Loading...
10 06 2026 CC Agenda Packet.pdfCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA October 6, 2026 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 September 15, 2026, City Council Meeting b.Approve Minutes from the September 15, 2026, City Council Work Session c.Acknowledge Minutes from the July 28, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting d.Acknowledge Minutes from the July 15, 2026, Airport Relations Commission Meeting e.Acknowledge the August Par 3 Financial Report f.Acknowledge Q3 Code Enforcement Activity Report g.Approve Quote for Fire Station Parking Lot Improvements h.Accept the Resignation of Kate Dougherty and Authorize Communications Coordinator Position Recruitment Page 1 of 170 i.Approve Appointment of Student Representatives to the Parks and Recreation Commission j.Approve a Letter of Support for MnDOT Slope Stability Study on Highway 13 k.Approve a Grading Permit for 1415 Mendota Heights Road l.Approve Public Works Facility Exterior Door Access Control Installation m.Approve Resolution 2026-64 Authorizing Final Payment and Acceptance of the Basin IV-P126 Improvements Project n.Approve 2026-2027 Insurance Renewal and Elect to Not Waive Statutory Limits o.Authorize Public Works Surplus Items for Auction and Deposit of Proceeds p.Approve August 2026 Treasurer's Report q.Approve Claims List r.Approve Professional Services Contract Amendment for the Public Works Facility Geothermal Assessment Project 7.Presentations 8.Public Hearings 9.New and Unfinished Business a.Radar Feedback Speed Limit Signs b.Adopt Resolution 2026-63 Approving a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit for a new in-ground swimming pool at 1187 Culligan Lane [Planning Case No. 2026-17] c.Ordinance No. 609 Creating a Moratorium for New Wireless Telecommunication Infrastructure Uses d.Request for Proposals - Mendota Heights 2050 Comprehensive Plan Update e.City Hall and Police Department Existing Building Conditions--Mold Remediation and Repair f.Municipal Campus Building Project 10.Community / City Administrator Announcements 11.City Council Comments 12.Adjourn Next Meeting October 20, 2026 at 6:00PM Information is available in alternative formats or with the use of auxiliary aids to individuals Page 2 of 170 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/Mendota-Heights-Streaming Page 3 of 170 This page is intentionally left blank CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA DRAFT Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, September 15, 2026 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, Mazzitello, and Maczko were also present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Levine presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Mazzitello moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the public wished to be heard. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Levine presented the consent agenda and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Mazzitello moved approval of the consent agenda as presented, pulling items F and G. a.Approval of September 1, 2026, City Council Minutes b.Approval of August 26, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes c.Acknowledge the Minutes from the June 9, 2026, Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting d.Approve the Planned Unit Development Agreement for the Tenth Amendment to Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development e.Approve Personnel Policy Updates f.Accept the Retirement of Dale Stein from the Mendota Heights Fire Department g.Approve Purchase Order for Tree Removals – Victoria Road h.Adopt Resolution 2026-60 Calling for an Assessment Hearing on the Hampshire Estates Street Improvements Page 4 of 170 6.a September 15, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 of 9 i.Approve a Change Order for the 2026 Street Maintenance Project j.Approve Resolution 2026-61 Accepting Bids and Award Contract for the 2026 Sewer Cleaning and Televising Project k.Approve the Purchase of a Police Squad l.Approve Resolution 2026-62 Approving the Disposal of Unclaimed Property (Donation of Bicycles) m.Authorize the Transfer of Equipment from the Police Department to the Public Works Department n.Approval of Claims List Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS F) ACCEPT THE RETIREMENT OF DALE STEIN FROM THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT Councilor Maczko commented that he had the pleasure and honor of hiring Mr. Stein, noting that his father also served on the Fire Department. He stated that the Stein family has over 40 years of service to the Fire Department. He provided an overview of Mr. Stein’s career with the department and thanked him for his service. He wished him well in his retirement. Councilor Maczko moved to accept THE RETIREMENT OF DALE STEIN FROM THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 G) APPROVE PURCHASE ORDER FOR TREE REMOVALS – VICTORIA ROAD Councilor Lorberbaum stated that she is comfortable with this proposed action and asked if there is a replanting plan. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that there is no plan to replace any trees, as the trees being removed are within the public right-of-way and are invasive species. He stated that letters were sent to the private property owners because some of the invasive trees are located on private property. He stated that those property owners can reach out to City staff and can receive assistance with replanting if they remove the trees. Councilor Lorberbaum moved to approve PURCHASE ORDER FOR TREE REMOVALS – VICTORIA ROAD. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page 5 of 170 September 15, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 of 9 PRESENTATIONS No items scheduled. PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) FISCAL YEAR 2027 PRELIMINARY BUDGET AND LEVY Finance Director Kristen Schabacker explained that the Council was being asked to adopt a preliminary budget and proposed levy for Fiscal Year 2027. Councilor Lorberbaum thanked staff for the excellent work. Mayor Levine stated that she attended the Regional Council of Mayors meeting the previous day and was made aware of an interesting law on the books. She stated that if Senator Klobuchar is elected as Governor, she would appoint someone to fill her Senate position, and all cities would then need to hold a primary and general election in 2027 to elect a new Senator. She stated that the cost of those elections was not included in the budget, as typically 2027 would be an off year for elections. She noted that there is a possibility that the State could reimburse cities for that expense, but given that knowledge, they should appropriately plan for that in the budget. She asked staff for input on whether the funds should be placed in the contingency fund or elections fund. Finance Director Kristen Schabacker noted that this is the preliminary budget that is being set and noted that the funds could be placed in either contingency or elections. She stated that she would place those funds in the election fund. She stated that because the results of the election will be known prior to final adoption of the budget, they could remove those funds if they are not needed prior to final adoption of the budget and levy in December. Mayor Levine moved to add $50,000 TO THE ELECTIONS PORTION OF THE GENERAL BUDGET FOR 2027 FOR THE POTENTIAL COST OF A PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTION IN 2027. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Further discussion: Councilor Maczko asked if adding these funds would increase the levy. Mayor Levine confirmed that this addition would further increase the levy. Finance Director Kristen Schabacker stated that if that addition of $50,000 is made, the levy increase would be 4.42 percent. She stated that the funds can be removed from the budget and levy if they are not needed, prior to final adoption, but the funds could not be added at a later time as the preliminary budget and levy amounts are the highest amounts that can be adopted. Councilor Maczko asked if the cost could be absorbed by fund balance. Page 6 of 170 September 15, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 of 9 Finance Director Kristen Schabacker stated that the balance is not anywhere near the bottom of the policy range. She recommended including the amount in the general fund as it is an operating expense. Councilor Maczko stated that he does not object to including the $50,000 as proposed. Councilor Mazzitello asked and received confirmation on the updated figures within the proposed draft resolution if the $50,000 is added as proposed. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilor Lorberbaum moved to approve RESOLUTION 2026-57 APPROVING PROPOSED 2026 LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2027. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Further discussion: Councilor Mazzitello asked and received confirmation that Councilor Lorberbaum agrees to the new numbers as amended by the last action. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilor Mazzitello moved to approve RESOLUTION 2026-58 ADOPTING 2027 PRELIMINARY BUDGET WITH THE AMENDED TOTAL EXPENDITURE NUMBER AS PREVIOUSLY STATED. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilor Mazzitello moved to approve RESOLUTION 2026-59 APPROVING FINAL 2026 TAX LEVY FOR SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT NO. 1 COLLECTIBLE IN 2027. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Levine thanked Finance Director Kristen Schabacker and the entire City staff for their work on the budget process. Councilor Mazzitello agreed and stated that the City has the best Finance Director, noting that this is his 15th budget with the City. He noted that this was the first budget process to have four work sessions and recognized that the Council did not make it easy on staff. Councilor Lorberbaum thanked staff for their flexibility, patience, and accuracy during this process. Councilor Maczko agreed that staff did an excellent job listening, responding to questions, and adapting as needed. Page 7 of 170 September 15, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 of 9 Councilor Paper recognized that budgeting is one of the most complicated things the Council and staff are asked to do, noting that this meeting tonight is not an accurate presentation of the work that goes into the budget and levy process. He believed that they did a great job holding down the levy number while still providing for the things and services the community expects. Mayor Levine thanked the public for their involvement in this process as well, advocating for things they feel strongly about. B) APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH BARR ENGINEERING CO. FOR SANITARY SEWER ODOR ANALYSIS Assistant City Engineer Lucas Ritchie provided a brief background on this item. The Council was being asked to approve an agreement with Barr Engineering Co. to complete Phase 1 of the City’s sanitary sewer odor analysis for a cost not to exceed $25,000. Councilor Paper asked if they have identified that the problem is coming from within the industrial park. Assistant City Engineer Lucas Ritchie replied that staff anticipates that it is coming from within the industrial park because of the preliminary results gathered. He explained that the chemicals and additives being used are contributing to the problem. Councilor Paper commented that it would seem they have a problem that is fixable upstream, once they identify it. Assistant City Engineer Lucas Ritchie confirmed that is correct. Mayor Levine asked what it is costing monthly or annually for the treatment they are currently doing. She also asked about the health of the sanitary sewer fund. Assistant City Engineer Lucas Ritchie stated that originally, they estimated about $2,000 per month, and they are leasing the equipment, which has a cost of $500 per month. He commented that the bioxide solution has been tripled from the originally anticipated amount, which means they are paying about $6,000 per month. He estimated about $80,000 to $90,000 in total for this year if they continue treating at this rate. He provided additional information on the balance of the sanitary sewer fund. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided additional information on the sanitary sewer fund, noting that staff is looking to make adjustments to the rates to ensure there continues to be a healthy balance. Mayor Levine recognized that the proposal is to spend $25,000 to find a solution rather than continuing to spend up to $90,000 a year on a band-aid fix. Assistant City Engineer Lucas Ritchie stated that he does not anticipate that the bioxide treatment will go away, but explained that this will provide a third-party review and recommendation that they can bring to the businesses in an attempt to fix the problem at the source and/or receive a contribution towards the cost. Page 8 of 170 September 15, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 6 of 9 Councilor Lorberbaum stated that while the neighbors are unhappy about the issue, they appreciate the clear communication that continues to be provided by staff. Councilor Lorberbaum moved to approve AN AGREEMENT WITH BARR ENGINEERING CO. TO COMPLETE PHASE 1 OF THE CITY’S SANITARY SEWER ODOR ANALYSIS FOR A COST NOT TO EXCEED $25,000. Councilor Maczko seconded the motion. Further discussion: Councilor Maczko reminded residents that this is not a normal sanitary sewer issue, as this is the main interceptor that runs through the neighborhood on its way to the treatment facility. He clarified that the issue is not created by Friendly Hills, but upstream. He thanked a resident who has been able to provide feedback to staff throughout this process. He stated that the communication and updates provided by staff have been appreciated by the residents and have helped to build faith back in this issue. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 C) AWARD OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) FOR THE MUNICIPAL CAMPUS BUILDING PROJECT Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided a brief background on this item. The Council was being asked to award a professional services contract to Bolton & Menk, Inc. to provide professional services necessary to complete an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Municipal Campus Building Project. Councilor Mazzitello asked if the EAW would be signed by a professional engineer and whether there would be a change in the cost of the proposal to require that, acknowledging that it is no longer a requirement. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that he feels that they could run into issues with the supporting documentation as the City is hiring a firm to review documents provided by another firm. Councilor Mazzitello stated that he would only be asking for a signature related to the 20 questions. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the RGU is required to provide that certification. He was unsure if another professional engineer would be willing to sign that secondarily. He stated that typically the Mayor and Clerk sign items as the RGU, but he could also be directed to sign it if that is desired by the Council. He did not believe that an additional signature would be needed in this case. He noted that a possible cost savings of $5,000 would be received related to the wetland delineation, as a report was recently completed for that as part of the project by another firm. Councilor Mazzitello explained that he was asking about that because this is a controversial project and there has been a lot of misinformation and many things put out that are not part and parcel of the completion of an EAW. He stated that the additional certification he is requesting would help to provide that extra layer of protection. Page 9 of 170 September 15, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 7 of 9 Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that even in that case, the State has guidelines within the appeal process of an EAW. He did not believe that additional signature would have any bearing on how the EQB would read that report. He stated that he could make that request but was unsure if he could require that, as the firm did not produce all the data within the report. Councilor Maczko stated that he would support that suggestion of Councilor Mazzitello, noting that they are not certifying other people’s work but their work in the 20 components of the EAW. He would not expect the firm to analyze someone else’s work but to certify that the process itself followed the guidelines and requirements of an EAW. He recognized that the RGU would still need to make the decision as to whether the information is true and complete. Mayor Levine noted the language included on the cover letter of the proposal. She wondered why the additional step would be anything different than what is promised in the cover letter. Councilor Mazzitello explained that it is a matter of comfort level. Mayor Levine stated that she would defer to staff, acknowledging that it would be nice to have if the consultant were willing to do so but also understanding that the firm has a protocol and may have limitations on what engineers are able to sign off on. She stated that the firm is qualified to do the work. She recognized that there will probably still be people who will continue to question the results if they do not go in their favor. Councilor Mazzitello moved to award A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR THE MUNICIPAL CAMPUS BUILDING PROJECT TO BOLTON AND MENK, INC. AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $36,436, WITH THE REQUEST THAT THE REPORT GIVEN TO THE CITY BE REVIEWED, COMPILED AND SIGNED BY A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL BY THE MINNESOTA BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE, ENGINEERING, LAND SURVEYING, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, GEOSCIENCE, OR INTERIOR DESIGN. Councilor Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that the original estimate by staff of two to three months was shortsighted, and it appears the work will take closer to four to five months to complete. Councilor Lorberbaum recognized that would result in a five- to six-month pause on the project. Mayor Levine was unsure that was accurate. She recognized that they are pausing but believed that they could continue to discuss the project. City Attorney Amy Schmidt stated that once the EAW is ordered, all work on the project needed to stop. Mayor Levine asked if they could continue to have discussions, as there is information on the website. Page 10 of 170 September 15, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 8 of 9 City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson stated that members of the Council can answer questions from the public and share information. Councilor Lorberbaum asked if that would mean they cannot talk as a group about project-related details, such as incorrect mathematical figures within an ICS document. City Attorney Amy Schmidt commented that project-related details would be part of the work that needs to be paused. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek clarified that there was a misinterpretation of the document and the information provided within was correct. Councilor Maczko asked if the City could respond to that comment rather than leaving it out there for five months. City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson stated that information is still available on the website and staff continues to respond to questions received. She explained that the Council will not meet to discuss this project during the pause. