.
3.12 “Lead Agency” is the law enforcement agency that receives the ICAC grant and is designated by the Office of
Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention (“OJJDP”) within the Department of Justice to act as the Lead
Agency for the corresponding Task Force. BCA is the Lead Agency for purposes of this Agreement.
3.13 “Member” is a Lead or Affiliate Agency’s Employee who is either Sworn Personnel or Authorized Personnel
and who has been designated to work on ICAC-related matters for his/her respective agency and Task Force.
3.14 “Partner” is a civilian or non-sworn organization that OJJDP has recognized as a legitimate source of
assistance.
3.15 “Sexually Explicit Activity” is real or simulated: (1) sexual intercourse of any kind; (2) masturbation; (3)
sadistic/masochistic conduct; and/or (4) lascivious exhibition of the anus, breast, genitals, or pubic area of any
person.
3.16 “Supervisor” is a Member who has been designated by his/her respective agency to supervise Investigations
and other ICAC-related matters.
3.17 “Standards” are all of the provisions of this Agreement and the ICAC Task Force Program Operational and
Investigative Standards established by OJJDP.
3.18 “Sworn Personnel” are Members with powers of arrest.
3.19 “Task Force” is the Lead Agency and their Affiliate(s) (combined) as designated by OJJDP for a particular
state or region.
3.20 “Vigilante” is a non-Partner activist or activist organization engaged in investigative tactics or other law
enforcement-like activities.
4.Responsibilities of Governmental Unit and BCA
4.1 Governmental Unit will:
4.1.1 Assign one or more Employees as Members of the ICAC Task Force. All Employees of Governmental
Unit assigned as Members, and while performing ICAC Investigations and assignments, shall continue
to be employed and directly supervised by the same Governmental Unit currently employing that
Member. All services, duties, acts, or omissions performed by the ICAC Task Force Member will be
within the course and duty of the Member’s employment and therefore covered by the workers’
compensation and other compensation programs of Governmental Unit including fringe benefits.
4.1.2 Conduct Investigations in accordance with all applicable Standards and conclude Investigations in a
timely manner.
4.1.3 Submit Performance Measure data to the ICAC Data System (IDS) by the end of each month for the
duration of this Agreement. The BCA must fulfil its reporting requirements as a recipient of the OJJDP
grant award for MN ICAC Task Force in partnering with law enforcement agencies. Failure to timely
provide OJJDP with Performance Measure data may jeopardize the BCA’s future grant qualifications as
well as result in the delinquent law enforcement agency’s denial to participate in the Minnesota ICAC
Task Force.
4.1.4 Assign a Governmental Unit point of contact to act as the liaison between it and the BCA ICAC Project
Commander to assist in reimbursement deadlines.
4.1.5 Submit an ICAC reimbursement request for pre-approval of funds. This request shall include a
description of the item requested for reimbursement, an operational plan, and an explanation of how it
qualifies under the required criteria in Clauses 5.1 and 5.2 below.
Page 34 of 555
SWIFT Contract Number: 271450
ORI: MN0190400
3
ICAC Police Department JPA Template (revised April 2025)
4.1.6 Allow BCA to inform Affiliate Agencies and Partners of potential case connections based on data
submitted to BCA through the ICAC Program.
4.1.7 Not comingle ICAC funds with any other existing federal or state grant funded overtime or additional
local Governmental Unit funding.
4.2 BCA will:
4.2.1 Provide a Special Agent in Charge (“SAIC”) who will serve as the Commander of the Task Force.
4.2.2 Provide daily direction and assign duties and other assignments to Members.
4.2.3 Review and approve or decline reimbursement requests under Clause 4.1.5 within seven (7) business
days of the reimbursement request.
4.3 Nothing in this Agreement shall otherwise limit the jurisdiction, powers, and responsibilities normally possessed
by the Governmental Unit acting through its Members or Employees.
5.Standards
Governmental Unit and its Members will adhere to all applicable Standards, including, but not limited to, the following:
5.1 Investigate activities related to internet Crimes and the exploitation of children through the use of computers.
5.2 Investigate organizations to disrupt and dismantle Crimes committed against children.
5.3 Comply with the ICAC Task Force Program Operational and Investigative Standards, as established by OJJDP.
5.4 Investigators assigned by the Governmental Unit to the ICAC Task Force must be licensed peace officers.
5.5 Follow appropriate state and/or federal laws in obtaining arrest warrants, search warrants, and civil and criminal
forfeitures.
5.6 Follow proper legal procedures in securing evidence, including electronic devices.
5.7 Understand and use appropriate legal procedures in the use of informants including documentation of identity,
monitoring of activities, and use and recordation of payments.
5.8 Use, as appropriate, the most current investigative technologies and techniques.
5.9 Obtain approval from the BCA ICAC Project Commander before conducting a pro-active undercover chat
operation with anticipated multiple targets.
5.10 Make reasonable efforts to Deconflict active Investigations.
5.11 Document Investigations.
5.12 Not collaborate with Vigilantes or approve, condone, encourage, or promote the activities of Vigilantes.
5.13 Investigations shall be conducted in an approved work environment, using approved equipment, as designated
by the Commander or a Supervisor. Personally owned equipment, accounts, and networks shall not be used in
Investigations.
5.14 As part of an active Investigation, Members shall not upload, transmit, or forward any Contraband Images to
those outside their respective agency (e.g., suspects, witnesses, ESPs, etc.), except where otherwise permitted
by law (e.g., to sworn law enforcement, to NCMEC employees, etc.).
5.15 During active Investigations, Members may use visual depictions as a representation of any Investigative
Persona/person/purported person or as proof-of-life evidence under two circumstances only:
First, when the following factors are met:
1.The visual depiction (whether or not modified to suit Investigative needs by, e.g., age regression) is of an
actual person;
2.That person is an Employee;
3. The Employee has given his or her written consent for the visual depiction to be used;
4.Regardless of whether or not the Employee was a minor when the visual depiction was taken, the
Employee nevertheless was at least 18 years old when the Employee gave consent for such use; and,
5.The visual depiction does not depict or convey the impression of Sexually Explicit Activity.
Second, when the visual depiction is CGI and does not depict or convey the impression of Sexually Explicit
Activity.
6. Payment
6.1 To receive reimbursement for equipment, training, and expenses (including travel and overtime) incurred by
Governmental Unit as a result of conducting Investigations pursuant to this Agreement, Governmental Unit must
Page 35 of 555
SWIFT Contract Number: 271450
ORI: MN0190400
4
ICAC Police Department JPA Template (revised April 2025)
make a request for reimbursement to the BCA Authorized Representative under the required criteria outlined in
the ICAC Task Force Operational and Investigative Standards established by OJJDP.
6.2 The Commander or his/her successor will review the reimbursement request and approve or deny the request
within seven (7) business days of receipt of the request by BCA’s Authorized Representative.
6.3 Subsequent to receiving notice of approval of a reimbursement request, Governmental Unit must submit an
expense form to the BCA Authorized Representative no later than fifteen (15) business days after the end of the
month during which the expense is incurred.
6.4 BCA will reimburse Governmental Unit within thirty (30) calendar days of the submission of the expense form.
6.5 In the event Governmental Unit breaches this Agreement, it will not be eligible to receive any further
reimbursement under this Agreement.
7.Authorized Representatives
BCA’s Authorized Representative is the following person, or her successor:
Name: Bobbi Jo Pazdernik, Commander of MN ICAC
Address: Department of Public Safety; Bureau of Criminal Apprehension
1430 Maryland Street East, Saint Paul, MN 55106
Telephone: 651-793-7000
E-mail Address:bobbijo.pazdernik@state.mn.us
Governmental Unit’s Authorized Representative is the following person, or his/her successor:
Name Wayne J Wegener Jr., Captain
Address: 1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Telephone: 651-255-1134
E-mail Address:wwegener@mendotaheightsmn.gov
If Governmental Unit’s Authorized Representative changes at any time during this Agreement, Governmental Unit
must immediately notify BCA’s Authorized Representative identified above.
8.Assignment, Amendments, Waiver, and Agreement Complete
8.1 Assignment. Governmental Unit may neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this
Agreement.
8.2 Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been
executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original Agreement, or their
successors in office.
8.3 Waiver. If BCA fails to enforce any provision of this Agreement, that failure does not waive the provision or its
right to enforce it.
8.4 Agreement Complete. This Agreement contains all negotiations and agreements between BCA and
Governmental Unit. No other understanding regarding this Agreement, whether written or oral, may be used to
bind either party.
9.Liability
BCA and Governmental Unit agree each party will be responsible for its own acts and the results thereof to the extent
authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of any others and the results thereof. BCA’s liability shall
be governed by provisions of the Minnesota Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes § 3.736, and other applicable law.
Governmental Unit’s liability shall be governed by provisions of the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes §§
466.01-466.15, and other applicable law.
10.Audits
Under Minnesota Statutes § 16C.05, subdivision 5, Governmental Unit’s books, records, documents, and accounting
procedures and practices relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by BCA and/or the State Auditor
and/or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six (6) years from the end of this Agreement.
11.Government Data Practices
Governmental Unit and BCA must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes
Page 36 of 555
SWIFT Contract Number: 271450
ORI: MN0190400
5
ICAC Police Department JPA Template (revised April 2025)
Chapter 13 and other applicable law, as it applies to all data provided by BCA under this Agreement and as it applies
to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by Governmental Unit under this
Agreement. The civil remedies of Minnesota Statutes § 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this
Clause by either Governmental Unit or BCA.
If Governmental Unit receives a request to release the data referred to in this Clause, Governmental Unit must
immediately notify BCA. The BCA will give Governmental Unit instructions concerning the release of the data to the
requesting party before the data is released.
12.Venue
The venue for all legal proceedings arising out of this Agreement, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or
federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
13.Expiration and Termination
13.1 Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) calendar days’
written notice to the other party. To the extent funds are available, the Governmental Unit shall receive
reimbursement in accordance with the terms of this Agreement through the date of termination.
13.2 In the event that federal funding is no longer available, BCA will email Governmental Unit’s Authorized
Representative and terminate the Agreement. The termination will be effective two (2) business days after email
notification to Governmental Unit; and Governmental Unit shall receive reimbursement in accordance with the
terms of this Agreement through the date of termination.
14.Continuing Obligations
The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this Agreement: 9, Liability; 10, Audits; 11, Government
Data Practices; and 12, Venue.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank; signature page follows]
Page 37 of 555
SWIFT Contract Number: 271450
ORI: MN0190400
6
ICAC Police Department JPA Template (revised April 2025)
The parties indicate their agreement and authority to execute this Agreement by signing below.
1.STATE ENCUMBRANCE VERIFICATION 3.DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; BUREAU OF CRIMINAL
Individual certifies that funds have been encumbered as APPREHENSION
required by Minnesota Statutes §§ 16A.15 and 16C.05.
Signed: ______________________________________________ By: _______________________________________________
(with delegated authority)
Date: ________________________________________________ Title: Deputy Superintendent, Investigations_____________
SWIFT PO Number: 3000085301 Date: ______________________________________________
2.GOVERNMENTAL UNIT 4.COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION
Governmental Unit certifies that the appropriate person(s)As delegated to the Office of State Procurement
has(have) executed this Agreement on behalf of the Governmental
Unit and its jurisdictional government entity as required by
applicable articles, laws, by-laws, resolutions, or ordinances.
By: _________________________________________________ By: ________________________________________________
Title: ________________________________________________ Title: ___________________________________________
Date: _______________________________________________ Date: _______________________________________________
ADMIN ID: ___________________________________________
By: _________________________________________________
Title: ________________________________________________
Date: _______________________________________________
By: _________________________________________________
Title: ________________________________________________
Date: _______________________________________________
Page 38 of 555
6.f
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 1, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Approve Bank Account Changes
ITEM TYPE: Consent Item
DEPARTMENT: Finance CONTACT: Kristen Schabacker, Finance
Director
ACTION REQUEST:
Approve bank account changes.
BACKGROUND:
The City currently has two bank accounts with Deerwood Bank that have not had any activity in
a number of years. There is an account with $112.69 that was for senior programming, and
another account has $302.45 that was for the Parks Celebration. The City now has both of
these programs accounted for under the General Fund. There is no longer a need for these
separate accounts. Staff is requesting that these accounts be closed and that the funds be
deposited in the checking account that the City holds with Deerwood Bank.
The City holds a CD at BankCherokee that was worth $13,487 on December 31, 2024. It is due
to mature on 7/27/25. The City has typically renewed this CD. It is the only investment that
the City has at BankCherokee. Staff is proposing that when this CD matures that we do not
reinvest and deposit the value of this investment into the checking account at Deerwood Bank.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
There is no budget impact.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Premier Public Services & Infrastructure
Page 39 of 555
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 40 of 555
6g
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 41 of 555
6K
Page 42 of 555
Page 43 of 555
Page 44 of 555
Page 45 of 555
Page 46 of 555
Page 47 of 555
Page 48 of 555
Page 49 of 555
Page 50 of 555
Page 51 of 555
This page is intentionally left blank
7.a
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 1, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Recognition and Presentation of Life-Saving Award
ITEM TYPE: Presentation
DEPARTMENT: Police CONTACT: Kelly McCarthy, Police Chief
ACTION REQUEST:
None
BACKGROUND:
On 6/4/2025, officers responded to a medical in the 600 Block of 1st Avenue on a report of a
male who had a heart attack. Responders worked alongside friends and neighbors in delivering
life-saving interventions.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
none
ATTACHMENTS:
None
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive and Responsive Government
Page 52 of 555
This page is intentionally left blank
9.a
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 1, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: City of Mendota Heights FY2024 Audit Report
ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business
DEPARTMENT: Finance CONTACT: Kristen Schabacker, Finance
Director
ACTION REQUEST:
Accept the audit and ask any questions that you may have.
BACKGROUND:
BerganKDV has completed the audit for 2024. The reports for 2024 are the Annual Report &
Basic Financial Statements and the Communications Letter. These reports are included in the
meeting packet. Caroline Stutsman from BerganKDV will be presenting the Annual Audit
Review for 2024.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
There is no budget impact.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Communications Letter - 2024 Mendota Heights - Final
2.Financial Statements - 2024 Mendota Heights - Final
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Premier Public Services & Infrastructure
Page 53 of 555
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
Communications Letter
December 31, 2024
Page 54 of 555
City of Mendota Heights
Table of Contents
Report on Matters Identified as a Result of
the Audit of the Basic Financial Statements 1
Material Weakness 3
Required Communication 4
Financial Analysis 8
Emerging Issues 17
Page 55 of 555
1
Report on Matters Identified as a Result of
the Audit of the Basic Financial Statements
Honorable Mayor, Members
of the City Council and Management
City of Mendota Heights
Mendota Heights, Minnesota
In planning and performing our audit of the basic financial statements of the governmental activities,
business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City
of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2024, in accordance with
auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable
to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General
of the United States, we considered the City's internal control over financial reporting (internal
control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the
purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing
an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an
opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control over financial reporting.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the preceding
paragraph and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material
weaknesses or significant deficiencies and, therefore, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies
may exist that have not been identified. In addition, because of inherent limitations in internal
control, including the possibility of management override of controls, misstatements due to error, or
fraud may occur and not be detected by such controls. However, as discussed below, we identified a
certain deficiency in internal control that we consider to be a material weakness.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow
management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent,
or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a
combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a
reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the City's basic financial statements will not
be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A reasonable possibility exists when the
likelihood of an event occurring is either reasonably possible or probable as defined as follows:
•Reasonably possible. The chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote
but less than likely.
•Probable. The future event or events are likely to occur.
The material weakness identified is stated within this letter.
The accompanying memorandum also includes financial analysis provided as a basis for discussion.
The matters discussed herein were considered by us during our audit and they do not modify the
opinion expressed in our Independent Auditor's Report dated June 4, 2025, on such statements.
3DJHRI
2
The purpose of this communication, which is an integral part of our audit, is to describe for the
Members of the City Council and management and others within the City and state oversight agencies
the scope of our testing of internal control and the results of that testing. Accordingly, this
communication is not intended to be and should not be used for any other purpose.
St. Cloud, Minnesota
June 4, 2025
Page 57 of 555
3
City of Mendota Heights
Material Weakness
Lack of Segregation of Accounting Duties
The City had a lack of segregation of accounting duties due to a limited number of office employees.
The lack of adequate segregation of accounting duties could adversely affect the City's ability to
initiate, record, process, and report financial data consistent with the assertions of management in
the financial statements. This lack of segregation of accounting duties can be demonstrated in the
following areas, which is not intended to be an all-inclusive list:
• The Finance Director has the ability to receipt City service revenue, prepares the deposit
receipts, is responsible for coding, and prepares the Treasurer's report for the City Council.
• The Utility Billing Clerk enters consumption into the utility billing system, prepares and
reviews utility bills, applies payments to customer accounts, and has the ability to make
adjustments to customer accounts.
In addition to having responsibilities in the cycles listed above, the City's Finance Director has full
general ledger access and the ability to write and post journal entries. While we believe this access
is necessary to efficiently perform the financial duties required, this access allows the ability to
override many of the controls and segregation the City has in place.
The City has implemented certain controls to mitigate the risk due to the lack of segregation of
accounting duties, including but not limited to reviewing adjustments to customer accounts before
they are posted, having a non-finance employee prepare bank reconciliations and review of all
journal entries. However, due to the number of staff needed to properly segregate all of the
accounting duties, the cost of obtaining desirable segregation of accounting duties can often exceed
benefits which could be derived. However, management and the City Council must remain aware of
this situation and should continually monitor the accounting system, including changes that occur.
We recommend that the City review the internal control process to ensure segregation or
independent review be implemented whenever practical and cost effective.
Page 58 of 555
4
City of Mendota Heights
Required Communication
We have audited the basic financial statements of the governmental activities, business-type
activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City as of and for
the year ended December 31, 2024. Professional standards require that we advise you of the
following matters related to our audit.
Our Responsibility in Relation to the Financial Statement Audit
As communicated in our engagement letter, our responsibility, as described by professional
standards, is to form and express opinions about whether the basic financial statements prepared by
management with your oversight are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our audit of the basic
financial statements does not relieve you or management of its respective responsibilities.
Our responsibility, as prescribed by professional standards, is to plan and perform our audit to obtain
reasonable, rather than absolute, assurance about whether the basic financial statements are free of
material misstatement. An audit of the basic financial statements includes consideration of internal
control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the
circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City 's
internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, as part of our audit, we considered the
internal control of the City solely for the purpose of determining our audit procedures and not to
provide any assurance concerning such internal control.
We are also responsible for communicating significant matters related to the audit that are, in our
professional judgement, relevant to your responsibilities in overseeing the financial reporting
process. However, we are not required to design procedures for the purpose of identifying other
matters to communicate to you.
Generally accepted accounting principles provide for certain Required Supplementary Information
(RSI) to supplement the basic financial statements. Our responsibility with respect to the RSI, which
supplements the basic financial statements, is to apply certain limited procedures in accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards. However, the RSI was not audited and, because the
limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any
assurance, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the RSI.
Our responsibility for the supplementary information accompanying the basic financial statements,
as described by professional standards, is to evaluate the presentation of the supplementary
information in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole and to report on whether the
supplementary information is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial
statements as a whole.
Our Responsibility in Relation to Government Auditing Standards
As communicated in our engagement letter, part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether
the basic financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of the City's
compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements,
noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of basic
financial statement amounts. However, the objective of our tests was not to provide an opinion on
compliance with such provisions.
Planned Scope and Timing of the Audit
We conducted our audit consistent with the planned scope and timing we previously communicated
to you.
Page 59 of 555
5
City of Mendota Heights
Required Communication
Compliance with All Ethics Requirements Regarding Independence
The engagement team, others in our firm, as appropriate, our firm, and our network firms have
complied with all relevant ethical requirements regarding independence.
Significant Risks Identified
We have identified the following significant risks of material misstatement:
•Risk of Improper Revenue Recognition – Revenue recognition is considered a fraud risk on
substantially all engagements as it is generally the largest line item impacting a City's change
in fund balance or net position.
•Risk of Misappropriation of Assets – Misappropriation of Assets is considered a risk in
substantially all engagements as assets may be misappropriated due to fraud or error.
•Risk of Management Override of Controls – Management override of internal control is
considered a risk in substantially all engagements as management may be incentivized to
produce better results.
•Lease Valuation - Lease Receivable and Related Deferred Inflows of Resources - These are
material to the financial statements and involve significant estimates.
•Pension Valuation - Net Pension Liability, Deferred Outflows of Resources Related to Pensions,
and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to Pensions - These are generally material to the
financial statements and involve significant estimates.
•Other Post-Employment Benefits Valuation - Total OPEB Liability, Deferred Outflows of
Resources Related to OPEB, and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to OPEB - These are
generally material to the financial statements and involve significant estimates.
Qualitative Aspects of the City's Significant Accounting Practices
Significant Accounting Policies
Management has the responsibility to select and use appropriate accounting policies. A summary of
the significant accounting policies adopted by the City is included in the notes to the basic financial
statements. There have been no initial selection of accounting policies and no changes to significant
accounting policies or their application during 2024. No matters have come to our attention that
would require us, under professional standards, to inform you about (1) the methods used to account
for significant unusual transactions and (2) the effect of significant accounting policies in
controversial or emerging areas for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus.
Significant Accounting Estimates and Related Disclosures
Accounting estimates and related disclosures are an integral part of the basic financial statements
prepared by management and are based on management's current judgements. Those judgements
are normally based on knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions
about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their
significance to the basic financial statements and because of the possibility that future events
affecting them may differ markedly from management's current judgements. The most sensitive
estimates affecting the basic financial statements related to:
Lease Receivable and Related Deferred Inflows of Resources - These balances are based on
estimates and judgments determined by the City related to the discount rate, lease term, and
lease payments.
3DJHRI
6
City of Mendota Heights
Required Communication
Qualitative Aspects of the City's Significant Accounting Practices (Continued)
Significant Accounting Estimates and Related Disclosures (Continued)
Total Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) Liability, Deferred Outflows of Resources Related
to OPEB, and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to OPEB – These balances are based on an
actuarial study using the estimates of future obligations of the City for post employment
benefits.
Net Pension Liability, Deferred Outflows of Resources Related to Pensions and Deferred Inflows of
Resources Related to Pensions – These balances are based on an allocation by the pension plans
using estimates based on contributions.
We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the accounting estimates and
determined that they are reasonable in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole
and in relation to the applicable opinion units.
Financial Statement Disclosures
Certain basic financial statement disclosures involve significant judgment and are particularly
sensitive because of their significance to financial statement users. The basic financial statement
disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear.
Significant Difficulties Encountered during the Audit
We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management relating to the performance
of the audit.
Uncorrected and Corrected Misstatements
For the purposes of this communication, professional standards require us to accumulate all
known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that we believe are
trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. Further, professional
standards require us to also communicate the effects of uncorrected misstatements related to
prior periods on the relevant classes of transactions, account balances or disclosures, and the
basic financial statements taken as a whole and each applicable opinion unit. Management did
not identify, and we did not notify them of any uncorrected financial statement misstatements
The following bullet point summarizes the uncorrected financial statement misstatement whose
effects in the current and prior periods, as determined by management, are immaterial, both
individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole and each applicable
opinion unit. Uncorrected misstatements or matters underlying those uncorrected misstatements
could potentially cause future-period financial statements to be materially misstated, even though
the uncorrected misstatements are immaterial to the financial statements currently under audit.
•Capital assets are understated
In addition, professional standards require us to communicate to you all material, corrected
misstatements that were brought to the attention of management as a result of our audit
procedures. None of the misstatements detected as a result of audit procedures and corrected by
management were material, either individually or in the aggregate, to the basic financial statements
taken as a whole.
3DJHRI
7
City of Mendota Heights
Required Communication
Disagreements with Management
For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a
matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, concerning a financial accounting, reporting,
or auditing matter, which could be significant to the City's basic financial statements or the
auditor's report. No such disagreements arose during the course of our audit.
Representations Requested from Management
We have requested certain written representations from management, which are included in the
management representation letter.
Management's Consultations with Other Accountants
In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and
accounting matters. Management has informed us that, and to our knowledge, there were no
consultations with other accountants regarding auditing and accounting matters.
Other Significant Matters, Findings, or Issues
In the normal course of our professional association with the City, we generally discuss a variety of
matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, significant events
or transactions that occurred during the year, operating and regulatory conditions affecting the City,
and operational plans and strategies that may affect the risks of material misstatement. None of the
matters discussed resulted in a condition to our retention as the City's auditor.
Other Information Included in Annual Reports
Pursuant to professional standards, our responsibility as auditors for other information, whether
financial or nonfinancial, included in the City's annual reports, does not extend beyond the
information identified in the audit report, and we are not required to perform any procedures to
corroborate such other information.
We applied certain limited procedures to the RSI that supplements the basic financial statements.
Our procedures consisted of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the
information and comparing the information for consistency with management's responses to our
inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the
basic financial statements. We did not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion or provide any
assurance on the RSI.
With respect to the supplementary information accompanying the financial statements, we made
certain inquiries of management and evaluated the form, content and methods of preparing the
information to determine that the information complies with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America, the method of preparing it has not changed from the
prior period, and the information is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the
financial statements. We compared and reconciled the supplementary information to the
underlying accounting records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic
financial statements themselves.
Our responsibility also includes communicating to you any information which we believe is a material
misstatement of fact. Nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that such information,
or its manner of presentation, is materially inconsistent with the information, or manner of its
presentation, appearing in the basic financial statements.
Page 62 of 555
8
City of Mendota Heights
Financial Analysis
The following pages provide graphic representation of select data pertaining to the financial position
and operations of the City for the past four years. Our analysis of each graph is presented to provide
a basis for discussion of past performance and how implementing certain changes may enhance
future performance. We suggest you view each graph and document if our analysis is consistent with
yours. A subsequent discussion of this information should be useful for planning purposes.
General Fund Revenues
The General Fund revenues for the past five years are depicted in the following graph.
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Other $412,446 $328,838 $129,072 $694,601 $1,255,903
Charges for Services 677,925 736,356 641,490 687,087 698,812
Intergovernmental 1,435,730 521,938 735,603 1,278,100 886,048
Licenses and Permits 405,376 619,710 731,480 572,587 769,288
Taxes and Assessments 7,959,743 8,243,823 8,935,145 9,601,169 10,402,220
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
General Fund Revenues
General Fund revenue increased $1,178,727, or 9.2%, during the year, from $12,833,544 in 2023 to
$14,012,271 in 2024. The largest fluctuation occurred in taxes and assessments, which increased
$801,051 due to an increase in the amount of taxes levied in 2024. License and permit revenue
increased $196,701 due to an increase in the number of building permits. Other revenue increased
$561,302 due to a positive market value adjustment related to better market conditions and the
collection of franchise fees. Intergovernmental revenue decreased $392,052 due to a decrease in the
number of grants received.
Page 63 of 555
9
City of Mendota Heights
Financial Analysis
General Fund Revenues (Continued)
Taxes and
Assessments
74%
Licenses and
Permits
6%
Intergovernmental
6%
Charges for
Services
5%
Other
9%
2024 General Fund Revenues
Taxes and
Assessments
75%
Licenses and
Permits
5%Intergovernmental
10%
Charges for
Services
5%
Other
5%
2023 General Fund Revenues
Page 64 of 555
10
City of Mendota Heights
Financial Analysis
General Fund Expenditures
The General Fund expenditures for the past five years are depicted in the following graph.
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Debt Service $-$-$45,017 $95,847 $133,600
Capital Outlay 2,478 54,611 251,876 103,048 477,053
General Government 1,890,278 1,757,792 2,066,147 1,890,903 2,275,110
Public Works 2,632,290 2,795,095 3,172,510 3,643,062 3,944,090
Public Safety 4,885,438 5,034,195 5,106,234 5,619,367 6,097,209
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
General Fund Expenditures
General Fund expenditures increased $1,574,835, or 13.9%, from $11,352,227 in 2023 to $12,927,062
in 2024. Public safety increased the most from 2023, by $477.842, or 8.5%. This increase is due in
part to an increase in wages. Public works increased $301.028, or 8.3% due in part to changing to
contracted building inspection services. General government expenditures increased $384,207 or
20.3% due to an increase in wages. Capital outlay increased $374,005 due to leasing new squad cars.
Page 65 of 555
11
City of Mendota Heights
Financial Analysis
General Fund Expenditures (Continued)
General
Government
18%
Public Safety
47%
Public Works
30%
Capital Outlay
4%
Debt Service
1%
2024 General Fund Expenditures
General
Government
17%
Public Safety
49%
Public Works
32%
Capital Outlay
1%
Debt Service
1%
2023 General Fund Expenditures
Page 66 of 555
12
City of Mendota Heights
Financial Analysis
General Fund Expenditures (Continued)
The table below presents a comparison of budget and actual General Fund revenues and
expenditures by function. In total, the fund's expenditures were $217,391, or 1.7%, over budgeted
expenditures of $12,709,671. The fund's revenue was $1,350,150, or 10.7%, over budgeted revenues
of $12,662,121.
Licenses and permits revenue was $359,288 over budget due to budgeting conservatively.
Intergovernmental revenue was $257,134 over budget due to budgeting conservatively. Other
revenue was $676,859 over budget due to better market conditions at year end, as well as an
increase in reimbursements. All other functions were consistent with the budgeted amounts.
Public Safety expenditures were under budget by $114,350. This was due to the police staffing
turnover causing vacancies and variations in personnel levels. Capital outlay expenditures were
$477,053 over budget due in part to the issuance of new leases and subscription liabilities. Public
works expenditures were under budget due to conservative budgeting. All other functions were
relatively consistent with the budgeted amounts.
Variance
Original and Final Budget -
Final Budget Amounts Over (Under)
Revenues
Taxes and assessments 10,356,289$ 10,402,220$ 45,931$
Franchise fee 350,000 382,044 32,044
Licenses and permits 410,000 769,288 359,288
Intergovernmental 628,914 886,048 257,134
Charges for services 719,918 698,812 (21,106)
Other 197,000 873,859 676,859
Total revenues 12,662,121 14,012,271 1,350,150
Expenditures
General government 2,267,018 2,275,110 8,092
Public safety 6,211,559 6,097,209 (114,350)
Public works 4,098,094 3,944,090 (154,004)
Capital outlay - 477,053 477,053
Debt service
Principal 133,000 133,600 600
Total expenditures 12,709,671 12,927,062 217,391
Other Financing Sources Uuses)
Insurance Proceeds - 97,985 97,985 Bond premium - -
Issuance of leases and subscription liabilities - 300,919 300,919
Transfers in 47,550 47,550 -
Transfers out - (543,988) (543,988)
Total other financing sources (uses)47,550 (97,534) (145,084)
Net change in fund balances -$ 987,675$ 987,675$
Page 67 of 555
13
City of Mendota Heights
Financial Analysis
General Fund Operations
The bar chart below highlights General Fund results for the last five years.
80%
100%
120%
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Revenues $10,891,220 $10,450,665 $11,172,790 $12,833,544 $14,012,271
Expenditures 9,410,484 9,641,693 10,641,784 11,352,227 12,927,062
Fund Balance 10,684,511 11,349,217 11,485,305 12,482,362 13,470,037
Fund Balance as a Percent of
the Year's Expenditures 114%118%108%110%104%
General Fund Operations
As shown in the chart, the City's fund balance increased to its highest point in the five years
presented. The amount of fund balance as a percentage of the current year's expenditures had
increased steadily since 2018, with a slight decrease in 2022 due to increased 2022 expenditures
levels with an increase again in 2023. The City implemented a policy in accordance with GASB 54
whereby the General Fund's unassigned fund balance is at least 75% of the subsequent year's
budgeted expenditures. As of December 31, 2024, the City's unassigned General Fund balance of
$13,079,199 was 99% of 2025 budgeted expenditures.
Page 68 of 555
14
City of Mendota Heights
Financial Analysis
Tax Capacity, Levy, and Rates
The chart below graphs the tax capacity, certified tax levy, and City tax rate for 2020 through 2024.
The tax capacity is based on total tax capacity, prior to adjustments for captured Tax Increment
Financing (TIF) and fiscal disparities. The certified tax levy amount is also prior to fiscal disparity
adjustments.
With improving market values, the City's tax capacity increased from 2020 to 2024 by $9,662,763 or
35.5%. In 2024, the City's tax capacity increased $2,433,803 or 7.1%.
$27,187,958 $28,860,073 $29,863,820
$34,416,918
$36,850,721
$10,048,724 $10,482,617 $11,194,705 $11,947,424 $12,889,319
38.32%37.85%39.74%
36.89%37.26%
0.00%
4.00%
8.00%
12.00%
16.00%
20.00%
24.00%
28.00%
32.00%
36.00%
40.00%
44.00%
48.00%
52.00%
56.00%
60.00%
64.00%
68.00%
$-
$2,500,000
$5,000,000
$7,500,000
$10,000,000
$12,500,000
$15,000,000
$17,500,000
$20,000,000
$22,500,000
$25,000,000
$27,500,000
$30,000,000
$32,500,000
$35,000,000
$37,500,000
$40,000,000
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Total Tax Capacity Certified Tax Levy Tax Capacity Rate
*Property tax data was obtained from Dakota County.
Page 69 of 555
15
City of Mendota Heights
Financial Analysis
Enterprise Funds
Sewer Utility Fund
The following graph presents a five-year history of the Sewer Utility Fund. Due to the nature and cost
of Sewer Utility Fund assets, it is often difficult to establish sewer rates that are sufficient to cover
the current year's use of the assets represented by depreciation expense. Ideally, Sewer Utility Fund
revenues should cover all operating expenses, including depreciation.
The Sewer Utility Fund had an operating income of $490,312, which included recognition of $212,231
of depreciation expense. Revenues exceeded expenses in all five years presented. Net position of the
fund increased $587,918 after factoring in nonoperating revenues, and net transfers.
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Charges for Services $2,317,640 $2,386,252 $2,411,225 $2,482,543 $2,547,161
Operating Expenses 2,024,291 2,273,926 2,169,268 2,030,589 2,056,849
Operating Income 293,349 112,326 241,957 451,954 490,312
Operating Income
Excluding Depreciation 494,261 314,413 447,592 651,661 702,543
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
Sewer Fund
Page 70 of 555
16
City of Mendota Heights
Financial Analysis
Enterprise Funds (Continued)
Storm Water Fund
The Storm Water Fund had an operating income of $250,126, which included recognition of
depreciation expense of $57,271. Net position increased $121,663 in 2024 after factoring in
nonoperating revenues and transfers out. The fund has shown operating income for all years
presented.
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Charges for Services $578,799 $582,537 $586,430 $589,829 $647,637
Operating Expenses 225,841 404,573 190,036 448,669 397,511
Operating Income 352,958 177,964 396,394 141,160 250,126
Operating Income Excluding
Depreciation 404,241 232,408 450,838 196,567 307,397
Storm Water Fund
Page 71 of 555
City of Mendota Heights
Emerging Issues
17
Executive Summary
The following is an executive summary of financial related updates to assist you in staying current on
emerging issues in accounting and finance. This summary will give you a preview of the new
standards that have been recently issued and what is on the horizon for the near future. The most
recent and significant updates include:
• Accounting Standard Update – GASB Statement No. 102 – Certain Risk Disclosures
GASB has issued GASB Statement No. 102 relating to risk disclosures. The disclosures will
provide users with timely information regarding certain concentrations or constraints and
related events that have occurred or have begun to occur that make a government vulnerable
to a substantial impact.
• Accounting Standard Update – GASB Statement No. 103 – Financial Reporting Model
Improvements
GASB has issued GASB Statement No. 103 relating to changes in financial reporting
requirements. The changes provide clarity, enhance the relevance of information, provide
more useful information for decision-making, and provide for greater comparability amongst
government entities.
• Accounting Standard Update – GASB Statement No. 104 – Disclosure of Certain Capital
Assets
GASB has issued GASB Statement No. 104 relating to capital asset disclosures. The disclosures
required by this Statement provide users of the financial statements with essential
information about certain types of capital assets.
The following is an extensive summary of the current updates. As your continued business partner,
we are committed to keeping you informed of new and emerging issues. We are happy to discuss
these issues with you further and their applicability to your City.
Page 72 of 555
City of Mendota Heights
Emerging Issues
18
Accounting Standard Update – GASB Statement No. 102 – Certain Risk Disclosures
The objective of this Statement is to provide users of government financial statements with
information about risks related to a government's vulnerabilities due to certain concentrations or
constraints that is essential to their analyses for making decisions or assessing accountability.
This Statement provides definitions for concentration and constraint. A concentration as a lack of
diversity related to an aspect of a significant inflow of resources or outflow of resources. A
constraint is a limitation imposed on a government by an external party or by formal action of the
government's highest level of decision-making authority.
This Statement requires a government to assess whether a concentration or constraint could present
a risk of financial difficulty. The City will need to make a disclosure in the notes to the financial
statements if all three of the following criteria are true:
•The City knows about the concentration or constraint prior to financial statement issuance.
•The concentration or constraint makes the City vulnerable to risk of a substantial impact.
•An event or events associated with the concentration or constraint that could cause a
substantial impact have either (1) happened; (2) started to happen; or (3) are more likely
than not to start happening within 12 months of the financial statements being issued.
If a government determines the above criteria for disclosure have been met, it should disclose
information in notes to financial statements in sufficient detail to enable users of financial
statements to understand the nature of the circumstances disclosed and the government's
vulnerability to the risk of a substantial impact. Disclosures are required for the government as a
whole as well as any opinion unit in the financial statements that includes outstanding revenue debt.
Disclosures can be combined to avoid unnecessary duplication (e.g., a subsequent event footnote).
GASB Statement No. 102 is effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2024. Earlier
application is encouraged.
Information provided above was obtained from www.gasb.org.
3DJHRI
City of Mendota Heights
Emerging Issues
19
Accounting Standard Update – GASB Statement No. 103 – Financial Reporting Model
Improvements
The objective of this Statement is to improve key components of the financial reporting model to
enhance its effectiveness in providing information that is essential for decision making and assessing
a government's accountability. This Statement also addresses certain application issues.
This Statement addresses 5 areas of the financial statements (1) Management's Discussion and
Analysis (MD&A), (2) Unusual or Infrequent Items, (3) Presentation of the Proprietary Fund Statement
of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Net Position, (4) Major Component Unit Information,
and (5) Budgetary Comparison Information.
This Statement continues the requirement that the MD&A precede the basic financial statements as
part of the Required Supplementary Information (RSI). This Statement requires that the information
presented in MD&A be limited to the related topics discussed in five sections: (1) Overview of the
Financial Statements, (2) Financial Summary, (3) Detailed Analyses, (4) Significant Capital Asset and
Long-Term Financing Activity, and (5) Currently Known Facts, Decisions, or Conditions. The
Statement stresses that detailed analyses should explain why balances and results of operations
changed, rather than stating amounts and "boilerplate" discussions.
This Statement describes unusual or infrequent items as transactions and other events that are either
unusual in nature or infrequent in occurrence. Furthermore, governments are required to display the
inflows and outflows related to each unusual or infrequent item separately as the last presented
flow(s) of resources prior to the net change in resource flows in the government-wide, governmental
fund, and proprietary fund statements of resource flows.
This Statement requires that the proprietary fund statement of revenues, expenses, and changes in
fund net position continue to distinguish between operating and nonoperating revenues and
expenses. The Statement provides clarification regarding operating and nonoperating revenues and
expenses. Also, this Statement requires that a subtotal for operating income (loss) and noncapital
subsidies be presented before reporting other nonoperating revenues and expenses.
This Statement requires governments to present each major component unit separately in the
reporting entity's statement of net position and statement of activities if it does not reduce the
readability of the statements. If the readability of those statements would be reduced, combining
statements of major component units should be presented after the fund financial statements.
This Statement requires governments to present budgetary comparison information using a single
method of communication - RSI. Governments also are required to present (1) variances between
original and final budget amounts and (2) variances between final budget and actual amounts. An
explanation of significant variances is required to be presented in notes to RSI.
GASB Statement No. 103 is effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2025. Earlier
application is encouraged.
Information provided above was obtained from www.gasb.org.
3DJHRI
City of Mendota Heights
Emerging Issues
20
Accounting Standard Update – GASB Statement No. 104 – Disclosure of Certain Capital Assets
The objective of this Statement is to provide users of government financial statements with essential
information about certain types of capital assets.
This Statement requires certain types of capital assets continue to be disclosed separately in the
capital assets note disclosures including presentation of capital assets by major class and separate
disclosure of lease assets, subscription assets, and intangible right-to-use assets.
This Statement requires additional disclosures for capital assets held for sale. A capital asset is held
for sale if (a) the government has decided to pursue the sale of the capital asset and (b) it is
probable that the sale will be finalized within one year of the financial statement date.
Governments should disclose (1) the ending balance of capital assets held for sale, with separate
disclosure for historical cost and accumulated depreciation by major class of asset, and (2) the
carrying amount of debt for which the capital assets held for sale are pledged as collateral for each
major class of asset.
GASB Statement No. 104 is effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2025. Earlier
application is encouraged.
Information provided above was obtained from www.gasb.org.
