Loading...
08 06 2025 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA August 6, 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 July 15, 2025, City Council Meeting b.Approve Minutes from the July 15, 2025, City Council Work Session Meeting c.Approve Minutes from the July 15, 2025, City Council Special Meeting d.Acknowledge Minutes from the June 24, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting e.Acknowledge Minutes from the May 21, 2025, Airport Relations Commission Meeting f.Approve Out of Metro Travel Request for the City Clerk g.Accept the Resignation of Peter Johnson from the Mendota Heights Fire Department h.Authorize the Hiring of Five Probationary Firefighters by the Mendota Heights FireDepartment Page 1 of 426 i.Authorize Recruitment and Approve the Addition of One Assistant Training Officer Position and Change the Position Title to Training Lieutenant with the Mendota Heights Fire Department. j.Acknowledge the April, May, and June 2025 Fire Synopses k.Award Contract for Lift Station Panel Replacement l.Adopt Resolution 2025-50 Accepting Donations Made to the Mendota Heights Police Department m.Adopt Resolution 2025-46 Accepting Work and Final Payment for Bridgeview Shores Street Improvements Project 202406 n.Adopt Resolution 2025-47 Approving an Administrative MRCCA Permit for 1128 Kingsley Circle North (Planning Case No. 2025-14) o.Approve Claims List 7. Presentations a.MRPA Award of Excellence for Marketing and Communications 8.Public Hearings 9.New and Unfinished Business a.Resolution 2025-45 Approving a Special Appropriations Permit Application for Oheyawahe b.Tabled - 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) c.Resolution 2025-48 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for a Cannabis Retailer at 1155 Centre Pointe Drive (Planning Case No. 2025-11) d.Resolution 2025-49 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for a private middle and secondary school at 1345 Mendota Heights Road (Planning Case 2025-13) 10.Community / City Administrator Announcements 11.City Council Comments 12.Adjourn Next Meeting August 19, 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 426 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA DRAFT Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, July 15, 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 Lorberbaum, Paper, and Maczko, were also present. Councilor Mazzitello was absent. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. MOMENT OF SILENCE IN MEMORY OF OFFICER SCOTT PATRICK, EOW JULY 30, 2024 The Council and those present in the audience observed a moment of silence in memory of Officer Scott Patrick. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Levine presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Paper moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Maczko seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the public wished to be heard. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Levine presented the consent agenda and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Lorberbaum moved approval of the consent agenda as presented, pulling item A. a.Approval of July 1, 2025 City Council Minutes b.Acknowledge the Minutes from the May 13, 2025, Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting 6.a Page 3 of 426 July 15, 2025 Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 of 10 c. Acknowledge the Minutes from the June 10, 2025, Parks and Recreation Commission Work Session d. Acknowledge the May Par 3 Financial Report e. Adopt Resolution 2025-42 Final Payment and Acceptance of Fire Station Roof Replacement f. Approve the Hiring of a Public Works Maintenance Worker g. Adopt Resolution 2025-44 Formally Accepting Donations from the Heussner Family h. Adopt Resolution 2025-43 to Reject Bids for the Kensington East Street Improvements i. Approve Developer’s Agreement for the Cobalt Business Center j. Approve a Massage Therapist License k. Approve Temporary On-Sale Liquor License – Holy Family Maronite Catholic Church l. Approve Contract to Grind Brush at City Transfer Site m. Approve Purchase of Public Works Truck from Inver Grove Ford n. Approval of Claims List Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A) APPROVAL OF JULY 1, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Councilor Maczko noted on page seven, the second paragraph, it should state, “…express address the concern…” On page 12, it should state, “….Councilor Mazzitello Maczko…” On page nine, the spelling of Kolar should be verified and shown correctly in both uses. Councilor Maczko moved to approve JULY 1, 2025, CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AS AMENDED. Councilor Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 PRESENTATIONS A) CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS SPEED CAMERA UPDATE Police Chief Kelly McCarthy provided a brief update and progress report on the Speed Safety Camera System implementation. Councilor Maczko asked if these can only be on City streets or whether they could be placed on County roads or other roadways. Police Chief Kelly McCarthy replied that they can be installed anywhere, with permission. She stated that local roads were chosen at this time, but because of the good relationship with the County, she believed that they would provide the necessary permission. Councilor Paper asked how long it would be anticipated that a camera would be in a location. Page 4 of 426 July 15, 2025 Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 of 10 Police Chief Kelly McCarthy anticipated that they would have this one location for the remainder of the year. She believed that they would want to have any camera in place for at least three months. She noted that if a camera is moved, the warning period would begin again. Councilor Lorberbaum asked how long the pilot program would run and for information related to success and failure benchmarks. Police Chief Kelly McCarthy replied that the pilot program would be four years in length. She stated that she hoped that this winter, they could develop a more qualitative instrument to measure the utility of the people in and around that area. She stated that if they are writing a lot of tickets, she would consider that a fail, or if the problem remains unchanged, that would also be a fail. She commented that there are residents in certain areas who perceive an issue with speeding, whether or not the data supports that. She commented that this is something that would address those concerns while not being intrusive to other members of the community. Councilor Maczko applauded the Chief for her use of warning tickets as a form of education. He recognized that it is the outliers that catch the attention of others. He stated that as a City, they are encouraging people to drive responsibly and do not intend to punish anyone or raise funds. He recognized that it is not that the Police Department wants to write tickets, but wants to have a safe city. Police Chief Kelly McCarthy commented that Mendota Heights is a safe community for drivers and pedestrians, and they are simply trying to address the outliers and perception. She noted that Marie was chosen as a location because of the changes that have already been made to that roadway. Mayor Levine asked for more information on who would receive a ticket from an Officer versus the speed camera. Police Chief Kelly McCarthy replied that there is nothing about the speed cameras that precludes traditional enforcement. She stated that in Minnesota, the speed limit is the speed limit. She noted that historically, a three miles per hour (mph) grace was given to account for instrument calibration, but as technology improved, someone could theoretically be given a ticket for going one mph over the speed limit. She stated that the camera will never take a picture of the rear license plate and record the speed unless someone is ten mph over the speed limit. Mayor Levine commented that a Police Officer on the same street could issue a ticket for going three mph over the speed limit. Councilor Paper asked how much more work this would be administratively for the department. Police Chief Kelly McCarthy replied that this could be labor-intensive, but the City has the advantage of previous data. She explained how the work would be allocated between members of the department to issue warnings and tickets. She anticipated between one and two hours per day, spread out in the most economically feasible manner. She noted that there is a more automated system, but the City is choosing to utilize the system that it already has to record the data and use staff to sort through the data and send warnings and/or tickets. Page 5 of 426 July 15, 2025 Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 of 10 Councilor Paper asked if the owner of the plate would be receiving the ticket. Police Chief Kelly McCarthy confirmed that to be accurate. She noted that the owner will receive the warning/citation regardless of the driver, and it would not be classified as a moving violation. Mayor Levine asked that the school be made aware of this to ensure that information can be communicated with student drivers as well. Police Chief Kelly McCarthy noted that in addition to the posted signage and communication she has had with the School District, she has also put in requests to Google, Apple, and Waze to see if the speed camera can be placed on their GPS applications. B) HIGHWAY 62 SPEED LIMIT PRESENTATION Robert Jones, MnDOT, introduced the members of his staff present with him tonight to help address the questions they have received from Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek and the City related to the speed limit on Highway 62. Cherzon Riley, MnDOT, commented that the speed limit had been raised from 55 miles per hour (mph) to 60 mph on Highway 62. She explained that MnDOT checks the speed limits on highways every ten years to ensure that the highway is operating at the correct speed. She provided details on the study process completed, noting that the 85th percentile of drivers were driving at 60 mph. She provided additional details on driver safety related to posted speeds and communication that were provided to the City prior to the change in the speed limit. Councilor Paper stated that the speed limit was raised, which increases noise levels, and asked if that would improve the opportunity to receive a soundwall. Ms. Riley replied that raising the speed limit by five mph does not have an impact on noise levels. She commented that soundwalls are outside of her department, but she could provide that contact information. She noted that people were already traveling at this speed, and therefore, the speed limit was simply changed to match the speeds at which vehicles were already traveling. Mayor Levine asked if the traffic lights on a highway slow the speed between lights. Ms. Riley stated that a five-mile per hour increase will not be noticeable. She stated that the yellow time was changed by half a second, and there will be no impact on queuing. Mayor Levine stated that if there is a higher limit, perhaps that would encourage drivers to travel even faster than the posted speed. Ms. Riley stated that they have done decades of studies on that topic, and it has been proven untrue that drivers will travel over the posted speed limit. She noted that several studies of the speeds were taken before the change and after the posted speed limit change, and there has not been a change in the speed at which drivers are traveling. Page 6 of 426 July 15, 2025 Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 of 10 Mayor Levine asked if the speed limit would be lowered if another speed study were completed in ten years, and the majority of travelers are traveling under the posted speed limit. Ms. Riley confirmed that is correct. She explained that they want speed limits that the majority of drivers will obey and to provide continuity. She stated that since they raised the speed limit, in this first year, the crash data has actually been reduced from the previous year/speed limit. Councilor Maczko stated that the sign on 62 was not posted until May 1st; therefore, it has only been about a month or 1.5 months. Ms. Riley stated that they made the decision in November and posted signs in May. She recognized that May 1, 2026, would provide one full year of data. Councilor Maczko commented that he is a traffic engineer by trade, and he raised the question about the change in speed. He stated that Highway 110/62 has historically caused issues with speed and pedestrian safety. He stated that when 494 was built, it was supposed to take a lot of the truck traffic off Highway 110/62. He stated that in 2024, the legislature requested to change or update the speed setting to the new Federal highway manual, noting that more than the 85th percentile should be reviewed before raising speed, and noted the other factors that should be considered. He wondered where the report was that included details on volume, crashes, and the other areas of the new study. He noted that the freeway that runs through the community has a posted speed of 55 mph, while this road, with more pedestrian crossings and interaction, now has a speed limit of 60 mph, which seems to be a disconnect. He asked if there was a report produced with the additional information or whether the decision was made solely based on the 85th percentile. Ms. Riley stated that the context categories were addressed and included in the report. She stated that Highway 35 will also be studied in the coming year and believed that the speed limit will also be increased. She stated that, essentially, they did not raise the speed limit as most people were already traveling at that speed. Almin Ramic, MnDOT, stated that he did look at traffic volumes from the entrance into Mendota Heights on the west, through to the east side. He noted that the increases were minimal, just above the 2019 numbers. He provided comparisons for the Dodd Road intersection from 2016 through 2025 and similar information for other intersections. He stated that the traffic volume has not increased to the perceptions that existed. He stated that the Dodd Road intersection crash data is under the State average, providing information from the last few years. Councilor Maczko asked if truck volumes were reviewed. Mr. Ramic replied that data is available, but he did not review that information. He stated that he could share that information through email. Councilor Maczko stated that some residents have requested no engine braking signs in certain areas for trucks. Page 7 of 426 July 15, 2025 Mendota Heights City Council Page 6 of 10 Mr. Ramic stated that he could follow up on that, but believed that it is something that could also be done through City Ordinance. Councilor Maczko stated that prior to the 2017 upgrade, when many access points were eliminated, there were advanced warning flashers up and that they had been removed. He noted that there are a fair amount of red-light runners at Dodd Road and near the high school. He asked why those warning flashers were removed. Mr. Ramic replied that it has been the policy to introduce those types of signs if it is the first signal after a freeway segment. He noted that studies have been done that those signs encourage speeding, as some drivers speed up when the lights begin to flash in an attempt to get through before the red light. He stated that in some areas, they have chosen continuously flashing yellow lights to alert drivers to the upcoming signal rather than flashing lights that alert to a signal change ahead. Mr. Jones stated that Mankato and Rochester have eliminated the use of those flashing alerts as well. Mayor Levine asked if the crash data would be studied next May to review the newly posted speed limit. She recognized that there are people in the community who are concerned about the increased speed limit. She asked if a change would be made in one year if the crashes or travel speed were to increase in the next year. Ms. Riley stated that she has been doing this for over 15 years and has never seen that happen. She commented that the signs themselves do not slow the speed of drivers. She noted that people drive at the speed they feel comfortable and reasonable. She provided information on the speed samples that were completed after the posted change to the speed, noting that the speed traveled has not changed, as drivers were already traveling at this speed. Councilor Maczko asked how they would make drivers drive slower. Ms. Riley commented that driving slower does not always mean safer. She provided examples where changes were made to roads to decrease speeds, recognizing that does take an investment. She commented that extreme enforcement also decreases driver speeds. Mr. Ramic stated that it is the outliers, those traveling too slowly or too fast, that cause issues. Councilor Maczko stated that the concern he has heard from residents is that raising the speed limit seems counteractive to the cooperative efforts of the City and MnDOT to make this roadway safer. He stated that Dodd Road has pedestrian crossings. He asked what the City can do with MnDOT to communicate that they do not want the speed increased on this type of street. He stated that there is no pedestrian activity or vehicles trying to turn out of their neighborhoods onto the freeway, like there is on Highway 62. He stated that it seems that the traffic signal timing has changed, giving priority to Highway 62, which causes backups on other roads. He thought the goal was to tame the road so that people would not want to drive 60 mph on the roadway, and he believed that this was going the wrong way. Page 8 of 426 July 15, 2025 Mendota Heights City Council Page 7 of 10 Mr. Ramic commented that this needs to be done through teamwork with the City expressing its desires. He noted that MnDOT has its projects planned five to ten years ahead. He commented that the City would need to invest energy and funding to improve the roadway, if that is desired. Councilor Maczko commented on the longer-term vision for the roadway that he and the citizens have a concern over ensuring that this could be a walkable, bikeable area for residents. Mr. Ramic commented that MnDOT will work with the City to find a solution for Dodd Road. He noted challenges that have existed with right-of-way and the need for an innovative solution. He stated that when MnDOT plans for that roadway, they will listen to the input of the City. Mayor Levine asked when the next visioning is for Highway 62. Mr. Jones commented that as a Project Manager, they want to work with the City to determine what is best. He stated that what was done in 2017, and to get another project at this time would take a lot of City input and City funding. He stated that if MnDOT completed a project in ten years or so, when it is due for another upgrade/project, they would work with the City. Mr. Ramic commented that while he also does not prefer J-turns, they are safer movements. Councilor Lorberbaum thanked the representatives from MnDOT for attending and providing this useful information tonight. She asked the percentage of roads that are studied that receive an increase or decrease in speed. Ms. Riley commented that there are times the speed limit is reduced after a project, such as a road diet. She was unsure of the percentages. She stated that outside of a project, she has not seen a speed limit decrease. Mr. Jones commented that some roads in Rochester may have speed limits lowered. Ms. Riley commented that the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul have chosen to lower their speed limits. Mayor Levine asked if that change has made their roads less safe. Ms. Riley replied that those cities will not complete a before-and-after study. She noted that people are still traveling at the same speeds. Councilor Maczko commented that he has encouraged St. Paul to complete after studies. He agreed that it is important to have both the before and after studies. Gina Mitteco, MnDOT, provided information on long-range planning and visioning. Mr. Jones commented that they have been working with Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek in anticipation of the 2028 project and noted that he will continue to comment with staff on that project. He explained that MnDOT is in more of a preservation mode because of the needs of their large system, whereas the Page 9 of 426 July 15, 2025 Mendota Heights City Council Page 8 of 10 City wants to be more proactive. He stated that if the City takes the lead and secures funding, MnDOT can support the project as well. Councilor Maczko acknowledged that MnDOT wants cities to be active and proactive in communicating their needs and wants input from cities. He asked that the earlier-mentioned report also be provided through email. He asked if something could be done about engine braking from trucks going down hills. Ms. Mitteco stated that Dakota County has received some complaints on certain roadways, but believed that the County did not have jurisdiction. She stated that she is unsure who would have the legal authority to do that and could follow up on that. PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS – IVY HILLS PARK PLAYGROUND Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence explained that the Council was being asked to authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the playground replacement at Ivy Hills Park. Councilor Maczko stated that this is predominantly the same as before, recognizing that in previous proposals, they received the merry-go-round as the compliant equipment. He asked if a base bid would be provided without the swing, using the full budget, and an extra cost for the swing rather than incorporating that swing into the original budget. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence stated that she is unsure how this will be perceived by vendors. She stated that staff understood that the Council wanted swings brought into the project, along with the requirement to have an accessible feature that could be used by an individual in a wheelchair without transferring out of the chair. She explained that the bid alternate would replace the accessible feature with the swing. She was not confident that all vendors have that type of swing. Mayor Levine mentioned the Marie Park playground as an example of a project that used a bid alternative. She explained that the shade features were included in the bid as an alternate and could be added to the project, in addition to the base bid costs. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence commented that she does not believe that the base bids will include the swing, but confirmed that would be added to the bids as an alternate and could likely have a cost of over $200,000. Councilor Maczko commented that he would like to see the most value and features for the cost, while also addressing ADA compliance with poured-in-place surfacing to access the accessible features. He stated that perhaps a pre-bid meeting with vendors would be helpful to better explain the intentions of the project. Page 10 of 426 July 15, 2025 Mendota Heights City Council Page 9 of 10 Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence commented that if the Council desires, she could do that, but noted that she has not had to do that in the past. She explained that she has good relationships with the vendors and was surprised that she did not receive any comments after the bids were rejected. She stated that staff do track any questions received and provide those questions and answers to all vendors involved to ensure everyone has the same information. Councilor Paper commented that he would support continuing to follow the typical process. Councilor Maczko stated that he does not have a problem with having the parks subcommittee reviewing these with staff again, as he welcomes that input, but did not see the need for a full public input process. Mayor Levine commented that the subcommittee has a few members of the Commission, whereas a review by the full Commission includes more people and therefore supports the recommendation of staff to keep the process moving. She stated that although it has taken a while to get to this point, they know what they want, and she wants to keep moving forward. Councilor Lorberbaum stated that she looks forward to continuing this process. Councilor Paper moved to authorize THE ISSUANCE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE PLAYGROUND REPLACEMENT AT IVY HILLS PARK. Councilor Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Further discussion: Mayor Levine thanked staff and the vendors for their patience. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson announced upcoming community events and activities. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Lorberbaum stated that in 2023 and 2024, MnDOT replaced the Mendota bridge railing, which included lowering the railing to 42 inches. She noted that a number of people have commented that they feel unsafe with the railing at that level. She commented that in 2027, MnDOT is going to raise the level of the railing back to 54 inches. She noted a recent resignation of the representative on the Metropolitan Council and recognized the newly appointed representative for the community. She thanked the residents who attended the last session of Coffee with the Council and noted the next event on Saturday, August 9. Councilor Maczko thanked the representatives from MnDOT who attended tonight and provided valuable information. He recognized that the City does have a responsibility and ability to provide feedback and appreciated that MnDOT is willing to listen. He recognized that the City did not provide feedback when MnDOT reached out multiple times on the topic before making the change. He recognized recent weather events around the country and encouraged residents to be prepared for emergencies. Page 11 of 426 July 15, 2025 Mendota Heights City Council Page 10 of 10 Councilor Paper thanked Lisa for her work at NDC4 and wished her well in her next position. Mayor Levine reminded residents that Public Safety Officers are held in high regard, noting that the community still mourns the loss of Officer Scott Patrick. ADJOURN Councilor Paper moved to adjourn. Councilor Maczko seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 7:49 p.m. ____________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Nancy Bauer City Clerk Page 12 of 426 July 15, 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, July 15, 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 Lorberbaum, Maczko (arrived 4:36 pm) and Paper were in attendance. Councilor Mazzitello 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, Amy Schmidt, City Attorney, and City Clerk Nancy Bauer. Also in attendance was Joe Barton from the Dakota County Lower Mississippi River Management Organization (LMRWMO). Also, residents that lived around Lake Augusta and Lemay Lake were in attendance. LAKE AUGUSTA IMPROVEMENTS R. Ruzek, Public Works Director, reviewed a PowerPoint that was created by Joe Barton, Lower Mississippi River Water Management Organization Administrator and Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District Program Management Supervisor. R. Ruzek stated that the presentation and other issues were discussed at LMRWMO board meetings. A map was shown of Lake Augusta, and he summarized the property owners around the lake and stated that the lake is privately owned. There is part of the lake on the north side that is owned by the City of Mendota. The waterline has encroached into Centre Pointe Curve which is a city right-of-way. Otherwise, there is no public access to the lake. R. Ruzek discussed the watershed area for Lake Augusta. In 2013, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency completed a Watershed Restoration Protection Strategy (WRAPS) study. The results of the study found that 11% of the phosphorus entering the lake came from the watershed, 2% from the atmosphere, and it was assumed 87% was coming from internal load. (The sediment re-releasing the phosphorus into the lake). In 2017, the City received a grant that the LMRWMO applied for, the City provided a match for the grant, and an alum treatment was applied to the lake. The alum was meant to lock up the Page 13 of 426 July 15, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 2 phosphorus down in the sediment. The first year after the treatment showed signs of the reduction in the phosphorus. At that time, a resident alerted the City to a large population of cormorants by the lake in the fall and asked if they could be polluting the lake. A study was done which did help to fill in a missing gap. It was determined that the cormorants were adding 68% of the phosphorus to the lake, direct watershed was 10%, internal loading at 21%, and atmospheric deposition at 1%. In 2023, the study was completed. The LWRWMO board heard a presentation from Barr Engineering on the feasibility outcomes of Lake Augusta in November of 2024. In December of 2024, the LWRWMO board heard from Franci Cuthbert, PHD, a cormorant expert and how to manage cormorants. They are not nesting at Lake Augusta but are migrating through. Results of the Barr Engineer Feasibility Study were that this is a land locked basin, with development in the lake’s watershed, and increased rainfalls have contributed to this lake’s increased depth by 15 feet since the normal water level was established in the mid-1980’s. R. Ruzek continued that to help the health of the lake these recommendations could be implemented: 1. Adding a lake outlet and establishing the normal water level. This would provide a positive effect now as in the future surrounding properties would get flooded out and kill more trees. The cost estimate would be about $600,000. If the water level was lowered the shoreline would need to be revegetated. 2. Implement two upstream stormwater BMPs to improve the water quality of stormwater entering Lake Augusta. The cost estimate would be about $600,000. 3. Removal of dead trees surrounding Lake Augusta to deter cormorants with a cost estimate of $200,000. 4. Further study of cormorants with the intent to either better understand, track, or manage their population. 1) To pursue the installation of a lake outlet: • Grant funding for an outlet is unlikely to be obtained. A similar outlet project at Seidl’s Lake was funded with City obtained bonding funds. • The desired future lake level would need careful consideration and likely input from residents. Residents have shown support to return the level to match that of 2002. • The exact benefit to lake water quality of a lake outlet on its own is unknown. There is an assumed flushing effect that an outlet provides long term, however the study assumed the outlet to be tied to reductions in cormorant populations, which may not be the case. • If an outlet is implemented: Opportunities for water quality improvements in the watershed can be considered down the road. • LMRWMO is working with the DNR to monitor lake levels to track over time. Page 14 of 426 July 15, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 3 2)Implementation of two upstream stormwater BMPs to improve the water quality of stormwater entering Lake Augusta: •Grant funding is possible for the two stormwater BMPs at the cemetery pond and a new cemetery pond. •Private property permission would be needed for both BMPs to be possible to implement. •The two BMPs provide future pollutant reductions, but do not address cormorants, the estimated larger contributor of phosphorus to the lake. Therefore, the efficacy of the stormwater BMPs to significantly improve water quality is unknown. 3)Removal of the trees surrounding Lake Augusta to deter cormorants: •The ability to receive grant funding to remove trees is unknown, which may be unlikely to be obtained for tree removal because it is private property surrounding the lake. •The impact on the cormorant population due to dead tree removal around the lake is unknown, may be ineffective, and/or may have unintended consequences. •The residents can choose to lead the removal of trees either before or after an outlet may be installed. 4)Further study of cormorants with the intent to either better understand, track, or manage the population - The estimated cost is $100,000: •Further study of the non-nesting cormorant population may provide useful information for management, such as hazing, harassing, or culling, however it may have more limited use if management is not intended. •Management of bird populations by a watershed management organization is uncommon, if not unprecedented, to improve water quality of a lake. •The City, and/or residents could pursue further study of the cormorant population, possibly a willing partner, such as the UofM could be found to lead such a study. •The LMRWMO can continue to monitor water quality as it has been to gather more data for future evaluations. Continued Water Monitoring: •The LMRWMO can reach out to the MPCA to identify when the next MPCA 10-year cycle comes up to gain awareness of timelines to possibly discuss a lake specific TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) that accounts for the cormorant impacts. •The LMRWMO can continue to monitor water quality as it has been to gather more data for future evaluations. •The LMRWMO can monitor water levels going forward on the lake to have a better long- term record. If the City does decide to implement any of the improvements, LMRWMO would partner with the City to apply for the grants. The LMRWMO Lake Augusta Recommendations are: 1.The City of Mendota Heights can choose to pursue a lake outlet at Lake Augusta. The LMRWMO would support the City in this effort, at the request of the City, via technical assistance, assisting in pursuit of grant funds, etc. 2.The residents/private property owners or the City can choose to pursue and lead the effort for removal of trees either before or after an outlet is installed. The City can decide if Page 15 of 426 July 15, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 4 they have a role and can request assistance from the LMRWMO. The LMRWMO would support the City in this effort, at the request of the City, via technical assistance, assisting in pursuit of grant funds, etc. Establishment of permanent native vegetation around the lake should be pursued along with tree removal. 3.The LMRWMO will add monitoring of lake levels to its current monitoring schedule, periodically during the growing season, until and potentially after a lake outlet is installed. If the lake continues to fluctuate, this data could help in planning a lake outlet. The LMRWMO will continue to monitor water quality as it has been, either via volunteers or paid staff to maintain a comprehensive water quality data set. 4.Opportunities for water quality improvements in the watershed can be considered down the road, but not until the multi-year effects of the outlet on water quality (after 5+ years of monitoring for example) to indicate whether the outlet has had any impact on water quality. The LMRWMO would support the City in watershed water quality improvement efforts, at the request of the City, via technical assistance, assisting in pursuit of grant funds, etc. 5.The City, residents, or LMRWMO could pursue further study of the cormorant population. However, this would be with a limited budget and only if a partner, such as UofM could be found to lead such a study. The LMRWMO voted not to do this. The aim of such a study would be to track the population of birds on the lake over many years and see if the population correlates to lake water quality. It would also be to better understand the cormorant population, if residents would want to take on management. The LMRWMO will not take or lead any actions to manage the cormorant population. The LMRWMO can work with the MPCA to discuss a lake specific TMDL that accounts for the cormorant impacts, only when that comes up next in the MPCA 10-year assessment cycle. This would not clean up the lake. Councilor Maczko asked if the city, state, or county had any direct storm water discharge into the lake. R. Ruzek said not that he is aware of any, except runoff from the private properties surrounding the lake. He described how the storm water discharge flows in the watershed area. Councilor Maczko asked about salt getting into the lake. R. Ruzek said that chloride in the lake was studied, and it was found to be substantially below the threshold for chlorides. Councilor Maczko stated he is surprised that this is not a watershed issue and is a city issue. That there might be a possibility of not receiving any grant funding. If something is done it may affect another body of water in the watershed area. Councilor Lorberbaum asked if there were any other stories regarding this issue. R. Ruzek responded that Roseville had this issue fifty years ago, dealt with it and now it is a beautiful lake. Waseca also is dealing with this issue today. Pigeon Lake in Minnesota gave up the lake to birds. If we do something to discourage the birds from roosting at Lake Augusta, the cormorants will find another place to roost. J. Barton reported that he has done a lot of research regarding cormorants and has talked to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Minnesota DNR, and reached out to a private company “Wild Goose Chase”. He did not get a sense that this was a problem they had dealt with. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated that cormorants are a protected species and gave an overview of the process to manage cormorants (kill, harass and haze). The Page 16 of 426 July 15, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 5 U.S. Department of Agriculture can be hired to kill the cormorants for management. The Minnesota DNR had information about Pelican Lake and Leech Lake where they are managing cormorants because of the cormorants eating the fish and they would not have any role with Lake Augusta. The birds roost in the early evening in the fall for about six weeks and there are a lot of unknows about the cormorants. Councilor Maczko asked what made Lake Augusta attractive to the cormorants. R. Ruzek responded that the rising water killed trees, and it is probably the dead trees. J. Barton responded that it also could be that the lake is close to the Mississippi River where they feed during the day. Joe Nunez, stated that the lake was in good shape 30 years ago and kids used to swim or fish in the lake. There are now a lot of dead trees by the lake where the cormorants like to roost. This lake has been under stress since the late 90’s. He asked if the underground springs in the lake had been studied. J. Barton stated that they have not been studied. Kitty Haight stated she does not use certain fertilizers so the lake can be protected. She and her husband have spent thousands of dollars removing dead trees because the lake level rose. Other residents have also removed dead trees. Barbara Kauffman stated that she was on the watershed committee for Rogers Lake and believes that Rogers Lake is not much different than Lake Augusta. Lake Augusta though is a much smaller lake. The City did step forward to help with Rogers Lake. Tom Hanschen asked if the existing settling ponds were effective, why is there a recommendation to put in more? Are the ponds not doing their job. There is not an outflow for the lake. A resident asked if there was a way to enhance the underground springs? J. Barton stated he is not aware of a way to enhance underground springs. Councilor Maczko stated that moving one body of water to another body of water could have unattended consequences. R. Ruzek responded that the outlet would be a mechanical pump station. If this were done, we would work with MnDOT and pump water into an existing catch basin, have it run through a vegetative swale, then into the MnDOT pond by the Mendota Bridge, and then into the Mississippi River. An easement might be needed to accomplish this. Councilor Paper asked about the life expectancy of a cormorant. R. Ruzek responded they can live up to 20 years. Councilor Paper asked if lake levels were static before the 80’s? R. Ruzek said Lake Augusta has always had water in it (even during the dust bowl years). It has always had a different tint when looking at old arial photos. He showed aerial photos of the lake. Councilor Paper asked if the lake was beyond the ordinary highwater mark now? R. Ruzek responded yes. Councilor Paper asked how deep the lake is. R. Ruzek said about 40 feet. Page 17 of 426 July 15, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 6 Councilor Paper asked if any fish live in the lake? R. Ruzek stated that a fish study has not been done. A resident stated that turtles and frogs do live in or are near the lake. J. Barton said there are a lot of unknown things regarding the lake. The color of the lake could be from diatom blooms. R. Ruzek said if the lake water level is lowered it would change the shoreline on the north and south ends of the lake. J. Barton stated that grant funds are not used for conveyance (moving water from one place to another). Grand funding for shoreline restoration would stipulate it would have to be on public land. Councilor Paper asked if there was a difference in phosphorus levels from the north end of the lake to the south end of the lake. J. Barton said water samples are typically taken from the deepest part of the lake. Mayor Levine asked if the rate was known for the rising depth of the lake. R. Ruzek stated that it is not known because of recent past years of drought when the lake depth dropped. J. Barton stated that two lake gauges have been recently installed to help monitor the level of the lake. Mayor Levine asked why the trees standing in the lake can’t be removed to control the cormorant population. R. Ruzek responded that the cormorants might move to live trees and kill the live trees with their guano. Mayor Levine asked if it wouldn’t be better to have guano on the ground rather than in the lake. J. Barton stated that it is a thought, and it might help with the cormorant population. There are unknows. The cormorants might move to Lemay Lake. Cormorants prefer dead trees. There are about 1,000 dead trees in Lake Augusta. The estimate, which is from a few years ago, to remove all those dead trees is $400,000 to $450,000. It was concluded that no simple or immediate solution exists; further evaluation, resident involvement, City and LMRWMO involvement, further study, and gradual intervention may help with the health of the lake. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:47 pm. _________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 18 of 426 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA DRAFT Minutes of the City Council Special Meeting Held Tuesday, July 15, 2025 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a special meeting of the Mendota Heights City Council was held at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Levine called the meeting to order at 7:56 p.m. Councilmembers Lorberbaum, Maczko, and Paper were also present. Councilmember Mazzitello was absent. Also, in attendance were City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Community Development Manager Sarah Madden, and City Attorney Amy Schmidt. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION Mayor Levine stated that the special meeting was closed to the public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 13D.05, subd. 3(b) (attorney-client privilege). During the special meeting, information was discussed regarding confidential legal advice from the City’s legal counsel regarding the City’s legal rights and authority, and whether to initiate civil litigation to enforce the provisions of Mendota Heights City Code Title 3, Chapter 5, Article A related to Short Term Rentals, for alleged violations of that Title at the real property located at 2349 Copperfield Drive, in the City of Mendota Heights, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota (PID: 271830203110). Upon evaluation of the legal advice, the City Council directed the City Attorney to initiate civil enforcement action to obtain correction of the alleged violations at this property. ADJOURNMENT The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk 6.c Page 19 of 426 This page is intentionally left blank June 24, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 16 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 24, 2025 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 24, 2025, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Cindy Johnson, Brian Udell (arrived at 7:40 p.m.), Jason Stone, Jeff Nath, and Steve Goldade. Those absent: None Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of May 27, 2025 Minutes COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NATH, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2025. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Hearings 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. Page 20 of 426 6.d June 24, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 16 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. 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. Page 21 of 426 June 24, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 16 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. 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. Page 22 of 426 June 24, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 16 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. 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. Page 23 of 426 June 24, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 16 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. 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. Page 24 of 426 June 24, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 16 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 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. 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. Page 25 of 426 June 24, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 16 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. Gary Fischbach, 2150 Fox Place, 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. Page 26 of 426 June 24, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 16 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. 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. Page 27 of 426 June 24, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 16 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 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. New and Unfinished Business 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. Page 28 of 426 June 24, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 16 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). 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, Page 29 of 426 June 24, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 16 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 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. Page 30 of 426 June 24, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 16 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. 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. Page 31 of 426 June 24, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 16 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 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. Page 32 of 426 June 24, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 16 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. 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 = Page 33 of 426 June 24, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 16 $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. 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. Page 34 of 426 June 24, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 16 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. Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided an update on planning cases recently considered by the City Council and other items of interest to the Commission. She noted that she will be planning to hold a worksession in the coming months. Commissioner Corbett asked for information on PUDs and whether they are reversible. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that is a change in zoning, and therefore, a zoning change would be necessary to remove that PUD. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that approvals for a PUD have a specified timeline for when development must begin. Adjournment COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:23 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Page 35 of 426 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES May 21, 2025 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, May 21, 2025 at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. 1.CALL TO ORDER Chair Norling called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. Commissioners present: Norling, Sloan, Dunn, Neuharth. Absent: Sharma, Hamiel, Bobbitt Staff present: City Administrator Jacobson and Administrative Coordinator Desmond. 2.CONSENT AGENDA a.Approve Minutes from the September 18, 2024 Meeting b.Approve Minutes from the November 20, 2024 Meeting c.Acknowledge Airport Operational Statistics Reports 1.Complaint Information 2.Runway Use Information Commissioner Sloan noted that the minutes from the November 20, 2024 meeting did not state who attended the meeting. City Administrator Jacobson explained that the November meeting was a joint meeting with the city of Eagan ARC, and attendance was not taken. Commissioner Dunn asked to have his question about air traffic control staffing on the next agenda. Commissioner Neuharth commented about runway use for departures north of the corridor, noting the increase in November, December, 2024, and January 2025, and asked that an inquiry be made with MAC for an explanation of the increase and if the usage could be brought closer to the mean level. City Administrator Jacobson said she will forward the question to MAC staff. Chair Norling noted that the April complaints for Mendota Heights have gone up a lot over the last few years. Chair Norling approved the consent agenda. 3.PUBLIC COMMENTS Rob Meyer, 1399 Clement St, had questions about going from a commission to a committee. Chair Norling stated that the group would discuss those questions later in the meeting since it is on the agenda. Page 36 of 426 6.e Rose Agnew, 671 Woodridge Dr, talked about an air traffic control article published in the Washington Post that she would like to share. City Administrator Jacobson asked Rose to send it to her. 4.BUSINESS a.ARC Update to the City Council Chair Norling initiated a discussion on providing an update to the City Council and asked Commissioners Sloan and Dunn to contribute background information on the history and role of the ARC Commission. Chair Norling read the commission’s powers and duties as outlined in the city code, stating her belief that this language defines the purpose of the ARC Commission. Commissioner Dunn noted that without the commission’s oversight, issues such as increased runway usage and other operational concerns at MSP would likely go unaddressed. He emphasized that the ARC Commission plays a critical role in monitoring activity and advocating for the community. Chair Norling requested Commissioner Neuharth’s assistance in drafting a summary of the ARC’s current initiatives and activities. City Administrator Jacobson asked when the commission intended to present the update to the City Council. Chair Norling proposed reviewing the draft content at the next ARC meeting, with the goal of presenting to the City Council in August. Commissioner Dunn recalled that similar presentations to the Council were made annually in the past. Chair Norling confirmed that the last formal update occurred in 2015. City Administrator Jacobson encouraged the commission to consider its future direction, including how institutional knowledge can be passed along to new members. Chair Norling then recognized Rose Agnew, who underscored the value of involving realtors in community education efforts related to airport impacts. City Administrator Jacobson suggested the commission consider evolving into more of an educational body, focused on outreach and public awareness. b.Commission Structure Discussion City Administrator Jacobson began the discussion by clarifying the distinction between a commission and a committee, noting the differences in formality, structure, and scope of authority. Page 37 of 426 Commissioner Sloan raised the importance of having a resource for residents to voice concerns and observations, questioning where those comments would go if the Commission were no longer in place. He emphasized the need for a body that can monitor and share knowledge on aviation-related impacts. Commissioner Dunn expressed concern that consistent monitoring might be lost under a committee structure, stressing that continuity is critical to the commission’s role. City Administrator Jacobson stated that city staff would continue to conduct monitoring and provide data, including making the charts every two months, as is currently being done. Commissioner Sloan commented that as long as there remains an opportunity for residents to meet and discuss issues—whether through a commission or a committee—the structure may be less important than maintaining open dialogue. City Administrator Jacobson discussed how changes could be made and what the structure of a committee could be. She also said that the commission may need to evolve to meet changing needs and explained that a more flexible model could allow broader participation. Chair Norling commented that with a set meeting schedule, those interested will stay on top of what they need to do, but if there aren’t any meetings, then people may get lax and not keep up if they don’t need to. Chair Norling then recognized Rose Agnew, who raised a question about how a transition to a committee format might affect public participation and interaction. City Administrator Jacobson explained that a committee structure could potentially allow for a more inclusive format, enabling additional stakeholders and residents to participate beyond commission members. Commissioner Neuharth asked what the committee’s structure would look like. City Administrator Jacobson suggested the possibility of scheduling two formal meetings per year, with additional meetings added as needed. Commissioner Neuharth expressed concerns about the timing of the change to a committee with RNAV going into place, and noted that this would be a big change in Mendota Heights. Commissioner Dunn said that he didn’t think that RNAV going into place would be that big of a deal for Mendota Heights. City Administrator Jacobson explained that the NOC workplan incudes assessing and monitoring any potential changes once RNAV is implemented. She also mentioned that the implementation timeline has slipped, delaying implementation. 5.INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE City Administrator Jacobson said that she will send out the news article discussed. Page 38 of 426 City Administrator Jacobson said that phase one construction was complete and the runway reopened today, two days early, and phase two will be in August City Administrator Jacobson said that the next NOC Listening Session will be in Highland in July. 6.ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 7.ADJOURN Motion by Neuharth and second by Sloan to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 4-0. Chair Norling adjourned the meeting at 7:21pm. Page 39 of 426 6.f REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 6, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Out of Metro Travel Request for the City Clerk ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk ACTION REQUEST: Approve Out of Metro Travel Request for the City Clerk to attend the Minnesota Municipal Clerks Advanced Academy conference in Rochester, Minnesota. BACKGROUND: City policy requires that the City Council approve any travel to a location outside the metro area for city employees. The Municipals Clerk and Finance Officers Association of Minnesota (MCFOA) Advanced Academy will be held from September 18 to September 19, 2025, in Rochester, Minnesota. The academy is designed for certified municipal clerks to further their training. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Attendance for this conference is a budgeted expense. Estimated lodging and conference registration is $600.00. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 40 of 426 This page is intentionally left blank 6.g REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 6, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Accept the Resignation of Peter Johnson from the Mendota Heights Fire Department ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Dan Johnson, Fire Chief Kelly Torkelson, Assistant City Administrator ACTION REQUEST: Accept the resignation of firefighter Peter Johnson from the Mendota Heights Fire Department efffective July 20, 2025. BACKGROUND: Peter Johnson was recruited to the Mendota Heights Fire Department in 2024. While Peter has done well in the fire academy and become a valuable member of the department, he is moving out of the City and will no longer be able to serve. Peter's last day with the department was July 20, 2025. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Peter's position in the fire department was a budgeted position. Staff are anticipating filling his position with one of the 2025 fire recruits. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 41 of 426 This page is intentionally left blank 6.h REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 6, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Authorize the Hiring of Five Probationary Firefighters by the Mendota Heights Fire Department ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Dan Johnson, Fire Chief Kelly Torkelson, Assistant City Administrator ACTION REQUEST: Authorize the hiring of Rachel Miller, Nick Segl, John Samec, Christopher Jones, and Joe Fitzgerald as probationary firefighters with the Mendota Heights Fire Department. BACKGROUND: The Mendota Heights Fire Department operates with a paid-on-call staffing model. This is based on recruiting community residents who live within a specified distance from the fire station to serve on the department. The selected candidates will actively participate in ongoing training and respond regularly to fire department calls in the community. The Fire Department operates an in-house training academy that new hires attend during their first year with the department. Applicants do not need to have pre-existing firefighting experience. Once hired, probationary firefighters receive training to complete certification as Firefighter I, Firefighter II, Hazardous Materials Operator, and Emergency Medical Responder. Candidates are selected after an extensive hiring process. The recruitment process begins in February with three months of outreach, engagement, and information sessions held at the fire station. Interested individuals get an opportunity to talk with current firefighters and learn what to expect when serving with the department. Applicants who meet minimum qualifications then go through a panel interview process, which concludes with a recommendation of candidates to move forward through a public safety background check, psychological exam, and medical exam processes. The candidates being recommended have successfully completed this process. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: If hired, the addition of the five probationary firefighters will result in the Mendota Heights Fire Department being fully staffed with 36 firefighters. These positions are budgeted for within the city's budget. Probationary firefighters would be hired according to the schedule set forth in Page 42 of 426 Resolution 2024-82, which adopted the 2025 Pay Classification Plan for Non-Union Employees. The current hourly rate for firefighters in their first year is $12.06 per hour. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 43 of 426 6.i REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 6, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Authorize Recruitment and Approve the Addition of One Assistant Training Officer Position and Change the Position Title to Training Lieutenant with the Mendota Heights Fire Department. ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Fire CONTACT: Dan Johnson, Fire Chief ACTION REQUEST: Authorize recruitment and approve request to add one additional Assistant Training Officer position and change the position title to Training Lieutenant. BACKGROUND: Due to the critical nature of training for the effective operation of the Fire Department, a review of the structure and workload of the Training Office was conducted by the Fire Department's Officer staff. The result of this review was the recommendation that the training staff be increased from the current Training Officer and Assistant Training Officer structure to a Training Officer and two Assistant Training Officers. The requested change would result in the Fire Training staff consisting of one Training Officer with the rank of Captain, and two Assistant Training Officers, both with the rank of Lieutenant. This structure will allow the Assistant Chief and the Training Officer to more effectively manage the many facets of training (including initial certifications, recertification training, recertification application processes, and ongoing skills training) and to more efficiently delegate tasks and responsibilities to the Training Lieutenants. Two additional benefits of the requested change are: 1.This change directly addresses concerns about training staff workload and the need for greater support for this function, as identified in last year's leadership and organizational survey conducted during the Fire Chief selection process. 2.The Training Department provides an outstanding opportunity for fire career development and succession planning in the department as we work to develop the future leadership of the department internally. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: This change would promote two current firefighters to the position of Training Lieutenant. The Page 44 of 426 first hire is budgeted for through the current Assistant Training Officer position. The second Training Lieutenant position would result in approximately $950 in incremental pay in 2025 due to the stipend and hourly pay differential included with the position. ATTACHMENTS: 1.MHFD Training Lieutenant Job Description CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 45 of 426 MHFD Training Lieutenant Job Description Page 1 of 2 MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT Training Lieutenant Position Position Summary The MHFD Training Lieutenant position helps to plan, organize, execute, evaluate, and coordinate fire and emergency medical training, and assists with administering the record keeping and certification processes associated with these training activities. The scope of work includes both department training and fire academy. Position Description There are two Training Lieutenant roles. Each entails a four-year commitment, with a two- year overlap; therefore, there is a hiring process for one position every two years. The positions of Training Lieutenant are filled by direct appointment of the Assistant Fire Chief, with input from the Training Captain and Fire Chief. The Training Lieutenants work under the direction and supervision of the Training Captain. Specific duties assigned to each Lieutenant may vary depending on the skills, aptitudes and experience of the selected individuals, and will be revisited and determined collaboratively by the training department every two years and ongoing as needed. Training Lieutenants will be expected to take on stretch assignments to grow their leadership and training related skills. Duties and Responsibilities 1.Support the Training Captain with developing training programs, schedules and lesson plans. 2.Work collaboratively with officers and instructors on implementing lesson plans for department drills and academy sessions. 3.Provide coordination and skills coaching during department drills and academy sessions. 4.Coordinate instructor schedules, mentor instructors on training best practices and procedures, evaluate instructor effectiveness and quality of training delivery. 5.Orient probationary firefighters to the station, its apparatus, equipment, personnel, culture, policies, and standard operating guidelines. 6.Mentor probationary firefighters in their professional development. 7.Ensure that all training is done safely and in accordance with department procedures. 8.Administer certification and recertification processes for all department members. 9.Assist with and manage electronic credentials and record keeping. 10.Prepare routine records and/or reports as needed. 11.Maintain efficient and timely communications with fellow department members on training related matters. Page 46 of 426 MHFD Training Lieutenant Job Description Page 2 of 2 12.Follow and enforce all department policies, support a positive and inclusive department culture, and maintain working knowledge of department standard operating guidelines (SOGs). 13.Enforce data privacy and information security. 14.Assist with other duties as directed by the Training Captain or Assistant Fire Chief. Required Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities 1.Two (2) years of firefighting experience with Mendota Heights Fire Department. 2.Must have fulfilled all training certifications as spelled out in the policy defining a Firefighter. 3.Considerable knowledge of fire ground operations, current training methods; thorough knowledge of emergency medical treatment and rescue techniques; basic knowledge of fire department/government management and procedures. 4.Current skills or strong aptitude to develop skills in writing lesson plans and designing training to effectively address established learning objectives for all members of the department. 5.Ability to accurately execute lesson plans for fire and medical training. This includes planning training session logistics, supervising instructors, and ensuring training objectives and timing are adhered to. 6.Experience in a leadership role and/or strong aptitude for leadership skills including coaching, mentoring, giving and receiving feedback. 7.Organizational and administrative skills including computer literacy, detail orientation, and ability to quickly and accurately complete complex and mundane online tasks. 8.Able to work in a collaborative team environment where priorities are set by the leadership team. 9.Ability to commit to serving at least four (4) years in the position. 10.Able to complete the following: •Fire Instructor I certification within one year from the hire date •Blue Card certification within 18 months from the hire date Physical Requirements The Training Lieutenant must be able to meet all physical requirements as listed under the “Firefighter” job description. Work Environment The Training Lieutenant must be able perform in the same work environment as listed under the “Firefighter” job description. Position Relationships The Training Lieutenant reports directly to the Training Captain. Page 47 of 426 6.j REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 6, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Acknowledge the April, May, and June 2025 Fire Synopses ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Fire CONTACT: Assistant Fire Chief Scott Goldenstein ACTION REQUEST: Acknowledge the April, May, and June 2025 Fire Synopses BACKGROUND: The Fire Synopses are for your information. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: 1.04 April 2025 2.05 May 2025 3.06 June 2025 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 48 of 426 April 2025 Fire Synopsis Fire Calls: 21 For April 2025, the Mendota Heights Fire Department paged for service a total of 21 times. Mendota Heights 17 calls Lilydale 2 calls Mendota 0 calls Sunfish Lake 2 calls Other 0 calls Total 21 calls Types of calls: Fires: 1- Mendota Heights responded to one structure fire in April. The fire was contained to a single room and its contents with significant smoke damage throughout the 2nd floor. Medical/Extrication: 8- April had the department responding to 8 different medical and/or extrication calls. Of those, four were medicals, one was removal of an occupant from a stalled elevator, and three were calls for accidents requesting extrication. Hazardous Situations: 3- The month had the MHFD paged for one power lines down call, one for a vehicle that hit a gas meter causing a gas leak outside of a senior living facility, and the third call was for containment of vehicle fluids at an accident scene. False Alarms/System Malfunctions: 3- MHFD responded to three false alarms in April. Good Intent: 1- In late April, the department responded to what the resident thought was an electrical odor, but no problem was found. Dispatched and Cancelled En route: 5- There were five calls in April that were cancelled before fire arrived on scene Page 49 of 426 April Trainings Wed, April 9, 18:30 Company Operations Mandatory Option 1 This drill had multiple stations to practice fireground scenarios. These included building standpipe operations, victim search scenarios, and SCBA familiarity drills (with zero visibility). Mon, April 15, 07:00 SCBA Confidence Trailer Elective Option 1 For this drill a semi-trailer with multiple levels and limited space and requires firefighters to be familiar with their SCBA, being able to doff or don it to make it through challenging openings and spaces. The firefighters are monitored via cameras while in the trailer. Sat, April 19, 08:00 SCBA Confidence Trailer Elective Option 2 For this drill a semi-trailer with multiple levels and limited space and requires firefighters to be familiar with their SCBA, being able to doff or don it to make it through challenging openings and spaces. The firefighters are monitored via cameras while in the trailer. Sat, April 21, 18:30 Company Operations Mandatory Option 2 This drill had multiple stations to practice fireground scenarios. These included building standpipe operations, victim search scenarios, and SCBA familiarity drills (with zero visibility). Tues, April 24, 07:00 Company Operations Mandatory Option 3 This drill had multiple stations to practice fireground scenarios. These included building standpipe operations, victim search scenarios, and SCBA familiarity drills (with zero visibility). Thurs, April 24, 18:00 Live Burn Mandatory Option 1 Each firefighter is required to attend a live burn session annually. This year the live burn training was held at the East Metro Public Safety Training Facility in Oakdale. Scenarios are set up where crews do fire attacks, search, pumping and command and control all with live fire conditions. This drill is an extended length drill. Page 50 of 426 Number of Calls 21 Total Calls for Year 115 FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE ACTUAL FIRES Structure - MH Commercial $0 Structure - MH Residential 1 $35,000 $70,000 Structure - Contract Areas Cooking Fire - confined Vehicle - MH Vehicle - Contract Areas Grass/Brush/No Value MH Grass/Brush/No Value Contract Other Fire -$ -$ OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $0 $35,000 $0 Excessive heat, scorch burns MEDICAL Emergency Medical/Assist 2 Vehicle accident w/injuries 1 Extrication 3 ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$35,000 Medical, other 2 HAZARDOUS SITUATION $35,000 Spills/Leaks 1 Carbon Monoxide Incident Power line down 1 Arcing, shorting $35,000 Hazardous, Other 1 SERVICE CALL Smoke or odor removal $0 Assist Police or other agency Service Call, other GOOD INTENT Good Intent 1 Dispatched & Cancelled 5 Current To Date Last Year Smoke Scare 17 94 83 HazMat release investigation 2 10 8 Good Intent, Other 0 0 2 FALSE ALARMS 2 4 6 False Alarm 1 0 7 12 Malfunction 1 Unintentional 1 Total:21 115 111 False Alarm, other MUTUAL AID FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH Total Calls 21 Inspections Investigations WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year Re-Inspection Fire Calls 266.5 1359 1390 Meetings 84.3 188.6 420.25 Meetings Training 450 1367.5 1488 Special Activity 65.5 101.3 77.55 Administration Fire Marshal 0 Plan Review/Training TOTALS 866.3 3016.4 3375.8 TOTAL:0 Lilydale Mendota Sunfish Lake Other MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT APRIL 2025 MONTHLY REPORT FIRE LOSS TOTALS LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS Mendota Heights Mendota Heights Only Structure/Contents Mendota Heights Only Miscellaneous Mendota Heights Total Loss to Date Contract Areas Loss to Date TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES Page 51 of 426 May 2025 Fire Synopsis Fire Calls: 24 For May 2025, the Mendota Heights Fire Department paged for service a total of 24 times. Mendota Heights 20 calls Lilydale 1 call Mendota 0 calls Sunfish Lake 1 call Other 2 calls Total 24 calls Types of calls: Fires: 3- The fire department was called upon to extinguish a burning panel truck used for HVAC service. Engine 10 was on the initial fire attack, and Ladder 11 was assigned to assist. This was a unique situation since the truck was also carrying cylinders of compressed combustible gases that needed to be addressed and cooled. The department was also paged for a grass brush fire and a vehicle fire in May. Medical/Extrication: 4- There were four pages for medical/extrication type calls. Two of the calls were medicals and the other two were for vehicle accidents but no injuries ended up needed fire department assistance. Hazardous Situations: 2- The MHFD had one call for a powerline down and one for a cut gas line by a construction crew. Service Calls: 1- There was one call for significant smoke in a neighborhood to investigate. It was discovered that a home had an unattended fire that was giving off a significant amount of smoke and weather conditions were keeping it very low to the ground as it travelled. False Alarms/System Malfunctions: 5- MHFD found the cause of three false alarms to be due to system malfunctions and two due to unintentional trips of alarms. Good Intent: 3- In the category of good intent, the department was paged for one call for smoke in the area, but no source/problem was found. The department was also paged to assist medics with access to a patient’s apartment where a medical alarm had been activated, but a family member with access arrived before fire and granted them access. Finally, the third call was for a smell of gas in a home. Dispatched and Cancelled En route: 4- Four times the department was paged and cancelled before arriving on scene. Mutual/Auto-Aid Other: 2- The fire department was paged for two structure fire calls in West St Paul. The department was cancelled before going enroute on one, and the other Ladder 11 responded to. Page 52 of 426 May Trainings Wed, May 6, 07:00 Live Burn Mandatory Option 2 Each firefighter is required to attend a live burn session annually. This year the live burn training was held at the East Metro Public Safety Training Facility in Oakdale. Scenarios are set up where crews do fire attacks, search, pumping and command and control all with live fire conditions. This drill is an extended length drill. Mon, May 8, 18:00 Live Burn Mandatory Option 3 Each firefighter is required to attend a live burn session annually. This year the live burn training was held at the East Metro Public Safety Training Facility in Oakdale. Scenarios are set up where crews do fire attacks, search, pumping and command and control all with live fire conditions. This drill is an extended length drill. Tues, May 12, 18:30 Ropes & Knots Elective Option 1 This drill was a refresher on tying and releasing standard knots used in the fire service. In addition to going over the knots, stations were set up for hands-on usage of the knots in lifting and lowering misc. on scene equipment and/or rescue litters occurs. Thurs, May 15, 07:00 Ropes & Knots Elective Option 2 This drill was a refresher on tying and releasing standard knots used in the fire service. In addition to going over the knots, stations were set up for hands on usage of the knots in lifting and lowering misc. on scene equipment and/or rescue litters occurs. Page 53 of 426 Number of Calls 24 Total Calls for Year:139 FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE ACTUAL FIRES Structure - MH Commercial $0 Structure - MH Residential $70,000 Structure - Contract Areas $0 Cooking Fire - confined $0 Vehicle - MH 1 $0 Vehicle - Contract Areas 1 $55,000 $20,000 $75,000 Grass/Brush/No Value MH 1 Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES Other Fire OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $0 $0 Excessive heat, scorch burns MEDICAL Emergency Medical/Assist 2 Vehicle accident w/ no injuries 2 Extrication ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$0 Medical, other HAZARDOUS SITUATION $0 Spills/Leaks 1 Carbon Monoxide Incident Power line down 1 Arcing, shorting $70,000 Hazardous, Other SERVICE CALL Smoke or odor removal $75,000 Assist Police or other agency Service Call, other 1 GOOD INTENT Good Intent 1 Dispatched & Cancelled 4 Current To Date Last Year Smoke Scare 1 20 114 104 HazMat release investigation 1 1 11 11 Good Intent, Other 0 0 4 FALSE ALARMS 1 5 7 False Alarm 2 9 18 Malfunction 3 Unintentional 2 Total:24 139 144 False Alarm, other MUTUAL AID 2 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH Total Calls 24 Inspections Investigations WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year Re-Inspection Fire Calls 290 1649 1838.5 Meetings 48 236.6 459.75 Meetings Training 354 1721.5 1909.5 Special Activity 51 152.3 199 Administration Fire Marshal 0 0 0 Plan Review/Training TOTALS 743 3759.4 4406.75 TOTAL:0 Mendota Heights Only Structure/Contents Mendota Heights Only Miscellaneous Mendota Heights Total Loss to Date Contract Areas Loss to Date Mendota Heights Lilydale Mendota Sunfish Lake Mutual Aid MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT MAY 2025 MONTHLY REPORT FIRE LOSS TOTALS LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS Page 54 of 426 June 2025 Fire Synopsis Fire Calls: 35 For June 2025, the Mendota Heights Fire Department paged for service a total of 35 times. Mendota Heights 25 calls Lilydale 2 calls Mendota 5 calls Sunfish Lake 1 call Other 2 calls Total 35 calls Types of calls: Fires: 1- The fire department responded to and extinguished a vehicle on southbound 35E in June. Medical/Extrication: 6- There were six calls for service under the category medical/ extrication. This included three medicals, a search for a person in the water, and two calls for vehicle accidents (one needing extrication, the other did not). Hazardous Situations: 4- June found the department going to two arcing powerlines calls, one powerline down call, and a carbon monoxide call. False Alarms/System Malfunctions: 10- In June the department went to five calls due to system malfunctions, four unintentional trips, and one “other” fire alarm. Service Calls: 2- MHFD Fire (officer-only page out) provided the Mendota Heights Police Department with access to a commercial building where they were searching for a suspect that had been involved in a chase. Fire was also paged to assist medics in providing access to an apartment building to help a caller. Good Intent: 3- Under good intent, there were two calls to investigate the smell of gas in homes where no problems were found. In addition, the department responded to a vehicle fire that State Patrol cancelled. Dispatched and Cancelled En route: 7- There were seven calls in June that were cancelled before our arrival. Mutual/Auto-Aid Other: 2- MHFD was requested for mutual/ auto aid in Eagan and in Inver Grove Heights in June. Page 55 of 426 June Trainings Wed, June 9, 18:30 Mandatory Relay & Tender Operations Option 1 This drill was held in Mendota, an area with limited fire hydrant access and extended distances. The drill consisted of using a drop tank (a large portable pool to hold water in for the pumpers to draft water from) while the “Tenders” aka “Tanker” trucks go to a hydrant to bring more water to the scene. In addition to setting up the drafting operation, the “fire attack” pumper was set up at a level significantly higher than where the water tank was causing the truck that was drafting the water to then pump the water uphill to the “fire attack” pumper. The drill required crews establish a master stream deck gun operation. Mon, June 12, 07:00 Mandatory Relay & Tender Operations Option 2 This drill was held in Mendota, an area with limited fire hydrant access and extended distances. The drill consisted of using a drop tank (a large portable pool to hold water in for the pumpers to draft water from) while the “Tenders” aka “Tanker” trucks go to a hydrant to bring more water to the scene. In addition to setting up the drafting operation, the “fire attack” pumper was set up at a level significantly higher than where the water tank was causing the truck that was drafting the water to then pump the water uphill to the “fire attack” pumper. The drill required crews establish a master stream deck gun operation. Tues, June 18, 18:30 Elective Boat Operations Option 1 This design of this drill is for firefighters to go over standard boat operating procedures typically while deployed in the river or other suitable waterways. Proper PPE, along with rescue methods that minimize rescuer safety as the situation dictates. Thurs, June 24, 07:00 Elective Boat Operations Option 2 This design of this drill is for firefighters to go over standard boat operating procedures typically while deployed in the river or other suitable waterways. Proper PPE, along with rescue methods that minimize rescuer safety as the situation dictates. Tues, June 25, 18:30 Mandatory Relay & Tender Operations Option 3 This drill was held in Mendota, an area with limited fire hydrant access and extended distances. The drill consisted of using a drop tank (a large portable pool to hold water in for the pumpers to draft water from) while the “Tenders” aka “Tanker” trucks go to a hydrant to bring more water to the scene. In addition to setting up the drafting operation, the “fire attack” pumper was set up at a level significantly higher than where the water tank was causing the truck that was drafting the water to then pump the water uphill to the “fire attack” pumper. The drill required crews establish a master stream deck gun operation. Page 56 of 426 Number of Calls 35 Total Calls for the Year 174 FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE ACTUAL FIRES Structure - MH Commercial $0 Structure - MH Residential $70,000 Structure - Contract Areas $0 Cooking Fire - confined $0 Vehicle - MH 1 $5,000 $5,000 Vehicle - Contract Areas $75,000 Grass/Brush/No Value MH Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES Other Fire OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $0 $5,000 $0 Excessive heat, scorch burns MEDICAL Emergency Medical/Assist 2 Vehicle accident w/injuries 2 Extrication 1 ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$5,000 Medical, other 1 HAZARDOUS SITUATION $0 Spills/Leaks Carbon Monoxide Incident 1 $0 Power line down Arcing, shorting 3 $70,000 Hazardous, Other SERVICE CALL Smoke or odor removal $75,000 Assist Police or other agency 2 Service Call, other GOOD INTENT Good Intent 1 Dispatched & Cancelled 7 Current To Date Last Year Smoke Scare 25 139 127 HazMat release investigation 2 2 13 12 Good Intent, Other 5 5 7 FALSE ALARMS 1 6 8 False Alarm 2 11 19 Malfunction 5 Unintentional 4 Total:35 174 173 False Alarm, other 1 MUTUAL AID 2 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH Total Calls 35 Inspections Investigations WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year Re-Inspection Fire Calls 459 2108 2189 Meetings 18 254.6 471.25 Meetings Training 207 1928.5 2419 Special Activity 23 175.3 200.5 Administration Fire Marshal 0 0 0 Plan Review/Training TOTALS 707 4466.4 5279.75 TOTAL:0 Lilydale Mendota Sunfish Lake Mutual Aid MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT JUNE 2025 MONTHLY REPORT FIRE LOSS TOTALS LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS Mendota Heights Mendota Heights Only Structure/Contents Mendota Heights Only Miscellaneous Mendota Heights Total Loss to Date Contract Areas Loss to Date Page 57 of 426 6.k REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 6, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Award Contract for Lift Station Panel Replacement ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Public Works CONTACT: John Boland, Public Works Superintendent ACTION REQUEST: Award a contract to Total Control Systems Inc. in the amount of $31,090 for a replacement control panel and SCADA system, and award a contract to Total Construction for $13,710 for the electrical work and installation of this equipment at the Centre Pointe Lift Station. BACKGROUND: The City has six sewage lift stations. The Centre Pointe Lift Station was installed in the 1980s and is in need of replacement. This project includes a new cabinet and all components, including SCADA monitoring of the station. This will be our fourth lift station with SCADA capabilities. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: In the 2025 Sanitary Sewer Budget there is $50,000 set aside for this project. The total cost of this project is $44,800. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 58 of 426 This page is intentionally left blank 6.l REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 6, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Adopt Resolution 2025-50 Accepting Donations Made to the Mendota Heights Police Department ITEM TYPE: Resolution DEPARTMENT: Police CONTACT: Wayne Wegener, Police Captain Kelly McCarthy, Police Chief ACTION REQUEST: Accept a donation of $40.00 from a citizen to go toward the police department's gun safe program and $100 to the general fund. BACKGROUND: Minnesota State Statute 465.03 “Gifts to municipalities” requires all donations be acknowledged by Resolution. This memo meets Minnesota State Statutory requirements by having the City Council formally accept the gift and recognizing the donor. A citizen known to the police department learned about the agency's gun safe program and donated $40.00 to support it. In July, Officer Steve Hilyar helped a motorist who was separated from her family and means of assistance. The motorist sent a "Thank You" card that contained $200 cash to reimburse Officer Hilyar (Attached). Officer Hilyar stated that this amount was in excess of what he provided. He was issued $100 reimbursement, and we are requesting the remaining $100 be deposited to the general fund earmarked for dinner at a future department dinner. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: A $140 deposit to the general fund. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Thank you card 2.Res. 2025-50 Formally Accepting Donations to the Mendota Heights Police Departmment CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 59 of 426 Page 60 of 426 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2025-50 FORMALLY ACCEPTING DONATIONS TO THE MENDOTA HEIGHT POLICE DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to follow Minnesota Statute 465.03 “Gifts to Municipalities”; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Statute requires a resolution to accept gifts to municipalities; and WHEREAS, the City has previously acknowledged gifts with a resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights has duly considered this matter and wishes to acknowledge the civic mindedness of citizens and officially recognize their donations. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights formally accept $40.00 from a citizen and $100.00 from a motorist who was separated from her family. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights on this 6th day of August 2025. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 61 of 426 This page is intentionally left blank 6.m REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 6, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Adopt Resolution 2025-46 Accepting Work and Final Payment for Bridgeview Shores Street Improvements Project 202406 ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Engineering CONTACT: Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director Lucas Ritchie, Assistant City Engineer ACTION REQUEST: The Council is asked to approve Resolution No. 2025-46, to accept the work and approve the final payment for the Bridgeview Shores Street Improvements. BACKGROUND: The City Council awarded the contract to Bituminous Roadways at their May 7, 2024, City Council meeting for the low bid of $1,735,766.19. The contract work for the project has been completed, inspected, and approved. The project is ready for final payment. This will start the one-year guarantee period. All required paperwork needed before the final payment can be issued has been submitted. Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve the attached Resolution No. 2025-46 “RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR THE BRIDGEVIEW SHORES STREET IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 202406”. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The project costs were funded by Special Assessments, Municipal Bonds, Saint Paul Regional Water Services Funds, and Utility Funds. The final payment for this contract is $14,998.49 including retainage. The total costs for the project were $1,499,848.77. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Resolution 2025-46 Accepting Work and Final Payment for Bridgeview Shores Project CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 62 of 426 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2025-46 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR THE BRIDGEVIEW SHORES STREET IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 202406 WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract with the City of Mendota Heights on May 8, 2024, with Bituminous Roadways, Inc. of Mendota Heights, MN, has satisfactorily completed the improvements for the Bridgeview Shores Street Improvements Project #202406, in accordance with such contract; and WHEREAS, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the work completed under said contract is hereby accepted and approved; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby directed to issue a proper order for the final payment on such contract in the amount of $14,998.49, taking the contractor’s receipt in full. Adopted by the Mendota Heights City Council this sixth day of August, 2025. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ______________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 63 of 426 6.n REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 6, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Adopt Resolution 2025-47 Approving an Administrative MRCCA Permit for 1128 Kingsley Circle North (Planning Case No. 2025-14) ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager ACTION REQUEST: Adopt Resolution 2025-47, Approving an Administrative MRCCA Permit for 1128 Kingsley Circle North BACKGROUND: The applicant, Ohana Construction Inc, has been contracted by the property owner to complete a remodel project of the subject property, which includes the removal of an existing deck and the installation of a new patio area adjacent to the home at 1128 Kingsley Circle North. The patio improvements are an expansion of impervious surface, and the removal of the deck requires a building permit which necessitates the City process a site plan review consistent with the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Ordinance. The subject property is located in the R-2 Medium Density Residential Zoning district; and is situated within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area overlay district. According to the city’s MRCCA mapping of this area, the subject property is located in the SR-Separated by River District. The MRCCA Map of the subject property shows a demarcated bluff line approximately 430-ft. (at its closest point) from the northwest of the site. No part of this proposed patio will impact or affect any nearby bluff lines, steep slopes, or bluff impact zones (BIZ). The MRCCA Mapping system also identifies any Primary Conservation Areas (PCA), which include protected areas such as established Significant Existing Vegetative Stands or Native Plant Communities on properties inside the MRCCA district. The location of this property and patio does not impact any part of nearby PCA’s in this area. Pursuant to City Code Section 12-6-12, no building permit, zoning approval, or subdivision approval shall be issued for any action or development located in an area covered by this chapter (Miss. River Corridor Critical Area) until a site plan has been prepared and approved in Page 64 of 426 accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Subpart D. of this section also includes an allowance for “Minor Developments”, which include minor improvements to a residential property that can be approved directly by the City Council, without Planning Commission review or recommendation, and without a public hearing, but only if the minor project and plans conform to the general standards of this section. Eligible projects for an Administrative MRCCA Permit include small building additions, decks, fences, walkways, stairs, open patios or outdoor sitting areas, etc. All administratively approved projects must meet or comply with the following conditions (with staff comments noted afterwards): 1.No part of the subject property shall have slopes of greater than eighteen percent (18%). Staff Comment: The patio is being installed along the western portion of the townhome lot, with access to the principal structure. According to Dakota County GIS mapping, this lot is graded as a level area, with a slow slope entering the development via the shared drive aisle. There are no significant changes in elevation in the area the patio is to be installed. Staff confirms this standard is being met. 2.No part of the project shall impact, disturb or be situated in a bluff line setback area as defined by this chapter, whether on the same parcel or on an abutting parcel of land. Staff Comment: Although the subject property is situated in the MRCCA overlay district, there are no bluffs; bluff impact zones (BIZ’s); or any Primary Conservation Areas (PCA) on this property. The addition of a new patio is minimal and minor enough to not pose any threat or negative impacts to the abutting or neighboring properties. Staff confirms this standard is being met. 3.The proposed project shall not expand the enclosed area of the principal or accessory structures by more than two hundred (200) square feet. Staff Comment: Not applicable; there is no addition onto a structure proposed under this permit. Staff confirms this standard is being met. 4.The proposed project shall not increase the height of any existing structure. Staff Comment: Not applicable; there is no modification to any structure under this permit. Staff confirms this standard will be met. 5.The proposed project shall be in compliance with all other requirements of this Chapter, and any other applicable regulations. Staff Comment: The proposed patio project and all related landscaping work in and around this project site shall be in compliance with all other requirements of this chapter, and any other applicable regulations, including the City’s Land Disturbance Guidelines. Staff confirms this standard is or will be met. 6.The proposed project shall not result in significant changes to the existing finished Page 65 of 426 grade. Staff Comment: The proposed patio will be installed consistently with the established level grade of the site. There are no plans by the contractor or homeowner to change these grades as part of this patio project. Staff confirms this standard is or will be met. 7.The proposed project areas shall include native vegetation. Staff Comments: The applicant has submitted a site plan for the improvement area, indicating that native vegetation and additional landscaping will be installed following the completion of the patio project. This permit would allow the installation of a typical residential patio of reasonable scale to this development area, and there are no plans to remove any vegetation to complete the installation of the patio. Staff confirms this standard is being met. RECOMMENDATION: Based on staff's interpretation of the intent of the Minor Development provisions of Title 12-6- 1, the scope of the project does not require Planning Commission recommendation and a public hearing; and therefore, may be given full consideration and approval by the City Council. Since there are no impacts to the Mississippi River Corridor's bluff areas, bluff impact zone, or PCA's in this district, and no impacts to the surrounding properties, staff recommends the City Council approve this Administrative MRCCA Permit to Ohana Construction at 1128 Kingsley Circle North, with the findings-of-fact and conditions as noted in the attached Resolution 2025-47. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The applicant has submitted the required fees per the Mendota Heights adopted fee schedule. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Resolution 2025-47 2.MRCCA Map 3.Letter of Intent 4.Proposed Patio Plan CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Environmental Sustainability & Stewardship Page 66 of 426 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2025-47 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ADMINISTRATIVE MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA (MRCCA) MINOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1128 KINGSLEY CIRCLE NORTH [PLANNING CASE NO. 2025-14] WHEREAS, Ohana Construction Inc. (as “Applicant”) applied for an Administrative Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Minor Development Permit in order to demolish an existing deck structure and install a new patio, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2025-14, and for the property located at 1128 Kingsley Circle North, legally described in attached Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District of the City of Mendota Heights, and the proposed project qualifies as a Minor Development under Title 12-6-12, Subpart D of the City Code provisions for those properties situated in the recognized MRCCA District; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is compliant with the required conditions for exemption from Planning Commission review and a public hearing, and can be considered and acted on directly by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Administrative MRCCA Minor Development Permit for the property located at 1128 Kingsley Circle North, and proposed under Planning Case No. 2025-14, is hereby approved and supported by the following findings-of-fact: 1.The proposed patio project poses no threat to the general health, safety and welfare of the public, or creates any negative impacts upon the MRCCA area, adjacent bluffs, bluff impact zones (BIZ’s), Primary Conservation Areas (PCA’s) or surrounding properties. 2.The proposed patio will not impact or change any grades or drainage ways on the subject property. 3.The proposed patio project will be done in accordance with all requirements of the City’s Land Disturbance Guidelines. 4.The proposed project meets the general purpose and intent of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District and City Code BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Administrative MRCCA Minor Development Permit as requested by Ohana Construction Inc. and for the property located at 1128 Kingsley Circle North is hereby approved, with the following conditions of approval: Page 67 of 426 Mendota Heights Res. 2025-47 Page 2 of 3 1.A separate building permit must be approved by city staff prior to commencement of any work on the subject property. 2.If necessary, full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put into place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3.All disturbed areas impacted by new grading or construction work on the subject property shall be completely repaired and restored in a timely and expedited manner. 4.All 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. 5.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 on this 6th day of August, 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 Page 68 of 426 Mendota Heights Res. 2025-47 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A Address: 1128 KINGSLEY CIRCLE NORTH, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 PID: 27-41900-01-100 Legal Description: LOT 10, BLOCK 1, KINGSLEY ESTATES, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA [Abstract Property] Page 69 of 426 Page 70 of 426 Critical Area Permit Property address: 1128 Kingsley Cir N, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Property owners: Dan and Tina Allison Contractor/Applicant: Ohana Construction Inc. Ryan Sewell License #BC580521 Our intention is to replace an existing deck with a patio. This will include some native perennials and there are no areas of historical significance. Page 71 of 426 LANDINGALL EXPOSED AGGREGATECONCRETE PATH, PATIO AND STEPSBOXWOODSLANDINGSTEP16'-8 7/8"31'-6 7/8"24'-7 3/8"6'-0"2'-9 3/8"ALLISON PROPOSED PATIO PLAN1128 KINGSLEY CIR NMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118OHANA CONSTRUCTION INC.LICENSE #BC580521651-274-3116WILL INCLUDE SOMENATIVE PERENNIALSOHANA CONSTRUCTION INC 651-274-3116 BC580521 THE ALLISON RESIDENCE 1128 KINGSLEY CIR N, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118Page 72 of 426 This page is intentionally left blank Page 73 of 4266.o Page 74 of 426 Page 75 of 426 Page 76 of 426 Page 77 of 426 Page 78 of 426 Page 79 of 426 Page 80 of 426 Page 81 of 426 Page 82 of 426 Page 83 of 426 Page 84 of 426 Page 85 of 426 Page 86 of 426 Page 87 of 426 Page 88 of 426 7.a REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 6, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: MRPA Award of Excellence for Marketing and Communications ITEM TYPE: Presentation DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation CONTACT: Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Accept the MRPA Award of Excellence for Marketing and Communications. BACKGROUND: Jared Flewellen, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director for the City of Eagan, representing the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association (MRPA) will present the 2024 MRPA Award of Excellence to the City of Mendota Heights. The MRPA annually recognizes communities for excellence in marketing and communications. The Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation team was awarded the 2024 MRPA Award of Excellence for the 2023 Parks and Recreation Annual Report Video. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 89 of 426 This page is intentionally left blank 9.a REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 6, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2025-45 Approving a Special Appropriations Permit Application for Oheyawahe ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Engineering CONTACT: Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Approve Resolution 2025-45 approving a special appropriation permit application for Oheyawahe. BACKGROUND: The 2023 Minnesota Legislature passed legislation (House File 1950/Senate File 2011) funding $1.85 million for a grant from the Department of Employment and Economic Development to the City of Mendota Heights for capital improvements at Oheyawahe/Pilot Knob. In addition to the State Grant, Oheyawahe has also been awarded three grants from the Historical Society of Minnesota which has guided the necessary improvements to be implemented on the site. The guidance from the Interpretive plans has been to let the land speak for herself and minimize the man-made features on the site. The city is required to implement all items identified in the State Grant language. For a grant to the city of Mendota Heights for development of Oheyawahe (Pilot Knob), a culturally, historically, and environmentally important site and Dakota sacred site located at 2100 Pilot Knob Road in Mendota Heights, overlooking the confluence of the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers, which is included on the National Register of Historic Places. This appropriation includes money to design and construct; multipurpose gathering spaces, interpretation structures, trail connections and walkways, parking, and other visitor amenities and infrastructure; grading, landscaping, and other site and natural resource improvements including the planting and restoration of native vegetation; and other betterments necessary to provide safe and improved visitor access and preserve the site as a public natural area. The consultant (WSB and Associates), Oheyawahe Task Force, and staff have been working on developing capital improvements plans. The city needs to complete and submit a special appropriations application to DEED to move forward with entering into a contract to receive Page 90 of 426 the legislative funds. Council will hear a brief presentation then staff and task force can answer any questions. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The City is required to provide a $50,000 match on the State funds. To maximize the desired capital improvements, staff are proposing that additional funds be allocated to the project. The additional funds are projected to include storm water utility funds ($144,000) for the pond construction, piping, and other drainage work. Sanitary and water utility funds ($44,000) to extend the utilities for the restroom facility, funds from Dakota County ($10,000) for a trailhead along the Big Rivers Regional Trail, and Natural Resource funds ($41,000) to implement the Natural Resource Management Plan for the site. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Res 2025-45 Special Appropriation Application 2.Application for SPAP Capital Projects - Oheyawahe CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Environmental Sustainability & Stewardship, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 91 of 426 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2025-45 RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL APPROPRIATION APPLICATION BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mendota Heights act as the legal sponsor for the project contained in House File 1950/Senate File 2011 entitled Oheyawahe/Pilot Knob. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Mendota Heights has the legal authority to receive financial assistance, and the institutional, managerial, and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the sources and amounts of the local match identified in the development proposal are committed to the project identified. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Mendota Heights has not violated any Federal, State or local laws pertaining to fraud, bribery, graft, kickbacks, collusion, conflict of interest or other unlawful or corrupt practice. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon approval of its development proposal by the state, the City of Mendota Heights may enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota for the above-referenced project, and that the City of Mendota Heights certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulation as stated in all contract agreements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the non-DEED source of funds identified in the sources and uses outline in the application total the amount of $289,000 and are committed and adequate to fully fund or provide the match for the project identified in the application. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any source of the Applicant’s fund to fully fund the project shall be from the General Fund account which has an adequate amount of funds to cover the commitment. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the City of Mendota Heights. I CERTIFY THAT the above resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights on August 6, 2025. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this sixth day of August, 2025. WITNESSED: ______________________________ Nancy Bauer ______________________________ SIGNED: ______________________________ Stephanie B. Levine ______________________________ Mayor Date City Clerk Date Page 92 of 426 1 Special Appropriation Application for Construction Projects Application Cover Sheet Project Name: Oheyawahe (Pilot Knob) Project Address or Location: 2100 Pilot Knob Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 County Where Project Is: Dakota Applicant/Grantee: City of Mendota Heights Project Contact Person: Ryan Ruzek Title: Public Works Director Address: 1101 Victoria Curve City: Mendota Heights MN Zip 55118 Phone: 651-255-1152 E-Mail Address: rruzek@mendotaheightsmn.gov Minnesota SWIFT Vendor number: 0000199154 Grantee Type: Statutory City, Home Rule Charter City or Other (if other indicate type): Statutory City NOTE: DEED will not provide funds to a title company or any other entity on behalf of the grantee. Funds will be provided directly to the grantee, preferably into a separate account that is created for the project. Legislative Authorization Legislative Citation that Authorizes Project: (Chapter #, Article #, section, subdivision): Chapter 71, Article 1, Section 14, Subdivision 21 Page 93 of 426 2 Legislative Language: For a grant to the city of Mendota Heights for development of Oheyawahe (Pilot Knob), a culturally, historically, and environmentally important site and Dakota sacred site located at 2100 Pilot Knob Road in Mendota Heights, overlooking the confluence of the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers, which is included on the National Register of Historic Places. This appropriation includes money to design and construct: multipurpose gathering spaces, interpretation structures, trail connections and walkways, parking, and other visitor amenities and infrastructure; grading, landscaping, and other site and natural resource improvements including the planting and restoration of native vegetation; and other betterments necessary to provide safe and improved visitor access and preserve the site as a public natural area. Project Narrative Oheyawahe is a Dakota traditional cultural property (TCP) and sacred site located in Mendota Heights. The property is owned and managed by the City of Mendota Heights and is open to the public free of charge. It is a significant place for education and cultural understanding. Visitation to the site by individuals and groups has been increasing since the site was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2017. It is important to provide a safe and educational experience to visitors of all abilities. The City of Mendota Heights purchased the property in stages, in 8.2 acres in 2006, 14.4 acres in 2008, and 1 acre in 2020. The entrance, parking lot and trails originally developed by the City for public visitation are now inadequate for the number of visitors and their needs. The proposed construction project recognizes that Oheyawahe carries historic and sacred significance, and that improvements to the site must be undertaken to maintain these qualities and ensure safe access for people with varying abilities. The dimensions and costs of the construction elements are subject to revision during the design phase of the project and as work related to the interpretive concept design continues. This appropriation includes funding to design and construct these Project Activities: 1.Design The City of Mendota Heights will issue a request for proposal to hire an architect and engineering firm to design the project based on the elements included in the legislative funding. 2.Parking Lot/Rain Garden/Utilities The current, small parking lot at Pilot Knob Road and Acacia Blvd was constructed in 2008 is no longer adequate for the number of visitors nor is it considered safe for student bus drop-off and pick-ups. The new main entrance and parking lot will be relocated along the north side of Acacia Blvd. This budget line includes money for grading and landscaping. Other activities included: a.Parking lot will be a 11-space lot with 2 additional handicap spaces. The parking lot also includes space for three school buses to park off-street. b.Stormwater will be managed by an adjacent raingarden or bioswale. Page 94 of 426 3 Additional features include site improvements and infrastructure for visitor safety and amenities May include security cameras at the main entrance and high-speed internet and WiFi to connect interpretive installations to mobile phones. 