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson announced upcoming community events and activities. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Paper wished everyone a happy New Year. Councilor Maczko stated that September 11th passed last week and recognized those who sacrificed their lives. He stated that people should remember how everyone pulled together on September 12th. He thanked law enforcement and all who do things to keep people safe. He stated that he was never prouder to see the Fire Department display the flag in recognition of those who lost their lives. He recognized the Two River Warriors football team and their coaches, who were recognized by TCO as coaches of the week. Councilor Lorberbaum commented that absentee voting begins Friday at City Hall. She also thanked the engaged citizens, noting that 42 percent of eligible voters participated in the Primary Election. She commented that this past Sunday was National Grandparents Day. Councilor Mazzitello wished those celebrating a happy New Year. He also congratulated Cretin-Derham Hall who knocked out their rival, St. Thomas Academy, in football two weeks ago. He recognized that 343 firefighters lost their lives in New York on September 11th. He recognized that people gave their lives so we can have what we have, not to prevent others from having what we have, or for us to be entitled. He agreed that the country should be what they were on September 12, 2001. He commented that this week is suicide prevention week and encouraged people to talk to their friends and family to get the help they need or to help others. He continued his top nine list, sharing information on the adoption of a new modern Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted six years ago. He noted the use of the word quality, Page 11 of 170 September 15, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 9 of 9 commenting that the people of this community want things that are quality, not things that appear to be quality. He challenged whoever takes his seat through the next election to work towards that quality. Mayor Levine welcomed all of the kids back to school and encouraged drivers to be aware of the additional pedestrian activity on the roads and at bus stops. ADJOURN Councilor Lorberbaum moved to adjourn. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 7:19 p.m. ____________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Nancy Bauer City Clerk Page 12 of 170 This page is intentionally left blank CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA DRAFT Minutes of the City Council Work Session Tuesday, September 15, 2026 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 p.m. Councilors Lorberbaum, Maczko Mazzitello, and Paper were in attendance. Others present included: City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator Kelly Torkelson, Finance Director Kristen Schabacker, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, Parks & Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence, Community Development Manager Sarah Madden, Police Chief Kelly McCarthy, Noel Mills Ford Administrative/Special Projects Coordinator, and City Clerk Nancy Bauer. CODE ENFORCEMENT/PROPERTY MAINTENANCE Community Development Manager Madden noted that the item was presented for informational purposes and to provide an update. She explained that staff have changed the process used to track and maintain records of complaints. She highlighted the use of new software which has automatic workflows for scheduling, inspection reminders, filtering and sorting active cases. She reviewed the general inspection and enforcement process and noted that some violations and code enforcement cases are subject to specific code standards. Community Development Manager Madden provided year-to-date code enforcement statistics, noting that the city has received 91 complaints, of which 58 were validated as violations. She discussed reinspection fees that have been assessed on some active code enforcement cases and remain unpaid. Council discussed the different types of violations and asked questions regarding the enforcement process. Council also discussed options for addressing unpaid reinspection fees. Community Development Manager Madden noted that the property maintenance chapters of the residential and commercial codes need to be updated to modernize language, update citations, and resolve conflicts with other areas of the code. There was consensus to begin receiving quarterly reports summarizing complaints received by staff. Community Development Manager Madden reviewed the process of providing follow-up to complainants regarding filed complaints. Page 13 of 170 6.b September 15, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 2 BUILDING PERMIT FEES Community Development Manager Madden stated that staff are seeking Council direction regarding the implementation of flat permit fees for certain building permits. The permits discussed included residential mechanical, plumbing, roofing/siding permits, windows and doors, and permanent signs. She reviewed the current permit fees for Mendota Heights, compared them with fees charged by neighboring cities, and discussed recommended changes to the 2027 fee schedule. Council discussed the definitions of new construction, remodeling, and replacement. Community Development Manager Madden provided examples of flat fees for permanent signs. The Council discussed fee amounts and there was consensus to set the mechanical permit flat fee for residential projects at $85.00 and plumbing permit flat fees for residential projects at $80.00 plus $5.00 per fixture. The consensus was that window and door installations involving an alteration to the existing opening would be considered a new installation and have a flat fee. Replacement installations, where the existing opening remains unchanged, would have a different flat fee. Community Development Manager Madden stated that the new fees would be reflected in the 2027 fee schedule when it is presented to the Council at a later date. ADJOURNMENT A motion to adjourn was made by Councilor Mazzitello, seconded by Councilor Paper, and unanimously carried. The meeting ended at approximately 5:29 pm. ___________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 14 of 170 July 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 21 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 28, 2026 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 28, 2026, 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, Jason Stone, and Steve Goldade. Those absent: Commissioners Jeff Nath and Brian Udell. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of May 26, 2026 Minutes COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 26, 2026. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Hearings A)TABLED - PLANNING CASE 2026-2026-05 BUELL CONSULTING, LLC (ON BEHALF OF THE TOWERS LLC), 739 WENTWORTH AVENUE (WENTWORTH PARK) – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the subject property, located at 739 Wentworth Avenue, is owned by the City and used as Wentworth Park. The applicant, Buell Consulting, on behalf of The Towers LLC, requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a 149-foot wireless telecommunications monopole tower. The Towers LLC is a partner of Verizon Wireless. The first public hearing for this application was opened on March 31, 2026, and the request was tabled at the April 28, 2026 meeting. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 2000-ft. of the site; there have been many inquiries to the City with questions about the application, and 85 public comments have been received. Page 15 of 170 6.c July 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 21 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 denial of the requested CUP. Commissioner Stone asked and received confirmation that this use may be in violation of previous grant dollars received. He asked why this is proceeding until that is known, or why another location was not proposed. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the City must act on the application by August 26th. She noted that a different location would be a separate application. Commissioner Corbett asked for clarification on the Code language for height compared to setback. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided additional details on the maximum allowed height and related setback. Chair Field invited the applicant to address the Commission. Scott Buell, Buell Consulting, stated that the RF study and alternate site analysis were provided earlier today and completed by a third party. He stated that the DNR grant restrictions are a red herring and have more to do with property rights and less to do with a CUP request. Doug Barker, The Towers LLC, commented that a stealth design tower has the ability for lower and/or waived setbacks. He provided comments on property values, health and safety, and being in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan, noting that the realtors they consulted with showed no degradation of property values from cell towers being nearby. He stated that if people do not have coverage in the home, they do not want to purchase that home. He stated that a letter from the assessor was also provided showing that there is no impact on property values. He cited a World Health Organization study published in 2024 that found no link between cell phone use and cancer. He commented that the City changed its ordinance to allow towers to go into parks, which is what led to this request. He stated that the City signed the lease, and commented that this road is leading towards bad faith. He stated that the ordinance changes were intended to provide flexibility to improve resident cell phone coverage throughout the community. He asked the Commission to recommend approval of the request as he believed that the provisions of the Code were met by the request. Commissioner Corbett asked and received confirmation that Mr. Barker was not at the last meeting. He stated that at the last meeting a request was made for a height study windowing coverage versus height and commented that he did not see that within the applicant’s materials. Mr. Buell replied that he was unclear on what that was meant to be and that is not a requirement of the ordinance. Page 16 of 170 July 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 21 Commissioner Corbett commented that he believed that information was critical for this review. He noted that the intention is to have up to three antennas on the tower. Mr. Barker provided details on the spacing that would be required between antennas, noting that the lowest antenna would not receive the same coverage as the top antenna, so he did not anticipate three carriers would want to be on the tower. Commissioner Corbett asked if the tenant at 115 feet would pay less because lesser quality service would be provided than the tenant at the top. Mr. Barker replied that the lowest tenant would not be able to cover the same area but would not pay less to be on the tower. He commented that towers are typically built to 195 feet around residential areas, but in rural areas the towers are going to 250 to 300 feet to provide coverage. Commissioner Corbett stated that he was clear that he would need that data at the last meeting. He stated that the information provided was marketing data and not quantifiable data. Mr. Buell confirmed that those numbers were not provided. He explained that because of the mature trees in the area, the lowest carrier would need to be above the trees. He stated that if the trees are around 80 feet, the lowest antenna would need to be at 100 feet. He confirmed that the information Commissioner Corbett requested was not provided. Commissioner Corbett stated that he would want to see the windowing of data to show at what height service can be provided, to determine the lowest height that could be feasible. Mr. Buell stated that having a clear requirement delineated would make sense for applicants to better understand what is required/requested. Commissioner Corbett stated that he also does not see any change to the real estate study, which he called out as questionable at best at the last meeting. He stated that he works in real estate and with people in this neighborhood. He explained that if someone has the choice to look out their window and sees nothing, just a park, or a tower, they will choose the first option. Mr. Barker stated that an opinion was provided by the County assessor. He stated that he recently built a home near a cell tower that he developed 30 years ago. Commissioner Stone commented that Mr. Barker is probably one out of ten people who would choose that option. Commissioner Corbett stated that he does not believe that all requirements for the CUP have been met. He stated that there is a parcel adjacent to this site that could be subdivided, as well as the homes around it, that would have impacts to their property values. He commented that the data provided by the applicant did not discuss a home value before a tower and the same value after the tower is built. Page 17 of 170 July 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 21 Mr. Buell stated that sounds like an opinion without evidence. He stated that a response was provided to that critique. Commissioner Corbett noted that the response would then just be an opinion as well. He noted that he is the President of the Board on which those individuals sit, so he is qualified to make his statements on this topic. He was disappointed that his requests from the last meeting have not been addressed. Commissioner Goldade asked for clarification on the use of “red herring” used by the applicant. Mr. Buell commented that his intention in using that term was that it is a distracting additional piece of information. Commissioner Stone asked about the largest tower that exists in Mendota Heights. Mr. Buell provided the locations of two towers that he believed to be 75 feet in height. Commissioner Stone asked if one of the 75-foot towers could be replaced with a taller tower. Mr. Buell stated that they did look into that option, but the setback requirements would not make that possible. Commissioner Stone commented that he believes that request would be better than this request. Mr. Buell noted that location is also lower in elevation, which makes a significant difference in coverage. Mr. Barker commented that capacity is as big of a driver as coverage. He commented that a 250- foot tower could cover the whole city, but not for the entire community. He commented that you need more towers to provide service to more people. Commissioner Stone asked the other sites that were reviewed. Mr. Buell stated that the ordinance states that community-owned property be reviewed first, which is why this request was made. He stated that other options owned by the City would be the Par 3 and Valley Park. Commissioner Stone asked if the area between 62 and Marie, off the bike path, was reviewed, as that would not be a part of a park or field. Mr. Buell stated that the transmission line easement takes up a lot of that space. Mr. Barker commented that they are open to solutions, noting that they reviewed City property first and executed an agreement, but they are open to alternatives. Chair Field continued the public hearing. Page 18 of 170 July 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 21 Gayra Ostgaard, 757 Upper Colonial Drive, provided information on the “red herring,” noting that it is a copy of the DNR recreation grant. She thanked the Commission for its work and for reading the written comments, noting the written comments submitted by herself and her neighbors, which are in the form of a legal brief. She recommended that the Commission read that entire section. She highlighted a pattern about this process, where the City states that it has done its due diligence but did not believe that has occurred throughout this process. She stated that a resident discovered that the proposed tower exceeded the height restriction in the ordinance. She commented that a resident discovered the DNR recreation grant deed restriction. She commented that there was another grant, the shade tree bonding grant, which also states that the land cannot be leased. She noted that this was also discovered by a resident. She commented that it was residents, not City staff, who have uncovered these issues. She stated that residents should be able to trust that City staff is doing its job and not spending their own time and money to discover these things. She raised serious questions about the process and asked the Commission to honor its grant obligations and deny the request. George Eliou, 757 Upper Colonial Drive, asked the value of the grant if it had to be paid back and who would be responsible for paying that back. He noted that the cost to repay the loan would equal about 20 years of lease payments. He asked if the application had addressed ordinance 595, the urban forest preservation ordinance, and provided more information on the ordinance requirements for the applicant to develop a forest management plan. Jane Todd, 689 Wentworth, commented that she represents the 24 homeowners at the property. She stated that she previously owned a large resort in Wisconsin and had a monolith pole, noting that there were no complaints, impacts on health, or impacts on wildlife. She commented on the screening the trees provide to the height of the tower. She commented that their buildings are 55 years old with elevators and outdated fire panels. She stated that companies that monitor fire alarms no longer do that through landlines, so they have placed cell phone boosters outside the building because there is no cell service where the panels are located. She stated that most people who visit her have to walk to the window or go outside to use their cell phone. She expressed concern for those without landlines and who only use cell phones because of the lack of service in that area. She understands that it is popular for people to hate these things because they are an eyesore but disagreed. She commented that their development has significant property to the north of them and Somerset 19 is very willing to entertain a tower on their property. She believed that a variance may still be required, but noted that they would be interested in being a host for the tower. Joan Brandis, 1465 Cherryhill Road, stated that she is sad to see that after all these months, there has not been one alternative to the park. She stated that they have also worked with residents who do not have service to find equipment that could help them. She noted that one option was equipment with a cost of $200, but the resident was not interested. She stated that moving the tower 60 feet would put it on top of the kids going over there every day and expressed concerns with potential health impacts. She commented that it is difficult to provide an exact number, but stated that there will be a negative impact on home values and asked the Commission to deny the request. Page 19 of 170 July 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 21 Robin Ehrlich, 1656 Gyrc Court, stated that he came to the meeting with a neutral opinion but agrees with the staff presentation recommending denial. He commented that he is most bothered by the height of the tower relative to the three carriers who may