Page 75 of 555
City of Mendota Heights
Annual Report and Basic
Financial Statements
December 31, 2024
Page 76 of 555
Page 77 of 555
7KLV Sage LV LQWeQWLoQaOO\ OefW EOaQN
City of Mendota Heights
Table of Contents
Elected Officials and Administration 1
Independent Auditor's Report 3
Management's Discussion and Analysis 7
Basic Financial Statements
Government-Wide Financial Statements
Statement of Net Position 18
Statement of Activities 19
Fund Financial Statements
Balance Sheet – Governmental Funds 20
Reconciliation of the Balance Sheet to the Statement of Net Position
–Governmental Funds 23
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances
–Governmental Funds 24
Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes
in Fund Balances to the Statement of Activities – Governmental Funds 26
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance
–Budget and Actual – General Fund 27
Statement of Net Position – Proprietary Funds 28
Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Net Position
–Proprietary Funds 29
Statement of Cash Flows – Proprietary Funds 30
Notes to Basic Financial Statements 31
Required Supplementary Information
Schedule of Changes in Total OPEB Liability and Related Ratios 66
Schedule of City's Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability General
Employees Retirement Fund 68
Schedule of City's Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability Public
Employees Police and Fire Retirement Fund 68
Schedule of City Contributions General Employees Retirement Fund 69
Schedule of City Contributions Public Employees Police and Fire
Retirement Fund 69
Notes to Required Supplementary Information 70
Supplementary Information
Combining Balance Sheet – Nonmajor Governmental Funds 80
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances
–Nonmajor Governmental Funds 86
Combining Statement of Net Position – Internal Service Funds 92
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position
–Internal Service Funds 93
Combining Statement of Cash Flows – Internal Service Funds 94
Detailed Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance
–Budget and Actual – General Fund 95
3DJHRI
City of Mendota Heights
Table of Contents
Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance
and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed
in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards 99
Minnesota Legal Compliance 101
Schedule of Finding and Response on Internal Control 102
Page 79 of 555
1
City of Mendota Heights
Elected Officials and Administration
December 31, 2024
Elected Officials Position Term Expires
Stephanie Levine Mayor December 31, 2026
Joel Paper Council Member December 31, 2028
Jay Miller Council Member December 31, 2024
Sally Lorberbaum Council Member December 31, 2026
John Mazzitello Council Member December 31, 2026
Administration
Cheryl Jacobson City Administrator Appointed
Nancy Bauer City Clerk Appointed
Kristen Schabacker Finance Director Appointed
Page 80 of 555
2
(THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY)
Page 81 of 555
3
Independent Auditor's Report
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
City of Mendota Heights
Mendota Heights, Minnesota
Report on the Audit of the Financial Statements
Opinions
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities , the business-
type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of
Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2024, and the related notes
to financial statements, which collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements as listed in
the Table of Contents.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to in the first paragraph present fairly, in all material
respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities,
each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Mendota Heights,
Minnesota, as of December 31, 2024, and the respective changes in financial position and, where
applicable, cash flows thereof, and the budgetary comparison for the General Fund for the year then
ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Basis for Opinions
We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United
States of America (GAAS) and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government
Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Our responsibilities
under those standards are further described in the Auditor's Responsibilities for the Audit of the
Financial Statements section of our report. We are required to be independent of the City of
Mendota Heights and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with the relevant
ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is
sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions.
Responsibilities of Management for the Financial Statements
The City of Mendota Heights' management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of
the financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America, and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant
to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material
misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
In preparing the financial statements, management is required to evaluate whether there are
conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the City of
Mendota Heights' ability to continue as a going concern for twelve months beyond the financial
statement date, including any currently known information that may raise substantial doubt shortly
thereafter.
Page 82 of 555
4
Auditor's Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements
Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole
are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor's report
that includes our opinions. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute
assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS and
Government Auditing Standards will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. The risk
of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from
error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the
override of internal control. Misstatements are considered material if there is a substantial likelihood
that, individually or in the aggregate, they would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user
based on the financial statements.
In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS and Government Auditing Standards, we:
•Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit.
•Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether
due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such
procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements.
•Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit
procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing
an opinion on the effectiveness of City of Mendota Heights' internal control. Accordingly, no
such opinion is expressed.
•Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant
accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluate the overall presentation of
the financial statements.
•Conclude whether, in our judgment, there are conditions or events, considered in the
aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about City of Mendota Heights' ability to continue as a
going concern for a reasonable period of time.
We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other
matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit, significant audit findings, and certain internal
control–related matters that we identified during the audit.
Required Supplementary Information
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the
Management's Discussion and Analysis, which follows this report letter, and Required Supplementary
Information as listed in the Table of Contents be presented to supplement the basic financial
statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and, although not a part of the
basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), who
considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in
an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited
procedures to the Required Supplementary Information in accordance with auditing standards
generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management
about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with
management's responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we
obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide
any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient
evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance.
3DJHRI
5
Supplementary Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that
collectively comprise the City of Mendota Heights' basic financial statements. The accompanying
supplementary information identified in the Table of Contents is presented for purposes of additional
analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements.
Such information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to
the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. The
information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial
statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information
directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial
statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in
accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our
opinion, the accompanying supplementary information, in all material respects, in relation to the
basic financial statements as a whole.
Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards
In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated June 4,
2025, on our consideration of the City of Mendota Heights' internal control over financial reporting
and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant
agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is solely to describe the scope of our
testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing ,
and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting or on
compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government
Auditing Standards in considering the City of Mendota Heights' internal control over financial
reporting and compliance.
St. Cloud, Minnesota
June 4, 2025
Page 84 of 555
6
(THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY)
Page 85 of 555
City of Mendota Heights
Management's Discussion and Analysis
7
As management of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota (the "City"), we offer readers of the City's
financial statements this narrative overview and analysis of the financial activities of the City for the
year ended December 31, 2024.
FINANCIAL AND DEVELOPMENT HIGHLIGHTS
The assets and deferred outflows of resources of the City exceeded liabilities and deferred inflows of
resources at the close of the most recent year by $66,158,700 (net position). Of this amount,
$15,524,356 (unrestricted net position) may be used to meet the City's ongoing obligations to citizens
and creditors.
The City's total net position increased by $6,493,753. Governmental activities resulted in an increase
of net position of $5,784,172. Business-type activities had an increase of net position of $709,581.
As of the close of the current year, the City's governmental funds reported a combined ending fund
balance of $23,348,587, an increase of $1,377,452 from the prior year.
At the end of the year the General Fund had an unassigned fund balance of $13,079,199, or 101.18%
of total General Fund expenditures.
OVERVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The discussion and analysis are intended to serve as an introduction to the City's basic financial
statements. The City's basic financial statements comprise three components: 1) government-wide
financial statements, 2) fund financial statements, and 3) notes to basic financial statements. This
report also contains other supplementary information in addition to the basic financial statements
themselves.
Government-Wide Financial Statements
The government-wide financial statements on pages 18 and 19 are designed to provide readers with a
broad overview of the City's finances, in a manner similar to a private-sector business.
The Statement of Net Position presents information on all of the City's assets, deferred outflows of
resources, liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources, with the difference reported as net position.
Over time, increases or decreases in net position may serve as a useful indicator of whether the
financial position of the City is improving or deteriorating.
The Statement of Activities presents information showing how the City's net position changed during
the most recent year. All changes in net position are reported as soon as the underlying event giving
rise to the change occurs, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Thus, revenues and
expenses are reported in this statement for some items that will only result in cash flows in future
periods (e.g., uncollected taxes and earned but unused vacation leave).
Both of the government-wide financial statements distinguish functions of the City that are
principally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues (governmental activities) and from
other functions that are intended to recover all or a significant portion of their costs through user
fees and charges (business-type activities). The governmental activities of the City include general
government, public safety, public works and economic development. The business-type activities of
the City include sewer and storm water.
Page 86 of 555
City of Mendota Heights
Management's Discussion and Analysis
8
OVERVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
Fund Financial Statements
A fund is a grouping of related accounts that is used to maintain control over resources that have
been segregated for specific activities or objectives. The City, like other state and local
governments, uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal
requirements. All of the funds of the City can be divided into two categories: Governmental Funds
and Proprietary Funds.
Governmental Funds
Governmental Funds are used to account for essentially the same functions reported as governmental
activities in the government-wide financial statements. However, unlike the government-wide
financial statements, governmental fund financial statements focus on near-term inflows and
outflows of spendable resource, as well as on balances of spendable resources available at the end of
the year. Such information may be useful in evaluating a government's near-term financial
requirements.
Because the focus of governmental funds is narrower than that of the government-wide financial
statements, it is useful to compare the information presented for governmental funds with similar
information presented for governmental activities in the government-wide financial statement. By
doing so, readers may better understand the long-term impact of the City's near-term financial
decisions. Both the Governmental Fund Balance Sheet and Governmental Fund Statement of
Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances provide a reconciliation to facilitate this
comparison between governmental funds and governmental activities.
The City maintains three individual major governmental funds. Information is presented separately in
the Governmental Fund Balance Sheet and in the Governmental Fund Statement of Revenues,
Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances for the following major funds:
General Fund
Special Assessments Debt Service Fund
Street Capital Projects Fund
Data from the other governmental funds are combined into a single, aggregated presentation.
Individual fund data for each of these nonmajor governmental funds is provided in the form of
combining statements elsewhere in this report.
The City adopts an annual appropriated budget for its General Fund. A budgetary comparison
statement has been provided for those funds to demonstrate compliance with this budget.
The basic governmental fund financial statements can be found on pages 20 through 27 of this
report.
Proprietary Funds
The City maintains two enterprise funds and two internal service funds as a part of its proprietary
fund type. Enterprise funds are used to report the same functions presented as business-type
activities in the government-wide financial statements. The City uses enterprise funds to account for
its sewer and storm water operations.
3DJHRI
City of Mendota Heights
Management's Discussion and Analysis
9
OVERVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
Proprietary Funds (Continued)
Proprietary Funds provide the same type of information as the government-wide financial
statements, only in more detail. The proprietary fund financial statements provide separate
information for the following funds:
Enterprise Funds
Sewer Utility Fund
Storm Water Utility Fund
Internal service funds are an accounting device used to accumulate and allocate costs internally
among the City's various functions. The City uses internal service funds to account for compensated
absences and city hall functions. The internal service funds are combined into a single, aggregated
presentation in the proprietary fund financial statements. Individual fund data for the internal
service funds is provided in the form of combining statements elsewhere in this report.
The basic proprietary fund financial statements can be found on pages 28 through 30 of this report.
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
The notes provide additional information that is essential to a full understanding of the data
provided in the government-wide and fund financial statements. The notes to basic financial
statements can be found on pages 31 through 63 of this report.
Other Information
The combining statements referred to earlier in connection with non-major governmental funds are
presented immediately following the required supplementary information on budgetary comparisons.
Combining and individual fund statements and schedules can be found on pages 80 through 97 of this
report.
GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
As noted earlier, net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial
position. In the case of the City, assets and deferred outflows of resources exceeded liabilities and
deferred inflows of resources by $66,158,700 at the close of the most recent year.
3DJHRI
City of Mendota Heights
Management's Discussion and Analysis
10
GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
The largest portion of the City's net position ($40,337,661 or 60.97%) reflects its investment in
capital assets (e.g., land, buildings, machinery and equipment, sewer main lines and storm sewers
and infrastructure) less any related debt used to acquire those assets that is still outstanding. The
City uses these capital assets to provide services to citizens; consequently, these assets are not
available for future spending. Although the City's investment in its capital assets is reported net of
related debt, it should be noted that the resources needed to repay this debt must be provided from
other sources, since the capital assets themselves cannot be used to liquidate these liabilities.
Net Position
2024 2023 2024 2023 2024 2023
Assets
Current and other assets 32,128,191$ 28,675,972$ 4,147,902$ 3,603,191$ 36,276,093$ 32,279,163$
Capital assets 48,487,778 43,988,299 14,942,868 14,678,732 63,430,646 58,667,031
Deferred outflows of resources
related to pensions and OPEB 6,502,068 5,351,785 17,184 30,966 6,519,252 5,382,751
Total assets and deferred
outflows of resources 87,118,037$ 78,016,056$ 19,107,954$ 18,312,889$ 106,225,991$ 96,328,945$
Liabilities
Long-term liabilities outstanding 27,576,208$ 25,477,620$ 107,043$ 124,486$ 27,683,251$ 25,602,106$
Other liabilities 4,997,798 3,699,537 322,680 228,553 5,320,478 3,928,090
Deferred inflows of resources
related to pensions, OPEB and
leases 7,015,628 7,094,668 47,934 39,134 7,063,562 7,133,802
Total liabilities and deferred
inflows of resources 39,589,634$ 36,271,825$ 477,657$ 392,173$ 40,067,291$ 36,663,998$
Net Position
Net investment in capital assets 25,394,793$ 21,937,409$ 14,942,868$ 14,678,732$ 40,337,661$ 36,616,141$
Restricted 10,296,683 8,617,524 - - 10,296,683 8,617,524
Unrestricted 11,836,927 11,189,298 3,687,429 3,241,984 15,524,356 14,431,282
Total net position 47,528,403$ 41,744,231$ 18,630,297$ 17,920,716$ 66,158,700$ 59,664,947$
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota's Net Position
Governmental Activities Business-Type Activities Totals
A portion of the of the City's net position ($10,296,683) represents resources that are subject to
external restrictions on how they may be used. The remaining balance of unrestricted net position
($15,524,356) may be used to meet the City's ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors.
At the end of the current year, the City is able to report positive balances in all three categories of
net position, both for the government as a whole, as well as for its separate governmental and
business-type activities.
Page 89 of 555
City of Mendota Heights
Management's Discussion and Analysis
11
GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
Governmental Activities
Governmental activities increased the City's net position by $5,784,172. Key elements of this
increase are as follows:
City's Changes in Net Position
2024 2023 2024 2023 2024 2023
Revenues
Program revenues
Charges for services 4,444,361$ 2,001,237$ 3,232,235$ 3,120,321$ 7,676,596$ 5,121,558$
Operating grants and contributions 1,133,495 1,411,285 31,435 58,219 1,164,930 1,469,504
Capital grants and contributions 2,442,848 920,277 - - 2,442,848 920,277
General revenues
Taxes 12,914,941 11,916,771 - - 12,914,941 11,916,771
Tax increment 323,631 287,493 - - 323,631 287,493
Unrestricted investment earnings 942,819 876,019 142,879 102,092 1,085,698 978,111
Franchise fees 382,044 - - 382,044 -
Total revenues 22,584,139 17,413,082 3,406,549 3,280,632 25,990,688 20,693,714
Expenses
General government 2,801,829 2,391,098 - - 2,801,829 2,391,098
Public safety 6,753,141 6,422,123 - - 6,753,141 6,422,123
Public works 6,614,732 5,855,615 - - 6,614,732 5,855,615
Economic development 295,547 266,151 - - 295,547 266,151
Interest on long-term debt 577,326 561,133 - - 577,326 561,133
Sewer - - 2,056,849 2,030,589 2,056,849 2,030,589
Storm water - - 397,511 448,669 397,511 448,669
Total expenses 17,042,575 15,496,120 2,454,360 2,479,258 19,496,935 17,975,378
Increase (decrease) in net
position before transfers 5,541,564 1,916,962 952,189 801,374 6,493,753 2,718,336
Transfers 242,608 65,476 (242,608) (65,476)- -
Increase (decrease) in net position 5,784,172 1,982,438 709,581 735,898 6,493,753 2,718,336
Net position - beginning 41,744,231 39,761,793 17,920,716 17,184,818 59,664,947 56,946,611
Net position - ending 47,528,403$ 41,744,231$ 18,630,297$ 17,920,716$ 66,158,700$ 59,664,947$
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota's Net Position
Governmental Activities Business-Type Activities Totals
Page 90 of 555
City of Mendota Heights
Management's Discussion and Analysis
12
GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
Governmental Activities (Continued)
Below are specific graphs which provide comparisons of the governmental activities revenues and
expenditures:
Charges for
Services
20%
Operating Grants
and Contributions
5%
Capital Grants
and Contributions
11%
Taxes
58%Unrestricted
Investment
Earnings
4%
Franchise fees
2%
General
Government
16%
Public Safety
40%
Public Works
39%Economic
Development
2%
Interest and Fees
on Long-Term
Debt
3%
Page 91 of 555
City of Mendota Heights
Management's Discussion and Analysis
13
GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
Business-Type Activities
Business-type activities increased net position by $709,581. Below are graphs showing the business-
type activities revenue and expense comparisons:
Charges for
Services
95%
Operating Grants
and Contributions
1%
Unrestricted
Investment Earnings
4%
Sewer
84%
Storm Water
16%
Business-Type Activities - Expenses
Page 92 of 555
City of Mendota Heights
Management's Discussion and Analysis
14
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S FUNDS
Governmental Funds
The focus of the City's governmental funds is to provide information on near-term inflows, outflows,
and balances of spendable resources. Such information is useful in assessing the City's financing
requirements. In particular, unassigned fund balance may serve as a useful measure of a
government's net resources available for spending at the end of the year.
At the end of the current year, the City's governmental funds reported combined ending fund
balances of $23,348,587. Nonspendable fund balances are already allocated for prepaid items
($375,378) and inventory ($23,271). Approximately 28.96% ($6,761,312) constitutes restricted fund
balance. Restricted fund balance would include Debt Service, Special Park, Street Capital Projects,
Police Forfeiture, TIF Districts and Street Light District Funds, all of which have specific uses for the
funds they receive. The City also has a committed fund balance of $1,566,538 (6.71%). This
represents fund balance that is to be used for the water system, Par 3 Golf Course, and civil defense
needs. The City has assigned fund balance of $2,157,102 (9.24%). This number represents the fund
balances for the various reserve accounts. The remaining category of fund balance is the unassigned
fund balance. The City has $12,464,986 of unassigned fund balance which is approximately 53.39% of
the combined governmental fund balance at December 31, 2024.
The General Fund's fund balance increased by $987,675 in 2024. Revenues were greater than
anticipated and operating expenditures were lower than budgeted amounts. The capital outlay
expenditures were greater than budgeted due to the new squad leases and subscription liabilities.
The Special Assessments Debt Service Fund increased by $298,899 in 2024. This fund accounted for
debt service payments for prior street improvement projects that were financed through the
issuance of bonds.
The Street Capital Project Fund increased by $459,936. This fund accounted for the costs and
resources associated with the Emerson Avenue and Bridgeview Shores street projects.
The nonmajor governmental funds decreased by $369,058. These funds received revenues from water
surcharges, Par 3 Golf Course, and park dedication fees. Nonmajor funds account for the Special
Park, Civil Defense, Par 3 Golf Course, and Street Light District activity. The decrease in nonmajor
governmental funds relates to the expenditures for upcoming street project work that has not yet
had funding issued to cover those expenses. The City also has nonmajor funds for future purchases of
equipment, facility needs and minor infrastructure projects.
Proprietary Funds
The City's proprietary funds provide the same type of information found in the government-wide
financial statements, but in more detail. The unrestricted net position in the respective Proprietary
Funds are sewer $2,866,723 and storm water $820,706. The Sewer Utility Fund had an increase in net
position in 2024 of $587,918 and the Storm Water Utility Fund had an increase in net position in 2024
of $121,663.
Page 93 of 555
City of Mendota Heights
Management's Discussion and Analysis
15
BUDGETARY HIGHLIGHTS
General Fund
The General Fund budget was not amended during 2024.
During the year, revenues exceeded budgeted estimates by $1,350,150, while expenditures were
greater than anticipated by $217,391. The increased expenditures were in part due to the lease
payable expenses associated with our leased squad cars.
The General Fund experienced greater than budgeted revenues in some categories. The City received
higher than budgeted amounts for licenses and permits. Intergovernmental revenue was also greater
than anticipated. Investment earnings exceeded budgeted amounts. The City takes a conservative
approach when budgeting for revenues that are not consistent from year to year.
Overall, the General Fund balance increased by $987,675, an increase of approximately 7.91%.
CAPITAL ASSET AND DEBT ADMINISTRATION
Capital Assets
The City's investment in capital assets for its governmental and business type activities as of
December 31, 2024, amounts to $63,430,646 (net of accumulated depreciation/amortization). This
investment in capital assets includes land, buildings, machinery and equipment, sewer main lines and
storm sewers and infrastructure.
Capital Assets
(Net of Depreciation/Amortization)
2024 2023 2024 2023 2024 2023
Land 8,790,170$ 8,790,170$ -$ -$ 8,790,170$ 8,790,170$
Construction in progress 7,805,247 5,196,320 - - 7,805,247 5,196,320
Buildings and structures 7,777,941 8,099,834 - - 7,777,941 8,099,834
Machinery and equipment 3,496,650 3,478,091 498,856 241,186 3,995,506 3,719,277
Leased equipment 556,048 481,266 - - 556,048 481,266
Subscription asset 62,164 62,164 -
Other improvements 1,661,101 1,046,036 - - 1,661,101 1,046,036
Storm sewers - - 14,444,012 14,437,546 14,444,012 14,437,546
Infrastructure 18,338,457 16,896,582 - - 18,338,457 16,896,582
Total capital assets 48,487,778$ 43,988,299$ 14,942,868$ 14,678,732$ 63,430,646$ 58,667,031$
Governmental Activities Business-Type Activities Totals
Additional information on the City's capital assets can be found in Note 6.
Page 94 of 555
City of Mendota Heights
Management's Discussion and Analysis
16
CAPITAL ASSET AND DEBT ADMINISTRATION (CONTINUED)
Long-Term Debt
At the end of the current year, the City had total long-term debt outstanding of $21,290,000, an
increase of $725,000 from 2023. $21,290,000 for general obligation (G.O.) improvement debt which
is supported in part by special assessments.
Outstanding Debt
G.O. Improvement Bonds, G.O. Bonds and Revenue Bonds:
2024 2023
G.O. Improvement Bonds 15,820,000$ 14,690,000$
G.O. Bonds 5,470,000 5,875,000
Total 21,290,000$ 20,565,000$
Governmental Activities
The City maintains a AAA rating from Standard & Poor's.
Minnesota Statutes limit the amount of G.O. debt a Minnesota city may issue to 2% of total estimated
market value. The current debt limitation for the City is $62,395,897. Of the City's outstanding debt,
$5,470,000 is counted within the statutory limitation.
Additional information on the City's long-term debt can be found in Note 7.
Economic Factors and Next Year's Budgets and Rates
In 2024, the taxable market value for the City was $3,119,794,846. This represents an increase of
2.74% from 2023. The City is expecting an increase in taxable market value for 2025.
These factors were considered in preparing the City's budget for 2025.
Requests for Information
This financial report is designed to provide a general overview of the City's finances for all those with
an interest in the government's finances. Questions concerning any of the information provided in
this report or requests for additional financial information should be addressed to the Director of
Finance, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118.
Page 95 of 555
17
BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Page 96 of 555
See notes to basic financial statements. 18
City of Mendota Heights
Statement of Net Position
December 31, 2024
Governmental
Activities
Business-Type
Activities Total
Assets
Cash and investments
(including cash equivalents)23,749,700$ 3,140,033$ 26,889,733$
Property tax receivable 100,291 - 100,291
Accounts receivable 163,126 821,348 984,474
Interest receivable 38,891 5,893 44,784
Due from other governments 2,775,286 3,443 2,778,729
Special assessments receivable
Delinquent 3,866 6,431 10,297
Deferred 2,532,594 35,850 2,568,444
Lease receivable due within one year 27,558 - 27,558
Lease receivable due after one year 2,232,447 - 2,232,447
Inventories 23,271 - 23,271
Prepaid items 385,061 134,904 519,965
Land held for resale 96,100 - 96,100
Capital assets not being depreciated
Land and improvements 8,790,170 - 8,790,170
Construction in progress 7,805,247 - 7,805,247
Capital assets being depreciated, net of accumulated depreciation/amortization
Infrastructure 18,338,457 14,444,012 32,782,469
Buildings and structures 7,777,941 - 7,777,941
Other improvements 1,661,100 - 1,661,100
Leased equipment 556,048 - 556,048
Subscription asset 62,164 - 62,164
Machinery and equipment 3,496,651 498,856 3,995,507
Total assets 80,615,969 19,090,770 99,706,739
Deferred Outflows of Resources
Deferred outflows of resources related to pensions 3,723,530 16,744 3,740,274
Deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB 2,778,538 440 2,778,978
Total deferred outflows of resources 6,502,068 17,184 6,519,252
Total assets and deferred outflows of resources 87,118,037$ 19,107,954$ 106,225,991$
Liabilities
Accounts and contracts payable 1,300,789$ 114,565$ 1,415,354$
Deposits payable - 163,005 163,005
Due to other governments 66,576 8,258 74,834
Salaries and benefits payable 305,100 10,881 315,981
Interest payable 252,040 - 252,040
Bond principal payable
Payable within one year 2,255,000 - 2,255,000
Payable after one year 20,182,345 - 20,182,345
Lease payable
Payable within one year 79,589 - 79,589
Payable after one year 515,164 - 515,164
Subscription payable
Payable within one year 29,822 - 29,822
Payable after one year 31,065 - 31,065
Compensated absences payable
Payable within one year 536,510 25,971 562,481
Payable after one year 303,410 21,044 324,454
Other post employment benefits (OPEB) payable
Payable within one year 172,372 - 172,372
Payable after one year 3,265,484 17,414 3,282,898
Net pension liability 3,278,740 68,585 3,347,325
Total liabilities 32,574,006 429,723 33,003,729
Deferred Inflows of Resources
Deferred inflows of resources related to pensions 4,701,783 46,402 4,748,185
Deferred inflows of resources related to lease receivable 2,260,005 - 2,260,005
Deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB 53,840 1,532 55,372
Total deferred inflows of resources 7,015,628 47,934 7,063,562
Net Position
Net investment in capital assets 25,394,793 14,942,868 40,337,661
Restricted for
Police forfeiture 30,336 - 30,336
Debt service 6,455,423 - 6,455,423
Capital projects 3,443,001 - 3,443,001
Street light maintenance 24,484 - 24,484
Park dedication 215,732 - 215,732
American Rescue Plan Act 862 - 862
Local affordable housing aid 44,636 - 44,636
Tax increment 82,209 - 82,209
Unrestricted 11,836,927 3,687,429 15,524,356
Total net position 47,528,403 18,630,297 66,158,700
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources, and net position 87,118,037$ 19,107,954$ 106,225,991$
Page 97 of 555
See notes to basic financial statements. 19
Program Revenues
Expenses
Charges for
Services
Operating
Grants and
Contributions
Capital Grants
and
Contributions
Governmental
Activities
Business-Type
Activities Total
Governmental activities
General government 2,801,829$ 228,080$ 157,963$ 43,876$ (2,371,910)$ -$ (2,371,910)$
Public safety 6,753,141 693,566 761,501 -(5,298,074) -(5,298,074)
Public works 6,614,732 3,522,715 214,031 2,398,972 (479,014) -(479,014)
Economic development 295,547 - - - (295,547) -(295,547)
Interest on long-term debt 577,326 - - - (577,326) -(577,326)
Total governmental activities 17,042,575 4,444,361 1,133,495 2,442,848 (9,021,871) -(9,021,871)
Business-type activities
Sewer 2,056,849 2,584,598 - - - 527,749 527,749
Storm water 397,511 647,637 31,435 - - 281,561 281,561
Total business-type activities 2,454,360 3,232,235 31,435 - - 809,310 809,310
Total governmental and
business-type activities 19,496,935$ 7,676,596$ 1,164,930$ 2,442,848$ (9,021,871) 809,310 (8,212,561)
General revenues
Property taxes 12,914,941 -12,914,941
Franchise fees 382,044 -382,044
Tax increments 323,631 -323,631
Unrestricted investment earnings 942,819 142,879 1,085,698
Total general revenues 14,563,435 142,879 14,706,314
Transfers 242,608 (242,608) -
Change in net position 5,784,172 709,581 6,493,753
Net position - beginning 41,744,231 17,920,716 59,664,947
Net position - ending 47,528,403$ 18,630,297$ 66,158,700$
Functions/Programs
Net (Expense) Revenues
and Changes in Net Position
City of Mendota Heights
Statement of Activities
Year Ended December 31, 2024
Page 98 of 555
See notes to basic financial statements. 20
December 31, 2024
Capital Projects
General Fund
Special
Assessments
Debt Service
Street Capital
Projects
Assets
Cash and investments
(including cash equivalents) 13,296,420$ 3,337,088$ 1,762,779$
Taxes receivable - delinquent 80,331 13,404 -
Special assessments receivable
Delinquent 1,712 2,154 -
Deferred 29,077 2,447,502 44,412
Accounts receivable 143,485 - -
Interest receivable 20,033 6,089 4,150
Due from other funds - - -
Due from other governments 277,934 40,099 2,353,470
Lease receivables 2,260,005 - -
Inventories 23,271 - -
Prepaid items 367,567 - -
Land held for resale - - -
Total assets 16,499,835$ 5,846,336$ 4,164,811$
Liabilities
Accounts and contracts payable 293,632$ 3,000$ 721,810$
Due to other funds - - -
Due to other governments 65,479 - -
Salaries and benefits payable 299,562 - -
Total liabilities 658,673 3,000 721,810
Deferred Inflows of Resources
Unavailable revenue - property taxes 80,331 13,404 -
Unavailable revenue - state shared tax - - 1,273,649
Deferred Inflows of Resources related to lease receivable 2,260,005 - -
Unavailable revenue - special assessments 30,789 2,449,656 44,412
Total deferred inflows of resources 2,371,125 2,463,060 1,318,061
Fund Balances
Nonspendable 390,838 - -
Restricted - 3,380,276 2,124,940
Committed - - -
Assigned - - -
Unassigned 13,079,199 - -
Total fund balances 13,470,037 3,380,276 2,124,940
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of
resources, and fund balances 16,499,835$ 5,846,336$ 4,164,811$
City of Mendota Heights
Balance Sheet - Governmental Funds
Page 99 of 555
21
Other
Governmental
Funds
Total
Governmental
Funds
4,430,691$ 22,826,978$
6,556 100,291
- 3,866
11,603 2,532,594
11,156 154,641
8,238 38,510
630,940 630,940
103,783 2,775,286
-2,260,005
-23,271
7,811 375,378
96,100 96,100
5,306,878$ 31,817,860$
282,347$ 1,300,789$
630,940 630,940
991 66,470
1,107 300,669
915,385 2,298,868
6,556 100,291
-1,273,649
-2,260,005
11,603 2,536,460
18,159 6,170,405
7,811 398,649
1,256,096 6,761,312
1,566,538 1,566,538
2,157,102 2,157,102
(614,213) 12,464,986
4,373,334 23,348,587
5,306,878$ 31,817,860$
Page 100 of 555
22
(THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY)
Page 101 of 555
See notes to basic financial statements. 23
City of Mendota Heights
Reconciliation of the Balance Sheet to
the Statement of Net Position - Governmental Funds
December 31, 2024
Total fund balances - governmental funds 23,348,587$
Capital assets used in governmental activities are not current financial resources and, therefore,
are not reported as assets in governmental funds.
Cost of capital assets 85,643,581
Less accumulated depreciation/amortization (37,648,269)
Long-term liabilities, including bonds payable, are not due and payable in the current period and,
therefore, are not reported as liabilities in the funds.
Long-term liabilities at year-end consist of:
General obligation (G.O.) bond principal payable (21,290,000)
Lease payable (594,753)
Subscription payable (60,887)
Unamortized bond premium (1,147,345)
OPEB payable (3,426,487)
Net pension liability (3,247,741)
Deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources are created as a result of various
differences related to pensions and OPEB that are not recognized in the governmental funds.
Deferred inflows of resources related to pensions (4,680,811)
Deferred outflows of resources related to pensions 3,715,962
Deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB 2,778,251
Deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB (52,840)
Delinquent receivables will be collected in subsequent years, but are not available soon enough to
pay for the current period's expenditures and, therefore, are deferred in the funds.
Property taxes 100,291
Special assessments 3,866
Revenues in the Statement of Activities that do not provide current financial resources are not
reported as revenues in the funds.
Deferred special assessments 2,532,594
State shared tax 1,273,649
Governmental funds do not report a liability for accrued interest until due and payable.(252,040)
Internal service funds are used by management to charge the cost of engineering, compensated
absences and City Hall expenses to individual funds. The net position of the funds are considered
governmental and included in the government-wide Statement of Net Position. 532,795
47,528,403$ Total net position - governmental activities
Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Net Position are different because:
Page 102 of 555
See notes to basic financial statements. 24
Capital Projects
General Fund
Special
Assessments
Debt Service
Street Capital
Projects
Revenues
Property taxes 10,402,220$ 1,754,329$ -$
Tax increments - - -
Franchise fees 382,044 - -
Special assessments - 350,448 753,428
Licenses and permits 769,288 - -
Intergovernmental 886,048 - -
Charges for services 698,812 - -
Fines and forfeitures 66,961 1,171 4
Miscellaneous revenue
Investment income 485,740 147,548 100,644
Refunds and reimbursements - - 2,111,457
Other 321,158 - -
Total revenues 14,012,271 2,253,496 2,965,533
Expenditures
Current
General government 2,275,110 - -
Public safety 6,097,209 - -
Public works 3,944,090 - -
Economic development - - -
Debt service
Principal 133,600 1,625,000 -
Interest and other charges - 486,560 -
Capital outlay
General government - - -
Public safety 399,283 - -
Public works 77,770 - 5,824,958
Total expenditures 12,927,062 2,111,560 5,824,958
Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures 1,085,209 141,936 (2,859,425)
Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Issuance of debt - 2,755,000 -
Bond premium - 337,154 -
Issuance of leases and subscription liabilities 300,919 - -
Insurance recoveries 97,985 - -
Transfers in 47,550 - 3,402,488
Transfers out (543,988) (2,935,191) (83,127)
Total other financing sources (uses) (97,534) 156,963 3,319,361
Net change in fund balances 987,675 298,899 459,936
Fund Balances
Beginning of year 12,482,362 3,081,377 1,665,004
End of year 13,470,037$ 3,380,276$ 2,124,940$
City of Mendota Heights
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balances - Governmental Funds
Year Ended December 31, 2024
Page 103 of 555
25
Other
Governmental
Funds
Total
Governmental
Funds
730,728$ 12,887,277$
323,631 323,631
-382,044
-1,103,876
-769,288
217,100 1,103,148
452,088 1,150,900
168 68,304
199,658 933,590
-2,111,457
67,895 389,053
1,991,268 21,222,568
108,465 2,383,575
8,188 6,105,397
499,559 4,443,649
295,547 295,547
405,000 2,163,600
181,225 667,785
114,405 114,405
148,176 547,459
1,195,259 7,097,987
2,955,824 23,819,404
(964,556) (2,596,836)
-2,755,000
-337,154
-300,919
-97,985
780,522 4,230,560
(185,024) (3,747,330)
595,498 3,974,288
(369,058) 1,377,452
4,742,392 21,971,135
4,373,334$ 23,348,587$
Page 104 of 555
See notes to basic financial statements. 26
1,377,452$
Capital outlays are reported in governmental funds as expenditures. However, in the Statement of
Activities, the cost of those assets is allocated over the estimated useful lives as depreciation
expense.
Capital outlays 7,713,507
Depreciation expense (2,882,659)
Loss on disposal of capital assets (1,603)
Loss on disposal of leased assets (53,366)
Assets contributed to enterprise funds (240,622)
Governmental funds recognized pension contributions as expenditures at the time of payment
whereas the Statement of Activities factors in items related to pensions on a full accrual
perspective. 143,733
OPEB are not reported as expenditures in the governmental funds because they do not require the
use of current financial resources; instead, they are expensed in the Statement of Activities. (274,719)
Principal payments on long-term debt are recognized as expenditures in the governmental funds
but have no effect on net position in the Statement of Activities. 2,163,600
Premiums on the issuance of long-term debt provide current financial resources to governmental
funds and have no effect on net position. These amounts are reported in the governmental funds
as an other financing source and constitute long-term liabilities in the Statement of Net Position. (337,154)
Premiums are recognized when debt is issued in the governmental funds but amortized over the
life of the debt in the Statement of Activities. 101,042
Interest on long-term debt in the Statement of Activities differs from the amount reported in the
governmental funds because interest is recognized as an expenditure in the funds when it is due
and thus requires use of current financial resources. In the Statement of Activities, however,
interest expense is recognized as the interest accrues, regardless of when it is due. (10,583)
Proceeds from long-term debt are recognized as an other financing source in the governmental
funds but have no effect on net position in the Statement of Activities.
Bonds payable (2,755,000)
Lease payable (240,032)
Subscription payable (60,887)
Revenues in the Statement of Activities that do not provide current financial resources are not
reported as revenues in the funds. 1,148,199
Activities of the internal service funds are presented separately from the governmental funds.
However, the functions, from a government-wide perspective, are governmental. (6,736)
5,784,172$ Change in net position - governmental activities
Net change in fund balances - governmental funds
Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Activities are different because:
City of Mendota Heights
Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues,
Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances to
the Statement of Activities - Governmental Funds
Year Ended December 31, 2024
Page 105 of 555
See notes to basic financial statements. 27
City of Mendota Heights
Budget and Actual - General Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balance -
Budget and Actual - General Fund
Year Ended December 31, 2024
Budgeted
Amounts Variance with
Original Actual
and Final Amounts
Revenues
Property taxes 10,356,289$ 10,402,220$ 45,931$
Franchise fees 350,000 382,044 32,044
Licenses and permits 410,000 769,288 359,288
Intergovernmental 628,914 886,048 257,134
Charges for services 719,918 698,812 (21,106)
Fines and forfeitures 72,000 66,961 (5,039)
Miscellaneous revenues
Investment income 20,000 485,740 465,740
Other 105,000 321,158 216,158
Total revenues 12,662,121 14,012,271 1,350,150
Expenditures
Current
General government 2,267,018 2,275,110 8,092
Public safety 6,211,559 6,097,209 (114,350)
Public works 4,098,094 3,944,090 (154,004)
Debt service:
Principal 133,000 133,600 600
Capital outlay
Public safety -399,283 399,283
Public works -77,770 77,770
Total expenditures 12,709,671 12,927,062 217,391
Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures (47,550) 1,085,209 1,132,759
Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Issuance of leases and subscription liabilities -300,919 300,919
Insurance recoveries -97,985 97,985
Transfers in 47,550 47,550 -
Transfers out -(543,988) (543,988)
Total other financing sources (uses)47,550 (97,534) (145,084)
Net change in fund balance -$ 987,675 987,675$
Fund Balance
Beginning of year 12,482,362
End of year 13,470,037$
Final Budget -
Over (Under)
Page 106 of 555
See notes to basic financial statements. 28
City of Mendota Heights
Statement of Net Position - Proprietary Funds
December 31, 2024
Sewer Utility
Storm Water
Utility Total
Internal Service
Funds
Assets
Current assets
Cash and investments 2,256,542$ 883,491$ 3,140,033$ 922,722$
Special assessment receivable
Delinquent 6,431 - 6,431 -
Deferred 35,850 - 35,850 -
Accounts receivable 655,251 166,097 821,348 8,485
Interest receivable 3,981 1,912 5,893 381
Due from other governments 3,443 - 3,443 -
Prepaid expenses 134,904 - 134,904 9,683
Total current assets 3,096,402 1,051,500 4,147,902 941,271
Noncurrent assets
Capital assets not being depreciated
Land - - - 25,000
Capital assets being depreciated
Buildings - - - 2,279,024
Sewer main lines and storm sewers 15,636,563 5,727,085 21,363,648 -
Improvements other than buildings - - - 40,781
Machinery and equipment 769,265 - 769,265 66,969
Total capital assets 16,405,828 5,727,085 22,132,913 2,411,774
Less accumulated depreciation (6,372,270) (817,775) (7,190,045) (1,919,308)
Net capital assets 10,033,558 4,909,310 14,942,868 492,466
Total assets 13,129,960 5,960,810 19,090,770 1,433,737
Deferred Outflows of Resources
Deferred outflows of resources related to pensions 13,983 2,761 16,744 7,568
Deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB 378 62 440 287
Total deferred outflows of resources 14,361 2,823 17,184 7,855
Total assets and deferred outflows of resources 13,144,321$ 5,963,633$ 19,107,954$ 1,441,592$
Liabilities and Net Position
Current liabilities
Accounts payable 68,527$ 46,038$ 114,565$ -$
Developers' escrow deposits - 163,005 163,005 -
Salaries and benefits payable 9,458 1,423 10,881 4,431
Due to other governments 6,738 1,520 8,258 106
Noncurrent liabilities due within one year 25,971 - 25,971 536,510
Total current liabilities 110,694 211,986 322,680 541,047
Noncurrent liabilities
Compensated absences 47,015 - 47,015 839,920
OPEB payable 14,961 2,453 17,414 11,369
Net pension liability 57,275 11,310 68,585 30,999
Less amount due within one year (25,971) - (25,971) (536,510)
Total noncurrent liabilities 93,280 13,763 107,043 345,778
Total liabilities 203,974 225,749 429,723 886,825
Deferred Inflows of Resources
Deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB 1,316 216 1,532 1,000
Deferred inflows of resources related to pensions 38,750 7,652 46,402 20,972
Total deferred inflows of resources 40,066 7,868 47,934 21,972
Net Position
Investment in capital assets 10,033,558 4,909,310 14,942,868 492,466
Unrestricted 2,866,723 820,706 3,687,429 40,329
Total net position 12,900,281 5,730,016 18,630,297 532,795
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources,
and net position 13,144,321$ 5,963,633$ 19,107,954$ 1,441,592$
Page 107 of 555
See notes to basic financial statements. 29
Sewer Utility
Storm Water
Utility Total
Internal Service
Funds
Operating Revenues
Charges for services 2,547,161$ 647,637$ 3,194,798$ 260,000$
Operating Expenses
Wages and salaries 193,989 27,823 221,812 78,913
Employee benefits 66,472 7,518 73,990 38,651
Materials and supplies 37,012 106 37,118 13,181
Repairs and maintenance 151,238 235,900 387,138 -
Professional services 22,014 32,249 54,263 5,280
Insurance 10,139 -10,139 7,097
Utilities 18,042 -18,042 33,798
Depreciation 212,231 57,271 269,502 35,778
Travel 34 - 34 -
Miscellaneous 30,930 36,644 67,574 63,267
Sewer charges - MCES 1,314,748 -1,314,748 -
Total operating expenses 2,056,849 397,511 2,454,360 275,965
Operating income (loss)490,312 250,126 740,438 (15,965)
Nonoperating Revenues
Investment income 96,519 46,360 142,879 9,229
Fines and forfeitures 1,300 - 1,300 -
Special assessments 5,102 - 5,102 -
Intergovernmental revenue -31,435 31,435 -
Other income 31,035 -31,035 -
Total nonoperating revenues 133,956 77,795 211,751 9,229
Change in net position
before capital contributions
and transfers 624,268 327,921 952,189 (6,736)
Capital contributions 54,264 186,358 240,622 -
Transfers out (90,614) (392,616) (483,230) -
Change in net position 587,918 121,663 709,581 (6,736)
Net Position
Beginning of year 12,312,363 5,608,353 17,920,716 539,531
End of year 12,900,281$ 5,730,016$ 18,630,297$ 532,795$
Year Ended December 31, 2024
City of Mendota Heights
Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes
in Fund Net Position - Proprietary Funds
Page 108 of 555
See notes to basic financial statements. 30
Sewer Utility
Storm Water
Utility Total
Internal Service
Funds
Cash Flows - Operating Activities
Receipts from customers and users 2,489,517$ 629,475$ 3,118,992$ 260,000$
Payments to suppliers (1,532,769) (268,119) (1,800,888) (138,872)
Payments to employees (259,131) (36,099) (295,230) (29,461)
Miscellaneous revenue 47,590 -47,590 -
Net cash flows - operating activities 745,207 325,257 1,070,464 91,667
Cash Flows - Noncapital
Financing Activities
Transfer to other funds (90,614) (392,616) (483,230) -
Intergovernmental revenue -31,435 31,435 -
Net cash flows - noncapital
financing activities (90,614) (361,181) (451,795) -
Cash Flows - Investing Activities
Interest and dividends received 94,677 45,717 140,394 9,072
Net change in cash and cash equivalents 456,252 9,793 466,045 100,739
Cash and Cash Equivalents
Beginning of year 1,800,290 873,698 2,673,988 821,983
End of year 2,256,542$ 883,491$ 3,140,033$ 922,722$
Reconciliation of Operating Income
(Loss) to Net Cash Flows -
Operating Activities
Operating income (loss)490,312$ 250,126$ 740,438$ (15,965)$
Adjustments to reconcile operating income
(loss) to net cash flows - operating activities
Operating activities
Miscellaneous revenue 47,590 -47,590 -
Depreciation expense 212,231 57,271 269,502 35,778
Accounts receivable (58,659) (18,162) (76,821)-
Due from other governments 1,015 - 1,015 -
Prepaid items (10,526) -(10,526)(67)
Developers' excrow deposits -29,100 29,100 -
Accounts and contracts payable 59,518 6,160 65,678 (16,173)
Due to other governmental units 2,396 1,520 3,916 (9)
Salaries payable 1,968 257 2,225 650
OPEB payable 8,390 1,378 9,768 6,257
Pension related items (15,661) (2,393) (18,054) (9,966)
Compensated absences payable 6,633 - 6,633 91,162
Total adjustments 254,895 75,131 330,026 107,632
Net cash flows - operating activities 745,207$ 325,257$ 1,070,464$ 91,667$
City of Mendota Heights
Statement of Cash Flows - Proprietary Funds
Year Ended December 31, 2024
Page 109 of 555
31
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
A.Reporting Entity
The City of Mendota Heights is a statutory city governed by an elected mayor and four council
members. The accompanying financial statements present the government entities for which the
government is considered to be financially accountable.