3.Shelter Structure A main gathering space close to the parking lot will provide accessible amenities: a.general use canopy with seating b.this structure will be the main gathering area for school group tours 4.Restroom Facility A restroom facility will include the following accessible amenities: a.at least two (2) fully accessible and inclusive gender-neutral restrooms with adult changing table b.Remote locking restroom facility doors c.drinking fountain d.storage for maintenance and operations 5.Trails and Walkways Currently trails existing at the site are not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act and are prone to erosion. Improvements include: a.ADA compliant walkways between parking lot, rest rooms and main trail b.ADA compliant loop to north Overlook c.A new trail that connects the Valencour entrance to the main trail d.An improved connecting trail from Big Rivers Regional Trail (BRRT) Oheyawahe node to the Seven Council Fires overlook. The BRRT is operated by Dakota County and serves an estimated 167,000 users each year. Access improvements to Oheyawahe include addressing the steep eroding trail e.Redesign trails as necessary to be sustainable and to minimize maintenance and erosion damage f.Reduction of former Pilot Knob Rd to 8’ lane 6.Interpretive Structures (Kiosk, Monument, Overlook) Interpretive structures are in the process of development. The Minnesota Historical Society awarded Heritage Partnership Program Grants to the City of Mendota Heights and its partners, Dakota County and Pilot Knob Preservation Association, in 2020 to develop interpretive themes and in 2022 to develop the Interpretive Concept Design Plan. An Additional grant was also awarded in 2024 to develop the proper language and history. Interpretive structures will be constructed and located as the plan recommends. The plan is guided by input from a Dakota advisory group. a.Wayfinding signage at the three entrances. b.A kiosk or educational information case at the three entrances. c.Interpretive features installed on site per the plan may include structures, interactive art, and interpretive signs. Page 95 of 426 4 d.Design and installation of a monument sign noting the site listing on the National Register of Historic Places at the main entrance. e.Redesign and relocation of the North Overlook. f.Additional interpretation at the current Seven Council Fires Overlook. This informal gathering space comprises seven limestone blocks representing the Oceti Sakowin— the seven Dakota/Lakota/Nakota groups—residing from Minnesota to Montana, Nebraska to Canada. 7.Valencour Structure The 1-acre parcel purchased in 2020 included a house and several structures that were removed. A new garage was kept as a gathering space for visitors to Oheyawahe. 8.Engineering/Architectural Construction Management The City of Mendota Heights will issue a request for proposal to hire an architect and engineering firm to manage the construction of the project. 9.Activities not funded through DEED/SPAP (Natural Resources County Collaboration) The City implements a Natural Resources Management Plan (NRMP) specifically for the Oheyawahe site. The main goal of the NRMP is to restore site vegetation to oak savanna and woodland, where appropriate. It supports habitat for wildlife as well as maintaining the historic and aspect of the landscape. Capital improvements are predominantly at the entrances to the site, and overlook, trails and interpretive elements are designed to minimize ecological impacts and retain historic views. Ownership and Usage Who is the current owner of the project’s footprint: City of Mendota Heights Who is the current owner of the project (building, structure or facility), if not new construction: City of Mendota Heights owns the property. No current buildings, structure, or facility exist on the site. How will ownership be transferred to the applying entity if the applying entity does not yet own the footprint, building, structure, or facility: Not applicable, the City of Mendota Heights owns the property. Who will operate and maintain the property or facility (project) after project completion: City of Mendota Heights Will there be any other users or tenants of the facility other than the owner: (Yes/No): No If so, will any of these tenants be frequent users or already have a lease/use agreement (Yes/No): No Page 96 of 426 5 If so, name the users or tenants and how they would use the completed project: Not applicable as no other users or tenants exist Will the project involve executing a naming rights agreement with any entity (Yes/No): No Describe who will own, operate and maintain the property and/or facility after project completion: The City of Mendota Heights will own, operate, and maintain the property and facility after completion. Questions 1.If applicable, do any aspects of the project have historical significance? If so, which historical organizations will be consulted or need to approve any of the plans for improvements or demolition of or to any building? If so, please outline how these organizations will be involved. If they will not be involved, or their participation is not applicable, please outline why: This approximately 25-acre site has historical significance as a landscape and cultural site. It has no buildings or structures with historical significance. The site is part of a 112-acre area designated on the National Register of Historic Places in 2017 for its significance as a traditional cultural property and historic site unrelated to any historic buildings. Improvements will be made in a manner that preserves the site’s historical integrity as a landscape. Since no federal funds have been used to acquire or improve the site, the National Register designation does not impose any legal restraints on site improvements. 36 CFR §60.2; https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/faqs.htm#:~:text=Under%20Federal%20La w%2C%20the%20listing,usually%20funding%20or%20licensing%2Fpermitting. The City of Mendota Heights (City) is mindful of the character of the area as a Dakota sacred site and its cultural significance to Indigenous people. The City is engaged with the organizations listed below to enhance its understanding and to create plans for appropriate improvements. No approvals are required from these organizations. Full Circle Indigenous Planning + Design: A 100% Native American owned, community focused planning and design firm currently preparing the interpretive concept design for the site. Full Circle is the City’s current contractor to prepare an interpretive concept design for the site. Pilot Knob Preservation Association (PKPA): An Indigenous-led 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation with a mission to advocate for this distinctive hill, document its long history, raise public awareness of its importance, and help to preserve it for present and future generations. PKPA has advised the City regarding interpretation and management since the site was acquired in 2006. PKPA is represented on the Task Force appointed by the City Council to advise the City about management at Oheyawahe. 106 Group: A respected company of archaeologists, historians, planners, and designers with a local office and over thirty years of experience connecting people, place Page 97 of 426 6 and time. 106 Group conducted a historical review of this site in 2002 and is engaged as a subcontractor in the interpretive concept design. Dakota County: The City works closely with the Outdoor Education Supervisor and the Natural Resources Manager of Dakota County Parks, both of whom are on the Task Force appointed by the Mendota Heights City Council to advise the City about interpretation and management at Oheyawahe. MN Historical Society (MHS): MHS has been engaged with PKPA and City at this site for approximately twenty years. MHS awarded two grants to PKPA for interpretative of the site and endorsed the nomination of the site by PKPA to the National Register of Historic Places. MHS has awarded two Heritage Partnership Program grants to the partners Mendota Heights, Dakota County and PKPA for interpretive planning. That planning and consultation is ongoing and incorporated into the proposed construction elements. Acacia Park Cemetery: Acacia Park Cemetery owns 80 acres of the 112-acre area listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Cemetery has a representative on the Task Force that is guiding the management and improvements to the area. In addition, Mendota Heights Oheyawahe Task Force members will continue to consult with staff of St. Paul Public Schools, Minnesota Council of Churches and Minnesota Center for Humanities which regularly bring groups to the site. 2.Attach a map of the city with the location of the project indicated on the map: See Attached 3.Attach engineering and/or architectural total project cost estimate documents. If not available, how do we know the projected costs are professionally estimated: See Attached 4.What is the useful life of the project after completion? Note that the pending grant agreement and public ownership of the project will need to be maintained for 125% of the useful life of the project. So, for example, a project with a useful life of 30 years will have a grant agreement in effect for 37.5 years and need to be owned for the same amount of time. Any sale or any change of use not outlined in the enabling legislation would trigger repayment of a pro-rata share of grant funds back to the state. 25 Years Page 98 of 426 7 Project Budget Proposed activities must match up with legislative language and should include all costs required to complete the project. Complete Tables 1 and 2 below. Before completing, read the instructions provided. Both contain samples for guidance. Table 1 For the Project Activities Column: List separately the components of the project that are eligible items: Capital costs and/or costs assigned in the legislative appropriation. Examples would be predesign, design, and construction elements. List all non-eligible items that are needed for the project as a separate line item. Add rows to the table for more costs as needed. For Match/Other Funds: Provide the dollar amount for any match and/or other funds that are estimated to be needed to complete the project. Examples - If the legislation mandates a 1:1 match, the DEED funds should be equal to the Match/Other Funds column. If the total project costs are estimated to exceed the DEED funds and the matching funds, enter the amount of funds that are needed for each line that total the amount needed for the project. If there is no legislated match for the project, but other funds are needed to complete the estimated project costs, provide those figures in this column as well. Total Itemized Projected Costs: Make sure that all costs total correctly. Table 1 – Budget Outline Project Activities DEED/SPAP Funds Match/Other Funds Total Itemized Projected Cost Design $130,000 $130,000 Parking Lot $400,000 $400,000 Valencour Trail Connection $40,000 $40,000 Central Trail $200,000 $200,000 Trail to the Big Rivers Regional Trail $100,000 $100,000 Parking Lot Sidewalk $50,000 $50,000 Seven Council Fires Overlook $5,000 $5,000 Main Gathering Area $285,000 $285,000 Restroom Facility $470,000 $50,000 $520,000 Engineering/Architectural Construction Management $120,000 $120,000 Activities not funded through DEED/SPAP Natural Resources City Funds $41,000 Big Rivers Regional Trail Connection $10,000 Storm Water Utility Funds $144,000 Sewer/Water Utility Funds $44,000 Total Costs $1,800,000 $289,000 $2,089,000 Page 99 of 426 8 Table 2: Instructions Lists all eligible activity items from Table 1 in the first column of Table 2. Eligible items are identified in the legislative language. Leave non-eligible items out of Table 2. Lists sources individually, whether those funds are committed, and the dollar amount assigned for each source in the second column. Per the sample below, outline the committed status of funds in the third column. If not yet committed, outline how they will be committed. Attach more comments to outline commitment, if necessary. Finally, in the fourth column, assign the dollar amount of costs assigned to the source that corresponds with that row. Add rows as necessary. Table 2 Eligible Activity from Table 1 Source of Funds from Table 1 above Funds Committed? Yes or No Dollars assigned to source Design DEED/SPAP Yes – Legislative Appropriation $130,000 Parking Lot DEED/SPAP Yes – Legislative Appropriation $400,000 Valencour Trail Connection DEED/SPAP Yes – Legislative Appropriation $40,000 Central Trail DEED/SPAP Yes – Legislative Appropriation $200,000 Trail to Big Rivers Regional Trail DEED/SPAP Yes – Legislative Appropriation $100,000 Parking Lot Sidewalk DEED/SPAP Yes – Legislative Appropriation $50,000 Seven Council Fires Overlook DEED/SPAP Yes – Legislative Appropriation $5,000 Main Gathering Area DEED/SPAP Yes – Legislative Appropriation $285,000 Restroom Facility DEED/SPAP Yes – Legislative Appropriation $520,000 Restroom Facility City General Fund Yes – In approved Budget $50,000 Engineering/Architectural Construction Management DEED/SPAP Yes – Legislative Appropriation $120,000 Activities not funded through DEED/SPAP (Natural Resources County Collaboration City General Fund County General Fund No – Pending Adopted Budget $289,000 Totals $2,089,000 Page 100 of 426 9 Project Timeline Activity Finish mm/yy Site control (if necessary) N/A All funding (non-DEED funds) for project secured and in place 08/25 Declaration Recorded or Waiver from MMB secured 03/26 All permits in place 03/26 Project out for public bid 03/26 Bid accepted 04/26 Project started 05/26 Project complete 05/27 Project inspected and operational 06/27 Page 101 of 426 10 (Check the appropriate box for the Real Property and, if applicable, for the Facility.) Ownership Interest in the Real Property. x Fee simple ownership of the Real Property. A Real Property/Facility Lease for the Real Property that complies with the requirements contained in Section 2.06. (If the term of the Real Property/Facility Lease is for a term authorized by a Minnesota statute, rule or session law, then insert the citation: ________________.) An easement for the Real Property that complies with the requirements contained in Section 2.06. (If the term of the easement is for a term authorized by a Minnesota statute, rule or session law, then insert the citation: ________________.) Ownership Interest in, if applicable, the Facility. Fee simple ownership of the Facility. A Real Property/Facility Lease for the Facility that complies with all of the requirements contained in Section 2.06. (If the term of the Real Property/Facility Lease is for a term authorized by a Minnesota statute, rule or session law, then insert the citation: ______________.) x Not applicable because there is no Facility. Page 102 of 426 11 Attachment 2 to Application: Legal Description Provide the legal description only for the public land footprint on which the property or facility is located. The following real property located in the County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, legally described as follows: That part of Huber's Subdivision, St. George Subdivision, and those parts of Lots 25, 26 and 27 Auditor's Subdivision No. 29 according to the recorded plats thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota and that part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 28, Township 28, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast comer of said Southeast Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds East, along the East line of said Southeast Quarter a distance of 200.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 21 minutes 37 seconds West 20.00 feet; thence South 76 degrees 51 minutes 37 seconds West 240.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 76 degrees 51 minutes 37 seconds East 240.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 21 minutes 37 seconds East 20.00 feet to the intersection with the East line of said Southeast Quarter; thence South 00 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds East along said East line 878.03 feet; thence South 89 degrees 21 minutes 37 seconds West 244.22 feet; thence North 50 degrees 27 minutes 27 seconds West 835.63 feet to the intersection with the Southeasterly right-of-way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad; thence North 38 degrees 14 minutes 29 seconds East 475.86 feet along said right-of-way to the line of intersection with the Northerly line of Huber's Subdivision; thence South 78 degrees 31 minutes 23 seconds East 337.22 feet along the Northerly line of Huber's Subdivision and St. George Subdivision to the intersection with a line drawn on a bearing of North 00 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds West, parallel with the East line of said Southeast Quarter, from the point of beginning; thence South 00 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds East along said parallel line 12.75 feet to the point of beginning. Dakota County, Minnesota Abstract and Torrens Property The Torrens portion of the property is described as follows: The Northeasterly 25 feet of Lot 7 and all of Lot 8 of St. George Subdivision, except that part of Lot 8 of St. George Subdivision of Section 28, Township 28, Range 23, which lies within a distance of 60 feet Southeasterly of the Northwesterly boundary of said Lot 8 and between two parallel lines consisting of the Northeasterly boundary of Said Lot 8 extended Southeasterly and a line 190 feet Southwesterly of the said Northeasterly boundary and the extension of said Northeasterly boundary Southeasterly, also excepting the rights of the State of Minnesota for S.T.H. No. 55, according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds within and for Dakota County, Minnesota. AND That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 28, Township 28, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast comer of said Southeast Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of South 00 Degrees 38 Minutes 23 seconds East, along the East line of said Southeast Quarter a distance of 200.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 89 Degrees 21 Minutes 37 Seconds West 20.00 feet; thence South 76 Degrees 51 Minutes 37 Seconds West 240.00 feet; thence South 00 Degrees 38 Minutes 23 Seconds East parallel with the East line of said Southeast Quarter, 814.00 feet; thence North 88 Degrees 20 Minutes 11 Seconds East 254.35 feet to a point on the Page 103 of 426 12 East line of said Southeast Quarter, said point being 861.40 feet South of the point of beginning, as measured along the East line of said Southeast Quarter; thence North 00 Degrees 38 Minutes 23 Seconds West along said East line, 861.40 feet to the point of beginning. AND ALSO Lot 1, Block 1, Acacia Park East Addition, according to the recorded plat and situate in Dakota County, Minnesota, except Parcel 247C as depicted on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plats 19-98, 19-99 and 19-110. Abstract Property AND ALSO The South 217 feet of Lot Seven (7), Block One (1) Perron Place, except the East 40 feet thereof, together with an easement for driveway purposes over the North 20 feet of the South 217 feet of Lot Nine (9), Lot Eight (8) and the East 40 feet of Lot Seven (7), all in Block One (1) Perron Place. Abstract Property AND ALSO The South 217 feet of East 40 feet of Lot Seven (7); and the South 217 feet of Lot Eight (8), Block One (1), Perron Place. Together with an easement over the North 20 feet of the South 217 feet of Lot Nine (9), Block One (1) of Perron Place. Abstract Property AND ALSO The South 217 feet of Lot Nine (9), Block One (1), Perron Place, subject to an easement for driveway purposes over the North 20 feet thereof. Abstract Property AND ALSO Lot Six (6) in Block Three (3), Pilot Knob Heights, according to the recorded plat of said addition on file in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said Dakota County, Minnesota. Torrens Property Page 104 of 426 13 Attachment 3 to Application: Conflict of Interest Disclosure (To be completed by Mayor, Board Chair, or Equivalent) Conflict of Interest Disclosure State of Minnesota Request for Proposals Instructions: Please return your completed form as part of the Response submittal. Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form This form gives applicants and grantees an opportunity to disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that may exist when receiving a grant. It is the applicant/grantee’s obligation to be familiar with the Office of Grants Management (OGM) Grants Policy 08-01 Conflict of Interest Policy for State Grant- Making (August 2020 Effective Date 1/1/21) and to disclose any conflicts of interest accordingly. All grant applicants must complete and sign a conflict-of-interest disclosure form. X I or my grant organization do NOT have an ACTUAL or POTENTIAL conflict of interest. If at any time after submission of this form, I or my grant organization discover any conflict of interest(s), I or my grant organization will disclose that conflict immediately to the appropriate agency or grant program personnel. I or my grant organization have an ACTUAL or POTENTIAL conflict of interest. (Please describe below): If at any time after submission of this form, I or my grant organization discover any additional conflict of interest(s), I or my grant organization will disclose that conflict immediately to the appropriate agency or grant program personnel. Printed name: Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor Signature: Organization or Local Unit of Government Name: City of Mendota Heights Date: August 6, 2025 Page 105 of 426 Near map US I nc City of Mendota HeightsOheyawahe Location Map Date: 7/30/2025 City ofMendotaHeights03,400 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. Oheyawahe/Historic Pilot Knob Page 106 of 426 14"18"10"12"14"14"14"12"16"14"10"18"18"10"16"18"24"20"18"16"16"18"16"18"18"20"16"14"16"18"4"4"12"12"12"10"12"8"6"6"8"8"48"6"6"12"6"64"10"10"8"40"10"16"16"16"14"18"16"10"12"12"10"12"14"12"12"12"8"8"8"8"8"8"12"10"95075854.53found CEMETARY6"6"8"8"VLT12"12"12"16"20"24"20"12"20"18"44"WELL36"24"8"8"24"10"44"10"MMPRELIMINARY DISTURBANCE AREA:202,700 SF (4.65 ACRES)C:\ACC\ACCDocs\WSB\027830-000\Project Files\05_Discipline\Landscape\Working\027830-000-LP-IMPERVIOUS CALCS.dwg 5/28/2025 4:52:43 PM NSCALE IN FEET0H:100 200OHEYAWAHE (PILOT KNOB)Page 107 of 426 14"18"10"12"14"14"14"12"16"14"10"18"18"10"16"18"24"20"18"16"16"18"16"18"18"20"4"4"12"12"12"10"12"8"6"6"SRIM: 929.18INV:INV:INV:INV:INV:INV:0.9%1.2%9309253.9%5.0%16.6% 9 2 6 927 929930 9319287.0%NO PARKINGWSB PROJECT NO.:C:\ACC\ACCDocs\WSB\027830-000\Project Files\05_Discipline\Landscape\01_Basefiles\027830-000-L-SITE-BASE.dwg 7/30/2025 9:12:18 AM027830-000OHEYAWAHE SITE IMPROVEMENTSPARKING AREA EXHIBITCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTSEXHIBITL1NFEET0H:INSCALE20 40MARCH 10, 2025Page 108 of 426 Oheyawahe Improvements ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION No. Spec Item Units Quantity Unit Price Total Price PARKING & ENTRY REMOVALS 1 2101.502 CLEARING & GRUBBING EA 18 $600.00 $10,800.00 2104.502 REMOVE SIGNS EA 5 $50.00 $250.00 2104.502 SALVAGE & RELOCATE GATE EA 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 2104.502 SALVAGE & RELOCATE BOULDERS EA 15 $300.00 $4,500.00 2104.503 REMOVE FENCE LF 150 $5.00 $750.00 2104.503 SAW CUT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) LF 260 $7.00 $1,820.00 2104.503 REMOVE CURB & GUTTER LF 200 $15.00 $3,000.00 2104.503 REMOVE AGGREGATE TRAIL LF 415 $2.50 $1,037.50 2104.518 REMOVE AGGREGATE PARKING SF 1400 $1.00 $1,400.00 2104.518 REMOVE PAVEMENTS SF 7500 $3.00 $22,500.00 RESTROOM BUILDING 2 2100.601 RESTROOM BUILDING LS 1 $390,000.00 $390,000.00 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EA 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 2503.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT (SANITARY) EA 1 $850.00 $850.00 2503.603 4" SOLID PVC SDR 35 LF 130 $40.00 $5,200.00 2504.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN EA 1 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 2504.602 GATE VALVE & BOX EA 1 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 2504.602 4" PLUG & BLOWOUT EA 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 2504.603 4" WATERMAIN DUCTILE IRON PIPE CL 52 LF 140 $125.00 $17,500.00 2504.608 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LB 10 $50.00 $500.00 2521.518 6-INCH CONCRETE PAVEMENT (RESTROOM PAD) SF 1,100 $16.00 $17,600.00 2545.501 LIGHTING / ELECTRICAL SYSTEM LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 GATHERING AREA 3 2100.601 SHADE STRUCTURE LS 1 $250,000.00 $250,000.00 2108.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE 5 SY 85 $2.00 $170.00 2118.507 AGGREGATE SURFACING (6") CY 14 $55.00 $770.00 2540.602 LOG BENCH EA 7 $2,500.00 $17,500.00 PARKING LOT & WALKS/TRAILS 4 2105.607 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) CY 700 $29.00 $20,300.00 2106.501 EXCAVATION - COMMON LS 1 $80,000.00 $80,000.00 2106.507 ROCK EXCAVATION CY $225.00 $0.00 2106.601 DEWATERING LS 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 2108.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE 5 SY 2,300 $2.00 $4,600.00 2360.504 4-INCH BITUMINOUS PARKING W/BASE SY 2,100 $46.00 $96,600.00 2360.504 TYPE SP 9.5 BIT MIXTURE FOR PATCHING SY 50 $32.00 $1,600.00 2521.518 6-INCH CONCRETE PAVEMENT (WALKS) SF 3,000 $16.00 $48,000.00 2521.518 8-INCH CONCRETE APRON SF 665 $20.00 $13,300.00 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 LF 865 $36.00 $31,140.00 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN D412 LF 200 $38.00 $7,600.00 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES SF 96 $100.00 $9,600.00 2540.602 BIKE RACK EA 1 $1,300.00 $1,300.00 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 Page 109 of 426 No. Spec Item Units Quantity Unit Price Total Price 2564.602 SIGN PANELS TYPE (ADA) EA 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 2582.501 PAVEMENT MARKINGS LS 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 STORMWATER 5 2501.502 15" RC PIPE APRON W/TRASH GUARD EA 3 $3,000.00 $9,000.00 2502.503 4" PERF TP PIPE DRAIN LF 1,000 $30.00 $30,000.00 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT (STORM) EA 3 $650.00 $1,950.00 2503.503 15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CLASS III LF 270 $90.00 $24,300.00 2503.503 __" ARCH RC PIPE SEWER LF 60 $120.00 $7,200.00 2506.602 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EA 3 $3,500.00 $10,500.00 2506.602 OUTLET STRUCTURE EA 1 $8,500.00 $8,500.00 2511.607 RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS III CY 40 $155.00 $6,200.00 2571.502 HERBACEOUS PLUGS EA 100 $16.00 $1,600.00 2574.507 ENGINEERED SOIL (BMP) CY 255 $100.00 $25,500.00 2575.504 ROLLED EROSION PREVENTION CAT 25 SY 300 $2.00 $600.00 TRAILS 6 2108.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE 5 SY 290 $2.00 $580.00 2360.504 4-INCH BITUMINOUS TRAIL W/BASE SY 400 $46.00 $18,400.00 2118.503 10' WIDE AGGREGATE TRAIL - TYPE 1 LF 218 $12.00 $2,616.00 LANDSCAPING 7 2571.502 CONIFEROUS TREE 6' HT B&B EA 6 $600.00 $3,600.00 2571.502 DECIDUOUS TREE 10' HT EA 2 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 2571.502 DECIDUOUS TREE 2.5" CAL B&B EA 4 $800.00 $3,200.00 2571.502 DECIDUOUS TREE 2.0" CAL B&B EA 4 $650.00 $2,600.00 2571.502 DECIDUOUS SHRUB 5-GAL CONT EA 50 $100.00 $5,000.00 2571.502 HERBACEOUS NO 1 CONT EA 50 $30.00 $1,500.00 2575.507 MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 6 CY 20 $120.00 $2,400.00 EROSION CONTROL 8 2573.502 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT EA 2 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 2573.502 INLET PROTECTION EA 3 $200.00 $600.00 2573.503 SILT FENCE - TYPE MS LF 1,000 $3.50 $3,500.00 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG - TYPE WOOD FIBER LF 300 $3.50 $1,050.00 RESTORATION 9 2575.505 SEEDING TYPE I - TURF MIXTURE ACRE 0.30 $6,000.00 $1,800.00 2575.505 SEEDING TYPE II - BASIN MIXTURE ACRE 0.05 $10,000.00 $500.00 2575.505 SEEDING TYPE III - UPLAND MIXTURE ACRE 0.85 $8,000.00 $6,800.00 2575.505 HYDROMULCH (BFM) ACRE 1.15 $6,000.00 $6,900.00 $1,342,883.50 SITE MOBILIZATION (5%)$67,144.18 PROJECT TOTAL $1,410,027.68 BASE BID SUBTOTAL Page 110 of 426 Oheyawahe Improvements ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION No. Spec Item Units Quantity Unit Price Total Price TRAILS, CENTRAL GATHERING AREA, & TRAILHEAD REMOVALS 1 2101.502 CLEARING & GRUBBING EA 2 $600.00 $1,200.00 2104.505 VEGETATION CLEARING ACRE 0.75 $8,000.00 $6,000.00 2104.503 REMOVE AGGREGATE TRAIL LF 1000 $2.50 $2,500.00 2104.518 REMOVE PAVEMENTS SF 34350 $3.00 $103,050.00 GATHERING AREA 2 2100.601 SHADE STRUCTURE LS $0.00 2118.507 AGGREGATE SURFACING (6") CY 12 $55.00 $660.00 2540.602 LOG BENCH EA 2 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 TRAILS 3 2106.501 EXCAVATION - COMMON LS 1 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 2108.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE 5 SY 1,600 $2.00 $3,200.00 2118.503 10' WIDE AGGREGATE TRAIL - TYPE 1 (8") LF 700 $12.00 $8,400.00 2118.503 6' WIDE AGGREGATE TRAIL - TYPE 2 (6") LF 750 $6.00 $4,500.00 STABILIZED TRAILS 4 2106.501 EXCAVATION - COMMON LS 1 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 2108.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE 5 SY 533 $2.00 $1,066.00 2118.503 6' WIDE AGGREGATE TRAIL - TYPE 3 (4"+2") LF 600 $54.00 $32,400.00 2501.502 12" PIPE APRON W/TRASH GUARD EA 6 $3,000.00 $18,000.00 2503.503 12" HDPE PIPE CULVERT LF 90 $125.00 $11,250.00 2511.607 RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS III CY 18 $155.00 $2,790.00 TRAILHEAD 5 2521.518 6-INCH CONCRETE PAVEMENT SF 200 $16.00 $3,200.00 2540.602 BENCH EA 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 2540.602 BIKE RACK EA 1 $1,300.00 $1,300.00 LANDSCAPING 6 2571.502 CONIFEROUS TREE 6' HT B&B EA 3 $600.00 $1,800.00 2571.502 DECIDUOUS TREE 10' HT EA 2 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 2571.502 DECIDUOUS TREE 2.5" CAL B&B EA 3 $800.00 $2,400.00 2571.502 DECIDUOUS TREE 2.0" CAL B&B EA 2 $650.00 $1,300.00 2571.502 DECIDUOUS SHRUB 5-GAL CONT EA 20 $100.00 $2,000.00 2575.507 MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 6 CY 3 $120.00 $360.00 EROSION CONTROL 7 2573.503 SILT FENCE - TYPE MS LF 150 $3.50 $525.00 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG - TYPE WOOD FIBER LF 600 $3.50 $2,100.00 2575.504 ROLLED EROSION PREVENTION CAT 25 SY 3,500 $2.00 $7,000.00 2575.504 ROLLED EROSION PREVENTION CAT __ SY 2,000 $10.00 $20,000.00 RESTORATION 8 2575.505 SEEDING TYPE I - TURF MIXTURE ACRE $6,000.00 $0.00 2575.505 SEEDING TYPE III - UPLAND MIXTURE ACRE 2.50 $8,000.00 $20,000.00 2575.505 SEEDING TYPE IV - LOWLAND MIXTURE ACRE 0.03 $8,000.00 $240.00 2575.505 HYDROMULCH (BFM) ACRE 2.50 $6,000.00 $15,000.00 Page 111 of 426 No. Spec Item Units Quantity Unit Price Total Price $362,741.00 SITE MOBILIZATION (5%)$18,137.05 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (10%) $36,274.10 PROJECT TOTAL $417,152.15 BASE BID SUBTOTAL Page 112 of 426 Oheyawahe Improvements ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION No. Spec Item Units Quantity Unit Price Total Price VALENCOUR TRAIL & IMPROVEMENTS REMOVALS 1 2101.502 CLEARING & GRUBBING EA 3 $600.00 $1,800.00 2104.505 VEGETATION CLEARING ACRE 0.8 $8,000.00 $6,400.00 2104.503 SAW CUT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) LF 10 $7.00 $70.00 2104.518 REMOVE PAVEMENTS SF 1500 $3.00 $4,500.00 PARKING STALLS 2 2106.501 EXCAVATION - COMMON LS 0 $20,000.00 $0.00 2360.504 4-INCH BITUMINOUS PARKING W/BASE SY 0 $46.00 $0.00 2521.518 6-INCH CONCRETE PAVEMENT SF 0 $16.00 $0.00 2540.602 WHEEL STOPS EA 0 $2,500.00 $0.00 2564.602 SIGN PANELS TYPE (ADA) EACH 0 $1,000.00 $0.00 2582.501 PAVEMENT MARKINGS LS 0 $500.00 $0.00 TRAILS 3 2106.501 EXCAVATION - COMMON LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 2118.503 6' WIDE AGGREGATE TRAIL - TYPE 1 LF 700 $8.00 $5,600.00 LANDSCAPING 4 2571.502 CONIFEROUS TREE 6' HT B&B EACH 2 $600.00 $1,200.00 2571.502 DECIDUOUS TREE 2.5" CAL B&B EACH 3 $800.00 $2,400.00 2575.507 MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 6 CY 1 $120.00 $120.00 EROSION CONTROL 5 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG - TYPE WOOD FIBER LF 100 $3.50 $350.00 2575.504 ROLLED EROSION PREVENTION CAT 25 SY 1,000 $2.00 $2,000.00 RESTORATION 6 2575.505 SEEDING TYPE I - TURF MIXTURE ACRE 0.10 $6,000.00 $600.00 2575.505 SEEDING TYPE III - UPLAND MIXTURE ACRE 0.40 $8,000.00 $3,200.00 2575.505 HYDROMULCH (BFM) ACRE 0.50 $6,000.00 $3,000.00 $46,240.00 SITE MOBILIZATION (5%)$2,312.00 PROJECT TOTAL $48,552.00 BASE BID SUBTOTAL Page 113 of 426 7 Project Budget Proposed activities must match up with legislative language and should include all costs required to complete the project. Complete Tables 1 and 2 below. Before completing, read the instructions provided. Both contain samples for guidance. Table 1 For the Project Activities Column: List separately the components of the project that are eligible items: Capital costs and/or costs assigned in the legislative appropriation. Examples would be predesign, design, and construction elements. List all non-eligible items that are needed for the project as a separate line item. Add rows to the table for more costs as needed. For Match/Other Funds: Provide the dollar amount for any match and/or other funds that are estimated to be needed to complete the project. Examples - If the legislation mandates a 1:1 match, the DEED funds should be equal to the Match/Other Funds column. If the total project costs are estimated to exceed the DEED funds and the matching funds, enter the amount of funds that are needed for each line that total the amount needed for the project. If there is no legislated match for the project, but other funds are needed to complete the estimated project costs, provide those figures in this column as well. Total Itemized Projected Costs: Make sure that all costs total correctly. Table 1 – Budget Outline Project Activities DEED/SPAP Funds Match/Other Funds Total Itemized Projected Cost Design $130,000 $130,000 Parking Lot $400,000 $400,000 Valencour Trail Connection $40,000 $40,000 Central Trail $200,000 $200,000 Trail to the Big Rivers Regional Trail $100,000 $100,000 Parking Lot Sidewalk $50,000 $50,000 Seven Council Fires Overlook $5,000 $5,000 Main Gathering Area $285,000 $285,000 Restroom Facility $470,000 $50,000 $520,000 Engineering/Architectural Construction Management $120,000 $120,000 Activities not funded through DEED/SPAP Natural Resources City Funds $41,000 Big Rivers Regional Trail Connection $10,000 Storm Water Utility Funds $144,000 Sewer/Water Utility Funds $44,000 Total Costs $1,800,000 $289,000 $2,089,000 Page 114 of 426 8 Table 2: Instructions Lists all eligible activity items from Table 1 in the first column of Table 2. Eligible items are identified in the legislative language. Leave non-eligible items out of Table 2. Lists sources individually, whether those funds are committed, and the dollar amount assigned for each source in the second column. Per the sample below, outline the committed status of funds in the third column. If not yet committed, outline how they will be committed. Attach more comments to outline commitment, if necessary. Finally, in the fourth column, assign the dollar amount of costs assigned to the source that corresponds with that row. Add rows as necessary. Table 2 Eligible Activity from Table 1 Source of Funds from Table 1 above Funds Committed? Yes or No Dollars assigned to source Design DEED/SPAP Yes – Legislative Appropriation $130,000 Parking Lot DEED/SPAP Yes – Legislative Appropriation $400,000 Valencour Trail Connection DEED/SPAP Yes – Legislative Appropriation $40,000 Central Trail DEED/SPAP Yes – Legislative Appropriation $200,000 Trail to Big Rivers Regional Trail DEED/SPAP Yes – Legislative Appropriation $100,000 Parking Lot Sidewalk DEED/SPAP Yes – Legislative Appropriation $50,000 Seven Council Fires Overlook DEED/SPAP Yes – Legislative Appropriation $5,000 Main Gathering Area DEED/SPAP Yes – Legislative Appropriation $285,000 Restroom Facility DEED/SPAP Yes – Legislative Appropriation $520,000 Restroom Facility City General Fund Yes – In approved Budget $50,000 Engineering/Architectural Construction Management DEED/SPAP Yes – Legislative Appropriation $120,000 Activities not funded through DEED/SPAP (Natural Resources County Collaboration City General Fund County General Fund No – Pending Adopted Budget $289,000 Totals $2,089,000 Page 115 of 426 9 Project Timeline Activity Finish mm/yy Site control (if necessary) N/A All funding (non-DEED funds) for project secured and in place 08/25 Declaration Recorded or Waiver from MMB secured 03/26 All permits in place 03/26 Project out for public bid 03/26 Bid accepted 04/26 Project started 05/26 Project complete 05/27 Project inspected and operational 06/27 Page 116 of 426 10 (Check the appropriate box for the Real Property and, if applicable, for the Facility.) Ownership Interest in the Real Property. x Fee simple ownership of the Real Property. A Real Property/Facility Lease for the Real Property that complies with the requirements contained in Section 2.06. (If the term of the Real Property/Facility Lease is for a term authorized by a Minnesota statute, rule or session law, then insert the citation: ________________.) An easement for the Real Property that complies with the requirements contained in Section 2.06. (If the term of the easement is for a term authorized by a Minnesota statute, rule or session law, then insert the citation: ________________.) Ownership Interest in, if applicable, the Facility. Fee simple ownership of the Facility. A Real Property/Facility Lease for the Facility that complies with all of the requirements contained in Section 2.06. (If the term of the Real Property/Facility Lease is for a term authorized by a Minnesota statute, rule or session law, then insert the citation: ______________.) x Not applicable because there is no Facility. Page 117 of 426 11 Attachment 2 to Application: Legal Description Provide the legal description only for the public land footprint on which the property or facility is located. The following real property located in the County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, legally described as follows: That part of Huber's Subdivision, St. George Subdivision, and those parts of Lots 25, 26 and 27 Auditor's Subdivision No. 29 according to the recorded plats thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota and that part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 28, Township 28, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast comer of said Southeast Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds East, along the East line of said Southeast Quarter a distance of 200.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 21 minutes 37 seconds West 20.00 feet; thence South 76 degrees 51 minutes 37 seconds West 240.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 76 degrees 51 minutes 37 seconds East 240.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 21 minutes 37 seconds East 20.00 feet to the intersection with the East line of said Southeast Quarter; thence South 00 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds East along said East line 878.03 feet; thence South 89 degrees 21 minutes 37 seconds West 244.22 feet; thence North 50 degrees 27 minutes 27 seconds West 835.63 feet to the intersection with the Southeasterly right-of-way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad; thence North 38 degrees 14 minutes 29 seconds East 475.86 feet along said right-of-way to the line of intersection with the Northerly line of Huber's Subdivision; thence South 78 degrees 31 minutes 23 seconds East 337.22 feet along the Northerly line of Huber's Subdivision and St. George Subdivision to the intersection with a line drawn on a bearing of North 00 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds West, parallel with the East line of said Southeast Quarter, from the point of beginning; thence South 00 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds East along said parallel line 12.75 feet to the point of beginning. Dakota County, Minnesota Abstract and Torrens Property The Torrens portion of the property is described as follows: The Northeasterly 25 feet of Lot 7 and all of Lot 8 of St. George Subdivision, except that part of Lot 8 of St. George Subdivision of Section 28, Township 28, Range 23, which lies within a distance of 60 feet Southeasterly of the Northwesterly boundary of said Lot 8 and between two parallel lines consisting of the Northeasterly boundary of Said Lot 8 extended Southeasterly and a line 190 feet Southwesterly of the said Northeasterly boundary and the extension of said Northeasterly boundary Southeasterly, also excepting the rights of the State of Minnesota for S.T.H. No. 55, according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds within and for Dakota County, Minnesota. AND That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 28, Township 28, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast comer of said Southeast Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of South 00 Degrees 38 Minutes 23 seconds East, along the East line of said Southeast Quarter a distance of 200.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 89 Degrees 21 Minutes 37 Seconds West 20.00 feet; thence South 76 Degrees 51 Minutes 37 Seconds West 240.00 feet; thence South 00 Degrees 38 Minutes 23 Seconds East parallel with the East line of said Southeast Quarter, 814.00 feet; thence North 88 Degrees 20 Minutes 11 Seconds East 254.35 feet to a point on the Page 118 of 426 12 East line of said Southeast Quarter, said point being 861.40 feet South of the point of beginning, as measured along the East line of said Southeast Quarter; thence North 00 Degrees 38 Minutes 23 Seconds West along said East line, 861.40 feet to the point of beginning. AND ALSO Lot 1, Block 1, Acacia Park East Addition, according to the recorded plat and situate in Dakota County, Minnesota, except Parcel 247C as depicted on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plats 19-98, 19-99 and 19-110. Abstract Property AND ALSO The South 217 feet of Lot Seven (7), Block One (1) Perron Place, except the East 40 feet thereof, together with an easement for driveway purposes over the North 20 feet of the South 217 feet of Lot Nine (9), Lot Eight (8) and the East 40 feet of Lot Seven (7), all in Block One (1) Perron Place. Abstract Property AND ALSO The South 217 feet of East 40 feet of Lot Seven (7); and the South 217 feet of Lot Eight (8), Block One (1), Perron Place. Together with an easement over the North 20 feet of the South 217 feet of Lot Nine (9), Block One (1) of Perron Place. Abstract Property AND ALSO The South 217 feet of Lot Nine (9), Block One (1), Perron Place, subject to an easement for driveway purposes over the North 20 feet thereof. Abstract Property AND ALSO Lot Six (6) in Block Three (3), Pilot Knob Heights, according to the recorded plat of said addition on file in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said Dakota County, Minnesota. Torrens Property Page 119 of 426 13 Attachment 3 to Application: Conflict of Interest Disclosure (To be completed by Mayor, Board Chair, or Equivalent) Conflict of Interest Disclosure State of Minnesota Request for Proposals Instructions: Please return your completed form as part of the Response submittal. Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form This form gives applicants and grantees an opportunity to disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that may exist when receiving a grant. It is the applicant/grantee’s obligation to be familiar with the Office of Grants Management (OGM) Grants Policy 08-01 Conflict of Interest Policy for State Grant- Making (August 2020 Effective Date 1/1/21) and to disclose any conflicts of interest accordingly. All grant applicants must complete and sign a conflict-of-interest disclosure form. X I or my grant organization do NOT have an ACTUAL or POTENTIAL conflict of interest. If at any time after submission of this form, I or my grant organization discover any conflict of interest(s), I or my grant organization will disclose that conflict immediately to the appropriate agency or grant program personnel. I or my grant organization have an ACTUAL or POTENTIAL conflict of interest. (Please describe below): If at any time after submission of this form, I or my grant organization discover any additional conflict of interest(s), I or my grant organization will disclose that conflict immediately to the appropriate agency or grant program personnel. Printed name: Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor Signature: Organization or Local Unit of Government Name: City of Mendota Heights Date: August 6, 2025 Page 120 of 426 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2025-45 RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL APPROPRIATION APPLICATION BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mendota Heights act as the legal sponsor for the project contained in House File 1950/Senate File 2011 entitled Oheyawahe/Pilot Knob. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Mendota Heights has the legal authority to receive financial assistance, and the institutional, managerial, and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the sources and amounts of the local match identified in the development proposal are committed to the project identified. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Mendota Heights has not violated any Federal, State or local laws pertaining to fraud, bribery, graft, kickbacks, collusion, conflict of interest or other unlawful or corrupt practice. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon approval of its development proposal by the state, the City of Mendota Heights may enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota for the above-referenced project, and that the City of Mendota Heights certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulation as stated in all contract agreements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the non-DEED source of funds identified in the sources and uses outline in the application total the amount of $289,000 and are committed and adequate to fully fund or provide the match for the project identified in the application. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any source of the Applicant’s fund to fully fund the project shall be from the General Fund account which has an adequate amount of funds to cover the commitment. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the City of Mendota Heights. I CERTIFY THAT the above resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights on August 6, 2025. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this sixth day of August, 2025. WITNESSED: ______________________________ Nancy Bauer ______________________________ SIGNED: ______________________________ Stephanie B. Levine ______________________________ Mayor Date City Clerk Date Page 121 of 426 9.b REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 6, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Tabled - 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: This application was presented to the City Council at their July 1, 2025 Regular City Council meeting. The City Council discussed the wetland impacts from the potential driveway locations, the conditions added by the Planning Commission in their recommendation, and construction impacts on the surrounding area, as noted by public comments received and neighboring property owner concerns. Following their discussion and deliberation, the City Council voted unanimously (5-0) to table the application to the August 6 meeting and directed staff to work with the applicant to schedule a neighborhood meeting and provide an opportunity for the residents to discuss the application and the recommended conditions of approval. The neighborhood meeting was held on July 17, and 18 residents were in attendance. Staff were also in attendance to answer any technical questions about the application and City Code, and Mayor Levine and Councilor Maczko attended to listen to the conversation. Key discussion points during the neighborhood meeting were: •Nearby residents are concerned with tree protection on site and on their own properties from construction activities •Potential alternatives to development on Lot 6, possibly through a park dedication requirement or other measures were brought up •Residents within the existing cul-de-sac are concerned with the reconstruction of their roadway and its impact on safety, and construction truck traffic •The applicant provided additional details on the surveyed trees on the property, including those on the south property line •Residents are concerned that the application review process does not take their Page 122 of 426 concerns into account APPLICATION DETAILS: 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 Outlot 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 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 Page 123 of 426 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 de minimis 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 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 July 31 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 August 6th meeting. Page 124 of 426 Following the verbal comments provided at the May 27 public hearing, the hearing was closed, and the Planning Commission discussed the application among 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: 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. RECOMMENDATION: City Staff has included 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, adding 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. Staff does not recommend the inclusion of Condition #15, as City Code Section 11-3-3.A.1 notes that cul-de-sacs are a listed exception to the requirement for streets to connect with existing streets or to provide for a future connection to adjoining unsubdivided tracts. Page 125 of 426 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.Resolution 2025-36 Approving the Preliminary Plat of McMillan Estates Located at 1707 Delaware Avenue and the Adjacent Vacant Outlots (Planing Case No. 2025-03) 2.Approved Planning Commission Minutes 5-27-25 3.Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes 6-24-25 4.June 24 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report 5.Additional Public Comments Received as of 7-31 6.Applicant Letter on Right of Way Condition for McMillan Estates, Case No. 2025-03 6-26-25 7.MnDOT Standard Specifications for Construction - Specification 2572 8.Approved City Council Minutes 7-1-25 9.McMillan Estates Amended Tree Survey impacts to 1760 Ridgewood Drive CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 126 of 426 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 WHEREAS, on July 1, 2025, the Mendota Heights City Council held a regular meeting to discuss action on Planning Case 2025-03, and after receiving the staff report discussed the subdivision and the recommended conditions, and following their discussion and deliberation voted to table this matter to the August 6, 2024 meeting, allowing for additional time for staff and the applicant to schedule a neighborhood meeting to discuss the application and recommended conditions; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2025 a neighborhood meeting was held and the applicant and nearby residents discussed the Subject Property, the details of the proposed subdivision, and the recommended conditions as presented in the staff report; and Page 127 of 426 Resolution No. 2025-36 Page 2 of 5 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 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 Page 128 of 426 Resolution No. 2025-36 Page 3 of 5 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. 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. 16.The Applicant/Developer must incorporate tree protection measures into the Forest Management Plan for the site, and an 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 6TH day of August, 2025. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 129 of 426 Resolution No. 2025-36 Page 4 of 5 Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Page 130 of 426 Resolution No. 2025-36 Page 5 of 5 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 131 of 426 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 132 of 426 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 133 of 426 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 134 of 426 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 135 of 426 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 136 of 426 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 137 of 426 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 138 of 426 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 139 of 426 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 140 of 426 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 141 of 426 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 142 of 426 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 143 of 426 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 144 of 426 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 145 of 426 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 146 of 426 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 147 of 426 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 148 of 426 5.a Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 24, 2025 Agenda Item: Tabled - CASE No. 2025-03 Preliminary Plat Application of Spencer McMillan for a Preliminary Plat of three (3) existing parcels into six (6) single-family residential parcels located at 1707 Delaware Avenue and its adjacent vacant parcels. Department: Community Development Contact: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Introduction: The applicant is seeking a Preliminary Plat approval of the properties located at 1707 Delaware Avenue and two vacant parcels generally located at the north end of Ridgewood Drive. The residential property and the two vacant parcels are all owned by Spencer McMillan, the applicant in this Planning Case. The proposed plat is titled McMillan Estates and the subdivision would divide and redistribute the existing land within the three parcels into six new lots of record. In 2021, an application was submitted to the City for the subject site (by a different applicant and property owner) with a very similar proposal for subdivision of the existing three parcels into three new lots of record (Planning Case No. 2021-19). That prior application was withdrawn before the public hearing at the Planning Commission. Within the prior applicant’s written notice of withdrawal, they indicated that the applicant team was unable to come to an agreement with the Seller and property owner regarding a request for dedicated right-of-way along Delaware Avenue for Dakota County. The property sold following this withdrawn application, and the item in this planning case is a separate application by the current applicant and property owner. This current property owner and applicant submitted a previous application in 2024, known as Planning Case No. 2024-01, which subdivided the subject site into three new lots of record. The Planning Commission reviewed that application at public hearings in March-June of 2024, and the City Council reviewed the application at their regular meetings in July-August, 2024. The City Council was not supportive of the applicant’s prior request to defer public improvements. Ultimately, the applicant withdrew the prior application in order to re-submit with greater detail and required information to the City relating to the construction of the cul- de-sac extension of Ridgewood Drive. This item was presented under a fully noticed public hearing process on May 27, 2025, with notices published in the Pioneer Press newspaper and notice letters mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the subject parcels. Nine residents spoke at the public hearing. Written public comments have also been received for this item and are included as an attachment to this report. As of the submittal of this report, Page 149 of 426 there were seven instances of public comment. Some of these public comments were received as part of submitted comments on the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Joint Water Resources Application. Those comments have been included in the total instances of public comments. Any additional comments received prior to the meeting will be provided to the Planning Commission and made part of the public record. Following the verbal comments provided at the May 27th public hearing, the hearing was closed, and the Planning Commission discussed the application amongst themselves and asked questions of staff. The Commission inquired about the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) process, the Comprehensive Plan policies that apply to this application request, and the Urban Forest Preservation Ordinance. Following their discussion, the Commission voted 6-0 to table the application request. Background: The subject site consists of 16.63 acres of combined land across three separate parcels (see aerial image – right). The primary property addressed as 1707 Delaware Avenue is a long, rectangular, unplatted parcel consisting of 10.06 acres, measuring 329.18-ft. in width along Delaware Avenue to the east. This parcel contains an existing single-family home. The remaining two parcels are known as Outlots A and B of Grappendorf Addition, which was approved in 1984. The two Outlots are situated at the end of Ridgewood Drive and consist of 4.5 acres (Outlot A) and 2 acres (Outlot B). Both outlots are vacant. The proposed subdivision requested by the applicant will dedicate new right-of-way for an extension of Ridgewood Avenue, ending in a new cul-de-sac, and create six new lots of record from these parcels. Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 are intended to be platted for future development of new single-family homes. The proposed Lot 4 would remain as the applicant’s residence but would be subdivided into a smaller parcel. In order to establish the required 125-foot of frontage on a city approved street for new platted lots in an R-E District, the applicant is proposing to dedicate 38,158 s.f. (.88 acres) of right-of- way extending north from the existing Ridgewood Drive right-of-way. The dedicated right-of- way would allow for the construction of an extension northward of Ridgewood Drive into the proposed subdivision, ending in a new cul-de-sac bulb. The street extension would be required to be constructed prior to the construction of any of the new single-family homes, and the work would include the removal of the existing cul-de-sac on Ridgewood Drive, to be replaced with a straight street extension. More information on this design will be provided in the Analysis section of this report. Additionally, 19,751 s.f. (.45 acres) of right-of-way is proposed to be dedicated along Delaware Avenue, to accommodate Dakota County’s request Page 150 of 426 for 60-ft of half right-of-way. A large portion of the subject site is encumbered by wetlands. Prior to this application, the previous property owner hired an environmental specialist to study, identify, and map out these wetlands on the property; an official Wetland Delineation Report dated 06/22/2021 was submitted to the City for review and was later accepted by the City Council on September 9, 2021. This report is valid for five years. The wetland impacts proposed under that prior application are no longer applicable to the site. The applicant has concurrently submitted a new Joint Water Resources Application to the City to request approval of the wetland impacts associated with this development. This topic is discussed in further detail in the Wetland Impacts section of this report. The application under review as part of this planning case is solely for the subdivision to be known as McMillan Estates, as outlined in the applicant’s proposal and Preliminary Plat documents attached to this report. If the Preliminary Plat is approved by the City Council and there are not any significant changes to the Final Plat from their approval, then the Final Plat will be reviewed at a later date by the City Council. Analysis: Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided RR-Rural Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The 2040 Plan includes the following general description for said uses in this land use category: RR – Rural Residential (0.1 - 1.45 DU/Acre) This land use is generally located in the east central part of the city. This designation is intended for large lot single-family residences and includes properties with and without city sewer. The Rural Residential areas are planned with a density not to exceed 1.45 units per acre. The corresponding zoning district classification is R-1A (One Family Residential). The overall site consists of 16.63 acres, and of that approximately 5.6 acres are encumbered by wetlands, leaving a net acreage value of 11.03 acres. The overall density created by the potential five new residences plus the existing residential unit calculates to a density of 0.54 units/acre, which is within the range outlined within the RR – Rural Residential land use category. In the 2040 Plan, the city also identified (based upon previous 2030 Plan and others) a number of specific properties in the city that were or are vacant, under-developed, under-utilized or identified as either potential infill or redevelopment areas. These sites or areas are referred to as “Focus Areas”. Infill means that the property has the opportunity to develop or redevelop beyond its current level. One of these focus areas is the Somerset Area, or #21 on Map 2-5: Focus Areas with Future Land Use Overlay Map (see map – Pg. 4). Page 151 of 426 21. Somerset Area: This area has been referred to as the “Superblock” due to its collection of large residential lots. It consists of over 20 separate parcels on approximately 90 acres located directly south of Somerset Country Club and Golf Course. The area is developed with single-family homes on large lots with private septic systems. The neighborhood is bounded on the east by Delaware Avenue, the north by Wentworth Avenue, and the south and west by smaller single-family lots. The neighborhood contains significant wetlands and woodlands. The area is guided RR - Rural Residential use. Due to the existing large lot configuration, the area has the potential to be further subdivided, provided public sewer, water and road systems would be extended to the area. Plat Standards Under Title 11, Subdivision Regulations, the intent and purpose of this section is to “safeguard the best interests of the city, and to assist the subdivider in harmonizing [their] interests with those of the city at large, this title is adopted in order that adherence to same will bring results beneficial to both parties. It is the purpose of this title to make certain regulations and requirements for the platting of land within the city pursuant to the authority contained in Minnesota statutes, which regulations the city council deems necessary for the health, safety and general welfare of this community.” City Subdivision Code Section 11-3-2 allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district, and meets the following standards: A. Lot Area, Width and Depth: The minimum lot area, width and depth shall not be less than that established by the zoning ordinance in effect at the time of adoption of the final plat. B. Corner Lots: Corner lots for residential use shall have additional width to permit appropriate building setback from both streets as required in the zoning ordinance. C. Side Lot Lines: Side lines of lots shall be approximately at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. D. Lot Frontage: Every lot must have the minimum frontage as required in the zoning ordinance on a city approved street other than an alley. E. Building Setback: Setback or building lines shall be shown on all lots intended for residential use and shall not be less than the setback required by the Mendota Heights zoning ordinance. On those lots which are intended for business use, the setback shall be at least that required by the zoning ordinance. For the R-E District, all new lots must have a minimum of 30,000-sf. of lot area. All three lots Page 152 of 426 significantly exceed the size minimum requirement, as illustrated in the table below. Proposed Lot 1 158,544 SF 3.64 Acres Proposed Lot 2 61,652 SF 1.42 Acres Proposed Lot 3 53,242 SF 1.22 Acres Proposed Lot 4 153,532 SF 3.52 Acres Proposed Lot 5 77,002 SF 1.77 Acres Proposed Lot 6 162,659 SF 3.73 Acres The proposed Preliminary Plat and preliminary plans provided by the applicant illustrate outlines of potential building areas on Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. In reviewing these outlined layouts, setbacks to front, side, and rear lot lines can be met due to the large acreage on all parcels. For the R-E District, all new lots require a minimum of 125-ft of lot width along a city approved street. Lot 4 (existing residence) will maintain its 329+ feet of frontage along Delaware Avenue. The remaining lots are proposed to have frontage and a lot width along the Ridgewood Drive extension of approximately 570-ft, ending in a new constructed cul-de-sac bulb and making the total cul-de-sac length approximately 1,220-ft in length. This dimension of the extension is measured from the existing north curb of the Ridgewood Drive cul-de-sac, to the proposed north curb of the new cul-de-sac. The proposed new single-family lots show compliance with the minimum 125-ft of frontage and lot width on this street and cul-de-sac extension. Lot width is defined as the maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot measured within the first 30' of the lot depth. Based on this definition, the proposed Lots 2 and 3 are able to meet the minimum 125-ft lot width standard based on the length of the arc at a 30-ft setback from the proposed cul-de-sac bulb, with the lot width of the proposed Lot 2 measured at 138-ft, and the width of the proposed Lot 3 measured at 126-ft. Dakota County Review Because this property fronts on a Dakota County road system (CSAH 63 – Delaware Avenue), this plat requires county review and approval. As mentioned in the “Introduction” section of this report, a previous plat of the subject site was reviewed in 2021, and right-of-way dedication along Delaware Avenue was required by Dakota County at that time. The former application did not move forward and cited the right-of-way dedication as the reason for their withdrawal. The previous iteration of this application was reviewed by the Dakota County Plat Commission in February 2024, and the County is currently reviewing this plat application internally related to the requested and provided right-of-way of 60-ft of half right-of-way, in accordance with their review procedures. The February 2024 memo from the Dakota County Surveyor’s Office is included as an attachment to this report. Dakota County has confirmed that no additional review is required. Street, Utility and Grading Plan The applicant has provided a full construction plan set for the grading of the site, as well as street and storm sewer plans, drainage details, and utility plans, attached to this report as Plan Sheets C6-C15. According to Title 11-3-8-A of the City Code: Slope Limitations: Subdivision design shall be consistent with limitations presented by steep slopes. Subdivisions shall be designed so that no construction or grading will be conducted on slopes steeper than twenty five percent (25%) in grade. The staff review of the provided grading and contour elevation markings illustrated on the preliminary plans did not identify any steep slopes or bluffs on the property, or slopes over 25% in the areas where the potential dwellings, or driveways are being proposed. The house locations as Page 153 of 426 shown on the provided plans are preliminary, and final house locations, grading, and impacts will depend on a final design for the respective houses. These future developments will be evaluated at the time that those applications come forward and will be subject to the City’s Zoning Ordinance requirements and any other applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. A condition has been included in the staff recommendation section of this report which reflects these requirements. There is an existing 6-inch watermain underneath Ridgewood Drive that was stubbed at the north end of the cul-de-sec roadway. The plans illustrate that the applicant will extend this watermain line into the proposed Ridgewood Drive right-of-way extension, terminating just north of the new proposed cul-de-sac bulb. The santitary sewer line will also be extended from the existing manhole north of the existing Ridgewood Drive cul-de-sac, to a new manhole within the proposed cul-de-sac. The proposed santitary sewer line is 8” within the extended street and will flow by gravity south to connect with the existing manhole and 9” service line installed in the existing Ridgewood Drive cul-de-sac. A new fire hydrant will also be installed in the right-of-way just north of the cul-de-sac extension. The plans show the ability for future service connections to be made into the main line for any future construction of homes on the five new vacant lots. All new lots will have perimeter drainage and utility easements provided, noted at 5’ in width at side and rear lot lines, and 10’ in width at front lot lines. The applicant has also provided a wider easement along the southern property line of Lot 6, measuring at 15-ft in width, based on the prior application’s recommendations from staff, the Planning Commission, and during the City Council’s review, to accommodate appropriate easement width for neighboring properties to petition for sanitary sewer extension to the east, if they so choose. The applicant has also provided a 60-ft utility easement directly north of the new cul-de-sac which could accommodate future utility extension to the north if petitioned by a northern neighboring property owner, or if additional future development north of this development site occurs. This easement area measures approximately 104-ft in length from the northern point of the cul-de-sac right-of-way to the northern edge of this subdivision. Lastly, additional easement width is provided at the shared property line between the proposed Lots 3 and 5, measuring 10-ft on each side, which could accommodate future utility services to 1707 Delaware Ave. All wetlands will be covered by similar drainage and utility easements, with varying widths. The City’s new Zoning Ordinance that went into effect January 1, 2025 references the new Title 15- Environmental Standards and the State of Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) rules, but also requires an average buffer depth of 25-ft, with a minimum dimension of 10-ft and a maximum dimension of 50-ft. The applicant has provided a buffer area which meets these requirements, with the shortest dimension of the buffer area located on the proposed Lot 6, where the applicant is proposing 467 SF of wetland impact. The Ordinance does require that any drive aisles must be setback a minimum of 5-ft from any required buffer area, unless otherwise permitted by the Title 15-Environmental Standards. Title 15, Chapter 4: Wetland Conservation permits a Buffer Setback area to be disturbed upon approval of the City. This Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) application is discussed later in this report. The wetland and wetland buffers’ easements, as well as the perimeter drainage and utility easements will be provided and officially dedicated under the final plat approval and recording, if approved. The building pad sites and associated driveway access points shown on the plans are potential, and final house locations, individual grading plans and impacts, and construction-level architectural plans for the homes, will be provided at the time of building permit for home construction following approval of this subdivision and construction of the public roadway and utility improvements. The proposed driveway of Lot 6 is shown to encroach on the 15-ft drainage and utility easement that the City requested on the south property line during the prior Page 154 of 426 application’s review period. This encroachment will be outlined in the Developer’s Agreement between the Applicant/Developer and the City. The proposed street construction will increase impervious surface by .43 acres overall. An additional acre of impervious surface is estimated for the future home construction improvements. Each of these individual lots will be evaluated for impervious surface requirements at the time of their building permit applications for the new homes. The required maximum impervious surface for the R-E Zoning District is 35%. The applicant’s plans propose that stormwater treatment for individual lot improvements will be provided at the time of construction. The City is not supportive of this request, and staff have provided a condition of approval that the stormwater management not be deferred to the individual single-family lots, and that the City will require stormwater management to be managed for the entire development and dedicated in a utility easement as part of the Final Plat. The single-family lots may be adequate for infiltration at the 1.1 inch BMP requirement, but water quality management would not be feasible for a single homeowner long-term. The stormwater improvements which are currently proposed include an infiltration basin on the proposed Lot 6, just east of the Ridgewood Drive extension. The basin includes a riprap stilling infiltration basin with two inlets, one to the west and one to the south. The applicant plans to seed the filtration basin with MnDot 33-261 seed mixture and to stabilize with appropriate erosion control. The elevations of the basin indicate 12” of planting media with volume for filtration above. The City will require a third-party inspection for compliance with stormwater requirements during construction, which would be outlined in the Developer’s Agreement with the City. Wetland Impacts The proposed plat identifies a number of large and smaller wetlands throughout the site, which are proposed to be dedicated as drainage and utility easements on the plat. The applicant’s plans also indicate a wetland buffer area (illustrated on the plans as hatching around wetlands) which is designed to meet the minimum 25-ft buffer averaging requirement of City Code. The total amount of buffer area which is required for the delineated wetlands on site is 75,504 SF, and the total amount of buffer area which is provided is noted at 75,609 SF. Signs denoting buffer areas will be addressed in the Developer's Agreement with the City. The Subdivision Title notes that the City shall review the subdivision proposal and design with respect to the limitations presented by wet soils, and that the approval of the subdivision will require an engineering analysis of the delineated areas, and that a permit is required to alter ditches, streams, and associated drainage path. It should be noted that the City Council approved a Joint Water Resources Application for Exemption, submitted by this property’s previous Developer/Applicant, on November 3, 2021, whereby approval was granted to remove up to 1,000 SF of wetlands for the driveway and the structure improvements which were proposed at that time. The extent of the previous structure improvements from the previous property owner’s application are not outlined in this planning case. Instead, the applicant is proposing to impact up to 2,170 SF of wetlands for the future driveways and planned Ridgewood Drive extension. The applicant has a new active Joint Water Resources application for exemption under the deminimus rules. Impacts include 1,315 SF of impacts directly north of the existing cul-de-sac, to accommodate the street extension and a culvert which would traverse east-west underneath the street extension connecting the two major wetland areas. Additional wetland impacts of 467 SF are shown on the proposed Lot 6, adjacent to the property’s potential driveway. This second impact area, if approved, would add fill to the wetland impact area, which would be altered and presented as the provided wetland buffer area. South of these impacts and designated buffer, the proposed driveway would then be setback approximately 7-ft from the Wetland and Wetland Buffer Page 155 of 426 alteration, meeting the zoning setback requirements for impervious surface installments such as drive aisles. The remaining wetland impacts are illustrated for driveway impacts on the proposed Lot 5, to accommodate any grading that may be required based on the preliminary building and driveway locations. If any additional wetland impacts are proposed by future property owners, they would be subject to their own future wetland impacts applications under state law. The applicant’s Joint Water Resources application under the WCA rules for proposed wetland impacts was submitted to the City in April, and the Notice of Application was sent on April 21, 2025 to the state, regional, and federal regulatory bodies that sit on the required Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) for WCA rules applications. The comment period for the application ended on May 13, 2025. The City is the Local Government Unit (LGU) for enforcing the WCA rules, and has met with the TEP to evaluate the application and establish recommendations and findings. The members of the TEP are recommending approval of the application. The 60-day decision deadline was June 20th for this WCA application, however based on revised application materials the City extended the review period to August 19, 2025. The administration and enforcement of any WCA Permit, including the Notice of Decision, is designated as the responsibility of the Natural Resources Coordinator and is not subject to City Council review. On the preliminary plans, the five new home sites will be placed in areas in dry, non-wetland areas of each parcel, according to the wetland mapping provided by Jacobson Environmental on the 2021 Wetland Delineation. The applicant does not have a finalized construction and development plan for homes on any of the proposed new single-family development properties, and those plans are not under the review of the City at this time. If the current Joint Water Resources Application is approved, and no work is conducted prior to the expiration of the Wetland Delineation and Notice of Decision, an updated Joint Water Resources Application for Exemption would need to be filed in accordance with state statute. Tree Inventory The Developer/Applicant has included a Tree Inventory of the site, which is included as an attachment to this report on Sheets C3-C5. The inventory outlines the species and diameter of the trees within the anticipated development area only, out of approximately 1,900 or more trees which exist on the property today. The anticipated removal of trees is illustrated on the inventory plans which would be removed as part of any construction activities for the street extension and future building and driveway improvements. Final tree impacts on the individual residential lots are to be determined with the full construction and building permit plan sets at the time an application and final site plan design comes forward for review. The City enacted new requirements in 2025 for a Forest Alteration Permit and Forest Management Plan. The applicant has provided the application materials for a Forest Alteration Permit as part of this subdivision request. The provided Sheet L-101 indicates the tree mitigation plans for the development site. Based on the tables provided by the applicant, 82 trees meeting the definition of a significant or heritage tree are proposed to be removed, amounting to 741 DSH (Diameter at Standard Height). One of the proposed removals is identified as a ‘Heritage Tree’, meaning it is a native tree, or cultivar of a native tree, which exceeds 24” in diameter. This specific tree to be removed is a 35” Cottonwood tree. Other trees which were in poor condition, were previously removed as part of work prior to the effect of the Urban Forest Preservation Ordinance, and identified Ash trees were removed from forest mitigation plan calculations. 3,774.5 DSH of the remaining surveyed trees are noted to be saved or preserved on the property, including 11 Heritage Trees. Based on the proposed removals, 555.8 total DSH is required to be replaced. The applicant will also be required to submit a Tree Replacement escrow to the City related to the Forest Management Plan. The applicant is currently proposing to not prepare a replacement landscape plan and has noted their intent to complete an off-site tree replacement agreement with the City. Page 156 of 426 The applicant cites the difficulty and feasibility of replacing the trees on-site, as the site is fully forested and the cleared areas will be replaced with street improvements. The City is not supportive of the request to not mitigate the removals with any replacement trees. The Urban Forest Preservation ordinance does allow for the City to approve alternative tree replacement measures, including the planning of trees at an alternate site if compliance with the tree replacement requirement is not feasible. City Staff is prepared to work with the applicant to create an alternative tree replacement measure, however the applicant must first attempt to mitigate a portion of the tree replacement on site consecutively with the development. A condition has been added that a Tree Replacement Plan be provided which would illustrate an attempt to comply with tree replacement measures prior to enacting an alternative mitigation plan with the City. In addition to the requirements of the Urban Forest Preservation Ordinance, all single-family residential uses developed in the City are required to submit a landscaping plan as part of the application for Building Permit indicating the location of existing trees and shrubs, and proposed planting details for new landscape features. A minimum of 25% of the land of each single-family home will be required to be landscaped with grass, ground cover, shrubbery, and trees, and new construction homes are required to plant a minimum of one overstory or deciduous tree per 50- feet of lineal frontage of public street in the front yard of the lot. These required trees may count toward a replacement plan. The landscape plans for each new home will be evaluated at the time of Building Permit for new home construction. Street Design City Code Title 11 – General Subdivision Provision provides for all the required standards related to new subdivisions, including streets, utilities, easements, etc. When Breckenridge Estates, the plat to the south of the subject site, was approved in 1969, it contained a variance request to allow lots less than 40,000-sq. ft. in area (required for R-1A district at that time), but did not include any variance or allowance for an over-length cul-de-sac. The plat was presented with the Ridgewood Drive roadway that exists today, and also included a small “nub” extension of 60-ft in width at the top of the road right- of-way circle (see plat image –left). This nub was likely created or called for based on the assumption that the properties to the north could be or would be similarly platted, and any future roadway extension would have likely come off the end of Ridgewood Drive and run northward into these properties. The Subdivision ordinance does require in Section 11-3-3: Streets and Alleys, that a tentative plan of a proposed future street system should be provided when reviewing a new Plat. Specifically, the general requirements provide guidelines for a proposed future street system, and alignment and availability of utilities. The approved Grappendorf Addition (see plat image – below) did not show or provide any plans for extending Ridgewood Drive into the plat or outlots, nor provided any plans for any other roadway inside this plat as well. However, it was noted within the City Council minutes of the review of that Plat application that access and utility extensions were only available to Outlot A from Ridgewood Drive. Page 157 of 426 Per current City Subdivision Code Section 11-3-3 Streets and Alleys: 1. 3. When a tract is subdivided into larger than normal building lots or parcels, such lots or parcels shall be so arranged as to permit the logical location and openings of future streets and appropriate resubdivision, with provision for adequate utility connections for such resubdivision. The expectation within the City’s review of a subdivision on larger than ‘normal’ lots or parcels, is that the applicant/developer is responsible for arranging lots and parcels in such a way that would permit future and smaller subdivision of lots, as well as leaving space “open” for a future potential street, and potential future utility connections. This applies to making those connections only on the subject site, and does not specifically address neighboring land owners. The City must evaluate the ability for the new parcels to be subdivided again in the future, and evaluate if the infrastructure planned will be able to accommodate that potential future split. The applicant has provided a subdivision which places potential new single-family homes on the portions of this property that are not encumbered by wetlands, and each lot within the proposed subdivision is able to meet or exceed the required lot size and lot width for the R-E Zoning District. Based on the availability of dry buildable area, staff believes that the proposed lots are likely not able to be subdivided further based on the current requirements of City Code and that the applicant’s subdivision request and the layout of building pad sites, street extension, and utility connection complies with this standard. Under this plat request, the Applicant is seeking to provide an extension of this right-of-way at least 60-ft in width, and approximately 570-ft in length, ending in a new dedicated cul-de-sac bulb. The Developer/Applicant’s previous application in 2024 included a request to defer construction of any public improvements which was not supported by the City Council. The prior application was ultimately withdrawn as the applicant intended to come back with an application which complied with the public improvement standards of the Subdivision Ordinance. The current proposal under this Planning Case shows an intent to develop and construct the full street extension to the new cul-de-sac bulb, to re-construct the street segment at the existing cul-de-sac bulb, and to install public utility improvements in the dedicated right-of-way beneath the new street extension. Ridgewood Drive measures from the point coming off Marie Avenue to the end of the cul-de-sac as 649.58-feet in total length. From earlier [known] records of the City Code, the Subdivision Page 158 of 426 Code of 1956 indicated “dead-end streets shall not be longer than 400-feet…” while the Code of 1975 included: “…cul-de-sacs shall normally not be longer than 500-feet….” as seen today in the current Subdivision Code (noted below). Per current City Subdivision Code Section 11-3-3 Streets and Alleys: D. Dead End and Cul-De-Sac Streets: Dead end streets are prohibited, but cul-de-sacs will be permitted only where topography or other conditions justify their use. Cul-de-sacs shall normally not be longer than five hundred feet (500'), including a terminal turnaround which shall be provided at the closed end, with an outside curb radius of at least forty nine feet (49') and a right of way radius of not less than 60-ft. Some of the commissioners may recall giving consideration to a variance related to a cul-de-sac roadway, which was presented under the Orchard Heights plat in 2017. Under that case, the developers requested a variance to exceed the “normally not longer than 500-ft” standard to allow a new cul-de-sac of 950-feet in length. As part of the report on that case, it was noted that the city allowed a number of other subdivision developments throughout the city with over-length dead end and cul-de-sac streets (approximately 19 at that time); and it was unclear from research if the 500-foot standard was in place at the time of these various plat approvals or developments; or if variances were approved for these separate developments. Nevertheless, the city required the developer to submit and request a variance to exceed this 500-ft. standard, and although the planning commission and city council rejected this variance request, the development (and new roadway) was ultimately allowed by a Dakota County District Court ruling. In that ruling, it is noted that there was dispute on whether or not a Variance was required for the length of the cul-de-sac, as the City’s subdivision ordinance only states that cul-de-sacs “shall normally not” be longer than 500 feet. Existing Minnesota case law states that “Regulatory standards must be sufficiently precise to ensure the application of objective standards to similarly situated property, to adequately inform landowners of the requirements that they must satisfy to gain subdivision approval, and to allow a reviewing court to evaluate noncompliance.” When interpreting language in a zoning ordinance, the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms has generally been more favorable in court procedures. Because of the imprecise language within the subdivision ordinance regarding cul-de-sac length that “shall not normally” be longer than 500-ft, and because the existing length of Ridgewood Drive has already been approved through a prior subdivision, staff did not request the applicant to revise their application and incorporate a Variance request to the cul-de-sac length standard. The Final Plat will be subject to a Development Agreement between the Owner/Developer and the City, which would outline the timing and details of the installation of required improvements associated with the development. The subdivision ordinance requires that no application for building permits be filed for the private construction associated with this plat until all improvements required have been made or arranged for within the Development Agreement. A condition has been included in the recommendation section of this report that a Development Agreement for the public improvements and utilities be executed to the satisfaction of the City Council before the Final Plat is released for recording with Dakota County, and before the issuance of any permits. This includes the improvements to the street and cul-de-sac, as well as the required utility connections and extensions as outlined in the Utility and Grading Plan section of this report. While the City currently performs street and utility distribution improvements, they do reserve the right to request that developers make all necessary improvements at any time. Conclusion The applicant has provided the dedicated right-of-way to the City, and planned a constructed street and utility extension within this Plat to meet the minimum lot width, frontage, and access Page 159 of 426 requirements of the City Code. The proposed lots each meet or exceed the minimum of 125’ of lot width on a City-approved street and they exceed the minimum lot size requirements of 30,000 SF. The applicant’s revised plans under this current Planning Case application have illustrated an intent to comply with the City’s Subdivision Code by providing adequate extension of utilities into the dedicated right-of-way, and by arranging the lots and street alignment in such a manner that future resubdivision of the overlarge lots is not applicable at this time. The applicant has submitted the required Wetland Conservation Act permits to the City concurrently with this Planning Case application, which is not a factor in the review of this Preliminary Plat request. The Planning Commission should review the technical aspects of the proposed Plat, as it relates to the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and Comprehensive Plan. Alternatives: Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of McMillan Estates, based on certain findings-of-fact, along with specific conditions of approval as included herein; or 2. Recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat of McMillan Estates, based on revised findings-of-fact and conditions as determined by the Planning Commission and/or City Council; or 3. Table the plat application and request additional information from the applicant or staff. Staff will extend the application review period. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the application of Spencer McMillan for the Preliminary Plat of a six-lot residential subdivision to be known as McMillan Estates, based on the Findings of Fact as included herein, along with the following conditions: 1.The preliminary plans presented under this plat request do not represent or provide approval of building pad sites, setbacks, accessory structures, or driveway alignments. Final layouts must meet R-E Zone standards and shall be approved under separate building permits for each lot. 2.A building permit, including all new grading and drainage work, must be approved by the City prior to any new construction work. 3.The Developer/Applicant shall submit final grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with associated easements, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department and Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 4.All new construction and grading activities throughout this development site and on each new buildable lot shall be in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 5.Stormwater Management shall be managed for the entire development and dedicated in a utility easement as part of the Final Plat. Stormwater management for water quality management shall not be deferred to the individual single-family home lots. 6.Public utility easement locations, including easements for stormwater management facilities and Best Management Practices (BMP) area(S) must be established, approved by the City, and included in the Final Plat prior to release of the Final Plat for recording with Dakota County. 7.All wetland impacts shall be in compliance with the applicable federal, state, and local Page 160 of 426 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 161 of 426 Planning Case 2025-03 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 15 of 15 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Preliminary Plat of McMillan Estates 1707 Delaware Avenue The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1. The proposed Preliminary Plat meets the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Ordinance. 2. The proposed Preliminary Plat request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with and supported by a number of goals and policy statements in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed lots will meet the minimum standards required under the R-E Residential Estate Zoning District. Page 162 of 426 G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!. G!.666666 666666666666 6666666666666MARIE AVE DELAWARE AVERIDGEWOOD DR 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 163 of 426 1 March 11th, 2025 Dear City of Mendota Heights, I am writing to inform you of our intent with this preliminary and final plat submission. My wife and I would like to re-plat the 3 parcels shown below. Current Parcels: Parcel Numbers Lot 1: 27-02400-78-010 Lot 2: 27-31100-00-020 Lot 3: 27-31100-00-010 Background: The Ridgewood Drive cul-de-sac butts up to current Lots 2 and 3 (Outlots B and A respectively). The cul- de-sac was dedicated in a plat in 1969 and included a 60 ft wide “nub” extension with frontage to both Outlots. Outlots A and B were approved by the City as part of the Grappendorf First Addition in 1985. Having approved the two Outlots, the city should approve a new subdivision which provides access and utilities for these Outlots. The code disallows a dead-end road extension and the existing 60 ft “nub” does not satisfy the 125 ft lot frontage requirement so the only means of access for these two Outlets is by an extension of Ridgewood Drive in the form of a new cul-de-sac dedication. Page 164 of 426 2 Proposed Plat: We would like to replat the 3 parcels into 6 new lots. The new configuration is shown below. Dakota County Right of Way Dedication With this replatting, we are subject to Dakota County’s Contiguous Plat Ordinance. This ordinance requires us to dedicate a 60 ft of half right of way along Delaware Avenue. This proposal makes this dedication. Extended Cul-de-sac The current length of the Ridgewood cul-de-sac is roughly 650 ft. We are proposing to extend the cul- de-sac another roughly 570 ft, so the total length becomes roughly 1,220 ft. Section 11-3-3 of the zoning code states “Cul-de-sacs shall normally not be longer than five hundred feet (500’)”. However, the current cul-de-sac already exceeds 500 ft today, and was approved without any requirement for a variance. In addition, the specific language in the code is “shall normally not”. This language is not explicit in prohibiting cul-de-sacs over 500 ft. In litigation resulting from a request for a 950 ft cul-de-sac in the Orchard Heights plat in 2017, the court determined that this language does not mandate a 500 ft limit for cul-de-sacs. There are already 19 cul-de-sacs in Mendota Heights that exceed 500 feet. For these reasons, we are not requesting a variance for the longer cul-de-sac. Expected Outcome and Benefits 1. This proposal increases the number of available lots in Mendota Heights. Mendota Heights is a desirable place to live and this proposal increases the number of buildable lots from 2 to 6. Page 165 of 426 3 2. This proposal extends existing utility stubs on the existing cul-de-sac northward to the end of the new cul-de-sac. Future utility extensions are provided to serve lots to the north. Also, a 15 ft easement is provided for potential future utility services to homes along Delaware Ave to the east. 3. This proposal dedicates right of way along Delaware to Dakota County. 4. The proposal meets all Mendota Heights zoning requirements and does not require variances. It is consistent with the desired zoning of Mendota Heights. Thank you for your consideration, Spencer McMillan Page 166 of 426 MCMILLAN ESTATES 10105 5 Preliminary Plat1 1 202142Spencer McMillan1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114ZONING INFORMATION OWNER/DEVELOPER ENGINEER/SURVEYOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY PLAT PLAT AREAS Land Surveying & Engineering 2580 Christian Dr. Chaska, MN 55318 612-418-6828 MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MNWETLANDS PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WETLAND DELINEATOR UTILITIES STORMWATER SEE THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR GRADING, DRAINAGE, STREET, SANITARY SEWER, AND WATERMAIN FOR FOR DETAILED IMPROVEMENTS LEGEND TREE PRESERVATION Page 167 of 426 OWNER/DEVELOPERENGINEER/SURVEYORLEGENDMCMILLAN ESTATESMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNVICINITY MAPCONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR GRADING, STREET,STORM SEWER, SANITARY SEWER, AND WATERMAINSHEET INDEXTitle & LayoutC12580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanPage 168 of 426 Page 169 of 426 Page 170 of 426 Page 171 of 426 2580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142Tree InventoryMCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, Dakota County, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanTag DBH Species Notes Status Tag DBH Species Notes Status Tag DBH Species Notes Status Tag DBH Species Notes Status Tag DBH Species Notes Status Tag DBH Species Notes Status1 6 Quaking Aspen Remove 81 6 Black Cherry Remove 336 17 Black Cherry Mostly Dead Save 416 13.5 BuckthornSave 1750 10 Black CherryRemove 1837 12 Red OakSave2 6 Quaking AspenRemove 82 7 Black CherryRemove 337 13 Box ElderSave 417 9 BuckthornSave 1751 8 Quaking AspenRemove 1838 7 Black CherrySave3 7 Black CherryRemove 83 8 Box Elder poor Remove 338 11 Buckthorn 2 stem Save 418 11 White AshSave 1752 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1839 6 Red OakSave4 6 Quaking AspenRemove 84 8 Black Cherry poor Remove 339 10 BuckthornSave 419 23.5 White AshSave 1753 8 Quaking AspenSave 1840 7 Black CherrySave5 6 Green AshRemove 85 10 Black CherryRemove 340 10.5 Buckthorn 2 stem Save 420 13 White AshSave 1754 7 Quaking AspenRemove 1841 7 Red OakSave6 6 Quaking AspenRemove 86 7 Box ElderRemove 341 17 CottonwoodSave 421 18 Green AshSave 1755 6 Green AshRemove 1842 6 Red OakSave7 7 Quaking AspenRemove 87 7 Black CherryRemove 342 16 White AshSave 422 12 Green AshSave 1756 7 Green AshRemove 1843 6 Red Oak poor Save8 8 Quaking AspenRemove 88 6 Bur OakRemove 343 6.5 White AshSave 423 8.5 Green AshSave 1757 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1844 7 Red Oak poor Save9 6 Quaking AspenRemove 89 8 Black CherryRemove 344 12 White AshSave 424 13 White AshSave 1758 9 Quaking AspenSave 1845 7 Red OakSave10 7 Quaking AspenRemove 90 15 Red OakSave 345 16.5 Hophornbeam 2 stem/dead Save 425 7 BuckthornSave 1759 9 Quaking AspenRemove 1846 10 BasswoodSave11 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 91 12 Red OakSave 346 13 American ElmSave 426 6Swamp White OaSave 1760 6 Quaking AspenSave 1847 10 Red OakSave128 Black Cherry poor Remove 92 8 Black CherrySave 347 8 White AshSave 427 16 White AshSave 1761 7 Quaking AspenRemove 1848 11 Red OakSave13 7 Green Ash poor Remove 93 6 American ElmSave 348 6 White AshSave 428 9 White AshSave 1762 7 Quaking AspenRemove 1849 6 Quaking AspenSave14 7 Black CherryRemove 94 9 Black CherrySave 349 10 Box ElderSave 429 17 White AshSave 1763 9 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1850 8 Quaking AspenSave15 12 Apple Save 95 9 Black CherrySave 350 9 Box ElderSave 430 6 BuckthornSave 1764 8 Green AshRemove 1851 7 Quaking AspenSave16 12 Black CherrySave 96 9 Quaking AspenSave 351 21 Buckthorn 5 stem Save 431 16 White AshSave 1765 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1852 8 Quaking AspenSave17 6 Green AshRemove 97 8 Quaking AspenSave 352 9.5 Box ElderSave 432 13.5 Box Elder 2 stem Save 1766 10 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1853 6 Quaking AspenSave18 10 Black CherryRemove 98 9 Quaking AspenSave 353 12 Box ElderSave 433 23 Green AshSave 1767 9 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1854 6 Quaking AspenSave19 6 Apple Remove 99 7 Quaking AspenSave 354 10 Box ElderSave 434 31.5 White Ash 2 stem Save 1768 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1855 6 Quaking Aspen poorSave20 6 Apple Remove 100 7 Black CherrySave 355 10 White AshSave 435 14 CottonwoodSave 1769 8 Quaking AspenRemove 1856 7 Quaking AspenSave21 8 Box Elder poor Save 101 6 Apple Save 356 8 Green AshSave 436 18.5 Box ElderSave 1770 11 Quaking AspenSave 1857 7 Red OakSave22 7 Apple Save 102 12 Black CherrySave 357 14 Black OakSave 437 13 Box ElderSave 1771 10 Quaking AspenSave 1858 7 Red OakSave23 9 Box ElderSave 103 8 Amur MapleSave 358 20.5 White AshSave 438 10 White AshSave 1772 8 Quaking AspenSave 1859 8 Red Oak poor Save24 7 Black CherrySave 104 8 Black CherrySave 359 22 White Ash 2 stem Save 439 11 Black CherrySave 1773 9 Quaking AspenSave 1860 7 Green Ash poor Save25 7 Black Cherry poor Save 105 12 Red OakSave 360 8 White AshSave 440 38 Buckthorn 10 stem Save 1774 8 Quaking AspenSave 1861 7 Black Cherry poor Save26 8 Black CherrySave 106 10 American ElmSave 361 8 White AshSave 441 16 Box ElderSave 1775 8 Quaking AspenSave 1862 8 Quaking AspenSave27 6 Green AshSave 107 6 Bur Oak poor Save 362 13.5 White AshSave 442 14 White AshSave 1776 8 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1863 6 Quaking AspenSave28 6 Green Ash poor Save 108 19 CottonwoodSave 363 9 White AshSave 443 8 BuckthornSave 1777 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1864 6 Quaking AspenSave29 7 Black CherrySave 109 7 Red Oak poor Save 364 14.5 American ElmSave 444 18 White AshSave 1778 7 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1865 8 Quaking AspenSave30 8 Box ElderSave 110 8 Quaking AspenSave 365 12 White AshSave 445 16.5 HophornbeamSave 1779 10 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1866 7 Quaking AspenSave31 7 Black CherrySave 111 9 Red OakSave 366 8 White AshSave 446 9 Green AshSave 1780 15 Quaking AspenRemove 1867 6 Quaking AspenSave32 8 Black CherrySave 112 13 Red OakSave 367 11 White AshSave 1701 21 CottonwoodRemove 1781 6 Green AshRemove 1868 6 Quaking AspenSave33 12 Black CherrySave 113 12 Red OakSave 368 10 White AshSave 1702 7 Black CherrySave 1782 6 Quaking AspenRemove 1869 8 Quaking AspenSave34 6 Apple Remove 114 6 Bur OakSave 369 6 White AshSave 1703 13 Green AshRemove 1783 7 Quaking AspenRemove 1870 10 Red OakSave35 8 Black CherrySave 115 8 American ElmSave 370 10 White AshSave 1704 7 Green AshRemove 1784 10 Black WalnutRemove 1871 6 Red OakSave36 6 Amur Maple poor Save 116 6 Apple Save 371 6 Green AshSave 1705 7 Green AshRemove 1786 8 Box ElderRemove 1872 7 Red OakSave37 6 Black CherrySave 117 19 Red OakSave 372 9.5 White AshSave 1706 12 Box ElderRemove 1787 12 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1873 7 Quaking AspenSave38 6 American Elm poor Save 118 31 CottonwoodSave 373 15 White AshSave 1707 19 CottonwoodRemove 1788 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1874 6 Black Cherry poor Remove39 7 Black Cherry poor Save 119 6 Green AshSave 374 15 Green AshSave 1708 7 CottonwoodRemove 1789 10 Box ElderRemove 1875 25 CottonwoodSave40 8 Black CherrySave 120 7 Green AshSave 375 10.5 White AshSave 1709 6 CottonwoodRemove 1790 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1876 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove41 11 Black CherrySave 121 6 Green AshSave 376 12 White AshSave 1710 7 American ElmSave 1791 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1877 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove42 10 American Elm poor Save 122 6 American ElmSave 377 8.5 White AshSave 1711 30 CottonwoodSave 1792 8 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1878 6 Quaking AspenRemove4310 (25')Scotch Pine poor Save 123 7 Green AshSave 378 8.5 White AshSave 1712 35 CottonwoodRemove 1793 11 Green AshRemove 1879 7 Quaking AspenRemove44 8 Black CherrySave 124 12 Red OakSave 379 15.5 Green AshSave 1713 6 Box ElderSave 1794 11 Black WalnutRemove 1880 7 Quaking AspenRemove45 6 Bur OakSave 125 11 Red OakSave 380 19 White Ash 2 stem Save 1714 6 Box ElderRemove 1795 9 Quaking AspenRemove 1881 7 Quaking AspenRemove46 4 Green Ash poor Save 301 8 Bur OakRemove 381 11.5 Green AshSave 1715 18 CottonwoodRemove 1796 7 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1882 6 Quaking AspenRemove47 6 Green AshSave 302 16 CottonwoodRemove 382 14.5 Green AshSave 1716 12 Box ElderSave 1797 9 Quaking AspenRemove 1883 9 Quaking AspenRemove48 6 Green AshSave 303 20.5 White AshSave 383 16 White AshSave 1717 10 Siberian ElmRemove 1798 12 Red OakSave 1884 6 Quaking AspenRemove49 6 Green Ash poor Save 304 9 Black Cherry 2 stem Save 384 23.5 White Ash 3 stem Save 1718 6 Siberian Elm poor Remove 1799 12 Quaking AspenSave 1885 6Quaking AspenRemove50 7 Green AshSave 305 9 Black Cherry 2 stem Save 385 32.5 White Ash 3 stem Save 1719 7 Box ElderRemove 1800 10 Quaking AspenSave 1886 7 Quaking AspenSave51 8 Apple Save 306 13 Green AshSave 386 17.5 White AshSave 1720 6 Black CherryRemove 1807 10 American Elm poor Save 1887 7 Quaking AspenSave52 6 Bur OakSave 307 17.5 Green AshSave 387 10 White AshSave 1721 7 Black CherryRemove 1808 11 Black Cherry poor Save 1888 12 Red OakSave53 6 Black CherrySave 308 6 Black CherrySave 388 25.5 White Ash 2 stem Save 1722 7 Black CherryRemove 1809 8 Black Cherry poor Save 1889 13 Black CherryRemove54 6 Bur OakSave 309 10 American ElmSave 389 7 White AshSave 1723 13 Box ElderRemove 1810 6 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1890 6 Red OakSave55 6 Green AshSave 310 42 CottonwoodSave 390 13.5 White AshSave 1724 7 Black CherryRemove 1811 12 Quaking AspenSave 1891 12 Red OakRemove56 6 Black CherrySave 311 77.5 Cottonwood 2 stem Save 391 22 White AshSave 1725 9 Black CherrySave 1812 7 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1892 7 Red OakSave57 14 Red OakSave 312 28 Slippery Elm splitting Remove 392 18 White AshSave 1726 8 Box ElderRemove 1813 6 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1893 8 Quaking AspenSave58 15 Red OakSave 313 6 White AshRemove 393 22.5 White AshSave 1727 7 Black CherryRemove 1814 28 Red OakSave 1894 7 Quaking AspenSave59 14 Red Oak poor Save 314 9.5 White AshRemove 394 30.5 White Ash 2 stem Save 1728 6 Black CherryRemove 1815 24 Red OakSave 1895 7 Quaking AspenSave60 7 Black WillowSave 315 22 CottonwoodRemove 395 10 White AshSave 1729 9 Box Elder poor Remove 1816 10 Red Oak poor Save 1896 8 Quaking AspenSave61 8 Green AshSave 316 7 Black CherryRemove 396 25 White AshSave 1730 8 Box ElderSave 1817 6 Red OakSave 1897 7 Quaking Aspen poor Save62 10 Green AshSave 317 14.5 Siberian ElmSave 397 12 Green AshSave 1731 10 Box ElderRemove 1818 7 Red Oak poor Save 1898 8 Quaking AspenSave63 6 Green AshSave 318 36 Box Elder 4 stem Save 398 26 White AshSave 1732 8 Box Elder poor Remove 1819 7 Red Oak poor Save 1899 6 American ElmSave64 10 Green AshSave 319 7 Box ElderSave 399 16.5 White AshSave 1733 10 Black CherrySave 1820 14 Red Oak poor Save 1900 10 Quaking AspenSave65 8 Green AshSave 320 9 Quaking AspenSave 400 21 White AshSave 1734 8 Box Elder poor Remove 1821 12 Red OakSave66 7 Green Ash poor Save 321 10 Black CherrySave 401 6.5 BuckthornSave 1735 12 Black CherrySave 1822 11 Red OakSave67 10 Green AshSave 322 14.5 Box ElderSave 402 7.5 BuckthornSave 1736 6 Box ElderRemove 1823 6 Red Oak poor Save68 10 Green AshSave 323 10 Box ElderSave 403 7 White AshSave 1737 14 Black CherryRemove 1824 7 Red Oak poor Save69 11 Green AshSave 324 8 Buckthorn 2 stem Save 404 12.5 White AshSave 1738 8 Box ElderRemove 1825 9 Red Oak poor Save70 21 Red OakRemove 325 9 Box ElderSave 405 8.5 White AshSave 1739 8 Quaking AspenRemove 1826 7 Black CherrySave71 7 Bur OakSave 326 8 Box ElderSave 406 10 Box ElderSave 1740 9 Quaking AspenRemove 1827 6 Black CherrySave72 9 Bur OakSave 327 37.5 Black Willow Half Dead Save 407 13.5 Box ElderSave 1741 8 Quaking AspenRemove 1828 9 Black CherrySave73 7 AppleSave 328 8 BuckthornSave 408 14 Green AshSave 1742 8 Quaking AspenRemove 1829 8 American Elm poor Save74 8 AppleSave 329 54 CottonwoodSave 409 15 White AshSave 1743 9 Quaking AspenRemove 1830 8 AppleSave75 6 Green AshSave 330 15 Box ElderSave 410 8.5 Box ElderSave 1744 6 Box ElderRemove 1831 8 Black CherrySave76 7 Green AshSave 331 8 Box ElderSave 411 7Amur Cork TreeSave 1745 12 American ElmRemove 1832 7 Black CherrySave776 Black CherryRemove 332 9 Box ElderSave 412 12 Box ElderSave 1746 8 Quaking AspenRemove 1833 8 Black CherrySave78 8 American ElmRemove 333 13 Box ElderSave 413 9 American ElmSave 1747 9 Black CherryRemove 1834 7 Black CherrySave79 9 Black CherryRemove 334 9 Box ElderSave 414 8.5 Black CherrySave 1748 9 Quaking AspenRemove 1835 10 Black CherrySave80 12 Black CherryRemove 335 63.5 CottonwoodSave 415 9 Black CherrySave 1749 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1836 12 Red Oak poor SaveSEE SHEET L-101 FOR TREEMITIGATION CALCULATIONSC5Page 172 of 426 L-100FOREST MITIGATIONPLAN - TREES SAVEDDWN BY:ISSUE DATE:PROJECT NO.:B0029-0001D:\Midwest Wetland Improvements, LLC\Midwest Wetlands - OneDrive - MWI\Projects\0029 McMillan, Spencer\0001 - Sullivan Estates\5_DESIGN\2_CAD\3 PLANSHEETS\L-100 Forest Mitigation Plan.dwg ISSUE NO.:SHEET NO.:SHEET TITLE:4/14/2025 1:32:36 PM CLIENT:SPENCERMcMILLANMcMILLAN ESTATES MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN PROJECT TITLE:HRMCHK'D BY:LNJAPP'D BY:LNJP.O. BOX 448VICTORIA, MN 55386PHONE: (952) 261-9990WWW.MIDWESTWETLANDS.COMDESCRIPTION:DATE:ISSUE NO.:CERTIFICATION:1707 DELAWARE AVENUEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118PHONE: (715) 698-7114DATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.LICENSE NO.: 5285604-18-2025Lucius Jonett04-18-20250104/18/2025 PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL 01 Page 173 of 426 L-101FOREST MITIGATIONPLAN - TREESREMOVEDDWN BY:ISSUE DATE:PROJECT NO.:B0029-0001D:\Midwest Wetland Improvements, LLC\Midwest Wetlands - OneDrive - MWI\Projects\0029 McMillan, Spencer\0001 - Sullivan Estates\5_DESIGN\2_CAD\3 PLANSHEETS\L-100 Forest Mitigation Plan.dwg ISSUE NO.:SHEET NO.:SHEET TITLE:4/14/2025 1:32:42 PM CLIENT:SPENCERMcMILLANMcMILLAN ESTATES MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN PROJECT TITLE:HRMCHK'D BY:LNJAPP'D BY:LNJP.O.BOX 448VICTORIA, MN 55386PHONE: (952) 261-9990WWW.MIDWESTWETLANDS.COMDESCRIPTION:DATE:ISSUE NO.:CERTIFICATION:1707 DELAWARE AVENUEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118PHONE: (715) 698-7114DATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.LICENSE NO.: 52856 04-18-2025Lucius Jonett04-18-20250104/18/2025 PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL 01 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOREST MITIGATION NOTES1.Significant tree means a healthy tree measuring a minimum of six inches in diameter fordeciduous trees, 10 feet in height for conifer trees, and is not considered hazardous.2.Heritage tree means a tree of any native species or cultivar of a native species that is 24 inchesin diameter or greater, excluding invasive species.3.The applicant shall post a tree replacement escrow with the City. For every heritage treepreserved on site, the escrow may be reduced by $250.00.4.If seven (7) or more total significant or heritage trees on the property are removed, theapplicant shall mitigate all significant and heritage tree inches measured at DBH at a rate of75%. Example: 84 DBH inches removed x .75 = 63 DBH inches required to be replaced.5.Trees shall not be planted within 10 feet of property lines without written permission of theaffected adjacent property, nor shall trees be planted at lot corners in a way that obstructs adriver's line of sight. If compliance with the tree replacement requirement is not feasible, theCity may approve alternative tree replacement measures, including the planting of trees at analternate site. The alternate site must be public land, and at the choice of the city. The city mayrequire post-construction tree care.6.In order to preserve diversity and provide protection from tree disease and pests; where ten ormore replacement trees are required, not more than 20 percent shall be of the same family, notmore than 10 percent of the same genus, and not more than 5 percent of the same species,unless approved by the City. Tree species of the genus Acer shall be limited to 10 percent oftotal replacement trees planted, due to its over-abundance in the City's forest canopy. Aminimum of 50 percent of replacement trees must be species native to Minnesota orrecommended by the Department of Natural Resources or University of Minnesota Extension.7.When replacement trees are required, replacement trees shall be no less than a one-caliperinch deciduous or six-foot height conifer tree unless approved by the City. No more than threeconsecutive trees of the same species may be planted in a continuous row, including aroundcorners and in groupings.FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN1.Contact responsible for tree preservation during the course of the project:Spencer McMillan1707 Delware AvenueMendota Heights, MN 55118(715) 698-71142.Tree replacement escrow reduction = 11 heritage trees preserved x $250 =$2,7503.Onsite replacement of the total DBH to be replaced is not feasible as theremainder of the property is fully forested. We have intentionally not prepared areplacement landscape plan and will complete an off-site tree replacementagreement with the City.TREE SURVEY NOTES1.Tree removals excluded from forest mitigation plan calculations due to ash andSiberian elm tree species, poor tree condition, or being previously removed sincetree survey was complete and forest mitigation plan submittal.2.Poor tree condition denotes that the tree has less than 50% of a healthy crownremaining from diseased or dying tree due to age.Page 174 of 426 2X ROOT BALL DIA. MIN.SPECIES AS SHOWN ON PLANPRUNE ANY DAMAGED OR BROKEN BRANCHES. DO NOT CUT LEADER.ROOT FLARE MUST BE ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.DO NOT COVER ROOT FLARE WITH MULCHLOOSEN SIDES OF ROOT BALL. REMOVE ANY DEAD, DAMAGED,OR GIRDLING ROOTS.BACKFILL AROUND ROOT BALL WITH LOOSE SOIL. WORK SOILTO SETTLE AND REDUCE VOIDS OR AIR POCKETS.PLACE ROOT BALL ON SOIL BACKFILL SO TOP OF ROOTBALL IS ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.L-1101 DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL2X ROOT BALL DIA. MINSPECIES AS SHOWN ON PLANPRUNE ANY DAMAGED OR BROKEN BRANCHES. DO NOT CUT LEADER.ROOT FLARE MUST BE ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.DO NOT COVER ROOT FLARE WITH MULCHCONTAINER GROWN MATERIALS SHALL HAVE ROOTS HANDS LOOSENEDUPON PLANTING; PRUNE ANY DEAD OR DESICCATED ROOTSBACKFILL AROUND ROOTS WITH LOOSE SOIL. WORK SOILTO SETTLE AND REDUCE VOIDS OR AIR POCKETS.HOLE SHOULD BE EXCAVATED SUCH THAT ROOTS ARE VERTICAL ANDFULLY EXTENDED. SCARIFY BOTTOM OF PIT (6 IN. MIN.)2X ROOT BALL DIA. MIN.SPECIES AS SHOWN ON PLANPRUNE ANY DAMAGED OR BROKEN BRANCHES. DO NOT CUT LEADER.ROOT FLARE MUST BE ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.DO NOT COVER ROOT FLARE WITH MULCHLOOSEN SIDES OF ROOT BALL. REMOVE ANY DEAD, DAMAGED,OR GIRDLING ROOTS.BACKFILL AROUND ROOT BALL WITH LOOSE SOIL. WORK SOILTO SETTLE AND REDUCE VOIDS OR AIR POCKETS.PLACE ROOT BALL ON SOIL BACKFILL SO TOP OF ROOTBALL IS ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.2 SHRUB & CONTAINER PLANTING DETAIL3 CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAILDRIP LINE OF TREE.4 TREE PROTECTION FENCE DETAIL4' HIGH SAFETY FENCE ATTACHED TO STEEL POSTS ATDRIP LINE OF EXISTING TREES TO BE PROTECTED.4'18"NOT TO SCALEL-110 NOT TO SCALEL-110NOT TO SCALEL-110NOT TO SCALEL-110LANDSCAPE DETAILSDWN BY:ISSUE DATE:PROJECT NO.:B0029-0001D:\Midwest Wetland Improvements, LLC\Midwest Wetlands - OneDrive - MWI\Projects\0029 McMillan, Spencer\0001 - Sullivan Estates\5_DESIGN\2_CAD\3 PLANSHEETS\L-110 Landscape Details.dwg ISSUE NO.:SHEET NO.:SHEET TITLE:4/14/2025 1:32:39 PM CLIENT:SPENCERMcMILLANMcMILLAN ESTATES MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN PROJECT TITLE:HRMCHK'D BY:LNJAPP'D BY:LNJP.O. BOX 448VICTORIA, MN 55386PHONE: (952) 261-9990WWW.MIDWESTWETLANDS.COMDESCRIPTION:DATE:ISSUE NO.:CERTIFICATION:1707 DELAWARE AVENUEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118PHONE: (715) 698-7114DATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.LICENSE NO.: 5285604-18-2025Lucius Jonett04-18-20250104/18/2025 PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL 01 Page 175 of 426 Page 176 of 426 Page 177 of 426 Page 178 of 426 RIDGEWOOD DRIVEStreet and StormSewer PlanSEE SHEET 10NOTES:2580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanC9Page 179 of 426 RIDGEWOOD DRIVESEE SHEET 9NOTES:Street and StormSewer Plan2580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanC10Page 180 of 426 Page 181 of 426 RIDGEWOOD DRIVEUtility PlanSEE SHEET 13NOTES:SANITARY SEWER NOTES:ST. PAUL REGIONAL WATER SERVICES (SPRWS) NOTES:GENERAL NOTE:2580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanC12Page 182 of 426 RIDGEWOOD DRIVEUtility PlanSEE SHEET 13NOTES:2580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanC13Page 183 of 426 Future UtilityServicesNOTE:2580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanC14Page 184 of 426 NOTE:Future UtilityServices2580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanC15Page 185 of 426 Page 186 of 426 Page 187 of 426 Page 188 of 426 Page 189 of 426 SITE 24 60 149 MARIE AVE. 8DODD RD.WENTWORTH AVE.DELAWARE AVE.WACHTLER AVE.MCMILLAN ESTATES LOCATION MAP SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS SISU LAND SURVEYING KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Spencer McMillan and Breanna McMillan, husband and wife, owners of the following described property: Outlot A in Grappendorf First Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. And Outlot B in Grappendorf First Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. And the North Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 28, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota. Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as MCMILLAN ESTATES, and do hereby dedicate to the public for public use forever the public ways and drainage and utility easements as created herewith. In witness whereof said Spencer McMillan and Breanna McMillan, husband and wife, have hereunto set their hands this day of , 20 . Spencer McMillan Breanna McMillan STATE OF COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me on by Spencer McMillan and Breanna McMillan. Signature Printed Name Notary Public, County, Minnesota My Commission Expires 5 5 1010I Curtiss Kallio do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. Dated this day of , 20 . Curtiss Kallio, Licensed Land Surveyor, Minnesota License No. 26909 STATE OF COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me on by Curtiss Kallio. Signature Printed Name Notary Public, County, Minnesota My Commission Expires CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, STATE OF MINNESOTA This plat of MCMILLAN ESTATES was approved and accepted by the City Council of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, at a regular meeting thereof held this day of , 20 , and said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2. By Mayor Clerk COUNTY SURVEYOR, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTA I hereby certify that in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 11, this plat has been reviewed and approved this day of , 20 . By Todd B. Tollefson, Dakota County Surveyor BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTA We do hereby certify that on the day of , the Board of Commissioners of Dakota County, Minnesota approved this plat of MCMILLAN ESTATES and said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2 and pursuant to the Dakota County Contiguous Plat Ordinance. Attest Chair, County Board County Treasurer - Auditor DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION AND RECORDS, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTA Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 9, taxes payable in the year 20 on the land hereinbefore described have been paid. Also, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.12, there are no delinquent taxes and transfer entered this day of , 20 . , Amy A. Koethe, Director Department of Property Taxation and Records REGISTRAR OF TITLES, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTA I hereby certify that this plat of MCMILLAN ESTATES, was filed in the office of the Registrar of Titles for public record on this day of , 20 at o’clock M., and was duly filed in Book of Plats, Page , as Document Number . , Amy A. Koethe, Registrar of Titles OFFICIAL PLAT Page 190 of 426 Page 191 of 426 Page 192 of 426 Page 193 of 426 Page 194 of 426 Page 195 of 426 Page 196 of 426 Page 197 of 426 Page 198 of 426 Page 199 of 426 Page 200 of 426 Page 201 of 426 Page 202 of 426 Page 203 of 426 Page 204 of 426 Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised September 2024 Page 1 of 8 Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota This joint application form is the accepted means for initiating review of proposals that may affect a water resource (wetland, tributary, lake, etc.) in the State of Minnesota under state and federal regulatory programs. Applicants for Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Public Waters permits MUST use the MPARS online permitting system for submitting applications to the DNR. Applicants can use the information entered into MPARS to substitute for completing parts of this joint application form (see the paragraph on MPARS at the end of the joint application form instructions for additional information). This form is only applicable to the water resource aspects of proposed projects under state and federal regulatory programs; other local applications and approvals may be required. Depending on the nature of the project and the location and type of water resources impacted, multiple authorizations may be required as different regulatory programs have different types of jurisdiction over different types of resources. Regulatory Review Structure Federal The St. Paul District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is the federal agency that regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (wetlands, tributaries, lakes, etc.) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and regulates work in navigable waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Applications are assigned to Corps project managers who are responsible for implementing the Corps regulatory program within a particular geographic area. State There are three state regulatory programs that regulate activities affecting water resources. The Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) regulates most activities affecting wetlands. It is administered by local government units (LGUs) which can be counties, townships, cities, watershed districts, watershed management organizations or state agencies (on state-owned land). The Minnesota DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources issues permits for work in specially-designated public waters via the Public Waters Work Permit Program (DNR Public Waters Permits). The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act certifies that discharges of dredged or fill material authorized by a federal permit or license comply with state water quality standards. One or more of these regulatory programs may be applicable to any one project. Required Information Prior to submitting an application, applicants are strongly encouraged to seek input from the Corps Project Manager and LGU staff to identify regulatory issues and required application materials for their proposed project. Project proponents can request a pre- application consultation with the Corps and LGU to discuss their proposed project by providing the information required in Sections 1 through 5 of this joint application form to facilitate a meaningful discussion about their project. Many LGUs provide a venue (such as regularly scheduled technical evaluation panel meetings) for potential applicants to discuss their projects with multiple agencies prior to submitting an application. Contact information is provided below. The following bullets outline the information generally required for several common types of determinations/authorizations. •For delineation approvals and/or jurisdictional determinations, submit Parts 1, 2 and 5, and Attachment A. •For activities involving CWA/WCA exemptions, WCA no-loss determinations, and activities not requiring mitigation, submit Parts 1 through 5, and Attachment B. •For activities requiring compensatory mitigation/replacement plan, submit Parts 1 thru 5, and Attachments C and D. •For local road authority activities that qualify for the state’s local road wetland replacement program, submit Parts 1 through 5, and Attachments C, D (if applicable), and E to both the Corps and the LGU. Page 205 of 426 Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised September 2024 Page 2 of 8 Submission Instructions Send the completed joint application form and all required attachments to: U.S Army Corps of Engineers. Applications may be sent directly to the appropriate Corps Office. For a current listing of areas of responsibilities and contact information, visit the St. Paul District’s website at: http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory.aspx and select “Minnesota” from the contact Information box. Alternatively, applications may be sent directly to the St. Paul District Headquarters and the Corps will forward them to the appropriate field office. Section 401 Water Quality Certification: Applicants do not need to submit the joint application form to the MPCA unless specifically requested. The MPCA will request a copy of the completed joint application form directly from an applicant when they determine an individual 401 water quality certification is required for a proposed project. Wetland Conservation Act Local Government Unit: Send to the appropriate Local Government Unit. If necessary, contact your county Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) office or visit the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) web site (www.bwsr.state.mn.us) to determine the appropriate LGU. DNR Public Waters Permitting: In 2014 the DNR will begin using the Minnesota DNR Permitting and Reporting System (MPARS) for submission of Public Waters permit applications (https://webapps11.dnr.state.mn.us/mpars/public/authentication/login). Applicants for Public Waters permits MUST use the MPARS online permitting system for submitting applications to the DNR. To avoid duplication and to streamline the application process among the various resource agencies, applicants can use the information entered into MPARS to substitute for completing parts of this joint application form. The MPARS print/save function will provide the applicant with a copy of the Public Waters permit application which, at a minimum, will satisfy Parts one and two of this joint application. For certain types of activities, the MPARS application may also provide all of the necessary information required under Parts three and four of the joint application. However, it is the responsibility of the Applicant to make sure that the joint application contains all of the required information, including identification of all aquatic resources impacted by the project (see Part four of the joint application). After confirming that the MPARS application contains all of the required information in Parts one and two the Applicant may attach a copy to the joint application and fill in any missing information in the remainder of the joint application. Page 206 of 426 Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised September 2024 Page 3 of 8 Project Name and/or Number: McMillan Estates PART ONE: Applicant Information If applicant is an entity (company, government entity, partnership, etc.), an authorized contact person must be identified. If the applicant is using an agent (consultant, lawyer, or other third party) and has authorized them to act on their behalf, the agent’s contact information must also be provided. Applicant/Landowner Name: Spencer McMillan Mailing Address: 1707 Delaware Avenue, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Phone: 715-698-7114 E-mail Address:SMcMillan@McMillanElectric.com Authorized Contact (do not complete if same as above): Mailing Address: Phone: E-mail Address: Agent Name: Lucius Jonett, Midwest Wetland Improvements Mailing Address: P.O. Box 448, Victoria, MN 55386 Phone: 952-261-9990 E-mail Address:lucius@midwestwetlands.com PART TWO: Site Location Information County: Dakota City/Township: Mendota Heights Parcel ID and/or Address: 27-02400-78-010, 1707 Delaware Avenue, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Legal Description (Section, Township, Range): SECTION 24 TWN 28 RANGE 23 Lat/Long (decimal degrees): 44.894271/-93.107408 Attach a map showing the location of the site in relation to local streets, roads, highways. Approximate size of site (acres) or if a linear project, length (feet): 12 acres If you know that your proposal will require an individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you must provide the names and addresses of all property owners adjacent to the project site. This information may be provided by attaching a list to your application or by using block 25 of the Application for Department of the Army permit which can be obtained at: http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Portals/57/docs/regulatory/RegulatoryDocs/engform_4345_2012oct.pdf PART THREE: General Project/Site Information If this application is related to a delineation approval, exemption determination, jurisdictional determination, or other correspondence submitted prior to this application then describe that here and provide the Corps of Engineers project number. Describe the project that is being proposed, the project purpose and need, and schedule for implementation and completion. The project description must fully describe the nature and scope of the proposed activity including a description of all project elements that effect aquatic resources (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) and must also include plans and cross section or profile drawings showing the location, character, and dimensions of all proposed activities and aquatic resource impacts. Homeowner is subdividing land for residential lot development. A Wetland Delineation Report was completed on 6/22/2021. A stream feature worksheet was completed on 5/19/2025 for the drainage feature identified in the wetland delineation report. Design plans for preliminary plat, dated 4/07/2025, show project location and proposed wetland and channel impacts. All documents are attached in appendix B. Page 207 of 426 Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised September 2024 Page 4 of 8 Project Name and/or Number: McMillan Estates PART FOUR: Aquatic Resource Impact1 Summary If your proposed project involves a direct or indirect impact to an aquatic resource (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) identify each impact in the table below. Include all anticipated impacts, including those expected to be temporary. Attach an overhead view map, aerial photo, and/or drawing showing all of the aquatic resources in the project area and the location(s) of the proposed impacts. Label each aquatic resource on the map with a reference number or letter and identify the impacts in the following table. Aquatic Resource ID (as noted on overhead view) Aquatic Resource Type (wetland, lake, tributary etc.) Type of Impact (fill, excavate, drain, or remove vegetation) Duration of Impact Permanent (P) or Temporary (T)1 Size of Impact2 Overall Size of Aquatic Resource 3 Existing Plant Community Type(s) in Impact Area4 County, Major Watershed #, and Bank Service Area # of Impact Area5 Basin 1 – Area 1 Wetland Fill P 1,315 sq ft 3.55 acres Wet Meadow Dakota, Watershed 20, BSA 7 Basin 1 – Area 2 Wetland Fill P 467 sq ft 3.55 acres Wet Meadow Dakota, Watershed 20, BSA 7 Basin 1 – Area 3 Wetland Fill P 388 sq ft 3.55 acres Wet Meadow Dakota, Watershed 20, BSA 7 Unnamed Stream Stream tributary Tier 4 – short length of culvert pipe (fill) P 60 linear feet, 6’ x 60’ = 360 sq ft 185 linear feet, 6’ x 185’ = 1,110 sq ft Forested stream riparian vegetation. Dakota, Watershed 20, BSA 7 1If impacts are temporary; enter the duration of the impacts in days next to the “T”. For example, a project with a temporary access fill that would be removed after 220 days would be entered “T (220)”. 2Impacts less than 0.01 acre should be reported in square feet. Impacts 0.01 acre or greater should be reported as acres and rounded to the nearest 0.01 acre. Tributary impacts must be reported in linear feet of impact and an area of impact by indicating first the linear feet of impact along the flowline of the stream followed by the area impact in parentheses). For example, a project that impacts 50 feet of a stream that is 6 feet wide would be reported as 50 ft (300 square feet). 3This is generally only applicable if you are applying for a de minimis exemption under MN Rules 8420.0420 Subp. 8, otherwise enter “N/A”. 4Use Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin 3rd Ed. as modified in MN Rules 8420.0405 Subp. 2. 5Refer to Major Watershed and Bank Service Area maps in MN Rules 8420.0522 Subp. 7. If any of the above identified impacts have already occurred, identify which impacts they are and the circumstances associated with each: No impacts have occurred. 1 The term “impact” as used in this joint application form is a generic term used for disclosure purposes to identify activities that may require approval from one or more regulatory agencies. For purposes of this form it is not meant to indicate whether or not those activities may require mitigation/replacement. Page 208 of 426 PART FIVE: Applicant Signature [_] Check here if you are requesting a pre-application consultation with the Corps and LGU based on the information you have provided. Regulatory entities will not initiate a formal application review if this box is checked. By signature below, | attest that the information in this application is complete and accurate. | further attest that | possess the authority to undertake the work described herein. Signature: Srp Date: May 22, 2025 Spencer McMillan | hereby authorize Lucius Jonett to act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this application. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form — Revised September 2024 Page 5 of 8 Page 209 of 426 Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised September 2024 Page 6 of 8 Project Name and/or Number: McMillan Estates Attachment B Supporting Information for Applications Involving Exemptions, No Loss Determinations, and Activities Not Requiring Mitigation Complete this part if you maintain that the identified aquatic resource impacts in Part Four do not require wetland replacement/compensatory mitigation OR if you are seeking verification that the proposed water resource impacts are either exempt from replacement or are not under CWA/WCA jurisdiction. Identify the specific exemption or no-loss provision for which you believe your project or site qualifies: WCA de minimis exemption – MN Rule 8420.0420, Subp. 8 Provide a detailed explanation of how your project or site qualifies for the above. Be specific and provide and refer to attachments and exhibits that support your contention. Applicants should refer to rules (e.g. WCA rules), guidance documents (e.g. BWSR guidance, Corps guidance letters/public notices), and permit conditions (e.g. Corps General Permit conditions) to determine the necessary information to support the application. Applicants are strongly encouraged to contact the WCA LGU and Corps Project Manager prior to submitting an application if they are unsure of what type of information to provide: The proposed activity involves the permanent fill impact to wetland of approximately 2,170 square feet (0.05 acres) to establish roads, driveways and residential home building sites as part of a subdivision project. The property is situated within Dakota County in Minnesota that is classified as having less than 50% of its pre-settlement wetlands remaining. The project site is not located within a shoreland area as defined by Minnesota Rules. Pursuant to Minnesota Rule 8420.0420, Subpart 8, (2024 WCA Statute Changes) the activity qualifies for the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) de minimis exemption. This rule allows up to 2,178 square feet of wetland impact per project in non-shoreland areas within less than 50% wetland counties, provided other eligibility requirements are met. The following conditions are met for this exemption: 1. Area of Impact: The proposed wetland conversion does not exceed the de minimis exemption in non-shoreland, <50% wetland counties. 2. Cumulative Impact: These proposed wetland impacts account for the cumulative road and utility impacts of the current, proposed subdivision phase of the project. Plus the potential home/driveway construction impacts of future individual homeowner construction phases of the project. Based on these factors, the activity meets the requirements for the de minimis exemption under the WCA and does not require replacement, sequencing, or additional mitigation measures. The proposed activity also includes a Severity Tier 4 channel impact for the installation of a short length of culvert pipe for a driveway crossing the unnamed stream channel to a home building site. The linear foot threshold for Tier 4 impacts is 200 LF before mitigation is required. Page 210 of 426 Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised September 2024 Page 7 of 8 Attachment C Avoidance and Minimization Project Purpose, Need, and Requirements. Clearly state the purpose of your project and need for your project. Also include a description of any specific requirements of the project as they relate to project location, project footprint, water management, and any other applicable requirements. Attach an overhead plan sheet showing all relevant features of the project (buildings, roads, etc.), aquatic resource features (impact areas noted) and construction details (grading plans, storm water management plans, etc.), referencing these as necessary: Home owner is subdividing land for residential lot development. A Wetland Delineation Report was completed on 6/22/2021. A stream feature worksheet was completed on 5/19/2025 for the drainage feature identified in the wetland delineation report. Design plans for preliminary plat, dated 4/07/2025, show project location and proposed wetland and channel impacts. All documents are attached in appendix B. Avoidance. Both the CWA and the WCA require that impacts to aquatic resources be avoided if practicable alternatives exist. Clearly describe all on-site measures considered to avoid impacts to aquatic resources and discuss at least two project alternatives that avoid all impacts to aquatic resources on the site. These alternatives may include alternative site plans, alternate sites, and/or not doing the project. Alternatives should be feasible and prudent (see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 2 C). Applicants are encouraged to attach drawings and plans to support their analysis: The proposed subdivision site contains wetland basin with a tributary stream channel that flows into it, creating a natural barrier along the south portion of the property between the developable upland areas. In planning access to the remainder of the site, multiple on-site avoidance measures were considered to minimize and avoid impacts to aquatic resources. These included reviewing layout options that concentrate development on the north and east side of the basin and channel while leaving the southern portion undeveloped. However, full avoidance would require forgoing access to the site, making it infeasible given the project’s objectives. Two project alternatives that avoid all impacts to aquatic resources were considered: (1) an alternative site layout that clusters all development on the eastern uplands and leaves the southern portion as permanent open space; and (2) the no-build alternative, which would result in no impacts but would also eliminate the proposed housing and associated public infrastructure objectives. While both alternatives avoid direct impacts, they are not prudent for achieving the purpose and need of the project. The selected alternative minimizes impacts by reducing the crossing width and locating it at the narrowest portion of the channel and wetland, combined with construction methods designed to protect hydrology and habitat connectivity. Minimization. Both the CWA and the WCA require that all unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Discuss all features of the proposed project that have been modified to minimize the impacts to water resources (see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 4): To minimize unavoidable impacts to the wetland basins and tributary stream channel located in the southern portion of the subdivision site, the proposed project has incorporated several design modifications. The location of the new cul-de-sac and driveway access crossings were strategically selected at the narrowest points of wetland and channel impact to reduce the width of fill and overall disturbance. The crossings will utilize culvert designs that preserve base flow connectivity and minimize alteration of stream hydrology and aquatic organism passage. Roadway grades and alignments were adjusted to reduce the footprint of the crossing embankment and avoid unnecessary encroachment into adjacent wetland areas. Stormwater from the new road surface will be treated through an infiltration basin before discharge to adjacent aquatic resources, further reducing pollutant loading. Construction will follow best management practices to minimize sedimentation and erosion, and all disturbed areas will be promptly stabilized and restored with native vegetation. Page 211 of 426 Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised September 2024 Page 8 of 8 Off-Site Alternatives. An off-site alternatives analysis is not required for all permit applications. If you know that your proposal will require an individual permit (standard permit or letter of permission) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you may be required to provide an off-site alternatives analysis. The alternatives analysis is not required for a complete application but must be provided during the review process in order for the Corps to complete the evaluation of your application and reach a final decision. Applicants with questions about when an off-site alternatives analysis is required should contact their Corps Project Manager. Page 212 of 426 MCMILLAN ESTATES 10105 5 Preliminary Plat1 1 202142Spencer McMillan1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114ZONING INFORMATION OWNER/DEVELOPER ENGINEER/SURVEYOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY PLAT PLAT AREAS Land Surveying & Engineering 2580 Christian Dr. Chaska, MN 55318 612-418-6828 MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MNWETLANDS PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WETLAND DELINEATOR UTILITIES STORMWATER SEE THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR GRADING, DRAINAGE, STREET, SANITARY SEWER, AND WATERMAIN FOR FOR DETAILED IMPROVEMENTS LEGEND TREE PRESERVATION Page 213 of 426 Page 214 of 426 Page 215 of 426 Page 216 of 426 Page 217 of 426 Page 218 of 426 Page 219 of 426 Page 220 of 426 Page 221 of 426 Page 222 of 426 Page 223 of 426 Page 224 of 426 Page 225 of 426 Page 226 of 426 Page 227 of 426 Page 228 of 426 Page 229 of 426 Page 230 of 426 Page 231 of 426 Page 232 of 426 Page 233 of 426 Page 234 of 426 Page 235 of 426 Page 236 of 426 Page 237 of 426 Page 238 of 426 Page 239 of 426 Page 240 of 426 Page 241 of 426 Page 242 of 426 Page 243 of 426 Page 244 of 426 Page 245 of 426 Page 246 of 426 Page 247 of 426 Page 248 of 426 Page 249 of 426 Page 250 of 426 Page 251 of 426 Page 252 of 426 Page 253 of 426 Page 254 of 426 Page 255 of 426 Page 256 of 426 Page 257 of 426 Page 258 of 426 Page 259 of 426 Version April 2023 Description of Stream Features Worksheet The Corps encourages applicants to complete this worksheet to aid in the identification of streams within a project area. Provide representative photographs of the stream features outlined in this form in a separate attached document. Project ID Number: Latitude (DD): Feature ID: Longitude (DD): Waterbody Name*: Length of Reach (ft): Investigator (s): Top of Bank Width (ft): Inspection Date: OHWM Elevation: County/State: Special Designations: Site Description and Site History*: Associated Wetland(s)? If yes, provide a brief description below and attach figures of locations *Include Historic Aerial photographs and Topographic Maps (historic and current) of stream when appropriate (see instructions). Water Regime (check all that apply): ☐Perennial ☐Intermittent ☐Ephemeral Explain Reasoning (attach all supporting data): Other Evidence: List/describe an additional field evidence and/or lines of reasoning used to support your delineation McMillan Estates Reach 01 Unnamed Stream Lucius Jonett May 19, 2025 Dakota/MN 44.8927273 N 93.10846875 W 185 LF 12' 945.4' None Unnamed stream, called out as Drainage in attached wetlad delinetaion, flows into delineated wetlandBasin 1, a type 2 wet meadow. Site is a forested suburban lot managed by the landowner to clear brush and buckthorn. MN DNR Rivers and Streams GIS dataset Kittle Number: MAJ-070129482-B Kittle Name: None 1st order stream is a tributary to additional unnamed channels that ultimately drain to theMississippi River. Page 260 of 426 Version April 2023 Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Criteria: Check all that apply and provide representative photographs** of each checked criteria in an attachment. ☐ Clear, natural line impressed on bank ☐ Vegetation matted down, bent or absent ☐ Leaf litter disturbed or washed away ☐ Abrupt change in plant community ☐ Destruction of terrestrial vegetation ☐ Changes in soil characteristics ☐ Sediment deposition ☐ Sediment sorting ☐ Presence of litter or debris ☐ Shelving ☐ Evidence of scouring ☐ Water staining on leaf debris/tree trunks List of Photo ID Numbers: Unique Features: Check all that apply and provide representative photographs of each checked criteria in an attachment. ☐ Unstable Banks ☐ Rock Outcrop ☐ Riffles/Runs ☐ Bridge/culvert ☐ Steep Sideslopes ☐ Headcutting ☐ Gravel Bars/Islands ☐ Riprap ☐ Diversion/Intake ☐ Buildings ☐ Erosion ☐ Channelization ☐ Seeps ☐ Dams ☐ Pools ☐ Large Woody Debris ☐ Concentrated Flow Points (e.g. Tile) ☐ Aquatic fauna (macroinvertebrates, fish etc.) ☐ Submergent Aquatic Vegetation ☐ Undercut Banks List of Photo ID Numbers: Bed Material Characterization: Estimate percentages to describe the general sediment texture of the channel, provide representative photographs when conditions allow. Clay/Silt <0.05mm Sand 0.05- 2mm Gravel 2mm- 1cm Cobbles 1- 10cm Boulders >10cm Bed Material Notes/Description and Photo ID Numbers: rocks Left Bank 40%40%20% IMG_6654 IMG_6649, IMG_6651, IMG_6652, IMG_6653, IMG_6657 IMG_6658IMG_6659 Page 261 of 426 Version April 2023 Vegetation: Check boxes of the strata that are present in the reach and provide a brief description of the general vegetation characteristics. List the dominant species of each strata and describe which strata is dominant. Provide representative photographs of vegetation, including riparian buffer. ☐ Tree ☐Shrub ☐ Herbaceous ☐Bare Notes/Description and Photo ID Numbers: Riparian Area Width: Provide a general estimate in feet of the width of the riparian corridor that currently contains riparian vegetation and is free from any soil-disturbing land uses (MNSQT, 2019). Notes/Description and Photo ID Numbers: Notes: Provide any additional information below, all photographs and maps should be provided in an attached appendix. Dominant forest canopy with mature buckthorn tree understory. Not a lot of shrub growth dueto landowner management. Dominant spring ephemeral, fern and tree seedling growth on theherbaceous strata. IMG_6661 and IMG_6662 Fully vegetated riparian area width of 70' to 90', to the valley edges (natural hillslope).IMG_6661IMG_6662 Channel cross-section data Station Elevation0.0' 947.2' TOB - Left Bank1.0' 945.5' OHWL2.5' 945.2' WSE4.75' 945.2' WSE7.0' 945.4' OHWL8.0' 945.7'9.0' 946.0'10.0' 946.4'12.0' 947.2' TOB - Right Bank Page 262 of 426 Page 263 of 426 Page 264 of 426 Page 265 of 426 Page 266 of 426 Page 267 of 426 Page 268 of 426 Page 269 of 426 Page 270 of 426 Page 271 of 426 Page 272 of 426 Page 273 of 426 Page 274 of 426 From:Chesnut, Jed (BWSR) To:Krista Spreiter Cc:Holmen, David; Sarah Madden Subject:McMillan Estates de minimis application Date:Friday, May 30, 2025 9:39:08 AM Attachments:image001.png Krista, I have reviewed the McMillan Estates application for a de minimis exemption. I have the following comments: Per the 2024 Statute amendment of Section 103G.2241, subdivision 9; wetland impacts of 1/20 acre (2,178 square feet) or less outside of the shoreland wetland protection zone in a less than 50% area of the State do not require replacement. Therefore, the McMillian Estates de minimis application with the proposed wetland impact of 2,170 square feet qualifies for the de minimis exemption per Mn Statute 103G.2241, subdivision 9. Wetland impacts that are authorized under a Wetland Conservation Act exemption are not subject to the replacement requirements of Mn Rule 8420.0500 and therefore are not required to meet the sequencing standards of Mn Rule 8420.0520 or the replacement standards per Mn Rule 8420.0522. The 2024 Statute amendment of Section 103G.2241, subdivision 9 removed the requirement to consider the cumulative area drained or filled of a landowner’s portion of a wetland. The Joint Application Form (dated April 14, 2025) that accompanied the Notice of Application (dated 4/21/2025) contained supplemental information including a delineation report from 2021 that was completed by Jacobson Environmental. In that Jacobson Environmental delineation report (dated 6/22/2021), there is an additional application (Appendix D) that includes information related to a replacement plan application for proposed wetland impacts from what appears to be a previous site design and plan. That replacement plan application (dated 8/4/2021) should be removed from the current de minimis application since it is not relevant to the current proposed project. I recommend you request that the applicant revise their document and remove that embedded application and other non-relevant information. Based on my review of the McMillian Estates de minimis exemption application, I recommend the application be approved subject to the standard exemption approval conditions per Mn Rule 8420.0410. Thank you, Jed Chesnut | Wetland Specialist Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 520 Lafayette Road North | St. Paul, MN | 55155 Phone: 651-286-9334 Page 275 of 426 jed.chesnut@state.mn.us | www.bwsr.state.mn.us Page 276 of 426 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ST. PAUL DISTRICT ST. PAUL DISTRICT OFFICE 332 MINNESOTA STREET SUITE E1500 ST. PAUL MINNESOTA 55101 June 18, 2025 Regulatory File No. MVP-2021-01218-SSC Spencer McMillan 1707 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 SMcMillan@McMillanElectric.com Dear Spencer McMillan, We are responding to your request for authorization to discharge fill material in waters of the U.S. associated with the McMillan Estates residential development. The proposed work is located in Section 24, Township 028N, Range 023W, Dakota County, Minnesota. Project Authorization: The regulated activities associated with this project are detailed on the attached drawings and include: •Permanent discharge of fill material into 0.05 acre of wetland associated with a roadway to access upland for the residential development. •Permanent discharge of fill material into 0.01 acre of an unnamed tributary along 60 linear feet associated with the placement of culverted road crossing. We have determined that these activities are authorized by a Nationwide Permit (NWP) or a Regional General Permit (RGP), specifically, NWP 29, Residential Developments. Your project requires verification prior to starting work. This work is shown on the enclosed figures, labeled MVP-2021-01218-SSC Pages 1-2 of 2. Conditions of Your Permit: You must ensure the authorized work is performed in accordance with the enclosed applicable terms and conditions. You are also required to complete and return the enclosed Compliance Certification form within 30 days of completing your project. Please email the completed form to the contact identified in the last paragraph. A change in location or project plans may require re-evaluation of your project. Proposed changes should be coordinated with this office prior to construction. Failure to comply with all terms and conditions of this permit invalidates this authorization and could result in a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. You must also obtain all local, State, Tribal, and other Federal permits that apply to this project. Water Quality Certification: Page 277 of 426 Page 2 of 2 You must also comply with the enclosed Water Quality Certification conditions associated with this General Permit. Permit Expiration: The 2021 NWP is valid until March 14, 2026 unless modified, suspended, or revoked. If the work has not been completed by that time, you should contact this office to verify that the permit is still valid. Furthermore, if you commence or are under contract to commence this activity before the date of General Permit expiration, modification, or revocation, you have 12 months to complete the activity under the present terms and conditions of the General Permit. Jurisdictional Determination: No jurisdictional determination was requested or prepared for this permit decision. While not required for this project, you may contact the Corps representative listed below with any questions concerning jurisdictional determinations. Contact Information: If you have any questions, please contact Samantha Coungeris of the St. Paul at 651-290- 5268 or by email at Samantha.S.Coungeris@usace.army.mil. Sincerely, Samantha Coungeris Project Manager Enclosures Project Drawings, GP Conditions, WQC, Compliance Certification Form CC: Lucius Jonett, Midwest Wetland Improvements, LLC; lucius@midwestwetlands.com Page 278 of 426 MVP-2021-01218-SSC Page 1 of 2Page 279 of 426 MCMILLAN ESTATES 10105 5 Preliminary Plat1 1 202142Spencer McMillan1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114ZONING INFORMATION OWNER/DEVELOPER ENGINEER/SURVEYOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY PLAT PLAT AREAS Land Surveying & Engineering 2580 Christian Dr. Chaska, MN 55318 612-418-6828 MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MNWETLANDS PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WETLAND DELINEATOR UTILITIES STORMWATER SEE THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR GRADING, DRAINAGE, STREET, SANITARY SEWER, AND WATERMAIN FOR FOR DETAILED IMPROVEMENTS LEGEND TREE PRESERVATION MVP-2021-01218-SSC Page 2 of 2 Page 280 of 426 29.Residential Developments. Discharges of dredged or fill material into non-tidalwaters of the United States for the construction or expansion of a single residence, amultiple unit residential development, or a residential subdivision. This NWP authorizesthe construction of building foundations and building pads and attendant features thatare necessary for the use of the residence or residential development. Attendantfeatures may include but are not limited to roads, parking lots, garages, yards, utilitylines, storm water management facilities, septic fields, and recreation facilities such asplaygrounds, playing fields, and golf courses (provided the golf course is an integral partof the residential development). The discharge must not cause the loss of greater than 1/2-acre of non-tidal waters of the United States. This NWP does not authorize discharges of dredged or fill material into non-tidal wetlands adjacent to tidal waters. Subdivisions: For residential subdivisions, the aggregate total loss of waters of United States authorized by this NWP cannot exceed 1/2-acre. This includes any loss of waters of the United States associated with development of individual subdivision lots. Notification: The permittee must submit a pre-construction notification to the district engineer prior to commencing the activity. (See general condition 32.) (Authorities: Sections 10 and 404) Page 281 of 426 2021 Nationwide Permits (NWP) St. Paul District Regional Conditions for Minnesota and Wisconsin To qualify for NWP authorization, the prospective permittee must comply with the following regional conditions, as applicable, in addition to any case specific conditions imposed by the division engineer. The St. Paul District Regulatory website will provide current information regarding NWPs and the necessary 401 Water Quality Certifications at https://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/missions/regulatory/nwp/. Every person who wishes to obtain permit authorization under one or more NWPs, or who is currently relying on an existing or prior permit authorization under one or more NWPs, has been and is on notice that all of the provisions of 33 CFR 330.1 through 330.6 apply to every NWP authorization. Note especially 33 CFR 330.5 relating to the modification, suspension, or revocation of any NWP authorization. The following NWPs have been revoked and are not available for use in St. Paul District: NWPs 8, 12, 14, 15, 21, 23, 24, 34, 48, 49, 50, 55, 56, 57, and 58. Information on other permits available for use in St. Paul District can be found at: https://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Permitting-Process-Procedures/. Any regulated activity eligible for authorization under a St. Paul District Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) general permit is not eligible for authorization by NWPs. The following regional conditions are applicable to all NWPs: A.Linear Projects: No linear utility or linear transportation projects are eligible for authorization by NWPs. These projects will be reviewed for authorization under the St. Paul District's regional general permits or an individual permit. B.Temporary Impacts: All regulated temporary impacts to waters of the U.S. must comply with the following criteria: (1)If the temporary impacts in waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that occur as a result of the regulated activity would remain in place for longer than 90 days between May 15 and November 15, a PCN is required. (2)Any PCN with temporary impacts must specify how long the temporary impact will remain and include a restoration and re-vegetation plan showing how all temporary fills and structures will be removed and the area restored to preconstruction contours and elevations. Native, non-invasive vegetation must be used unless otherwise authorized by a Corps NWP verification. C.PCNs for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore and Madeline Island: A project proponent must notify the District by submitting a PCN if the regulated activity would result in excavation, fill, or the placement of a new structure within the boundaries of Apostle Islands National Lakeshore and Madeline Island in Wisconsin. Regulated activities authorized under NWP 3 (Maintenance) are not subject to this condition unless they include bank shaping or excavation. D.Calcareous fens: WISCONSIN: No work in a calcareous fen is authorized by a NWP unless the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WI DNR) has approved a permit for the proposed regulated activity. Project proponents must provide evidence of an approved permit to the District. MINNESOTA: No work in a calcareous fen is authorized by a NWP unless the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) has approved a calcareous fen management plan specific to a project that otherwise qualifies for authorization by a NWP. Project proponents must provide evidence of an approved fen management plan to the District. A list of known Minnesota calcareous fens can be found at: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/wetlands/calcareous_fen_list.pdf. Page 282 of 426 E. Special Aquatic Resources: A project proponent must notify the District by submitting a PCN if a regulated activity would occur in any of the following aquatic resources: (1)State-designated wild rice waters 1,2; (2)Bog wetland plant communities1,3; (3)Fens1,3; (4)Coastal plain marshes1,4; (5)Interdunal wetlands1,4; (6)Great Lakes ridge and swale complexes1,4; (7)Aquatic resources within Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve; (8)Ramsar wetland sites, including: the Horicon Marsh, Upper Mississippi River Floodplain Wetland, Kakagon and Bad River Slough, Door Peninsula Coastal Wetlands, Chiwaukee Illinois Beach Lake Plain, and Lower Wisconsin Riverway. The complete up to date Ramsar list is available at https://rsis.ramsar.org. The following regional conditions are applicable to a specific NWP: F. NWP 52. Water-Based Renewable Energy Generation Pilot Projects: NWP 52 does not authorize structures or work in Lake Michigan and Lake Superior within the geographic regulatory boundaries of the St. Paul District. G. NWP 3, 33, and 41. Aquatic Resource Impacts: A project proponent must notify the District by submitting a PCN if a regulated activity, including but not limited to, filling, flooding, excavating, or drainage of waters of the U.S., involves: (1)A permanent loss of greater than 1/10 acre of waters of the U.S. for NWP 3 and 41; or (2)over 1/2 acre of temporary impacts to waters of the U.S. for NWP 3, 33, and 41. H.NWP 27. Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Establishment and Enhancement Activities: NWP 27 does not authorize the permanent conversion of forested, bog, fen, sedge meadow, or shrub-carr wetlands to other plant communities. A project proponent may request, in writing, a waiver from this condition from the District. The waiver will only be issued if it can be demonstrated that the conversion would restore wetland plant communities to the pre-settlement condition or a watershed approach and that the current landscape and hydrologic conditions would sustain the targeted community. 1 Information about Wisconsin plant community types for 1-6 above may be obtained from: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/EndangeredResources/Communities.asp?mode=group&Type=Wetland 2 Information regarding wild rice waters and their extent may be obtained from: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wildlife/shallowlakes/wildrice.html and https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/biota- wild-rice-lakes-dnr-wld in Minnesota, https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/rice.html in Wisconsin, and an interactive map is provided at: http://maps.glifwc.org/ (under Treaty Resources – Gathering). 3 Additional information on bog and fen communities can be found at: http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/missions/regulatory.aspx and in Minnesota at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/npc/classification.html. 4 Coastal plain marshes, interdunal wetlands, and Great Lakes ridge and swale complexes are specific to Wisconsin Page 283 of 426 2021 Nationwide Permit General Conditions 1. Navigation. (a) No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on navigation. (b) Any safety lights and signals prescribed by the U.S. Coast Guard, through regulations or otherwise, must be installed and maintained at the permittee's expense on authorized facilities in navigable waters of the United States. (c) The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States require the removal, relocation, or other alteration, of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his or her authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the permittee will be required, upon due notice from the Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate, or alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States. No claim shall be made against the United States on account of any such removal or alteration. 2. Aquatic Life Movements. No activity may substantially disrupt the necessary life cycle movements of those species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody, including those species that normally migrate through the area, unless the activity's primary purpose is to impound water. All permanent and temporary crossings of waterbodies shall be suitably culverted, bridged, or otherwise designed and constructed to maintain low flows to sustain the movement of those aquatic species. If a bottomless culvert cannot be used, then the crossing should be designed and constructed to minimize adverse effects to aquatic life movements. 3. Spawning Areas. Activities in spawning areas during spawning seasons must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Activities that result in the physical destruction (e.g., through excavation, fill, or downstream smothering by substantial turbidity) of an important spawning area are not authorized. 4. Migratory Bird Breeding Areas. Activities in waters of the United States that serve as breeding areas for migratory birds must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. 5. Shellfish Beds. No activity may occur in areas of concentrated shellfish populations, unless the activity is directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by NWPs 4 and 48, or is a shellfish seeding or habitat restoration activity authorized by NWP 27. 6. Suitable Material. No activity may use unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc.). Material used for construction or discharged must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts (see section 307 of the Clean Water Act). 7. Water Supply Intakes. No activity may occur in the proximity of a public water supply intake, except where the activity is for the repair or improvement of public water supply intake structures or adjacent bank stabilization. 8. Adverse Effects From Impoundments. If the activity creates an impoundment of water, adverse effects to the aquatic system due to accelerating the passage of water, and/or restricting its flow must be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. 9. Management of Water Flows. To the maximum extent practicable, the pre-construction course, condition, capacity, and location of open waters must be maintained for each activity, including stream channelization, storm water management activities, and temporary and permanent road crossings, except as provided below. The activity must be constructed to withstand expected high flows. The activity must not restrict or impede the passage of normal or high flows, unless the primary purpose of the activity is to impound water or manage high flows. The activity may alter the pre-construction course, condition, capacity, and location of open waters if it benefits the aquatic environment (e.g., stream restoration or relocation activities). 10. Fills Within 100-Year Floodplains. The activity must comply with applicable FEMA-approved state or local floodplain management requirements. 11. Equipment. Heavy equipment working in wetlands or mudflats must be placed on mats, or other measures must be taken to minimize soil disturbance. 