use it, noting that this would provide the best coverage to Verizon and, as an AT&T customer, he would likely not benefit from this. Tom Swain, 735 Evergreen Knolls, stated that this is a robust process, driven in many ways by the citizens. He stated that clearly this new pole is not camouflaged and the leaves will come off the trees in the winter. He stated that perhaps this will improve coverage, or maybe it would not. He stated that if this is not going to solve the problem, they should look for a way to solve the problem and believed that smart people can find other locations. He stated that clearly this is not a good location and there are several other factors that have come forward showing this is not the right place. He urged them to move on and find a better solution. Cammie Evans, 796 Lower Colonial Drive, stated that the proposal has made the community less safe, noting that her friend was verbally assaulted while placing signs in the park and her husband received death threats after appearing on TV opposing the tower. She asked people to understand that this is a divisive issue and asked the Commission to keep that in mind. Paula Anderson, 790 Lower Colonial, commented on her position at Children's Hospital and referenced a CDC article on cell tower exposure and that it should not be located near an area where children play. Ric Giese, 729 Evergreen Knolls, commented that he would see this pole from his back porch and spoke in opposition to the request. He was also concerned about the safety of those who do not have cell phone service, but did not believe this was the right solution. He believed that smart people of the community can work together to find a better solution. He stated that perhaps the pole could be located at City Hall with the municipal campus project. He did not believe cell service would be tower-based in the next five years and would instead be satellite-based, so this would be shortsighted. He stated that the City should look to maximize service through satellite service and be a leader in that direction. John Trojack, 786 Upper Colonial Drive, commented that in hindsight the WHO report had a lot of problems because of COVID. He noted another report speaking of the dangers of radiation and asked the Commission to read that declaration of federal court, which mentions many studies and the effects of radiation. He asked the Commission to consider those whose health would be impacted. Jack Evans, 796 Lower Colonial Drive, thanked the Commission for being engaged in this topic and discussion and believed that the residents should be proud of the work they have done. Mr. Barker commented that Verizon was the first carrier to come to them and they have interest from another carrier. He explained that The Towers LLC is the applicant and actively markets the towers to multiple tenants. He stated that they followed the process specified in the ordinance, to first look at public property, and the City signed the agreement. He explained that they have to see this through the process before they can look at another property. He stated that satellites are Page 20 of 170 July 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 21 not an option for service. He stated that because the lease was signed for this location, it tied their hands in looking at alternate options, or they would not be following the City’s ordinance. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER GOLDADE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Goldade thanked City staff for their work on this over the last several months. He also thanked Buell Consulting, who has been professional and open to hearing many different opinions. He also thanked the residents, Commission, and City Council for the amount of time that has been spent on this topic. He hoped that residents can find a way to come together, as they enter election season, to have reasonable discussions on what is best for the City. He stated that there are residents who want cell phone coverage, or improved coverage, and was empathetic to those concerns. He believed they need to work together to ensure everyone can feel safe and have cell phone coverage in the city. He spoke about the issue of cell phone towers in the parks, noting that he lives near Marie Park and wondered what he would think about a tower in that park. He struggled to feel comfortable with a tower in the parks. Commissioner Johnson stated that it was her understanding that parks were the last resort for cell phone towers. She agreed that there are challenges and they need to find solutions for people who need coverage. She referenced the DNR letter stating that the tower would not be allowed on this property. She noted the other items listed in the findings of fact by City staff. Commissioner Stone stated that the information about the grant was great to hear, acknowledging that it would have been nice to have that information at the last meeting. He stated that he loves the community and was disappointed with the comments he has seen online. He believed that there is a large group of residents who are not receiving empathy. He commented on his experience driving to the school and not being able to make a call, noting that he has friends who live near the school who do not have service. He stated that there has to be a better location for a tower than the park. He wished that people would work together to find a solution rather than to just shoot down an idea. He stated that he has been volunteering for the past 15 years to help others and urged the residents in this room to step up and volunteer in the community. He stated that he voted against this last time and will vote against it this time, but believes that there are better locations that can provide a solution. COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) BY THE TOWERS LLC FOR THE PROPERTY AT 739 WENTWORTH AVENUE, BASED ON THE “FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIAL”. AYES: 5 Page 21 of 170 July 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 21 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 5, 2026 meeting. Chair Field took a brief recess to 8:22 p.m. Chair Field reconvened the meeting at 8:31 p.m. B)PLANNING CASE 2026-10 JOE FITZGERALD, 1044 BROMPTON PLACE – VARIANCE Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that Joe Fitzgerald is seeking to construct a new rear deck onto the existing single-family home located at 1044 Brompton Place. The proposed deck would be a replacement and expansion of the existing deck and stairs at the rear of the home. The request adds additional impervious surface to the property, and the increase requires a variance from the maximum impervious surface standards for 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 how a 25 square foot rain garden size was determined, noting that is small in comparison to the size of the deck. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that is what is proposed by the applicant. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the rain garden is required to retain 1.1 inches times the increase in impervious surface, which is around 24 cubic feet, noting that a 25 square foot rain garden would meet that requirement. Commissioner Goldade asked for the dimensions of the existing deck. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that the existing deck is 82 square feet and the proposed deck is 320 square feet. Commissioner Goldade asked if the proximity to the park is considered in the recommendation. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that the park does not have any specific requirements and confirmed that the deck would meet the required ten-foot setback. Commissioner Corbett asked if there is a requirement for the BMP in the ordinance. Page 22 of 170 July 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 21 Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that originally the R-1 district was going to have an administrative option to increase impervious surface with a BMP, but that was not included in the final Zoning Code revision, which is why the variance process is required. Commissioner Corbett asked why decking is considered to be impervious, as water can flow through the space between deck boards. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that decking was included as an impervious surface. She explained that expanded patios have an ability for flexibility, but a decking expansion does not. She stated that staff supports the expansion with the addition of a BMP. She noted that if they continue to receive requests of this nature, they could review the ordinance language if desired. Chair Field invited the applicant to speak. Joe Fitzgerald, applicant, stated that he is present to address any questions. Commissioner Johnson asked and received confirmation that Mr. Fitzgerald is not the original property owner. She asked for information on how a plant species proposed within the rain garden was chosen. Mr. Fitzgerald replied that was a recommendation from their landscaping architect. 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 CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GOLDADE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED VARIANCE FOR AN INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE TO 39% AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS-OF-FACT, AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IS LIMITED TO 39 PERCENT. ANY ADDITIONAL INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CANNOT BE INSTALLED WITHOUT PRIOR APPLICATION, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL OF A NEW VARIANCE SPECIFIC TO THAT FUTURE PROPOSAL. 2.THE APPLICANT SHALL NOT DEVIATE FROM THE DECK PLAN UNDER THIS APPLICATION REVIEW WITHOUT FIRST SEEKING AND RECEIVING CITY APPROVALS, UNLESS CITY CODE PROVIDES FOR CERTAIN OR ALLOWABLE Page 23 of 170 July 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 21 IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS. 3.NO WORK BEGINS ON THE PROPOSED DECK CONSTRUCTION UNTIL A BUILDING PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE CITY. 4.THE APPLICANT SHALL INSTALL A RAIN GARDEN TO OFFSET THE INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. PLANS FOR THE RAINGARDEN ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. THE RAIN GARDEN WILL BE SUBJECT TO A STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY. Further discussion: Commissioner Johnson stated that she would like to discuss the impervious surface ordinance and has some concerns that they are over the maximum allowance. She stated that she can see how rainwater can come through the decking boards to go onto the property, so she is not as concerned. She noted that this would be a one percent increase from the original. She stated that because this is not the original property owner, this is not a situation created by the property owner, and the situation is unique to the property. She recommended a diverse set of plants that should be placed in the rain garden and suggested that the applicant consult with the Natural Resources Coordinator to gain additional information on the plantings. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 5, 2026 meeting. C) PLANNING CASE 2026-11 EQUITY TRANSWESTERN LLC (ON BEHALF OF CHADWELL SUPPLY), 1500 COMMERCE DRIVE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that Equity Transwestern, the property manager of Commerce Logistics Center, has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) on behalf of an incoming tenant, Chadwell Supply, for a new eight-foot security fence which would enclose a portion of the rear loading and parking area at 1500 Commerce Drive. The fence would be vinyl-coated chain link with two access gates. The construction of a fence greater than six feet in height requires a CUP in the I-Industrial 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. Chair Field invited the applicant to come forward. Page 24 of 170 July 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 21 Christian Hanson, Equity Transwestern, stated that they are the managing agent for the building and commented that Chadwell Supply is new to Minnesota and has chosen this location to expand their business in this area. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EQUITY TRANSWESTERN (o/b/o CHADWELL SUPPLY) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1500 COMMERCE DRIVE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EIGHT-FOOT-TALL CHAIN LINK FENCE, BASED ON THE FINDINGS-OF-FACT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GRANTS APPROVAL TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EIGHT-FOOT-TALL SECURITY FENCE WITH TWO ACCESS GATES TO ENCLOSE A PORTION OF THE PARKING AND LOADING AREA AT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE APPROVAL OF THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DOES NOT GRANT APPROVAL FOR ANY ACCESSORY OUTDOOR STORAGE OPERATIONS. 2.THE APPLICANT/OWNER MUST OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED CITY PERMITS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO A FENCE PERMIT AND A BUILDING PERMIT. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 5, 2026 meeting. D)PLANNING CASE 2026-12 INDIGO SIGNS (ON BEHALF OF PASTER PROPERTIES/MENDOTA PLAZA ASSOCIATES), 750 NORTH PLAZA DRIVE – PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the applicant, Indigo Signs, is seeking a Planned Unit Development Amendment for a modification to site signage within the Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development located at 750 North Plaza Drive. The subject site is currently zoned MU-Mixed Use with a Planned Unit Development Overlay District. The original Page 25 of 170 July 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 21 Planned Unit Development (PUD) was approved in 2009, and there have been nine amendments to the PUD since its inception to allow for continued redevelopment of the Mendota Plaza. 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 staff feels comfortable that this covers the things that may be amended in the future with the signage guidelines. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that she believes that this is comprehensive in terms of the electronic message sign regulations when the City is to draft its own standards. She confirmed that this also addresses the concerns discussed at the last meeting. Commissioner Corbett asked who was involved in drafting those regulations. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that this was drafted by the applicant and staff did not make any changes because they believed it to be sufficient. Commissioner Corbett stated that there are a few things that may be setting the City up, as they would be items that the City could not control. He noted that there are “must” options without recourse defined. He understood the intent in having urgency to respond but was unsure how the City could employ that process. He suggested that those items be removed as the City would not have the ability to enforce (Item G in general standards, and D under brightness standards). He stated that he appreciates the intention but was unsure there was any penalty that could be imposed. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden referenced Item G and explained that is something the applicant has volunteered to do. She stated that the City does have enforcement efforts, but agreed that a one-hour response time is not something the City would have in a Code enforcement letter. Commissioner Johnson stated that she reads that as a statement from the applicant that they would manage and operate their equipment properly and promptly. She stated that it would be up to the City as to how that could be enforced. Commissioner Corbett agreed that it is a great intention from the applicant, but the City would not have the ability to enforce that. Commissioner Johnson stated that if that issue were realized, staff could make a call to the applicant and ask them to address it. Page 26 of 170 July 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 21 Community Development Manager Sarah Madden asked if Commissioner Corbett would be more comfortable if language were included that mentions it in relation to the Code enforcement process rather than a period of one hour. Commissioner Goldade stated that overall the update to the signs is a great idea. He commented that he previously had concerns with the electronic message center sign, but it was explained that those panels would be used to advertise businesses and would be easily changeable as tenants change. He stated that when the message is shown stating “happy holidays”, that changes the intent of the electronic sign and then seems inconsistent with requests from other businesses for signs of that nature that have been denied. He believed that the electronic message center should only be used to advertise the businesses that are there. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that the applicant mentioned that the intention of showing the graphics as options was to show what the product can do, but the City cannot control the content of a sign. She stated that the City can regulate the timing, brightness, and lack of animation. She referenced item “d” of the brightness standards and stated that the City does have the ability to borrow equipment to measure brightness. She stated that although lighting violations are rare, the timeline is immediate and therefore that is an accurate standard. She understood the concerns with item “g” of the general standards. Commissioner Corbett stated that he understands the intent but does not want to put the City in a position to fail in terms of enforcement. He asked how enforcement of that item would be handled if there were a violation. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden described the City’s general enforcement process. Commissioner Corbett believed that there were options to modify that language to better fit with the actual enforcement process. Chair Field asked for input from staff on potential language modification. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that they could state that the sign owner must stop the dynamic display until repaired following notification of noncompliance by the City. She noted that the exact language does not need to be determined tonight, as that is language that would be found within the Development Agreement. Commissioner Corbett asked and received confirmation that the only modifications being proposed as this tenth amendment are related to signage. Chair Field invited the applicant to address the Commission. Brian O’Loughlin, Indigo Signs, and Mike Sturdivant, Paster Properties, introduced themselves. Mr. Sturdivant commented that he feels that they could work with staff to develop language that would fit the request of the Commission for G. Page 27 of 170 July 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 21 Mr. O’Loughlin stated that one of the conversations they had with City staff was to help develop this language. He commented that language of this nature is used by multiple municipalities and they attempted to tailor it to fit the needs of Mendota Heights. He agreed that the language could be amended as discussed. Commissioner Johnson stated that they are trying to avoid the use of “best efforts” or “good faith” and suggested following the recommendation of City staff. Mr. O’Loughlin commented that the electronic portions of the sign can be turned off remotely and if for some reason that could not happen, a technician would be dispatched to turn the sign off manually. He agreed that one hour could be problematic and agreed to work with staff to develop better language for that item. Commissioner Corbett thanked the applicants for taking the step to draft this language and address the concerns specified at the concept review. 