The financial statements present the City and its component units. The City includes all funds,
organizations, institutions, agencies, departments, and offices that are not legally separate from
such. Component units are legally separate organizations for which the elected officials of the City
are financially accountable and are included within the basic financial statements of the City
because of the significance of their operational or financial relationships with the City.
The City is considered financially accountable for a component unit if it appoints a voting majority of
the organization's governing body and it is able to impose its will on the organization by significantly
influencing the programs, projects, activities, or level of services performed or provided by the
organization, or there is a potential for the organization to provide specific financial benefits to or
impose specific financial burdens on, the City.
As a result of applying the component unit definition criteria above, the City has no component
units.
B.Government-Wide and Fund Financial Statements
The government-wide financial statements (i.e., the Statement of Net Position and the Statement of
Activities) report information on all of the activities of the City. Governmental activities, which
normally are supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues, are reported separately from
business-type activities, which rely to a significant extent on fees and charges for support.
The Statement of Activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given
function or segment is offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly
identifiable with a specific function or segment. Interest on general long-term debt is considered an
indirect expense and is reported separately in the Statement of Activities. Program revenues include
1) charges to customers or applicants who purchase, use, or directly benefit from goods, services, or
privileges provided by a given function or segment and 2) grants and contributions that are restricted
to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a particular function or segment. Taxes and
other items not properly included among program revenues are reported instead as general
revenues. Internally dedicated revenues are reported as general revenues rather than program
revenues.
Separate financial statements are provided for governmental funds and proprietary funds. Major
individual governmental funds and major individual enterprise funds are reported as separate
columns in the fund financial statements.
The Internal Service Funds are presented in the internal service fund financial statements. Because
the principal user of internal services is the City's governmental activities, the financial statements
of the Internal Service Fund is consolidated into the governmental column when presented in the
government-wide financial statements. The cost of these services is reported in the appropriate
functional activity.
3DJHRI
32
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED)
C. Measurement Focus, Basis of Accounting, and Financial Statement Presentation
The government-wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement
focus and the accrual basis of accounting, as are the proprietary fund financial statements. Revenues
are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when a liability is incurred, regardless of the
timing of related cash flows. Property taxes are recognized as revenues in the year for which they
are levied. Grants and similar items are recognized as revenue as soon as all eligibility requirements
imposed by the provider have been met.
Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources
measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized as soon as
they are both measurable and available. Revenues are considered to be available when they are
collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to pay liabilities of the current
period. For this purpose, the City considers revenues to be available if they are collected within 60
days of the end of the current period. Expenditures generally are recorded when a liability is
incurred, as under accrual accounting. However, debt service expenditures, as well as expenditures
related to compensated absences and claims and judgments, are recorded only when payment
matures.
Property taxes, franchise taxes, licenses, and interest associated with the current period are all
considered to be susceptible to accrual and so have been recognized as revenues of the current
period. Only the portion of special assessments receivable due within the current period is
considered to be susceptible to accrual as revenue of the current period. All other revenue items are
considered to be measurable and available only when cash is received by the City.
Description of Funds:
Major Governmental Funds:
General Fund – This fund is the general operating fund of the City. It is used to account for all
financial resources except those required to be accounted for in another fund.
Special Assessments Debt Service Fund – This fund receives all special assessment payments and is
dedicated for the repayment of debt incurred on a specific project.
Street Capital Projects Fund – This fund is used to account for the proceeds and disbursements of
funds for street improvement expenditures.
Proprietary Funds:
Sewer Utility Fund – This fund is used to account for the City's sewer utility.
Storm Water Utility Fund – This fund is used to account for the City's storm water utility.
Additional Fund Types:
Internal Service Funds – These funds account for the financing of goods or services provided by
one department to other departments of the City on a cost-reimbursement basis. The City's
Internal Service Funds account for compensated absences and City Hall expenses.
Page 111 of 555
33
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED)
C.Measurement Focus, Basis of Accounting, and Financial Statement Presentation (Continued)
Description of Funds: (Continued)
As a general rule, the effect of interfund activity has been eliminated from the government-wide
financial statements. Exceptions to this general rule are charges between the City's utility functions
and various other functions of the City. Elimination of these charges would distort the direct costs
and program revenues reported for the various functions concerned.
Proprietary Funds distinguish operating revenues and expenses from nonoperating items. Operating
revenues and expenses generally result from providing services and producing and delivering goods in
connection with a proprietary fund's principal ongoing operations. The principal operating revenues
of the City's Enterprise Funds and Internal Service Funds are charges to customers for sales and
services. Operating expenses for the Enterprise Funds and Internal Service Funds include the cost of
sales and services, administrative expenses, and depreciation on capital assets. All revenues and
expenses not meeting this definition are reported as nonoperating revenues and expenses.
When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, the City uses restricted
resources first, then unrestricted resources as they are needed. Further, the City applies
unrestricted funds in this order if various levels of unrestricted fund balances exist: committed,
assigned, and unassigned.
D.Assets, Liabilities, Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources, and Net Position or Equity
1.Deposits and Investments
The City's cash and cash equivalents are considered to be cash on hand, demand deposits, and
short-term investments with original maturities of three months or less from the date of
acquisition. Investments for the City are reported at fair value.
Minnesota Statutes authorizes the City to invest in obligations of the U.S. Treasury, agencies, and
instrumentalities, shares of investment companies whose only investments are in the
aforementioned securities, obligations of the State of Minnesota or its municipalities, bankers'
acceptances, future contracts, repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements, and commercial
paper of the highest quality with a maturity of no longer than 270 days and in the Minnesota
Municipal Investment Pool.
Minnesota Statutes requires all deposits made by cities with financial institutions to be
collateralized in an amount equal to 110% of deposits in excess of Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC) insurance.
Certain investments for the City are reported at fair value as disclosed in Note 3. The City
categorizes its fair value measurements within the fair value hierarchy established by generally
accepted accounting principles. The hierarchy is based on the valuation inputs used to measure
the fair value of the asset. Level 1 inputs are quoted prices in active markets for identical assets;
Level 2 inputs are significant other observable inputs; Level 3 inputs are significant unobservable
inputs.
3DJHRI
34
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED)
D.Assets, Liabilities, Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources, and Net Position or Equity
(Continued)
2.Receivables and Payables
All trade and property tax receivables are shown at a gross amount since both are assessable to
the property taxes and are collectible upon the sale of the property.
The City levies its property tax for the subsequent year during the month of December.
December 28 is the last day the City can certify a tax levy to the County Auditor for collection
the following year. Such taxes become a lien on January 1 and are recorded as receivables by the
City at that date. The property tax is recorded as revenue when it becomes measurable and
available. Dakota County is the collecting agency for the levy and remits the collections to the
City three times a year. The tax levy notice is mailed in March with the first half of the payment
due on May 15 and the second half due on October 15. Taxes not collected as of December 31
each year are shown as delinquent taxes receivable.
The County Auditor prepares the tax list for all taxable property in the City, applying the
applicable tax rate to the tax capacity of individual properties, to arrive at the actual tax for
each property. The County Auditor also collects all special assessments, except for certain
prepayments paid directly to the City.
The County Auditor submits the list of taxes and special assessments to be collected on each
parcel of property to the County Treasurer in January of each year.
3.Inventories
Inventories are valued at cost, which approximates market, using the first in, first out (FIFO)
method. Inventory consists of expendable supplies held for consumption. Inventories of
governmental funds are recorded as expenditures when consumed rather than when purchased.
Inventory – land held for resale represents land owned by the City with the intent to sell to
developers. This land is recorded at the expected net realizable value.
4.Prepaid Items
Certain payments to vendors reflect costs applicable to future accounting periods and are
recorded as prepaid items in both government-wide and fund financial statements. Prepaid items
are recorded as an expenditure at the time of consumption.
5.Capital Assets
Capital assets, which include property, plant, equipment, intangible, and infrastructure assets
(e.g., roads, sidewalks, easements, and similar items), are reported in the applicable
governmental or business-type activities columns in the government-wide financial statements.
Capital assets are defined by the City as assets with an initial, individual cost of more than
$25,000, and an estimated useful life in excess of one year. Such assets are recorded at historical
cost or estimated historical cost if purchased or constructed. Donated capital assets are recorded
at acquisition value at the date of donation.
The costs of normal maintenance and repairs that do not add to the value of the asset or
materially extend assets lives are not capitalized.
3DJHRI
35
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED)
D.Assets, Liabilities, Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources, and Net Position or Equity
(Continued)
5.Capital Assets (Continued)
Property, plant, and equipment of the City are depreciated using the straight-line method over
the following estimated useful lives:
Buildings 15 -100
Other improvements 10 - 40
Machinery and equipment 3 - 25
Infrastructure 30 -100
YearsAssets
6.Lease Receivable
The City is a lessor for numerous noncancellable leases. The City recognizes a lease receivable
and a deferred inflow of resources in the government-wide and governmental fund financial
statements.
At the commencement of a lease, the City measures the lease receivable at the present value of
payments expected to be received during the lease term. Subsequently, the lease receivable is
reduced by the principal portion of lease payments received. The deferred inflow of resources is
initially measured as the initial amount of the lease receivable, adjusted for lease payments
received at or before the lease commencement date.
Subsequently, the deferred inflow of resources is recognized as revenue over the life of the lease
term in a systematic and rational manner.
Key estimates and judgments include how the City determines (1) the discount rate, (2) lease
term, (3) lease receipts, and (4) amortization.
The City determines the discount rate for leases based on the applicable State and Local
Government Securities (SLGS) rate. The lease term includes the noncancellable period of the
lease. Lease receipts included in the measurement of the lease receivable is composed of fixed
payments from the lessee.
7.Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources
In addition to assets, the statement of financial position will sometimes report a separate section
for deferred outflows of resources. This separate financial statement element represents a
consumption of net assets that applies to a future period(s) and so will not be recognized as an
outflow of resources (expense/expenditure) until that time. The City presents deferred outflows
of resources on the Statements of Net Position for deferred outflows of resources related to
pensions and OPEB for various estimate differences that will be amortized and recognized over
future years.
3DJHRI
36
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED)
D. Assets, Liabilities, Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources, and Net Position or Equity
(Continued)
7. Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources (Continued)
In addition to liabilities, the statement of financial position and fund financial statements will
sometimes report a separate section for deferred inflows of resources. This separate financial
statement element represents an acquisition of net assets that applies to a future period(s) and
so will not be recognized as an inflow of resources (revenue) until that time. The City has four
items that qualify for reporting in this category. The governmental funds report unavailable
revenues from three sources: property taxes, special assessments, and state shared tax. These
amounts are deferred and recognized as an inflow of resources in the period that the amounts
become available. The City presents deferred inflows of resources on the Statements of Net
Position for deferred inflows of resources related to pensions and OPEB for various estimate
differences that will be amortized and recognized over future years. Deferred inflows of
resources related to lease receivable is reported in both the government-wide Statement of Net
Position and the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet.
8. Compensated Absences\Severance
The City allows employees to accrue vacation based on years of service to carry over to the next
year. Accrued vacation shall be used in the year following the year which said time is earned and
any time accrued will be paid out at termination. At the end of the year the vacation balance
cannot exceed 200 hours.
All permanent full-time employees accrue personal leave at the rate of 4 hours per month, to a
maximum of 320 hours. Any balances in excess of 320 hours will be converted to cash
compensation or additional vacation time at a ratio of 50%.
All compensated absences pay is accrued when incurred in the government-wide and proprietary
fund financial statements. A liability for these amounts is reported in governmental funds only if
they have matured as a result of employee termination or similar circumstances. These liabilities
are paid by the governmental fund the employee provided most of its service to. The unused
vacation and sick leave of the proprietary funds is included in accrued liabilities of the respective
fund.
9. Long-Term Obligations
In the government-wide financial statements and proprietary fund types in the fund financial
statements, long-term debt and other long-term obligations are reported as liabilities in the
applicable governmental activities, business-type activities, or proprietary fund type Statement
of Net Position. Bond premiums and discounts are deferred and amortized over the life of the
bonds using the straight-line method. Bonds payable are reported net of the applicable bond
premium or discount.
In the fund financial statements, governmental fund types recognize bond premiums and
discounts, as well as bond issuance costs, during the current period. The face amount of debt
issued is reported as other financing sources. Premiums received on debt issuances are reported
as other financing sources while discounts on debt issuances are reported as other financing uses.
Issuance costs, whether or not withheld from the actual debt proceeds received, are reported as
debt service expenditures.
Page 115 of 555
37
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED)
D.Assets, Liabilities, Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources, and Net Position or Equity
(Continued)
10. Pensions
For purposes of measuring the net pension liability, deferred outflows/inflows of resources, and
pension expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the Public Employees
Retirement Association (PERA) and the relief association and additions to/deductions from PERA's
and the relief association's fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they
are reported by PERA and the relief association except that PERA's fiscal year end is June 30. For
this purpose, plan contributions are recognized as of employer payroll paid dates and benefit
payments and refunds are recognized when due and payable in accordance with the benefit
terms. Investments are reported at fair value.
11. Fund Equity
a.Classification
In the fund financial statements, governmental funds report fund classifications that comprise
a hierarchy based primarily on the extent to which the City is bound to honor constraints on
the specific purpose for which amounts in those funds can be spent.
•Nonspendable Fund Balances – These are amounts that cannot be spent because they
are not in spendable form, or they are legally or contractually required to be
maintained intact.
•Restricted Fund Balances – These are amounts that are restricted to specific purposes
either by a) constraints placed on the use of resources by creditors, grantors,
contributors, or laws or regulations of other governments or b) imposed by law through
constitutional provisions or enabling legislation.
•Committed Fund Balances – These are amounts that can only be used for specific
purposes pursuant to constraints imposed by the City Council (highest level of decision
making authority) through resolution.
•Assigned Fund Balances – These are amounts that are constrained by the City's intent
to be used for specific purposes but are neither restricted nor committed. Assignments
are made by the City's Administrator or Finance Director based on the City Council's
direction.
•Unassigned Fund Balances – These are residual amounts in the General Fund not
reported in any other classification. The General Fund is the only fund that can report
a positive unassigned fund balance. Other funds would report a negative unassigned
fund balance should the total of nonspendable, restricted and committed fund
balances exceed the total net resources of that fund.
b.Minimum Fund Balance
•The City will strive to maintain a General Fund unassigned fund balance of 75% of the
following year's budgeted operating expenditures.
3DJHRI
38
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED)
D.Assets, Liabilities, Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources, and Net Position or Equity
(Continued)
12. Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and
assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of
contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements. Estimates also affect the
reported amounts of revenue and expenditures/expense during the reporting period. Actual
results could differ from those estimates.
E.Budgetary Information
The City Council adopts an annual budget for the General Fund and certain special revenue and
capital project funds. The American Rescue Plan Act special revenue fund is not budgeted for. The
amounts shown in the financial statements as "budget" represent the original budgeted amount, and
all revisions made during the year. The City follows these procedures in establishing the budgetary
data reflected in the financial statements:
1.The City Administrator prepares and presents to the City Council a proposed operating budget
for the year commencing the following January 1. The operating budget included proposed
expenditures and means of financing them.
2.Public hearings are conducted to obtain taxpayer comments.
3.The City Council deliberates on and adopts the budget on a basis consistent with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America and legally enacts the budget
by passage of a resolution.
4.Formal budgetary integration is employed as a management control device during the year.
5.The City Council must approve any budget appropriation transfers between departments and
any increases in budget appropriations to the extent actual revenues exceed estimated
revenues.
6.Reported budget amounts are as originally adopted or as amended by the City Council
approved supplemental appropriations and budget transfers.
Annual appropriations lapse at year-end. No revisions were made to the budgets during the year.
NOTE 2 – STEWARDSHIP, COMPLIANCE, AND ACCOUNTABILITY
A.Deficit Fund Balances
The following funds had deficit fund balances at December 31, 2024:
Other Nonmajor Capital Projects Fund
Special Assessment Capital Project 614,213$
3DJHRI
39
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 3 – DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS
Cash balances of the City's funds are combined (pooled) and invested to the extent available in
various investments authorized by Minnesota Statutes. Each fund's portion of this pool (or pools) is
displayed on the financial statements as "cash and cash equivalents" or "investments." For purposes of
identifying risk of investing public funds, the balances and related restrictions are summarized
below.
A. Deposits
In accordance with applicable Minnesota Statutes, the City maintains deposits at depository banks
authorized by the City Council.
Custodial Credit Risks – Deposits: This is the risk that in the event of bank failure, the City's deposits
may not be returned to it. The City addresses custodial credit risk by having the authority from the
City Council to maintain deposits with various financial institutions that are members of the Federal
Reserve System. The City's policy states all deposits must be collateralized in compliance with
Minnesota Statutes § 118A. As of December 31, 2024, the City's bank balance was not exposed to
custodial credit risk because it was insured through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
and fully collateralized with securities held by the pledging financial institution's trust department or
agent in the City's name.
As of December 31, 2024, the City had deposits as follows:
Checking 295,556$
Certificates of deposit 15,127
Total deposits 310,683$
B. Investments
As of December 31, 2024, the City had the following investments:
Fair
Credit Value Less Than 1 - 5
Investment Type Ratings 12/31/24 1 Year Years
Negotiable CD's NR 3,948,909$ 487,645$ 3,461,264$
US Government Securities AA+3,300,335 979,569 2,320,766
Money Market Funds NR 19,329,106 19,329,106 -
Total 26,578,350$ 20,796,320$ 5,782,030$
Investment Maturities
Credit Risk: This is the risk that an issuer or other counterparty to an investment will not fulfill its
obligations. State law limits investments based on type. The City's investment policy addresses credit
quality by allowing the City to invest only in instruments permitted by Minnesota Statutes § 118A.04-
05.
Page 118 of 555
40
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 3 – DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS (CONTINUED)
B.Investments (Continued)
Concentration of Credit Risk: This is the risk of loss attributed to the magnitude of an investment in
a single issuer. The City's policy states the City will attempt to diversify its investments according to
type and maturity. The policy states the portfolio will contain both short-term and long-term
investments and will attempt to match its investments with anticipated cash flow requirements. The
City's investments in FHLB exceeded 5% of the City's portfolio and was therefore subject to
concentration of credit risk.
Custodial Credit Risk – Investments: This is the risk that in the event of the failure of the
counterparty, the City will not be able to recover the value of its investments or collateral securities
that are in the possession of an outside party. The City's investment policy states that to ensure
safety when considering an investment, it is verified to make certain funds in excess of insurance are
not made at the same institution. The City's brokers carry SIPC and private insurance to cover the
City's investment holdings; however, given the size of the City's portfolio in relation to the insurance,
it is unlikely the City would receive the full value of their investments upon default of the
counterparty.
Interest Rate Risk: This is the risk that market values of securities in a portfolio would decrease due
to changes in market interest rates. As a means of limiting its exposure to fair value losses arising
from rising interest rates, the City's investment policy states the City will hold investments with
laddered maturities so that funds become available on a regular schedule.
The City has the following recurring fair value measurements as of December 31, 2024:
•$19,329,106 investments are valued using calculated Net Asset Value (Level 1 inputs)
•$7,249,244 of investments are valued using a matrix pricing model (Level 2 inputs)
C.Deposits and Investments
The following is a summary of total deposits and investments:
Deposits (Note 3. A.)310,683$
Investments (Note 3.B.)26,578,350
Petty cash 700
Total cash and investments 26,889,733$
Deposits and investments are presented in the December 31, 2024, basic financial statements as
follows:
Statement of Net Position
Cash and investments 26,889,733$
3DJH RI
41
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 4 – INTERFUND ACTIVITIES
A.Interfund Receivables and Payable
The following is a summary of the City's due to/due from other funds at December 31, 2024:
Fund Due to Due from Reason
Other governmental funds 630,940$ 630,940$ Cash deficit
The balances above will be repaid as financing becomes available.
B.Interfund Transfers
The composition of interfund transfers as of December 31, 2024, was as follows:
Transfers In
Street Other
Capital Governmental
General Projects Funds Total
Transfers out
General -$ -$ 543,988$ 543,988$
Special assessments
debt service 22,250 2,912,941 -2,935,191
Street capital projects - - 83,127 83,127
Other governmental 4,500 27,117 153,407 185,024
funds
Sewer utility 11,150 79,464 -90,614
Storm Water Utility 9,650 382,966 -392,616
Total 47,550$ 3,402,488$ 780,522$ 4,230,560$
The purpose of the above transfers is to distribute bond proceeds and to provide funding for capital
improvement projects, capital outlay, and operating purposes.
NOTE 5 – LEASE RECEIVABLE
The City leases three cell towers. Revenue from these leases for the year ended December 31, 2024,
was $144,990.
3DJHRI
42
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 6 – CAPITAL ASSETS
Capital asset activity for the year ended December 31, 2024, was as follows:
Beginning Ending
Balance Increases Decreases Balance
Governmental activities
Capital assets not being
depreciated/amortized
Land and improvements 8,790,170$ -$ -$ 8,790,170$
Construction in progress 5,196,320 6,653,787 4,044,860 7,805,247
Total capital assets
not being depreciated
/amortized 13,986,490 6,653,787 4,044,860 16,595,417
Capital assets being
depreciated/amortized
Buildings and structures 12,946,005 - - 12,946,005
Machinery and equipment 8,166,645 446,136 610,050 8,002,731
Leased equipment 666,314 319,454 100,990 884,778
Subscription asset -93,246 -93,246
Other improvements 3,175,315 750,687 10,424 3,915,578
Infrastructure 42,363,165 3,254,435 -45,617,600
Total capital assets
being depreciated
/amortized 67,317,444 4,863,958 721,464 71,459,938
Buildings and structures 4,846,171 321,893 -5,168,064
Machinery and equipment 4,688,554 425,974 608,447 4,506,081
Leased equipment 185,048 191,306 47,624 328,730
Subscription asset -31,082 -31,082
Other improvements 2,129,279 135,622 10,424 2,254,477
Infrastructure 25,466,583 1,812,560 -27,279,143
Total accumulated
depreciation/amortization 37,315,635 2,918,437 666,495 39,567,577
Total capital assets being
depreciated/amortized, net 30,001,809 1,945,521 54,969 31,892,361
Governmental activities
capital assets, net 43,988,299$ 8,599,308$ 4,099,829$ 48,487,778$
Less accumulated depreciation/
amortization for
3DJHRI
43
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 6 – CAPITAL ASSETS (CONTINUED)
Beginning Ending
Balance Increases Decreases Balance
Business-type activities
Capital assets being
depreciated
Machinery and equipment 476,246$ 293,019$ -$ 769,265$
Sewer main lines and storm sewers 21,123,028 240,620 -21,363,648
Total capital assets
being depreciated 21,599,274 533,639 -22,132,913
Less accumulated depreciation for
Machinery and equipment 235,060 35,349 -270,409
Sewer main lines and storm sewers 6,685,483 234,153 -6,919,636
Total accumulated
depreciation 6,920,543 269,502 -7,190,045
Total capital assets being
depreciated, net 14,678,731 264,137 -14,942,868
Business-type activities capital
assets, net 14,678,731$ 264,137$ -$ 14,942,868$
Depreciation/amortization expense was charged to functions/programs of the City as follows:
Governmental activities
General government 195,051$
Public safety 635,762
Public works 2,051,846
Internal service funds 35,778
Total depreciation/amortization expense - governmental activities 2,918,437$
Business-type activities
Sewer utility 212,231$
Storm water utility 57,271
Total depreciation expense - business-type activities 269,502$
3DJHRI
44
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 7 – LONG-TERM DEBT
A. G.O. Bonds
The City issues G.O. Bonds to provide for financing street improvements, major capital equipment
purchases and utility improvements. Debt service is funded through property taxes, special
assessments, and utility charges.
G.O. Bonds are direct obligations and pledge the full faith and credit of the City.
B.Components of Long-Term Liabilities
Interest Original Final Principal Due Within
Rates Issue Maturity Outstanding One Year
Long-term liabilities
Government activities
G.O. Improvement Bonds, including
Refunding Bonds
G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series 2014A 0.85%-3.40%1,030,000$ 02/01/35 395,000$ 85,000$
G.O. Refunding Bond, Series 2014B 1.50%-3.00%885,000 02/01/27 215,000 70,000
G.O. Improvement Bonds 2015A .90%-3.00%1,200,000 02/01/36 665,000 75,000
G.O. Refunding Bond, Series 2015C 2.00%-2.50%1,995,000 02/01/28 670,000 165,000
G.O. Reconstruction Bonds, Series 2016A 1.00%-2.50%1,020,000 02/01/37 550,000 80,000
G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2017A 2.00%-2.50%1,340,000 02/01/30 785,000 130,000
G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2018A 3.00%-4.00%1,080,000 02/01/30 670,000 110,000
G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2019A 2.00%-3.00%3,035,000 02/01/31 1,745,000 300,000
G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2020A 1.20%-2.00%3,295,000 02/01/32 2,480,000 315,000
G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2021A 2.00%-3.00%2,420,000 02/01/34 1,995,000 320,000
G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2022A 5.00%-4.00%1,880,000 02/01/33 1,880,000 185,000
G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2023A 4.00%-5.00%1,015,000 02/01/34 1,015,000 -
G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2024A 5.00%2,755,000 02/01/35 2,755,000 -
Total improvement bonds 15,820,000 1,835,000
G.O. Bonds, including refunding bonds
G.O. Capital Improvement Plan Bonds 3.00%-4.00%7,000,000 02/01/35 5,470,000 420,000
Lease Liability 594,753 79,589
Subscription Liability 60,887 29,822
Net Premium on Bonds 1,147,345 -
Compensated absences payable 839,920 536,510
Total governmental activities 23,932,905 2,900,921
Business-type activities
Compensated absences payable 47,015 25,971
Total all long-term liabilities 23,979,920$ 2,926,892$
Long-term bonded indebtedness listed above were issued to finance acquisition and construction of
capital facilities or to refinance (refund) previous bond issues.
Debt Service Funds will be used to pay general government principal and interest liabilities. The
General Fund and Sewer Utility Fund will pay for the corresponding compensated absence liability.
The General Fund will pay the lease liability.
3DJHRI
45
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 7 – LONG-TERM DEBT (CONTINUED)
C.Changes in Long-Term Liabilities
Long-term liability activity for the year ended December 31, 2024, was as follows:
Beginning Ending Due Within
Balance Additions Reductions Balance One Year
Governmental activities
Bonds payable
G.O. Improvements Bonds 14,690,000$ 2,755,000$ 1,625,000$ 15,820,000$ 1,835,000$
G.O. Bonds 5,875,000 - 405,000 5,470,000 420,000
Leases Liability 488,321 240,032 133,600 594,753 79,589
Subscription Liability - 60,887 - 60,887 29,822
Unamortized premium 911,233 337,154 101,042 1,147,345 -
Compensated absences payable 748,758 790,118 698,956 839,920 536,510
Total governmental
activities 22,713,312 4,183,191 2,963,598 23,932,905 2,900,921
Business-type activities
Compensated absences payable 40,382 40,288 33,655 47,015 25,971
Total government 22,753,694$ 4,223,479$ 2,997,253$ 23,979,920$ 2,926,892$
D.Long-Term Debt
The annual requirements to amortize all bonded debt outstanding follows:
Year Ending
December 31,Principal Interest Total Principal Interest Total
2025 1,835,000$ 457,369$ 2,292,369$ 420,000$ 164,250$ 584,250$
2026 1,860,000 439,018 2,299,018 435,000 147,150 582,150
2027 2,010,000 378,014 2,388,014 455,000 131,625 586,625
2028 1,960,000 313,208 2,273,208 470,000 117,750 587,750
2029 1,760,000 251,970 2,011,970 480,000 103,500 583,500
2030-2034 5,840,000 545,135 6,385,135 2,635,000 288,825 2,923,825
2035-2037 555,000 15,262 570,262 575,000 8,625 583,625
Total 15,820,000$ 2,399,975$ 18,219,975$ 5,470,000$ 961,725$ 6,431,725$
Governmental Activities
G.O. BondsImprovement Bonds
The City leases 12 squad cars and vehicle and body camera equipment under noncancelable leases.
The City also has an agreement with Saint Paul Regional Water Services that the City pays half of the
cell tower revenue for those located on the water tower to SPRWS.
3DJHRI
46
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 7 – LONG-TERM DEBT (CONTINUED)
D.Long-Term Debt (Continued)
The following is a schedule by years of future minimum payments required under the leases as of
December 31, 2024:
Year Ending
December 31,Principal Interest Total
2025 79,589$ 16,577$ 96,166$
2026 131,077 22,607 153,684
2027 105,730 16,711 122,441
2028 56,949 13,086 70,035
2029 18,184 10,666 28,850
2030-2034 131,156 36,229 167,385
2035-2039 72,068 3,723 75,791
Total 594,753$ 119,599$ 714,352$
Year Ending
December 31,Principal Interest Total
2025 29,822$ 2,537$ 32,359$
2026 31,065 1,295 32,359
Total 60,887$ 3,832$ 64,719$
Lease Payable
Subscription Payable
NOTE 8 – CONDUIT DEBT
From time-to-time, the City has issued Industrial Development and Housing Mortgage Revenue Bonds
in accordance with the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act. These obligations are issued
to provide financial assistance to private-sector entities for the acquisition and construction of
industrial and commercial facilities deemed to be in the public interest. The obligations are secured
by the property financed and are payable solely from payments received on the underlying mortgage
loans. Upon repayment of the obligations, ownership of the acquired facilities transfers to the
private-sector entity served by the debt issuance. Neither the City, the State of Minnesota, nor any
political subdivision thereof, is obligated in any manner for the repayment of the obligations.
Accordingly, the Bonds are not reported as liabilities in the accompanying financial statements.
The aggregate amount of all conduit debt obligations outstanding as of December 31, 2024, was
$12,838,700.
3DJHRI
47
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 9 – FUND BALANCE DETAIL
Fund equity balances are classified below to reflect the limitations and restrictions of the respective
Funds.
Special Street Other
General Assessment Capital Governmental
Fund Debt Service Projects Funds Total
Nonspendable
Inventories 23,271$ -$ -$ -$ 23,271$
Prepaid items 367,567 - - 7,811 375,378
Restricted
Park dedication fees - - - 215,732 215,732
Capital projects - - 2,124,940 - 2,124,940
Street light maintenance - - - 23,220 23,220
Police - - - 30,336 30,336
Debt service - 3,380,276 - 859,101 4,239,377
Grant Funding - -- 45,498 45,498
Tax increment financing - -- 82,209 82,209
Committed
Water system maintenance - - - 1,265,983 1,265,983
Par 3 golf course - - - 150,020 150,020
Emergency preparedness -
and civil defense - - - 150,535 150,535
Assigned
Capital projects - - - 2,157,102 2,157,102
Unassigned 13,079,199 - - (614,213) 12,464,986
Total 13,470,037$ 3,380,276$ 2,124,940$ 4,373,334$ 23,348,587$
NOTE 10 – RISK MANAGEMENT
The City purchases commercial insurance coverage through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance
Trust (LMCIT) with other cities in the state which is a public entity risk pool currently operating as a
common risk management and insurance program. The City pays an annual premium to the LMCIT for
its insurance coverage. The LMCIT is self-sustaining through commercial companies for excess claims.
The City is covered through the pool for any claims incurred but unreported, however, retains risk
for the deductible portion of its insurance policies. The amount of these deductibles is considered
immaterial to the financial statements.
There were no significant reductions in insurance or settlements in excess of insurance coverage for
any of the past three years.
Workers compensation coverage is provided through a pooled self-insurance program through the
LMCIT. The City pays an annual premium to LMCIT. For workers compensation, the City is not subject
to a deductible. The City's workers compensation coverage is not retrospectively rated. However, the
actual premium is adjusted based on audited payroll amounts.
3DJHRI
48
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS
The City participates in various pension plans. Total pension expense for the year ended
December 31, 2024, was $559,644. The components of pension expense are noted in the following
plan summaries.
The General Fund and Sewer and Stormwater Funds typically liquidate the liability related to the
pensions.
Public Employees' Retirement Association
A.Plan Description
The City participates in the following cost-sharing multiple-employer defined benefit pension plans
administered by PERA. PERA's defined benefit pension plans are established and administered in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes Chapters 353, 353D, 353E, 353G, and 356. Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 356 defines each plan's financial reporting requirements. PERA's defined benefit pension
plans are tax qualified plans under Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.
General Employees Retirement Plan
Membership in the General Plan includes employees of counties, cities, townships, schools in non-
certified positions, and other governmental entities whose revenues are derived from taxation, fees,
or assessments. Plan membership is required for any employee who is expected to earn more than
$425 in a month, unless the employee meets exclusion criteria.
Public Employees Police and Fire Plan
Membership in the Police and Fire Plan includes full-time, licensed police officers and firefighters
who meet the membership criteria defined in Minnesota Statutes § 353.64 and who are not earning
service credit in any other PERA retirement plan or a local relief association for the same service.
Employers can provide Police and Fire Plan coverage for part-time positions and certain other public
safety positions by submitting a resolution adopted by the [City's] governing body. The resolution
must state that the position meets plan requirements.
B.Benefits Provided
PERA provides retirement, disability, and death benefits. Benefit provisions are established by state
statute and can only be modified by the state Legislature. Vested, terminated employees who are
entitled to benefits, but are not receiving them yet, are bound by the provisions in effect at the time
they last terminated their public service. When a member is vested, they have earned enough
service credit to receive a lifetime monthly benefit after leaving public service and reaching an
eligible retirement age. Members who retire at or over their Social Security full retirement age with
at least one year of service qualify for a retirement benefit.
3DJHRI
49
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED)
Public Employees' Retirement Association (Continued)
B.Benefits Provided (Continued)
General Employees Plan Benefits
General Employees Plan requires three years of service to vest. Benefits are based on a member's
highest average salary for any 5 successive years of allowable service, age, and years of credit at
termination of service. Two methods are used to compute benefits for General Plan members.
Members hired prior to July 1, 1989, receive the higher of Step or Level formulas. Only the Level
formula is used for members hired after June 30, 1989. Under the Step formula, General Plan
members receive 1.2% of the highest average salary for each of the first 10 years of service and 1.7%
for each additional year. Under the Level formula, General Plan members receive 1.7% of the highest
average salary for all years of service. For members hired prior to July 1, 1989, a full retirement
benefit is available when age plus years of service equal 90 and normal retirement age is 65.
Members can receive a reduced requirement benefit as early as age 55 if they have three or more
years of service. Early retirement benefits are reduced by .25% for each month under age 65.
Members with 30 or more years of service can retire at any age with a reduction of .25% for each
month the member is younger than age 62. The Level formula allows General Plan members to
receive a full retirement benefit at age 65 if they were first hired before July 1, 1989, or at age 66 if
they were hired on or after July 1, 1989. Early retirement begins at age 55 with an actuarial
reduction applied to the benefit.
Benefit increases are provided to benefit recipients each January. The postretirement increase is
equal to 50% of the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) announced by the SSA, with a minimum increase
of at least 1% and a maximum of 1.5%. The 2024 annual increase was 1.5%. Recipients that have been
receiving the annuity or benefit for at least a full year as of the June 30 before the effective date of
the increase will receive the full increase. Recipients receiving the annuity or benefit for at least one
month but less than a full year as of the June 30 before the effective date of the increase will
receive a reduced prorated increase.
Police and Fire Plan Benefits
Benefits for the Police and Fire Plan members hired before July 1, 2010, are vested after three years
of service. Members hired on or after July 1, 2010, are 50% vested after five years of service and
100% vested after 10 years. After five years, vesting increase by 10% each full year of service until
members are 100% vested after 10 years. Police and Fire Plan members receive 3% of highest average
salary for all years of service. Police and Fire Plan members receive a full retirement benefit when
they are 55 and vested, or when their age plus their years of service equals 90 or greater if they
were first hired before July 1, 1989. Early retirement starts at age 50, and early retirement benefits
are reduced by 0.417% each month members are younger than age 55.
Benefit increases are provided to benefit recipients each January. The postretirement increase is
fixed at 1%. Recipients that have been receiving the annuity or benefit for at least 36 months as of
the June 30 before the effective date of the increase will receive the full increase. Recipients
receiving the annuity or benefit for at least 25 months but less than 36 months as of the June 30
before the effective date of the increase will receive a reduced prorated increase.
3DJHRI
50
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED)
Public Employees' Retirement Association (Continued)
C.Contributions
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 353, 353E, 353G, and 356 sets the rates for employer and employee
contributions. Contribution rates can only be modified by the state Legislature.
General Employees Fund Contributions
General Plan members were required to contribute 6.5% of their annual covered salary in fiscal year
2024 and the City was required to contribute 7.5% for General Plan members. The City's contributions
to the General Employees Fund for the year ended December 31, 2024, were $226,381. The City's
contributions were equal to the required contributions as set by state statute.
Police and Fire Fund Contributions
Police and Fire Plan members were required to contribute 11.8% of their annual covered salary in
fiscal year 2024 and the City was required to contribute 17.7% for Police and Fire Plan members. The
City's contributions to the Police and Fire Fund for the year ended December 31, 2024, were
$394,207. The City's contributions were equal to the required contributions as set by state statute.