12. Soil Erosion and Sediment Controls. Appropriate soil erosion and sediment controls must be used and maintained in effective operating condition during construction, and all exposed soil and other fills, as well as any work below the ordinary high water mark or high tide line, must be permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date. Permittees are encouraged to perform work within waters of the United States during periods of low-flow or no-flow, or during low tides. 13. Removal of Temporary Structures and Fills. Temporary structures must be removed, to the maximum extent practicable, after their use has been discontinued. Temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the affected areas returned to pre-construction elevations. The affected areas must be revegetated, as appropriate. 14. Proper Maintenance. Any authorized structure or fill shall be properly maintained, including maintenance to ensure public safety and compliance with applicable NWP general conditions, as well as any activity-specific conditions added by the district engineer to an NWP authorization. Page 284 of 426 15. Single and Complete Project. The activity must be a single and complete project. The same NWP cannot be used more than once for the same single and complete project. 16. Wild and Scenic Rivers. (a) No NWP activity may occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System, or in a river officially designated by Congress as a “study river” for possible inclusion in the system while the river is in an official study status, unless the appropriate Federal agency with direct management responsibility for such river, has determined in writing that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the Wild and Scenic River designation or study status. (b) If a proposed NWP activity will occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System, or in a river officially designated by Congress as a “study river” for possible inclusion in the system while the river is in an official study status, the permittee must submit a pre-construction notification (see general condition 32). The district engineer will coordinate the PCN with the Federal agency with direct management responsibility for that river. Permittees shall not begin the NWP activity until notified by the district engineer that the Federal agency with direct management responsibility for that river has determined in writing that the proposed NWP activity will not adversely affect the Wild and Scenic River designation or study status. (c) Information on Wild and Scenic Rivers may be obtained from the appropriate Federal land management agency responsible for the designated Wild and Scenic River or study river (e.g., National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Information on these rivers is also available at: http://www.rivers.gov/. 17. Tribal Rights. No activity or its operation may impair reserved tribal rights, including, but not limited to, reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights. 18. Endangered Species. (a) No activity is authorized under any NWP which is likely to directly or indirectly jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation, as identified under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), or which will directly or indirectly destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat or critical habitat proposed for such designation. No activity is authorized under any NWP which “may affect” a listed species or critical habitat, unless ESA section 7 consultation addressing the consequences of the proposed activity on listed species or critical habitat has been completed. See 50 CFR 402.02 for the definition of “effects of the action” for the purposes of ESA section 7 consultation, as well as 50 CFR 402.17, which provides further explanation under ESA section 7 regarding “activities that are reasonably certain to occur” and “consequences caused by the proposed action.” (b) Federal agencies should follow their own procedures for complying with the requirements of the ESA (see 33 CFR 330.4(f)(1)). If pre-construction notification is required for the proposed activity, the Federal permittee must provide the district engineer with the appropriate documentation to demonstrate compliance with those requirements. The district engineer will verify that the appropriate documentation has been submitted. If the appropriate documentation has not been submitted, additional ESA section 7 consultation may be necessary for the activity and the respective federal agency would be responsible for fulfilling its obligation under section 7 of the ESA. (c) Non-federal permittees must submit a pre-construction notification to the district engineer if any listed species (or species proposed for listing) or designated critical habitat (or critical habitat proposed such designation) might be affected or is in the vicinity of the activity, or if the activity is located in designated critical habitat or critical habitat proposed for such designation, and shall not begin work on the activity until notified by the district engineer that the requirements of the ESA have been satisfied and that the activity is authorized. For activities that might affect Federally-listed endangered or threatened species (or species proposed for listing) or designated critical habitat (or critical habitat proposed for such designation), the pre-construction notification must include the name(s) of the endangered or threatened species (or species proposed for listing) that might be affected by the proposed activity or that utilize the designated critical habitat (or critical habitat proposed for such designation) that might be affected by the proposed activity. The district engineer will determine whether the proposed activity “may affect” or will have “no effect” to listed species and designated critical habitat and will notify the non-Federal applicant of the Corps’ determination within 45 days of receipt of a complete pre-construction notification. For activities where the non- Federal applicant has identified listed species (or species proposed for listing) or designated critical habitat (or critical habitat proposed for such designation) that might be affected or is in the vicinity of the activity, and has so notified the Corps, the applicant shall not begin work until the Corps has provided notification that the proposed activity will have “no effect” on listed species (or species proposed for listing or designated critical habitat (or critical habitat proposed for such designation), or until ESA section 7 consultation or conference has been completed. If the non-Federal applicant has not heard back from the Corps within 45 days, the applicant must still wait for notification from the Corps. Page 285 of 426 (d) As a result of formal or informal consultation or conference with the FWS or NMFS the district engineer may add species-specific permit conditions to the NWPs. (e) Authorization of an activity by an NWP does not authorize the “take” of a threatened or endangered species as defined under the ESA. In the absence of separate authorization (e.g., an ESA Section 10 Permit, a Biological Opinion with “incidental take” provisions, etc.) from the FWS or the NMFS, the Endangered Species Act prohibits any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take a listed species, where "take" means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. The word “harm” in the definition of “take'' means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering. (f) If the non-federal permittee has a valid ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit with an approved Habitat Conservation Plan for a project or a group of projects that includes the proposed NWP activity, the non-federal applicant should provide a copy of that ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit with the PCN required by paragraph (c) of this general condition. The district engineer will coordinate with the agency that issued the ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit to determine whether the proposed NWP activity and the associated incidental take were considered in the internal ESA section 7 consultation conducted for the ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit. If that coordination results in concurrence from the agency that the proposed NWP activity and the associated incidental take were considered in the internal ESA section 7 consultation for the ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit, the district engineer does not need to conduct a separate ESA section 7 consultation for the proposed NWP activity. The district engineer will notify the non-federal applicant within 45 days of receipt of a complete pre-construction notification whether the ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit covers the proposed NWP activity or whether additional ESA section 7 consultation is required. (g) Information on the location of threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat can be obtained directly from the offices of the FWS and NMFS or their world wide web pages at http://www.fws.gov/ or http://www.fws.gov/ipac and http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/ respectively. 19. Migratory Birds and Bald and Golden Eagles. The permittee is responsible for ensuring that an action authorized by an NWP complies with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The permittee is responsible for contacting the appropriate local office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine what measures, if any, are necessary or appropriate to reduce adverse effects to migratory birds or eagles, including whether "incidental take" permits are necessary and available under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act for a particular activity. 20. Historic Properties. (a) No activity is authorized under any NWP which may have the potential to cause effects to properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places until the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) have been satisfied. (b) Federal permittees should follow their own procedures for complying with the requirements of section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (see 33 CFR 330.4(g)(1)). If pre-construction notification is required for the proposed NWP activity, the Federal permittee must provide the district engineer with the appropriate documentation to demonstrate compliance with those requirements. The district engineer will verify that the appropriate documentation has been submitted. If the appropriate documentation is not submitted, then additional consultation under section 106 may be necessary. The respective federal agency is responsible for fulfilling its obligation to comply with section 106. (c) Non-federal permittees must submit a pre-construction notification to the district engineer if the NWP activity might have the potential to cause effects to any historic properties listed on, determined to be eligible for listing on, or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, including previously unidentified properties. For such activities, the pre-construction notification must state which historic properties might have the potential to be affected by the proposed NWP activity or include a vicinity map indicating the location of the historic properties or the potential for the presence of historic properties. Assistance regarding information on the location of, or potential for, the presence of historic properties can be sought from the State Historic Preservation Officer, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, or designated tribal representative, as appropriate, and the National Register of Historic Places (see 33 CFR 330.4(g)). When reviewing pre-construction notifications, district engineers will comply with the current procedures for addressing the requirements of section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The district engineer shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to carry out appropriate identification efforts commensurate with potential impacts, which may include background research, consultation, oral history interviews, sample field investigation, and/or field survey. Based on the information submitted in the PCN and these identification efforts, the district engineer shall determine whether the proposed NWP activity has the potential to cause effects on the historic properties. Section 106 consultation is not required when the district engineer determines that the activity does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties (see 36 CFR 800.3(a)). Section 106 consultation is required when the district engineer determines that the activity has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. The district engineer will conduct consultation with consulting parties identified under 36 CFR 800.2(c) when he or she Page 286 of 426 makes any of the following effect determinations for the purposes of section 106 of the NHPA: no historic properties affected, no adverse effect, or adverse effect. (d) Where the non-Federal applicant has identified historic properties on which the proposed NWP activity might have the potential to cause effects and has so notified the Corps, the non-Federal applicant shall not begin the activity until notified by the district engineer either that the activity has no potential to cause effects to historic properties or that NHPA section 106 consultation has been completed. For non-federal permittees, the district engineer will notify the prospective permittee within 45 days of receipt of a complete pre-construction notification whether NHPA section 106 consultation is required. If NHPA section 106 consultation is required, the district engineer will notify the non- Federal applicant that he or she cannot begin the activity until section 106 consultation is completed. If the non- Federal applicant has not heard back from the Corps within 45 days, the applicant must still wait for notification from the Corps. (e) Prospective permittees should be aware that section 110k of the NHPA (54 U.S.C. 306113) prevents the Corps from granting a permit or other assistance to an applicant who, with intent to avoid the requirements of section 106 of the NHPA, has intentionally significantly adversely affected a historic property to which the permit would relate, or having legal power to prevent it, allowed such significant adverse effect to occur, unless the Corps, after consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), determines that circumstances justify granting such assistance despite the adverse effect created or permitted by the applicant. If circumstances justify granting the assistance, the Corps is required to notify the ACHP and provide documentation specifying the circumstances, the degree of damage to the integrity of any historic properties affected, and proposed mitigation. This documentation must include any views obtained from the applicant, SHPO/THPO, appropriate Indian tribes if the undertaking occurs on or affects historic properties on tribal lands or affects properties of interest to those tribes, and other parties known to have a legitimate interest in the impacts to the permitted activity on historic properties. 21. Discovery of Previously Unknown Remains and Artifacts. Permittees that discover any previously unknown historic, cultural or archeological remains and artifacts while accomplishing the activity authorized by an NWP, they must immediately notify the district engineer of what they have found, and to the maximum extent practicable, avoid construction activities that may affect the remains and artifacts until the required coordination has been completed. The district engineer will initiate the Federal, Tribal, and state coordination required to determine if the items or remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 22. Designated Critical Resource Waters. Critical resource waters include, NOAA-managed marine sanctuaries and marine monuments, and National Estuarine Research Reserves. The district engineer may designate, after notice and opportunity for public comment, additional waters officially designated by a state as having particular environmental or ecological significance, such as outstanding national resource waters or state natural heritage sites. The district engineer may also designate additional critical resource waters after notice and opportunity for public comment. (a) Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States are not authorized by NWPs 7, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 29, 31, 35, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 49, 50, 51, 52, 57 and 58 for any activity within, or directly affecting, critical resource waters, including wetlands adjacent to such waters. (b) For NWPs 3, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, and 54, notification is required in accordance with general condition 32, for any activity proposed by permittees in the designated critical resource waters including wetlands adjacent to those waters. The district engineer may authorize activities under these NWPs only after she or he determines that the impacts to the critical resource waters will be no more than minimal. 23. Mitigation. The district engineer will consider the following factors when determining appropriate and practicable mitigation necessary to ensure that the individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects are no more than minimal: (a) The activity must be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize adverse effects, both temporary and permanent, to waters of the United States to the maximum extent practicable at the project site (i.e., on site). (b) Mitigation in all its forms (avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing, or compensating for resource losses) will be required to the extent necessary to ensure that the individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects are no more than minimal. (c) Compensatory mitigation at a minimum one-for-one ratio will be required for all wetland losses that exceed 1/10- acre and require pre-construction notification, unless the district engineer determines in writing that either some other form of mitigation would be more environmentally appropriate or the adverse environmental effects of the proposed activity are no more than minimal, and provides an activity-specific waiver of this requirement. For wetland losses of 1/10-acre or less that require pre-construction notification, the district engineer may determine on a case- by-case basis that compensatory mitigation is required to ensure that the activity results in only minimal adverse environmental effects. (d) Compensatory mitigation at a minimum one-for-one ratio will be required for all losses of stream bed that exceed 3/100-acre and require pre-construction notification, unless the district engineer determines in writing that either Page 287 of 426 some other form of mitigation would be more environmentally appropriate or the adverse environmental effects of the proposed activity are no more than minimal, and provides an activity-specific waiver of this requirement. This compensatory mitigation requirement may be satisfied through the restoration or enhancement of riparian areas next to streams in accordance with paragraph (e) of this general condition. For losses of stream bed of 3/100-acre or less that require pre-construction notification, the district engineer may determine on a case-by-case basis that compensatory mitigation is required to ensure that the activity results in only minimal adverse environmental effects. Compensatory mitigation for losses of streams should be provided, if practicable, through stream rehabilitation, enhancement, or preservation, since streams are difficult-to-replace resources (see 33 CFR 332.3(e)(3)). (e) Compensatory mitigation plans for NWP activities in or near streams or other open waters will normally include a requirement for the restoration or enhancement, maintenance, and legal protection (e.g., conservation easements) of riparian areas next to open waters. In some cases, the restoration or maintenance/protection of riparian areas may be the only compensatory mitigation required. If restoring riparian areas involves planting vegetation, only native species should be planted. The width of the required riparian area will address documented water quality or aquatic habitat loss concerns. Normally, the riparian area will be 25 to 50 feet wide on each side of the stream, but the district engineer may require slightly wider riparian areas to address documented water quality or habitat loss concerns. If it is not possible to restore or maintain/protect a riparian area on both sides of a stream, or if the waterbody is a lake or coastal waters, then restoring or maintaining/protecting a riparian area along a single bank or shoreline may be sufficient. Where both wetlands and open waters exist on the project site, the district engineer will determine the appropriate compensatory mitigation (e.g., riparian areas and/or wetlands compensation) based on what is best for the aquatic environment on a watershed basis. In cases where riparian areas are determined to be the most appropriate form of minimization or compensatory mitigation, the district engineer may waive or reduce the requirement to provide wetland compensatory mitigation for wetland losses. (f) Compensatory mitigation projects provided to offset losses of aquatic resources must comply with the applicable provisions of 33 CFR part 332. (1) The prospective permittee is responsible for proposing an appropriate compensatory mitigation option if compensatory mitigation is necessary to ensure that the activity results in no more than minimal adverse environmental effects. For the NWPs, the preferred mechanism for providing compensatory mitigation is mitigation bank credits or in-lieu fee program credits (see 33 CFR 332.3(b)(2) and (3)). However, if an appropriate number and type of mitigation bank or in-lieu credits are not available at the time the PCN is submitted to the district engineer, the district engineer may approve the use of permittee-responsible mitigation. (2) The amount of compensatory mitigation required by the district engineer must be sufficient to ensure that the authorized activity results in no more than minimal individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects (see 33 CFR 330.1(e)(3)). (See also 33 CFR 332.3(f).) (3) Since the likelihood of success is greater and the impacts to potentially valuable uplands are reduced, aquatic resource restoration should be the first compensatory mitigation option considered for permittee-responsible mitigation. (4) If permittee-responsible mitigation is the proposed option, the prospective permittee is responsible for submitting a mitigation plan. A conceptual or detailed mitigation plan may be used by the district engineer to make the decision on the NWP verification request, but a final mitigation plan that addresses the applicable requirements of 33 CFR 332.4(c)(2) through (14) must be approved by the district engineer before the permittee begins work in waters of the United States, unless the district engineer determines that prior approval of the final mitigation plan is not practicable or not necessary to ensure timely completion of the required compensatory mitigation (see 33 CFR 332.3(k)(3)). If permittee-responsible mitigation is the proposed option, and the proposed compensatory mitigation site is located on land in which another federal agency holds an easement, the district engineer will coordinate with that federal agency to determine if proposed compensatory mitigation project is compatible with the terms of the easement. (5) If mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program credits are the proposed option, the mitigation plan needs to address only the baseline conditions at the impact site and the number of credits to be provided (see 33 CFR 332.4(c)(1)(ii)). (6) Compensatory mitigation requirements (e.g., resource type and amount to be provided as compensatory mitigation, site protection, ecological performance standards, monitoring requirements) may be addressed through conditions added to the NWP authorization, instead of components of a compensatory mitigation plan (see 33 CFR 332.4(c)(1)(ii)). (g) Compensatory mitigation will not be used to increase the acreage losses allowed by the acreage limits of the NWPs. For example, if an NWP has an acreage limit of 1/2-acre, it cannot be used to authorize any NWP activity resulting in the loss of greater than 1/2-acre of waters of the United States, even if compensatory mitigation is provided that replaces or restores some of the lost waters. However, compensatory mitigation can and should be used, as necessary, Page 288 of 426 to ensure that an NWP activity already meeting the established acreage limits also satisfies the no more than minimal impact requirement for the NWPs. (h) Permittees may propose the use of mitigation banks, in-lieu fee programs, or permittee-responsible mitigation. When developing a compensatory mitigation proposal, the permittee must consider appropriate and practicable options consistent with the framework at 33 CFR 332.3(b). For activities resulting in the loss of marine or estuarine resources, permittee-responsible mitigation may be environmentally preferable if there are no mitigation banks or in- lieu fee programs in the area that have marine or estuarine credits available for sale or transfer to the permittee. For permittee-responsible mitigation, the special conditions of the NWP verification must clearly indicate the party or parties responsible for the implementation and performance of the compensatory mitigation project, and, if required, its long-term management. (i) Where certain functions and services of waters of the United States are permanently adversely affected by a regulated activity, such as discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States that will convert a forested or scrub-shrub wetland to a herbaceous wetland in a permanently maintained utility line right-of-way, mitigation may be required to reduce the adverse environmental effects of the activity to the no more than minimal level. 24. Safety of Impoundment Structures. To ensure that all impoundment structures are safely designed, the district engineer may require non-Federal applicants to demonstrate that the structures comply with established state or federal, dam safety criteria or have been designed by qualified persons. The district engineer may also require documentation that the design has been independently reviewed by similarly qualified persons, and appropriate modifications made to ensure safety. 25. Water Quality. (a) Where the certifying authority (state, authorized tribe, or EPA, as appropriate) has not previously certified compliance of an NWP with CWA section 401, a CWA section 401 water quality certification for the proposed discharge must be obtained or waived (see 33 CFR 330.4(c)). If the permittee cannot comply with all of the conditions of a water quality certification previously issued by certifying authority for the issuance of the NWP, then the permittee must obtain a water quality certification or waiver for the proposed discharge in order for the activity to be authorized by an NWP. (b) If the NWP activity requires pre-construction notification and the certifying authority has not previously certified compliance of an NWP with CWA section 401, the proposed discharge is not authorized by an NWP until water quality certification is obtained or waived. If the certifying authority issues a water quality certification for the proposed discharge, the permittee must submit a copy of the certification to the district engineer. The discharge is not authorized by an NWP until the district engineer has notified the permittee that the water quality certification requirement has been satisfied by the issuance of a water quality certification or a waiver. (c) The district engineer or certifying authority may require additional water quality management measures to ensure that the authorized activity does not result in more than minimal degradation of water quality. 26. Coastal Zone Management. In coastal states where an NWP has not previously received a state coastal zone management consistency concurrence, an individual state coastal zone management consistency concurrence must be obtained, or a presumption of concurrence must occur (see 33 CFR 330.4(d)). If the permittee cannot comply with all of the conditions of a coastal zone management consistency concurrence previously issued by the state, then the permittee must obtain an individual coastal zone management consistency concurrence or presumption of concurrence in order for the activity to be authorized by an NWP. The district engineer or a state may require additional measures to ensure that the authorized activity is consistent with state coastal zone management requirements. 27. Regional and Case-By-Case Conditions. The activity must comply with any regional conditions that may have been added by the Division Engineer (see 33 CFR 330.4(e)) and with any case specific conditions added by the Corps or by the state, Indian Tribe, or U.S. EPA in its CWA section 401 Water Quality Certification, or by the state in its Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determination. 28. Use of Multiple Nationwide Permits. The use of more than one NWP for a single and complete project is authorized, subject to the following restrictions: (a) If only one of the NWPs used to authorize the single and complete project has a specified acreage limit, the acreage loss of waters of the United States cannot exceed the acreage limit of the NWP with the highest specified acreage limit. For example, if a road crossing over tidal waters is constructed under NWP 14, with associated bank stabilization authorized by NWP 13, the maximum acreage loss of waters of the United States for the total project cannot exceed 1»3-acre. (b) If one or more of the NWPs used to authorize the single and complete project has specified acreage limits, the acreage loss of waters of the United States authorized by those NWPs cannot exceed their respective specified acreage limits. For example, if a commercial development is constructed under NWP 39, and the single and complete project includes the filling of an upland ditch authorized by NWP 46, the maximum acreage loss of waters of the United States Page 289 of 426 for the commercial development under NWP 39 cannot exceed 1/2-acre, and the total acreage loss of waters of United States due to the NWP 39 and 46 activities cannot exceed 1 acre. 29. Transfer of Nationwide Permit Verifications. If the permittee sells the property associated with a nationwide permit verification, the permittee may transfer the nationwide permit verification to the new owner by submitting a letter to the appropriate Corps district office to validate the transfer. A copy of the nationwide permit verification must be attached to the letter, and the letter must contain the following statement and signature: “When the structures or work authorized by this nationwide permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this nationwide permit, including any special conditions, will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this nationwide permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below.” _____________________________________________ (Transferee) _____________________________________________ (Date) 30. Compliance Certification. Each permittee who receives an NWP verification letter from the Corps must provide a signed certification documenting completion of the authorized activity and implementation of any required compensatory mitigation. The success of any required permittee-responsible mitigation, including the achievement of ecological performance standards, will be addressed separately by the district engineer. The Corps will provide the permittee the certification document with the NWP verification letter. The certification document will include: (a) A statement that the authorized activity was done in accordance with the NWP authorization, including any general, regional, or activity-specific conditions; (b) A statement that the implementation of any required compensatory mitigation was completed in accordance with the permit conditions. If credits from a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program are used to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements, the certification must include the documentation required by 33 CFR 332.3(l)(3) to confirm that the permittee secured the appropriate number and resource type of credits; and (c) The signature of the permittee certifying the completion of the activity and mitigation. The completed certification document must be submitted to the district engineer within 30 days of completion of the authorized activity or the implementation of any required compensatory mitigation, whichever occurs later. 31. Activities Affecting Structures or Works Built by the United States. If an NWP activity also requires review by, or permission from, the Corps pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 408 because it will alter or temporarily or permanently occupy or use a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) federally authorized Civil Works project (a “USACE project”), the prospective permittee must submit a pre-construction notification. See paragraph (b)(10) of general condition 32. An activity that requires section 408 permission and/or review is not authorized by an NWP until the appropriate Corps office issues the section 408 permission or completes its review to alter, occupy, or use the USACE project, and the district engineer issues a written NWP verification. 32. Pre-Construction Notification. (a) Timing. Where required by the terms of the NWP, the prospective permittee must notify the district engineer by submitting a pre-construction notification (PCN) as early as possible. The district engineer must determine if the PCN is complete within 30 calendar days of the date of receipt and, if the PCN is determined to be incomplete, notify the prospective permittee within that 30 day period to request the additional information necessary to make the PCN complete. The request must specify the information needed to make the PCN complete. As a general rule, district engineers will request additional information necessary to make the PCN complete only once. However, if the prospective permittee does not provide all of the requested information, then the district engineer will notify the prospective permittee that the PCN is still incomplete and the PCN review process will not commence until all of the requested information has been received by the district engineer. The prospective permittee shall not begin the activity until either: (1) He or she is notified in writing by the district engineer that the activity may proceed under the NWP with any special conditions imposed by the district or division engineer; or (2) 45 calendar days have passed from the district engineer’s receipt of the complete PCN and the prospective permittee has not received written notice from the district or division engineer. However, if the permittee was required to notify the Corps pursuant to general condition 18 that listed species or critical habitat might be affected or are in the vicinity of the activity, or to notify the Corps pursuant to general condition 20 that the activity might have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, the permittee cannot begin the activity until receiving written notification from the Corps that there is “no effect” on listed species or “no potential to Page 290 of 426 cause effects” on historic properties, or that any consultation required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (see 33 CFR 330.4(f)) and/or section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (see 33 CFR 330.4(g)) has been completed. If the proposed activity requires a written waiver to exceed specified limits of an NWP, the permittee may not begin the activity until the district engineer issues the waiver. If the district or division engineer notifies the permittee in writing that an individual permit is required within 45 calendar days of receipt of a complete PCN, the permittee cannot begin the activity until an individual permit has been obtained. Subsequently, the permittee’s right to proceed under the NWP may be modified, suspended, or revoked only in accordance with the procedure set forth in 33 CFR 330.5(d)(2). (b) Contents of Pre-Construction Notification: The PCN must be in writing and include the following information: (1) Name, address and telephone numbers of the prospective permittee; (2) Location of the proposed activity; (3) Identify the specific NWP or NWP(s) the prospective permittee wants to use to authorize the proposed activity; (4) (i) A description of the proposed activity; the activity’s purpose; direct and indirect adverse environmental effects the activity would cause, including the anticipated amount of loss of wetlands, other special aquatic sites, and other waters expected to result from the NWP activity, in acres, linear feet, or other appropriate unit of measure; a description of any proposed mitigation measures intended to reduce the adverse environmental effects caused by the proposed activity; and any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permit(s) used or intended to be used to authorize any part of the proposed project or any related activity, including other separate and distant crossings for linear projects that require Department of the Army authorization but do not require pre-construction notification. The description of the proposed activity and any proposed mitigation measures should be sufficiently detailed to allow the district engineer to determine that the adverse environmental effects of the activity will be no more than minimal and to determine the need for compensatory mitigation or other mitigation measures. (ii) For linear projects where one or more single and complete crossings require pre-construction notification, the PCN must include the quantity of anticipated losses of wetlands, other special aquatic sites, and other waters for each single and complete crossing of those wetlands, other special aquatic sites, and other waters (including those single and complete crossings authorized by an NWP but do not require PCNs). This information will be used by the district engineer to evaluate the cumulative adverse environmental effects of the proposed linear project, and does not change those non-PCN NWP activities into NWP PCNs. (iii) Sketches should be provided when necessary to show that the activity complies with the terms of the NWP. (Sketches usually clarify the activity and when provided results in a quicker decision. Sketches should contain sufficient detail to provide an illustrative description of the proposed activity (e.g., a conceptual plan), but do not need to be detailed engineering plans); (5) The PCN must include a delineation of wetlands, other special aquatic sites, and other waters, such as lakes and ponds, and perennial and intermittent streams, on the project site. Wetland delineations must be prepared in accordance with the current method required by the Corps. The permittee may ask the Corps to delineate the special aquatic sites and other waters on the project site, but there may be a delay if the Corps does the delineation, especially if the project site is large or contains many wetlands, other special aquatic sites, and other waters. Furthermore, the 45-day period will not start until the delineation has been submitted to or completed by the Corps, as appropriate; (6) If the proposed activity will result in the loss of greater than 1/10-acre of wetlands or 3/100-acre of stream bed and a PCN is required, the prospective permittee must submit a statement describing how the mitigation requirement will be satisfied, or explaining why the adverse environmental effects are no more than minimal and why compensatory mitigation should not be required. As an alternative, the prospective permittee may submit a conceptual or detailed mitigation plan. (7) For non-federal permittees, if any listed species (or species proposed for listing) or designated critical habitat (or critical habitat proposed for such designation) might be affected or is in the vicinity of the activity, or if the activity is located in designated critical habitat (or critical habitat proposed for such designation), the PCN must include the name(s) of those endangered or threatened species (or species proposed for listing) that might be affected by the proposed activity or utilize the designated critical habitat (or critical habitat proposed for such designation) that might be affected by the proposed activity. For NWP activities that require pre-construction notification, Federal permittees must provide documentation demonstrating compliance with the Endangered Species Act; (8) For non-federal permittees, if the NWP activity might have the potential to cause effects to a historic property listed on, determined to be eligible for listing on, or potentially eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places, the PCN must state which historic property might have the potential to be affected by the Page 291 of 426 proposed activity or include a vicinity map indicating the location of the historic property. For NWP activities that require pre-construction notification, Federal permittees must provide documentation demonstrating compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; (9) For an activity that will occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System, or in a river officially designated by Congress as a “study river” for possible inclusion in the system while the river is in an official study status, the PCN must identify the Wild and Scenic River or the “study river” (see general condition 16); and (10) For an NWP activity that requires permission from, or review by, the Corps pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 408 because it will alter or temporarily or permanently occupy or use a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers federally authorized civil works project, the pre-construction notification must include a statement confirming that the project proponent has submitted a written request for section 408 permission from, or review by, the Corps office having jurisdiction over that USACE project. (c) Form of Pre-Construction Notification: The nationwide permit pre-construction notification form (Form ENG 6082) should be used for NWP PCNs. A letter containing the required information may also be used. Applicants may provide electronic files of PCNs and supporting materials if the district engineer has established tools and procedures for electronic submittals. (d) Agency Coordination: (1) The district engineer will consider any comments from Federal and state agencies concerning the proposed activity’s compliance with the terms and conditions of the NWPs and the need for mitigation to reduce the activity’s adverse environmental effects so that they are no more than minimal. (2) Agency coordination is required for: (i) all NWP activities that require pre-construction notification and result in the loss of greater than 1/2-acre of waters of the United States; (ii) NWP 13 activities in excess of 500 linear feet, fills greater than one cubic yard per running foot, or involve discharges of dredged or fill material into special aquatic sites; and (iii) NWP 54 activities in excess of 500 linear feet, or that extend into the waterbody more than 30 feet from the mean low water line in tidal waters or the ordinary high water mark in the Great Lakes. (3) When agency coordination is required, the district engineer will immediately provide (e.g., via e-mail, facsimile transmission, overnight mail, or other expeditious manner) a copy of the complete PCN to the appropriate Federal or state offices (FWS, state natural resource or water quality agency, EPA, and, if appropriate, the NMFS). With the exception of NWP 37, these agencies will have 10 calendar days from the date the material is transmitted to notify the district engineer via telephone, facsimile transmission, or e-mail that they intend to provide substantive, site-specific comments. The comments must explain why the agency believes the adverse environmental effects will be more than minimal. If so contacted by an agency, the district engineer will wait an additional 15 calendar days before making a decision on the pre-construction notification. The district engineer will fully consider agency comments received within the specified time frame concerning the proposed activity’s compliance with the terms and conditions of the NWPs, including the need for mitigation to ensure that the net adverse environmental effects of the proposed activity are no more than minimal. The district engineer will provide no response to the resource agency, except as provided below. The district engineer will indicate in the administrative record associated with each pre-construction notification that the resource agencies’ concerns were considered. For NWP 37, the emergency watershed protection and rehabilitation activity may proceed immediately in cases where there is an unacceptable hazard to life or a significant loss of property or economic hardship will occur. The district engineer will consider any comments received to decide whether the NWP 37 authorization should be modified, suspended, or revoked in accordance with the procedures at 33 CFR 330.5. (4) In cases of where the prospective permittee is not a Federal agency, the district engineer will provide a response to NMFS within 30 calendar days of receipt of any Essential Fish Habitat conservation recommendations, as required by section 305(b)(4)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. (5) Applicants are encouraged to provide the Corps with either electronic files or multiple copies of pre- construction notifications to expedite agency coordination. Page 292 of 426 December 21, 2020 Chad Konickson U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch Chief, St. Paul District 180 Fifth Street East, Suite 700 St. Paul, MN 55101-1678 RE: Nationwide Permits – Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Dear Chad Konickson: This letter is submitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) under authority of Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), Minn. Stat. chs. 115 and 116 and Minn. R. chs. 7001.1400-7001.1470, 7050, 7052, and 7053. The MPCA examined the information furnished by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), including the proposed Nationwide Permits (NWPs) issued by USACE Headquarters on September 15, 2020, and regional conditions proposed by USACE St. Paul District September 18, 2020, and proposes requiring conditions through the 401 Water Quality Certification (401 Certification or Certification). Exclusion from 401 Certification of NWPs 1.Physical Alterations of 300 or More Linear Feet of a Stream or River The MPCA’s antidegradation standard (Minn. R. 7050.0270) requires that the MPCA issue control documents that protect and maintain existing and beneficial uses. For this reason, the MPCA denies certification without prejudice for projects resulting in permanent degradation (impacts longer than 12 months) for projects that will cause a physical alteration of 300 or more linear feet of a stream or river that are not covered under NWP 13, Bank Stabilization or projects that will result in a functional lift of waters impacted by the projects activities. Minn. R. ch. 7050.0255 subp. 30, defines “physical alteration” as “a physical change that degrades surface waters such as the dredging, filling, draining, or permanent inundation of a surface water.” The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7050.0255. Physical alterations to smaller streams can potentially have significant impact on overall water quality. The MPCA must individually review these projects for compliance with Water Quality Standards (WQS). 2.Exceptional Aquatic Life Use Waters (Attachment 1) The MPCA’s antidegradation standard (Minn. R. 7050.0270) requires that the MPCA issue control documents that protect and maintain existing and beneficial uses. For this reason, the MPCA denies certification without prejudice for projects resulting in permanent degradation (impacts longer than 12 months) for projects that will cause a physical alteration of Exceptional Aquatic Life Use Waters. Exceptional Aquatic Life Use Waters are very susceptible to disturbance. An increase in water temperature or sedimentation can effectively destroy this unique water habitat. Projects that will potentially impact Exceptional Aquatic Life Use Waters directly or indirectly by impacting stream hydrology, connectivity, chemistry and habitat are required to Page 293 of 426 Chad Konickson Page 2 December 21, 2020 obtain an individual Certification. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7050.0222 subps. 2c, 3c and 4c. Because Exceptional Aquatic Life Use Waters are very susceptible to disturbance, the MPCA must individually review projects for compliance with WQS for the following water bodies: More information on the water bodies is located at the 401 webpage: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/clean-water-act-section-401-water-quality-certifications. Water Body Name Miles Reach 1 Cross River 14.84 Fourmile Cr. To Lk Superior 2 Greenwood River 7.29 Greenwood Lk to Brule R 3 Irish Creek 7.07 Headwaters to Swamp River Reservoir 4 Kimball Creek 8.98 Headwaters to Lk Superior 5 Manitou River 11.07 S Br Manitou R to Lk Superior 6 Mistletoe Creek 4.56 Halls Pond to Poplar R 7 Two Island River 11.44 Unnamed Cr to Lk Superior 8 Little Devil Track River 2.71 Unnamed Cr to Devil Track R 9 Heartbreak Creek 3.79 Unnamed Cr to Temperance R 10 Houghtaling Creek 1.7 Unnamed Cr to Unnamed Cr 11 Caribou River 5.51 Amenda Cr to Unnamed Cr 12 Caribou River 1.18 Unnamed Cr to Unnamed Cr 13 Crown Creek 1.68 Fry Cr to Unnamed Cr 14 Cascade River 14.46 N Br Cascade R to Lk Superior 15 Spruce Creek (Deer Yard Creek) 3.21 Unnamed Cr (Ward Lk outlet) to Lk Superior 16 Bluff Creek 2.68 East Twin Lk (16-0145-00) to South Brule R 17 Elbow Creek 0.81 Unnamed Cr to Devil Track R 18 Wanless Creek 2.73 Headwaters (Dam Five Lk 38-0053-00) to Houghtaling Cr 19 Lullaby Creek 1.82 Headwaters (Lullaby Lk 16-0100-00) to Brule R 20 Manitou River, South Branch 5.42 Junction Cr to Manitou R 21 Sixmile Creek 3.32 Unnamed Cr to Temperance R 22 Swamp River 1.91 Stevens Lk to T63 R4E S20, east line 23 Brule River 12.58 BWCA boundary to South Brule R 24 Baptism River, West Branch 2.68 -91.3381 47.4702 to Crown Cr 25 Kadunce River (Kadunce Creek) 2.69 -90.1484 47.8261 to Lk Superior 26 Portage Brook 5.85 CSAH 16 to Pigeon R 27 Temperance River 15.05 T61 R4W S4, north line to Sixmile Cr 28 Baptism River, East Branch 3.28 Lk Twenty-three to Blesner Cr 29 Woods Creek 1.84 -90.2650 47.7964 to Devil Track R 30 Devil Track River 6.66 Devil Track Lk to Unnamed cr Page 294 of 426 Chad Konickson Page 3 December 21, 2020 31 Humphrey Creek 3.67 Headwaters to Boulder Cr 32 Coyote Creek 1 Unnamed Cr to Pequaywan Lk 33 Cloquet River 13.95 Headwaters (Katherine Lk 38-0538-00) to T57 R10 S32, south line 34 Cloquet River 26.44 T56 R10 S5, north line to W Br Cloquet River 35 Cloquet River 28.82 W Br Cloquet R to Island Lake Reservoir 36 Schoolcraft River 7.78 Frontenac Cr to Plantagenet Lk 37 Prairie River, West Fork 2.31 Hartley Lk to Prairie R 38 Willow River Ditch 3.3 Willow River Flowage to Moose R 39 Tamarack River 7.52 Little Tamarack R to Prairie R 40 Prairie River 11.31 Day Bk to Balsam Cr 41 Bee Creek (Waterloo Creek) 3.45 T101 R6W S29, north line to MN/IA border 42 Tulaby Creek 5.08 Tulaby Lk to McCraney Lk 43 Little Isabella River 11.02 Headwaters to Flat Horn Lk 44 Snake River 1.71 T61 R9W S7, south line to T61 R10W S12, north line 45 Jack Pine Creek 7.24 Headwaters to Mitawan Cr 46 Mitawan Creek 8.18 Kitigan Lk to T61 R9W S13, north line 47 Denley Creek 3.13 Nira Cr to Stony R 48 Cross River 3.79 Ham Lake Outlet to Gunflint Lk 49 Bezhik Creek 0.9 BWCA boundary to Moose R 3.Prohibited Outstanding Resource Value Waters (Attachment 2) The MPCA’s antidegradation standard (Minn. R. 7050.0270) requires that the MPCA issue control documents that “prohibit a net increase in loading or other causes of degradation to prohibited outstanding resource values waters ….” For this reason, the MPCA denies certification without prejudice for projects resulting in permanent degradation (impacts longer than 12 months) to prohibited outstanding resource value waters (ORVWs). The MPCA does not find that NWP authorizations for broad categories of activities, where specific impacts may vary, is appropriate for activities in these waters. Therefore, the MPCA excludes from this general 401 Certification of the NWPs any project taking place in whole or in part in a listed prohibited ORVW in Minnesota, as identified in Minn. R. 7050.0335, subp. 3, and listed below. Such projects, though authorized by the NWPs, require individual 401 Certification from the MPCA. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7050.0255 – 7050-0335. The MPCA needs to be able to individually review projects for compliance with WQS. Minn. R. 7050.0335 DESIGNATED OUTSTANDING RESOURCE VALUE WATERS. Subp. 3. Prohibited outstanding resource value waters. For the purposes of parts 7050.0250 to 7050.0335, the following surface waters are prohibited outstanding resource value waters: More information on the water bodies is located at the 401 webpage: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/clean-water-act-section-401-water-quality-certifications. A.Waters within the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness; Page 295 of 426 Chad Konickson Page 4 December 21, 2020 B. Those portions of Lake Superior north of latitude 47 degrees, 57 minutes, 13 seconds, east of Hat Point, south of the Minnesota-Ontario boundary, and west of the Minnesota- Michigan boundary; C. Waters within Voyageurs National Park; D. The following scientific and natural areas: 1) Boot Lake, Anoka County; 2) Kettle River in Sections 15, 22, 23, T.41, R.20, Pine County; 3) Pennington Bog, Beltrami County; 4) Purvis Lake-Ober Foundation, Saint Louis County; 5) Waters within the borders of Itasca Wilderness Sanctuary, Clearwater County; 6) Iron Springs Bog, Clearwater County; 7) Wolsfeld Woods, Hennepin County; 8) Green Water Lake, Becker County; 9) Black Dog Preserve, Dakota County; 10) Prairie Bush Clover, Jackson County; 11) Black Lake Bog, Pine County; 12) Pembina Trail Preserve, Polk County; and 13) Falls Creek, Washington County; and E. The following state and federal designated wild river segments: 1) Kettle River from the site of the former dam at Sandstone to its confluence with the Saint Croix River; and 2) Rum River from Ogechie Lake spillway to the northernmost confluence with Lake Onamia. 4. Restricted ORVWs (Attachment 2) The MPCA’s antidegradation standard (Minn. R. 7050.0270) requires that the MPCA issue control documents that “restrict net increases in loading or other causes of degradation as necessary to maintain the exceptional characteristics for which the restricted outstanding resource value waters…were designated.” The MPCA does not find that NWP authorizations for broad categories of activities, where specific impacts may vary, is appropriate for activities in these waters. Therefore, the MPCA excludes from this general 401 Certification of the NWPs any project taking place in whole or in part in a listed restricted ORVW in Minnesota, as identified in Minn. R. 7050.0335, subp. 1, and listed below. Such projects, though authorized by the NWPs, require individual 401 Certification from the MPCA. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7050.0255 – 7050- 0335. The MPCA needs to be able to individually review projects for compliance with WQS. NOTE: Projects that will potentially impact calcareous fens identified as restricted ORVWs in Minn. R. 7050.0335, subp. 1, are also required to have an approved Fen Management Plan from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) which is sufficient to ensure maintenance of the exceptional characteristics for which the fens were designated as restricted ORVWs. Page 296 of 426 Chad Konickson Page 5 December 21, 2020 Minn. R. 7050.0335 DESIGNATED OUTSTANDING RESOURCE VALUE WATERS. Subpart 1. Restricted outstanding resource value waters. For the purposes of parts 7050.0250 to 7050.0335, the following surface waters are restricted outstanding resource value waters: More information on the water bodies is located at the 401 webpage: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/clean-water-act-section-401-water-quality-certifications. A.Lake Superior, except those portions identified in subpart 3, item B, as a prohibited outstanding resource value waters. B.Those portions of the Mississippi River from Lake Itasca to the southerly boundary of Morrison County that are included in the Mississippi Headwaters Board comprehensive plan dated February 12, 1981. C.Lake trout lakes, both existing and potential, as determined by the Commissioner in conjunction with the DNR, outside the boundaries of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and Voyageurs National Park and identified in parts 7050.0460 to 7050.0470. D.The following state and federal designated scenic or recreational river segments: 1)Saint Croix River, entire length; 2)Cannon River from northern city limits of Faribault to its confluence with the Mississippi River; 3)North Fork of the Crow River from Lake Koronis outlet to the Meeker-Wright county line; 4)Kettle River from north Pine County line to the site of the former dam at Sandstone; 5)Minnesota River from Lac qui Parle dam to Redwood County State-Aid Highway 11; Mississippi River from County State-Aid Highway 7 bridge in Saint Cloud to northwestern city limits of Anoka; and 6)Rum River from State Highway 27 bridge in Onamia to Madison and Rice Streets in Anoka. 401 Certification of NWPs The MPCA proposes to certify the referenced general NWPs because there is reasonable assurance that the activities identified within them will be conducted in a manner that will not violate applicable water quality standards provided the work is done in accordance with the following conditions, which shall become conditions of the NWPs: Conditions for All NWP Activities 1.Mitigation required by an NWP must comply with Minn. R. ch. 7050.0186. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7050.0186, Minn. R. 7050.0155. This condition is needed to ensure unavoidable physical alterations are properly mitigated. 2.The applicant must ensure that all surface waters in or bordering the construction areas that are not authorized to be impacted by the project are clearly identified prior to construction. This may be done through demarcation of the construction area on plan sheets or through marking boundaries in the field, for example construction staking, flagging, or the use of silt fences along Page 297 of 426 Chad Konickson Page 6 December 21, 2020 boundaries. The applicant must not impact any non-construction areas while conducting activities under this permit. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7001.0150). This condition is needed to protect surface waters not within the project boundaries. 3. Applicants must install in-water best management practices (BMPs) necessary to minimize total suspended solids (TSS) and sedimentation for any work conducted below the ordinary high water level (OHWL) as defined in Minn. Stat. 103G.005, subd. 14 of any surface water. 4. The applicant must document the in-water BMPs to be used during the authorized work prior to disturbing any land at the site; this documentation may be stand-alone or part of an Erosion Control Plan, Construction Plan, or other relevant construction document. This documentation is not required to be submitted to the MPCA for the purpose of the 401 Certification, but must be kept on-site during active construction by the applicant or the applicant's contractor until the project is complete. Proper installation of BMPs is required before conducting the authorized in- water activities and properly maintained throughout the duration of the project's in-water work. While conducting the authorized work, the applicant must visually monitor the BMPs to ensure that the BMPs are working as intended to reduce TSS or sedimentation. Visual inspection should occur every seven days and within 24 hours after a rainfall event greater than ½ inch in 24 hours. If the project activities cause an observable increase in TSS or sedimentation as described in Minn. R. ch. 7050.0210, subp. 2 outside or downstream of the authorized defined working area, the project activities must immediately cease and any malfunctioning BMPs must be repaired, or alternative BMPs must be implemented. This Certification does not authorize the violation of applicable water quality standards outside or downstream of the defined work area. The MPCA Authority: Minnesota water quality standards are defined in Minn. R. ch. 7050 and 7052. BMPs need to be installed function properly in order to ensure compliance with state water quality standards. Information on BMPs that may be suitable for in-water work is located in the Minnesota DNR Manual titled Best Practices for Meeting DNR General Public Waters Work Permit GP 2004-0001, located at: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/pwpermits/gp_2004_0001_manual.h tml. The MPCA is responsible for interpretation of the requirements of this condition, determining compliance with the requirements of this condition, and may enforcement this condition independent of the general permit. The point of contact at the MPCA for questions regarding this condition is: 401Certification.pca@state.mn.us. 5. The applicant must ensure that any dewatering activities do not create nuisance conditions as defined in Minn. R. ch. 7050.0210, supb. 2. BMPs must be used that minimize TSS and sedimentation by removing solids in the water before discharging the water. If discharging to an upland area, the discharge must be directed to an onsite sediment basin prior to discharging and the discharge shall not cause erosion, and must not cause inundation, or sedimentation to the receiving water. The applicant must document the in-water BMPs prior to beginning any dewatering, this includes the point of withdrawal and the point of discharge; this documentation may be stand-alone or part of an Erosion Control Plan, Construction Plan, or other relevant construction document. This documentation is not required to be submitted to Page 298 of 426 Chad Konickson Page 7 December 21, 2020 the MPCA for the purpose of the 401 Certification. The applicant must ensure that properly installed BMPs are in place before conducting the authorized activities and maintained throughout the duration of the dewatering work. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7050.0210, subp. 2 and 7050.0150. BMPs need to be installed function properly in order to ensure compliance with state water quality standards. The MPCA is responsible for interpretation of the requirements of this condition, determining compliance with the requirements of this condition, and may enforcement this condition independent of the general permit. The point of contact at the MPCA for questions regarding this condition is: 401Certification.pca@state.mn.us. 6.The applicant must ensure any earthen material used to construct or improve temporary or permanent dikes or dams, including cofferdams, or any roads, is contained and stabilized in a manner that will prevent any of the earthen material from eroding. The applicant must completely remove temporary structures and restore original bathymetry, or contours at project completion. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7050.0270 and 7050.0150. BMPs need to be installed function properly in order to ensure compliance with state water quality standards. 7.It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that the authorized activities do not exacerbate any existing impairments of a CWA 303-(d) listed impaired waters. The following MPCA webpages contain more information and search tools available to determine which waters in Minnesota are impaired: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/lupg1125 and http://www.pca.state.mn.us/mvri1126. The MPCA Authority: Applicable water quality standards are located in Minn. R. ch. 7050. This condition is needed to ensure compliance with state water quality standards. The MPCA is responsible for interpretation of the requirements of this condition, determining compliance with the requirements of this condition, and may enforcement this condition independent of the general permit. The point of contact at the MPCA for questions regarding this condition is: 401Certification.pca@state.mn.us. 8.Projects permitted under any NWP must implement planning and prewashing of equipment, prior to entering the site, to minimize the spread of invasive or noxious species. Fill used in any surface water must be clean fill that is free of any solid waste, toxic or hazardous contaminants, and invasive species as defined in Minn. Stat. ch. 84D and Minn. R. ch. 6216, and noxious weeds as defined in Minn. Stats. 18.75-18.91. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7050.0270 and 7050.0150. This condition is needed to ensure compliance with state water quality standards. 9.The applicant must provide: a) a copy of this Certification; b) documentation of any required BMPs under condition 3 above; and c) any written demarcation of waters of the United States under condition 2; to any prime contractor responsible for completing the project's authorized activities. The applicant must also ensure that there is a mechanism in place requiring each prime contractor to provide the same information to all subcontractors, at any level, responsible for fabricating or providing any material for the project or performing work at the project site. In addition, copies of these documents and any other relevant regulatory authorizations related to impacts of surface waters, must be available at or near the project site for use by contractors or staff responsible for completing the project work and must be available within 72 hours when Page 299 of 426 Chad Konickson Page 8 December 21, 2020 requested by the MPCA staff. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7050.0270 and 7050.0150. This condition is needed to ensure that all contractor activities meet State water quality standards. 10. The applicant is responsible for compliance with all applicable conditions of this Certification. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. chs. 7050.0270 and 7050.0150. This condition is needed to ensure that all contractor activities meet State water quality standards. 11. This Certification includes and incorporates by reference the general conditions of Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp.3. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7001.0150. This condition is need to ensure the applicant follows state permitting requirements. Conditions Specific to Individual NWP Activities In addition to all other applicable Certification conditions, the following activities must also comply with the activity-specific conditions below. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7050.0270. • NWP 7, Outfall Structures and Associated Intake Structures The applicant must ensure that impacts associated with outfall and intake structures do not harm aquatic life outside of the permitted project area and do not result in an unauthorized loss of surface waters. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7001.0150). This condition is needed to protect surface waters not within the project boundaries. • NWP 16, Return Water from Upland Contained Disposal Areas The applicant must ensure that return water from Upland Contained Disposal Areas, that is returned to the original source water, meet the same water quality standards that apply to the original source water. If the return water is discharged into a receiving water that is not the original source water, then the applicant must ensure that the discharge water will meet the more stringent water quality standard of the receiving water and the original source water. The MPCA Authority: Discharges of return water must not violate the state water quality standard identified in Minn. R. 7050.0210, subp.2. This condition is needed to protect surface water from excess sediment in the form of TSS and any contaminants contained in the TSS. • NWP 19 Minor Dredging Projects exceeding 50 CY of impacts are not certified and require an individual review and 401 Certification. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7050.0305, and 7050.0270. This condition is needed to protect the beneficial and existing uses of surface waters. • NWP 27 Wetland and Riparian Restoration and Creation Activities For restoration and creation activities, the applicant must meet the following conditions: o Manage sediment to minimize downstream effects. o Use low-flow and winter construction when appropriate. o Provide mitigation for any conversion of surface waters to uplands. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7050.0305, and 7050.0270. This condition is needed to protect the beneficial and existing uses of surface waters. • NWP 53 Removal of Low-Head Dams Projects involving the removal of low-head dams must meet the following conditions: Page 300 of 426 Chad Konickson Page 9 December 21, 2020 o Manage sediment to minimize downstream effects. o Use low-flow and winter construction when appropriate. The MPCA Authority: Minn. R. ch. 7050.0305, and 7050.0270. This condition is needed to protect the beneficial and existing uses of surface waters. NOTIFICATIONS: The following notifications are not conditions of the MPCA CWA 401 Certification of NWPs. They provide practices that can help reduce the potential environmental impacts or they provide notification to the public in Minnesota, that certain discharges in Waters of the State, as defined in Minn. Stat.§ 115.01, subd. 22, or activities associated with discharges into Waters of the State, are also regulated under rules administered by the MPCA: 1.It is the applicant’s responsibility to fully comply with all MPCA rules governing waters of the state, including MPCA rules governing wetlands (Minn. R. 7050.0186) which require an applicant to provide compensatory mitigation for the project’s unavoidable physical alterations to wetlands, including those not subject to federal jurisdiction under section 404 of the CWA. 2.Minnesota water quality standards found in Minn. R. ch. 7050, apply in all water of the state, defined in Minn. Stats. 115.01 subd. 22, "Waters of the state" means all streams, lakes, ponds, marshes, watercourses, waterways, wells, springs, reservoirs, aquifers, irrigation systems, drainage systems and all other bodies or accumulations of water, surface or underground, natural or artificial, public or private, which are contained within, flow through, or border upon the state or any portion thereof. 3.Applicants should review Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) / Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) projects to determine if they are applicable to their project. A list of WRAPS/TMDL projects is available at: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/total-maximum- daily-load-tmdl-projects. 4.Any projects in Cold Water Habitat waters, not excluded in Exceptional Aquatic Life Use Waters above and identified as class 2A, 2Ae, or 2Ag in part Minn. R. ch. 7050.0470, are required by the Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, section 131.10, to reflect an existing beneficial use or a feasibly attainable beneficial use, that permits propagating and maintaining a healthy community of cold water aquatic biota and their habitats. Existing beneficial use for cold water habitats means a beneficial use that was attained in a water body on or after November 28, 1975. Any project that impacts a Cold Water Habitat water must ensure that the Beneficial and Existing Uses are maintained. 5.Minn. R. chs. 7001 and 7090 requires any activity that will disturb one acre or more of land must first acquire a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) General Stormwater Permit from the MPCA for discharging stormwater during construction activity. Both the owners and operators of construction activity disturbing one acre or more of land are responsible for obtaining and complying with the conditions of the NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit prior to commencing construction activities. Sites disturbing less than one acre within a larger common plan of development or sale that is more than one acre also need permit coverage. A detailed Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), containing both temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control plans, must Page 301 of 426 Chad Konickson Page 10 December 21, 2020 be prepared prior to submitting an application for the NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit. In addition, any project that will result in over 50 acres of disturbed area and has a discharge point within one mile of a special or impaired water is required to submit their SWPPP to the MPCA for a review at least 30 days prior to the commencement of land disturbing activities. If the SWPPP is out of compliance with the terms and conditions of the NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit, further delay may occur. For more information, please visit the following webpage: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/construction-stormwater. 6. Minn. R. ch. 7001.0030 requires that, prior to testing the structural integrity of any newly installed pipeline or any existing pipeline maintained or repaired that is authorized by NWPs, the applicant must obtain NPDES/SDS Permit coverage from the MPCA. The NPDES/SDS Permit regulates the discharge of water and trench waters associated with this activity. 7. Chloride from winter road salt affects water quality. The MPCA encourages public road authorities pursuing projects under the general permit to consider the use of BMPs to reduce the use of chloride. General information about chloride and water quality, including the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Chloride Management Plan, is located at: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/salt-applicators. 8. When riprap is used, the applicant should consider placing riprap in the following manner: a. Use natural rock (average between 6 inches and 30 inches in diameter) that is free of debris that may cause pollution or siltation. b. A filter of crushed rock, gravel, or filter fabric material can be placed underneath the rock. c. The riprap should be no more than 6 feet waterward of the OHWL as defined in Minn. Stat.§ ch. 103G.005, subd.14. d. The riprap should conform to the natural alignment of shore and should not obstruct navigation or the flow of water. e. The minimum finished slope waterward of the OHWL should be no steeper than 3 to 1 (horizontal to vertical). 9. Section 401 Certification does not release the applicant from obtaining all necessary federal, state, and local permits. It does not limit any other permit where requirements may be more restrictive. It does not eliminate, waive, or vary the applicant's obligation to comply with all other laws and state water statutes and rules through the construction, installation, and operation of the project. This Certification does not release the applicant from any liability, penalty, or duty imposed by Minnesota or federal statutes, regulations, rules, or local ordinances, and it does not convey a property right or an exclusive privilege. 10. This Certification does not replace or satisfy environmental review requirements, including those under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). In accordance with MEPA, Minn. Stat.§ 116D.04, subd. 2b, and related rules, projects that are required to complete an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), may not be started, and final governmental decisions to grant a permit, approve a project, or begin a project may not be made, until: • A petition for an EAW is dismissed. • A negative declaration on the need for an EIS has been made. • An EIS has been determined to be adequate. Page 302 of 426 Chad Konickson Page 11 December 21, 2020 •A variance has been granted by the state Environmental Quality Board. 11.The MPCA reserves the right to modify this Certification or revoke this Certification as provided in Minn. R. 7001.0170. 12.Pursuant to Minn. R. 7001.1450, failure to comply with any of the conditions in this Certification may result in the MPCA invalidating or revoking this 401 Water Quality Certification on a project-by-project basis. If you have any questions on this Certification, please contact Jim Brist at jim.brist@state.mn.us or 401Certification.pca@state.mn.us. Sincerely, Anna Hotz Supervisor Agency Rules Unit Resource Management and Assistance Division AH/JB:ds Attachments cc: Melissa Blankenship, EPA Dave Pfeifer, EPA Dana Rzeznik, EPA Dawn Marsh, USFWS Sarah Quamme, USFWS Tom Hovey, DNR Steve Colvin, DNR Kerryann Weaver, EPA Todd Vesperman, USACE Meghan Brown, USACE Page 303 of 426 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 304 of 426 Page 305 of 426 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 306 of 426 Page 307 of 426 COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION Regulatory File Number: MVP-2021-01218-SSC Name of Permittee: Spencer McMillan County/State: Dakota County, Minnesota Date of Issuance: 6/18/2025 Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation required by the permit, sign this certification and return it to the Corps contact identified in your verification letter within 30 days. Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers representative. If you fail to comply with this permit, you are subject to permit suspension, modification, or revocation. By signing below, the permittee is certifying that the work authorized by the above referenced permit has been completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, and any required mitigation was completed in accordance with the permit conditions. __________________________________ ______________________ Signature of Permittee Date Page 308 of 426 Page 309 of 426 Page 310 of 426 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 Page 311 of 426 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 312 of 426 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. Page 313 of 426 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 314 of 426 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 315 of 426 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 316 of 426 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 317 of 426 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 318 of 426 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 319 of 426 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 320 of 426 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 321 of 426 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 322 of 426 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 323 of 426 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 324 of 426 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 325 of 426 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 326 of 426 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 327 of 426 APPENDIX A: LIVING STREETS WORKSHEET 13 Page 328 of 426 Page 329 of 426 Page 330 of 426 Page 331 of 426 Page 332 of 426 Page 333 of 426 From:Stephanie Levine To:monique buursema Cc:John Weikert; Sally Lorberbaum; John Mazzitello; Joel Paper; John Maczko; Cheryl Jacobson; Sarah Madden Subject:Re: Lot 6 of Case No. 2025-03 McMillan Preliminary Plat Date:Thursday, June 26, 2025 5:28:05 PM Dear Monique, Thank you for contacting the city council regarding your concerns about lot 6 of the McMillan property. We will be addressing these issues at our July 1 meeting as well as any other concerns of the neighbors or property owners at that time. Sincerely, Stephanie Stephanie B. Levine Mayor City of Mendota Heights C:651-302-0861 Website | Connect From: monique buursema <mbuursema@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 12:30 PM To: Stephanie Levine <SLevine@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; Sally Lorberbaum <SLorberbaum@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; John Maczko <JMaczko@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; John Mazzitello <JMazzitello@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; Joel Paper <JPaper@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Cc: John Weikert <johnweikert@comcast.net> Subject: Lot 6 of Case No. 2025-03 McMillan Preliminary Plat Dear Mayor Stephanie Levine and Council Members Sally Loberbaum, John Maczko, John Mazzitello, and Joel Paper, As you know, the Planning Commission passed the McMillan Lot Split proposal last night. Before voting, Commissioner Steve Goldade stated that if he were voting with his heart, he would vote no; Commissioner Patrick Corbett discussed sensitivity to the neighborhood as lot 6 has a negative impact on the neighbors; and Commissioner Cindy Johnson stated that neighbors’ trees on Ridgewood Drive will be negatively affected and probably wouldn’t make it. I appreciate the compassion, empathy, and acknowledgment that lot 6 poses a significant issue for the neighbors. My husband and I have enjoyed living in our home at 1737 Delaware for over 30 years and raising our son here. Ideally, I would like to see Mr. McMillan’s property stay the same as it is, but I realize that as a landowner, he has the right to use his property as he chooses as long as he stays within the guidelines set forth by the city. With that said, I am against building a house on lot 6 and ask that you deny lot split proposal as is. A yard is one of the key factors for buying an existing house. A house on lot 6 will essentially be in my backyard as well as the backyards of other homeowners on Page 334 of 426 Delaware and Ridgewood Drive, which will negatively affect my home’s resale value as well as views as well as those of my neighbors. All of the other proposed house locations are pretty well spaced out from one another. Although within the zoning guidelines, I feel the placement of the house on lot 6 is too close to its neighbors on Delaware and Ridgewood Drive in comparison. In addition, a house on lot 6 will forever alter a wetland and its wildlife. A house on lot 6 will alter the essential character of the neighborhood, which is a consideration of granting variances. While lot 6 doesn’t require a variance, shouldn’t building a subdivision be subject to the same consideration of how it impacts the neighborhood? While I appreciate that the Planning Commission asked Staff to add the condition regarding tree replacement, whereby there must first be an attempt to mitigate tree replacement on-site, who oversees this process and decides that a complete attempt has in fact been made? Thank you for your work and consideration to this matter. Sincerely Monique Buursema 1737 Delaware Ave. Page 335 of 426 From:Lawrence Fischer To:Sarah Madden; Ryan Ruzek; Joel Paper; John Mazzitello; John Maczko; Stephanie Levine; Sally Lorberbaum Subject:Public Comment re: McMillan Estates Date:Monday, June 30, 2025 11:14:01 AM Dear City Council: We would like to go on record in support of all points in the email from our neighbor Sean Fahnhorst. Our neighborhood is about to see dramatic change--most of it not for the improvement or safety of our block. Historically, land owners of the super block have been committed stewards of the environment. We are now asking the council to fully shoulder this great responsibility. While we are appreciative of all of the work of the council, I can't imagine any decisions to be more impactful than land use. Once your decision is made, the land is forever changed. Tree replacement should be a bare minimum requirement, and not determined by language of the applicant. Understandably, the applicant has rights, but how many variances need to be given while still protecting Mendota Heights? Thank you for your consideration. Larry & Chris Fischer 1775 Ridgewood Drive Residents of 23 years Page 336 of 426 From:Jim Kolar To:Stephanie Levine; John Maczko; Joel Paper; John Mazzitello; slorberbaum@mendotaheightmn.gov; Sarah Madden Cc:Griffith, William C. Subject:McMillan Estates Date:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 6:38:57 AM Attachments:City Council Jult 1, 2025.docx Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council I am attaching a letter with my comments in support of the McMillan Estates proposal as recommended by the planning commission including conditions 15 and 16, As stated in my letter the right of way extension to the North property ensures future access to the North and the benefits of a consistent development with McMillan Estates just as Ridgewood was extended to the McMillan property to provide the current access decades ago. I respectfully request that my letter attached and the accompanying documents that I will forward shortly be included in your review. Thank you in advance for your consideration and I am hoping to be able to attend tonight's meeting Sincerely Jim Kolar 1695 Delaware Avenue Page 337 of 426 July 1, 2025 Mendota Heights City Council Re: McMillan Estates – Request for Consideration of Future Access Dear Mayor and City Council members: We are writing regarding the McMillan Estates proposal. I appeared before the Planning Commission last week in support of the McMillan’s’ plan to subdivide their property, which lies directly south of and adjacent to our home at 1695 Delaware Avenue. Our property, like the McMillan’s’ at 1707 Delaware, is 10.05 acres and identical in size and shape. At the Planning Commission meeting in May, I noted that the current plat differs significantly from previous submissions for McMillan Estates and its predecessor, “Sullivan Acres.” This was my first opportunity to address the revised plan, which now includes six homesites (one existing, five new). At the meeting’s conclusion, I understood the proposal was tabled to allow the Planning Commission to further evaluate two key concerns: 1.Environmental, drainage, and tree preservation issues raised by others; and 2.The potential “landlocking” of northern neighbors and how the limited northern access aligns with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. However, I did not see in the staff report how the second concern had been addressed by City staff. Throughout prior development discussions, we consistently urged the Planning Commission to adopt a comprehensive, long-range approach to development in Mendota Heights and Dakota County— particularly for properties north of Ridgewood. The McMillan proposal, as currently designed, would unreasonably and permanently eliminate access for properties north of the development by terminating the Ridgewood cul-de-sac “nub” short of our property line. It is important to recognize that both the McMillan’s and the City of Mendota Heights benefit today from the prior extension of Ridgewood, which enabled access to the McMillan property. As I testified to the Planning Commission, that same foresight should now be applied to ensure future development opportunities for adjacent northern properties. The current proposal requires no additional land acquisition or cost to Ridgewood property owners. In fact, it allows for the restoration of the “nub” and the return of any excess circular right-of-way to adjacent owners. On Tuesday, June 24th the Planning Commission adopted a condition that “a 60 foot dedicated right of way be extended to the north boundary of the plat” which is our property at 1695 Delaware We now respectfully urge the City Council to approve that condition to preserve and provide for the logical extension of future streets. Doing so is essential to protect the City’s long-term development interests and those of neighboring landowners. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies 22 Focus Areas for future Page 338 of 426 development. Area 21—the Somerset Area—includes both the McMillan property and our adjacent parcel. The Plan states: “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 this vision. Just as Ridgewood once provided access and utilities to the McMillan parcel, each northern landowner should be required to extend the roadway across their property to ensure continued development potential. This could include “emergency only” access via a fire gate to Foxwood Lane, enhancing safety for all Ridgewood residents. Additionally, the City’s Subdivision Ordinance (Title 11) strongly supports preserving future connectivity. The McMillan parcel is part of a larger low-density “superblock.” Approving a subdivision of only 1707 Delaware without showing how streets could extend into 1695 Delaware appears inconsistent with both the City Code and the 2040 Plan. This 60 foot dedicated right of way is would be a relatively short extension of the currently proposed extension of Ridgewood Drive and is necessary to access properties to the North. The McMillan plat is requesting a 570 foot right of way to extend Ridgewood over two parcels each with a width of 329 feet Thus the right of way would extend to the North 570 feet of the 658 feet from end to end of those parcels stopping 88 feet short of our property line and cutting off future access. Extending this right of way to the full width to abut our property line is the only feasible and reasonable access point to preserve future development opportunities to the North consistent with the 2040 plan and consistent with good public policy. It should be noted that at the Planning Commission Meeting on May 27th in the closed session, Mr Ruzak made an unsolicited comment that a second cul-de-sac could be constructed off of Delaware to provide access to the Kolar and Bader properties. This comment was made without context. A Cul-De-Sac proposal off Delaware would require a roadway of more than 1200 to 1300 feet, if it could be accomplished, with a substantial incline and would not accommodate utilities particularly sewer due to that incline. Further, there is not sufficient width on my property to accomplish this as my lot is 329’ wide with our house taking up a substantial portion of that width. In addition, the setback requirements could not likely be met as the McMillan’s current House at 1707 Delaware extends to just 10’ off my southerly lot line. Further the property to the North is another single-family home owned by the Stevens family, not the Bader’s . The Stevens own the front portion of the property on Delaware and the footprint of the house and property is not conducive to further development of the roughly 4 acres they own. The remaining Bader property is behind and west of the Stevens and does not have Delaware frontage. I am attaching my prior letters and comments for your review relative to this proposal. Again, we urge you to adopt the Planning Commission’s recommendation including condition 15 requiring a 60 foot right of way dedicated to the North boundary of the plat. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Jim and Michele Kolar Page 339 of 426 From:Stephanie Levine To:Linda Pontinen Cc:John Maczko; Sally Lorberbaum; Joel Paper; John Mazzitello; Cheryl Jacobson; Krista Spreiter; Ryan Ruzek; Sarah Madden Subject:Re: McMillan Property Date:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 2:34:44 PM Dear Linda, Thank you for expressing your concerns regarding the wetlands survey. We will have staff respond to whether or not it is appropriate to use the delineated wetlands from 2021at tonight’s meeting. Thanks, Stephanie Stephanie B. Levine Mayor City of Mendota Heights C:651-302-0861 Website | Connect From: Linda Pontinen <lindapontinen@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 1:01 PM To: Stephanie Levine <SLevine@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; John Maczko <JMaczko@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; John Mazzitello <JMazzitello@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; Sally Lorberbaum <SLorberbaum@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; Joel Paper <JPaper@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Subject: McMillan Property Dear Mendota Heights Mayor and City Council Members, We have resided at 1760 Ridgewood Drive, Mendota Heights, MN. 55118 for 50 years. Wetlands abound on the McMillan property, that boarders us on the north, as well as most of the plots in Breckenridge Estates, of which we are part, and continue with much of Ridgewood Drive. Upon being aware of a pending development plus extending Ridgewood Drive through wetlands to the north, plus the possible destruction of wetlands and the environment throughout the super block, we ask for your sincere consideration. Page 340 of 426 The last wetlands survey for the McMillan land occurred in summer of 2021. The Marie Creek was dry. Crickets and frogs were not chirping. There was an odd, quiet sense about the land. We felt it was strange to conduct a wetlands survey on such comparatively dry land. But then we knew that this was done every 5 years, to see trends and saturation of the land. It was a very hot, dry summer in 2021. 5 days after the survey was conducted, a drought was declared for Mendota Heights and much of Minnesota. As time progressed, the summer of 2021 was declared as the worst, most severe drought we have ever experienced here. To secure a valid, reliable wetlands survey, best practice dictates that another much more dependable wetlands survey should be conducted prior to any development. Securing a true map of the wetlands is paramount to avoid disaster, enabling everyone to actually see how much the wetlands permeate the area. This is imperative for our community’s environment and for the thousands of living species present here. The next wetlands survey is due next summer. Please require that a new updated survey is performed prior to any development plans, to ensure a real wetlands course of action. No surprises that way. Wetlands play an extremely crucial role in environmental health, providing essential needs. In the not-too distant past, wetlands were regarded as wastelands. Most people felt that they were places to be avoided, and it was common practice to drain them, fill them, or treat them as dumping grounds. A study published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1990 revealed a startling fact: more than half of the 221 million acres of wetlands that existed in the lower 48 states in the late 1700s have been destroyed. Today, we know that wetlands provide many important services to the environment and to the public. Imagine a world where there is a natural solution to filter out toxins and pollutants, ensuring the health and purity of the Earth’s water sources. Enter wetlands, nature’s incredible kidneys. Page 341 of 426 These pristine ecosystems have a remarkable ability to cleanse and rejuvenate water, playing a vital role in maintaining the overall health of the planet. Wetlands are highly productive and biologically diverse systems that enhance water quality, control erosion, maintain stream flows, sequester carbon, and provide a home to at least one third of all threatened and endangered species. Wetlands are increasingly seen as productive and valuable resources worthy of protection and restoration. nps.gov Please save the valued wetlands in Mendota Heights. So very much depends upon their survival. Sincerely, Linda and Paul Pontinen 1760 Ridgewood Dr Mendota Heights, Mn 55118 Page 342 of 426 From:Stephanie Levine To:Linda Pontinen; Kelly Torkelson; Sarah Madden Cc:Sally Lorberbaum; John Maczko; Joel Paper; John Mazzitello; Cheryl Jacobson Subject:Re: McMillan Estates Date:Wednesday, July 23, 2025 7:28:15 AM Dear Linda and Paul, Thank you for contacting the city council regarding the tree count along the McMillan property. I am forwarding your email to our Assistant City Administrator and Community Development Manager to address this issue, as she will be able to respond to the timing, etc. of the application. Take Care, Stephanie Stephanie B. Levine Mayor City of Mendota Heights C:651-302-0861 Website | Connect From: Linda Pontinen <lindapontinen@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 7:46 PM To: Stephanie Levine <SLevine@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; Sally Lorberbaum <SLorberbaum@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; John Maczko <JMaczko@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; Joel Paper <JPaper@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; John Mazzitello <JMazzitello@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Subject: McMillan Estates Dear Mayor and Mendota Heights City Council Members, We respectfully request that the Council delay any final decision regarding the approval of development plans for McMillan Estates until a certified arborist can be brought in to conduct a thorough review of the trees along the southern property line. The landscape architect hired by Mr, McMillan has significantly undercounted the number of trees impacted by the proposed development. Upon repeated inspection, it is evident that an additional 14 trees, 19 total —clearly located near or along the development line—will be affected. These trees were not accounted for in the landscape architect’s report. As you are aware, while landscape architects play a valuable role in site planning, they typically consult with certified arborists to determine the impact of development on trees. Arborists bring specialized knowledge essential to properly evaluating tree health, root zones, Page 343 of 426 and the potential effects of grading and construction. It is highly unusual and not standard practice for a landscape architect to make such determinations independently. Given the situation, it appears that the wrong professional discipline was tasked with assessing tree impact on Lot 6, resulting in an incomplete and potentially misleading report. This puts the burden on concerned residents to hire a certified arborist ourselves—an expense that should not fall to the public but to those seeking development approval. Nevertheless, we are willing to proceed with securing an independent arborist review, as we are committed to protecting our community’s natural resources. We ask that the Council defer the approval decision for the McMillan Estates Property to allow time for this expert evaluation to be completed. This request is made in good faith and in the interest of ensuring that all relevant environmental factors are responsibly and accurately considered. Thank you for your attention to this matter. We appreciate your service and commitment to fair and responsible development in our community. Sincerely, Linda and Paul Pontinen 1760 Ridgewood Drive Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 Page 344 of 426 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 345 of 426 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 346 of 426 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. Page 347 of 426 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. Page 348 of 426 “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 Page 349 of 426 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 350 of 426 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 351 of 426 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 352 of 426 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 353 of 426 Councilor Mazzitello thanked Finance Director Kristen Schabacker for her wonderful work.Mayor Levine echoed the thanks to Finance Director Kristen Schabacker and her team.B) CITY COUNCIL GOVERNING PRINCIPLESCity Administrator Cheryl Jacobson provided a brief background on this item. The Council was beingasked to consider Resolution 2025-41, establishing City Council governing principles.Councilor Mazzitello moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2025-41 ESTABLISHING CITY COUNCILGOVERNING PRINCIPLES.Councilor Lorberbaum seconded the motion.Further discussion: Councilor Lorberbaum asked and received confirmation that this information wouldbe posted on the website for all to see.Councilor Maczko thanked City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson for drafting the document and capturingthe comments and discussion of the Council.Ayes: 5Nays: 0C) RESOLUTION 2025-36 APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MCMILLAN ESTATES TОSUBDIVIDE THREE (3) EXISTING PARCELS INTO SIX (6) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIALPARCELS LOCATED AT 1707 DELAWARE AVENUE AND ITS ADJACENT VACANT PARCELSOWNED IN COMMON (PLANNING CASE 2025-03)Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a brief background on this item. The Councilwas being asked to consider Resolution 2025-36, approving a Preliminary Plat of McMillan Estates.Mayor Levine acknowledged that there has been a public hearing on this topic, and many writtencomments have been received.Councilor Mazzitello asked and received confirmation that the City's deadline to act on this application isAugust 19th. He asked about the process that would be followed if the preliminary and final plats areapproved, and ifthere are additional wetland impacts proposed in the building process of the homes.Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that if they get to the building permit phase andthe homeowner realizes that there would be additional wetland impacts, the homeowner would need toapply for their own wetland permit application. She commented that, because there would be no moreexemptions available, mitigation would need to then be provided.Councilor Mazzitello asked if there is a timeframe between preliminary and final plat, meaning that therewould be a set time within which the final plat would need to be presented ifthe preliminary plat isapproved.Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that the preliminary plat would be valid for oneyear before it expired. She stated that within that timeframe, the final plat would need to be presented, oran extension could be requested.July 1, 2025, Mendota Heights City CouncilPage 3of 12Page 354 of 426 Councilor Paper referenced proposed condition nine and asked the process to have land rather than a feefor park dedication.Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the default process would be a landdedication, but staff did not recommend land dedication because of a lack of planning for park propertyin this area. She commented that often the City accepts cash in lieu of land for park dedication.Councilor Maczko stated that his concern would be that they approve the plat, which shows drivewaysand building pads, and asked if it would be the responsibility of the City to ensure that it could beconstructed to prevent the situation that a future lot owner must later deal with wetland impacts that couldexist.Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that staff did ask the applicant to considerdriveway and grading impacts that may be relevant for wetland impacts. She commented that the planprepared is a result of that conversation. She commented that two of the wetland impact areas are relatedto driveways. She stated that if a future property owner chooses to modify that plan, they would need toprovide the necessary data to support that type of application.Councilor Maczko asked ifthe width of the driveway and grades are shown in the plan to ensure thatsomeone could develop where the plat states they could.Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that the location of the driveways and contourinformation is shown on the plat, and the minimum driveway width is shown.Councilor Maczko commented that lots five and six seem to be of concern. He asked if these homeswould be sprinkled because of the longer cul-de-sac.Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that home details are not required as part of apreliminary plat. She stated that there is water service and extension provided for a new fire hydrant onthe new cul-de-sac.Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that he was not able to find a requirement that the Orchardhomes must be sprinkled. He stated that it could be added as a requested condition if desired. He statedthat 20-foot-wide driveways were required for Sunfish Lake, but the Fire Code has been updated, and one-and two-family homes are now exempt from that requirement. He stated that the Council could make therequirement that the homes be sprinkled due to the length of the cul-de-saс.Councilor Maczko referenced condition 15, which was added by the Planning Commission, related to thepublic right-of-way. He stated that they do not know if that property would be developed and asked ifthey should require that. He noted that they are in the process of recodification of the City Code, whichwould solidify the 500-foot maximum length for a cul-de-sac and could prevent the northern propertyowner from developing off Delaware. He stated that, from a public safety point of view, he does not likelong cul-de-sacs.Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided additional details on the requirements forplatting and planned connection. She explained that if the 500-foot language is further solidified in theCity Code, related to cul-de-sac length, the property to the north could request a variance to extend theright-of-way, or they could construct an L-shaped road, which would extend and connect to Delaware.July 1, 2025, Mendota Heights City CouncilPage 4 of 12Page 355 of 426 Councilor Maczko commented that it was a reasonable decision in the past to bring the existing cul-de-sac to the property line, which provided for the opportunity of this property owner to develop, and wouldthink itmakes sense to do the same in this scenario to protect the rights of the northern property owner todevelop.Councilor Lorberbaum commented that this is a preliminary plat, and there are conditions placed upon theapproval that must be met for the final plat. She referenced the issue of tree preservation and asked if theapplicant must attempt to show tree removal and replacement, even though they will not be building theindividual homes.Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that it is accurate.Councilor Lorberbaum referenced lot six, noting that there is no guarantee that the driveway will be in theproposed location, although she recognized that it would be the most feasible location. She stated that adriveway in that location may harm the roots of trees on a neighboring property and asked if that isallowed.Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the City reviews the width, location,and grade of a driveway, and a driveway permit can include tree mitigation measures. She stated that theCity does not review that level of impact to trees when reviewing a driveway permit.Councilor Lorberbaum asked iflot six would not be viable if there is no other placement for the drivewaythat would not impact neighboring trees.Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that lot six meets all City requirements underthe preliminary plat application. She stated that based on the urban forest preservation ordinance, staffwould attach condition 16 to any applicable permits.Councilor Lorberbaum restated that the city, in its approval, is saying that the lot is a viable lot.Community Development Manager restated that the lot meets the minimum dimensional standards of citycode.Councilor Maczko asked ifthe driveway could be moved closer to the wetland to avoid damage to trees.He recognized that trees of neighbors that could be impacted. He recognized that someone has the rightto develop a property, but did not believe they have the right to impact someone else's property. He statedthat they should address the concern now, as they do not want damage to private property. He stated thatthere is a way that could be rectified through the development, as the driveway could be moved over,which would require wetland mitigation that could be provided by the developer, but perhaps not byindividual property owners. He recognized that not all future property owners complete their own duediligence and often just trust their realtors. He did not want to be in a situation where someone wouldneed a variance because they could not build according to the plans.Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the driveway going back to the home pad would follow thenatural ground, and a certified arborist would provide protection measures for any trees that may beimpacted. He stated that the driveway meets the requirements of the City Code, and a condition has beenadded that a certified arborist would need to review and approve the impact. He stated that the developercould also approach the neighboring property owner with an offer of settlement as well.July 1,2025, Mendota Heights City CouncilPage 5 of 12Page 356 of 426 Councilor Maczko commented that he would like the details hashed out in the final plat to address thisconcern. He stated that there is a right to develop, but he also wants to ensure that what is planned couldbe constructed, so the onus is not passed to an unsuspecting property owner.Mayor Levine asked ifthere is a place to do that in the resolution.Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the City can place a condition upon apreliminary plat related to wetland impacts and mitigation. She stated that condition 16 addresses thoseconcerns. She stated that a timeline for the development of the individual homes is not required at thistime in the process, and the level of impact to the wetlands has been shown as required.Mayor Levine restated that the city can put in a condition, because it is not known exactly where thedriveway is going to go.Councilor Lorberbaum recognized that lot six is viable even though there is a concern with harm to treeson a neighboring lot not in the development.City Attorney Amy Schmidt stated that by approving the preliminary plat, the Council is not saying thisis a buildable lot as presented, but instead meets the dimensional requirements of the City Code and basedupon the information provided and reviewed. She stated that all of the information is public and wouldcontinue to be available. She stated that it is important to note that itis not the duty of the City to protectevery property owner into the future. The application is designed to review and approve whether allrequirements of the preliminary plat have been met. She stated that conditions could be placed upon thepreliminary plat approval to ensure that those could be addressed by the time of the final plat.Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the developer could be asked to mark out the property lineevery 50 feet, and if there are significant trees on the neighboring property, an assessment could be donebefore the final plat.Mayor Levine commented that the Council has read the written comments and hopes that all questionshave been answered. She stated that the applicant would be invited to speak, and if a resident had a newconcern or information, they could also speak.Spencer McMillan, applicant, stated that he had sent a letter related to the extension of the right-of-way.He stated that in regard to park dedication, land versus fee, and noted that a requirement for land wouldplace a burden on the development. He explained that this process started 18 months ago with three lotsto minimize impacts to the wetland and land, but that was not allowed by City Code. He stated that therequirements to build the cul-de-sac added a large cost, which then led to this development proposal. Hestated that they are investing in the infrastructure, and the six lots support the cost to construct the cul-de-sac. He commented that they are dedicating all the land for the construction of the cul-de-sac, along withthe right-of-way to Dakota County along Delaware. He noted that there are 5.5 acres of wetland on theproperty as well, so, along with the dedicated land as mentioned, additional park dedication would impactthe viability of the project. He stated that the home on lot six would be further away from the existinghomes than the existing homes are from each other. He stated that they tried to minimize impacts to thewetlands and follow all requirements of the City Code.July 1, 2025, Mendota Heights City CouncilPage 6of 12Page 357 of 426 Councilor Mazzitello thanked the applicant for his letter, which mentions that the dedication of the right-of-way to the northern property would adversely impact his proposed subdivision, and asked for moreinformation.Mr.McMillan stated that he has three young children, and he would like them to grow up and build ahome at the end of the cul-de-sac. He stated that if the cul-de-sac were extended north, that would impactthe viability and value of their property. He stated that it is not their intention to extend the cul-de-sacnorth, and he did not believe it was a requirement of the City Code or under Minnesota State law.Jim Kolar, 1695 Delaware, stated that he has always been supportive of the development and would planto match the density, but this would hold him hostage on the back portion of his property. He stated thatthe right-of-way extension would be 88 feet. He commented that statements have been made that accessto his property could come from Delaware, but he did not believe that to be the case. He believed that thealternative was unreasonable, as a 1,200-foot roadway would be required to support four homes. He statedthat the developers of Ridgewood were required to extend that nub, which provided Mr. McMillan toextend to his property, and was asking for the same opportunity to be provided to his property. He statedthat if the cul-de-sac were extended north to the Bader property and touched on Foxwood, potentiallythrough an emergency gate, that would solve the issue of public safety concerns. He stated that an Lroadway would require his home to be torn down. He stated that this would leave him as the onlyundeveloped ten-acre parcel, and the back portion would become landlocked. He stated that the 88-footright-of-way would harmonize the interests of everyone. He referenced the statement that the extensionwould devalue the McMillan property, but noted that Mr. McMillan is doing the same to the propertiescurrently on the cul-de-sac, which will be extended for his development. He stated that failure to plan forthis connection would significantly devalue his property and the ability to develop the property. He statedthat if he is provided with the right-of-way extension, he would do the same if/when his property isdeveloped. He stated that although the Council is not required to do certain things, they are also notprecluded from doing so. He asked the Council to balance the rights of all parties.Mike Bader, 1297 Knollwood Lane, commented that his parents purchased the property on Delaware andwere held hostage by the poor planning of Foxwood. He stated that the ability to develop is consistentwith the Comprehensive Plan and makes sense. He stated that private landowners should have the rightto develop their property. He echoed the comments of Mr. Kolar and asked the Council to make up forprevious mistakes in Foxwood, which limited the ability of other properties to develop.Shawn Fahnhorst, 1767 Ridgewood Drive, stated that he has been advocating for the mitigation ofdisruptions in the neighborhood by the dedication of public space. He suggested perhaps a multi-modaltrail which could run along the street. He stated that he would be willing to offer part of his front yard tocontinue the trail to Marie Avenue.John Weikert, 1737 Delaware Avenue, stated that the Council has a moral and ethical responsibility to thecitizens now and the citizens of the future. He stated that lot six will clearly have a negative impact onthe property values of the surrounding neighbors. He commented that people purchased their lots lookingout onto the grasslands. He asked if the proposed driveway would be at grade level, noting that the lotfloods.Mayor Levine thanked everyone who provided public input throughout the review process.Councilor Mazzitello stated that there was a recent development that was controversial with neighboringproperty owners. He stated that there is a luxury of time as the deadline is in the middle of August. HeJuly 1, 2025, Mendota Heights City CouncilPage 7of 12Page 358 of 426 asked if the Council would be interested in following a similar process to table the request and have asubcommittee of the Council meet with the residents and then approach the developers with an ask todetermine if there is a middle ground. He commented that process made the previous apartment projectbetter as the concerns of the residents were met and the developer was allowed to construct their project.Councilor Maczko stated that, from his perspective, itwould be the neighborly thing to do. He was unsureof the level of neighborhood and developer interaction that had occurred. He stated that itis clear that thedeveloper has the right to develop the property, but neighbors do have concerns. He believed that thereis a responsibility to ensure the plans can be constructed as presented. He did not believe a developer hasthe ability to physically impact things on neighboring properties, such as trees. He stated that ifthere areconditions for lot six, those should be memorialized to ensure future property owners could find thatinformation. He stated that he would like to find something that everyone could accept and feel okayabout, and would be open to the process described by Councilor Mazzitello.Councilor Lorberbaum commented that she had met with several neighbors, and they would like theopportunity to speak with Mr. McMillan and discuss this matter. She also supported the conceptproposed by Councilor Mazzitello. She stated that the Planning Commission did a wonderful job andunderstood their role that they must approve something ifthe plan follows ordinances, but italso hurttheir hearts to vote yes. She stated that two weeks ago, draft revisions to the city's subdivision codewere discussed by the City Council. She reiterated that the purpose of the subdivision ordinance is tosafeguard the best interests of the city, to assist the subdivider in harmonizing their interest with those ofthe city, provide for an attractive, orderly, economic, and safe development of land and urban servicesand facilities, and to protect the character and symmetry of the neighborhoods in the city whilepreserving and enhancing the value and economic use of property.Councilor Paper commented that he is open to that idea, as it resulted in a better project in the end. Hestated that he would prefer to accept the parkland dedication, which could create a nature trail in anincredible area.Mr. McMillan stated that he is fully in support of the concept as he wants to work with neighbors andwould like to collaborate.City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson commented that they would need to determine who on the Councilwould be a part of the discussions. She noted that in the case of the Plaza, they had two Council members.She noted that there is an August 19th deadline for this application review.Councilor Mazzitello stated that part of the reason they are redoing Title 11 is to align the Zoning Codewith the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that there are at least three policy statements within theComprehensive Plan related to future planning, proper planning for future growth and development, andconnectivity. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan trumps city code.Councilor Mazzitello moved to table CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2025-36 TO THEAUGUST 6, 2025, COUNCIL MEETING AND SCHEDULE A MEETING BETWEEN RESIDENTSAND THE DEVELOPER BETWEEN THEN AND NOW TO WORK OUT THE ISSUES.Councilor Lorberbaum seconded the motion.Further discussion: Mayor Levine appreciated all the comments that had been made and believes that thiswill result in a better product for the community.July 1, 2025, Mendota Heights City CouncilPage 8 of 12Page 359 of 426 Ayes: 5Nays: 0D) RESOLUTION 2025-37 APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTIONOF A FENCE EXCEEDING 6-FT IN HEIGHT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1341 CHERRYHILL ROAD (PLANNING CASE 2025-07)Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a brief background on this item. The Councilwas being asked to consider Resolution 2025-37 approving a variance to allow the construction of a nine-foot fence on the property located at 1341 Cherry Hill Road.Mayor Levine acknowledged that it would only be a portion of the fence that exceeds nine feet and notedthat the condition sufficiently addresses the tapering.Councilor Mazzitello asked about the distance of the taper and how that would be regulated.Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the Planning Commission discussedthis, noting different methods of taper that could be chosen. She stated that the Council could furtherdefine that within a condition if desired. She stated that the applicant agrees with the taper method butwas unsure what that would look like until information is provided by the contractor.Councilor Mazzitello asked how the distance of 15 feet was determined.Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained the methodology of her recommendation.Councilor Maczko stated that he would prefer to respond to the taper suggested by the applicant, as itwould be hard to dictate what would look right and determine what that distance would be.Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that when there is a taper, itis typically terraced,but that can vary, and that iswhy the condition was not specified.Mayor Levine commented that staff and the Planning Commission did a great job. She stated that theproposed fence will be an improvement over what currently exists.Danny Michel, applicant, stated that he originally requested the nine-foot fence but prefers the tapermethod as discussed by staff. He stated that it would perhaps make sense to have a straight-line taper tomatch the contours of the property. He stated that he is not planning to have the taper along the length ofhis property and would like to taper after the 15 feet, perhaps to the midline, and then have six-foot fencing.Councilor Mazzitello stated that staff would then decide through the fence permit ifthe taper is reasonable.Councilor Lorberbaum moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2025-37 APPROVING A VARIANCE TOALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCE EXCEEDING 6-FT IN HEIGHT FOR THEPROPERTY LOCATED AT 1341 CHERRY HILL ROAD.Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion.Ayes: 4Nays: 0July 1, 2025, Mendota Heights City CouncilPage 9 of12Page 360 of 426 Page 361 of 426 Page 362 of 426 Page 363 of 426 Page 364 of 426 This page is intentionally left blank 9.c REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 6, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2025-48 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for a Cannabis Retailer at 1155 Centre Pointe Drive (Planning Case No. 2025-11) ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager ACTION REQUEST: Adopt Resolution 2025-48 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for a Cannabis Retailer at the property located at 1155 Centre Pointe Drive. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Pot Mama’s MSO LLC, has applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a cannabis retailer location, located in the B-1 General Business zoning district at 1155 Centre Pointe Drive. If approved, the applicant's next steps would be to submit for a Retail Registration of the cannabis-based business and finalize their license with the state Office of Cannabis Management (OCM). The subject property is located north of Centre Pointe Drive and generally west of Lexington Avenue in an office park development. The property is surrounded by similar office and warehousing type uses, all sharing a zoning designation of B-1 General Business, and a Comprehensive Plan guidance of LB – Limited Business. The proposed cannabis retailer will be a 3,879 sq-ft. retail space, with secure storage and staff areas consistent with OCM requirements. The subject property is compliance with all buffer requirements detailed in the Title 3- Business and License Regulations, Chapter 8: Cannabis and Lower-Potency Hemp Businesses ordinance, and this Conditional Use Permit application will, if approved, allow the business use in compliance with zoning parameters allowing them to move forward in the regulatory process. At the July 22, 2025, Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented. A duly noticed public hearing was held, and three members of the public spoke to the application as part of the public hearing. The Planning Commission discussed the business plan of the proposed cannabis retailer, inquiring about the social aspect. Staff confirmed that there are Page 365 of 426 licensing requirements by the state which regulate the proposed use, and that the City provisions related to cannabis retailers have been met by this application, and will continue to be reviewed and processed through the Retail Registration step, if this Conditional Use Permit is approved. A copy of the 07/22/25 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 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. The Planning Commission voted unanimously (6-0) in support of the Conditional Use Permit request with findings-of-fact and certain conditions, as outlined in the attached [draft] Resolution. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Not Applicable. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Res. 2025-48 Approving a CUP for a Cannabis Retailer Located at 1155 Centre Pointe Drive - Planning Case 2025-11 2.July 22, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report 3.Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes 7-22-25 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy Page 366 of 426 Resolution No. 2025-48 Page | 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2025-48 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CANNABIS RETAILER LOCATED AT 1155 CENTRE POINTE DRIVE PLANNING CASE 2025-11 WHEREAS, Pot Mama’s MSO LLC, (the “Applicant”), requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) under Planning Case No. 2025-11, which would allow a new cannabis retailer located at the property at 1155 Centre Pointe Drive, and legally described on Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the subject property is guided LB - Limited Business in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and situated in the B-1 General Business Zoning District, and WHEREAS, Title 12-3B-1 of the City Code allows certain “cannabis retailer” uses by Conditional Use Permit in the General Business District, and the proposed use is consistent with the performance standards of the zoning district and City Code; and WHEREAS, on July 22, 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 public were allowed, and whereupon closing the hearing, the Commission recommended unanimously (6-0 vote) to approve the request from Pot Mama’s MSO LLC for the CUP, which would allow a cannabis retailer use at 1155 Centre Pointe Drive, as proposed and presented under Planning Case No. 2025-11, 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. 2025-11 is hereby affirmed, and the Conditional Use Permit requested for the property located at 1155 Centre Pointe Drive is approved based on the following findings-of-fact. 1. The Proposed cannabis retailer use is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance for property in the General Business district. 2. The proposed cannabis retailer use is consistent with the performance standards of the Title 3-8-5: Requirements for a Cannabis Business ordinance. 3. If approved, the proposed cannabis retailer use will be eligible to submit for a Retail Registration with the City. 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- Page 367 of 426 Resolution No. 2025-48 Page | 2 site are anticipated. 5.The property on which the proposed use is located is currently in compliance with all applicable City Code standards. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Conditional Use Permit requested for the property located at 1155 Centre Pointe Drive 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.Cannabis businesses are limited to retail sale of cannabis, cannabis flower, cannabis products, lower-potency hemp edibles, or hemp-derived consumer products between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on Monday-Saturday; and between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Sundays. 3.Any new remodeling or interior work (including building, electrical, plumbing, heating/cooling and other related work) must be submitted for standard building permit review prior to any work being started. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 6th day of August 2025. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 368 of 426 Resolution No. 2025-48 Page | 3 EXHIBIT A Address: 1155 Centre Pointe Drive PIN: 278810002012 Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 2, YORKTON CENTRE POINTE SOUTH Page 369 of 426 4.a Planning Commission Meeting Date: July 22, 2025 Agenda Item: CASE No. 2025-11 Conditional Use Permit Application of Pot Mama's MSO LLC for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a cannabis retailer located at 1155 Centre Pointe Drive Department: Community Development Contact: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Introduction: The applicant, Pot Mama’s MSO LLC, has applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a cannabis retailer location, located in the B-1 General Business zoning district at 1155 Centre Pointe Drive. 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 north of Centre Pointe Drive and generally west of Lexington Avenue in an office park development. The property is surrounded by similar office and warehousing type uses, all sharing a zoning designation of B-1 General Business, and a Comprehensive Plan guidance of LB – Limited Business. The proposed cannabis retailer use is a listed Conditional Use in the B-1 General Business zoning district, and is subject to a retail registration requirement and performance standards in Title 3: Business and License Regulations, Chapter 8: Cannabis and Lower-Potency Hemp Businesses. A Cannabis Retailer is defined as “Any person, partnership, firm, corporation, or association, foreign or domestic, selling cannabis product to a consumer and not for the purpose of resale in any form.” in Title 3-8, and is subject to licensing requirements by the State Office of Cannabis Management. 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. Page 370 of 426 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. 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 proposed cannabis retailer will be a 3,879 sq-ft. retail space, with secure storage and staff areas. The applicant has provided the business plan for the operation as an attachment to this report. The intention is to provide branding that is neutral and avoids cannabis-related imagery on the visible exterior of the space. The business will be subject to state licensing requirements, and to comply with the Office of Cannabis Management rules, the applicant has noted that professional security and secure storage systems will be in place, as well as strict age verification systems and product testing. The applicant intends the space to be more than a retail business use, and to provide educational programs about cannabis for interested parties, and support group functions to mitigate the stigma surrounding cannabis use. To mitigate traffic impact, the business will be appointment-based and with timed-entry to control the flow of customers. The limited timeframe for each customer visit would also limit any possible congestion or peak traffic issues. The business plan indicates that the maximum number of FTE employees for the flagship store would be 15. The existing site has 175+ parking spaces for the multi-tenant building. The anticipated client and customer demand for the business is for appointment-based, private consultations. Based on the total size of the space, the City Code would require 22 parking spaces for the proposed use. The existing parking is sufficient for the proposed user, and the existing office spaces within the building with no anticipated issues. D) 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 LB-Limited Business in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Plan provides the following goal statement: Goal 3: Encourage and support industrial and commercial development in designated areas. 1. The city will use available resources to identify redevelopment needs. This will include cooperation with Dakota County and the Metropolitan Council to achieve redevelopment 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 between 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 a new business type within the business and office park, and within the community as a whole. The Limited Business land use category generally includes Page 371 of 426 uses with a daytime office use, which is compatible with this proposal. Specific to a cannabis-related business, the City adopted an ordinance which requires a retail registration for a business of this type, and overall the City has a maximum of one (1) retail registration which will be issued. If this Conditional Use Permit is approved, the applicant will proceed with pursuing the retail registration. The Cannabis and Lower-Potency Hemp Retail Businesses ordinance has performance standards specific to cannabis businesses, as noted in the following section: 3-8-5: REQUIREMENTS FOR A CANNABIS BUSINESS: A. Minimum Buffer Requirements. 1. No cannabis business shall be located or operated within 500 feet of an existing lawful cannabis business. 2. No cannabis business shall be located or operated within 500 feet of an existing daycare, residential treatment facility, or an attraction within a public park that is regularly used by minors, including a playground or athletic field. 3. No cannabis business shall be located or operated within 1000 feet of a school. 4. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 462.357 subd. 1e, nothing in Section 3-8-5 (A) shall prohibit an active cannabis business or a cannabis business seeking registration from continuing operation at the same site if a daycare, residential treatment facility, attraction within a public park that is regularly used by minors, or school moves within the minimum buffer zone. B. Zoning and Land Use. 1. A cannabis or lower-potency hemp business licensed or endorsed by the OCM must be in compliance with the City’s Zoning Code including Title 12: Zoning, Chapter 3: Allowed Uses, Table 12-3B-1.1 Table of Uses. C. Hours of Operation. 1. Cannabis businesses are limited to retail sale of cannabis, cannabis flower, cannabis products, lower-potency hemp edibles, or hemp-derived consumer products between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on Monday-Saturday; and between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Sundays. (Ord. 597, 3-4-2025) The subject property is compliance with all buffer requirements detailed in Section A of the above ordinance, and this Conditional Use Permit application will, if approved, allow the business use in compliance with zoning parameters. Staff has determined that the proposed use has met the requirements of a Conditional Use Permit under the Zoning Ordinance, and is consistent with the purpose and intent of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. With the conditions provided herein, the use 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 for a cannabis retailer at 1155 Centre Pointe Drive 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. Page 372 of 426 Staff will extend the review period an additional 60 days in conformance with Minnesota Statute 15.99 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for 1155 Centre Pointe Drive, 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.Cannabis businesses are limited to retail sale of cannabis, cannabis flower, cannabis products, lower-potency hemp edibles, or hemp-derived consumer products between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on Monday-Saturday; and between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Sundays. 3.Any new remodeling or interior work (including building, electrical, plumbing, heating/cooling and other related work must be submitted for standard building permit review prior to any work being started. Attachments: 1.Findings of Fact for Approval 2.Site Location Map 3.Letter of Intent 4.Proposed Floor Plan 5.Pot Mama's Social Boutique - Business Plan Page 373 of 426 Planning Case 2025-11 (CUP for 1155 Centre Pointe Drive) Page 1 of 1 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Planning Case No. 2025-11 Conditional Use Permit for 1155 Centre Pointe Drive The following Findings-of-Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit request for a cannabis retailer: 1. The Proposed cannabis retailer use is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance for property in the Industrial district. 2. The proposed cannabis retailer use is consistent with the performance standards of the Title 3-8-5: Requirements for a Cannabis Business ordinance. 3. If approved, the proposed cannabis retailer use will be eligible to submit for a Retail Registration with the City. 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 property on which the proposed use is located is currently in compliance with all applicable City Code standards Page 374 of 426 6666666666666666 66 6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 666 6666666666666 6666666666 6 66666666666 66666666666666" ³ "" ³³³ " ³ ³ ³ ³ " " ³ !³³³! ³ ³ * * ! ! * * * ! * ! * !³ "" ³ ³³ " " "" " " ³ ³ ³ ³" ³³ ³ " " *** !³ ³ ³ ³ " ³ ³ " ³ ³!""³³ 6 6666666666FMFM66 !!2!!2!!2!!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 1110 2060 1155 112011601140 1180 2025 2020 1150 1175 1101 11101179 HIGHWAY 62 CENTRE POINTE CURV CENTRE POINTE DRCENTRE POINTE BLVDHIGHWAY 62 Nearmap U S Inc, Dakota County, MN Sit e Location/Aerial Map1155 Centre Pointe Drive Date: 7/18/2025 City of Mendota Heights0210 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 375 of 426 Page 376 of 426 Page 377 of 426 Page 378 of 426 Page 379 of 426 Page 380 of 426 Page 381 of 426This page is intentionally left blank Page 382 of 426 Page 383 of 426 Page 384 of 426 Page 385 of 426 Page 386 of 426 Page 387 of 426 Page 388 of 426 Page 389 of 426 Page 390 of 426 Page 391 of 426 Page 392 of 426 Page 393 of 426 Page 394 of 426 Page 395 of 426 Page 396 of 426 Page 397 of 426 Page 398 of 426 Page 399 of 426 Page 400 of 426 Page 401 of 426 Page 402 of 426 Page 403 of 426 Page 404 of 426 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES EXCERPT FROM DRAFT/UNAPPROVED 7/22/25 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES A) PLANNING CASE 2025-11 POT MAMA’S MSO LLC, 1155 CENTRE POINTE DRIVE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that Pot Mama’s MSO LLC has applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a cannabis retailer location, located in the B-1 General Business zoning district at 1155 Centre Pointe Drive. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350 feet 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 there is a maximum size for retail space in B-1. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that there is a maximum size for accessory retail use within the industrial zone, but there is no maximum in the general business district. Commissioner Johnson asked if there would be consumption on site, noting the reference to a social boutique within the Commission packet. Commissioner Corbett commented that a retail use would not allow consumption on site. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that this would only be retail sales. She explained that the social aspect would be through engagement and community building, which is found within the business plan. She explained that the event license would be a separate process through the State. She commented that an event within the retail space would be allowed and would be different. She explained that the business plan mentioned things like women’s groups as an example of social events. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Andrew Katz, 1960 Walsh Lane, asked if any data was provided related to whether there would be increased police activity or police calls from this type of business. Chair Field commented that there was no information of that type within the staff report. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the level of data was not provided as part of the application. She stated that the majority of security requirements and review Page 405 of 426 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES will be done through the State license review through the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM). She reviewed the role of the City in reviewing this type of license. Vicky Katz, 1855 Hunter Lane, commented that she has conflicting feelings as she believes there are benefits to regulation that would allow this type of business, but this also brings to mind a stereotypical image of potential customers. She stated that Mendota Heights is a family-oriented community, and she would not want to see this business bringing in unwanted customers from other communities. She asked the Commission to ensure that the request is well vetted before allowing the business into the community. Scott Van, 1870 Hunter Lane, commented that he was not aware that this type of business was allowed in Mendota Heights and believed that the applicant should be present. Commissioner Corbett stated that there is no subjectivity to this decision as the State regulations cannot be changed. He stated that the application complies with all regulations. Chair Field commented that this would be the only cannabis retailer allowed. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that if the licensee fully completes the process, this would be the only retail business allowed in Mendota Heights. She explained the State law related to this type of business and the regulations the City was able to enact. She commented that the City will be involved in compliance checks. 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 STONE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 1155 CENTRE POINTE DRIVE, 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 AMENDMENTS TO THE SITE PLAN AND/OR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 2.CANNABIS BUSINESSES ARE LIMITED TO RETAIL SALE OF CANNABIS, CANNABIS FLOWER, CANNABIS PRODUCTS, LOWER-POTENCY HEMP EDIBLES, OR HEMP- DERIVED CONSUMER PRODUCTS BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8:00 A.M AND 10:00 P.M. ON MONDAY-SATURDAY; AND BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 10:00 A.M. AND 9:00 P.M. ON SUNDAYS. Page 406 of 426 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES 3.ANY NEW REMODELING OR INTERIOR WORK (INCLUDING BUILDING, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING/COOLING, AND OTHER RELATED WORK MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR STANDARD BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW PRIOR TO ANY WORK BEING STARTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised that the City Council would consider this application at its August 6, 2025, meeting. Page 407 of 426 This page is intentionally left blank 9.d REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 6, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2025-49 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for a private middle and secondary school at 1345 Mendota Heights Road (Planning Case 2025-13) ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager ACTION REQUEST: Adopt Resolution 2025-49 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for a private middle and secondary school at 1345 Mendota Heights Road. BACKGROUND: St. Augustine School is seeking a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the property located at 1345 Mendota Heights Road. The CUP would allow for the use of the space as a middle and secondary private school, or 6th-12th grades, at the former Sanford Brown College site, within a portion of the space previously used by Interim Use Permit in 2017-2019 for Minnehaha Academy. The former Brown College site consists of two separate legal parcels of 2.74 and 2.72 acres, or 5.46 acres total. The entire site is owned by Mendota Tech Center LLC. The property contains an original designed office building of 56,650 sq. ft, and the applicant is proposing to take over the lease of Suite 700, for 4,825 sq. ft. of space for the private school. The building is currently set-up for a typical classroom arrangement, and the applicant has indicated that no major modifications to the building are needed for their anticipated school use with an estimated enrollment of 40 students. At the July 22, 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 zoning and land use guidance for the property, the estimated enrollment and capacity for the school space, and anticipated parking demand and occupancy of the classroom space on site. The applicant spoke to the classroom size and Page 408 of 426 noted the pedagogical goals of the school. Staff confirmed that with the conditions outlined in the staff report, there are no anticipated issues with the proposed use, and they find it to be consistent with the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan. A copy of the 07/22/25 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 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. The Planning Commission voted unanimously (6-0) in support of the Conditional Use Permit request with findings-of-fact and certain conditions, as outlined in the attached [draft] Resolution. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Not Applicable. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Res. 2025-49 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for a private middle and secondary school at 1345 Mendota Heights Road (Planning Case 2025-13) 2.July 22, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report 3.Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes 7-22-25 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy Page 409 of 426 Resolution No. 2025-49 Page | 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2025-49 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MIDDLE AND SECONDARY PRIVATE SCHOOL LOCATED AT 1345 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD PLANNING CASE 2025-13 WHEREAS, St. Augustine School, (the “Applicant”), requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) under Planning Case No. 2025-13, which would allow a new middle and secondary (6th-12th) private school located at the property at 1345 Mendota Heights Road, and legally described on Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the subject property is guided I – Industrial in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and situated in the B-1 General Business Zoning District, and WHEREAS, Title 12-3B-1 of the City Code allows certain “Elementary, Middle, and Secondary School (public and private)” uses by Conditional Use Permit in the General Business District, and the proposed use is consistent with the performance standards of the zoning district and City Code; and WHEREAS, on July 22, 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 public and applicant were allowed, and whereupon closing the hearing, the Commission recommended unanimously (6-0 vote) to approve the request from St. Augustine School for the CUP, which would allow a middle and secondary private school use at 1345 Mendota Heights Road, as proposed and presented under Planning Case No. 2025-13, 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. 2025-13 is hereby affirmed, and the Conditional Use Permit requested for the property located at 1345 Mendota Heights Road is approved based on the following findings-of-fact. 1.The proposed school use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor depreciate surrounding property values. 2.The proposed school use conforms to the general purpose and intent of this code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, provided all conditions are met and upheld by the property owner and applicant. 3.With the conditions included herein, the site will provide adequate parking for the proposed use and existing building. All parking will be accommodated on-site and no adverse impacts off-site are anticipated to traffic flow on the surrounding roadway Page 410 of 426 Resolution No. 2025-49 Page | 2 network. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Conditional Use Permit requested for the property located at 1345 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.Any new remodeling or interior work (including building, electrical, plumbing, heating/cooling and other related work must be submitted for standard building permit review prior to any work being started. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 6th day of August 2025. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 411 of 426 Resolution No. 2025-49 Page | 3 EXHIBIT A Address: 1345 Mendota Heights Road PIN: 274825101020 Legal Description: Lot 2, Block 1, MENDOTA HEIGHTS BUSINESS CENTER 2ND ADDITION Page 412 of 426 4.c Planning Commission Meeting Date: July 22, 2025 Agenda Item: CASE No. 2025-13 Conditional Use Permit Application of St. Augustine School for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a middle and secondary school located at 1345 Mendota Heights Road Department: Community Development Contact: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Introduction: St. Augustine School is seeking a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the property located at 1345 Mendota Heights Road. The CUP would allow for the use of the space as a middle and secondary private school, or 6th-12th grades, at the former Sanford Brown College site, within the space previously used by Interim Use Permit in 2017-2019 for Minnehaha Academy. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice 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 parcel. No public comments have been received as of the submittal of this report. Background: The former Brown College site consists of two separate legal parcels of 2.74 and 2.72 acres, or 5.46 acres total. The entire site is owned by Mendota Tech Center LLC. The property contains an original designed office building of 56,650 sq. ft., which was leased and occupied entirely by Brown College as one of its metro wide college facilities up until 2017. In 2017, following the damage to Minnehaha Academy, they moved into this space under an Interim Use Permit and made modifications to the space to accommodate their school use. The space has been vacant since Minnehaha Academy returned to their permanent home. The site is bounded by Mendota Heights Road to the north, Enterprise Drive to the east, and Northland Drive to the south. Various warehouse uses and office uses surround the site. The subject property is zoned B-1 General Business, and is currently guided I-Industrial in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The site is part of the overall area proposed to be reguided to Business in the City’s Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Planning Case 2025-02) which is currently pending Metropolitan Council review. Staff does not see a conflict with the Comprehensive Plan for the proposed school use to be reinstated. The building is currently set-up for a typical classroom arrangement, and the applicant has indicated that no major modifications to the building are needed for their anticipated school use. The subject site contains up to 270 surface parking spaces. St. Augustine School is a new school initiative and has an anticipated total enrollment of 40 students which would attend school at this site. Page 413 of 426 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. 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. 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 proposed conditional use permit at the subject property would not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community, as an upper level grade school has successfully operated in this location previously, and would function or operate very similarly to the prior Interim Use, and the previous Brown College use. The applicant has indicated that the proposed use is a small school engaged in general education activities within the existing office-style building, and has no anticipated detrimental impacts. The City anticipates that traffic levels will be less than what was experienced when Minnehaha Academy took use of the space with an estimated enrollment of 350 students, and significantly less than when the Brown College classes were in full session with a larger number of commuting attendees. The applicant has indicated that no bussing will be taking place, and that given the small number of students, the allocated parking spaces for drop-off/pick-up are sufficient for their anticipated demand. A school typically has an early morning and mid-afternoon peak hour or traffic. The subject site has access points from all three abutting roadway systems, allowing for an ease of access to the site, and the applicant has indicated 22 parking stalls which would be set aside for regular school use. There is ample parking on site for the proposed use and anticipated enrollment. Staff does not believe that these peak travel movements by parent, teacher, or student drivers, will cause any negative impacts to the existing traffic in this office and warehousing based area; nor pose a threat to the surrounding business/uses. City Code requires all schools, including high schools, to provide at least 1 space for each 7 students, plus 1 space for each 3 classroom. The applicant has indicated that St. Augustine School will serve up to 40 students at this location, meaning that eight spaces would be required for the use, including the calculation for the six classrooms illustrated on the Space Use plan within this Suite 700 allocated for the school use. With the number of existing parking spaces on site, there is no concern for a need to provide additional dedicated parking Page 414 of 426 or student drop-off areas beyond what has been provided by the applicant. D. 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 within the overall area which was rezoned from I- Industrial to B-1 General Business as part of the implementation of the City’s Zoning Code Update project, which went into effect on January 1st of this year. Following the completion of that project, the City initiated a Comprehensive Plan Amendment application to re-guide the corresponding area to B-Business in the City’s 2040 Land Use guide plan. This amendment application is still pending the Metropolitan Council’s review. Staff does not see any conflicts within the existing or proposed land use guidance for this school use. Currently, 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 areas. 1. The city will use available resources to identify redevelopment needs. This will include cooperation with Dakota County and the Metropolitan Council to achieve redevelopment 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 between 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. The former Brown College use (and the adjacent Le Cordon Bleu cooking school) functioned and operated successfully for a number of years within this Industrial guidance category. The Industrial land use category is described in the existing 2040 Comprehensive Plan as a concentration within the city’s industrial and business park and includes manufacturing, office, warehousing, hotels, and other commercial uses. This area has previously supported educational uses, thus staff has determined that this location for the middle and secondary school use is consistent with the purpose and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan and performance standards. Alternatives: 1.Recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit request, based on the findings of fact that the proposed school use complies with the policies and standards of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, with conditions; 2.Recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit request, based on the findings of fact that the proposed school use is not in compliance with the City Code and is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; or 3.Table the request and request additional information from staff and/or the applicant; Staff will extend the review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with Minnesota State Statute 15.99. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit request from St. Augustine School for a middle and secondary (private) school at 1345 Mendota Heights Road, based on the findings of fact that the proposed project complies with the policies and standards of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, with the following conditions: Page 415 of 426 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. Any new remodeling or interior work (including building, electrical, plumbing, heating/cooling and other related work must be submitted for standard building permit review prior to any work being started. Attachments: 1. Findings of Fact for Approval 2. Site Location Map 3. Letter of Intent 4. St. Augustine School - Supplemental 5. 1345 Mendota Heights Road Suite 700, Mendota Heights Floor Plan 6. St. Augustine School Space Usage Mendota Heights 7. St. Augustine School Parking Map Page 416 of 426 Planning Case 2025-13 (CUP for 1345 Mendota Heights Road) Page 1 of 1 FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL CUP – Conditional Use Permit for 1345 Mendota Heights Road, Suite 700 The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed school use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor depreciate surrounding property values. 2. The proposed school use conforms to the general purpose and intent of this code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, provided all conditions are met and upheld by the property owner and applicant. 3. With the conditions included herein, the site will provide adequate parking for the proposed use and existing building. All parking will be accommodated on-site and no adverse impacts off-site are anticipated to traffic flow on the surrounding roadway network. Page 417 of 426 666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 666 6666666 66666666666666666666 66666666666666666666666666666666666666! !!! " " " " "" " " !"" " ³³ " ³ "" ³ ³ ! ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ! " "" ³ * * " " " " " "" ! ³" " ³ ! " " ! " " " " " " " !! ³ * ³³ ³! ³ ³ * *** *" ! " ³³ ³ ³³³³³³"* * * ! !! 6 6 6666666666666FMFM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM F M FM F M 666666!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2!!2 !!2!!2!!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !.!. !. !. !!2 !. 2520 1380 1352 1355 1333 1312 1345 1340 1335 1370 1369 1330 1300 1295 1385 2520 NORTHLAND DR MENDOTA HEIGHTS RD ENTERPRISE DRPILOT KNOB RD RAMP Nearmap US Inc, Dakota County, MN Site Location/Aerial Map1345 Mendota Heights Road Date: 7/18/2025 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 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 418 of 426 24 June 2025 To Whom it May Concern, Thank you for considering our conditional use permit for the 1345 Mendota Heights Road, Suite 700 (former Minnehaha Academy space). Below is an overview of the school, as well as an analysis of key items outlined in the “Conditional Use Permit Application Checklist” supplied online at the City of Mendota Heights website. St. Augustine School is a 6th-12th grade classical, liberal arts school in the Catholic tradition (launching with grades 6th-10th). It is a co-ed school with single sex instruction, focused on a pedagogy that goes slower and deeper into its curriculum, inculcating in its students a love of learning that sets them up to lead joyful, flourishing lives. It is led by Head of School Dr. Matt Briel, and Deans Mrs. Ellie Peters and Mr. Steve Hendrickson. More information can be found at www.staugustineschoolmn.org. It is a Minnesota LLC, with approved 501(c)3 non-profit status with the Internal Revenue Service. Here is an overview addressing specific concerns / topics outlined in “Conditional Use Permit Application Checklist”: 1. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community a. The use, as outlined above, is a small (micro) school that will be engaging in standard educational activities that are not detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community. 2. The proposed use will not cause serious tra]ic congestion nor hazards a. There will be no serious tra]ic congestions or hazards associated with the operation of St. Augustine School. 3. The proposed use will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value a. The St. Augustine School will not have a detrimental e]ect on the surrounding property value 4. The proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. a. Use of the space as a school is allowed under the current zoning guidelines (with a Conditional Use Permit), and will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. As you prepare to review our CUP, please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, William Faulkner Board Chair, St. Augustine School www.staugustineschoolmn.org • info@staugustineschoolmn.org Page 419 of 426 www.staugustineschoolmn.org • info@staugustineschoolmn.org 2 July 2025 Ms. Sarah Madden Community Development Manager City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Ms. Madden, Thank you for considering our conditional use permit for the 1345 Mendota Heights Road, Suite 700. Per the questions in your email of 2 July 2025, please find answers below in red. At this time, we are marking the application as incomplete, based on the following items from the Conditional Use Permit checklist: •Dimensioned “typical” floor plan and “typical” room plan Please see attached “Saint Augustine School Space Usage Mendota Heights - (Gray Area).pdf” •Vehicular circulation on site, and use of available parking spaces Please see attached “St Augustine School Parking Map.pdf” Specifically, we need additional detail on the plans to evaluate this proposal and make a determination on the minimum parking which would be required for just this use within the shared parking in this development, and overall traNic impacts from additional trips and the potential for any bussing or drop- oN queues (there is no bussing taking place. Given the small number of enrollees, the allocated parking spaces for dropoN/pickup are believed to be suNicient for our use and to manage dropoN/pickup dynamics). Parking demand is calculated based on the occupancy of individual rooms and uses. The graphic illustrating the leasing brochure for 4,825 square feet is not suNicient for reviewing this information. Has your architect prepared preliminary floor plans for the space? (we are using the space “as-is” and so do not plan any changes to the space). I understand this space was remodeled as part of a prior Interim Use Permit, but this would be for a permanent use – are there walls or rooms that are proposed to change? (No proposed changes to the space). •Please provide a Floor Plan of the proposed space detailing the use of each room. What modifications are proposed to the space to accommodate the school? See attached “Saint Augustine School Space Usage Mendota Heights - (Gray Area).pdf”. No modifications are proposed. •Are there cafeteria or food preparation needs? No •Please provide a parking and/or drop -oN plan for the school. Currently you are proposing 10th grade in the upcoming school year, but this Conditional Use Permit approves the entire lifespan of the school. Where will students park if they are driving themselves to school? Note Page 420 of 426 www.staugustineschoolmn.org • info@staugustineschoolmn.org any reserved or designated parking areas that the building owner will provide. If students are being bussed into the school, what route through the property will they take? Will there be a drop-oN or unloading zone? Please see attached “St Augustine School Parking Map.pdf”. No bussing will be used. •What are the projected enrollment numbers at capacity for the space? The Fire Marshall will need to evaluate the occupancy of this space, and the Building ONicial at a later building permit date. Enrollment is planned for no more than 40. Current enrollment is significantly less than that. Also, thank you for letting us know about the retail cannabis site. We do not have concerns at this time. Please let me know if you have any additional questions, including calling me at 651-343-6370 William Faulkner Board Chair, St. Augustine School Page 421 of 426 Direct Entry, Newly Remodeled Office Sublease 1345 Mendota Heights Rd., Mendota Heights MN 55120 Mark Young D: 651-233-2435 | M: 651-307-2371 Zac Houle D: 651-209-0520 | M: 651-248-7567 7250 Hudson Boulevard N, Suite 160, Oakdale, MN 55128 www.crossroadspropeties.net FOR LEASE FLOOR PLAN – SUITE 600 & 700 (9,939 SF) SUITE 600 MAIN ENTRANCE (5,114 SF) SUITE 700 MAIN ENTRANCE (4,825 SF) COMMON EXIT 5,114 SF 4,825 SF Page 422 of 426 reception coatroom storage meeting / common purpose room conf. roomclassroom study space common lounge student ccommons faculty offices classroom classroom classroom classroom classroom Page 423 of 426 Imagery ©2025 , Map data ©2025 Google 20 ft 12 3 4 5 6 7 89 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 SAINT AUGUSTINE SCHOOL PARKING MAP E n t r a n c e Student Drop offFaculty ParkingMisc. Parking Misc. Parking Page 424 of 426 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES EXCERPT FROM DRAFT/UNAPPROVED 7/22/25 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES C) PLANNING CASE 2025-13 ST. AUGUSTINE SCHOOL, 1345 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that St. Augustine School is seeking a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the property located at 1345 Mendota Heights Road. The CUP would allow for the use of space as a middle and secondary private school, or 6th – 12th grades, at the former Sanford Brown College site, within the space previously used by Interim Use Permit in 2017-2019 for Minnehaha Academy. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350 feet 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 asked if this is a conditional use allowed in both industrial and business districts. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that the use is only listed within the business district and not the industrial district. She noted that the previous trade school use was listed. She stated that the property is currently zoned B-1, general business. Chair Field believed that there were regulations for small class sizes with the previous user, Minnehaha Academy. He asked if there would be an ability to cap the number of students. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that if the expansion of the school were necessary to occupy additional space in the building, an amendment would be needed for the CUP. She commented that a condition could be added, but was unsure of the language that would be used and the onus that could be placed on the applicant and staff. Chair Field stated that perhaps a cap on the number of students could be added to the conditions that would trigger a review. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that it could be written as a condition, but there could be enforcement issues. She noted that the enrollment could expand past 40 students and still be within the fire code occupancy for the building. She noted that there would be other triggers that would require a review/amendment, including parking and the need for additional space. She stated that the applicant can provide additional information on the vision for the school and small classroom size. Page 425 of 426 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Bill Folkner, representing the applicant, stated that the vision for the school is to keep the classrooms small. He stated that they would love to have that issue with expanded enrollment, but in that case, they would prefer to expand the size of the school rather than the size of the classroom. 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 STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NATH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FROM ST. AUGUSTINE SCHOOL FOR A MIDDLE AND SECONDARY (PRIVATE) SCHOOL AT 1345 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE POLICIES AND STANDARDS OF THE CITY CODE AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, 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. ANY NEW REMODELING OR INTERIOR WORK (INCLUDING BUILDING, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING/COOLING, AND OTHER RELATED WORK) MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR STANDARD BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW PRIOR TO ANY WORK BEING STARTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised that the City Council would consider this application at its August 6, 2025, meeting. Page 426 of 426