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: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Stone stated that he hopes that the happy holidays could be included, as he likes seeing that type of messaging. COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO THE MENDOTA PLAZA PUD AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR UPDATES TO FREESTANDING SIGNAGE AND SIGNAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES, BASED ON THE FINDINGS-OF-FACT, AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.THE APPLICANT/OWNER SHALL ENTER INTO AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT KNOWN AS THE TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS. 2.THE APPLICANT/OWNER MUST OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED CITY PERMITS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO A SIGN PERMIT AND A BUILDING PERMIT. 3.THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT FINAL ARCHITECTURAL CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND ENGINEERED DRAWINGS FOR THE HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR PERMITTING, SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND BUILDING OFFICIAL AS PART OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. Page 28 of 170 July 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 21 4.NO BUILDING PERMITS WILL BE ISSUED UNTIL THE APPLICANT PROVIDES EVIDENCE TO THE CITY OF THE RECORDING OF THE TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. 5.FOLLOWING ANY DISTURBANCE ASSOCIATED WITH THE SIGNAGE IMPROVEMENTS, ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS SURROUNDING THE EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGNS SHALL BE RETURNED TO PRIOR LANDSCAPED CONDITIONS CONSISTENT WITH THE MASTER SITE PLAN FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DESIGN GUIDELINES. Further discussion: Commissioner Stone asked if a condition would need to be added to address the concerns of the electronic message standards. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that a condition is not required and noted that she could draft alternate language to be considered by the City Council. Chair Field asked if there should be something stating that the Commission requested staff to work with the applicant on items “g” and “d”. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that she feels the direction will be clear within the minutes. AYES: 4 NAYS: 1 (Goldade) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 5, 2026 meeting. E)PLANNING CASE 2026-13 THIELEN & GREEN P.A. (ON BEHALF OF HOLY FAMILY MARIONITE CATHOLIC CHURCH), 1960 LEXINGTON AVENUE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the subject property located at 1960 Lexington Avenue South is an active religious institution, Holy Family Marionite Catholic, and the church use has been active on the property for several decades. The applicant, Thielen & Green P.A., has been contracted by the church to complete two small additions to the existing structure. The applicant group requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow two small additions to the existing structure. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350 ft. of the site; one written comment was received in support of the request. 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 29 of 170 July 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 21 Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Johnson noted that the staff report states that only one tree is proposed for removal but there is a requirement for a forest management plan. She stated that when looking at the site plan, four trees are proposed for removal. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that four trees are being removed. She stated that the level of removal would still require one-to-one removal, so the condition does not need to be modified. Chair Field invited the applicant to address the Commission. Chris Theilen, Theilen & Green, commented that he was present to address any questions. He commented that the congregation is excited to add some of these needed facilities. Commissioner Johnson thanked Mr. Theilen for his detailed plans. She also noted the five native cultivars that have been incorporated into the landscaping and was appreciative of that. Commissioner Goldade asked about the exterior of the proposed additions and whether it would match the existing. Mr. Theilen replied that they plan to use lap siding to match the existing, noting that there will be transitions that will be replaced on the existing exterior as well. He commented that cultured stone will also be used to match the stone on the existing facility. 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 JOHNSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO THIELEN & GREEN, P.A. FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1960 LEXINGTON AVENUE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING HOLY FAMILY MARIONITE CATHOLIC CHURCH STRUCTURE, BASED ON THE FINDINGS-OF-FACT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.A BUILDING PERMIT, INCLUDING ALL NEW SITE GRADING, UTILITY, AND DRAINAGE WORK, MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION BEGINNING ON SITE. Page 30 of 170 July 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 17 of 21 2.THE DEVELOPER/APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT FINAL GRADING, UTILITY, LANDSCAPE AND SITE PLANS, AND ARCHITECTURAL CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS FOR PERMITTING, SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, AND BUILDING OFFICIAL AS PART OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. 3.ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION AND GRADING ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPOSAL SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES, AS WELL AS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. 4.ALL EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE PUT IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY GRADING AND SITE WORK ACTIVITIES AND MUST REMAIN IN PLACE FOR THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES UNTIL PROPER SITE RESTORATION PLANS ARE COMPLETED. 5.THE APPLICANT/OWNER MUST PROVIDE A BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (STORMWATER MANAGEMENT) AGREEMENT TO THE CITY AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL AND REVIEW PROCESS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THIS SITE. 6.A SEPARATE FOREST ALTERATION PERMIT APPLICATION IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE, FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGER AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER. THE APPLICANT SHALL REPLACE REMOVED TREES AT A ONE-TO-ONE RATIO. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 5, 2026 meeting. F)PLANNING CASE 2026-14 METRO RETAINING WALLS AND LANDSCAPING (ON BEHALF OF ANDREW HUNTER), 1175 ORCHARD PLACE – MRCCA PERMIT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that Metro Retaining Walls & Landscaping, Inc. is the applicant and owners’ representative of the property located at 1175 Orchard Place, and has requested a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit to allow for the construction of a new accessory structure and a hot tub, with associated site improvements on the property. 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). Page 31 of 170 July 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 18 of 21 Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. She noted that the applicant did inform her that they were unable to attend tonight. Commissioner Johnson asked if the Natural Resources Technician was able to check out the rough undergrowth vegetation. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that she did not ask that staff member to complete a site visit for this request. Commissioner Johnson commented that native plants are often mixed into rough undergrowth. Chair Field asked if the applicant is aware of the requirement to change the location by four feet. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the condition of approval will solidify that requirement. She stated that the applicant has been made aware of the requirement and they are having the plans updated. Commissioner Johnson commented on species that are listed and have been found to be invasive for natural areas. She suggested that those two species be removed and provided alternate suggestions of native cultivars that would blend with the planned aesthetic. Commissioner Corbett asked for more information on whether the plant recommendations come from a City list. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the City has a list and provides a link to another list. She stated that it would be reasonable to include a condition that the applicant work with the Natural Resources Coordinator on the landscaping plan. Commissioner Corbett suggested that there be an updated list that be provided, as Commissioner Johnson will not always be on the Commission. He did not feel that an additional condition is necessary. Commissioner Johnson stated that she would like the applicant to have a discussion with the Natural Resources Coordinator. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided language for a condition that could be added. Commissioner Goldade commented that this will be a rather large in-ground hot tub and asked if there is a difference between that and an in-ground pool. He asked if that difference, or non- difference, is relevant to the MRCCA standards. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that would not be relevant to the MRCCA Permit but would be relevant to the swimming pool standards in Code. Commissioner Corbett asked if impervious surface is considered for a pool. Page 32 of 170 July 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 19 of 21 Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that would be considered impervious surface as it is a structure. 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: 5 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE MRCCA-CRITICAL AREA PERMIT REQUEST FOR 1175 ORCHARD PLACE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND IN-GROUND HOT TUB, WITH ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS, BASED ON THE FINDINGS-OF-FACT, AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE APPROVED AND ISSUED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY SITE WORK. 2.THE PROPOSED PRIVATE GARAGE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SHALL BE ADJUSTED ON THE SITE PLAN TO BE SETBACK FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AT LEAST AN ADDITIONAL FOUR FEET (4-FT) SO THAT IT IS FURTHER SETBACK FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE THAN THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. 3.THE PROPOSED PROJECT MUST COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. ALL PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. 4.ALL EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE PUT IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY GRADING AND SITE WORK ACTIVITIES AND MUST REMAIN IN PLACE FOR THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES UNTIL PROPER SITE RESTORATION PLANS ARE COMPLETED, INCLUDING A DUAL ROW OF PERIMETER CONTROL AT THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE BLUFF, PERIMETER CONTROL SURROUNDING OTHER AREAS OF DISTURBANCE, AND EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS ON ANY DISTURBED SLOPES 3:1 OR GREATER. 5.ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES MUST COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES. 6.IF ANY SIGNIFICANT OR HERITAGE TREES ARE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED, THE APPLICANT AND/OR PROPERTY OWNER MUST SUBMIT A FOREST ALTERATION PERMIT TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER AND THE NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGER. Page 33 of 170 July 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 20 of 21 7.ALL WORK ON SITE WILL ONLY BE PERFORMED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 A.M. AND 8:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY; 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. WEEKENDS. 8.THE LANDSCAPING PLAN SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE NATURAL RESOURCES COORDINATOR. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 5, 2026 meeting. New and Unfinished Business Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that as of now, she does not have any applications to consider at the August meeting. She stated that she will alert the Commission if the August meeting is canceled. Commissioner Goldade asked for an update on the 2300 Lexington property and whether there was a change requiring tree removal between the property and the adjacent neighbor. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the drive aisle connection will now extend and connect to the shared parking area, which was a change from the Commission’s review. She stated that a grading permit has been issued, but a building permit has not yet been issued. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the stormwater management is being constructed on the west side as well. Commissioner Goldade asked if there was concern that the house on Glenhill that was approved did not follow the tree plan. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that she was not aware of that but could follow up. Commissioner Stone asked for an update on the Friendly Hills project. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided an update on the Friendly Hills project is nearing completion and provided an update. Adjournment COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:02 P.M. Page 34 of 170 July 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 21 of 21 AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Page 35 of 170 This page is intentionally left blank CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES July 15, 2026 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, July 15, 2026 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, Arbit, Bobbitt, Sloan, Neuharth, Dunn, Hamiel Staff present: City Administrator Jacobson Public present: Rose Agnew 2.ELECTION OF OFFICERS – VICE CHAIR Commissioner Hamiel notified the commission of his resignation from the Airport Relations Commission effective with this meeting. Chair Norling called for Vice Chair nominations. Commissioner Neuharth was nominated and accepted the nomination for Vice Chair. No other nominations were received. Motion Carried 7-0 3.CONSENT AGENDA a.Approve Minutes from the May 20, 2026 Meeting Chair Norling requested a change in the minutes adding to her question raised under information and correspondence. Minutes will be amended to clarify that Chair Norling asked if the FAA is keeping what was agreed upon with the RNAV Committee to include VADF leg types for greater dispersion. b.Acknowledge Airport Operational Statistics Reports 1.Complaint Information 2.Runway Use Information Chair Norling approved the consent agenda. 4.PUBLIC COMMENTS Rose Agnew stated that MSP, being a world class airport, did a fantastic job in handling recent Special Olympics events. 5.BUSINESS a.Noise Complaints City Administrator Jacobson presented complaint numbers and provided an update on MAC actions to investigate the increased number of complaints from Mendota Heights residents over the past several months. She noted that outreach to households will be done by the MAC. Page 36 of 170 6.d Chair Norling stated that air noise has been more concentrated recently, with flights about every 90 seconds or so at times. She noted that she has tracked flights and the number has increased as well as the concentration of departures. 6.INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE City Administrator Jacobson provided an update on the Noise Oversight Committee meeting held earlier in the day. She noted that Sean Fortier, MSP FAA Traffic Management Officer, is retiring at the end of July. She added that the committee heard an update on the RNAV departure procedures and that the FAA is on track for the October 29 implementation. The MAC is planning to convene the RNAV subcommittee to review the implementation. 7.ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMISSIONER COMMENTS City Administrator Jacobson mentioned that the Noise Oversight Committee will hold a listening session on July 22 at 6:00 pm at Eagan City Hall. Commissioner Bobbitt wished Commissioner Hamiel well and acknowledged Hamiel’s contributions to the Airport Relations Commission. The Commission echoed his comments. Chair Norling noted that the Noise Oversight Committee workplan will be in development in the coming months and suggested that the Commission should discuss NOC work plan recommendations at the September meeting. 8.ADJOURN Motion by Neuharth, Second by Sloan to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. Chair Norling adjourned the meeting at 6:51pm. Page 37 of 170 6.e REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 6, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Acknowledge the August Par 3 Financial Report ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation CONTACT: Trey Carlson, Recreation Facilities Coordinator Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Acknowledge the August Par 3 Financial Report BACKGROUND: The Monthly Par 3 Dashboard is attached for Council review. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Monthly Expenditure report for August is attached. ATTACHMENTS: 1.August 2026 Par 3 Expenditures 2.August Financial Dashboard Par 3 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 38 of 170 Page 39 of 170 Mendota Heights Par 3 Community Golf Course August 2026—Financial Summary August—Tee Time Reservation Breakdown: Online Tee Times= 2,343 (63% of Total Tee Times) Phone/Walk in Tee Times= 1,858 (37% of Total Tee Times) Year to Date Budget Overview—August: Current Operating Surplus as of August, 2026: $102,785 Operating Surplus as of August, 2025: $116,999 Monthly Revenues vs. Expenditures Month Revenues Expenditures Net March 2026 $10,283 $13,102 $2,819 April 2026 $36,936 $20,023 $16,913 May 2026 $60,259 $31,322 $28,937 June 2026 $66,066 $41,336 $24,730 July 2026 $53,148 $46,656 $6,492 August 2026 $67,948 $31,544 $36,404 Golf Round Totals: 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 March 748 0 0 261 308 225 April 1678 896 1181 1923 2078 2087 May 2285 2797 2923 2664 3043 3311 June 2305 2839 3365 3395 3451 3388 July 2673 3213 3753 3093 3565 2770 August 2306 3042 3052 3087 4101 3746 Total 11995 12787 14274 14423 16546 15527 Golf Rounds by Category: 2026 Regular Senior Junior Veteran Second Round Senior Pass Footgolf Punch Card March 77 12 8 0 4 2 2 120 April 924 145 87 1 41 25 24 840 May 1817 326 182 5 54 26 51 850 June 1897 409 273 8 47 22 22 710 Category 2026 Budget 2026 YTD Actual % of Budget 2025 YTD Revenues $362,000 $322,149 88.99% $321,829 Expenditures $379,029 $219,364 57.88% $204,830 Net Position - $102,785 - $116,999 Page 40 of 170 July 1389 357 239 6 65 24 60 630 August 2094 486 400 10 65 23 88 580 Total 8198 1735 1189 30 276 122 247 3730 Monthly Notes: o When accounting for total monthly rounds, staff track punch card sales as (10) rounds of golf. For note the following punch cards were sold: o March: 12 o April: 84 o May: 85 o June: 71 o July: 63 o August: 58 o The punch card rounds are then multiplied by 10 to get the total rounds tracked for that month: o March: 120 o April: 840 o May: 850 o June: 710 o July: 630 o August: 580 o When reporting the Tee Time Reservation Breakdown, the tee times booked reflect how the punch card rounds are used, thus, if someone buys a punch card in April, they may only use it four times. They also could use the punch card one time for a call-in tee time and three times for separate online tee times throughout the season Page 41 of 170 6.f REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 6, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Acknowledge Q3 Code Enforcement Activity Report ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Allison Desmond, Administrative Support Assistant ACTION REQUEST: Acknowledge Q3 Code Enforcement Activity Report BACKGROUND: The Q3 Code Enforcement Activity Report is attached for City Council review. Items of note for this report are as follows: •31 new complaints have been received by the City o 12 of those 31 complaints were investigated and found to have no active violation o City staff have conducted 29 inspections in total •21 violation letters have been sent •19 of the 31 new violations this Quarter have been resolved o Of the unresolved violations, 5 have been forwarded to other departments, and 7 are awaiting re-inspection. •17 Code Enforcement cases year-to-date remain open FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Not Applicable. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Q3 2026 Code Enforcement Activity Report CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive and Responsive Government, Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy Page 42 of 170 Q3 2026 2026 Year-to-Date Type of Violation Property Maintenance 1 3 Zoning Violation 2 3 Debris & Waste 2 12 Exterior Storage 1 3 Waste/Recycling Containers 1 13 Lawn and Yard Maintenance 7 18 Vehicles & Parking 2 9 Public Ways & Property 0 2 Other 0 2 Violation Status Q3 2026 2026 Year-to-Date Resolved 19 73 No Violations Found 12 30 Resolved after 1st Notice 5 27 Resolved after 2nd Notice 2 13 Resolved after 3rd Notice 0 1 Resolved by PD/Engineering/Inspectron 0 2 Unresolved 12 17 Sent to PD 0 2 Sent to Inspectron 3 4 Sent to Engineering 2 2 New/Pending Inspection 3 3 Ongoing Actions 4 6 Q3 2026 2026 Year-to-Date Total Number of Complaints (some addresses have multiple complaints)31 90 Total Addresses with Complaints 27 63 Number of address with multiple complaints filed against them 4 18 Issued Collected $ Amount of Reinspection Fees $600.00 $0 Number of Violations Observed (some properties have multiple violations) Code Enforcement Activity Report - 3rd Quarter 2026 Page 43 of 170 6.g REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 6, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Quote for Fire Station Parking Lot Improvements ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Engineering CONTACT: Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Approve a quote from Pine Bend Paving for the Fire Station Parking Lot Improvements in the amount of $113,080 BACKGROUND: The City completed improvements to the Fire Station in 2020, which included improvements to the parking lot; however, the apparatus bay and a portion of the adjacent parking lot were not included in the project. The pavement in these areas dates to the original construction of the Fire Station in 1984. The pavement within the apparatus bay was constructed without an aggregate base, contributing to the deterioration and need for replacement. Staff contracted with Braun Intertec to complete a geotechnical evaluation and provide recommendations for the pavement section for the proposed improvements. The recommended pavement section includes 5 inches of pavement in the apparatus bay and a typical 4-inch pavement section in the parking lot area. The project will also include minor grade adjustments to improve drainage and match existing grades. The cost of the geotechnical evaluation was $5,200. Staff solicited quotes for the proposed improvements and received the following: Contractor Quote Pine Bend Paving $113,080.00 Bituminous Roadways $122,350.00 Based on the contractor's available schedule, the improvements are anticipated to be completed in 2027, at which point the existing underlying pavement will be approximately 43 years old. Work within the apparatus bay will be completed one-half at a time and coordinated with Fire Page 44 of 170 Department staff to ensure that emergency services remain operational throughout construction. Staff recommends approving the quote from Pine Bend Paving in the amount of $113,080. Pine Bend Paving submitted the lowest quote received and is available to complete the work in 2027. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The total project cost is estimated at $118,280, including the $113,080 construction quote from Pine Bend Paving and the $5,200 geotechnical evaluation completed by Braun Intertec. The 2026 approved budget included $80,000 for the Fire Station parking lot improvements. Costs associated with utility improvements will be funded through the Water Utility and Stormwater Utility Funds, totaling $9,100. The budgeted $80,000 will be funded through the Fire Department’s appropriation of the General Fund, and the remaining $29,180 is proposed to be funded from the Facility Reserve Fund, which has an adequate balance to cover the additional costs. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Pine Bend Paving Quote 2.Geotechnical Evaluation CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 45 of 170 P.O. Box 72, Vermillion, MN 55085 (651) 437 -2333 | Pinebendpaving.com Family Owned and Operated Since 1973 PROPOSAL CUSTOMER City of Mendota Heights DATE OF PROPOSAL 9/17/2026 PROPOSED COMPLETION DATE 2027 Attn: John Boland JOB NAME (R2) Mendota Heights Fire johnb@mendota-heights.com JOB LOCATION 2121 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 WE ARE PLEASED TO OFFER YOU MATERIALS AND SERVICES AS SHOWN BELOW, SUBJECT TO THE INDICATED TERMS. IF THIS OFFER IS NOT ACCEPTED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS, IT THEN MAY BE ACCEPTED ONLY AT OUR OPTION. YOUR ACCEPTANCE WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY COMPLETING AND RETURNING TO US THE ORIGINAL OF THIS FORM ITEM DESCRIPTION OR SPECIFICATION QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 HD/LD Bituminous Reconstruction 1,885 sy $89,420 *(5.0”) Heavy-Duty Pavement -Remove the existing bituminous – approx. 7” -Place and compact 2.0” of Class 5 Recycle o Bring the grade to allow for 5.0” of new pavement -Place and compact 3.0” of Bituminous Non-wearing -Place and compact 2.0” of Bituminous Wearing *(4.0”) Light Duty Pavement -Remove the existing bituminous -Shape and compact the existing aggregate base -Place and compact 2.0” of Bituminous Non-wearing -Place and compact 2.0” of Bituminous Wearing -Stripe the new pavement back to the original layout *Project to be completed as a single phase 2 (2) Catch Basin Repairs with Curb and Gutter Replacement 1 LS $9,100 -Includes the new top section of a gate valve and MH rebuild UP Unit Price – Subgrade Correction $70.00/CY Budget: All the HD Area at 6” depth 208 CY $70.00/CY $14,560.00 PRICE QUOTATION BASIS UNIT PRICES TIME & MATERIAL X LUMP SUM TOTAL AMOUNT: See Above MOBILIZATIONS MIX DESIGNS SPNWB330C SPWEB340C Bituminous Non-Wearing: 1.00 Total Bituminous Wearing: 1.00 Total Bit Non-Wearing: Bit Wearing: EXCLUSIONS •No subgrade correction is included •No permits or city approvals are included •See additional Terms and Conditions attached PINE BEND PAVING INC. BY:__________________________ Max Jacoby (Estimator) ACCEPTED FOR OWNER BY___________________________ DATE ________________ Page 46 of 170 P.O. Box 72, Vermillion, MN 55085 (651) 437 -2333 | Pinebendpaving.com Family Owned and Operated Since 1973 Site Diagram Page 47 of 170 TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1.PREMISES: UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE WORK TO BE PERFORMED, THE PRICE OF THE PROPOSED WORK IS PREDICATED ON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.1 Owner/Contractor’s credit approval by Pine Bend Paving, Inc. 1.2 That the work will be performed in its entirety between May 1 and October 31 of the current year, unless otherwise agreed upon. 1.3 The availability of quoted materials. 1.4 That this Proposal will be accepted within 30 days of the date hereof. 1.5 That the work will be performed in a single, continuous operation and will require only one mobilization. 1.6 That Pine Bend Paving, Inc., will be provided with adequate access to the work site. 1.7 That Pine Bend Paving, Inc., will be provided with a work site free of obstructions and may rely on all surveying performed by others. 1.8 That subgrade and base work performed by others shall have been performed in accordance with the applicable plans and specifi cations and in accordance with industry standards. 1.9 That Pine Bend Paving, Inc., will be given 10 days written notice to proceed with work. 1.10 That any waiting time or delays on the work site will be billed at the Pine Bend Paving, Inc.'s customary time and material rates. 1.11 Owner/Contractor shall be responsible for having all underground utilities properly marked . 1.12 Unless otherwise provided in the description of the work to be performed, the price of the proposed work does not include tax es, landscaping adjacent to or abutting paving, surveying costs, compaction/base testing, permits, bond premiums, traffic control. 1.13 Unless otherwise required by the plans and specifications, all materials and workmanship shall be in accordance with applicab le Minnesota Highway Department Standards. 2.THE TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT SHALL BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE CONTRACTOR’S INVOICE. ANY AMOUNT UNPAID AFTER THE 30-DAY PERIOD SHALL BEAR INTEREST CHARGES OF 18% PER ANNUM UNTIL PAYMENT IS MADE IN FULL. OWNER/ CUSTOMER SHALL PAY ALL COSTS OF COLLECTION INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES. 3.THIS CONTRACT SHALL BE COMPLETED WITH REASONABLE PROMPTNESS BY THE CONTRACTOR, BUT THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DELAYS OR FAILURE TO COMPLETION CAUSED BY WEATHER, FIRE, EXPLOSION, FAILURE OF EQUIPMENT, STRIKES, DIFFERENCES WITH WORKMEN, COMPLIANCE WITH ORDERS OF A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY, INTERRUPTION IN DELIVERY OF MATERIALS, OR FROM ANY CAUSE BEYOND HIS REASONABLE CONTROL. 4.THIS CONTRACT CONTAINS THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THERE ARE NO ORAL PROMISES, AGREEMENTS, OR WARRANTIES AFFECTING IT. ANY ALTERATION OR DEVIATION FROM THE ABOVE QUANTITIES AND SPECIFICATIONS OR OTHER CHANGE IN THE CONTRACT MUST BE IN WRITING AND EXECUTED BY AUTHORITY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES. 5.PINE BEND PAVING, INC., WARRANTS ITS WORK AGAINST DEFECTS IN MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP FOR ONE YEAR. ANY WORK DIRECTED TO BE DONE IN NONCONFORMITY WITH INDUSTRY STANDARDS, OR UNDER ADVERSE GROUND OR WEATHER CONDITIONS, WILL NOT BE COVERED UNDER WARRANTY. PINE BEND PAVING, INC.’S LIABILITY HEREUNDER FOR ANY CLAIM ALLEGED BY OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL BE EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO A MEASURE OF DAMAGES EQUIVALENT TO PINE BEND PAVING, INC.’S REFUND TO OWNER/ CONTRACTOR OF THE PURCHASE PRICE. OWNER/CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT THE DAMAGES REFERRED TO IN THE PRECEDING SENTENCE SHALL BE ITS SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR ANY BREACH OR NEGLIGENCE OF PINE BEND PAVING, INC. OWNER/CONTRACTOR WAIVES ANY CLAIM FOR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. IN THE EVENT ANY LEGAL ACTION IS COMMENCED REGARDING THIS CONTRACT AND THE WORK RELATED THERETO, PINE BEND PAVING, INC., SHALL BE ENTITLED TO RECOVER ITS ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS FROM OWNER/CONTRACTOR. PINE BEND PAVING, INC. SHALL NOT WARRANT ITS WORK AGAINST OR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGE CAUSED BY OTHERS. 6.INSPECTION SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR DURING THE PROGRESS OF THE WORK. IN THE ABSENCE OF INSPECTION, PINE BEND PAVING, INC., SHALL USE ITS BEST JUDGMENT TO INTERPRET THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND PINE BEND PAVING, INC.'S BEST JUDGMENT SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE AS TO ITS OBLIGATIONS THEREUNDER.OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL INDEMNIFY, DEFEND, AND HOLD HARMLESS PINE BEND PAVING, INC., OR ANY OF ITS SUBCONTRACTORS FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, DAMAGES, LOSSES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION WORK THAT OWNER/CONTRACTOR DIRECTS IN NONCONFORMITY WITH INDUSTR Y STANDARDS, DAMAGE TO UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES, AND EXPENSES (INCLUDING ATTORNEY'S FEES) ARISING OUT OF OR RESULTING FROM THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS CONTRACT AND RELATED CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, WHICH ARE CAUSED IN FULL OR IN PART BY OR ARISE FROM ANY NEGLIGENT ACT(S) OR OMISSION(S) OF OWNER/CONTRACTOR TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW. 7.N O RETAINAGE MAY BE WITHHELD UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AGREED TO IN WRITING BY PINE BEND PAVING, INC. 8.THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL PURCHASE AND MAINTAIN GENERAL LIABILITY, FIRE, THEFT, AND CASUALTY INSURANCE, INCLUDING VANDALISM TO COVER THE MATERIALS, PERSONAL PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS, AND PINE BEND PAVING, INC.'S OPERATIONS THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT AT THE JOB SITE. PINE BEND PAVING, INC., SHALL MAINTAIN GENERAL LIABILITY AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNT REQUIRED BY LAW OR DEEMED ADEQUATE BY PINE BEND PAVING, INC. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 9.(A) ANY PERSON OR COMPANY SUPPLYING LABOR OR MATERIALS FOR THIS IMPROVEMENT TO YOUR PROPERTY MAY FILE A LIEN AGAINST YOUR PROPERTY, IF THAT PERSON OR COMPANY IS NOT PAID FOR THE CONTRIBUTIONS. (B) UNDER MINNESOTA STATE LAW, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PAY PERSONS WHO SUPPLIED LABOR OR MATERIALS FOR THIS IMPROVEMENT DIRECTLY AND DEDUCT THIS AMOUNT FROM OUR CONTRACT PRICE OR WITHHOLD THE AMOUNTS DUE FROM US UNTIL 120 DAYS AFTER COMPLETION OF THE IMPROVEMENT, UNLESS WE GIVE YOU A LIEN WAIVER SIGNED BY PERSONS WHO SUPPLIED ANY LABOR OR MATERIALS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND WHO GAVE YOU TIMELY NOTICE. THESE CONDITIONS, TO THE EXTENT THEY DO NOT CONFLICT, SHALL BE ADDED TO ANY OTHER AGREEMENTS AND BECOME PART OF A TOTAL AGREEMENT. Page 48 of 170 Pavement Evaluation Report Mendota Heights Fire Station Parking Lot Replacement 2121 Dodd Road Mendota Heights, Minnesota Prepared for City of Mendota Heights Professional Certification: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Heidi C. Olson, PE Project Engineer License Number: 57243 August 27, 2026 Braun Intertec Corporation Project 10013844_001 Page 49 of 170 August 27, 2026 Project 10013844_001 Lucas Ritchie City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re: Pavement Evaluation Report Mendota Heights Fire Station Parking Lot Replacement 2121 Dodd Road Mendota Heights, Minnesota Dear Mr. Ritchie: We are pleased to present this pavement evaluation report for the Fire Station Parking Lot Replacement project in Mendota Heights, Minnesota. Thank you for making Braun Intertec Corporation (Braun Intertec) your consultant for this project. If you have questions about this report, or if there are other services that we can provide in support of our work to date, please contact Heidi Olson at 612.597.6244 or holson@braunintertec.com. Sincerely, Braun Intertec Corporation Heidi C. Olson, PE Project Engineer Amy J. Grothaus, PE Senior Manager, Senior Engineer Page 50 of 170 Braun Intertec Page i Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Traffic Data ...................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Background Information and Reference Documents .......................................................... 2 1.5 Scope of Services ............................................................................................................. 2 2.0 Results ..................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Pavement Core Results .................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Hand Auger Boring and DCP Results ................................................................................. 4 2.3 Laboratory Test Results .................................................................................................... 5 3.0 Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) ........................................................................................... 6 3.2.1 Pulverization and Compaction .................................................................................... 6 3.2.2 Test Roll ..................................................................................................................... 6 3.2.3 Pavement Design Section (Light-Duty) ......................................................................... 7 3.3 Full Depth Removal and Replacement ............................................................................... 7 3.3.1 Removals and Subgrade Preparation ........................................................................... 7 3.3.2 Pavement Design Section (Heavy-Duty) ....................................................................... 7 3.3.3 Materials and Compaction.......................................................................................... 8 3.3.4 Performance and Maintenance ................................................................................... 8 4.0 Procedures ............................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Pavement Coring and Hand Auger Borings ......................................................................... 8 4.2 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Testing ....................................................................... 8 4.3 Material Classification ...................................................................................................... 9 4.3.1 Visual and Manual Classification ................................................................................ 9 4.3.2 Laboratory Testing ...................................................................................................... 9 5.0 Qualifications ........................................................................................................................... 9 5.1 Use of Report ................................................................................................................... 9 5.2 Standard of Care .............................................................................................................. 9 Appendix Exploration Location Sketch Sieve Analysis Reports MnPAVE Output Design Files List of Tables Table 2-1. Pavement Core Summary ........................................................................................................... 3 Table 2-2. Hand Auger Boring and DCP Results ........................................................................................... 