D.Pension Costs
General Employees Fund Pension Costs
At December 31, 2024, the City reported a liability of $1,221,526 for its proportionate share of the
General Employees Fund's net pension liability. The City's net pension liability reflected a reduction
due to the State of Minnesota's contribution of $16 million. The State of Minnesota is considered a
non-employer contributing entity and the State's contribution meets the definition of a special
funding situation. The State of Minnesota's proportionate share of the net pension liability associated
with the City totaled $31,586.
The net pension liability was measured as of June 30, 2024, and the total pension liability used to
calculate the net pension liability was determined by an actuarial valuation as of that date. The
City's proportionate share of the net pension liability was based on the City's contributions received
by PERA during the measurement period for employer payroll paid dates from July 1, 2023, through
June 30, 2024, relative to the total employer contributions received from all of PERA's participating
employers. The City's proportionate share was 0.0330% at the end of the measurement period and
0.0316% for the beginning of the period.
3DJH RI
51
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED)
Public Employees' Retirement Association (Continued)
D.Pension Costs (Continued)
General Employees Fund Pension Costs (Continued)
City's proportionate share of the net pension liability 1,221,526$
State of Minnesota's proportionate share of the net pension
liability associated with the City 31,586
Total 1,253,112$
For the year ended December 31, 2024, the City recognized pension expense of $153,504 for its
proportionate share of General Employees Plan's pension expense. Included in the amount, the City
recognized $847 as pension expense (and grant revenue) for its proportionate share of the State of
Minnesota's contribution of $16 million to the General Employees Fund.
During the plan year ended June 30, 2024, the State of Minnesota contributed $170.1 million to the
General Employees Fund. The State of Minnesota is not included as a non-employer contributing
entity in the General Employees Plan pension allocation schedule for the $170.1 million in direct
state aid because this contribution was not considered to meet the definition of a special funding
situation. The City recognized $56,204 for the year ended December 31, 2024, as revenue and an
offsetting reduction of net pension liability for its proportionate share of the State of Minnesota's on-
behalf contributions to the General Employees Fund.
At December 31, 2024, the City reported its proportionate share of the General Employees Plan's
deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources, related to pensions from the
following sources:
Differences between expected and actual economic experience 113,373$ -$
Changes in actuarial assumptions 5,848 447,596
Net difference between projected and actual investment
earnings - 347,151
Changes in proportion 65,800 31,680
Contributions paid to PERA subsequent to the measurement
date 113,190 -
Total 298,211$ 826,427$
Deferred
Outflows of
Resources
Deferred
Inflows of
Resources
3DJHRI
52
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED)
Public Employees' Retirement Association (Continued)
D.Pension Costs (Continued)
General Employees Fund Pension Costs (Continued)
The $113,190 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from City
contributions subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net
pension liability in the year ended December 31, 2025. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows
and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as
follows:
Pension
Expense
Amount
(361,741)$
(58,282)
(127,761)
(93,622)
Total (641,406)$
2026
Year Ending
December 31,
2025
2027
2028
At December 31, 2024, the City reported a liability of $2,125,799 for its proportionate share of the
Police and Fire Fund's net pension liability. The net pension liability was measured as of June 30,
2024, and the total pension liability used to calculate the net pension liability was determined by an
actuarial valuation as of that date. The City's proportionate share of the net pension liability was
based on the City's contributions received by PERA during the measurement period for employer
payroll paid dates from July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024, relative to the total employer
contributions received from all of PERA's participating employers. The City's proportionate share was
0.1616% at the end of the measurement period and 0.1568% for the beginning of the period.
3DJHRI
53
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED)
Public Employees' Retirement Association (Continued)
D.Pension Costs (Continued)
Police and Fire Fund Pension Costs
The State of Minnesota contributed $37.4 million to the Police and Fire Fund in the plan fiscal year
ended June 30, 2024. The contribution consisted of $9 million in direct state aid that meets the
definition of a special funding situation, additional one-time direct state aid contribution of $19.4
million, and $9 million in supplemental state aid that does not meet the definition of a special
funding situation. Additionally, $9 million supplemental state aid was paid on October 1, 2024.
Thereafter, by October 1 of each year, the State will pay $9 million to the Police and Fire Fund until
full funding is reached or July 1, 2048, whichever is earlier. The $9 million in supplemental state aid
will continue until the fund is 90% funded, or until the State Patrol Plan (administered by the
Minnesota State Retirement System) is 90% funded, whichever occurs later. The State of Minnesota's
proportionate share of the net pension liability associated with the City totaled $81,035.
City's proportionate share of the net pension liability 2,125,799$
State of Minnesota's proportionate share of the net pension
liability associated with the City 81,035
Total 2,206,834$
For the year ended December 31, 2024, the City recognized pension expense of $406,140 for its
proportionate share of the Police and Fire Plan's pension expense. Included in this amount, the City
recognized $7,869 as pension expense (and grant revenue) for its proportionate share of the State of
Minnesota's contribution of $9 million to the Police and Fire Fund.
The State of Minnesota is not included as a non-employer contributing entity in the Police and Fire
Pension Plan pension allocation schedules for the $28.4 million in supplemental state aid because
this contribution was not considered to meet the definition of a special funding situation. The City
also recognized $14,542 for the year ended December 31, 2024, as revenue and an offsetting
reduction of the net pension liability for its proportionate share of the State of Minnesota's on-behalf
contributions to the Police and Fire Fund.
At December 31, 2024, the City reported its proportionate share of the Police and Fire Plan's
deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions from the
sources on the following page.
3DJHRI
54
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED)
Public Employees' Retirement Association (Continued)
D.Pension Costs (Continued)
Police and Fire Fund Pension Costs (Continued)
Differences between expected and actual economic experience 817,694$ -$
Changes in actuarial assumptions 2,330,353 3,038,127
Net difference between projected and actual investment
earnings - 660,797
Changes in proportion 96,913 222,834
Contributions paid to PERA subsequent to the measurement
date 197,103 -
Total 3,442,063$ 3,921,758$
Deferred
Inflows of
Resources
Deferred
Outflows of
Resources
The $197,103 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from City
contributions subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net
pension liability in the year ended December 31, 2025. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows
and inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows:
Pension
Expense
Amount
(106,147)$
517,516
(315,732)
(835,185)
62,750
Total (676,798)$
2027
2028
2029
Year Ending
December 31,
2025
2026
3DJHRI
55
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED)
Public Employees' Retirement Association (Continued)
D.Pension Costs (Continued)
Police and Fire Fund Pension Costs (Continued)
E.Long-Term Expected Return on Investment
The State Board of Investment, which manages the investments of PERA, prepares an analysis of the
reasonableness on a regular basis of the long-term expected rate of return using a building-block
method in which best-estimate ranges of expected future rates of return are developed for each
major asset class. These ranges are combined to produce an expected long-term rate of return by
weighting the expected future rates of return by the target asset allocation percentages. The target
allocation and best estimates of geometric real rates of return for each major asset class are
summarized in the following table:
Domestic equity 33.5 %5.10 %
International equity 16.5 5.30
Fixed income 25.0 0.75
Private markets 25.0 5.90
Total 100.0 %
Asset Class
Target
Allocation
Long-Term
Expected Real
Rate of Return
F.Actuarial Assumptions
The total pension liability in the June 30, 2024, actuarial valuation was determined using an
individual entry-age normal actuarial cost method. The long-term rate of return on pension plan
investments used in the determination of the total liability is 7.0%. This assumption is based on a
review of inflation and investments return assumptions from a number of national investment
consulting firms. The review provided a range of return investment return rates considered to be
reasonable by the actuary. An investment return of 7.0% is within range.
Inflation is assumed to be 2.25% for the General Employees Plan and the Police and Fire Plan. Benefit
increases after retirement are assumed to be 1.25% for the General Employees Plan and 1% for the
Police and Fire Plan.
Salary growth assumptions in the General Employees Plan range in annual increments from 10.25%
after one year of service to 3.0% after 27 years of service. In the Police and Fire Plan, salary growth
assumptions range from 11.75% after one year of service to 3.0% after 24 years of service.
Mortality rates for the General Employees Plan are based on the Pub-2010 General Employee
Mortality Table. Mortality rates for the Police and Fire Plan are based on the Pub-2010 Public Safety
Employee Mortality tables. The tables are adjusted slightly to fit PERA's experience.
3DJHRI
56
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED)
Public Employees' Retirement Association (Continued)
F.Actuarial Assumptions (Continued)
Actuarial assumptions for the General Employees Plan are reviewed every four years. The General
Employees Plan was last reviewed in 2022. The assumption changes were adopted by the Board and
became effective with the July 1, 2023, actuarial valuation. The Police and Fire Plan was reviewed in
2024. PERA anticipates the experience study will be approved by the Legislative Commission on
Pensions and Retirement and become effective with the July 1, 2025, actuarial valuation.
The following changes in actuarial assumptions and plan provisions occurred in 2024:
General Employees Fund
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•Rates of merit and seniority were adjusted, resulting in slightly higher rates.
•Assumed rates of retirement were adjusted as follows: Increase the rate of assumed
unreduced retirements, slight adjustments to Rule of 90 retirement rates, and slight
adjustments to early retirement rates for Tier 1 and Tier 2 members.
•Minor increase in assumed withdrawals for males and females.
•Lower rates of disability.
•Continued use of Pub-2010 general mortality table with slight rate adjustments as
recommended in the most recent experience study.
•Minor changes to form of payment assumptions for male and female retirees.
•Minor changes to assumptions made with respect to missing participant data.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•The workers' compensation offset for disability benefits was eliminated. The actuarial
equivalent factors updated to reflect the changes in assumptions.
Police and Fire Fund
Changes in Plan Provisions
•The State contribution of $9.0 million per year will continue until the earlier of 1) both the
Police and Fire Plan and the State Patrol Retirement Fund attain 90% funded status for three
consecutive years (on an actuarial value of assets basis) or 2) July 1, 2048. The contribution
was previously due to expire after attaining a 90% funded status for one year.
•The additional $9.0 million contribution will continue until the Police and Fire Plan is fully
funded for a minimum of three consecutive years on an actuarial value of assets basis, or
July 1, 2048, whichever is earlier. This contribution was previously due to expire upon
attainment of fully funded status on an actuarial value of assets basis for one year (or July 1,
2048, if earlier).
G.Discount Rate
The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability in 2024 was 7.0%. The projection of
cash flows used to determine the discount rate assumed that contributions from Plan members and
employers will be made at rates set in Minnesota Statutes. Based on these assumptions, the fiduciary
net positions of the General Employees and Police and Fire plans were projected to be available to
make all projected future benefit payments of current plan members. Therefore, the long-term
expected rate of return on pension plan investments was applied to all periods of projected benefit
payments to determine the total pension liability.
3DJHRI
57
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED)
Public Employees' Retirement Association (Continued)
H. Pension Liability Sensitivity
The following presents the City's proportionate share of the net pension liability for all plans it
participates in, calculated using the discount rate disclosed in the preceding paragraph, as well as
what the City's proportionate share of the net pension liability would be if it were calculated using a
discount rate 1 percentage point lower or 1 percentage point higher than the current discount rate:
1% Decrease in Current 1% Increase in
Discount Rate Discount Rate Discount Rate
(6.0%)(7.0%)(8.0%
City's proportionate share of
the General Employees Fund
net pension liability 2,668,009$ 1,221,526$ 31,661$
1% Decrease in Current 1% Increase in
Discount Rate Discount Rate Discount Rate
(6.0%)(7.0%)(8.0%
City's proportionate share of
the Police and Fire Fund
net pension liability 5,023,674$ 2,125,799$ (253,966)$
I. Pension Plan Fiduciary Net Position
Detailed information about each pension plan's fiduciary net position is available in a separately
issued PERA financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary
information. That report may be obtained on the internet at www.mnpera.org.
Defined Contribution Pension Plan – Volunteer Firefighter's Relief Association
The Mendota Heights Firefighter's Relief Association is the administrator of a single employer defined
benefit pension plan established to provide benefits for members of the Mendota Heights Fire
Department per Minnesota State Statutes.
The Association issues a publicly available financial report that includes financial statements and
required supplementary information. That report may be obtained by writing to Mendota Heights
Firefighter's Association, 2121 Dodd Road Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 or by calling 651-249-
7640.
The City contributes to the Mendota Heights Volunteer Fire Department Relief Association (the
"Association") that provides pension benefits to its members under a single employer defined
contribution plan. Since fire department members are volunteers, contributions to the Association
are not based on payroll but rather on years of active service. All active firefighters may apply for
membership in the Association and shall become a member immediately upon approval by the Board
of Trustees.
Page 136 of 555
58
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED)
Defined Contribution Pension Plan – Volunteer Firefighter's Relief Association (Continued)
Under an Annual Contribution Agreement, the City's contribution to the Association is determined by
multiplying $7,000 by the number of years of active service completed by members of the
Association for the plan year, prorated by months for members who did not complete a full year of
active service. The City also contributes a portion of the Association's administrative fees each year.
For 2024, that contribution was $239,190. Required and actual employer contributions to the plan
during 2024 were $239,190. In addition, the City passes through state aid allocated to the plan in
accordance with state statutes. For 2024, the state aid was $151,179. Members of the Association are
not allowed to make voluntary contributions to the plan.
Members are not vested in their accounts until they attain 10 years of active service, at which time
they become 60% vested. Thereafter, the vested portion of their accounts increases by 4% annually
until they achieve 100% vesting after having served for 20 years.
Plan provisions were established and may only be amended by amendments to the Association bylaws
which require a majority vote by the Board of Trustees.
NOTE 12 – POST EMPLOYMENT HEALTH CARE PLAN
A.Plan Description
The City provides a single employer defined benefit healthcare plan to eligible retirees (as required
by Minnesota Statue § 471.61) and police or firefighters disabled in the line of duty (as required by
Minnesota Statute § 299A.465). The required contributions are based on projected pay-as-you-go
financing requirements. As of January 1, 2024, there were 17 retirees participating in the City's
healthcare plan.
B.Benefits Provided
Retirees and their spouses contribute to the healthcare plan at the same rate as City employees. This
results in the retirees receiving an implicit rate subsidy. Contribution requirements are established
by the City, based on the contract terms with Blue Cross Blue Shield and Delta Dental.
C.Contributions
The City makes direct subsidy payments towards retiree health insurance premiums. For the year
2024, the City contributed $172,027.
D.Members
As of January 1, 2024, the following were covered by the benefit terms:
Inactive employees or beneficiaries currently receiving benefits 17
Active employees 43
Total 60
3DJHRI
59
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 12 – POST EMPLOYMENT HEALTH CARE PLAN (CONTINUED)
E. Actuarial Assumptions
The total OPEB liability was determined by an actuarial valuation as of January 1, 2024, using the
following actuarial assumptions, applied to all periods included in the measurement, unless
otherwise specified:
Inflation 2.50%
Healthcare cost trend increases 6.50%initially, grading to 5% over six years
and then to 4.00% over the next 48 years
Mortality assumption Pub-2010 Public Retirement Plans
Headcount-Weighted Mortality Tables
(General, Safety) with MP-2021
Generational Improvement Scale
Key Methods and Assumptions Used in Valuation of Total OPEB Liability
The actuarial assumptions used in the January 1, 2024, valuation were based on the results of an
actuarial experience study for the period January 1, 2023, through January 1, 2024.
The discount rate used to measure the total OPEB liability was 3.70% based on 20-year municipal
G.O. Bonds.
F. Total OPEB Liability
The City's total OPEB liability of $3,455,270 was measured as of January 1, 2024, and was determined
by an actuarial valuation as of January 1, 2024.
Total
OPEB
Liability
Balance at January 1, 2023 1,031,273$
Changes for the year
Service cost 19,961
Interest 38,126
Changes of assumptions 176,395
Differences between expected and actual experience 2,387,617
Benefit payments (198,102)
Net changes 2,423,997
Balance at January 1, 2024 3,455,270$
Page 138 of 555
60
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 12 – POST EMPLOYMENT HEALTH CARE PLAN (CONTINUED)
F.Total OPEB Liability (Continued)
Changes of assumptions and other inputs reflect the following changes:
The discount rate was changed from 4.00% to 3.70%.
G.OPEB Liability Sensitivity
The following presents the City's total OPEB liability calculated using the discount rate of 3.70% as
well as the liability measured using 1% lower and 1% higher than the current discount rate.
1% Decrease Current 1% Increase
in Discount Rate in Discount Rate in Discount Rate
(2.70%)(3.70%)(4.70%)
3,827,575$ 3,455,270$ 3,136,552$
Total OPEB Liability/(Asset)
The following presents the total OPEB liability of the City, as well as what the City's total OPEB
liability would be if it were calculated using healthcare cost trend rates that are 1% lower and 1%
higher than the current healthcare cost trend rates.
1% Decrease in
Trend Rate
Current
Trend Rate
1% Increase in
Trend Rate
3,146,897$ 3,455,270$ 3,809,255$
Total OPEB Liability/(Asset)
(5.50%
Decreasing to
4.0%)
(6.50%
Decreasing to
5.0%)
(7.50%
Decreasing to
6.0%)
3DJH RI
61
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 12 – POST EMPLOYMENT HEALTH CARE PLAN (CONTINUED)
H.OPEB Expense and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources
Related to OPEB
For the year ended December 31, 2024, the City recognized OPEB expense of $446,878. At
December 31, 2024, the Distract reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of
resources related to OPEB from the following sources:
Deferred Deferred
Outflows of Inflows of
Resources Resources
Liability losses 2,435,827$ -$
Assumption changes 187,019 55,372
Subsequent contributions 156,132 -
Total 2,778,978$ 55,372$
The $156,132 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to post employment benefits
resulting from City contributions subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a
reduction of the net pension liability in the year ended December 31, 2025. Other amounts reported
as deferred outflows and inflows of resources related to post-employment benefits will be
recognized in pension expense as follows:
OPEB
Expense
Amount
388,791$
388,794
391,291
384,653
381,342
632,603
2,567,474$
Thereafter
Total
Year Ending
December 31,
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Page 140 of 555
62
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 13 – JOINT VENTURES
A.Dakota 911
The City is a member of Dakota 911. Dakota 911 was created by a joint powers agreement between
Dakota County and several cities. Its purposes include the establishment, operation, and
maintenance of joint law enforcement, fire, EMS, and other emergency communications systems.
Members are obligated to pay their proportional share of operating and capital expenditures on an
annual basis. The City paid $274,296 for 2024. Members do not maintain an equity interest other
than if Dakota 911 were to terminate. Withdrawing members forfeit any interest in Dakota 911.
Information regarding Dakota 911 can be obtained at the website www.dakota911mn.gov.
B.Local Government Information Systems Association (LOGIS)
The consortium of approximately 30 government entities provides computerized data processing and
support services to its members. LOGIS is a legally separate entity; the entities appoint a voting
majority of its board, and the consortium is fiscally independent of the City. For 2024, the City paid
$417,257 for computer application support and computer hardware for the City's network. Complete
financial statements of the consortium may be obtained at the LOGIS offices located at 5750 Duluth
Street, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422.
NOTE 14 – CONTINGENCIES
The City has various claims and litigation that arise in the normal course of business. The City has
evaluated the impact of these items for the December 31, 2024, financial statements and
determined they do not have a material effect on financial position or changes in financial position.
NOTE 15 – COMMITED CONTRACTS
At December 31, 2024, the City had commitments of $1,347,780 for uncompleted construction
contracts.
NOTE 16 – TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
The City has entered into Tax Increment Financing agreements which meet the criteria for disclosure
under Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 77 Tax Abatement Disclosures. The
City's authority to enter into these agreements comes from Minnesota Statute § 469. The City
entered into this agreement for the purpose of redevelopment.
Under these agreements, the City and developer agree on an amount of development costs to be
reimbursed to the developer by the City though tax revenues from the additional taxable value of
the property generated by the development (tax increment). A "pay-as-you-go" note is established
for this amount, on which the City makes payments for a fixed period of time with available tax
increment revenue after deducting for certain administrative costs.
During the year ended December 31, 2024, the City generated $323,631 in tax increment revenue
and made $291,268 in payments to developers.
3DJHRI
63
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 17 – NEW STANDARDS ISSUED BUT NOT YET IMPLEMENTED
Summary of any GASB Statements if statement will impact client's financial statements.
GASB Statement No. 102, Certain Risk Disclosures. The disclosures required by this Statement will
provide users with timely information regarding certain concentrations or constraints and related
events that have occurred or have begun to occur that make a government vulnerable to a
substantial impact. This Statement will be effective for the year ending December 31, 2025.
GASB Statement No. 103, Financial Reporting Model Improvements. The changes required by this
Statement provide clarity, enhance the relevance of information, provide more useful information
for decision-making and provide for greater comparability amongst government entities. This
Statement will be effective for the year ending December 31, 2026.
GASB Statement No. 104, Disclosure of Certain Capital Assets. The disclosures required by this
Statement provide users of the financial statements with essential information about certain types of
capital assets. This Statement will be effective for the year ending December 31, 2026.
3DJHRI
64
(THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY)
Page 143 of 555
65
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Page 144 of 555
See notes to required supplementary information. 66
December 31, December 31, December 31, December 31,
2024 2023 2022 2021
Total OPEB Liability
Service cost 19,961$ 18,147$ 24,213$ 20,191$
Interest 38,126 23,338 14,864 23,267
Differences between expected
and actual experience 2,387,617 - 540,952 -
Changes of assumptions 176,395 (67,149) 12,919 26,487
Benefit payments (198,102) (182,694) (143,921) (122,081)
Net change in total
OPEB liability 2,423,997 (208,358) 449,027 (52,136)
Beginning of year 1,031,273 1,239,631 790,604 842,740
Total OPEB Liability 3,455,270$ 1,031,273$ 1,239,631$ 790,604$
4,167,235$ 3,600,817$ 3,495,939$ 3,469,012$
82.92%28.64%35.46%22.79%
Note: Schedule is intended to show ten year trend. Additional years will be reported as they become available.
Covered-employee payroll
Total OPEB liability as a percentage
of covered-employee payroll
City of Mendota Heights
Schedule of Changes in Total OPEB Liability
and Related Ratios
Page 145 of 555
67
December 31, December 31, December 31,
2020 2019 2018
17,009$ 22,733$ 24,002$
31,249 30,230 31,883
22,848 - -
30,297 (20,053) -
(126,784) (115,317) (94,257)
(25,381) (82,407) (38,372)
868,121 950,528 988,900
842,740$ 868,121$ 950,528$
3,359,818$ 3,460,084$ 3,359,305$
25.08%25.09%28.30%
Page 146 of 555
See notes to required supplementary information. 68
City's Covered
Payroll
2015 0.0322%1,668,771$ -$ 1,668,771$ 1,859,307$ 89.75%78.19%
2016 0.0315%2,557,644 33,392 2,591,036 1,954,600 130.85%68.91%
2017 0.0290%1,851,341 23,303 1,874,644 1,870,160 98.99%75.90%
2018 0.0281%1,558,873 51,096 1,609,969 1,887,853 82.57%79.53%
2019 0.0291%1,608,874 49,998 1,658,872 2,058,880 78.14%80.23%
2020 0.0296%1,774,655 54,701 1,829,356 2,113,013 83.99%79.06%
2021 0.0319%1,362,273 41,634 1,403,907 2,294,880 59.36%87.00%
2022 0.0324%2,566,091 75,343 2,641,434 2,430,307 105.59%76.67%
2023 0.0316%1,767,037 48,604 1,815,641 2,509,800 70.41%83.10%
2024 0.0330%1,221,526 31,586 1,253,112 2,796,493 43.68%89.08%
For Fiscal Year
Ended June
30,
City's
Proportion of
the Net
Pension
Liability
(Asset)
City's
Proportionate
Share of the
Net Pension
Liability (Asset)
State's
Proportionate
Share
(Amount) of
the Net
Pension
Liability
Associated
with the City
City's
Proportionate
Share of the
Net Pension
Liablility and
the State's
Proportionate
Share of the
Net Pension
Liablility
Associated
with the City
City's Covered
Payroll
City's
Proportionate
Share of the
Net Pension
Liability
(Asset) as a
Percentage of
its Covered
Payroll
Plan Fiduciary
Net Position
as a
Percentage of
the Total
Pension
Liability
2015 0.1530%1,738,438$ N/A 1,738,438$ 1,359,920$ 127.8%86.61%
2016 0.1550%6,220,420 N/A 6,220,420 1,496,272 415.7%63.88%
2017 0.1500%2,011,679 N/A 2,011,679 1,543,389 130.3%85.43%
2018 0.1527%1,613,882 N/A 1,613,882 1,609,556 100.3%88.84%
2019 0.1643%1,726,959 N/A 1,726,959 1,733,152 99.6%89.26%
2020 0.1686%2,207,154 52,363$ 2,259,517 1,902,465 116.0%87.19%
2021 0.1575%1,201,558 54,662 1,256,220 1,902,228 63.2%93.66%
2022 0.1628%7,084,413 309,465 7,393,878 1,977,853 358.2%70.53%
2023 0.1568%2,707,732 109,059 2,816,791 2,059,107 131.5%86.47%
2024 0.1616%2,125,799 81,035 2,206,834 2,237,503 95.0%90.17%
Last Ten Years
For Fiscal Year
Ended June
30,
State's
Proportionate
Share
(Amount) of
the Net
Pension
Liability
Associated
with the City
City's
Proportionate
Share of the
Net Pension
Liablility and
the State's
Proportionate
Share of the
Net Pension
Liablility
Associated
with the City
Public Employees Police and Fire Retirement Fund
of Net Pension Liability
City of Mendota Heights
Schedule of City's Proportionate Share
of Net Pension Liability
Last Ten Years
Schedule of City's Proportionate Share
General Employees Retirement Fund
City's
Proportionate
Share
(Percentage)
of the Net
Pension
Liability
(Asset)
City's
Proportionate
Share (Amount)
of the Net
Pension
Liability (Asset)
City's
Proportionate
Share of the
Net Pension
Liability
(Asset) as a
Percentage of
its Covered
Payroll
Plan Fiduciary
Net Position
as a
Percentage of
the Total
Pension
Liability
Page 147 of 555
See notes to required supplementary information. 69
2015 149,420$ 149,420$ -$ 1,992,267$ 7.50%
2016 139,806 139,806 -1,864,080 7.50%
2017 137,806 137,806 -1,837,413 7.50%
2018 146,272 146,272 -1,950,293 7.50%
2019 157,416 157,416 -2,098,880 7.50%
2020 166,196 166,196 -2,215,947 7.50%
2021 178,657 178,657 -2,382,093 7.50%
2022 186,921 186,921 -2,492,280 7.50%
2023 193,712 193,712 -2,582,827 7.50%
2024 226,381 226,381 -3,018,413 7.50%
2015 237,655$ 237,655$ -$ 1,467,006$ 16.20%
2016 245,917 245,917 - 1,518,006 16.20%
2017 251,584 251,584 -1,552,988 16.20%
2018 266,168 266,168 -1,643,012 16.20%
2019 311,718 311,718 -1,839,044 16.95%
2020 344,654 344,654 -1,947,198 17.70%
2021 349,826 349,826 -1,976,418 17.70%
2022 350,782 350,782 -1,981,819 17.70%
2023 382,877 382,877 -2,163,147 17.70%
2024 394,207 394,207 -2,227,158 17.70%
Last Ten Years
Contributions
as a
Percentage of
Covered Payroll
Statutorily
Required
Contribution
Statutorily
Required
Contribution
Contributions
in Relation to
the Statutorily
Required
Contributions
Contribution
Deficiency
(Excess)
Contributions
in Relation to
the Statutorily
Required
Contributions
Fiscal Year
Ending
December 31,
City's Covered
Payroll
Contributions
as a
Percentage of
Covered Payroll
Schedule of City Contributions -
Public Employees Police and Fire Retirement Fund
Fiscal Year
Ending
December 31,
City of Mendota Heights
Schedule of City Contributions -
General Employees Retirement Fund
Last Ten Years
Contribution
Deficiency
(Excess)
City's Covered
Payroll
Page 148 of 555
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Required Supplementary Information
70
General Employees Fund
2024 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•Rates of merit and seniority were adjusted, resulting in slightly higher rates.
•Assumed rates of retirement were adjusted as follows: increase the rate of assumed
unreduced retirements, slight adjustments to Rule of 90 retirement rates, and slight
adjustments to early retirement rates for Tier 1 and Tier 2 members.
•Minor increase in assumed withdrawals for males and females.
•Lower rates of disability.
•Continued use of Pub-2010 general mortality table with slight rate adjustments as
recommended in the most recent experience study.
•Minor changes to form of payment assumptions for male and female retirees.
•Minor changes to assumptions made with respect to missing participant data.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•The workers' compensation offset for disability benefits was eliminated. The actuarial
equivalent factors updated to reflect the changes in assumptions.
2023 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The investment return assumption and single discount rate were changed from 6.5% to 7.0%.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•Additional one-time direct state aid contribution of $170.1 million will be contributed to the
Plan on October 1, 2023.
•The vesting period for those hired after June 30, 2010 was changed from five years of
allowable service to three years of allowable service.
•The benefit increase delay for early retirements on or after January 1, 2024, was eliminated.
•A one-time non-compounding benefit increase equal to 2.5% minus the actual adjustment will
be payable in a lump sum for calendar year 2024 by March 31, 2024.
2022 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The mortality improvement scale was changed from scale MP-2020 to scale MP-2021.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•There have been no changes since the prior valuation.
2021 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The investment return and single discount rates were changed from 7.5% to 6.5% for financial
reporting purposes.
•The mortality improvement scale was changed from scale MP-2019 to scale MP-2020.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•There have been no changes since the prior valuation.
2020 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The price inflation assumption was decreased from 2.5% to 2.25%.
•The payroll growth assumption was decreased from 3.25% to 3.0%.
3DJH RI
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Required Supplementary Information
71
General Employees Fund (Continued)
2020 Changes (Continued)
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions (Continued)
•Assumed salary increase rates were changed as recommended in the June 30, 2019,
experience study. The net effect is assumed rates that average 0.25% less than previous
rates.
•Assumed rates of retirement were changed as recommended in the June 30, 2019, experience
study. The changes result in more unreduced (normal) retirements and slightly fewer Rule of
90 and early retirements.
•Assumed rates of termination were changes as recommended in the June 30, 2019,
experience study. The new rates are based on service and are generally lower than the
previous rates for years 2-5 and slightly higher thereafter.
•Assumed rates of disability were changed as recommended in the June 30, 2019, experience
study. The change results in fewer predicted disability retirements for males and females.
•The base mortality table for healthy annuitants and employees was changed from the RP-2014
table to the Pub-2010 General Mortality table, with adjustments. The base mortality table for
disabled annuitants was changed from the RP-2014 disabled annuitant mortality table to the
Pub-2010 General/Teacher disabled annuitant mortality table, with adjustments.
•The mortality improvement scale was changed from Scale MP-2018 to Scale MP-2019.
•The assumed spouse age difference was changed from two years older for females to one year
older.
•The assumed number of married male new retirees electing the 100% Joint and Survivor
option changed from 35% to 45%. The assumed number of married female new retires electing
the 100% Joint and Survivor option changed from 15% to 30%. The corresponding number of
married new retirees electing the Life annuity option was adjusted accordingly.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•Augmentation for current privatized members was reduced to 2.0% for the period July 1 , 2020
through December 31, 2023, and 0.0% thereafter. Augmentation was eliminated for
privatizations occurring after June 30, 2020.
2019 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The mortality projection scale was changed from MP-2017 to MP-2018.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•The employer supplemental contribution was changed prospectively, decreasing from $31.0
million to $21.0 million per year. The State's special funding contribution was changed
prospectively, requiring $16.0 million due per year through 2031.
2018 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The mortality projection scale was changed from MP-2015 to MP-2017.
•The assumed benefit increase was changed from 1.0% per year through 2044 and 2.5% per
year thereafter to 1.25% per year.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•The augmentation adjustment in early retirement factors is eliminated over a five-year period
starting July 1, 2019, resulting in actuarial equivalence after June 30, 2024.
•Interest credited on member contributions decreased from 4.00% to 3.00%, beginning July 1,
2018.
3DJHRI
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Required Supplementary Information
72
General Employees Fund (Continued)
2018 Changes (Continued)
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions (Continued)
•Deferred augmentation was changed to 0.00%, effective January 1, 2019. Augmentation that
has already accrued for deferred members will still apply.
•Contribution stabilizer provisions were repealed.
•Annual increases were changed from 1.00% per year with a provision to increase to 2.50%
upon attainment of 90.00% funding ratio to 50.00% of the Social Security Cost of Living
Adjustment, not less than 1.00% and not more than 1.50%, beginning
January 1, 2019.
•For retirements on or after January 1, 2024, the first benefit increase is delayed until the
retiree reaches normal retirement age. This does not apply to Rule of 90 retirees, disability
benefit recipients, or survivors.
•Actuarial equivalent factors were updated to reflect revised mortality and interest
assumptions.
2017 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The CSA loads were changed from 0.8% for active members and 60% for vested and non-vested
deferred members. The revised CSA loads are now 0.0% for active member liability, 15% for
vested deferred member liability and 3% for non-vested deferred member liability.
•The assumed annual increase rate was changed from 1.0% per year for all years to 1.0% per
year through 2044 and 2.5% per year thereafter.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•The State's contribution for the Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund equals $16,000,000
in 2017 and 2018, and $6,000,000 thereafter.
•The Employer Supplemental Contribution for the Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund
changed from $21,000,000 to $31,000,000 in calendar years 2019 to 2031. The State's
contribution changed from $16,000,000 to $6,000,000 in calendar years 2019 to 2031.
2016 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from 1.0% per year through
2035 and 2.5% per year thereafter to 1.0% per year for all future years.
•The assumed investment return was changed from 7.9% to 7.5%. The single discount rate was
changed from 7.9% to 7.5%.
•Other assumptions were changed pursuant to the experience study dated June 30, 2015. The
assumed future salary increases, payroll growth, the inflation was decreased by 0.25% to
3.25% for payroll growth and 2.50% for inflation.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•There have been no changes since the prior valuation.
2015 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from 1.0% per year through
2030 and 2.5% per year thereafter to 1.0% per year through 2035 and 2.5% per year
thereafter.
3DJHRI
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Required Supplementary Information
73
General Employees Fund (Continued)
2015 Changes (Continued)
Changes in Plan Provisions
•On January 1, 2015, the Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund was merged into the General
Employees Fund, which increased the total pension liability by $1.1 billion and increased the
fiduciary plan net position by $892 million. Upon consolidation, state and employer
contributions were revised; the State's contribution of $6.0 million, which meets the special
funding situation definition, was due September 2015.
3DJHRI
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Required Supplementary Information
74
Police and Fire Fund
2024 Changes
Changes in Plan Provisions
•The State contribution of $9.0 million per year will continue until the earlier of 1) both the
Police and Fire Plan and the State Patrol Retirement Fund attain 90% funded status for three
consecutive years (on an actuarial value of assets basis) or 2) July 1, 2048. The contribution
was previously due to expire after attaining a 90% funded status for one year.
•The additional $9.0 million contribution will continue until the Police and Fire Plan is fully
funded for a minimum of three consecutive years on an actuarial value of assets basis, or
July 1, 2048, whichever is earlier. This contribution was previously due to expire upon
attainment of fully funded status on an actuarial value of assets basis for one year (or July 1,
2048 if earlier).
2023 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The investment return assumption was changed from 6.5% to 7.0%.
•The single discount rate was changed from 5.4% to 7.0%.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•Additional one-time direct state aid contribution of $19.4 million will be contributed to the
Plan on October 1, 2023.
•Vesting requirement for new hires after June 30, 2014, was changed from a graded 20-year
vesting schedule to a graded 10-year vesting schedule, with 50% vesting after five years,
increasing incrementally to 100% after 10 years.
•A one-time non-compounding benefit increase of 3.0% will be payable in a lump sum for
calendar year 2024 by March 31, 2024.
•Psychological treatment is required effective July 1, 2023, prior to approval for a duty
disability benefit for a psychological condition relating to the member's occupation.
•A total and permanent duty disability benefit was added, effective July 1, 2023.
2022 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The mortality improvement scale was changed from scale MP-2020 to scale MP-2021.
•The single discount rate was changed from 6.5% to 5.4%.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•There have been no changes since the prior valuation.
2021 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The investment return and single discount rates were changed from 7.5% to 6.5% for financial
reporting purposes.
•The inflation assumption was changed from 2.5% to 2.25%.
•The payroll growth assumption was changed from 3.25% to 3.0%.
•The base mortality table for healthy annuitants and employees was changed from the RP-2014
table to the Pub-2010 Public Safety mortality table. The mortality improvement scale was
changed from MP-2019 to MP-2020.
•The base mortality table for disabled annuitants was changed from the RP-2014 healthy
annuitant mortality table (with future mortality improvement according to scale MP-2019) to
the Pub-2010 Public Safety disabled annuitant mortality table (with future mortality
improvement according to scale MP-2020).
3DJHRI
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Required Supplementary Information
75
Police and Fire Fund (Continued)
2021 Changes (Continued)
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions (Continued)
•Assumed rates of salary increase were modified as recommended in the July 14, 2020,
experience study. The overall impact is a decrease in gross salary increase rates.
•Assumed rates of retirement were changed as recommended in the July 14, 2020, experience
study. The changes resulted in slightly more unreduced retirements and fewer assumed early
retirements.
•Assumed rates of withdrawal were changed from select and ultimate rates to service-based
rates. The changes resulted in more assumed terminations.
•Assumed rates of disability were increased for ages 25-44 and decreased for ages over 49.
Overall, proposed rates resulted in more projected disabilities.
•Assumed percent married for active female members was changed from 60% to 70%. Minor
changes to form of payment assumptions were applied.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•There have been no changes since the prior valuation.
2020 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The mortality projection scale was changed from MP-2018 to MP-2019.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•There have been no changes since the prior valuation.
2019 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The mortality projection scale was changed from MP-2017 to MP-2018.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•There have been no changes since the prior valuation.
2018 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The mortality projection scale was changed from MP-2016 to MP-2017.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•Annual increases were changed to 1.00% for all years, with no trigger.
•An end date of July 1, 2048, was added to the existing $9.0 million state contribution.
•New annual state aid will equal $4.5 million in fiscal years 2019 and 2020, and $9.0 million
thereafter until the plan reaches 100% funding, or July 1, 2048, if earlier.
•Member contributions were changed from 10.80% to 11.30% of pay, effective January 1, 2019,
and 11.80% of pay, effective January 1, 2020.
•Employer contributions were changed from 16.20% to 16.95% of pay, effective January 1,
2019, and 17.70% of pay, effective January 1, 2020.
•Interest credited on member contributions decreased from 4.00% to 3.00%, beginning July 1,
2018.
•Deferred augmentation was changed to 0.00%, effective January 1, 2019. Augmentation that
has already accrued for deferred members will still apply.
•Actuarial equivalent factors were updated to reflect revised mortality and interest
assumptions.
3DJHRI
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Required Supplementary Information
76
Police and Fire Fund (Continued)
2017 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•Assumed salary increases were changed as recommended in the June 30, 2016, experience
study. The net effect is proposed rates that average 0.34% lower than the previous rates.
•Assumed rates of retirement were changed, resulting in fewer retirements.
•The CSA load was 30% for vested and non-vested deferred members. The CSA has been
changed to 33% for vested members and 2% for non-vested members.
•The base mortality table for healthy annuitants was changed from the RP-2000 fully
generational table to the RP-2014 fully generational table (with a base year of 2006), with
male rates adjusted by a factor of 0.96. The mortality improvement scale was changed from
Scale AA to Scale MP-2016. The base mortality table for disabled annuitants was changed from
the RP-2000 disabled mortality table to the mortality tables assumed for healthy retirees.
•Assumed termination rates were decreased to 3% for the first three years of service. Rates
beyond the select period of three years were adjusted, resulting in more expected
terminations overall.
•Assumed percentage of married female members was decreased from 65% to 60%.
•Assumed age difference was changed from separate assumptions for male members (wives
assumed to be three years younger) and female members (husbands assumed to be four years
older) to the assumption that males are two years older than females.
•The assumed percentage of female members electing Joint and Survivor annuities was
increased.
•The assumed annual increase rate was changed from 1% for all years to 1% per year through
2064 and 2.5% thereafter.
•The single discount rate was changed from 5.6% per annum to 7.5% per annum.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•There have been no changes since the prior valuation.
2016 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from 1.0% per year through
2037 and 2.5% thereafter to 1.0% per year for all future years.
•The assumed investment return was changed from 7.9% to 7.5%. The single discount rate
changed from 7.9% to 5.6%.
•The single discount rate changed from 7.90% to 5.60%.
•The assumed future salary increases, payroll growth, and inflation was decreased by 0.25% to
3.25% for payroll growth and 2.50% for inflation.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•There have been no changes since the prior valuation.
2015 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from 1.0% per year through
2030 and 2.5% per year thereafter to 1.0% per year through 2037 and 2.5% per year
thereafter.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•The post-retirement benefit increase to be paid after attainment of the 90% funding threshold
was changed, from inflation up to 2.5%, to a fixed rate of 2.5%.
3DJHRI
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Required Supplementary Information
77
OPEB
2024 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The discount rate was changed from 4.00% to 3.70%.
2023 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The discount rate was changed from 2.00% to 4.00%.
•The inflation rate was changed from 2.00% to 2.50%.
2022 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The health care trend rates were changed to better anticipate short term and long term
medical increases.
•The mortality tables were updated from the Pub-2010 Public Retirement Plans Headcount-
Weighted Mortality Tables (General, Safety) with MP-2019 Generational Improvement Scale to
the Pub-2010 Public Retirement Plans Headcount-Weighted Mortality Tables (General, Safety)
with MP-2021 Generational Improvement Scale.
•The salary increase rates were updated to reflect the latest experience study.
•The retirement and withdrawal rates were updated to reflect the latest experience study.
•The inflation rate was changed from 2.50% to 2.00%.
2021 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The discount rate decreased from 2.90% in 2020 to 2.00% in 2021.
2020 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The discount rate decreased from 3.80% in 2019 to 2.90% in 2020.
•The healthcare trend rates, mortality tables, and salary increase rates were updated.
2019 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The discount rate increased from 3.30% in 2018 to 3.80% in 2019.
•The healthcare trend rates, mortality tables, and salary increase rates were updated.
2018 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The discount rate decreased from 4.00% in 2017 to 3.30% in 2018.
There are no assets accumulated in a trust.
3DJHRI
78
(THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY)
Page 157 of 555
79
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Page 158 of 555
80
Water Revenue Special Park Civil Defense Street Lighting
Assets
Cash and investments 1,260,625$ 225,079$ 149,649$ 74,843$
Taxes receivable - delinquent - - 201 1,264
Special assessments receivable
Deferred - - - -
Accounts receivable - - - -
Interest receivable 2,221 605 328 72
Due from other funds - - - -
Due from other governments 3,137 - 558 10
Prepaid items - - - -
Land held for resale - - - -
Total assets 1,265,983$ 225,684$ 150,736$ 76,189$
Liabilities
Accounts and contracts payable -$ 9,952$ -$ 51,705$
Due to other funds - - - -
Due to other governments - - - -
Salaries and benefits payable - - - -
Total liabilities - 9,952 - 51,705
Deferred Inflows of Resources
Unavailable revenue - property taxes - - 201 1,264
Unavailable revenue - special assessments - - - -
Total deferred inflows of resources - - 201 1,264
Fund Balances
Nonspendable - - - -
Restricted - 215,732 - 23,220
Committed 1,265,983 - 150,535 -
Assigned - - - -
Unassigned - - - -
Total fund balances 1,265,983 215,732 150,535 23,220
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of
resources, and fund balances 1,265,983$ 225,684$ 150,736$ 76,189$
City of Mendota Heights
Combining Balance Sheet -
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
December 31, 2024
Special Revenue
Page 159 of 555
81
Par 3 Golf
Course
Police
Forfeiture Fund
American
Rescue Plan Act
Local
Affordable
Housing Aid
Par 3 G.O.
Bonds
Equipment
Certficates
158,394$ 30,282$ 862$ 44,605$ 127,839$ 47,033$
- - - - 275 17
- - - - - -
124 - - - - -
215 54 - 31 233 85
- - - - - -
- - - - 198 -
7,811 - - - - -
- - - - - -
166,544$ 30,336$ 862$ 44,636$ 128,545$ 47,135$
6,615$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
- - - - - -
991 - - - - -
1,107 - - - - -
8,713 - - - - -
- - - - 275 17
- - - - - -
- - - - 275 17
7,811 - - - - -
- 30,336 862 44,636 128,270 47,118
150,020 - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
157,831 30,336 862 44,636 128,270 47,118
166,544$ 30,336$ 862$ 44,636$ 128,545$ 47,135$
Special Revenue Debt Service
Page 160 of 555
82
Debt Service
Fire Station
Bonds
Equipment
Replacement
Reserve
Infrastructure
Reserve Facility Reserve
Assets
Cash and investments 669,030$ 699,618$ -$ 383,028$
Taxes receivable - delinquent 4,734 15 9 -
Special assessments receivable
Deferred - - - -
Accounts receivable - - - -
Interest receivable 610 672 - 703
Due from other funds - - - -
Due from other governments 14,073 2 84,407 -
Prepaid items - - - -
Land held for resale - - - -
Total assets 688,447$ 700,307$ 84,416$ 383,731$
Liabilities
Accounts and contracts payable -$ 275$ -$ 1,000$
Due to other funds - - 71,117 -
Due to other governments - - - -
Salaries and benefits payable - - - -
Total liabilities - 275 71,117 1,000
Deferred Inflows of Resources
Unavailable revenue - property taxes 4,734 15 9 -
Unavailable revenue - special assessments - - - -
Total deferred inflows of resources 4,734 15 9 -
Fund Balances
Nonspendable - - - -
Restricted 683,713 - - -
Committed - - - -
Assigned - 700,017 13,290 382,731
Unassigned - - - -
Total fund balances 683,713 700,017 13,290 382,731
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of
resources, and fund balances 688,447$ 700,307$ 84,416$ 383,731$
Capital Projects
City of Mendota Heights
Combining Balance Sheet -
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
December 31, 2024
Page 161 of 555
83
Water Tower
Capital Project
Pilot Knob
Improvement
Pre-1998 Non-
Increment
Special
Assessment
Capital Project
TIF District
No. 2
Fire Hall
Remodel
89,632$ 39,300$ 202,788$ -$ 197,826$ 265$
- - - - - 41
- - - 11,603 - -
- - - 11,032 - -
1,276 - 739 215 166 -
559,823 - 71,117 - - -
- - -1,374 - 24
- - - - - -
- - 96,100 - - -
650,731$ 39,300$ 370,744$ 24,224$ 197,992$ 330$
-$ -$-$ 67,011$ 119,980$ -$
- - - 559,823 - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - 626,834 119,980 -
- - - - - 41
- - - 11,603 - -
- - - 11,603 - 41
- - - - - -
- - - - 78,012 -
- - - - - -
650,731 39,300 370,744 - - 289
- - - (614,213) - -
650,731 39,300 370,744 (614,213) 78,012 289
650,731$ 39,300$ 370,744$ 24,224$ 197,992$ 330$
Capital Projects
Page 162 of 555
84
(THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY)
Page 163 of 555
85
Capital Projects
TIF District
No. 3
Total
Nonmajor
Governmental
Funds
Assets
Cash and investments 29,993$ 4,430,691$
Taxes receivable - delinquent - 6,556
Special assessments receivable
Deferred - 11,603
Accounts receivable - 11,156
Interest receivable 13 8,238
Due from other funds - 630,940
Due from other governments - 103,783
Prepaid items - 7,811
Land held for resale - 96,100
Total assets 30,006$ 5,306,878$
Liabilities
Accounts and contracts payable 25,809$ 282,347$
Due to other funds - 630,940
Due to other governments - 991
Salaries and benefits payable - 1,107
Total liabilities 25,809 915,385
Deferred Inflows of Resources
Unavailable revenue - property taxes - 6,556
Unavailable revenue - special assessments - 11,603
Total deferred inflows of resources 18,159
Fund Balances
Nonspendable - 7,811
Restricted 4,197 1,256,096
Committed - 1,566,538
Assigned - 2,157,102
Unassigned - (614,213)
Total fund balances 4,197 4,373,334
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of
resources, and fund balances 30,006$ 5,306,878$
City of Mendota Heights
Combining Balance Sheet -
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
December 31, 2024
Page 164 of 555
86
Water Revenue Special Park Civil Defense Street Lighting
Revenues
Property taxes -$ -$ 25,073$ 81,285$
Tax increments -- - -
Intergovernmental -- - -
Charges for services 131,390 - - -
Fines and forfeitures - - 6 -
Miscellaneous
Investment income 53,849 14,657 7,926 1,738
Other -21,400 - -
Total revenues 185,239 36,057 33,005 83,023
Expenditures
Current
General government - - 18,353 21,562
Public safety - - - -
Public works -118,006 - -
Economic development --- -
Debt service
Principal - - - -
Interest and other charges - - - -
Capital outlay
General government - - 54,905 59,500
Public safety - - - -
Public works -254,099 - -
Total expenditures -372,105 73,258 81,062
Excess of revenues over
(under) expenditures 185,239 (336,048) (40,253) 1,961
Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Transfers in - - - -
Transfers out (30,117) (1,500) - -
Total other financing sources (uses)(30,117) (1,500) - -
Net change in fund balances 155,122 (337,548) (40,253) 1,961
Fund Balances
Beginning of year 1,110,861 553,280 190,788 21,259
End of year 1,265,983$ 215,732$ 150,535$ 23,220$
Special Revenue
City of Mendota Heights
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures,
and Changes in Fund Balances - Nonmajor Governmental Funds
Year Ended December 31, 2024
Page 165 of 555
87
Par 3 Golf
Course
Police
Forfeiture Fund
American
Rescue Plan
Act
Local
Affordable
Housing Aid
Par 3 G.O.
Bonds
Equipment
Certficates
Fire Station
Bonds
-$ -$ -$ -$ 264$ -$ 624,079$
- - - - - - -
- - - 43,876 - - -
320,698 - - - - - -
- - - - - - 162
5,211 1,302 - 760 5,645 2,062 14,765
296 - - - - - -
326,205 1,302 - 44,636 5,909 2,062 639,006
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
292,601 - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - 405,000
- - - - - - 181,225
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
292,601 - - - - - 586,225
33,604 1,302 - 44,636 5,909 2,062 52,781
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
33,604 1,302 - 44,636 5,909 2,062 52,781
124,227 29,034 862 - 122,361 45,056 630,932
157,831$ 30,336$ 862$ 44,636$ 128,270$ 47,118$ 683,713$
Special Revenue Debt Service
Page 166 of 555
88
Equipment
Replacement
Reserve
Infrastructure
Reserve
Facility
Reserve
Water Tower
Capital Project
Revenues
Property taxes 2$ 1$ -$ -$
Tax increments - - --
Intergovernmental -89,674 --
Charges for services - - --
Fines and forfeitures - - --
Miscellaneous
Investment income 16,285 -17,045 30,942
Other - - - -
Total revenues 16,287 89,675 17,045 30,942
Expenditures
Current
General government - - 9,000 -
Public safety 8,188 - - -
Public works -88,227 725 -
Economic development --- -
Debt service
Principal - - - -
Interest and other charges - - - -
Capital outlay
General government - - - -
Public safety 148,176 - - -
Public works 547,086 - - 75,139
Total expenditures 703,450 88,227 9,725 75,139
Excess of revenues over
(under) expenditures (687,163) 1,448 7,320 (44,197)
Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Transfers in 697,395 - - -
Transfers out - - - -
Total other financing sources (uses)697,395 - - -
Net change in fund balances 10,232 1,448 7,320 (44,197)
Fund Balances
Beginning of year 689,785 11,842 375,411 694,928
End of year 700,017$ 13,290$ 382,731$ 650,731$
Capital Projects
City of Mendota Heights
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures,
and Changes in Fund Balances - Nonmajor Governmental Funds
Year Ended December 31, 2024
Page 167 of 555
89
Pilot Knob
Improvement
Pre-1998
Non-Increment
Special
Assessment
Capital Project
TIF District
No. 2
Fire Hall
Remodel
-$ -$ -$ -$ 24$
-- -266,449 -
83,550 - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
-17,914 5,213 4,017 -
- 46,199 - - -
83,550 64,113 5,213 270,466 24
59,550 - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - 241,959 -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - 318,935 - -
59,550 - 318,935 241,959 -
24,000 64,113 (313,722) 28,507 24
- - 83,127 - -
- (153,407) - - -
- (153,407) 83,127 - -
24,000 (89,294) (230,595) 28,507 24
15,300 460,038 (383,618) 49,505 265
39,300$ 370,744$ (614,213)$ 78,012$ 289$
Capital Projects
Page 168 of 555
90
(THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY)
Page 169 of 555
91
Capital Projects
TIF District
No. 3
Total Other
Governmental
Funds
Revenues
Property taxes -$ 730,728$
Tax increments 57,182 323,631
Intergovernmental -217,100
Charges for services -452,088
Fines and forfeitures -168
Miscellaneous
Investment income 327 199,658
Other -67,895
Total revenues 57,509 1,991,268
Expenditures
Current
General government -108,465
Public safety -8,188
Public works -499,559
Economic development 53,588 295,547
Debt service
Principal -405,000
Interest and other charges -181,225
Capital outlay
General government -114,405
Public safety -148,176
Public works -1,195,259
Total expenditures 53,588 2,955,824
Excess of revenues over
(under) expenditures 3,921 (964,556)
Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Transfers in -780,522
Transfers out -(185,024)
Total other financing sources (uses)-595,498
Net change in fund balances 3,921 (369,058)
Fund Balances
Beginning of year 276 4,742,392
End of year 4,197$ 4,373,334$
City of Mendota Heights
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures,
and Changes in Fund Balances - Nonmajor Governmental Funds
Year Ended December 31, 2024
Page 170 of 555
92
Compensated
Absences
City Hall
Sinking Fund Total
Assets
Current assets
Cash and investments
(including cash equivalents)821,035$ 101,687$ 922,722$
Accounts receivable - 8,485 8,485
Interest receivable - 381 381
Prepaid expenses - 9,683 9,683
Total current assets 821,035 120,236 941,271
Noncurrent assets
Capital assets
Land -25,000 25,000
Buildings -2,279,024 2,279,024
Improvements other than buildings -40,781 40,781
Machinery and equipment -66,969 66,969
Total capital assets -2,411,774 2,411,774
Less accumulated depreciation -(1,919,308) (1,919,308)
Net capital assets -492,466 492,466
Total assets 821,035 612,702 1,433,737
Deferred Outflows of Resources
Deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB - 287 287
Deferred outflows of resources related to pensions - 7,568 7,568
Total deferred outflows of resources - 7,855 7,855
Total assets and deferred outflows of resources 821,035$ 620,557$ 1,441,592$
Liabilities
Current liabilities
Salaries and benefits payable - 4,431 4,431
Due to other governments - 106 106
Noncurrent liabilities due within one year 529,269 7,241 536,510
Total current liabilities 529,269 11,778 541,047
Noncurrent liabilities
Compensated absences 821,035 18,885 839,920
OPEB payable -11,369 11,369
Net pension liability -30,999 30,999
Less amount due within one year (529,269) (7,241) (536,510)
Total noncurrent liabilities 291,766 54,012 345,778
Total liabilities 821,035 65,790 886,825
Deferred Inflows of Resources
Deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB - 1,000 1,000
Deferred inflows of resources related to pensions -20,972 20,972
Total deferred inflows of resources -21,972 21,972
Net Position
Investment in capital assets -492,466 492,466
Unrestricted -40,329 40,329
Total net position -532,795 532,795
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources,
and net position 821,035$ 620,557$ 1,441,592$
December 31, 2024
Combining Statement of Net Position - Internal Service Funds
City of Mendota Heights
Page 171 of 555
93
City of Mendota Heights
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes
in Net Position - Internal Service Funds
Year Ended December 31, 2024
City Hall
Sinking Fund Total
Operating Revenues
Charges for services 260,000$ 260,000$
Operating Expenses
Wages and salaries 78,913 78,913
Employee benefits 38,651 38,651
Materials and supplies 13,181 13,181
Professional services 5,280 5,280
Insurance 7,097 7,097
Utilities 33,798 33,798
Depreciation 35,778 35,778
Miscellaneous 63,267 63,267
Total operating expenses 275,965 275,965
Operating loss (15,965) (15,965)
Nonoperating Revenues
Investment income 9,229 9,229
Change in net position (6,736) (6,736)
Net Position
Beginning of year 539,531 539,531
End of year 532,795$ 532,795$
Page 172 of 555
94
Compensated
Absences
City Hall
Sinking Fund Total
Cash Flows - Operating Activities
Receipts from customers and users -$ 260,000$ 260,000$
Payments to suppliers -(138,872) (138,872)
Payments to employees 89,688 (119,149) (29,461)
Net cash flows - operating activities 89,688 1,979 91,667
Cash Flows - Investing Activities
Interest and dividends received - 9,072 9,072
Net change in cash and cash equivalents 89,688 11,051 100,739
Cash and Cash Equivalents
Beginning of year 731,347 90,636 821,983
End of year 821,035$ 101,687$ 922,722$
Reconciliation of Operating
Loss to Net Cash Flows -
Operating Activities
Operating loss -$ (15,965)$ (15,965)$
Operating activities
Depreciation expense -35,778 35,778
Prepaid items - (67) (67)
Accounts payable -(16,173)(16,173)
Due to other governmental units - (9) (9)
Salaries payable - 650 650
OPEB payable - 6,257 6,257
Pension related items -(9,966) (9,966)
Compensated absences payable 89,688 1,474 91,162
Total adjustments 89,688 17,944 107,632
Net cash flows - operating activities 89,688$ 1,979$ 91,667$
City of Mendota Heights
Combining Statement of Cash Flows - Internal Service Funds
Year Ended December 31, 2024
Page 173 of 555
95
Budgeted
Amounts Variance with
Original Actual
and Final Amounts
Revenues
Property taxes 10,356,289$ 10,402,220$ 45,931$
Franchis fees 350,000 382,044 32,044
Licenses and permits 410,000 769,288 359,288
Intergovernmental revenue
State grants and aids
Fire aid 126,000 151,179 25,179
Police aid 190,000 239,625 49,625
Other grants and aids 312,914 495,244 182,330
Total intergovernmental revenue 628,914 886,048 257,134
Charges for services 719,918 698,812 (21,106)
Fines and forfeitures 72,000 66,961 (5,039)
Miscellaneous revenues
Investment income 20,000 485,740 465,740
Other 105,000 321,158 216,158
Total miscellaneous revenues 125,000 806,898 681,898
Total revenues 12,662,121 14,012,271 1,350,150
Expenditures
General government
Mayor and council
Salaries and benefits 24,416 24,595 179
Contracted services 34,550 24,273 (10,277)
Administration and finance
Salaries and benefits 1,050,169 1,069,357 19,188
Materials and supplies 17,000 14,308 (2,692)
Contracted services 431,700 466,544 34,844
City of Mendota Heights
Detailed Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual -
Final budget -
over (under)
General Fund
Year Ended December 31, 2024
Page 174 of 555
96
Budgeted
Amounts Variance with
Original Actual Final budget -
And final Amounts Over (under)
Expenditures (Continued)
General government (continued)
Elections
Salaries and benefits 101,070$ 104,800$ 3,730$
Materials and supplies 22,900 13,886 (9,014)
Contracted services 9,450 10,230 780
Information technology
Materials and supplies 160,366 84,872 (75,494)
Contracted services 166,959 239,586 72,627
Planning and zoning
Salaries and benefits 157,988 150,145 (7,843)
Materials and supplies 4,000 838 (3,162)
Contracted services 38,850 46,573 7,723
Recycling
Materials and supplies 1,000 -(1,000)
Contracted services 46,600 6,442 (40,158)
Miscellaneous
Contracted services -18,661 18,661
Total general government 2,267,018 2,275,110 8,092
Public safety
Police protection
Salaries and benefits 3,953,420 3,787,468 (165,952)
Materials and supplies 245,000 362,882 117,882
Contracted services 697,933 665,062 (32,871)
Debt Service 133,000 133,600 600
Capital outlay -399,283 399,283
Fire protection
Salaries and benefits 397,589 406,292 8,703
Materials and supplies 195,417 188,720 (6,697)
Contracted services 722,200 686,785 (35,415)
Total public safety 6,344,559 6,630,092 285,533
Detailed Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual -
City of Mendota Heights
General Fund
Year Ended December 31, 2024
(Continued)
Page 175 of 555
97
Budgeted
Amounts Variance with
Original Actual Final budget -
And final Amounts Over (under)
Expenditures (Continued)
Public works
Code enforcement
Materials and supplies 3,250$ 4,459$ 1,209$
Contracted services 331,875 543,000 211,125
Street maintenance
Salaries and benefits 1,353,366 1,261,946 (91,420)
Materials and supplies 179,050 147,123 (31,927)
Contracted services 496,665 376,193 (120,472)
Parks
Salaries and benefits 987,538 997,612 10,074
Materials and supplies 230,600 215,827 (14,773)
Contracted services 515,750 397,930 (117,820)
Capital outlay - 77,770 77,770
Total public works 4,098,094 4,021,860 (76,234)
Total expenditures 12,709,671 12,927,062 217,391
Excess of revenues over
(under) expenditures (47,550) 1,085,209 1,132,759
Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Issuance of leases and subscription liabilities - 300,919 300,919
Insurance recoveries - 97,985 97,985
Transfer in 47,550 47,550 -
Transfer out - (543,988) (543,988)
Total other financing sources (uses)47,550 (97,534) (145,084)
Net change in fund balance -$ 987,675 987,675$
Fund Balance
Beginning of year 12,482,362
End of year 13,470,037$
Detailed Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual -
General Fund
City of Mendota Heights
Year Ended December 31, 2024
(Continued)
Page 176 of 555
98
(THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY)
Page 177 of 555
99
Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of
Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with
Government Auditing Standards
Independent Auditor's Report
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
City of Mendota Heights
Mendota Heights, Minnesota
We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing
Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States (Government Auditing Standards),
the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major
fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2024, and the related notes to the basic financial statements,
which collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon
dated June 4, 2025.
Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City's internal
control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are
appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial
statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's
internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal
control.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow
management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent,
or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a
combination of deficiencies, in internal control such that there is a reasonable possibility that a
material misstatement of the City's financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and
corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of
deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough
to merit attention by those charged with governance.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of
this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be
material weaknesses or significant deficiencies and therefore, material weaknesses or significant
deficiencies may exist that were not identified. We did identify a certain deficiency in internal
control, described in the accompanying Schedule of Finding and Response on Internal Control that we
consider to be a material weakness as audit finding 2024-001.
Page 178 of 555
100
Report on Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City's financial statements are free
from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws,
regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and
material effect on the financial statements. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those
provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The
results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be
reported under Government Auditing Standards.
City's Response to the Finding
Government Auditing Standards requires the auditor to perform limited procedures on the City's
response to the findings identified in our audit are described in the accompanying Schedule of
Findings and Responses on Internal Control. The City's response was not subjected to the other
auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and, accordingly, we express no
opinion on the response.
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and
compliance and the result of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the
City's internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in
accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City's internal control and
compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.
St. Cloud, Minnesota
June 4, 2025
Page 179 of 555
101
Minnesota Legal Compliance
Independent Auditor's Report
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
City of Mendota Heights
Mendota Heights, Minnesota
We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America, and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing
Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the
governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund and the aggregate remaining
fund information of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2024, and the related notes to financial statements, which collectively comprise the
City's basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated June 4, 2025.
In connection with our audit, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that the City
failed to comply with the provisions of the contracting – bid laws, depositories of public funds and
public investments, conflicts of interest, public indebtedness, claims and disbursements,
miscellaneous provisions, and tax increment financing sections of the Minnesota Legal Compliance
Audit Guide for Cities, promulgated by the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 6.65,
insofar as they relate to accounting matters. However, our audit was not directed primarily toward
obtaining knowledge of such noncompliance. Accordingly, had we performed additional procedures,
other matters may have come to our attention regarding the City's noncompliance with the above
referenced provisions, insofar as they relate to accounting matters.
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of compliance and the results
of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not
suitable for any other purpose.
St. Cloud, Minnesota
June 4, 2025
3DJHRI
102
City of Mendota Heights
Schedule of Findings and Response on
Internal Control
CURRENT AND PRIOR YEAR INTERNAL CONTROL FINDING:
Material Weakness:
Audit Finding 2024-001 – Lack of Segregation of Accounting Duties
The City had a lack of segregation of accounting duties due to a limited number of office employees.
The lack of adequate segregation of accounting duties could adversely affect the City's ability to
initiate, record, process, and report financial data consistent with the assertions of management in
the financial statements. This lack of segregation of accounting duties can be demonstrated in the
following areas, which is not intended to be an all-inclusive list:
The Finance Director has the ability to receipt City service revenue, prepares the deposit
receipts, is responsible for coding, and prepares the Treasurer's report for the City Council.
The Utility Billing Clerk enters consumption into the utility billing system, prepares and
reviews utility bills, applies payments to customer accounts, and has the ability to make
adjustments to customer accounts.
The Finance Director performs year-end reconciliations and closing entries without review.
In addition to having responsibilities in the cycles listed above, the City's Finance Director has full
general ledger access and the ability to write and post In addition to having responsibilities in the
cycles listed above, the City's Finance Director has full general ledger access and the ability to write
and post journal entries. While we believe this access is necessary to efficiently perform the
financial duties required, this access allows the ability to override many of the controls and
segregation the City has in place.
The City has implemented certain controls to mitigate the risk due to the lack of segregation of
accounting duties, including but not limited to reviewing adjustments to customer accounts before
they are posted, having a non-finance employee prepare bank reconciliations and review of all
journal entries. However, due to the number of staff needed to properly segregate all of the
accounting duties, the cost of obtaining desirable segregation of accounting duties can often exceed
benefits which could be derived. However, management and the City Council must remain aware of
this situation and should continually monitor the accounting system, including changes that occur.
We recommend that the City review the internal control process over the year-end closing process to
ensure segregation or independent review be implemented whenever practical and cost effective.
City's Response:
The City is aware of the lack of segregation of duties. There are processes in place to have multiple
staff perform duties as to ensure one person is not responsible for all parts of any process. The
addition of staff to further segregate duties is not cost effective.
3DJHRI
This page is intentionally left blank
9.b
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 1, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: City Council Governing Principles
ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business
DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Cheryl Jacobson, City
Administrator
ACTION REQUEST:
Approve Resolution 2025-41 Establishing City Council Governing Principles.
BACKGROUND:
Many city councils adopt a set of governing principles or norms to guide their collective
behavior, improve communication, and foster effective decision-making. These principles
often reflect a shared commitment to transparency, respect, collaboration, and ethical
leadership in service to the public.
The Mendota Heights City Council has engaged in discussion and developed a list of
governing principles that reflect the values and expectations of the council and the community
it serves.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Res. 2025-41 Establishing Governing Principles 07012025
2.City Council Norms V4 FINAL
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Inclusive and Responsive Government
Page 182 of 555
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2025-41
ESTABLISHING CITY COUNCIL GOVERNING PRINCIPLES
WHEREAS, the City Council of Mendota Heights recognizes the importance of effective
governance and a shared commitment to ethical, transparent, and collaborative public service; and
WHEREAS, governing principles provide a framework for Council conduct, guide
interactions among council members, staff, and the public, and support a culture of respect,
accountability, and civic leadership; and
WHEREAS, many local governments have adopted council governing principles or similar
codes of conduct to strengthen public trust, improve council performance, and enhance decision-
making processes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has engaged in discussion and developed a list of governing
principles that reflect the values and expectations of the elected body and the community it serves
(attached as Exhibit A).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that it
hereby establishes City Council Governing Principles as developed and reviewed by the City Council.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council Governing Principles shall be made
available to the public, shared with new council members upon taking office, and reviewed
periodically for relevance and effectiveness.
Adopted by the Mendota Heights City Council this 1st day of July, 2025.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
______________________________
Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Bauer, City Clerk
Page 183 of 555
Exhibit A
Mendota Heights City Council
Governing Principles
Mendota Heights City Council members, as elected officials, will:
Act in the Public’s Best Interest
The City Council welcomes community input and fosters a culture of inclusion,
transparency, and participation.
The City Council prioritizes the needs and well-being of residents by working collaboratively,
seeking common ground, and pursuing solutions that benefit the community.
Respect the Democratic Process
The City Council aims to build consensus and respects the outcome of decisions made by
the majority.
The City Council follows established policies, procedures, and rules of order during
meetings and in decision-making.
Act as a Decision Maker, not an Advocate, Administrator, or Staff
The City Council makes decisions on behalf of residents, focusing on establishing policy and
setting strategic direction for the city. The City Council is entrusted with serving the
common good, prioritizing what benefits the city as a whole, rather than advocating for
personal, individual, or special interests.
When acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, the City Council considers only legally germane
information specifically applicable to the agenda item under review.
The City Council respects the distinct and vital roles within the city's governance structure,
recognizing that while the Council governs, it is the professional responsibility of city staff to
carry out the day-to-day operations and implement the policies and directives set forth by
the City Council. The City Council honors this division of responsibilities and respects and
supports staff as trusted professionals and partners in service to the community.
Maintain Civility and Respect
The City Council assumes positive intent, values differing perspectives, and listens to what
others have to say.
The City Council communicates accurately and responsibly, following the Minnesota Open
Meeting Law, including on social media and other public platforms.
The City Council fosters collaborative and respectful working relationships, acknowledging
staff as an essential part of the city team.
Page 184 of 555
Established July 1, 2025
Be Prepared and Informed
The City Council comes to meetings well-prepared by thoroughly reviewing materials and
background information and participates in discussions, sharing ideas and viewpoints.
Council members actively listen to others.
The City Council works with the City Administrator and not directly with city staff. The City
Council notifies the City Administrator in advance of City Council meetings of questions or
requests when possible, so that staff can compile and prepare information.
To ensure consistent, accurate, and coordinated responses to community questions and
inquiries, the City Council includes the City Administrator in all related communications.
This practice supports transparency, aligns messaging, and ensures staff are informed and
prepared to provide follow-up or support as needed.
Page 185 of 555
9.c
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 1, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2025-36 Approving a Preliminary Plat of McMillan Estates to
subdivide three (3) existing parcels into six (6) single-family residential
parcels located at 1707 Delaware Avenue and its adjacent vacant parcels
owned in common. (Planning Case 2025-03)
ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community
Development Manager
ACTION REQUEST:
Adopt Resolution 2025-36 Approving a Preliminary Plat of McMillan Estates
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Spencer McMillan, 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 subject site consists of 16.63 acres of combined land across three
separate parcels. The primary property addressed as 1707 Delaware Avenue is an 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 residential property and the two vacant parcels are all owned in common by Mr. McMillan,
who resides at the addressed parcel in the existing single-family home. 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. The resulting subdivision would, if
approved, allow for the construction of five (5) new single-family homes. There are not any
anticipated developments or improvements on the proposed Lot 4, which contains the existing
home.
The Applicant/Owner 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
Page 186 of 555
Council was not supportive of the applicant’s previous request to defer public improvements.
Ultimately, the applicant withdrew the prior application in order to resubmit with greater detail
and required information to the City relating to the construction of the cul-de-sac extension of
Ridgewood Drive.
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. 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
for 60-ft of half right-of-way.
The applicant has also submitted a new Joint Water Resources Application to the City to
request approval of wetland impacts associated with this development. 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.
There is an existing Wetland Delineation Report, dated 06/22/2021, which was reviewed and
approved by the City in September 2021 and is valid for five years. The Joint Water Resources
Application is required under the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), and is requesting
exemption from wetland mitigation or replacement under the dominus standard, as the
applicant is proposing impacts to wetlands totaling 2,178 sq-ft, the maximum allowed under
the de minimus exemption rule of the WCA. The City must act on the Joint Water Resources
Application by August 19, 2025, under the 60-day rule. The deadline for this Planning Case
2025-03 is also August 19, and any further extension of the application review period will
require the written consent of the applicant.
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.
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. The building pad sites and associated driveway access points shown on the plans are
potential, and final house locations, driveway alignments, 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 lots each meet or
exceed the minimum of 125’ of lot width on a City-approved street, and they exceed the
Page 187 of 555
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 a construction
plan for all required public improvements, including the street extension.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application request at their May 27,
2025, regular meeting, following a presentation of the staff report. Nine residents spoke at the
public hearing. Written public comments have also been received for this item and were
included as an attachment to the May 27 and June 24 Planning Commission Reports. Some of
the public comments were received as part of the open comment period for the WCA Joint
Water Resources Application, and those comments were included in the total number of
public comments, as many referenced the subdivision request. As of the submittal of this City
Council report, there were nine instances of written public comments, and an additional letter
to the City Council written by the applicant. All correspondence received prior to June 26 at
2:00pm has been included in this agenda packet. Any additional comments received following
the publication of the packet will be provided to the City Council during the July 1 meeting.
Following the verbal comments provided at the May 27 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 WCA process, the Comprehensive Plan
policies that apply to this application request, and the Urban Forest Preservation Ordinance.
Following their discussion, the Commission voted unanimously (6-0) to table the application
request. The application was reviewed again at the June 24, 2025, Planning Commission
meeting. Staff provided an update to the Commission on items that they had previously
discussed and had questions about. The Commission continued to discuss the McMillan
Estates application and asked additional questions of staff. The discussion included the
Comprehensive Plan language about the 'superblock' area, the easement dedication for utility
purposes which is illustrated at the north boundary of the plat, the timing of the application
review period for this planning case and the wetland impacts application's decision, and tree
protection standards that would apply to this application. The Commission also commented
on public comments received and how they could be addressed through the conditions
attached to the Preliminary Plat as proposed by staff. An excerpt from the approved meeting
minutes of the May 27 Planning Commission meeting have been included as an attachment to
this report, as well as an additional excerpt from the draft/unapproved minutes of the June 24
Planning Commission meeting.
A copy of the 6/24/2025 planning report is attached to this memo. As noted in the
attachment, staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat with conditions. Ultimately,
the Planning Commission determined that two additional conditions should be added to the
recommendation to the City Council in addition to the 14 conditions recommended by staff,
referencing a desire to see the northern utility easement dedicated as right-of-way, and
requiring additional tree damage mitigation for trees on neighboring properties. Following
their discussion, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend to the City
Council approval of the Preliminary Plat, with certain conditions and findings-of-fact
recommended by staff and two additional conditions:
Page 188 of 555
15. There must be a 60-foot right-of-way dedicated to the north boundary of the plat.
16. An attempt must be made to mitigate tree damage to adjacent properties.
City Staff has included suggested language modifying the two added conditions as outlined in
the attached [draft] Resolution. The modified language is intended to be consistent with the
intent of the Planning Commission's discussion and vote, and is suggested to provide both
clarity and specificity to the conditions' language. The City Council may affirm the
recommendation from the Planning Commission by adopting Resolution No. 2025-36 as
presented by staff. If the City Council chooses, they may also direct staff to return the
language of conditions #15-16 to the language recorded in the minutes and listed above, as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
Condition #9 of Resolution 2025-36 calls for a park dedication fee payment of $24,000. This
fee is to be provided into the Special Parks Fund.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Applicant Letter on Right of Way Condition for McMillan Estates, Case No. 2025-03 6-26-
25
2.MnDOT Standard Specifications for Construction - Specification 2572
3.Approved Planning Commission Minutes 5-27-25
4.Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes 6-24-25
5.June 24 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report
6.Additional Public Comments Received as of 6-26
7.Res. 2025-36 Approving a Preliminary Plat of McMillan Estates to subdivide three (3)
existing parcels into six (6) single-family residential parcels
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure
Page 189 of 555
From:Spencer McMillan
To:Stephanie Levine; Sally Lorberbaum; John Maczko; John Mazzitello; Joel Paper
Cc:Sarah Madden; Ryan Ruzek
Subject:Right of Way Condition for McMillan Estates, Case No. 2025-03
Date:Thursday, June 26, 2025 12:04:38 PM
Attachments:Right of Way Condition- 1707 Delaware Ave, McMillan Estates.docx
Dear Madam Mayor and Honorable Council Members,
Please find attached my letter regarding the Planning Commission’s approval of my
subdivision application for 1707 Delaware, which includes a condition requiring a right-of-way
dedication to the adjacent Kolar property. I respectfully object to this condition, as it lacks
support under city code and state law, and I request its removal to ensure the viability of the
proposed development.
I am grateful for the opportunity to work collaboratively with city staff on this project and
remain committed to meeting Mendota Heights’ standards. Please let me know if you have any
questions or if a meeting at your convenience would be helpful to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
Spencer McMillan
1707 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Cell: 651-492-4502
Page 190 of 555
June 26th, 2025
Spencer McMillan
Mendota Heights Resident
1707 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Dear Madam Mayor and Honorable Council Members,
I am writing to raise an objection to the Planning Commission’s condition requiring a right-
of-way dedication to the adjacent Kolar property, as it is not supported by city code or state
law and would adversely impact my proposed subdivision.
By way of introduction, my wife, Breanna, and I have been residents of Mendota Heights
since 2018. We also have family that lives in Mendota Heights. With this subdivision, we
plan on building a house on one of the newly platted lots and hope to make Mendota
Heights our home for many years to come.
I want to express my deep gratitude for the opportunity to work collaboratively with the City
of Mendota Heights staff over the past 18 months to develop a proposal for 1707 Delaware
that fully complies with all zoning and city code requirements. The support and guidance
from city staff, including Sarah Madden and Ryan Ruzek, have been instrumental in shaping
this project. My goal remains to deliver a development that meets the city’s standards
while aligning with our vision for the property.
Proposal Iterations
Our initial proposal involved a right-of-way extension with two private driveways, which
faced challenges due to code restrictions on dead-end right-of-way. In response, we
proposed a cul-de-sac extension with three lots, requesting that the cul-de-sac be
dedicated but not constructed. While this was approved, the requirement to build the cul-
de-sac posed signiflcant flnancial challenges. To address this, we revised our plan to
extend the cul-de-sac and maximize the number of buildable lots, ensuring full compliance
with all applicable codes.
Page 191 of 555
Right of Way Dedication Condition
I am pleased that the Planning Commission approved our latest proposal on June 24th,
2025. However, I respectfully object to a condition requiring a right-of-way dedication to the
northern property line, adjacent to the Kolar property, as I believe this condition is not
supported by city code or state law and would signiflcantly harm our development.
To provide context, Section 11-3-3: Streets and Alleys does not authorize the city to require
a right-of-way dedication to adjacent unplatted property owned by another party. Section
11-3-3.A.3 addresses future development or resubdivision within the proposed
subdivision, not adjacent properties. City staff, in the June 2024 and May 2025 reports,
conflrmed that our proposal meets all code requirements without requiring a right-of-way
dedication to the Kolar property. Please see the comments from the June 2024 and May
2025 Staff Reports below.
3DJHCRI
Conflicts with Minnesota Law
Beyond the city code, Minnesota law prohibits such a dedication. Under Minn. Stat. §
462.358, subd. 2b(e) (2024), any dedication must be reasonably necessary “as a result of
the subdivision” and proportionate to the need created by the proposed development. A
road to serve a potential future subdivision of adjacent land not owned by the applicant
does not meet this standard. Additionally, Minnesota and U.S. constitutional law preclude
municipalities from requiring dedications unrelated to the proposed subdivision’s impact.
While we value our positive relationship with our neighbors, the Kolars, and offered a utility
easement to serve the Kolar property—exceeding code requirements—we respectfully
object to the right-of-way dedication condition. This requirement would have a material
and adverse effect on the property values of our proposed lots and confiict with our
intended use of the land.
3DJHCRI
“Landlocked”
Furthermore, concerns about the Kolar property being “landlocked” were addressed by
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek during the May 2025 Planning Commission meeting (2-
hour, 3-minute, 23-second mark), where he noted that a second cul-de-sac could be
constructed off Delaware to provide access to the Kolar and Badar properties. Sarah
Madden then expressed her agreement.
Removal of Right of Way Condition
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the City Council remove the condition
requiring a right-of-way dedication to the Kolar property. This condition is not supported by
city code or state law, as conflrmed by staff flndings, and its inclusion would signiflcantly
undermine the viability of our development. I am committed to continuing our cooperative
efforts with the city to ensure this project aligns with Mendota Heights’ standards and
enhances our community.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and dedication to serving Mendota Heights. I am
happy to provide additional information or meet to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
Spencer McMillan
1707 Delaware Avenue
3DJHCRI
2572
Minnesota 2025 Standard Specifications 771
2572 PROTECTION AND RESTORATION OF VEGETATION
2572.1 DESCRIPTION
This Work consists of protecting and preserving vegetation from damage and restoring
vegetation damaged by the Contractor’s operations.
2572.2 MATERIALS
A Plant Materials ................................................................................................. 2571 and 2574.5C
B Temporary Fence
Provide temporary fence meeting the following characteristics and requirements:
(1) At least 4 feet
(2) Conspicuous in color (see Standard Detail Sheet for Protection and Restoration of
Vegetation)
(3) Commercially available snow fence or other fencing Material approved by the Engineer
C Water
Provide municipal potable water or harvested ground water for irrigation.
D Rooting Topsoil Borrow ........................................................................................................ 3877
E Tree Growth Retardant (TGR)
Provide the TGR paclobutrazol or an equal approved by the Engineer.
2572.3 CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
A Protecting and Preserving
Protect and preserve the following:
(1) Specimen Trees
(2) Threatened and endangered plants listed on the Federal and State threatened and
endangered species list
(3) Vegetation as required by the Contract
(4) Trees, Brush, and natural scenic elements within the Right-of-way and outside the limits
of clearing and grubbing in accordance with 2101.3, “Clearing and Grubbing,
Construction Requirements”
(5) Other vegetation as directed by the Engineer
Do not place temporary Structures, store Material, or conduct unnecessary construction
activities within 25.25 feet outside of the dripline of trees designated for preservation, unless otherwise
approved by the Engineer.
Do not place temporary Structures or store Material, including common borrow and topsoil,
outside of the construction limits in areas designated for preservation, as required by the Contract or as
approved by the Engineer.
Do not place or leave waste Material on the Project, including bituminous and concrete waste
that would interfere with performing the requirements of 2106.3D, “Preparation of Embankment
Foundation,” or 2574.5C, “Establishing Vegetation and Controlling Erosion.” The Department defines
concrete waste as excess Material not used on the Project, including Material created from grinding
rumble strips. Dispose of excess Material in accordance with 2104.3D, “Disposal of Materials and Debris.”