5 Table 2-3. Summary of Laboratory Results .................................................................................................. 5 Page 51 of 170 Table of Contents (Continued) Braun Intertec Page ii Table 3-1. Recommended FDR Pavement Design Section for Light-Duty Pavements ..................................... 7 Table 3-2. Recommended Pavement Design Section for Heavy Duty Pavements ........................................... 7 List of Figures Figure 1-1. Site Location Map, provided by the City of Mendota Heights ........................................................ 1 Figure 2-1.Core C-1 .................................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2-2.Core C-2 ................................................................................................................................... 4 Page 52 of 170 City of Mendota Heights Mendota Heights Fire Station Parking Lot Replacement Project 10013844_001 August 27, 2026 Braun Intertec Page 1 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Project Description This pavement evaluation report addresses the Mendota Heights Fire Station Parking Lot Replacement project located at 2121 Dodd Road. Figure 1-1 shows the site location and approximate square footage for the parking lot, which is divided into three areas, as provided by the city. Figure 1-1. Site Location Map, provided by the City of Mendota Heights In addition to the site location map, the city provided historical plans dated January 17, 1984, showing the pavement design thicknesses for the original construction of the parking lot. Based on these historical plans, pavement Areas 1 and 2 in the light blue and orange in the above site map are considered “heavy-duty” with a pavement section of 2 inches of bituminous wear course over 4 inches of bituminous base course over compacted subgrade. Area 3 in the dark blue in the above site map is considered “light-duty” with a pavement section of 2 inches of bituminous wear course over 4 inches of Class 5 aggregate base over compacted subgrade. As part of our work, we performed pavement coring, hand auger borings, and dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) testing to determine the optimal rehabilitation method for the parking lot pavements. Page 53 of 170 City of Mendota Heights Mendota Heights Fire Station Parking Lot Replacement Project 10013844_001 August 27, 2026 Braun Intertec Page 2 1.2 Purpose The purpose of our pavement evaluation was to measure the in-place pavement layer thicknesses, evaluate the condition of the pavement layers and to characterize subsurface geologic conditions at selected exploration locations, evaluate their impact on the project, and provide recommendations for the subgrade preparation and pavement thickness design for the Mendota Heights Fire Station parking lot. 1.3 Traffic Data Traffic data was not provided to us; however, we understand that the parking lot is used for passenger car parking (light-duty) and fire truck garage access (heavy-duty). Based on the size of the parking lot and number of garage doors, we anticipate the daily traffic consists of up to 100 cars per day, up to 5 fire trucks per day, and up to 10 ambulances and delivery trucks per day. Using this traffic assumption, we estimate the 20-year Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs) for the flexible pavement sections to be up to 150,000 for the light-duty areas, and up to 250,000 for the heavy-duty areas. 1.4 Background Information and Reference Documents To facilitate our evaluation, we were provided with or reviewed the following information or documents: ▪ Map of the site and proposed core locations, as provided by the city ▪ Historical site plans showing the pavement design thicknesses, dated January 17, 1984, as provided by the city ▪ Aerial Maps available from Google Earth® ▪ Minnesota Geological Survey for Mendota Heights ▪ Our discussions with Mr. Ritchie with the city We have attempted to describe our understanding of the proposed issues to the extent they were reported to us. Depending on the extent of available information, assumptions may have been made based on our experiences with similar projects. If we have not correctly recorded or interpreted the project details, we should be notified. New or changed information could require additional evaluation, analyses and/or recommendations. 1.5 Scope of Services Our scope of services for this project was provided via proposal 10013844_001 to Mr. Lucas Ritchie with the City of Mendota Heights, dated June 16, 2026. We received authorization to proceed in the form of a signed contract on June 16, 2026. Tasks performed in accordance with our authorized scope of services included: Page 54 of 170 City of Mendota Heights Mendota Heights Fire Station Parking Lot Replacement Project 10013844_001 August 27, 2026 Braun Intertec Page 3 ▪Reviewing the background information and reference documents previously cited. ▪Staking the core locations, as selected by the City, and clearing the locations of underground public and private utilities. The attached Core Location Sketch shows the approximate locations of the cores. ▪Performing two pavement cores, denoted as C-1 to C-2, and hand auger borings and dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) tests within each core hole to depths of about 3 feet. ▪Preparing this report containing a core location sketch, pavement core and hand auger boring results, DCP test results, a summary of the soils encountered, and recommendations related to the parking lot pavement rehabilitation. 2.0 Results 2.1 Pavement Core Results We performed field explorations on July 16, 2026. A total of two pavement cores were performed. Locations are shown on the core location sketch provided in the Appendix. The pavement cores were performed with a 4-inch core barrel. Within each core hole, we performed a hand auger boring to measure aggregate base thickness and collect the apparent aggregate base and subgrade soils. The core holes were then backfilled and patched with temporary patch material. The pavement cores and samples of the apparent aggregate base material and subgrade soils were collected and returned to our laboratory for review by a pavement engineer. A summary of the pavement core results is provided in Table 2-1. Ta ble 2-1. Pavement Core Summary Core Core Thickness (inches) Apparent Aggregate Base Thickness (inches) Core Condition C-1 7 0 Low to moderate severity stripping in bottom half C-2 4 6 Low severity stripping throughout As noted in Table 2-1, the cores were observed as having stripping. Stripping within cores represents the deterioration of the asphalt/aggregate bond in a bituminous pavement due to the presence of moisture. Stripping often begins at the bottom of the bituminous layer, where it may be in contact with saturated aggregate or soil, and then proceeds upward within the pavement. Low-severity stripping is common in bituminous pavements over time. Page 55 of 170 City of Mendota Heights Mendota Heights Fire Station Parking Lot Replacement Project 10013844_001 August 27, 2026 Braun Intertec Page 4 Figures 1 and 2 show photographs of the pavement cores. Figure 2-1. Core C-1 Figure 2-2 Core C -2 2.2 Hand Auger Boring and DCP Results Within each core hole, we performed hand auger borings and DCP testing at 6-inch intervals to a nominal depth of about three feet. Below the pavement section, the hand auger borings encountered soils generally consisting of silty sand and poorly graded sand with silt with trace amounts of gravel. Page 56 of 170 City of Mendota Heights Mendota Heights Fire Station Parking Lot Replacement Project 10013844_001 August 27, 2026 Braun Intertec Page 5 We performed DCP tests at 6-inch intervals. Table 2-2 summarizes the results of the hand auger borings and DCP tests. Ta ble 2-2. Hand Auger Boring and DCP Results C-1 C-2 Sample Interval (inches) DCP Blows per 6 Inches Soil Classification Sample Interval (inches) DCP Blows per 6 Inches Soil Classification 7 to 13 54 SM 10 to 16 90 SM 13 to 19 100+ SM 16 to 22 100+ SM 19 to 25 83 SP-SM 22 to 28 57 SP-SM 25 to 31 79 SP-SM 28 to 34 100+ SP-SM 31 to 37 95 SP-SM 34 to 40 50 SP-SM 2.3 Laboratory Test Results We performed laboratory testing on some of the collected soil samples, as summarized in Table 2-3. The laboratory testing includes moisture content, sieve analysis through a #200 sieve only, and sieve analysis for gradation. Ta ble 2-3. Summary of Laboratory Results Core Location Sample Depth (inches) Sample Classification Moisture Content (%) Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay (Percent Passing #200 Sieve) C-1 7 to 17 SM --- 10 69 21 C-1 17 to 36 SP-SM 5 --- --- 9 C-2 4 to 10 Apparent aggregate Base 6 36 55 9 C-2 19 to 25 SM 10 --- --- 46 3.0 Recommendations 3.1 Discussion The cores obtained had thicknesses of 4 and 7 inches over 0 to 6 inches of apparent aggregate base. Based on the historical plans from 1984, we assume the parking lot pavement has been overlaid about 1 inch in the heavy-duty area and about 2 inches in the light-duty area at some point after the original construction. We Page 57 of 170 City of Mendota Heights Mendota Heights Fire Station Parking Lot Replacement Project 10013844_001 August 27, 2026 Braun Intertec Page 6 also assume the underlying pavement is about 42 years old. The cores obtained have low to moderate severity material stripping Based on the hand auger borings, the apparent aggregate base consists of poorly graded sand with silt and gravel, and the subgrade consists of silty sand and poorly graded sand with silt. Based on the DCP results, which range from 50 to 100+ blows per 6-inch interval, the subgrade is considered to be in good condition for subgrade support. Based on these results, there appears to be adequate in-place pavement material and subgrade support to support the estimated traffic loading for the parking lot. Based on the historical plans provided to us and our pavement evaluation, for the light-duty area, we recommend full-depth reclamation (FDR). For the heavy-duty pavement areas, to accommodate a thicker pavement section, we recommend a remove-and-replace approach that includes removals to a depth of about 13 inches. Or, as an alternative, consideration could be given to reclaiming the in-place pavement materials, which would include the bituminous and about ½- to 1-inch of the underlying sandy subgrade materials, followed by the temporary removal of that material so that subcutting another 5 inches could be performed. The reclaimed material could then be placed as new aggregate base. We provide recommendations in the sections below. 3.2 Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) 3.2.1 Pulverization and Compaction For the light-duty pavement area, we recommend reclaiming to a depth of approximately 10 inches, which we assume will include about 4 inches of bituminous and about 6 inches of apparent aggregate base. If reclamation is performed in the heavy-duty areas, we recommend a maximum reclaim depth of 8 inches, which we assume will include about 7 inches of bituminous and about 1 inch of the underlying subgrade soil. For both areas, following reclamation, we anticipate some of the reclaim material will need to be removed to accommodate the new bituminous pavement section and maintain current grades to match curb lines and drainage features. It’s possible that portions of the lot will fail a proof roll after reclaiming, grading and re- compaction. As such, we recommend that no excess reclaimed materials be sent off-site until the entire lot has passed a proof roll as the reclaim materials can be used for backfilling subcut areas. If reclamation is performed in the heavy-duty pavement areas, the reclaimed material should be removed and temporarily stockpiled to allow for excavation of about 4 inches of subgrade materials so as to accommodate the recommended pavement section provided in Section 3.3.2. 3.2.2 Test Roll Following compaction, we recommend the FDR materials be test rolled to check for the presence of localized weak areas. The test roll should be performed with a fully loaded, tandem axle dump truck at walking speed. The test roll should be observed by a geotechnical engineer or qualified observer. Any detected weak areas should be corrected with a subcut and backfilled with excess reclaimed material or MnDOT Class 5 aggregate base. Page 58 of 170 City of Mendota Heights Mendota Heights Fire Station Parking Lot Replacement Project 10013844_001 August 27, 2026 Braun Intertec Page 7 3.2.3 Pavement Design Section (Light-Duty) Based on the sandy subgrade soils noted in the hand auger borings and DCP results, we recommend a design subgrade R-value of 25. Using MnDOT’s MnPAVE Flexible Pavement Design program, the estimated 150,000 ESALs for a 20 -year design life for light-duty areas and an assumed subgrade R-value of 25, we recommend the pavement section provided in Table 3-1. Ta ble 3-1. Recommended FDR Pavement Design Section for Light-Duty Pavements Layer Thickness (inches) Designation / MnDOT Specification Bituminous 4 (2 lifts)* SPWEA340C or SPWEB340C / 2360 Aggregate Base 6 Reclaim Material / 2215 *We recommend lift thicknesses of 1 ½ and 2 ½ inches to accommodate future 2-inch mill-and-overlay projects. 3.3 Full Depth Removal and Replacement 3.3.1 Removals and Subgrade Preparation For this approach, we recommend full-depth removals to a depth of about 13 inches to accommodate the recommended pavement section. We assume this will include about 7 inches of existing bituminous and about 6 inches of subbase materials. As an alternative, as noted in Section 3.1 and 3.2.1, the existing bituminous section can be reclaimed prior to removals. If reclamation is performed, we recommend temporarily stockpiling the reclaimed material so that an additional 4 inches of subgrade material can be removed. After removals are complete, regrading and compaction of the exposed subgrade should be performed as necessary to slope away from buildings and structures, and towards drainage features such as catch basins or drain tile. 3.3.2 Pavement Design Section (Heavy-Duty) Using MnDOT’s MnPAVE Flexible Pavement Design program, the estimated 250,000 ESALs for a 20-year design life for heavy-duty areas and an assumed subgrade R-value of 25, we recommend the pavement section provided in Table 3-2. Ta ble 3-2. Recommended Pavement Design Section for Heavy Duty Pavements Layer Thickness (inches) Designation / MnDOT Specification Bituminous 5 (2 lifts) SPWEB340C* / 2360 Aggregate Base 8 Reclaim Material / 2215 or Class 5 / 3138 *Or SPWEB340F. Page 59 of 170 City of Mendota Heights Mendota Heights Fire Station Parking Lot Replacement Project 10013844_001 August 27, 2026 Braun Intertec Page 8 3.3.3 Materials and Compaction For reclamation, we recommend that reclaimed materials meet MnDOT Specification 2215 for Reclamation. We recommend that the materials be compacted using the Penetration Index Method as per MnDOT Specification 2211. All bituminous mixes should meet the requirements outlined in MnDOT Specification 2360. We recommend the bituminous be placed in lifts between 2 and 3 inches. We recommend tack coat meeting MnDOT Specification 2357 be placed between the lifts and along vertical faces where paving will match adjacent pavement. 3.3.4 Performance and Maintenance We based the above pavement designs on a 20-year performance life. This is the amount of time before we anticipate the pavement will require rehabilitation. This performance life assumes routine maintenance, such as seal coating and crack sealing. The actual pavement life will vary depending on variations in weather, traffic conditions and maintenance. Many conditions affect the overall performance of the pavements. Some of these conditions include the environment, loading conditions and the level of ongoing maintenance. With regards to bituminous pavements, it is common to have thermal cracking develop within the first few years of placement and continue throughout the life of the pavement. We recommend developing a regular maintenance plan for filling cracks in pavements to lessen the potential impacts for cold weather distress due to frost heave or warm weather distress due to wetting and softening of the subgrade. 4.0 Procedures 4.1 Pavement Coring and Hand Auger Borings Pavement coring and hand auger borings were performed on July 16, 2026. Exploration locations were selected by the City and were conducted using a 4-inch core barrel. The bituminous pavement was repaired with a cold-mix bituminous patch immediately after coring. Hand auger borings and DCP testing was performed within the core holes and then backfilled with the auger cuttings. The approximate thicknesses of the bituminous and underlying base materials at the explored locations were measured and recorded in the field. 4.2 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Testing Within the core holes, we performed DCP testing of the subgrade soil to a depth of about 30 inches. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM D6951, using a solid, metal rod, fitted with a 20-mm (0.787- Page 60 of 170 City of Mendota Heights Mendota Heights Fire Station Parking Lot Replacement Project 10013844_001 August 27, 2026 Braun Intertec Page 9 inch) diameter conical point. An 8-kg (17.6-lb) weight falling 575-mm (22.6-inch) drove the point into the soil. We recorded the number of blows required to drive the point at 6-inch intervals into the subgrade material. 4.3 Material Classification 4.3.1 Visual and Manual Classification We visually and manually classified the geologic materials encountered based on ASTM D2488. When we performed laboratory classification tests, we used the results to classify the geologic materials in accordance with ASTM D2487. 4.3.2 Laboratory Testing We performed the tests in general accordance with ASTM procedures. 5.0 Qualifications 5.1 Use of Report This report is for the exclusive use of the addressed parties. Without written approval, we assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. Our evaluation, analyses and recommendations may not be appropriate for other parties or projects. 