Page 195 of 555
2572
772 Minnesota 2025 Standard Specifications
A.1 Temporary Fence
Place temporary fences to protect vegetation before starting construction. Place
temporary fence at the construction limits and at other locations adjacent to vegetation
designated for preservation as required by the Contract or as approved by the Engineer. The
Department will provide tree protection signs. Place tree protection signs in accordance with any
of the following:
(1)Along the temporary fence at 50 foot intervals
(2)At least 2 signs per fence
(3)As directed by the Engineer
Do not remove the fence until all Work is completed or until approved by the Engineer.
Ensure the fence prevents traffic movement and the placement of temporary facilities,
Equipment, stockpiles, and supplies from harming the vegetation.
A.2 Clean Root Cutting
Cleanly cut tree roots at the construction limits as required by the Contract or as
directed by the Engineer.
Immediately and cleanly cut damaged and exposed roots. Cut back damaged roots of
trees designated for protection to sound healthy tissue and immediately place topsoil over the
exposed roots. Immediately cover root ends exposed by excavation activities with 6 inches of
topsoil as measured outward from the cut root ends. Immediately (within 5 minutes) treat cut
oak roots with a wound dressing Material consisting of latex paint or shellac. Limit cutting to a
minimum depth necessary for construction. Use a vibratory plow, or other approved root cutter
in accordance with the Standard Detail Sheet for Protection and Restoration of Vegetation,
before excavation.
A.3 Watering
Water root-damaged trees during the growing season that root damage occurs, and
water Specified Trees if required by the Contract or directed by the Engineer. Maintain adequate
but not excessive soil moisture by saturating the soil within the undisturbed portion of the
dripline of impacted or identified trees to a depth of 20 inches. Use a soil recovery probe to
check the soil moisture to a depth of 20 inches, and adjust the intervals and frequency of
watering in accordance with prevailing moisture and weather conditions.
A.4 Rooting Topsoil Borrow
Place rooting topsoil borrow instead of common topsoil borrow within the dripline of
Specimen Trees as required by the Contract or as directed by the Engineer.
Place the topsoil to avoid over-compaction as approved by the Engineer. Establish turf
consistent with the adjacent areas as approved by the Engineer.
A.5 Utility Construction
Bore under roots of trees designated for preservation for utility installations within the
tree protection zone in accordance with the following:
Page 196 of 555
2572
Minnesota 2025 Standard Specifications 773
Table 2572.3-1
Tree Protection Zone
Tree diameter at
4.5 feet above
ground, inch
Minimum distance
from face of tree trunk,
feet
Minimum depth of
tunnel, feet
<2 2 3
2–4 4 3
>4–9 6 3
>9–14 10 3
>14–19 12 3.25
>19 15 4
Do not perform open trenching within the tree protection zone.
Bore under areas of native prairie and protected plant species as required by the
Contract or as directed by the Engineer.
A.6 Pruning
Provide an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture to prune trees
as required by the Contract or as directed by the Engineer in accordance with 2571.3E.1,
“Pruning – Top Growth and Roots.” Ensure the arborist removes dead, broken, rubbing branches,
and limbs that may interfere with the existing and proposed Structures.
A.7 Destroyed or Disfigured Vegetation
Restore vegetation designated on the Plans for preservation that is damaged or
disfigured by the Contractor’s operations at no additional cost to the Department. Restore the
damaged vegetation to a condition equal to what existed before the damage. The Engineer may
assess damages against the Contractor for damage to vegetation not restored to the previous
condition. The Engineer will assess the value of damages to trees and landscaping at not less
than the appraisal damages as specified in the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers Guide
for Plant Appraisal. The Engineer will determine and assess damages of other vegetation.
A.8 Oak Trees
Avoid wounding of oak trees during April, May, June, and July to prevent the spread of
oak wilt. If the Engineer determines that Work must take place near oak trees during those
months, immediately (within 5 minutes) treat resulting wounds with a wound dressing Material
consisting of latex paint or shellac. Blend paint colors with the bark color. Maintain a supply of
approved wound dressing on the Project at all times during this period.
A.9 Tree Growth Retardant (TGR)
Provide an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture to treat trees
with the TGR as required by the Contract or as directed by the Engineer. Ensure the arborist
applies the TGR paclobutrazol as a basal drench or soil injection and in accordance with the label
directions. Provide the Engineer with the product label and Material Safety Data Sheet for the
product used.
A.10 Other Vegetation Protection Measures
Provide other vegetation protection measures including root system bridging,
compaction reduction, aeration, irrigation systems, J-barriers for Specimen Tree protection, and
retaining walls as required by the Contract or as directed by the Engineer.
B Quarantined Wood ....................................................................................................... 2101.3D.4
C Plant Installation .................................................................................................................. 2571
Page 197 of 555
2572
774 Minnesota 2025 Standard Specifications
D Disposal of Material and Debris ....................................................................................... 2104.3D
2572.4 METHOD OF MEASUREMENT
A Temporary Fence
The Engineer will measure temporary fence placed, maintained, and removed by length along
the bottom of the fence between end posts.
B Clean Root Cutting
The Engineer will measure clean root cutting by length along the plow line. The Engineer will
determine the beginning and ending points for clean root cutting as the intersection of the construction
limit and the dripline of the tree or Brush or in accordance with lines shown on the Plans.
C Water
The Engineer will measure water by volume used to protect and restore vegetation. The Engineer
will not measure water otherwise used in performing the Work, such as for maintenance of sod.
D Rooting Topsoil Borrow
The Engineer will measure rooting topsoil borrow by loose volume as required by the Contract.
E Pruning
The Engineer will measure pruning by the hours of actual pruning Work.
F Tree Growth Retardant (TGR)
The Engineer will measure TGR by volume of Material applied for the size of the tree treated. The
Engineer will determine the volume of TGR required by the diameter at breast height (DBH) of each tree
treated. DBH is defined as 4.5 feet above ground level. The Engineer will use a diameter tape measure to
measure DBH.
2572.5 BASIS OF PAYMENT
The Department will include the cost of the following with other relevant Contract Items:
(1) Boring under roots in the tree protection zone, dressing of wounds, and disposal of
Material and debris
(2) Pruning made necessary to allow for the Contractor’s operations
The Department will pay for protection and restoration of vegetation based on the following Unit
Prices, in the absence of Contract Unit Prices:
Table 2572.5-1
Protection and Restoration of Vegetation Items
Item Unit Price
Temporary fence $2.50 per foot
Clean root cutting $3.50 per foot
Water $3.00 per 100 gallon
Prune trees $75.00 per hour
Tree growth retardant $8.00 per diameter inch
Page 198 of 555
May 27, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 13
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
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 199 of 555
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 200 of 555
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 201 of 555
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 202 of 555
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 203 of 555
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 204 of 555
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 205 of 555
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 206 of 555
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 207 of 555
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 208 of 555
DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EXCERPT FROM DRAFT/UNAPPROVED 6/24/25 PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
A) TABLED PLANNING CASE 2025-103, SPENCER MCMILLAN – 1707 DELAWARE
AVENUE – PRELIMINARY PLAT
Chair Field noted that he was not present at the last review, and the statement was made that he
might have a conflict of interest as he lives in this area. He stated that after a conversation
with the City Attorney, it was determined that he does not have a conflict of interest.
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 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.
Community Development Director Sarah Madden stated that 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.
Community Development Director Sarah Madden stated that 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 from March – June of 2024, and the City
Council was not supportive of the applicant’s prior request to defer public improvements.
Ultimately, the applicant withdrew that prior application in order to resubmit with greater
detail and required information to the City relating to the construction of the cul-de-sac
extension of Ridgewood Drive.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that this item was presented under a fully
noticed public hearing process on May 27, 2025, and nine residents spoke at that public
hearing. Written comments have also been received for this item and are included in the
report. As of the submittal of this report, there were seven instances of public comment
and have been included in the public comments.
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).
Page 209 of 555
DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES
Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions.
Commissioner Stone asked if the wetland impacts would not be approved until August 19th.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that she does not have a specific date
that the City will act on that. She stated that the TAC has met and recommended approval.
Commissioner Stone stated that he would prefer to wait until that approval is gained.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that this is a preliminary plat, and both
matters can run concurrently. She stated that one does not have to be approved before the
other, and the recommendation on the wetland will be provided to the City Council for
consideration. She stated that the City needs to take action on both the preliminary plat
and the wetland by August 19th. She stated that tabling this would limit the amount of time
the City Council can consider and discuss this item.
Commissioner Stone commented that the majority of concern from the neighborhood is related to
building on wetlands.
Commissioner Corbett stated that things can keep moving in parallel, and if the wetland is not
approved as recommended, this would not be approved by the City Council. He stated that
he would not want to table again, as that would limit the ability of the City Council to have
more than one discussion.
Commissioner Stone asked if this decision would be part of the review for the wetland.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that those are separate applications
and reviews, noting that the wetland decision is not based on the proposed preliminary
plat recommendation and is instead reviewed under specific criteria and involves other
agencies with that type of jurisdiction. She confirmed that the recommendation of the
Planning Commission on this case has no bearing on the wetland decision.
Commissioner Corbett asked and received confirmation that the other agencies involved in the
wetland review have already recommended approval.
Commissioner Goldade referenced the comments made by a resident at the last meeting related to
the Comprehensive Plan and asked if staff believes that there should be a comprehensive
plan for the development of this area or whether development can be done piece by piece.
He wanted to ensure that the Koehlers could develop their property in the future.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the Comprehensive Plan of the City
mentioned the R-E properties and the ability for future development if streets and utilities
are extended. She stated that residents have stated that they would like an overall plan for
all potentially developable properties, but individual property owners have the right to
develop their property alone. She stated that the applicant has included the preliminary
Page 210 of 555
DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES
easement to the north for utilities, which abuts the Koehler property. She stated that City
staff does not recommend that to be dedicated as right-of-way and prefers the easement
option.
Commissioner Goldade asked if the tree replacement would be done onsite.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that there is a related condition
recommended that addresses that issue. She stated that an attempt must be made to replace
trees onsite prior to providing an alternative replacement measure. She stated that the
applicant has stated that not all trees can be replaced onsite, and an arborist would make
the determination as to whether it is feasible.
Commissioner Johnson referenced the issue of right-of-way and stated that it is her understanding
that the original cul-de-sac did have a right-of-way and not just easements, which allows
for Mr. McMillan to extend the cul-de-sac. She commented that if it were just an easement,
it is her understanding that the two adjacent property owners could veto the right-of-way
that would be needed. She stated that the new cul-de-sac would be 25 feet and would not
provide compliant right-of-way; therefore, adjacent property owners could not use that for
future development. She believed that a compliant 60-foot right-of-way should be required
to allow the northern property owner to develop in the future.
Commissioner Udell stated that there is language in the Comprehensive Plan preventing property
from becoming landlocked.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the preliminary plat in this
application shows a 60-foot-wide easement.
Commissioner Johnson stated that she would prefer to have this as a right-of-way rather than an
easement.
Commissioner Corbett agreed it would be reasonable to request that be right-of-way rather than
an easement.
Commissioner Udell agreed.
Commissioner Corbett referenced lot six and stated that he would like the City Council to consider
whether the omission of that lot would placate the neighborhood, as that one home seems
to impact the residents more than the others.
Commissioner Johnson stated that there are forestry requirements to replace trees on the property,
but also recognized potential impacts that could occur to trees on adjacent properties if
that lot were developed. She stated that there seems to be agreement that the 60-foot right-
of-way should be required in place of the easement. She was unsure how to detail the
comments related to the potential elimination of lot six and tree impacts.
Page 211 of 555
DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES
Commissioner Corbett was unsure of how lot six could be denied, as it would be a preference of
the neighborhood and not anything violating ordinance or requiring a variance.
Commissioner Udell agreed with the concern related to the trees on the existing lot adjacent to lot
six, but recognized that some of that is speculative. He stated that a tree could die in five
years, but that does not necessarily mean it is a result of development.
Commissioner Corbett commented that there are many driveways in the same proximity
throughout the city. He stated that if a driveway could not be closer than 40 feet to a big
tree, that would be impossible to enforce within the community, and many properties would
be out of compliance.
Commissioner Stone commented that it seems there are different concerns members have on this
request.
Commissioner Udell stated that, based on the role of the Planning Commission, he appreciates
staff following up on the concerns raised at the last meeting. He agreed that the
requirement of right-of-way should be included. He recognized that the wetlands review
is outside of the purview of the Commission, and everything else complies. He stated that
the City Council has more discretion, but the Commission is where it is, as the request
meets the requirements.
Commissioner Johnson asked how the language could be worded to ensure protection of the trees
on adjacent properties.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden asked if the Commission simply wants it
communicated to the Council, as she can do that in her presentation and within the staff
report, or whether they were looking to add another condition. She stated that the urban
forest preservation ordinance does not speak to impacts on adjacent properties, and
therefore, she would not recommend adding language to that condition. She agreed that
it would be broad to just state construction impacts, as that could be dust, noise, or other
code enforcement items.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that for street projects, they require roots to be
treated and sealed. He stated that there would be difficulty in stating that a driveway could
not be constructed that meets the City Code.
Commissioner Johnson commented that there will be impacts to those trees on the adjacent
property and wanted to ensure that assisting this resident in moving forward does not cause
detriment to another resident.
Commissioner Corbett suggested making a new condition stating that an attempt must be made to
mitigate damage to trees on adjacent properties.
Community Development Director Sarah Madden stated that if the condition is added, she would
recommend language similar to what Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek suggested. She
Page 212 of 555
DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES
stated that the procedure for the tree permit does include those protective measures, and
it is implied for off-site impacts as well.
Commissioner Johnson stated that, in her opinion, there will be no protection that will help those
trees, and she would rather require replacement.
Commissioner Corbett stated that perhaps the applicant would potentially be liable for tree
replacement on the adjacent property.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden noted that would be outside of the scope of
authority within preliminary plat. She stated that there may be some wiggle room on where
the driveway could be located as long as the property setback of five feet is met, along with
the wetland buffer requirement. She stated that a large-scale adjustment could not be made
because of the location of the wetland and its required buffer.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NATH, TO
RECOMMEND 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, 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.
Page 213 of 555
DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES
7. ALL WETLAND IMPACTS SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE
FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL 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 PRESERVATION. 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 DECIATION, THE DEVELOPER/APPLICANT SHALL PAY A PARK
DEDICATION FEE IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,000 PER UNIT (6 LOTS = $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
AT 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.
15. THERE MUST BE A 60-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATED TO THE NORTH
BOUNDARY OF THE PLAT.
16. AN ATTEMPT MUST BE MADE TO MITIGATE TREE DAMAGE TO ADJACENT
PROPERTIES.
Further discussion: Commissioner Corbett asked that the Council consider lot six and whether it
could be eliminated, and the Commission agreed.
Page 214 of 555
DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES
Chair Field commented that this is a much more intense development than what was considered
earlier this year, and he would have preferred the previous development proposal. He
recognized that there is no way this could be denied because it meets all requirements.
Commissioner Corbett commented that the previous application had more errors and therefore
did not conform with the City Code.
Chair Field commented that the previous application would have been better for the neighbors,
noting that he agrees with the right-of-way requirement to support the preservation of
development rights for the Koehlers.
Commissioner Goldade stated that if he were to vote with his heart, he would vote no, but
recognizes that is not his job and the request meets all requirements. He believed that the
Commission has done its job in ensuring that all requirements are met.
Commissioner Johnson agreed that it is the job of the Commission to ensure consistency with
ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan and to protect the rights of those looking to
develop and residents surrounding the subject property.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised that the City Council would consider this application at its July 1, 2025,
meeting.
Page 215 of 555
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 216 of 555
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 217 of 555
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 218 of 555
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 219 of 555
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 220 of 555
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 221 of 555
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 222 of 555
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 223 of 555
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 224 of 555
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 225 of 555
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 226 of 555
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 227 of 555
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
12. Additional Public Comments Received (Packet Addendum 6-24)
13. Living Streets Worksheet McMillan Estates (Packet Addendum 6-24)
Page 228 of 555
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.
3DJH RI
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
6666
66
66
66
66
66
6
6 6 6 6 6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
MARIE AVE
DE
L
A
W
A
R
E
A
V
E
R
I
D
G
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
MARIE AVE W
Nearmap US Inc, Dakota County, MN
Location Aerial Map1707 Delaware Ave/McMillan Estates
Date: 3/21/2024
City of
Mendota
Heights0340
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 230 of 555
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 231 of 555
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 232 of 555
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 233 of 555
MCMILLAN ESTATES
10 10
5
5
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
1
1
202142
Sp
e
n
c
e
r
M
c
M
i
l
l
a
n
17
0
7
D
e
l
a
w
a
r
e
A
v
e
.
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
71
5
-
6
9
8
-
7
1
1
4
ZONING INFORMATION
OWNER/DEVELOPER
ENGINEER/SURVEYOR
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PRELIMINARY PLAT
PLAT AREAS
Land Surveying
& Engineering
2580 Christian Dr.
Chaska, MN 55318
612-418-6828
MC
M
I
L
L
A
N
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
WETLANDS
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 234 of 555
OWNER/DEVELOPER
ENGINEER/SURVEYOR
LEGEND
MCMILLAN ESTATES
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
VICINITY MAP
CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR GRADING, STREET,
STORM SEWER, SANITARY SEWER, AND WATERMAIN
SHEET INDEX
Ti
t
l
e
&
L
a
y
o
u
t
C1
2580 Christian Dr.
Chaska, MN 55318
612-418-6828
Land Surveying
& Engineering
202142
MC
M
I
L
L
A
N
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
17
0
7
D
e
l
a
w
a
r
e
A
v
e
.
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
71
5
-
6
9
8
-
7
1
1
4
Sp
e
n
c
e
r
M
c
M
i
l
l
a
n
Page 235 of 555
Page 236 of 555
Page 237 of 555
Page 238 of 555
2580 Christian Dr.
Chaska, MN 55318
612-418-6828
Land Surveying
& Engineering
202142
T
r
e
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
MC
M
I
L
L
A
N
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
D
a
k
o
t
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
M
N
17
0
7
D
e
l
a
w
a
r
e
A
v
e
.
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
71
5
-
6
9
8
-
7
1
1
4
Sp
e
n
c
e
r
M
c
M
i
l
l
a
n
Tag 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 S pecies Notes Status
1 6 Quaking Aspen Remove 81 6 Black Cherry Remove 336 17 Black Cherry Mostly Dead Save 416 13.5 Buckthorn Save 1750 10 Black Cherry Remove 1837 12 Re d Oak Save
2 6 Quaking Aspen Remove 82 7 Black Cherry Remove 337 13 Box Elder Save 417 9 Buckthorn Save 1751 8 Quaking Aspen Remove 1838 7 Black Cherry Save
3 7 Black Cherry Remove 83 8 Box Elder poor Remove 338 11 Buckthorn 2 stem Save 418 11 White Ash Save 1752 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1839 6 Red Oak Sa ve
4 6 Quaking Aspen Remove 84 8 Black Cherry poor Remove 339 10 Buckthorn Save 419 23.5 White Ash Save 1753 8 Quaking Aspen Save 1840 7 Black Cherry Sa ve
5 6 Green Ash Remove 85 10 Black Cherry Remove 340 10.5 Buckthorn 2 stem Save 420 13 White Ash Save 1754 7 Quaking Aspen Remove 1841 7 Red Oak Save
6 6 Quaking Aspen Remove 86 7 Box Elder Remove 341 17 Cottonwood Save 421 18 Green Ash Save 1755 6 Green Ash Remove 1842 6 Red Oak Save
7 7 Quaking Aspen Remove 87 7 Black Cherry Remove 342 16 White Ash Save 422 12 Green Ash Save 1756 7 Green Ash Remove 1843 6 Red Oak poor Save
8 8 Quaking Aspen Remove 88 6 Bur Oak Remove 343 6.5 White Ash Save 423 8.5 Green Ash Save 1757 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1844 7 Red Oak poor Save
9 6 Quaking Aspen Remove 89 8 Black Cherry Remove 344 12 White Ash Save 424 13 White Ash Save 1758 9 Quaking Aspen Save 1845 7 Red Oak Save
10 7 Quaking Aspen Remove 90 15 Red Oak Save 345 16.5 Hophornbeam 2 stem/dead Save 425 7 Buckthorn Save 1759 9 Quaking Aspen Remove 1846 10 Basswood S ave
11 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 91 12 Red Oak Save 346 13 American Elm Save 426 6 Swamp White O a S ave 1760 6 Quaking Aspen Save 1847 10 Red Oak Save
12 8 Black Cherry poor Remove 92 8 Black Cherry Save 347 8 White Ash Save 427 16 White Ash Save 1761 7 Quaking Aspen Remove 1848 11 Red Oak Save
13 7 Green Ash poor Remove 93 6 American Elm Save 348 6 White Ash Save 428 9 White Ash Save 1762 7 Quaking Aspen Remove 1849 6 Quaking Aspen Save
14 7 Black Cherry Remove 94 9 Black Cherry Save 349 10 Box Elder Save 429 17 White Ash Save 1763 9 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1850 8 Quaking Aspen Sav e
15 12 Apple Save 95 9 Black Cherry Save 350 9 Box Elder Save 430 6 Buckthorn Save 1764 8 Green Ash Remove 1851 7 Quaking Aspen Save
16 12 Black Cherry Save 96 9 Quaking Aspen Save 351 21 Buckthorn 5 stem Save 431 16 White Ash Save 1765 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1852 8 Quaking Aspen S ave
17 6 Green Ash Remove 97 8 Quaking Aspen Save 352 9.5 Box Elder Save 432 13.5 Box Elder 2 stem Save 1766 10 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1853 6 Quaking A spen Save
18 10 Black Cherry Remove 98 9 Quaking Aspen Save 353 12 Box Elder Save 433 23 Green Ash Save 1767 9 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1854 6 Quaking Aspen S ave
19 6 Apple Remove 99 7 Quaking Aspen Save 354 10 Box Elder Save 434 31.5 White Ash 2 stem Save 1768 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1855 6 Quaking Aspen poor Save
20 6 Apple Remove 100 7 Black Cherry Save 355 10 White Ash Save 435 14 Cottonwood Save 1769 8 Quaking Aspen Remove 1856 7 Quaking Aspen Save
21 8 Box Elder poor Save 101 6 Apple Save 356 8 Green Ash Save 436 18.5 Box Elder Save 1770 11 Quaking Aspen Save 1857 7 Red Oak Save
22 7 Apple Save 102 12 Black Cherry Save 357 14 Black Oak Save 437 13 Box Elder Save 1771 10 Quaking Aspen Save 1858 7 Red Oak Save
23 9 Box Elder Save 103 8 Amur Maple Save 358 20.5 White Ash Save 438 10 White Ash Save 1772 8 Quaking Aspen Save 1859 8 Red Oak poor Save
24 7 Black Cherry Save 104 8 Black Cherry Save 359 22 White Ash 2 stem Save 439 11 Black Cherry Save 1773 9 Quaking Aspen Save 1860 7 Green Ash poor Sa ve
25 7 Black Cherry poor Save 105 12 Red Oak Save 360 8 White Ash Save 440 38 Buckthorn 10 stem Save 1774 8 Quaking Aspen Save 1861 7 Black Cherry poor Sa ve
26 8 Black Cherry Save 106 10 American Elm Save 361 8 White Ash Save 441 16 Box Elder Save 1775 8 Quaking Aspen Save 1862 8 Quaking Aspen Save
27 6 Green Ash Save 107 6 Bur Oak poor Save 362 13.5 White Ash Save 442 14 White Ash Save 1776 8 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1863 6 Quaking Aspen Save
28 6 Green Ash poor Save 108 19 Cottonwood Save 363 9 White Ash Save 443 8 Buckthorn Save 1777 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1864 6 Quaking Aspen Save
29 7 Black Cherry Save 109 7 Red Oak poor Save 364 14.5 American Elm Save 444 18 White Ash Save 1778 7 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1865 8 Quaking Aspen Save
30 8 Box Elder Save 110 8 Quaking Aspen Save 365 12 White Ash Save 445 16.5 Hophornbeam Save 1779 10 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1866 7 Quaking Aspen Sav e
31 7 Black Cherry Save 111 9 Red Oak Save 366 8 White Ash Save 446 9 Green Ash Save 1780 15 Quaking Aspen Remove 1867 6 Quaking Aspen Save
32 8 Black Cherry Save 112 13 Red Oak Save 367 11 White Ash Save 1701 21 Cottonwood Remove 1781 6 Green Ash Remove 1868 6 Quaking Aspen Save
33 12 Black Cherry Save 113 12 Red Oak Save 368 10 White Ash Save 1702 7 Black Cherry Save 1782 6 Quaking Aspen Remove 1869 8 Quaking Aspen Save
34 6 Apple Remove 114 6 Bur Oak Save 369 6 White Ash Save 1703 13 Green Ash Remove 1783 7 Quaking Aspen Remove 1870 10 Red Oak Save
35 8 Black Cherry Save 115 8 American Elm Save 370 10 White Ash Save 1704 7 Green Ash Remove 1784 10 Black Walnut Remove 1871 6 Red Oak Save
36 6 Amur Maple poor Save 116 6 Apple Save 371 6 Green Ash Save 1705 7 Green Ash Remove 1786 8 Box Elder Remove 1872 7 Red Oak Save
37 6 Black Cherry Save 117 19 Red Oak Save 372 9.5 White Ash Save 1706 12 Box Elder Remove 1787 12 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1873 7 Quaking Aspen Save
38 6 American Elm poor Save 118 31 Cottonwood Save 373 15 White Ash Save 1707 19 Cottonwood Remove 1788 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1874 6 Black Cherry po or Remove
39 7 Black Cherry poor Save 119 6 Green Ash Save 374 15 Green Ash Save 1708 7 Cottonwood Remove 1789 10 Box Elder Remove 1875 25 Cottonwood Save
40 8 Black Cherry Save 120 7 Green Ash Save 375 10.5 White Ash Save 1709 6 Cottonwood Remove 1790 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1876 6 Quaking Aspen poor Re move
41 11 Black Cherry Save 121 6 Green Ash Save 376 12 White Ash Save 1710 7 American Elm Save 1791 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1877 6 Quaking Aspen poor Rem ove
42 10 American Elm poor Save 122 6 American Elm Save 377 8.5 White Ash Save 1711 30 Cottonwood Save 1792 8 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1878 6 Quaking As pen Remove
43 10 (25')Scotch Pine poor Save 123 7 Green Ash Save 378 8.5 White Ash Save 1712 35 Cottonwood Remove 1793 11 Green Ash Remove 1879 7 Quaking Aspen Remove
44 8 Black Cherry Save 124 12 Red Oak Save 379 15.5 Green Ash Save 1713 6 Box Elder Save 1794 11 Black Walnut Remove 1880 7 Quaking Aspen Remove
45 6 Bur Oak Save 125 11 Red Oak Save 380 19 White Ash 2 stem Save 1714 6 Box Elder Remove 1795 9 Quaking Aspen Remove 1881 7 Quaking Aspen Remove
46 4 Green Ash poor Save 301 8 Bur Oak Remove 381 11.5 Green Ash Save 1715 18 Cottonwood Remove 1796 7 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1882 6 Quaking Aspen Remove
47 6 Green Ash Save 302 16 Cottonwood Remove 382 14.5 Green Ash Save 1716 12 Box Elder Save 1797 9 Quaking Aspen Remove 1883 9 Quaking Aspen Remove
48 6 Green Ash Save 303 20.5 White Ash Save 383 16 White Ash Save 1717 10 Siberian Elm Remove 1798 12 Red Oak Save 1884 6 Quaking Aspen Remove
49 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 Aspen Save 1885 6 Quaking Aspen Remove
50 7 Green Ash Save 305 9 Black Cherry 2 stem Save 385 32.5 White Ash 3 stem Save 1719 7 Box Elder Remove 1800 10 Quaking Aspen Save 1886 7 Quaking Asp en Save
51 8 Apple Save 306 13 Green Ash Save 386 17.5 White Ash Save 1720 6 Black Cherry Remove 1807 10 American Elm poor Save 1887 7 Quaking Aspen Save
52 6 Bur Oak Save 307 17.5 Green Ash Save 387 10 White Ash Save 1721 7 Black Cherry Remove 1808 11 Black Cherry poor Save 1888 12 Red Oak Save
53 6 Black Cherry Save 308 6 Black Cherry Save 388 25.5 White Ash 2 stem Save 1722 7 Black Cherry Remove 1809 8 Black Cherry poor Save 1889 13 Black C herry Remove
54 6 Bur Oak Save 309 10 American Elm Save 389 7 White Ash Save 1723 13 Box Elder Remove 1810 6 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1890 6 Red Oak Save
55 6 Green Ash Save 310 42 Cottonwood Save 390 13.5 White Ash Save 1724 7 Black Cherry Remove 1811 12 Quaking Aspen Save 1891 12 Red Oak Remove
56 6 Black Cherry Save 311 77.5 Cottonwood 2 stem Save 391 22 White Ash Save 1725 9 Black Cherry Save 1812 7 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1892 7 Red Oak Sav e
57 14 Red Oak Save 312 28 Slippery Elm splitting Remove 392 18 White Ash Save 1726 8 Box Elder Remove 1813 6 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1893 8 Quaking As pen Save
58 15 Red Oak Save 313 6 White Ash Remove 393 22.5 White Ash Save 1727 7 Black Cherry Remove 1814 28 Red Oak Save 1894 7 Quaking Aspen Save
59 14 Red Oak poor Save 314 9.5 White Ash Remove 394 30.5 White Ash 2 stem Save 1728 6 Black Cherry Remove 1815 24 Red Oak Save 1895 7 Quaking Aspen Sa ve
60 7 Black Willow Save 315 22 Cottonwood Remove 395 10 White Ash Save 1729 9 Box Elder poor Remove 1816 10 Red Oak poor Save 1896 8 Quaking Aspen Save
61 8 Green Ash Save 316 7 Black Cherry Remove 396 25 White Ash Save 1730 8 Box Elder Save 1817 6 Red Oak Save 1897 7 Quaking Aspen poor Save
62 10 Green Ash Save 317 14.5 Siberian Elm Save 397 12 Green Ash Save 1731 10 Box Elder Remove 1818 7 Red Oak poor Save 1898 8 Quaking Aspen Save
63 6 Green Ash Save 318 36 Box Elder 4 stem Save 398 26 White Ash Save 1732 8 Box Elder poor Remove 1819 7 Red Oak poor Save 1899 6 American Elm Save
64 10 Green Ash Save 319 7 Box Elder Save 399 16.5 White Ash Save 1733 10 Black Cherry Save 1820 14 Red Oak poor Save 1900 10 Quaking Aspen Save
65 8 Green Ash Save 320 9 Quaking Aspen Save 400 21 White Ash Save 1734 8 Box Elder poor Remove 1821 12 Red Oak Save
66 7 Green Ash poor Save 321 10 Black Cherry Save 401 6.5 Buckthorn Save 1735 12 Black Cherry Save 1822 11 Red Oak Save
67 10 Green Ash Save 322 14.5 Box Elder Save 402 7.5 Buckthorn Save 1736 6 Box Elder Remove 1823 6 Red Oak poor Save
68 10 Green Ash Save 323 10 Box Elder Save 403 7 White Ash Save 1737 14 Black Cherry Remove 1824 7 Red Oak poor Save
69 11 Green Ash Save 324 8 Buckthorn 2 stem Save 404 12.5 White Ash Save 1738 8 Box Elder Remove 1825 9 Red Oak poor Save
70 21 Red Oak Remove 325 9 Box Elder Save 405 8.5 White Ash Save 1739 8 Quaking Aspen Remove 1826 7 Black Cherry Save
71 7 Bur Oak Save 326 8 Box Elder Save 406 10 Box Elder Save 1740 9 Quaking Aspen Remove 1827 6 Black Cherry Save
72 9 Bur Oak Save 327 37.5 Black Willow Half Dead Save 407 13.5 Box Elder Save 1741 8 Quaking Aspen Remove 1828 9 Black Cherry Save
73 7 Appl e Save 328 8 Buckthorn S ave 408 14 Green Ash S ave 1742 8 Quaking Aspen Remove 1829 8 American Elm poor Save
74 8 Appl e Save 329 54 Cottonwood S ave 409 15 White Ash S ave 1743 9 Quaking Aspen Remove 1830 8 Appl e Save
75 6 Green Ash Save 330 15 Box Elder Save 410 8.5 Box Elder Save 1744 6 Box Elder Remove 1831 8 Black Cherry Save
76 7 Green Ash Save 331 8 Box Elder Save 411 7 Amur Cork Tre e Save 1745 12 American Elm Remove 1832 7 Black Cherry Save
77 6 Black Cherry Remove 332 9 Box Elder Save 412 12 Box Elder Save 1746 8 Quaking Aspen Remove 1833 8 Black Cherry Save
78 8 American Elm Remove 333 13 Box Elder Save 413 9 American Elm Save 1747 9 Black Cherry Remove 1834 7 Black Cherry Save
79 9 Black Cherry Remove 334 9 Box Elder Save 414 8.5 Black Cherry Save 1748 9 Quaking Aspen Remove 1835 10 Black Cherry Save
80 12 Black Cherry Remove 335 63.5 Cottonwood Save 415 9 Black Cherry Save 1749 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1836 12 Red Oak poor Save
SEE SHEET L-101 FOR TREE
MITIGATION CALCULATIONS
C5
Page 239 of 555
L-100
FOREST MITIGATION
PLAN - TREES SAVED
DWN BY:
ISSUE DATE:
PROJECT NO.:B0029-0001
D:
\
M
i
d
w
e
s
t
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
L
L
C
\
M
i
d
w
e
s
t
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
-
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
-
M
W
I
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
0
2
9
M
c
M
i
l
l
a
n
,
S
p
e
n
c
e
r
\
0
0
0
1
-
S
u
l
l
i
v
a
n
E
s
t
a
t
e
s
\
5
_
D
E
S
I
G
N
\
2
_
C
A
D
\
3
P
L
A
N
S
H
E
E
T
S
\
L
-
1
0
0
F
o
r
e
s
t
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
.
d
w
g
ISSUE NO.:
SHEET NO.:
SHEET TITLE:
4/
1
4
/
2
0
2
5
1
:
3
2
:
3
6
P
M
CLIENT:
SPENCER
McMILLAN
Mc
M
I
L
L
A
N
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
ME
N
D
O
T
A
H
E
I
G
H
T
S
,
M
N
PR
O
J
E
C
T
T
I
T
L
E
:
HRM
CHK'D BY:
LNJ
APP'D BY:
LNJ
P.O. BOX 448
VICTORIA, MN 55386
PHONE: (952) 261-9990
WWW.MIDWESTWETLANDS.COM
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
:
DA
T
E
:
IS
S
U
E
N
O
.
:
CERTIFICATION:
1707 DELAWARE AVENUE
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118
PHONE: (715) 698-7114
DATE:
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
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE
LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
LICENSE NO.: 52856
04-18-2025
Lucius Jonett
04-18-2025
01
04
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
5
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
P
L
A
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
01
Page 240 oI 555
L-101
FOREST MITIGATION
PLAN - TREES
REMOVED
DWN BY:
ISSUE DATE:
PROJECT NO.:B0029-0001
D:
\
M
i
d
w
e
s
t
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
L
L
C
\
M
i
d
w
e
s
t
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
-
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
-
M
W
I
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
0
2
9
M
c
M
i
l
l
a
n
,
S
p
e
n
c
e
r
\
0
0
0
1
-
S
u
l
l
i
v
a
n
E
s
t
a
t
e
s
\
5
_
D
E
S
I
G
N
\
2
_
C
A
D
\
3
P
L
A
N
S
H
E
E
T
S
\
L
-
1
0
0
F
o
r
e
s
t
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
.
d
w
g
ISSUE NO.:
SHEET NO.:
SHEET TITLE:
4/
1
4
/
2
0
2
5
1
:
3
2
:
4
2
P
M
CLIENT:
SPENCER
McMILLAN
Mc
M
I
L
L
A
N
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
ME
N
D
O
T
A
H
E
I
G
H
T
S
,
M
N
PR
O
J
E
C
T
T
I
T
L
E
:
HRM
CHK'D BY:
LNJ
APP'D BY:
LNJ
P.O. BOX 448
VICTORIA, MN 55386
PHONE: (952) 261-9990
WWW.MIDWESTWETLANDS.COM
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
:
DA
T
E
:
IS
S
U
E
N
O
.
:
CERTIFICATION:
1707 DELAWARE AVENUE
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118
PHONE: (715) 698-7114
DATE:
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
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE
LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
LICENSE NO.: 52856
04-18-2025
Lucius Jonett
04-18-2025
01
04
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
5
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
P
L
A
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
01
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOREST MITIGATION NOTES
1. Significant tree means a healthy tree measuring a minimum of six inches in diameter for
deciduous 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 inches
in diameter or greater, excluding invasive species.
3. The applicant shall post a tree replacement escrow with the City. For every heritage tree
preserved 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, the
applicant shall mitigate all significant and heritage tree inches measured at DBH at a rate of
75%. 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 the
affected adjacent property, nor shall trees be planted at lot corners in a way that obstructs a
driver's line of sight. If compliance with the tree replacement requirement is not feasible, the
City may approve alternative tree replacement measures, including the planting of trees at an
alternate site. The alternate site must be public land, and at the choice of the city. The city may
require post-construction tree care.
6. In order to preserve diversity and provide protection from tree disease and pests; where ten or
more replacement trees are required, not more than 20 percent shall be of the same family, not
more 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 of
total replacement trees planted, due to its over-abundance in the City's forest canopy. A
minimum of 50 percent of replacement trees must be species native to Minnesota or
recommended 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-caliper
inch deciduous or six-foot height conifer tree unless approved by the City. No more than three
consecutive trees of the same species may be planted in a continuous row, including around
corners and in groupings.
FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
1. Contact responsible for tree preservation during the course of the project:
Spencer McMillan
1707 Delware Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
(715) 698-7114
2. Tree replacement escrow reduction = 11 heritage trees preserved x $250 =
$2,750
3. Onsite replacement of the total DBH to be replaced is not feasible as the
remainder of the property is fully forested. We have intentionally not prepared a
replacement landscape plan and will complete an off-site tree replacement
agreement with the City.
TREE SURVEY NOTES
1. Tree removals excluded from forest mitigation plan calculations due to ash and
Siberian elm tree species, poor tree condition, or being previously removed since
tree survey was complete and forest mitigation plan submittal.
2. Poor tree condition denotes that the tree has less than 50% of a healthy crown
remaining from diseased or dying tree due to age.
Page 241 oI 555
2X ROOT BALL DIA. MIN.
SPECIES AS SHOWN ON PLAN
PRUNE ANY DAMAGED OR BROKEN BRANCHES. DO NOT CUT LEADER.
ROOT FLARE MUST BE ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.
DO NOT COVER ROOT FLARE WITH MULCH
LOOSEN SIDES OF ROOT BALL. REMOVE ANY DEAD, DAMAGED,
OR GIRDLING ROOTS.
BACKFILL AROUND ROOT BALL WITH LOOSE SOIL. WORK SOIL
TO SETTLE AND REDUCE VOIDS OR AIR POCKETS.
PLACE ROOT BALL ON SOIL BACKFILL SO TOP OF ROOT
BALL IS ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.
L-110
1 DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL
2X ROOT BALL DIA. MIN
SPECIES AS SHOWN ON PLAN
PRUNE ANY DAMAGED OR BROKEN BRANCHES. DO NOT CUT LEADER.
ROOT FLARE MUST BE ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.
DO NOT COVER ROOT FLARE WITH MULCH
CONTAINER GROWN MATERIALS SHALL HAVE ROOTS HANDS LOOSENED
UPON PLANTING; PRUNE ANY DEAD OR DESICCATED ROOTS
BACKFILL AROUND ROOTS WITH LOOSE SOIL. WORK SOIL
TO SETTLE AND REDUCE VOIDS OR AIR POCKETS.
HOLE SHOULD BE EXCAVATED SUCH THAT ROOTS ARE VERTICAL AND
FULLY EXTENDED. SCARIFY BOTTOM OF PIT (6 IN. MIN.)
2X ROOT BALL DIA. MIN.
SPECIES AS SHOWN ON PLAN
PRUNE ANY DAMAGED OR BROKEN BRANCHES. DO NOT CUT LEADER.
ROOT FLARE MUST BE ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.
DO NOT COVER ROOT FLARE WITH MULCH
LOOSEN SIDES OF ROOT BALL. REMOVE ANY DEAD, DAMAGED,
OR GIRDLING ROOTS.
BACKFILL AROUND ROOT BALL WITH LOOSE SOIL. WORK SOIL
TO SETTLE AND REDUCE VOIDS OR AIR POCKETS.
PLACE ROOT BALL ON SOIL BACKFILL SO TOP OF ROOT
BALL IS ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.
2 SHRUB & CONTAINER PLANTING DETAIL
3 CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL
DRIP LINE OF TREE.
4 TREE PROTECTION FENCE DETAIL
4' HIGH SAFETY FENCE ATTACHED TO STEEL POSTS AT
DRIP LINE OF EXISTING TREES TO BE PROTECTED.
4'
18
"
NOT TO SCALE L-110 NOT TO SCALE
L-110 NOT TO SCALE L-110 NOT TO SCALE
L-110
LANDSCAPE DETAILS
DWN BY:
ISSUE DATE:
PROJECT NO.:B0029-0001
D:
\
M
i
d
w
e
s
t
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
L
L
C
\
M
i
d
w
e
s
t
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
-
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
-
M
W
I
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
0
2
9
M
c
M
i
l
l
a
n
,
S
p
e
n
c
e
r
\
0
0
0
1
-
S
u
l
l
i
v
a
n
E
s
t
a
t
e
s
\
5
_
D
E
S
I
G
N
\
2
_
C
A
D
\
3
P
L
A
N
S
H
E
E
T
S
\
L
-
1
1
0
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
D
e
t
a
i
l
s
.
d
w
g
ISSUE NO.:
SHEET NO.:
SHEET TITLE:
4/
1
4
/
2
0
2
5
1
:
3
2
:
3
9
P
M
CLIENT:
SPENCER
McMILLAN
Mc
M
I
L
L
A
N
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
ME
N
D
O
T
A
H
E
I
G
H
T
S
,
M
N
PR
O
J
E
C
T
T
I
T
L
E
:
HRM
CHK'D BY:
LNJ
APP'D BY:
LNJ
P.O. BOX 448
VICTORIA, MN 55386
PHONE: (952) 261-9990
WWW.MIDWESTWETLANDS.COM
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
:
DA
T
E
:
IS
S
U
E
N
O
.
:
CERTIFICATION:
1707 DELAWARE AVENUE
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118
PHONE: (715) 698-7114
DATE:
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
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE
LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
LICENSE NO.: 52856
04-18-2025
Lucius Jonett
04-18-2025
01
04
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
5
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
P
L
A
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
01
PDJe 242 oI 555
Page 243 of 555
Page 244 of 555
Page 245 of 555
RIDGEWOOD DRIVE
St
r
e
e
t
a
n
d
S
t
o
r
m
Se
w
e
r
P
l
a
n
SE
E
S
H
E
E
T
1
0
NOTES:
2580 Christian Dr.
Chaska, MN 55318
612-418-6828
Land Surveying
& Engineering
202142
MC
M
I
L
L
A
N
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
17
0
7
D
e
l
a
w
a
r
e
A
v
e
.
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
71
5
-
6
9
8
-
7
1
1
4
Sp
e
n
c
e
r
M
c
M
i
l
l
a
n
C9
Page 246 of 555
RIDGEWOOD DRIVE
SE
E
S
H
E
E
T
9
NOTES:
St
r
e
e
t
a
n
d
S
t
o
r
m
Se
w
e
r
P
l
a
n
2580 Christian Dr.
Chaska, MN 55318
612-418-6828
Land Surveying
& Engineering
202142
MC
M
I
L
L
A
N
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
17
0
7
D
e
l
a
w
a
r
e
A
v
e
.
M
e
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
71
5
-
6
9
8
-
7
1
1
4
Sp
e
n
c
e
r
M
c
M
i
l
l
a
n
C10
Page 247 of 555
Page 248 of 555
RIDGEWOOD DRIVE
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
P
l
a
n
SE
E
S
H
E
E
T
1
3
NOTES:
SANITARY SEWER NOTES:
ST. PAUL REGIONAL WATER SERVICES (SPRWS) NOTES:
GENERAL NOTE:
2580 Christian Dr.
Chaska, MN 55318
612-418-6828
Land Surveying
& Engineering
202142
MC
M
I
L
L
A
N
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
17
0
7
D
e
l
a
w
a
r
e
A
v
e
.
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
71
5
-
6
9
8
-
7
1
1
4
Sp
e
n
c
e
r
M
c
M
i
l
l
a
n
C12
Page 249 of 555
RIDGEWOOD DRIVE
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
P
l
a
n
SE
E
S
H
E
E
T
1
3
NOTES:
2580 Christian Dr.
Chaska, MN 55318
612-418-6828
Land Surveying
& Engineering
202142
MC
M
I
L
L
A
N
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
17
0
7
D
e
l
a
w
a
r
e
A
v
e
.
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
71
5
-
6
9
8
-
7
1
1
4
Sp
e
n
c
e
r
M
c
M
i
l
l
a
n
C13
Page 250 of 555
Fu
t
u
r
e
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
NOTE:
2580 Christian Dr.
Chaska, MN 55318
612-418-6828
Land Surveying
& Engineering
202142
MC
M
I
L
L
A
N
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
17
0
7
D
e
l
a
w
a
r
e
A
v
e
.
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
71
5
-
6
9
8
-
7
1
1
4
Sp
e
n
c
e
r
M
c
M
i
l
l
a
n
C14
Page 251 of 555
NOTE:
Fu
t
u
r
e
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
2580 Christian Dr.
Chaska, MN 55318
612-418-6828
Land Surveying
& Engineering
202142
MC
M
I
L
L
A
N
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
17
0
7
D
e
l
a
w
a
r
e
A
v
e
.
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
71
5
-
6
9
8
-
7
1
1
4
Sp
e
n
c
e
r
M
c
M
i
l
l
a
n
C15
Page 252 of 555
Page 253 of 555
Page 254 of 555
Page 255 of 555
Page 256 of 555
SITE
24 60
149
MARIE AVE.
8
DODD 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
1010
I 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 257 of 555
Page 258 of 555
Page 259 of 555
Page 260 of 555
Page 261 of 555
Page 262 of 555
Page 263 of 555
Page 264 of 555
Page 265 of 555
Page 266 of 555
Page 267 of 555
Page 268 of 555
Page 269 of 555
Page 270 of 555
Page 271 of 555
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.
3DJHRI
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 273 of 555
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 274 of 555
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 275 of 555
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
3DJHRI
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 277 of 555
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 278 of 555
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 279 of 555
MCMILLAN ESTATES
10 10
5
5
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
1
1
202142
Sp
e
n
c
e
r
M
c
M
i
l
l
a
n
17
0
7
D
e
l
a
w
a
r
e
A
v
e
.
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
71
5
-
6
9
8
-
7
1
1
4
ZONING INFORMATION
OWNER/DEVELOPER
ENGINEER/SURVEYOR
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PRELIMINARY PLAT
PLAT AREAS
Land Surveying
& Engineering
2580 Christian Dr.
Chaska, MN 55318
612-418-6828
MC
M
I
L
L
A
N
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
WETLANDS
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 280 of 555
Page 281 of 555
Page 282 of 555
Page 283 of 555
Page 284 of 555
Page 285 of 555
Page 286 of 555
Page 287 of 555
Page 288 of 555
Page 289 of 555
Page 290 of 555
Page 291 of 555
Page 292 of 555
Page 293 of 555
Page 294 of 555
Page 295 of 555
Page 296 of 555
Page 297 of 555
Page 298 of 555
Page 299 of 555
Page 300 of 555
Page 301 of 555
Page 302 of 555
Page 303 of 555
Page 304 of 555
Page 305 of 555
Page 306 of 555
Page 307 of 555
Page 308 of 555
Page 309 of 555
Page 310 of 555
Page 311 of 555
Page 312 of 555
Page 313 of 555
Page 314 of 555
Page 315 of 555
Page 316 of 555
Page 317 of 555
Page 318 of 555
Page 319 of 555
Page 320 of 555
Page 321 of 555
Page 322 of 555
Page 323 of 555
Page 324 of 555
Page 325 of 555
Page 326 of 555
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.
3DJHRI
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 328 of 555
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
3DJH RI
Page 330 of 555
Page 331 of 555
Page 332 of 555
Page 333 of 555
Page 334 of 555
Page 335 of 555
Page 336 of 555
Page 337 of 555
Page 338 of 555
Page 339 of 555
Page 340 of 555
Page 341 of 555
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 342 of 555
jed.chesnut@state.mn.us | www.bwsr.state.mn.us
Page 343 of 555
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:
3DJHRI
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 345 of 555
MVP-2021-01218-SSC
Page 1 of 2
Page 346 of 555
MCMILLAN ESTATES
10 10
5
5
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
1
1
202142
Sp
e
n
c
e
r
M
c
M
i
l
l
a
n
17
0
7
D
e
l
a
w
a
r
e
A
v
e
.
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
71
5
-
6
9
8
-
7
1
1
4
ZONING INFORMATION
OWNER/DEVELOPER
ENGINEER/SURVEYOR
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PRELIMINARY PLAT
PLAT AREAS
Land Surveying
& Engineering
2580 Christian Dr.
Chaska, MN 55318
612-418-6828
MC
M
I
L
L
A
N
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
WETLANDS
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 347 of 555
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 348 of 555
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 349 of 555
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 350 of 555
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.
PaJe oI
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 of
(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 of
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 of
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 of
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 of
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 of
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 of
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 of
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 360 of 555
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 361 of 555
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 362 of 555
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 363 of 555
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 364 of 555
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 365 of 555
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 366 of 555
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:
3DJHRI
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 368 of 555
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 369 of 555
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 370 of 555
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 371 of 555
Page 372 of 555
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 373 of 555
Page 374 of 555
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 375 of 555
Page 376 of 555
Page 377 of 555
June 23, 2025
Mendota Heights Planning Commission
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Via email: lfield@mendotaheightsmn.gov, jstone@mendotaheightsmn.gov,
pcorbett@mendotaheightsmn.gov, cjohnson2@mendotaheightsmn.gov, jnath@mendotaheightsmn.gov,
budell@mendotaheightsmn.gov, sgoldade@mendotaheightsmn.gov, smadden@mendotaheights.com
Re: McMillan Estates
To the Members of the Commission,
We are writing to you regarding the Macmillan Estates proposal. I appeared before the Planning
Commission last month generally in support of the McMillan’s plans to subdivide their property which is
immediately south of and adjacent to our home at 1695 Delaware Avenue. Our property is 10.05 acres
and identical in size and shape to the existing McMillan residence at 1707 Delaware.
At last month’s meeting I noted that the current plan is now substantially different than those previously
submitted for McMillan Estates and the predecessor Sullivan Acres and that this was the first
opportunity for me to address the new plan which has increased to 6 homesites (1 existing, 5 new). At
the close of the meeting, it was my understanding that the McMillan proposal was tabled to address two
areas for the Commission: 1) environmental, drainage and tree concerns raised by others, and 2) to
address the concerns I raised regarding the “landlocking” of the neighbors to the North including us, and
to further explain how this plan with its limited access to the North meets the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
I do not see in the current materials how the concerns in (2) above were further developed for the
Commission.
In every meeting for previous development proposals before this Commission, We have repeatedly
requested that this Commission adopt a comprehensive approach to the long-range plan for
development in Mendota Heights and Dakota County, specifically with regard to all properties north of
Ridgewood for their future development potential and the benefits to the City of Mendota Heights as
the McMillan proposal states regarding that proposal. The McMillan proposal as stated unreasonably
and permanently cuts off all access for properties north of the proposed development with the
extension of the cul-de-sac “nub” as referred to by the City stopping short of providing access to our
property to the north. Said differently, the nub does not extend to our property line.
It should be noted that both the McMillans and the City of Mendota Heights currently enjoy the
opportunity for McMillan estates today because the “nub” of Ridgewood was extended to provide
access to what is now the McMillan property, and by all arguments the potential and vision for future
development. The McMillan proposal has no additional cost or land acquisition required of the property
3MJH RI DDD
owners on Ridgewood and in fact allows for restoration of the “nub” and a give back of the circular
portion of the property outside of the 60’ road requirements to the adjacent owners. The same
planning and foresight should be employed by this Commission to the McMillan proposal to ensure and
preserve future potential development opportunities for the benefit of the City as well as the adjacent
landowners to the north.
Addressing this access now is critical for both the City and the landowners to the north, to preserve full
development opportunities in accordance with the long-range plan. The plat should permit the logical
extension of future streets.
The 2040 Plan identifies 22 Focus Areas for future development. Area 21, the Somerset Area
encompasses the McMillan property as well as the adjacent properties to the north including ours. “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”.
Future development north of the McMillan property is entirely consistent with the 2040 plan and should
be considered in this proposal, with appropriate utility and roadway access, just as Ridgewood provided
utilities and access to the McMillan property when Ridgewood was developed. Similarly, each adjacent
landowner to the north, including us, should similarly be required to extend the “nub” the full length of
their respective properties to abut any adjacent property, to ensure future development opportunities to
benefit the City in accordance with the 2040 Plan. One example for future development could be
accomplished with future “emergency only access” through a fire gate to Foxwood Lane that would
enhance the safety and emergency access for all on Ridgewood, Future Ridgewood extensions and
Foxwood Lane, than would be available under the current McMillan plan, thus further serving the public
interest.
Additionally, Subdivision Ordinance (Title 11) provisions strongly support preserving future connectivity
and road access. The McMillan property at 1707 Delaware is part of the larger “low-density
“superblock”. Subdividing only the 1707 Delaware parcel without showing how streets could extend into
the 1695 adjacent parcel would seem to conflict with the City Code and the 2040 Plan.
Thank you in advance for your consideration. In the event I can not attend as I am currently out of state
for a longstanding obligation, I am respectfully requesting that the body of this letter above, be read
aloud at the meeting and entered into the record. Alternatively, if there is a possibility to participate
remotely, I would be more than welcome the chance to join electronically.
Lastly I am attaching for reference, a rough transcript of my notes from my prior testimony from the May
meeting for incorporation into this record and submission.
In conclusion, I am in support of the proposed plat as long as it provides continuity of access and utilities
to properties to the north by extending the right of way and street improvements to the north property
line of the project.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim and Michele Kolar
Cc: William Grifith, Larkin Hoffman
Page 379 of 555
Good evening.
My name is Jim Kolar and along with my wife Michele we have resided at
1695 Delaware since 2007 on 10 acres immediately adjacent to the
Macmillan’s property. We are only the second owners of this property.
I have appeared before this committee many times before with the Bader;s
development plans, Sullivan Acres a few years ago (the same property as
McMillan’s) and now for the second time McMillan Estates with this version
being substantially different than the prior proposal. This expansion of lots
now to 6, is a more densified development.
I have consistently supported all proposals of my adjacent property owners
with the repeated ask that my interests not be adversely harmed nor
landlocked either intentionally or unintentionally. In addition, I have
repeatedly asked that the Planning Commission AND the City Council take
a comprehensive approach to the planning of the “superblock” which
largely no longer exists. I will be the sole remaining original 10-acre lot
owner if this proposal is granted.
I am generally supportive of this proposal however, while I appreciate that
McMillan’s have extended the utility easement for both water and sewer at
the prior request of this committee, anything short of extending the cul-de-
sac with a similar 60’ “nub” as referred to in the Planning Commission
documents to abut my property will cause undue harm. This will limit future
opportunities for our property and the city. This is exactly how Ridgewood
was plotted and although there are no clear records to my knowledge it is
clear that the cul-de-sac “nub” abutted what is now the McMillan property,
providing for this future development opportunity. The developer in that
case appeared to be required to fully extend Ridgewood to create the ‘nub”
and remove future ambiguity or access.
Had the developers of Ridgewood merely provided an easement – some
20 years ago without fully extending the cul-de-sac, there would likely be
many more challenges to the McMillan’s current access including property
improvements, vegetation and tree growth etc. The establishment of the
“nub” was essential to providing the access the McMillan’s enjoy today.
3age 0 of
My request is now also the result of having smaller than 5 acre lots
proposed on McMillan estates and I am asking again for the long-term
vision of this Commission to allow similar future development to the North.
The back acreage of my property could accommodate 4 to 5 additional
similar sized lots and further provide opportunity for the Bader property. If
such extension is provided for, I would also provide the same “nub” access
consideration to the north upon further development of my property to the
Baders line no longer than the width of my property, from its starting point.,
when and should that be desired. In addition, because we and the Bader’s
own all adjacent property, I am not aware of any adverse owners to such
future development.
I would similarly agree to provide the same “nub” access to the North if /
when a future development was undertaken.
Form an equity standpoint, each property owner would bear the cost of the
roadway over the entirety of their own property subject to development. I
would be similarly bound to extend the entire width and ultimately Bader
the same. Stopping short puts and undue burden on the end property to
the North as I would seek to similarly stop any roadway short of the Bader
property of a similar distance as the McMillans to mine. Further a “future
roadway easement” provides for less clarity than the current Ridgewood
access, and potential future ambiguity and challenge possibly and
unintentionally limiting the same opportunity the McMillans are asking for.
Public policy supports the completion and extension of streets. Barring any
technical requirements, tonight’s action should not unreasonably land lock
me nor reduce my ability to utilize my property in a similar and compatible
fashion as the McMillans are requesting. The same benefit rationale to the
City as provided by the McMillans (greater tax revenue, infrastructure, etc)
would apply to a more comprehensive development plan.
Further – there are simple fixes that would address the Cul-de-sac issue for
emergency vehicle limitation if future development occurs. That could be
accomplished through the establishment of a future fire / emergency gate
only access straight through to Foxwood, whereby through traffic would be
prohibited but emergency vehicle access would be readily available. Fire
gate access would improve safety for residents of Ridgewood, Foxwood
and Emergency responders, over that which is currently proposed, and in
the long-term plan, better serving the public interest. That is likely for a
Page 381 of 555
future discussion but should be reasonably accommodated in a
Comprehensive plan by the city.
A comprehensive view and approach now will prevent the effective
landlocking of properties to the North, particularly our property at 1695
Delaware.
Thank you for your consideration and I am happy to answer any questions.
Please accept my apologies for not having this in your packet, however I
was only made aware of this full proposal on Sunday
Page 382 of 555
APPENDIX A: LIVING STREETS WORKSHEET 1
APPENDIX A:
LIVING STREETS WORKSHEET
The Living Streets Worksheet is envisioned to be used as a guide when reviewing any proposed
transportation projects. All transportation projects including public and private development with
construction impacting the public way shall promote the goals of a Living Street design during
all phases of planning, design, and construction. The goals of a Living Street design include
enabling safe, convenient, and comfortable travel and access for users of all ages and abilities,
regardless of their mode of transportation, with an additional emphasis on quality of life aspects.
The purpose of this worksheet is to verify any proposed transportation project meets the goals
promoted by the Living Streets Policy and guide implementation of the policy.
All proposed projects shall be designed in accordance with the most recent local, county, state,
and federal standards and guidelines. Supporting reference material should be used when
completing the worksheet including, but not limited to, any local, county, state, or federal
Comprehensive, Transportation, and/or Master Plans.
The Living Streets Worksheet is available in an electronic format as requested.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name McMillan Estates
Project Location (Roadway Name,
Start, & End Point; Include Map
Attachment)
Ridgewood Drive cul-de-sac and 1707 Delaware Avenue
Roadway Classification Local
Roadway Jurisdiction Mendota Heights
Project Manager Spencer McMillan
Page 383 of 555
APPENDIX A: LIVING STREETS WORKSHEET 2
SITE AND COMMUNITY CONTEXT
1) Describe the existing site conditions or area of study. Include information regarding
general land use, traits of the community such as new development or historic corridor,
adjacent planned development, as well as existing sociodemographic and health status
information.
This is a local road that ends in a cul-de-sac. The current road is roughly 650 long. We are
extending the road 570 ft so the total road length becomes roughly 1,220 ft. The lots on the
current road are R1 residential. The extension of the road will penetrate land that is zoned RE,
residential estate. The extension of the road will allow for 5 new buildable lots, zoned RE,
ranging from 1.22-3.7 acres. On the current road, there is a mix of younger families with
young children and older couples with no children living at home. I do not have information
on health status of the individuals that live on the current street.
2) What are the existing on-street and off-street multimodal accommodations within the
project corridor? Include all modes within the project vicinity (i.e. trails, sidewalks,
transit routes, bicycle lanes, etc.) or how far the nearest facility is.
There are no sidewalks or trails on the current street. There is a school to the south of the
current street entrance with a sidewalk and walking paths. See the snapshot below that points
out walking paths and sidewalks.
Page 384 of 555
APPENDIX A: LIVING STREETS WORKSHEET 3
3) Describe the proposed on-street and off-street multimodal accommodations. Identify
any proposed connections to adjacent facilities.
Page 385 of 555
APPENDIX A: LIVING STREETS WORKSHEET 4
We do not have any multimodal accommodations planned since it is a local road that ends in a
cul-de-sac. Residents can exit Ridgewood Dr and walk across Marie Avenue to quickly access
sidewalks and walking paths. There is currently no bike paths or sidewalks on the current
Ridgewood Dr.
4) Attach, or sketch, both the existing and proposed cross section for the project corridor.
Include multiple sections if site conditions vary and identify all pertinent elements and
dimensions.
5) Describe the existing stormwater runoff management and drainage patterns within the
project corridor. Identify any impaired water bodies within, or adjacent to, the site as
identified by the state and any existing pre-treatment devices or methods used for
improving rate control, infiltration, or stormwater quality.
Most of the site drains to Marie Creek which intersects the property. Rate control and volume
reduction will be provided in multiple infiltration basins. There are no impaired waters within
or adjacent to the site.
6) Are there any existing quality of life benefits within the project limits (i.e. trees offering
shade along a boulevard, Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations, etc)?
The newly proposed road is entering a very wooded area. We are trying to limit the number of
trees impacted to allow for good tree coverage and a serene and natural feel to the roadway.
Page 386 of 555
APPENDIX A: LIVING STREETS WORKSHEET 5
7) Do any adopted local, county, state, or federal plans call for any multimodal
improvements to any facilities within the project corridor? If yes, list applicable plan(s)
and improvement(s).
I am not aware of any.
Here is the feedback we received from Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director of Mendota
Heights.
“Constructing trails and sidewalks along the cul-de-sac street would not be a standard in
Mendota Heights so I do not feel that offstreet pedestrian facilities are warranted.”
8) Does the project include any multimodal, stormwater, or sustainability improvements as
called for by any local, county, state, or federal policies? If yes, list applicable policy(s)
and improvement(s).
Per the City of Mendota Heights land disturbance requirements for stormwater, there must be a
volume reduction of 1.1” for proposed new surfaces, no increase in peak runoff for 2, 10, and
100 year storm events, and no net increase in total phosphorous and total suspended solids. No
requirements for multimodal or sustainability were found.
TRANSPORTATION BASIS
9) Fill out the table below to describe the corridor’s volume distribution for available
information.
There are currently 8 houses that are currently on Ridgewood Drive. I am assuming 8 trips per
household per day in my calculations. I am assuming 2 deliveries per day via Amazon, Fedex,
or UPS. I am doubling it to 4 after the new road is constructed. I am assuming 2 trips per week
for garbage. This will likely remain the same after the new road is constructed.
Page 387 of 555
APPENDIX A: LIVING STREETS WORKSHEET 6
Description Existing Volume Projected Volume (10-year)
Average Daily Traffic 64+2+1=67 104+4+1=109
Passenger Car Volume 64 104
Heavy Vehicle Volume <3 <5
Pedestrian Count <10 <20
Bicycle Count <1 <2
10)Describe the existing and anticipated future trip generators for all users. Include
amenities or districts contributing to all users within project limits.
No additional amenities proposed.
11)Identify any known crash data or conflict points within the project corridor. Include any
information available pertaining to location, frequency, duration of period covered, and
trends between modes. Additional stakeholder and community input may be required to
obtain information needed.
The Fire Marshall was consulted for this project and he confirmed there are no safety concerns
and no concerns regarding emergency vehicle access or turn around capabilities. I do not know
of any accidents occurring on this street.
12)What are the existing vehicle speed conditions? Identify the posted speed limit for the
proposed roadway(s) and intersecting streets. Provide any known speed data or location
specific speeding issues within the project limits.
Page 388 of 555
APPENDIX A: LIVING STREETS WORKSHEET 7
Local urban roads are 30 MPH so I believe it is 30 mph. I am not aware of any speeding issues
on this road. There is a speed radar along Marie Ave to the east of Ridgewood Dr. It is
possible they are concerned about speed at that spot. See snapshot below.
13)List any intersections within the project limits between multiple functional roadway
classifications.
Page 389 of 555
APPENDIX A: LIVING STREETS WORKSHEET 8
14)Identify if there are any other classifications within the project corridor such as an
emergency vehicle route, transit route, or any other designated route.
None.
15)Does existing pedestrian infrastructure within the project limits comply with current
local, county, state, and federal guidelines?
Page 390 of 555
APPENDIX A: LIVING STREETS WORKSHEET 9
Yes.
PROJECT GOALS
16)Identify any known existing or anticipated design deficiencies within the project corridor
related to multimodal facilities, stormwater management, or sustainability.
I am not aware of any known existing issues.
Mendota Heights Staff would like the us to manage and implement all the stormwater mitigation
and not leave it to the new individual residential lot owners. This is one of the conditions of
approval.
No other issues.
17)Develop and describe the goals for the proposed corridor as they relate to the goals of a
Living Street.
We want to create a beautiful street to drive on that is surrounded by wooded areas, large lots,
and natural elements. We did our best to limit the impact on trees and wetlands. As a result, the
road curves with the contour of the land. There will be good tree coverage and low density lots
to retain the wooded feel of the neighborhood and the current land.
18)What multimodal facility improvements are proposed to be included within the project
corridor? This may include additional trail network, traffic calming efforts, pavement
marking changes, etc. Describe all improvements, locations, and decision-making
process.
Page 391 of 555
APPENDIX A: LIVING STREETS WORKSHEET 10
Since this is a short street that does not have a lot of traffic or pedestrian use, we did not include
additional improvements to the street. Here is the guidance we received from the Public Works
Director for Mendota Heights.
“Constructing trails and sidewalks along the cul-de-sac street would not be a standard in
Mendota Heights so I do not feel that offstreet pedestrian facilities are warranted.”
Since one of the goals of the Living Street initiative is a comparable or lower cost, we did not
feel it was warranted to add cost to the project for something that will add little value or use
(sidewalks, street markings, etc)
19)Describe all considerations made for additional, or alternative, multimodal facilities that
are not proposed to be included within the project corridor. Include information as to
why each improvement was not included.
We received feedback from Mendota Heights staff that they did not believe off street pedestrian
facilities were warranted so we did not include these. We wanted to make the street extension
match the design of the current road. We wanted the road extension to match the character of
the current road so they did not look disjointed.
20)What stormwater runoff improvements are proposed to be included within the project
corridor? This may include raingardens, sump manholes, or other pre-treatment devices
or methods. Describe all improvements, locations, and decision-making process.
There will be multiple infiltration basins to provide volume reduction, treatment, and rate control
for the proposed site improvements. Locations were chosen based on the site topography.
Infiltration was chosen because the soils are suitable and it is the only method capable of volume
reduction.
Page 392 of 555
APPENDIX A: LIVING STREETS WORKSHEET 11
21)What reductions for environmental impacts or sustainable improvements are proposed to
be included within the project corridor? This may include reducing the impervious
surface footprint within a project, including an Electric Vehicle (EV) charging station
within the corridor, or supporting active transportation to benefit the public health while
reducing environmental impacts. Describe all improvements, locations, and decision-
making process.
Designed the road to meet Mendota Heights design and construction specifications. It is as
narrow as possible while still complying with standards. We are adding an infiltration basin to
help with stormwater runoff.
22)Describe all considerations made for additional, or alternative, environmental impact
reductions or stormwater and sustainable improvements that are not proposed to be
included within the project corridor. Include information as to why each improvement
was not included.
Infiltration was chosen because it is the only method capable of meeting all stormwater
requirements by the city. No other options were considered.
23)Identify cost savings, benefits, and considerations. What improvements will provide cost
savings for long term maintenance or reconstruction?
Page 393 of 555
APPENDIX A: LIVING STREETS WORKSHEET 12
We are open to reducing the width of the proposed new road to limit stormwater runoff, help
save trees, and reduce the cost of construction and maintenance. However, we were trying to
design the road to Mendota Heights specification which is 33 ft wide.
IMPLEMENTATION
24)Who are the key personnel related to the project and what are their responsibilities?
Identify the project manager, stakeholders, etc. Include any additional project
information related to construction such as maintaining access for all users and project
schedule.
Spencer McMillan- Owner and developer
Curt Kallio, Sisu Land Surveying- Surveyor/Engineer
Lucius Jonet, Midwest Wetland Improvements, LLC- Wetland, Environmental, and Landscape
25)Describe the required maintenance routines for all improvements identified within the
worksheet. Include information regarding what the maintenance efforts include, how
often maintenance will be required, and responsible party(s) for all improvements.
Maintaining the newly constructed city road and cul-de-sac. See section in green below.
The old cul-de-sac wings will be filled in so there will be less asphalt and curb to maintain on
the old cul-de-sac.
Page 394 of 555
APPENDIX A: LIVING STREETS WORKSHEET 13
Page 395 of 555
Page 396 of 555
Page 397 of 555
Page 398 of 555
Page 399 of 555
Page 400 of 555
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2025-36
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MCMILLAN ESTATES
LOCATED AT 1707 DELAWARE AVENUE AND THE ADJACENT VACANT OUTLOTS
(PLANNING CASE NO. 2025-03)
WHEREAS, Spencer McMillan (the “Applicant” and “Owner”) submitted under Planning
Application Case No. 2025-03, a request of a new subdivision plat to be titled McMillan Estates, for
the properties located at 1707 Delaware Avenue and the adjoining vacant outlots, identified as Outlots
A and B, Grappendorf Addition (the “Subject Property”), and legally described in attached Exhibit A;
and
WHEREAS, the subject property is guided RR-Rural Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive
Plan and is situated in the R-E Residential Estate district; and
WHEREAS, Title 11-1-1 of the City Code (Subdivision Regulations) allows the subdivision of
properties, provided the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning
district; and
WHEREAS, the requested subdivision would encompass three (3) existing parcels of land from
the Subject Property to create six (6) single family lots on the Subject Property resulting in five (5) new
buildable single family lots, and which also provides for the dedication of new right-of-way extending
the cul-de-sac of Ridgewood Drive to provide access for the new buildable lots, the dedication of
additional right-of-way along Delaware Avenue for Dakota County, and dedication of drainage and
utility easements throughout the plat and over delineated wetlands; and
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2025, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission opened, held, and
closed a public hearing on the application request at their regular meeting, and whereupon receiving the
presented staff report and hearing testimony from nine (9) residents on the application, the Planning
Commission recommended unanimously to table the requested subdivision plat application to June 24,
2025; and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2025, the tabled application was presented by staff with follow-up on
discussion items from the prior meeting, and following discussion on this item and the agreement to
include two additional conditions of approval, the Planning Commission recommended 7-0 to approve
the requested Preliminary Plat application on the Subject Property; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
recommendation from the Planning Commission on Planning Case No. 2025-03 is hereby affirmed, and
the proposed Preliminary Plat of MCMILLAN ESTATES may be approved based on the following
findings-of-fact:
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
Page 401 of 555
Resolution No. 2025-36 Page 2 of 4
Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposed lots will meet the minimum standards required under the R-E Residential Estate
Zoning District.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Preliminary
Plat of MCMILLAN ESTATES is hereby approved, 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
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.
Page 402 of 555
Resolution No. 2025-36 Page 3 of 4
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.
15.The Applicant/Developer shall revise the Preliminary Plat to provide dedicated Right-of-Way
at 60-ft in width extending north of the proposed new Ridgewood Drive cul-de-sac bulb to the
north boundary of the plat. This area shall be dedicated Right-of-Way rather than an easement
for utilities, and is not required to be constructed as a street extension stub with this
Development. There must be a 60-foot right-of-way dedicated to the north boundary of the
plat.
16.The Applicant/Developer must incorporate tree protection measures into the Forest
Management Plan for the site, and aAn attempt must be made to mitigate tree damage to
adjacent properties through the use of protection measures in accordance with MnDOT
Standard Specifications for Construction, Specification #2572 and additional measures such as
deep mulching if root pruning or root compaction cannot be avoided during the construction
phase of this Development.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights on this 1st day of July, 2025.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Nancy Bauer, City Clerk
Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
3DJH RI
Resolution No. 2025-36 Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description:
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
Page 404 of 555
This page is intentionally left blank
9.d
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 1, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2025-37 Approving a Variance to allow for the construction of a
fence exceeding 6-ft in height for the property located at 1341 Cherry Hill
Road. (Planning Case 2025-07)
ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community
Development Manager
ACTION REQUEST:
Adopt Resolution 2025-37 Approving a Variance to allow the construction of a 9-ft fence on
the property located at 1341 Cherry Hill Road.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Daniel Michel, is requesting a Variance to residential fence height standards for
his property located at 1341 Cherry Hill Road. 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.
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 applicant’s existing rear-yard fence in 9-ft in height, which was approved by the
City in 2019 under a separate Variance request for the prior property owner. 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.
The applicant has indicated that the requested fence would provide additional privacy from
the elevation changes on the property and sightlines from Wachter Avenue, and then would
taper down to 6-ft to maintain a consistent appearance with the surrounding residential
fences. Staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission added a condition which would
dictate that the tapering of the fence from 9-ft to 6-ft must begin at a point 15-ft inward
westerly of the rear property line.
At the June 24, 2025, Planning Commission meeting, a full planning report was presented. A
duly noticed public hearing was held, and no members of the public spoke to the application
Page 405 of 555
as part of the public hearing in support of the application. The applicant/property owner was
in the audience, and was present to speak to the application and to answer questions from the
Planning Commissioners.
The Planning Commission discussed the staff recommendation for a tapering of the fence
height, and that the element of practical difficulty is not relevant for a fence height at 9-ft on
the entirety of the fence segment. The Commission discussed the possibility of modifying the
staff recommended condition relating to the specific details of the tapering, but through
discussion did not opt to modify the type or point of beginning of the taper.
A copy of the June 24 planning report with attachments and an excerpt from the unapproved
minutes are attached to this memo. As noted in the attachment, staff recommended approval
of the Variance request. Following their discussion, the Planning Commission determined that
the applicant met the conditions set forth in City Code Title 12-5B-7: Variances and affirmed
that the Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in
order to justify the granting of the Variance to City Code as it relates to fence height R-1 Low
Density Residential District. The Planning Commission voted unanimously (6-0) in support of
the Variance request with findings-of-fact and certain conditions, as outlined in the attached
[draft] Resolution.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
Not Applicable
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Resolution 2025-37
2.Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes 6-24-25
3.June 24 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report
4.Fence Segment Diagram
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy
Page 406 of 555
Res. No 2024-41 Page | 1
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2025-37
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE
TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCE EXCEEDING 6-FT IN
HEIGHT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1341 CHERRY HILL ROAD
PLANNING CASE 2025-07
WHEREAS, Daniel Michel (the Applicant and Owner) applied for a Variance to allow the
construction of a fence 9-ft in height, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2025-07, and as legally
described in attached Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”); and
WHEREAS, the subject property is guided Low Density Residential in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan, situated in the R-1 Low Density Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking approval of a Variance request to allow a fence to
be constructed at 9-ft in height along the north side yard property line, as opposed to the maximum
6-ft permitted in the R-1 Zoning District, as proposed and presented under Planning Case No.
2025-07; and
WHEREAS, Title 12-5B-7 of the City Code (Variances) allows for the Council to grant
variances or certain modifications from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code,
and impose conditions and safeguards with variances if so needed or granted; and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2025, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public
hearing on the proposed Variance, and whereupon closing the hearing, recommended unanimously
(6-0 vote) to approve the application for Variances on the subject property, with certain conditions
and findings-of-fact to support said approval.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
recommendation from the Planning Commission on Planning Case No. 2025-07 is hereby
affirmed, and the Variance requested for the property located at 1341 Cherry Hill Road is approved
based on the following findings-of-fact:.
1. 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.”
Page 407 of 555
Res. No 2024-41 Page | 2
2. 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:
a. 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;
b. 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;
c. 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;
d. 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.
e. 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.
3. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-5B-7 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.
4. 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.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Variance
requested for the property located at 1341 Cherry Hill Road is hereby approved, with the following
conditions:
Page 408 of 555
Res. No 2024-41 Page | 3
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.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 1st day of July 2025.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Bauer, City Clerk
Page 409 of 555
Res. No 2024-41 Page | 4
EXHIBIT A
Property Address: 1341 Cherry Hill Road
PIN: 27-17151-03-040
Legal Description: Lot 4, Block 3, Cherry Hill 2nd Addition
Page 410 of 555
DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EXCERPT FROM DRAFT/UNAPPROVED 6/24/25 PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
A) PLANNING CASE 2025-07
DANIEL MICHEL, 1341 CHERRY HILL ROAD – VARIANCE
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that 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 is nine feet in height, and the existing side
yard fence is six feet in height. The request is to replace the six-foot segment of fencing on
the side property line with fencing nine feet tall, consistent with the existing rear yard
segment, and tapering to six-foot fencing as the fence segment proceeds west.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments
or objections to this request were received.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a planning staff report and a
presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing
through the City’s website).
Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the distance of 15 feet from the property line is referencing the
corner of the fence.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the existing fence is roughly
located on the property line; therefore, that distance would be measured from the corner
of the fence, which is the property line.
Commissioner Corbett asked how the dimensions were decided.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained how she created that
recommendation, noting that is open to adjustment from the Commission.
Commissioner Stone asked if the property owner would be required to maintain the grass on the
other side of the fence.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the property owner would be
responsible for mowing their own property. She stated that the boulevard between the trail
and the fence is currently maintained by the applicant and would continue to do so.
Commissioner Corbett asked for more information on the grade changes between the properties.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that the grade changes are east to west.
She stated that the prior approval considered the grade changes between the property line
and the trail.
Page 411 of 555
DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES
Danny Michel, applicant, stated that he likes the recommendation from staff to taper the fence as
that would flow more with the contours of the land. He stated that the property behind the
fence is the Dakota County right-of-way, noting that he has received permission from the
County to maintain that area and plant bushes. He asked for clarification on the degree
of the taper for the fence, noting that he cannot receive a quote from a fence company
without that information. He stated that they enjoy their backyard and just want the
property to be safe for their children. He noted a previous tree that needed to be removed
and bushes that did not work, which would have provided the desired privacy. He
commented that the fence seems to be the best option.
Commissioner Goldade asked if there had been a conversation with the property at 1411
Farmdale, as they would see the taller fence.
Mr. Michel replied that he had been told by neighbors that the property owner is not currently in
the home, so they were unable to obtain his signature.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Commissioner Corbett stated that he mostly aligns with the amended recommendation by staff.
He stated that his question was related to where the tapering begins. He stated that
someone standing on a deck and seeing into someone else’s backyard would not be
justification alone for a taller fence.
Commissioner Johnson agreed with the comment that neighbors standing on a porch and seeing
into another yard would not be a practical difficulty. She stated that she could agree with
a taller fence at the corner, but was unsure that 15 feet was the right length for the taper.
She stated that she would like the fence to meet the six-foot height sooner rather than later,
as that is the standard.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained how she came to the 15-foot length
recommendation. She recognized that the applicant wanted clarification on the type of
taper and noted that while she did not specify the method of taper, the Commission could
provide input.
Page 412 of 555
DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES
Commissioner Stone commented that he had a similar fence and elevation change, noting that they
installed a six-foot fence that ended up being 4.5 feet. He stated that he does not oppose
the request.
Commissioner Johnson stated that she could support either the terraced or angled taper, but did
not want to see the nine-foot extend for a long stretch into the neighbor’s yard.
Commissioner Corbett agreed that the practical difficulty loses its argument at some point, as the
practical difficulty is Wachtler. He stated that he trusts the staff recommendation and that
the staff and the applicant could decide on the type of taper.
Commissioner Johnson referenced the side property line, which abuts 1411, and asked the distance
of the property line.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the existing fence in that location
is 105 or 106 feet.
COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GOLDADE, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST, WITH CERTAIN
CONDITIONS BASED ON CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT, AS INCLUDED, 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 NINE FEET IN HEIGHT, AS
MEASURED AT A POINT SIX INCHES BELOW THE TOP OF THE SUPPORTED
POSTS.
3. THE PROPOSED FENCE SHALL TAPER FROM NINE FEET TO SIX FEET,
BEGINNING AT THE POINT 15 FEET INWARD TO THE WEST FROM THE EXISTING
FENCE BOUNDARY ADJACENT TO WACHTLER AVENUE.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised that the City Council would consider this application at its July 1, 2025,
meeting.
Page 413 of 555
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 414 of 555
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 415 of 555
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 416 of 555
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 417 of 555
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 418 of 555
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 419 of 555
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 420 of 555
66
66
66
6666
6
6
66
66
6 6
6
6
66
!
""
"
³
*"
³
³
*
³
³
"
"
*
*
³""
"!
*
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
66
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
!!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
WA
C
H
T
L
E
R
A
V
E
CH
E
R
R
Y
H
I
L
L
R
D
PARK P
L
A
C
E
D
R
LOWER COLONIAL DR
Nearmap US Inc, Dakota County, MN
Site Location/Aerial Map1341 Cherry Hill Road
Date: 6/19/2025
City of
Mendota
Heights0125
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 421 of 555
Page 422 of 555
Page 423 of 555
Page 424 of 555
Page 425 of 555
Page 426 of 555
Page 427 of 555
Page 428 of 555
Page 429 of 555
Page 430 of 555
Page 431 of 555
Page 432 of 555
Page 433 of 555
Page 434 of 555
Page 435 of 555
Page 436 of 555
Page 437 of 555
Page 438 of 555
Page 439 of 555
Page 440 of 555
Page 441 of 555
Page 442 of 555
Page 443 of 555
Page 444 of 555
Page 445 of 555
Page 446 of 555
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 447 of 555
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 448 of 555
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 449 of 555
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 450 of 555
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 451 of 555
Fence Segment Diagram
Blue: 15-ft length, of a 9-ft tall fence
Note: At the intersection of the blue and red segments, the fence will begin to taper to the standard 6-ft tall fence
Page 452 of 555
9.e
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 1, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2025-38 Approving a Conditional Use Permit Amendment for
Glenn Baron (representing The Heights Racquet & Social Club) for the
outdoor commercial recreation use located at 1415 Mendota Heights Road.
(Planning Case 2025-08)
ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community
Development Manager
ACTION REQUEST:
Adopt Resolution 2025-38 Approving a Conditional Use Permit Amendment for the outdoor
commercial recreation use located at 1415 Mendota Heights Road
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Glenn Baron, represents The Heights Social and Raquetball Club in their request
to modify their Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 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.
The subject property is located on the northwestern corner of the intersection of Mendota
Heights Road and Pilot Knob Road, within an existing multi-tenant building owned by the
applicant. This business previously received CUP approval for the indoor commercial
recreation of the Racquet Club in 2022, and opened in late 2023. In 2024, the applicant
received City approval for a CUP for the outdoor commercial recreation component. Only
some of the approved outdoor improvements were installed in 2024, and this current
application request modifies that approval.
The Applicant is proposing to construct outdoor padel courts, which require a glass wall
perimeter 10-ft in height. To enhance the club facility's ability to offer outdoor recreation, the
applicant is 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
Page 453 of 555
permit), and expanding their paved parking areas. The proposed exterior lighting
improvements, and additional parking facilities are consistent with the minimum requirements
of the City Code.
At the June 24, 2025, Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented. A duly
noticed public hearing was held, and no members of the public spoke to the application as
part of the public hearing. The applicant was in the audience, and present to speak to the
application and to answer questions from the Planning Commissioners.
The Planning Commission discussed the lighting details, seasonal use of the outdoor courts on
site, and expressed support for the business and use.
A copy of the 06/24/25 planning report with attachments and an excerpt from the unapproved
minutes are attached to this memo. As noted in the attachment, staff recommended approval
of the CUP Amendment request. Following their discussion, the Planning Commission
determined that the applicant met the conditions set forth in City Code Title 12-3B-4:
Business/Commercial Use Specific Regulations and affirmed the staff recommendation,
modifying the condition relating to hours of operation to omit the language 'be seasonal'. The
Planning Commission voted unanimously (7-0) in support of the Variance request with
findings-of-fact and certain conditions, as outlined in the attached [draft] Resolution.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
Not Applicable
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Res. 2025-38 Approving a CUP Amendment for Glenn Baron (representing The Heights
Racquet & Social Club) for the outdoor commercial
2.Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes 6-24-25
3.June 24 2025, Planning Commission Staff Report
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy
Page 454 of 555
Resolution No. 2025-38 Page | 1
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2025-38
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR
THE OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL RECREATION USE LOCATED
AT 1415 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD
PLANNING CASE 2025-08
WHEREAS, Glenn Baron, (the Applicant and Owners’ representative of Lamar, LLC),
requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment under Planning Case No. 2025-
08, which would modify the outdoor commercial recreation use approval and approved site plan
located at 1415 Mendota Heights Road, and legally described on Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is guided Industrial in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and
situated in the I-Industrial Zoning District, and
WHEREAS, Title 12-3B-4 of the City Code allows certain “outdoor commercial
recreation” uses by Conditional Use Permit in the Industrial District, and the proposed outdoor
Padel courts meet the qualifications and definitions as an outdoor recreational use accessory to an
approved indoor recreational use; and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2025 the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public
hearing on this application request following a presentation of the planning report, and comments
from the applicant and public were allowed, and whereupon closing the hearing, the Commission
recommended unanimously (7-0 vote) to approve the request from Glenn Baron for the CUP
Amendment, which would allow the modifications to the approved outdoor commercial recreation
use, located at 1415 Mendota Heights Road, as proposed and presented under Planning Case No.
2025-08, with certain conditions identified herein and specific findings-of-fact to support said
approval.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
recommendation from the Planning Commission on Planning Case No. 2025-08 is hereby
affirmed, and the Conditional Use Permit Amendment requested for the property located at 1415
Mendota Heights Road is approved based on the following findings-of-fact.
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.
Page 455 of 555
Resolution No. 2025-38 Page | 2
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
multitenant 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.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
Conditional Use Permit Amendment requested for the property located at 1415 Mendota Heights
Road is hereby approved, with the following conditions:
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 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.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 1st day of July 2025.
Page 456 of 555
Resolution No. 2025-38 Page | 3
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Bauer, City Clerk
Page 457 of 555
Resolution No. 2025-38 Page | 4
EXHIBIT A
Address: 1415 Mendota Heights Road
PIN: 270330078070
Legal Description: THE NORTH 430.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 1,750 FEET OF THE EAST 660 FEET OF
GOVERNMENT LOT 1 & 2, EXCEPT THE SOUTH 40 FEET, SECTION 33 TOWNSHIP 28
RANGE 23, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA; AND EXCLUDING PARCEL NO. 46D OF
MINNESOTA DOT R/W MAP 19-93.
[Abstract Property]
Page 458 of 555
DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EXCERPT FROM DRAFT/UNAPPROVED 6/24/25 PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
B) PLANNING CASE 2025-08
GLENN BARON, 1415 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AMENDMENT
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that Glenn Baron represents The
Heights Social and Racquetball 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.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments
or objections to this request were received.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a planning staff report and a
presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing
through the City’s website).
Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions.
Commissioner Corbett referenced the recommended condition that the activity would be seasonal
and asked if that is necessary.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that was a carryover condition
from the previous approval, but agreed that could be omitted.
Commissioner Johnson appreciated the lighting information that was supplied. She asked if the
lighting is downcast.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that all exterior lighting in the city
is required to be downcast.
Glenn Baron, applicant, and Frank Zenk were present to address any questions of the Commission.
Mr. Zenk stated that they are very excited to bring this outdoor padel activity to the
community. He provided background information on the planning that has been done to
properly plan for this use and welcomed any questions.
Chair Field commented that the charts provided were amazing.
Commissioner Goldade recognized the value that the indoor portion of the business has added to
the community. He asked why the business is interested in expanding outdoors for such a
short season.
Page 459 of 555
DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES
Mr. Zenk replied that they would like to provide an exciting venue for their members in the summer,
and people like to be outdoors when they can. He stated that padel also benefits from not
having the limitation of a roof. He stated that pickleball players might enjoy the indoor
environment because of the type of ball used and to avoid the wind, where the wind and
outdoor environment add to the enjoyment of padel.
Mr. Baron commented that they have also run out of indoor space.
Mr. Zenk commented that they would not intend to use the outdoor courts once the snow falls. He
agreed that it would be helpful to remove that condition or clarify that the area will not be
used during times of snow.
Commissioner Johnson commented that this is an allowed use in the industrial district, and there
has been no negative impact on residential properties in terms of noise or sound.
Commissioner Udell arrived.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR
1415 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
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 AMENDMENT 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 LIMITED TO 6 A.M. TO 11:30 P.M.
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 MANGEMENT PLANS
SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION WHICH SHOW
EXISTING CONTOURS, PROPOSED GRADING ELEVATIONS, STORMWATER
MANGEMENT 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
Page 460 of 555
DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES
AS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE
DOCUMENT.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised that the City Council would consider this application at its July 1, 2025,
meeting.
Page 461 of 555
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 courts, and
2,178 sq-ft of padel courts. Two pickleball courts were constructed in 2024, but the padel
courts were not.
Page 462 of 555
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 463 of 555
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 464 of 555
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 465 of 555
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 466 of 555
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 467 of 555
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 468 of 555
66 66
6
6
66
6666 66 6666
66
66
66
66 66 66
66
66
6
6
66
66
66 6666
66
66
66
66
6
6
66
6
6
6
6
66
66
6
6
66
66
66
6
6
66
66
66
6666
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
6
6
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
6
6
66
6 6
66
6
6
6666
66
66
6
6
66
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
666
6
6
6 6 6
6
6
6 6
6
6 666
6
6
6
6
6
6
6 66
F
M
F M
FM
FM FM FM FM FM FM FM
F M F M
6
NORTHLAND DR
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
1
3
MENDOTA HEIGHTS RD
PI
L
O
T
K
N
O
B
R
D
ENTERPRISE DR
SI
B
L
E
Y
M
E
M
O
R
I
A
L
H
W
Y
SIB
L
E
Y
M
E
M
O
R
I
A
L
H
W
Y
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
1
3
Nearmap US Inc, Dakota County, MN
Location Aerial Map1415 Mendota Heights Road
Date: 1/23/2024
City of
Mendota
Heights0310
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 469 of 555
Page 470 of 555
Page 471 of 555
Page 472 of 555
Pickleball 2(existing)
Type text hereAttachment C Existing Site Plan with existing parking
Page 473 of 555
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 474 of 555
3
Existing Site within Industrial Neighborhood
Attachment B
Page 475 of 555
4
Existing Site
Page 476 of 555
5
Existing Site
(With 1’ contours)
Page 477 of 555
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 478 of 555
•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 47 of 555
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 480 of 555
Padel Court Outdoor Installation Gallery
2
Helsinki, Finland
Page 481 of 555
Date 5/11/2025
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
D
I
A
L
u
x
1415 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.
NDec260md333
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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
NDec261md333
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
NDec262md333
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
NDec263md333
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
NDec264md333
The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project
Images
6
Heights Outdoor Padel Courts Overhead
Contours Zoomed Quantitative
NDec265md333
The Heights Outdoor Padel Court Project
Heights Outdoor Padel Courts
Luminaire layout plan
7
NDec266md333
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
NDec267md333
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
NDec27.md333
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
NDec27/md333
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))
NDec270md333
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))
NDec271md333
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))
NDec272md333
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))
NDec273md333
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))
NDec274md333
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
NDec275md333
This page is intentionally left blank
9.f
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 1, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2025-39 Approving a Variance to the rear yard setback to allow
for the construction of a new three-season porch addition located at 2150
Aztec Lane (Planning Case 2025-09)
ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community
Development Manager
ACTION REQUEST:
Adopt Resolution 2025-39, Approving a Variance request at 2150 Aztec Lane
BACKGROUND:
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 location of the existing deck is currently non-conforming to the rear yard setback, so this
proposal requires a Variance application and approval in order to authorize the construction of
a new porch structure at this existing setback.
The subject parcel is approximately 9,582 square feet in size and contains a single-family
dwelling.The existing single-family home was built in 1957, and the existing deck is aging and
in need of replacement. The applicant intends to construct a new porch in the rear yard,
generally in place of the existing rear deck structure. The existing dwelling currently is setback
approximately 25-ft from the rear property line at its closest point, 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 location 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. The request is for a 15-ft setback Variance to the rear yard
structure setback requirement.
At the June 24, 2025, Planning Commission meeting, a full planning report was presented. A
duly noticed public hearing was held, and one member of the public spoke to the application
as part of the public hearing in support of the application. The applicant was in the audience,
and was present to speak to the application and to answer questions from the Planning
Commissioners.
Page 498 of 555
The Planning Commission discussed the site and situation of the existing property, the
impervious surface on site, noting its compliance with City Code standards, and discussed the
different explanations provided in the staff report related to this property's practical difficulty
and lot size.
A copy of the June 24th planning report with attachments and an excerpt from the
unapproved minutes are attached to this memo. As noted in the attachment, staff
recommended approval of the Variance request. Following their discussion, the Planning
Commission determined that the applicant met the conditions set forth in City Code Title 12-
5B-7: Variances and affirmed that the Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the
requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance to City Code as it
relates to the rear yard setback in the R-1 Low Density Residential District. The Planning
Commission voted unanimously (7-0) in support of the Variance request with findings-of-fact
and certain conditions, as outlined in the attached [draft] Resolution.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
Not Applicable
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Res. 2025-39 Approving a Variance to the rear yard setback to allow for the construction
of a new three-season porch addition located at 2150 Aztec L
2.Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes 6-24-25
3.June 24 2025, Planning Commission Staff Report
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy
Page 499 of 555
Res. No 2025-39 Page | 1
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2025-39
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE
REAR-YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE-
SEASON PORCH ADDITION
LOCATED AT 2150 AZTEC LANE
PLANNING CASE 2025-09
WHEREAS, Darrel Tutewohl (the Applicant and Owner) applied for a Variance to allow
the construction of a new three-season porch addition in the rear yard of the property located at
2150 Aztec Lane, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2025-09, and as legally described in
attached Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”); and
WHEREAS, the subject property is guided Low Density Residential in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan, situated in the R-1 Single Family Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking approval of a Variance request to allow a new 12’ x
10’ three-season porch which would be setback 15-ft from the rear property line, as opposed to the
minimum 30-ft rear yard setback, as proposed and presented under Planning Case No. 2025-09;
and
WHEREAS, Title 12-5B-7 of the City Code (Variances) allows for the Council to grant
variances or certain modifications from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code,
and impose conditions and safeguards with variances if so needed or granted; and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2025, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public
hearing on the proposed Variance, and whereupon closing the hearing, recommended unanimously
(7-0 vote) to approve the application for Variance on the subject property, with certain conditions
and findings-of-fact to support said approval.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
recommendation from the Planning Commission on Planning Case No. 2025-09 is hereby
affirmed, and the Variance requested for the property located at 2150 Aztec Lane is approved
based on the following findings-of-fact:.
1. 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
Page 500 of 555
Res. No 2025-39 Page | 2
considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.”
2. 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:
a. 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;
b. 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
c. 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.
3. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-5B-7 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.
4. 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.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Variance
requested for the property located at 2150 Aztec Lane is hereby approved, with the following
conditions:
1. The fifteen-foot setback Variance is exclusively for the construction of a 10-ft x 12-ft
three-season porch in the rear yard.
2. The Applicant shall not deviate from the porch 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.
Page 501 of 555
Res. No 2025-39 Page | 3
3. No work begins on the proposed porch construction until a building permit has been
issued by the City.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 1st day of July 2025.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Bauer, City Clerk
Page 502 of 555
Res. No 2025-39 Page | 4
EXHIBIT A
Property Address: 2150 Aztec Lane
PIN: 27-27800-05-080
Legal Description: Lot 8, Block 5, Friendly Hills Rearrangement
Page 503 of 555
DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EXCERPT FROM DRAFT/UNAPPROVED 6/24/25 PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
C) PLANNING CASE 2025-09
DARREL TUTEWOHL, 2150 AZTEC LANE – VARIANCE
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that 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.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments
or objections to this request were received.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a planning staff report and a
presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing
through the City’s website).
Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the impervious surface was calculated for the property.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the property still meets the
impervious surface calculation as the porch is the same size as the deck.
Commissioner Corbett asked if there is an overlay for older homes.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that is incorrect, as that was removed
in the recent ordinance update.
Commissioner Goldade asked for details on the ownership of the rear property and the plans for
development.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the Dakota County Community
Development Agency owns that property, and at this time, there is no plan to develop this
site.
Darrel Tutewohl, applicant, stated that they have been at the property for 53 years. He explained
that the deck is starting to deteriorate, and with their age, they would like more protection
from the sun and insects. He noted that the porch would be slightly smaller than the deck
to be flush with the wall. He stated that they are attempting to obtain to do what they can
do on their small lot.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Page 504 of 555
DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES
Gary Fischbach, 2155 Fox, stated that he also has a three-season patio on his home. He stated
that he likes to see people improving their property and enjoying their property. He
commented that the neighbors support this project and enjoy the wooded Dakota County
property behind this property. He asked that the Commission support the request.
Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close
the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NATH, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Commissioner Corbett commented that the justification of the applicant’s narrative was off, but
noted that the explanation of staff was correct, and therefore, his motion is based on the
recommendation and justification provided by staff rather than the applicant.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE 15-FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PORCH, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT
AND SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS INCLUDED HEREIN, WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THE 15-FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE IS EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A 10 X 12 THREE-SEASON PORCH IN THE REAR YARD.
2. THE APPLICANT SHALL NOT DEVIATE FROM THE PORCH 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.
Further discussion: Commissioner Johnson stated that even though it is a smaller lot size, the
impervious surface maximum is still not exceeded.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised that the City Council would consider this application at its July 1, 2025,
meeting.
Page 505 of 555
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 506 of 555
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 507 of 555
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 508 of 555
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 509 of 555
Page 510 of 555
7KLV Sage LV LQWeQWLoQaOO\ OefW EOaQN
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 511 of 555
66
66
66
66 6666 66
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
"!
"
"
"
³"
³
"
6
6
6 6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
!!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
2112
790
2170
AZT
E
C
L
N
FO
X
P
L
HOKAH AVE
Nearmap US Inc, Dakota County, MN
Site Location/Aerial Map2150 Aztec Lane
Date: 6/19/2025
City of
Mendota
Heights0125
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 512 of 555
Page 513 of 555
Page 514 of 555
Page 515 of 555
Page 516 of 555
Page 517 of 555
9.g
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 1, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2025-40 Approving a MRCCA Permit and Conditional Use Permit
Amendment Application for Northern States Power Company (Xcel Energy)
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 (Planning Case 2025-10)
ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community
Development Manager
ACTION REQUEST:
Adopt Resolution 2025-40 Approving a MRCCA Permit and CUP Amendment for Northern
States Power Company (Xcel Energy) to allow site improvements at the property located at
800 Sibley Memorial Highway
BACKGROUND:
Xcel Energy (Northern States Power Company) is seeking approval of a Mississippi River
Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit and Conditional Use Permit (CUP), 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.
The subject property 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). The site is open and cleared, containing 37 horizontal laying
propane tanks in the rear of the property, and has a perimeter security style fencing, and
contains a number of support structures and buildings that house office/work spaces,
maintenance areas, and valve/mixing rooms in addition to the primary focus of the propane
tanks.
This specific MRCCA Permit and CUP Amendment 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
Page 518 of 555
all new life safety upgrades and existing controls for the facility. This new control center will be
essential to Xcel's services and work to consolidate equipment and upgrade the existing
technology on site. After installation of the new electrical control building, the existing control
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 land use approvals reviewed by the City in both 2022
and 2024. The work under this current proposal is scheduled to take place this Summer 2025.
At the June 25, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented. A duly
noticed public hearing was held, and no members of the public spoke to the application as
part of the public hearing. The applicant’s representatives were in the audience, and were
present to speak to the application and to answer questions from the Planning
Commissioners. The applicant group spoke to clarify the location of the new structure, and
add additional technical context on the use and need for the building. The Planning
Commission discussed the proximity of the new structure to the site boundary and forested
areas, confirming that the proposed impacts are within the fenced-in compound and not
impacting the natural features and priority areas within the MRCCA district.
A copy of the 06/24/25 planning report with attachments and an excerpt from the unapproved
minutes are attached to this memo. As noted in the attachment, staff recommended approval
of the application request. Following their discussion, the Planning Commission affirmed the
staff recommendation and voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend to the City Council
approval of this MRCCA Permit and amended CUP request with findings-of-fact and certain
conditions, as outlined in the attached [draft] Resolution.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
Not Applicable
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Res. 2025-40 Approving a MRCCA Permit and CUP Amendment Application for Northern
States Power Company (Xcel Energy)
2.Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes 6-24-25
3.June 24 2025, Planning Commission Staff Report
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Environmental Sustainability & Stewardship
Page 519 of 555
Resolution No. 2025-40 Page | 1
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2025-40
RESOLUTION APPROVING A MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA
(MRCCA) PERMIT AND AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) TO XCEL
ENERGY AND FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
800 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
PLANNING CASE 2025-10
WHEREAS, Xcel Energy, (the “Applicant”) made an Application for a Mississippi River
Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit and amended Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to update
the approved site plan and install a new 24-ft x 24-ft concrete foundation pad to house a new
prefabricated electrical control building at their existing Sibley Propane Gas Plant facility, located
at 800 Sibley Memorial Highway (State Trunk Highway 13), and legally described in Exhibit A
(the “Subject Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LB-Limited Business in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan, zoned B-1 General Business, and is situated in the Mississippi River
Corridor Critical Area Overlay District; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Title 12-6A-3: Mississippi River Corridor Critical
Area Overlay District, a permit is required to approve any new development activities involving a
building permit, land disturbance, vegetation removal, or special zoning approval, and the
Applicant is seeking permission to make new safety upgrades and site improvements under the
rules and standards established by the B-1 District and the related Mississippi River Corridor
Critical Overlay District ordinance and standards; and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2025, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing on the proposed MRCCA Permit and amended CUP application, and whereupon
closing the hearing, recommended 7-0 to approve the MRCCA Permit and amended CUP, which
would allow the site improvements on the subject property, with certain conditions and findings-
of-fact to support said approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that
the recommendation from the Planning Commission on Planning Case No. 2025-10 is hereby
affirmed, and may be approved based on the following findings-of-fact:
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.
Page 520 of 555
Resolution No. 2025-40 Page | 2
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.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the MRCCA
Permit and amended CUP requested for the property located at 800 Sibley Memorial Highway is
hereby approved, 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.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 1st day of July 2025.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor
Page 521 of 555
Resolution No. 2025-40 Page | 3
ATTEST:
Nancy Bauer, City Clerk
Page 522 of 555
Resolution No. 2025-40 Page | 4
EXHIBIT A
Address: 800 Sibley Memorial Highway
PIN: 27-02300-02-013, 27-01400-75-011
Legal Description:
Real property in the County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, described as follows:
ABSTRACT PARCELS:
1. LOTS FIVE (5) THROUGH NINE (9),BLOCK TWO (2),CHERRY HILL SECOND ADDITION,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF ON FILE AND OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER AND FOR DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
2. THE EAST FORTY (40} RODS OF THE SOUTH FORTY (40) RODS OF GOVERNMENT LOT TWO (2)
IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION
TWENTY-THREE (23}, TOWNSHIP TWENTY-EIGHT (28), RANGE TWENTY-THREE (23),
ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT SURVEY THEREOF.
EXCEPT,
THAT PART OF THE EAST FORTY (40) RODS OF THE SOUTH (40) RODS OF GOVERNMENT LOT
TWO (2) IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1 /4} OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1 /4) OF
SECTION TWENTY -THREE (23), TOWNSHIP TWENTY-EIGHT (28), RANGE TWENTY-THREE (23),
ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT SURVEY THEREOF, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST FORTY (40) RODS OF THE SOUTH
FORTY (40) RODS OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT TWO (2}; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE WEST
LINE THEREOF FOR 409.87 FEETTO AN INTERSECTION WITH LINE "A" WHICH LIES
SOUTHEASTERLY AND NORTHWESTERLY AT AN ANGLE OF 54° 30' TO SAID WEST LINE;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID WEST LINE TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE WHICH IS
PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 75 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY OF SAID LINE "A"; THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINETOANINTERSECTION WITH A CURVED LINE
WHICH IS PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 150 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY, EASTERLY AND
NORTHEASTERLY OF LINE "B" DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
FROM A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST FORTY (40) RODS OF THE SOUTH FORTY (40)
RODS OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT TWO (2), DISTANT 409.87 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHWEST
CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY FROM SAID POINT AT AN ANGLE OF 54° 30' TO
SAID WEST LINE FOR 173.25 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGI NN1NG OF LINE "811 TO BE
DESCRIBED; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE LAST DESCRIBED COURSE FOR 100 FEET;
THENCE DEFLECT TO THE LEFT ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 150 FEET, (DELTA ANGLE
140°13'44") FOR 367.12 FEET;THENCE DEFLECT TOTHE LEFTON A 7°30'CURVE (DELTA ANGLE
34°00') FOR 453.33 FEET AND THERE TERMINATING;
THENCE ALONG SAID CURVED PARALLEL LINE CURVING TO THE LEFTTO ITS INTERSECTION
WITH A LINE WHICH LIES NORTHEASTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE TANGENT OF THE 7°30'
CURVE DESCRIBED ABOVE TO A POINT ON SAID TANGENT DISTANT 413.57 FEET
SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE POINT OF TERMINATION OF SAID LINE "B"; THENCE
Page 523 of 555
Resolution No. 2025-40 Page | 5
SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID RIGHT ANGLED LINE FOR 70 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY
ALONG A LINE WHICHS PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 80 FEET NORTHEASTERLY OF SAID
LINE "B"TO THE INTERSECTION OF SAID PARALLEL LINE WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE EAST
FORTY(40)RODSOFTHE SOUTH FORTY(40}RODSOF SAIDGOVERNMENT LOTTW0(2); THENCE
WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
3. THE WEST 375 FEET OF THE SOUTH 30 ACRES OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 23,
TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 23WEST, ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT SURVEY THEREOF.
4. THE NORTH TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY AND SIX-TENTHS (280.6) FEET OF THE WEST THREE
HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE (375) FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION TWENTY THREE (23), TOWNSHIP TWENTY EIGHT
(28) NORTH, RANGE TWENTY THREE (23} WEST.
5. A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE
1/4}, SECTION TWENTY-THREE (23), TOWNS HI PTWENTY-EIGHT (28) NORTH, RANGE TWENTY-
THREE (23) WEST, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNINGATTHE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1 /4 OF SAID SECTION TWENTY-THREE (23),THENCE SOUTH ALONG
THE EAST QUARTER-QUARTER (1/4-1/4) LINE OF SAID SECTION TWENTY-THREE (23), A
DISTANCE OF TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY AND SIX TENTHS (280.6) FEET; THENCE WESTERLY AT A
DEFLECTION ANGLE OF NINETY-THREE DEGREES, THIRTY-FIVE MINUTES (93°35') TO THE
RIGHT A DISTANCE OF THIRTY-NINE AND SEVEN-TENTHS (39.7) FEET; THENCE
NORTHWESTERLY AT A DEFLECTION ANGLE OF TWENTY-SIX DEGREES, TEN MINUTES (26"10')
TO THE RIGHT A DISTANCE OF TWO HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX AND FIVE-TENTHS (266.5) FEET;
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY AT A DEFLECTION ANGLE OF THIRTEEN DEGREES, TWENTY-NI NE
MINUTES (13"29') TO THE RIGHT A DISTANCE OF ONE HUNDRED FORTY-NINE AND SEVEN-
TENTHS (149.7) FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY AT A DEFLECTION ANGLE OF FORTY-SIX
DEGREES, TWELVE MINUTES (46°12') TO THE RIGHT A DISTANCE OF FORTY-FOUR AND SEVEN-
TENTHS (44.7) FEET TO THE NORTH QUARTER-QUARTER (1/4-1/4) LINE OF SAID SECTION
TWENTY-THREE (23); THENCE EAST ALONG SAID NORTH QUARTER-QUARTER (1/4-1/4) LINE A
DISTANCE OF THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY AND EIGHT-TENTHS (380.8) FEET TO POINT OF
BEGINNING.
6. ALL THAT PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT SIX (6), SECTION FOURTEEN (14), TOWNSHIP
TWENTY-EIGHT (28), RANGE TWENTY-THREE (23), WHICH LIES SOUTHERLY OF THE CENTER
LINE OF SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY (SUBJECT TO SAID HIGHWAY) AND ALSO THE NORTH
QUARTER (N-1/4} OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE
1/4) OF SECTION TWENTY-THREE (23), TOWNSHIP TWENTY-EIGHT (28), RANGE TWENTY-THREE
(23), SUBJECT TO EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITY.
EXCEPT,
THE EASTERLY NINE HUNDRED FORTY FIVE (945) FEET OF ALL THAT PART OF GOVERNMENT
LOT SIX (6), SECTION FOURTEEN (14), TOWNSHI P TWENTY EIGHT (28}, RANGE TWENTY THREE
(23), WHICH LIES SOUTHERLY OF THE CENTER LINE OF SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
(SUBJECT TO SAID HIGHWAY}; AND ALSO THE EASTERLY NINE HUNDRED FORTY FIVE (945)
FEET OF THE NORTH QUARTER (N 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION TWENTY THREE (23). TOWNSHIP TWENTY EIGHT
(28), RANGE TWENTY THREE (23), SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS OF RECORD.
k’KIRXg1RRVRXXX
Resolution No. 2025-40 Page | 6
ALSO EXCEPT,
THAT PART OFTRACT A DESCRIBED BELOW:
TRACT A. THAT PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 6 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 23
WEST, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, LYING SOUTHERLY OFTHE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF
WAY LINE OFTRUNK HIGHWAY NO. t3AS NOW LOCATED AND ESTABLISHED; EXCEPT THE
EAST 945 FEET THEREOF; WHICH LIES NORTHWESTERLY OF A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND
DISTANT 60 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY OF LINE DESCRIBED BELOW:
LINE 1. BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 14, DISTANT 1323.6 FEET
NORTH OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY AT AN ANGLE
OF 48 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 50 SECONDS FROM SAID EAST SECTION LINE (MEASURED FROM
SOUTH TO WEST) FOR 1174.61 FEET; THENCE DEFLECT TO THE LEFT ON A TANGENTIAL
CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 5729.58 FEET AND A DELTA ANGLE OF 8 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 22
SECONDS FOR 850.61 FEET AND THERE TERMINATING.
EXCEPT
THAT PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT SIX, SECTION FOURTEEN, TOWNSHIP TWENTY EIGHT
NORTH, RANGE TWENTY THREE WEST LYING ADJACENT TO AND WITHIN SIXTY FEET
SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES OF SIBLEY
MEMORIAL HIGHWAY, ALSO KNOWN AS TRUNK HIGHWAY 13, AS TRAVELED ON JULY 17,
1960.
TORRENS PARCEL
1. LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 2, PARK PLACE, DAKOTA COUNTY, MN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
THEREOF.
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 119905
Page 525 of 555
DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EXCERPT FROM DRAFT/UNAPPROVED 6/24/25 PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
D) PLANNING CASE 2025-10
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (XCEL ENERGY), 800 SIBLEY MEMORIAL
HIGHWAY – MRCCA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that 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 24 x 24 electronic control center within the fenced compound area at the Sibley
Propane Plant facility, located at 800 Sibley Memorial Highway.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments
or objections to this request were received.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a planning staff report and a
presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing
through the City’s website).
Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions.
Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification on the square shown in the overlays and asked if
that is the proposed location for the improvement.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that square is a quirk of the Dakota
County system and is not a specific part of this request. She confirmed that no tree removal
is required.
George Wojcicki, Xcel Energy, provided additional details on the proposed structure. He noted
that the existing building would remain as file storage.
Michael Mohs, Xcel Energy, stated that this plant is a peaking plant and represents a significant
load that is required when the coldest weather comes around. He stated that the
construction season is very tight.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER UDELL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Page 526 of 555
DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES
COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO
RECOMMEND 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 5-27-2025, 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 ACTIVITIES WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH
APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES, AS WELL
AS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE DOCUMENT. THE
APPLICANTS MUST SUBMIT AND RECEIVE A SWPPP PERMIT AND NPDES PERMIT
(IF NECESSARY) PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION WORK.
4. ALL WORK ON SITE WILL ONLY BE PERFORMED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7 A.M.
AND 8 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY; 9 A.M. TO 5 P.M. WEEKENDS.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised that the City Council would consider this application at its July 1, 2025,
meeting.
Page 527 of 555
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 528 of 555
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.
Page 529 of 555
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).
Page 530 of 555
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 north of the existing tank farm, adjacent to the
vaporizer building and other building/utility infrastructure.
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.
Page 531 of 555
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
Page 532 of 555
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 533 of 555
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
3aJe RI
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
5
E
SIB
L
E
Y
M
E
M
O
RIA
L
H
W
Y
LI
L
Y
D
A
L
E
R
D
FA
R
M
D
A
L
E
R
D
SIB
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
5
E
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
3aJe 3 RI
?
?
????
?
?
?
(
((
(
(
(
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
6 6
6
6
66
66
66
66 66
66
66
66
6666
66
66
6666
6
6
6 6 6
6
6
6
6
6
66
66
66
!
"
!
!
!!
!
*
!
!
""
"
""
*
*
!!
!
""
""
""
*
*
!*
**
!
*
**
*!
!
***
³
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6 6 6
66 6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
66
!!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
479
386
51
7
35
4
409
363
10
0
29
6
25
0
230
21
2
20
6
203
19
8
19
1
68
18
7
175
171
66
167
166
162
159
15
6
154
150
149
139
97
13
5
94
13
1
91
90
123
8
8
118
11
6
87120
86 84
11
0
81
80
10
7
78
1
0
6
105
76
10
4
70
279
67
85
65
184
64
61
60
145
56
54
5
1
5
0
108
4
8
45
44
35
36
10
2
33
163
30
2
9
27
24
20
147
50
10
0
10
0
94
50
1
3
9
10
0
94
7
11
0
363
20
10
4
81
100
81
81
1
5
0
150
9
4
30
1
6
6
15
4
67
1
5
4
97
1
5
9
1
7
1
11
8
1
2
0
33 150
150
150
100
10
0
118
60
150
150
120
150
97
68
163
FA
R
M
D
A
L
E
R
D
CH
E
R
R
Y
H
I
L
L
R
D
ASP
E
N
W AY
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 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
3aJe RI
414 Nicollet Mall, 414-06
Minneapolis, MN 55401
1-800-895-499
xcelenergy.com
May 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 foundation
to 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.
3DJHRI
414 Nicollet Mall, 414-06
Minneapolis, MN 55401
1-800-895-499
xcelenergy.com
MRCCA 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
3DJHRI
414 Nicollet Mall, 414-06
Minneapolis, MN 55401
1-800-895-499
xcelenergy.com
3DJH RI
414 Nicollet Mall, 414-06
Minneapolis, MN 55401
1-800-895-499
xcelenergy.com
3DJHRI
414 Nicollet Mall, 414-06
Minneapolis, MN 55401
1-800-895-499
xcelenergy.com
3DJHRI
414 Nicollet Mall, 414-06
Minneapolis, MN 55401
1-800-895-499
xcelenergy.com
3DJHRI
414 Nicollet Mall, 414-06
Minneapolis, MN 55401
1-800-895-499
xcelenergy.com
3DJHRI
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
3MJH D RI DDD
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
3MJH DD RI DDD
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
3MJH D RI DDD
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
PDJH 547 RI 555
PL
A
N
T
N
O
R
T
H
1.
0
2
°
TR
U
E
N
O
R
T
H
DRAWING LIMITS, FOR CONTINUATION SEE 41035
DRAWING LIMITS, FOR CONTINUATION SEE 41027
DR
A
W
I
N
G
L
I
M
I
T
S
,
F
O
R
C
O
N
T
I
N
U
A
T
I
O
N
S
E
E
4
1
0
3
2
DR
A
W
I
N
G
L
I
M
I
T
S
,
F
O
R
C
O
N
T
I
N
U
A
T
I
O
N
S
E
E
4
1
0
3
0
DR
A
W
I
N
G
L
I
M
I
T
S
,
F
O
R
C
O
N
T
I
N
U
A
T
I
O
N
S
E
E
4
2
0
3
2
5'
-
6
1
4"
7'-01 4"24'-103 4"
3'
-
5
"
1'
-
1
0
1
4"
21
'
-
6
"
CT
-
0
9
EXISTING 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'
-
1
3
4"
CT
-
1
0
CT-1
1
N: 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
PDJH 548 RI 555
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 05/27/25
PL
A
N
T
N
O
R
T
H
1.
0
2
°
TR
U
E
N
O
R
T
H
®
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
-
1
WF
-
1
WF-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
PDJH 54 RI 555
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
"
M
I
N
.
1'
-
0
"
2"
C
L
R
3"
C
L
R
6"
M
A
X
.
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
"
M
I
N
.
1'
-
0
"
3"
C
L
R
FINISHED 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
"
91
2"
5"
51
2"
3 4" Ø F1554 GR. 36 CIP
GALVANIZED ANCHORS W/ 12"
EMBED, 4" PROJ., "A"= 11 2"
8"
8"
PR
O
J
.
EM
B
E
D
M
E
N
T
"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
PDJH 550 RI 555
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
"
M
I
N
1'-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'
M
I
N
6"
F
R
O
M
A
L
L
ED
G
E
S
,
T
Y
P
.
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
PDJH 1 RI
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)
CA
D
D
U
S
E
R
:
O
W
E
N
Q
.
R
I
C
H
E
Y
F
I
L
E
:
\
\
E
D
I
-
C
A
D
\
C
A
D
\
D
E
S
I
G
N
\
2
3
1
9
1
4
8
0
.
0
0
\
S
I
B
L
E
Y
\
2
3
1
9
1
4
8
0
_
G
-
0
1
_
S
W
P
P
P
.
D
W
G
P
L
O
T
S
C
A
L
E
:
1
:
2
P
L
O
T
D
A
T
E
:
7
/
2
4
/
2
0
2
4
4
:
0
2
P
M
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
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
PaJe 552 of 555
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
CA
D
D
U
S
E
R
:
O
W
E
N
Q
.
R
I
C
H
E
Y
F
I
L
E
:
\
\
E
D
I
-
C
A
D
\
C
A
D
\
D
E
S
I
G
N
\
2
3
1
9
1
4
8
0
.
0
0
\
S
I
B
L
E
Y
\
2
3
1
9
1
4
8
0
_
G
-
0
1
_
S
W
P
P
P
.
D
W
G
P
L
O
T
S
C
A
L
E
:
1
:
2
P
L
O
T
D
A
T
E
:
7
/
2
4
/
2
0
2
4
4
:
0
2
P
M
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
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
PaJe 553 of 555
X
X
X
X
X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
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 OE OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE OE OE OE OE OE
GA
S
GA
S
GA
S
GA
S
GAS GAS
GA
S
GA
S
GA
S
GA
S
GA
S
GAS GAS GAS GAS GA
S
GA
S
GA
S
GA
S
GA
S
GA
S
GA
S
W
W
W
WW
W
W
W
W
X
GA
S
>>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
760760
765765
770770
775775
780780
785785
790790
795795
800800
805805
810810
81
5
81
5
82
0
82
0
82
5
82
5
82
5
82
5
8
1
5
8
1
5
82
0
82
0
82
5
82
5
83
0
83
0
8
3
0
8
3
0
8
2
6
8
2
6
8
2
7
8
2
7
8
2
8
8
2
8
8
2
9
8
2
9
8
3
1
8
3
1
83
2
83
2
8
3
3
8
3
3
8
3
4
8
3
4
8
1
5
8
1
5
8
1
2
8
1
2
8
1
3
8
1
3
8
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
82
0
82
0
82
5
82
5
81
0
81
0
81
0
81
0
81
5
81
5
82
0
82
0
82
5
82
5
820820
825825
81
0
81
0
81
5
81
5
82
0
82
0
82
5
82
5
81
0
81
0
81
5
81
5
82
0
82
0
82
5
82
5
815815
820820
825825
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
WWW
SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF
SF
S
F
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF SF
SF
SF
SF SF
X
SF SF SF SF SF SF SF
S
F
SF SF SF SF SF SF SF
S
F
SF
S
F
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
W
W
W
W
SEE VIEWPORT 2
CA
D
D
U
S
E
R
:
O
w
e
n
Q
.
R
i
c
h
e
y
F
I
L
E
:
\
\
E
D
I
-
C
A
D
\
C
A
D
\
D
E
S
I
G
N
\
2
3
1
9
1
4
8
0
.
0
0
\
S
I
B
L
E
Y
\
2
3
1
9
1
4
8
0
_
G
-
0
3
_
E
R
O
S
I
O
N
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
P
L
A
N
.
D
W
G
P
L
O
T
S
C
A
L
E
:
1
:
2
P
L
O
T
D
A
T
E
:
7
/
2
4
/
2
0
2
4
4
:
0
2
P
M
2
-
PLAN: EROSION CONTROL
N
PROPERTY 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
X
W
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
N
0 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
-
PaJe 554 of 555
DETAIL: SILT FENCE - MACHINE SLICED
-
1
NOT TO SCALE
DOWNSTREAM VIEW
SECTION VIEW
24
"
M
I
N
.
EM
B
E
D
P
O
S
T
5 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' M
I
N
DETAIL: CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE - ROCK
AS R
E
Q
U
I
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
"
M
I
N
I
M
U
M
SEDIMENT LOG
WOOD STAKE
16
"
M
I
N
I
M
U
M
DETAIL: EROSION LOG - STAKING
-
3
NOT TO SCALE
SIDE VIEW FLAT
FRONT VIEW
FLOW
SEDIMENT LOG
SIDE VIEW ON SLOPE
1
6
"
M
I
N
I
M
U
M
12"
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
FL
O
W
FLO
W
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
"
M
A
X
STAKES (TYP.)
SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG
FLOW
FL
O
W
FLO
W
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" (T
Y
P
.
)
CA
D
D
U
S
E
R
:
O
w
e
n
Q
.
R
i
c
h
e
y
F
I
L
E
:
\
\
E
D
I
-
C
A
D
\
C
A
D
\
D
E
S
I
G
N
\
2
3
1
9
1
4
8
0
.
0
0
\
S
I
B
L
E
Y
\
2
3
1
9
1
4
8
0
_
G
-
0
4
_
E
R
O
S
I
O
N
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
.
D
W
G
P
L
O
T
S
C
A
L
E
:
1
:
2
P
L
O
T
D
A
T
E
:
7
/
2
4
/
2
0
2
4
4
:
0
2
P
M
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 DETAILS
MENDOTA HEIGHTS / DAKOTA
4153
4501038238
A
ISSUED FOR REVIEW
07/24/2024
07/24/2024OQRISSUED FOR REVIEWA
----
07/24/2024
PaJe 555 of 555