5.2 Standard of Care In performing its services, Braun Intertec used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable members of its profession currently practicing in the same locality. No warranty, express or implied, is made. Page 61 of 170 Appendix Exploration Location Sketch Sieve Analysis Reports MnPAVE Output Design Files Page 62 of 170 C-1 C-2 MENDAKOTA DRIVE CREEK AVENUE DODD ROAD (HWY 149)N DENOTES APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PAVEMENT CORE 0 SCALE: 1"= 60' 60'30' Project No: 10013844-001 Drawn By: Date Drawn: Checked By: Last Modified: 8/26/26 Drawing No: F:\10010001-10020000\10013844_001\CAD\10013844-001.dwg,Coring,8/26/2026 2:06:47 PM 10013844_001 JAG 8/26/26 HCO Fire Station Parking Lot Pavement Evaluation 2121 Dodd Road Mendota Heights, Minnesota Pavement Core Location Sketch 952.995.2000 Minneapolis, MN 55438 11001 Hampshire Avenue S braunintertec.com Page 63 of 170 Sample Information Sample Number:751615 Boring Number:C­1 Depth (ft):7­17" Sampled By:Client Sample Date:08/13/2026 Received Date:08/13/2026 Lab:11001 Hampshire Ave S, Bloomington, MN Tested Date:08/13/2026 Tested By:Streier, Jim Laboratory Data Sieve Size    Passing     (%) Specification 19 mm (3/4 inch)100 12.5 mm (1/2 inch)97 9.5 mm (3/8 inch)95 4.75 mm (No. 4)90 2 mm (No. 10)83 850 µm (No. 20)75 425 µm (No. 40)59 250 µm (No. 60)39 150 µm (No. 100)26 75 µm (No. 200)21 Gravel (%) 10 Sand (%) 69 Silt & Clay (%) 21 D10 0 D30 0.181 D60 0.452 Classification:SM Silty sand General Results:The test is for informational purposes. Sieve Analysis Of Soil ASTM D6913 BI0590­000002Report #: 08/13/2026 1826 Buerkle Road Saint Paul, MN 55110 Phone: 651­487­3245 Client: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 0 Project: 10013844_001.00.02 Mendota Heights Fire Station Parking Lot Pavement Evaluation 2121 Dodd Road Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Uncertainty was not taken into account in determining whether the test results meet the requirements. The results included in this report relate only to the items inspected or tested. Sampled per project specifications or industry standards. Also, this report is for the exclusive use of the addressed parties. We assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. The information indicated in this report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without prior written approval. Page 1 of 2Page 1 of 1 Page 64 of 170 Sample Information Sample Number:748317 Boring Number:C­2 Depth (ft):4­10" Sampled By:Drill Crew Sample Date:08/03/2026 Received Date:08/03/2026 Lab:11001 Hampshire Ave S, Bloomington, MN Tested Date:08/03/2026 Tested By:Streier, Jim Laboratory Data Sieve Size    Passing     (%) Specification 37.5 mm (1.5 inch)100 25 mm (1 inch)90 19 mm (3/4 inch)83 12.5 mm (1/2 inch)75 9.5 mm (3/8 inch)70 4.75 mm (No. 4)64 2 mm (No. 10)56 850 µm (No. 20)48 425 µm (No. 40)34 250 µm (No. 60)21 150 µm (No. 100)13 75 µm (No. 200)9 Gravel (%) 36 Sand (%) 55 Silt & Clay (%) 9 D10 0.083 D30 0.371 D60 3.375 C 40.66 C 0.49 Classification:SP­SM Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel General Results:The test is for informational purposes. U C Sieve Analysis Of Soil ASTM D6913 BI0590­000001Report #: 08/03/2026 1826 Buerkle Road Saint Paul, MN 55110 Phone: 651­487­3245 Client: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 0 Project: 10013844_001.00.02 Mendota Heights Fire Station Parking Lot Pavement Evaluation 2121 Dodd Road Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Uncertainty was not taken into account in determining whether the test results meet the requirements. The results included in this report relate only to the items inspected or tested. Sampled per project specifications or industry standards. Also, this report is for the exclusive use of the addressed parties. We assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. The information indicated in this report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without prior written approval. Page 1 of 2Page 1 of 1 Page 65 of 170 Created 8/26/2026 MnPAVE 7.106 Design Summary Hot-Mix Asphalt MnPAVE File: fatigue rutting 20-yr Reliability:100% 100%(85% recommended)5,000 cycles Project Information District:Metro County:Dakota City:Mendota Heights Project No.:10013844 Route:Fire Station Ref. Post: Letting Date:8/26/2026 Designer:H. Olson Soils Engineer:Braun Intertec Climate Information Seasons:5 Location:44° 42.92' Latitude, 93° 3.87' Longitude Structural Information Layer Type Subtype Thickness, in. 1 Hot-Mix Asphalt C - PG58H-34, 5% Pb, Size A 4.00 2 Aggregate Base FDR 6.00 3 Engineered Soil LSa R25 12.00 4 Undisturbed Soil Loamy Sand Traffic Information Forecast #: Speed:15 mph Growth Rate:0.5%Design Flexible ESALs:150,000 Notes Light-Duty Pavements Disclaimer: The Minnesota Department of Transportation makes no guarantee or warranty, either express or implied, with respect to the reuse of the data provided herewith, regardless of its format or means of its transmission. The user accepts the data "as is", and assumes all risks associated with its use. By accepting of this data, the user agrees not to transmit this data or provide access to it or any part of it to another party unless the user shall include with the data a copy of this disclaimer. The Minnesota Department of Transportation assumes no responsibility, actual or consequential, for damage that results from any user's reliance on this data. Page 66 of 170 Created 8/27/2026 MnPAVE 7.106 Design Summary Hot-Mix Asphalt MnPAVE File: fatigue rutting 20-yr Reliability:100% 100%(85% recommended)5,000 cycles Project Information District:Metro County:Dakota City:Mendota Heights Project No.:10013844 Route:Fire Station Ref. Post: Letting Date:8/27/2026 Designer:H. Olson Soils Engineer:Braun Intertec Climate Information Seasons:5 Location:44° 42.92' Latitude, 93° 3.87' Longitude Structural Information Layer Type Subtype Thickness, in. 1 Hot-Mix Asphalt C - PG58H-34, 5% Pb, Size A 5.00 2 Aggregate Base Class 5 8.00 3 Engineered Soil LSa R25 12.00 4 Undisturbed Soil Loamy Sand Traffic Information Forecast #: Speed:15 mph Growth Rate:0.5%Design Flexible ESALs:250,000 Notes Heavy-Duty Pavements Disclaimer: The Minnesota Department of Transportation makes no guarantee or warranty, either express or implied, with respect to the reuse of the data provided herewith, regardless of its format or means of its transmission. The user accepts the data "as is", and assumes all risks associated with its use. By accepting of this data, the user agrees not to transmit this data or provide access to it or any part of it to another party unless the user shall include with the data a copy of this disclaimer. The Minnesota Department of Transportation assumes no responsibility, actual or consequential, for damage that results from any user's reliance on this data. Page 67 of 170 6.h REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 6, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Accept the Resignation of Kate Dougherty and Authorize Communications Coordinator Position Recruitment ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Kelly Torkelson, Assistant City Administrator ACTION REQUEST: Accept the resignation of Kate Dougherty as Communications Coordinator and authorize Communications Coordinator position recruitment. BACKGROUND: Kate Doughtery, the city's Communications Coordinator, has submitted her resignation effective October 2, 2026. This is a part-time position that coordinates and supports the majority of the city's communication efforts. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: This is a budgeted position. The position is a .60FTE (i.e. 24 hours a week). The Communications Coordinator position is classified as a pay grade 10 on the city's compensation matrix. The anticipated hiring range for this position is $40.45–$49.83 an hour. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 68 of 170 This page is intentionally left blank 6.i REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 6, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Appointment of Student Representatives to the Parks and Recreation Commission ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Parks and Rec CONTACT: Noel Mills Ford, Administrative Special Projects Coordinator ACTION REQUEST: Approve the appointment of Zakia Qiblawi and Imogen Hegg to serve as Student Representatives on the Parks and Recreation Commission with terms ending August 2027. BACKGROUND: Student Representatives serve in an advisory capacity and are communication links for ideas, observations, concerns, satisfactions and questions to the Commission. The students are non- voting members of the Commission, and the position is open to Mendota Heights residents attending high school (grades 9-12) - public, private, or online/home school students are eligible. Preference is given to students in grades 10 or 11 (during the 2026-2027 school year). The mayor and staff are recommending the appointment of Zakia Qiblawi and Imogen Hegg to serve on the Parks and Recreation Commission. Zakia and Imogen are both in grade 10 at Two Rivers High School. Zakia is interested in city parks as "third spaces" where residents can meet with friends and family for free. She wants to help improve these spaces, so everyone in the City is able to enjoy them. Imogen is an avid runner and frequents the city's trails. She is excited to provide a student perspective on the Commission, and hopes to provide representation of all students to promote equity. Staff feel Zakia and Imogen will be great additions to the Commission and will be able to foster engagement with youth in the community on parks and recreation topics. If approved, Zakia and Imogen will have terms that will go through this school year and next summer, ending in August 2027. The opportunity for reappointment would be reviewed in the summer, before the end of their terms. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: None. Page 69 of 170 ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 70 of 170 6.j REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 6, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Approve a Letter of Support for MnDOT Slope Stability Study on Highway 13 ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Engineering CONTACT: Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Approve a letter of support for a MnDOT Federal Highway application to study slope stability along Highway 13. BACKGROUND: In 2024, Highway 13 between Wachtler Avenue and Sylvandale Road was closed for several months due a slope failure. MnDOT is proposing to submit a grant application to the Federal Highway Administration to conduct a slope stability study. Below is the request from MnDOT: Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is requesting your support for the MnDOT Highway 13 Slope Stability Planning Project as an application for grant funding under the Federal Highway Administration’s FY 2024-2026 Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-saving Transportation (PROTECT) program. The Highway 13 Slope Stability Planning Project will study ongoing slope failures and develop long-term solutions that improve the resilience of Highway 13 to withstand the changing climate. The planning study will focus on Highway 13 located between 2nd St. to Annapolis St. in Dakota County where slope slides have caused road closures, long detours, and expensive emergency repairs. A letter of support from the City of Mendota Heights will benefit MnDOT’s application overall competitiveness by demonstrating support among impacted stakeholders. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The City of Mendota Heights is not asked to provide local funding towards this study. ATTACHMENTS: 1.20261006 MnDOT Highway 13 Slope Stability Planning - Letter of Support 2.MnDOT PROTECT Hwy13 fact sheet CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Page 71 of 170 Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Environmental Sustainability & Stewardship, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 72 of 170 October 6, 2026 The Honorable Sean Duffy United States Secretary of Transportation United States Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Letter of Support for MnDOT’s Highway 13 Slope Stability Planning Project Funding Pursuit Dear Secretary Duffy, The City of Mendota Heights strongly supports the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s application for funding through the FY 2024–2026 Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost Saving Transportation Discretionary Grant Program. Highway 13 is an important connection between Mendota Heights, neighboring communities, and the greater Minneapolis-Saint Paul metropolitan area. The Highway 13 Slope Stability Planning Project will develop long-term strategies for the steep Mississippi River terrain. Since 2014, the corridor has experienced seven significant slope failures. The June 2024 failure between Wachtler Avenue and Sylvandale Road closed the highway for approximately five months and diverted traffic to Wachtler Avenue, Wentworth Avenue, Dodd Road, and Smith Avenue, increasing pressure on local streets. A reliable Highway 13 supports daily travel, emergency response, access to employment and services, and connections to state highways and regional destinations. The project will also help protect the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, including its bluffs, floodplains, wetlands, riparian areas, transportation facilities, and recreational resources. Highway 13 shares this corridor with the Union Pacific freight rail line and connects to the Big Rivers Regional Trail. Coordinated planning will help protect roadway and trail users, freight movement, and public infrastructure. It will also inform the corridor pavement project planned for 2033, reducing repeated emergency repairs and supporting responsible public investment. The City of Mendota Heights wholeheartedly supports this application. This planning effort will improve safety, maintain dependable access, protect the Mississippi River bluff environment, and strengthen an essential regional corridor. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor City of Mendota Heights Page 73 of 170 M i s sissi pp i R i v e r L a k e C r o s b y L a k e P i c k e r e l M i s sissi pp i R i v e r Lake Crosby Lake Pickerel S hepardR dShepard RdShepard RdWachtler AveDelaware AveA n n a p o l i s S t W Delaware AveWe n t w o r t h A v e WSmithAve SDodd RdAnnapo lis St W 35E 35E NSP Sommerset CC Highland Park Regional Park Crosby Farm Valley Park Highland Park Regional Park Crosby Farm Valley Park School Two Rivers High Sommerset CC School Two Rivers High LILYDALE HEIGHTS MENDOTA 35E 35E 13 13 2nd St Annapolis St PROTECTING COMMUNITIES AND ENHANCING ACCESS Project purpose Funding Project Timing Project benefits Current challenges Key project activities Develop long term solutions to reduce landslide risk, improve corridor resilience, and protect critical transportation connections along Hwy 13. Reduces future landslide risks and costly emergency repairs. Protects access to homes, businesses, and the Big Rivers Regional Trail. Guides improvements for future MnDOT investments. • Recurring slope failures along Hwy 13. • Growing landslide risk from extreme rainfall. • Five month highway closure in 2024. • Damage to the Big Rivers Regional Trail. • Costly emergency repairs with limited long term benefit. • Evaluate slope conditions, drainage, and geotechnical risks. • Identify and compare long term stabilization strategies. • Develop a corridor resilience plan to guide future investments. Estimated Study Cost Current Funding Pursuit: USDOT PROTECT Grant Program Slope Vulnerability Study Area Very High Risk High Risk A 2024 slope failure required a $2.4 million repair, bringing the total repair costs to $3.6m since 2014. $1.8M HIGHWAY 13 SLOPE STABILITY PLANNING PROJECT Mendota Heights – Dakota County, Minnesota 2027Obligation ready 2030 Study completion 2031 Planned roadway construction Page 74 of 170 6.k REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 6, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Approve a Grading Permit for 1415 Mendota Heights Road ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Engineering CONTACT: Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Approve a grading permit for 1415 Mendota Heights Road. BACKGROUND: The Heights Racquet and Social Club located at 1415 Mendota Heights has submitted a building permit for reconstructing two outdoor pickleball courts to outdoor padel courts. The building permit will also construct a stormwater BMP and pave an existing gravel lot. The applicant decided after the building permit submittal, that they would like to expand a parking lot on the south side of the building. Rather than amend the active building permit, the applicant is submitting a separate grading permit. This process has been used for other commercial parking lot expansions. This project will be subject to the rules and regulations of the Mendota Heights’ Land Disturbance Guidance Document. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The Mendota Heights fee schedule identifies a $200 fee for this activity. ATTACHMENTS: 1.The Heights - Outdoor Padel Ball Courts (15) 2.2024_CityBaseMap_Utilities 3.25049_The Heights Racquet_Civil Prelim 08-20-2026 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Environmental Sustainability & Stewardship, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 75 of 170 Page 76 of 170 1415 2515 2411 1455 1415 2515 2506 600 575 391311 289 2382163738577 24210265 26225950 42 48405 10 503733913734210PILOT KNOB RDMENDOTA HEIGHTS RD NORTHLAND DRNearmap US Inc 2024 City Base MapUtilities Date: 9/22/2026 City ofMendotaHeights0100 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. Parking Lot Expansion Page 77 of 170 C201LAYOUTFEET02040DMPDESIGNED:LIC. NO.:DATE:DAVID M. POGGIDRAWN:CHECKED:DMPKEB44573I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPAREDBY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.08-20-2026CIVIL METHODS, INC.P.O. Box 28038St. Paul, MN 55128o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.comDATE / REVISION:SHEET NO:8/20/2026 4:33 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\25049_The Heights Racquet Club OPC Project\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\Alt1\C201_LAYOUT_1.dwgOUTDOOR PADEL COURT ADDITIONTHE HEIGHTS RACQUET & SOCIAL CLUBMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNDADAVID M. POGGIPOGGIPOGGIPPOGGIOOOOGGIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGGGGGGGGGGGIIIIIIIII HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICABY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS O08-20-2026 Permit Review Set.“” Page 78 of 170 6.l REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 6, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Public Works Facility Exterior Door Access Control Installation ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Public Works CONTACT: John Boland, Public Works Superintendent ACTION REQUEST: Approve the installation of an exterior door access control system at the Public Works Facility by BAN-KOE Systems Group for an amount not to exceed $20,000. BACKGROUND: The City Council included $20,000 in the 2026 CIP for the installation of electronic access control on exterior doors at the Public Works Facility. The project will provide improved security and controlled access to the facility while allowing authorized employees to use the City's existing fob access system. The project will include access control for five exterior doors at the Public Works Facility. The system is designed to be expandable, allowing the City to add additional doors in the future as needed. BAN-KOE Systems Group will complete the project. BAN-KOE is the same company that previously installed and currently maintains the City's existing fob access control systems at other City facilities. Utilizing the same contractor will allow the new exterior door access to be incorporated into the City's existing system and provide consistency in equipment, programming, and maintenance. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Funding for this project was included in the 2026 Capital Improvement Program with a budget of $20,000. The five-door project will be completed within the approved CIP budget. Future expansion of the system will be funded through the appropriate operating budget. Staff recommends approval of the exterior door access control project at the Public Works Facility with BAN-KOE Systems Group, for an expenditure not to exceed $20,000, utilizing the funds budgeted in the 2026 CIP. ATTACHMENTS: Page 79 of 170 None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 80 of 170 6.m REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 6, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Resolution 2026-64 Authorizing Final Payment and Acceptance of the Basin IV-P126 Improvements Project ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Engineering CONTACT: Lucas Ritchie, Assistant City Engineer ACTION REQUEST: Approve Resolution 2026-64, to accept the work and approve the final payment for the Basin IV-P126 Improvements Project, CP #202510. BACKGROUND: The City Council awarded the contract for the Basin IV-P126 Improvements Project (Cherry Hill Basin Improvements) to Winberg Companies, LLC at its December 10, 2025, meeting based on the low bid of $184,406.93. A change order was approved by the City Council at its February 4, 2026, meeting, resulting in a revised contract amount of $223,532.94. The contract work has been completed, inspected, and approved. The final payment due to Winberg Companies, LLC is $2,287.22, including retainage. The final contract amount is $228,722.24, reflecting actual quantities of work completed. All required documentation necessary to issue final payment has been submitted. Acceptance of the completed work will begin the two-year guarantee period. Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve Resolution 2026-64 accepting the work and authorizing final payment for the Basin IV-P126 Improvements Project. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The project costs were funded through the Stormwater Utility Fund. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Resolution 2026-64 Resolution Accepting Work and Approving Final Payment for Project 202510, Basin IV-P126 Improvements Project CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 81 of 170 Page 82 of 170 This page is intentionally left blank CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2026-64 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR PROJECT 202510, BASIN IV-P126 IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract with the City of Mendota Heights on December 10, 2025, with Winberg Companies, LLC, of Shafer, Minnesota, has satisfactorily completed the improvements for the Basin IV-P126 Improvement project, CP #202510, in accordance with such contract; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the work completed under said contract is hereby accepted and approved; and BE IT FURTHER 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 $2,287.22, taking the contractor’s receipt in full. Adopted by the Mendota Heights City Council this 6th day of October 2026. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ______________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 83 of 170 This page is intentionally left blank 6.n REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 6, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Approve 2026-2027 Insurance Renewal and Elect to Not Waive Statutory Limits ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Finance CONTACT: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director ACTION REQUEST: Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council pass a motion to not purchase additional liability coverage and elect to not waive the statutory tort limits. BACKGROUND: Each year, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) requires the City to decide if we wish to purchase additional liability coverage and a waiver of monetary limits on the claims. The base coverage is $1,500,000 which is the basic statutory limit. In the past, the city has not purchased additional coverage and elected not to waive the statutory tort limits. The insurance coverage period is November 1, 2026 to November 1, 2027. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 84 of 170 This page is intentionally left blank 6.o REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 6, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Authorize Public Works Surplus Items for Auction and Deposit of Proceeds ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Public Works CONTACT: John Boland, Public Works Superintendent ACTION REQUEST: Authorize surplus equipment to be sold through the State of Minnesota surplus services public auction site and authorize all proceeds from the sales to be deposited into the City General Fund. BACKGROUND: The Public Works Department has identified several items of equipment that are no longer needed for City operations and are recommended for disposal through a public auction. The surplus items include: •Water Tank and Pump: Skid-mounted water tank and pump unit previously used on Fire Department brush trucks. The unit was used on two previous brush trucks and was replaced with the newest brush truck purchased in 2025. •2013 Ford F-150 Pickup Truck: Approximately 58,000 miles. This vehicle has been retired from use by the Engineering Department. •Utility Trailer: 4-foot by 8-foot utility trailer originally purchased in 1992 that is no longer needed for City operations. •Utility Trailer: 4-foot by 8-foot homemade utility trailer that is no longer needed for City operations. •Blade Sharpener: Approximately 30-year-old lawn mower blade sharpening grinder that is no longer needed. •1994 Toro ProLine 37" Walk-Behind Mower: No longer used by the City. •Homemade Brine Spray Tank: No longer used for City operations. Staff recommends selling these items through the State of Minnesota surplus services public auction site. Using a public auction will provide an opportunity to dispose of surplus equipment in a transparent manner while allowing the City to recover funds from the sale of equipment that is no longer needed. Page 85 of 170 FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: All proceeds received from the sale of these surplus items will be deposited into the City General Fund. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 86 of 170 Page 87 of 1706.p This page is intentionally left blank Page 88 of 1706.q Page 89 of 170 Page 90 of 170 Page 91 of 170 Page 92 of 170 Page 93 of 170 Page 94 of 170 Page 95 of 170 Page 96 of 170 Page 97 of 170 Page 98 of 170 Page 99 of 170 Page 100 of 170 Page 101 of 170 Page 102 of 170 Page 103 of 170 Page 104 of 170 Page 105 of 170 6.r REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 6, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Professional Services Contract Amendment for the Public Works Facility Geothermal Assessment Project ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Engineering CONTACT: Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Manager ACTION REQUEST: Approve an amendment to the Public Works Facility Geothermal Assessment Project. BACKGROUND: In 2024, the Minnesota Legislature established the Geothermal Planning Grant Program. The purpose of the program is to provide financial assistance to local government agencies and other eligible applicants to determine the feasibility of installing geothermal energy systems. The city has been awarded up to $130,000 for the planning of a geothermal energy system that heats and cools the city’s Public Works Facility. Eligible expenses include: • Analysis of the heating and cooling demand of the building that consumes energy from the geothermal energy system; • Evaluation of equipment that could be combined with a geothermal energy system to meet the building's heating and cooling requirements; • Analysis of the geologic conditions of the earth in which a geothermal energy system operates, including the drilling of one or more test wells to characterize geologic materials and to measure properties of the earth and aquifers that impact the feasibility of installing and operating a geothermal energy system; and • Preparation of a financial analysis of the project. The City approved a proposal submitted by HGA Consulting on November 18, 2025, as the chosen consultant for the project. HGA has been working with the city to assess the project site. Five test bores were completed with positive results. There are currently additional grant funds available to the city and staff is Page 106 of 170 proposing additional analysis by HGA. SCOPE OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES 1. HVAC Feasibility Refinement: To build upon the existing HVAC equipment evaluation that has been completed, an HGA mechanical designer will complete the following tasks. • Provide input on the geothermal heat pump configuration options and Opinion of Cost. • Define code minimum continuous and setback ventilation requirements based on different space classifications. 2. Electrical Feasibility Review: To provide a more holistic review of overall geothermal project feasibility, an HGA electrical designer will complete the following tasks. • Review existing electrical plans to identify potential constraints and feasibility for conversion to geothermal heat pumps. • Conduct (1) site visit to visually review electrical systems. 3. Structural Feasibility Review: To provide a more holistic review of overall geothermal project feasibility, an HGA structural designer will complete the following tasks. • Review existing structural plans to identify potential constraints and feasibility for conversion to geothermal heat pumps. • Identify potential structural limitations for locating equipment within the existing roof area. 4. Deliverables • Mechanical, electrical and structural findings will be incorporated into the Final Feasibility Report. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The additional services are estimated to add $34,230 to the project. The HGA base services were $38,360 and the five test bores were $52,350. The total project costs would equal $124,940, which would be approximately $5,000 under the $130,000 grant amount. Total Grant Amount $130,000 Bergerson Caswell Test Bore $52,350 HGA Base Services $38,360 HGA Additional Services $34,230 Total Services $124,940 ATTACHMENTS: 1.20260925 Mendota Heights Geothermal Feasibility - Proposal for Add Services CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Environmental Sustainability & Stewardship, Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 107 of 170 City of Mendota Heights September 25, 2026 Page 1 of 3 Krista Spreiter City of Mendota Heights KSpreiter@mendotaheightsmn.gov Re: Mendota Heights Public Works Facility Geothermal Feasibility Study Proposal for Additional Services Dear Krista: Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc. (HGA) is pleased to provide this Proposal for Additional Services for the Mendota Heights Geothermal Feasibility Study. At HGA, Client satisfaction is our number one priority and our commitment to quality service is truly unparalleled. Our understanding of the Scope of Services required for the Project, our list of assumptions, and our Proposed Fee are summarized below. PROJECT BACKGROUND As part of the ongoing geothermal feasibility study for the Public Works Facility, HGA recommends further investigation of the existing mechanical, electrical and structural systems. The Scope of Additional Services in this Proposal builds on that prior work. SCOPE OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES HGA will provide the following as Additional Services for the Project: 1.HVAC Feasibility Refinement: To build upon the existing HVAC equipment evaluation that has been completed, an HGA mechanical designer will complete the following tasks. •Provide input on the geothermal heat pump configuration options and Opinion of Cost. •Define code minimum continuous and setback ventilation requirements based on different space classifications. 2.Electrical Feasibility Review: To provide a more holistic review of overall geothermal project feasibility, an HGA electrical designer will complete the following tasks. •Review existing electrical plans to identify potential constraints and feasibility for conversion to geothermal heat pumps. •Conduct (1) site visit to visually review electrical systems. 3.Structural Feasibility Review: To provide a more holistic review of overall geothermal project feasibility, an HGA structural designer will complete the following tasks. •Review existing structural plans to identify potential constraints and feasibility for conversion to geothermal heat pumps. •Identify potential structural limitations for locating equipment within the existing roof area. 4.Deliverables •Mechanical, electrical and structural findings will be incorporated into the Final Feasibility Report. Page 108 of 170 City of Mendota Heights September 25, 2026 Page 2 of 3 ASSUMPTIONS HGA has made the following assumptions in the preparation of this Proposal: 1.Reviews are for geothermal feasibility investigation and do not include a facility condition assessment. 2.Two additional virtual meetings will be held. 3.The Final Feasibility Report will be delivered by December 18, 2026. COMPENSATION HGA will provide the scope of Additional Services defined above on an hourly Time & Materials basis, plus Reimbursable Expenses at 1.0 times their cost to HGA, as detailed below. On an hourly basis we estimate the above effort to be approximately 150 hours depending on staffing but will not exceed $34,200. Invoices will be submitted monthly on a Time & Material basis. Geothermal Feasibility Additional Services $34,200 Reimbursable Expense Allowance $30 Total Fee: $ 34,230 DPE is defined as the salary of HGA personnel engaged on the Project plus the cost of their mandatory and customary contributions and benefits. Reimbursable Expenses are defined as the actual expenditures made by HGA in the interest of the Project for expenses such as mileage. Please review this proposal and contact HGA with any questions or comments. If this Proposal is acceptable, please forward your written authorization to proceed. We look forward to working on this exciting Project with your entire team. Sincerely, Svein Morner Principal cc: Chris Iacono, Andy DeRocher Page 109 of 170 9.a REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 6, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Radar Feedback Speed Limit Signs ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Engineering CONTACT: Lucas Ritchie, Assistant City Engineer Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Approve the purchase of eight radar feedback speed limit signs. BACKGROUND: Radar feedback speed limit signs are an effective tool for communicating vehicle speeds and reinforcing posted speed limits. The City of Mendota Heights has installed seven of these signs in recent years in response to neighborhood concerns about excessive speeding. Two signs are located on Marie Avenue, two on 1st Avenue, one near Two Rivers High School on Marie Avenue, and two on Emerson Avenue. City staff have identified twelve additional priority locations for potential new radar feedback signs along Municipal State Aid (MSA) routes based on roadway connections, proximity to schools, and resident concerns regarding excessive speeding. Preliminary speed count data has been collected for a minimum of 48 hours at each location by SRF Consulting Group and Dakota County staff. Of the locations where speed data was collected, four roadways were identified where the 85th percentile speed exceeded the posted speed limit by 4 to 8 mph. The 85th percentile speed represents the speed at or below which 85% of observed vehicles were traveling and is commonly used as an indicator of prevailing traffic speeds. Staff are using the 85th percentile speed, along with roadway characteristics and surrounding land uses, to identify locations where observed speeds are consistently above the posted speed limit and additional speed feedback may be warranted. Page 110 of 170 Staff recommend proceeding with radar feedback speed limit signs at Emerson Avenue near Somerset Elementary School, Lake Drive near Saint Thomas Academy and Visitation School, Victoria Road, and Wachtler Avenue. In addition to the 85th percentile speeds collected, these locations are typically either in close proximity to schools or provide connections from higher- speed County Roads and State Highways to lower-speed local streets. The transition from a higher-speed roadway to a lower-speed local street, including the associated turning movement at these intersections, creates a significant change in the roadway environment and expected operating speed. The proposed radar feedback signs will reinforce the lower posted speed limit and provide drivers with an additional visual cue to reduce and maintain their speed after entering the local street. The proposed purchase includes two signs at each of the four locations, with one sign serving Location Direction Speed Limit Avg. Speed 85th Percentile Difference from Limit Emerson Ave EB 30 33 37 +7 Emerson Ave WB 30 34 38 +8 Victoria Rd S NB 35 37 41 +6 Victoria Rd S SB 35 37 42 +7 Wachtler Ave NB 35 36 40 +5 Wachtler Ave SB 35 36 40 +5 Lake Rd SB 30 30 35 +5 Lake Rd NB 30 27 34 +4 Page 111 of 170 each direction of travel. The signs will provide drivers with additional reminders of the posted speed limit while also collecting traffic data that can be analyzed to identify long-term speed patterns. This information will help staff evaluate the effectiveness of the signs, identify opportunities for future traffic calming measures, and inform consideration of potential speed limit changes during future roadway reconstruction projects. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Staff received a quote from Traffic Logix for radar feedback speed limit signs consistent with those already in use throughout the City to maintain uniformity. The quoted cost is approximately $2,887 per sign, with a total quoted cost of $23,098 for eight signs. Staff have consulted with MnDOT and confirmed that the signs are eligible for 100% funding through Municipal State Aid (MSA) funds, provided the locations remain fixed. The purchase will have no direct impact on the City's General Fund. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Radar Feedback Locations CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 112 of 170 DODDRDDELAWARE AVEBROOKSIDE LN SOMERSETRDWHITE OAK DR EMERSON AVE W RUBY DRDORSETRDHINGHAMCIRSTAPLES AVE COLESHIRE LN EMERSON AVE SUNSET LN Dakota County, Maxar 0 225 SCALE IN FEETDate: 7/24/2025 Radar Feedback Layout - Emerson Avenue MSAS 112 Radar Feedback EB Radar Feedback WB Somerset Golf Club Somerset Elementary School Page 113 of 170 VICKILNINTERSTATE 35E CARENR DSIBLEY MEM O RIAL H WY STONEBRID GERDVICTORIARDSSTONEBRIDGERDRAE CT C A R E N C T JAM E S CTSTONEBRIDGELN STONEBRIDGERDADELI N E C TDIANE RD MAYFIELD HEIGHTS LN NINA CTLILAC LNLILAC LNMAYFIELD HEIGHTS RDSTONEBRIDGEC T L I LYWOOD LN PARKPLACED R JAMES RDSIBLEYMEMORI AL HWY RAMPI NTERSTATE35ECELIA RDINTERSTATE 3 5E SB RAMP Dakota County, Maxar, Microsoft 0 350 SCALE IN FEETDate: 7/24/2025 Radar Feedback Layout - Victoria Road S MSAS 107 Radar Feedback NB Radar Feedback SB Page 114 of 170 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYVICTOR IA RDSLILAC LNLILACLNCARENRD MAPLE PARK DR IN TERS TA TE 3 5E INTERSTATE 3 5E PARKPLACE DRUPPE R C OL O N IAL DR MAPLE P A R K C T EME RSO N AVE SYLVANDALERDCASCADELNIVY LN SYLVAND A L E CT S 1ST AVE MEDOR A CT MEDORARDBIRCHCTCARENCTDODD RDSTONEBRI DGELN PARKPLACEDR PARKCIRRIVERSIDE LN LAURA CT CLEMENTSTKNOLLWOODLN SOMERSETRDME A R S AV E SOMERSETCTBOARDWALK CTSTONEBRIDGERD BLU FF CIR K N O L LW O O D C T WACHTLER AVEEMERSON AVE COLESHIRE LNFALLSVIEWCTKNOLLWOODLN CHERRY H I LLRDVANDALL STLAURA STBROOKSIDE LN STON EBRIDGE C TS Y L V A N D A L E CTFARM D A L E RD STONEBRIDG ERDLO WER C O L O N I A L DR 3RD AVEIVYFA LLS CT 2ND AVELAURA STM APLE PA R K DR CLEMENT ST DIANE RD 4TH AVEASPENWAY SUNSET LN LILYDALE RDSIBLEY MEMORIA LHWYRAMPIVY FALLS AVE I N T E R S T A T E 3 5E SB R AM P I N T E R S T A T E35EN B RAMP SI BLEY MEMORIALHWYRAMPWENTWORTH AVE R IVERS IDE LNDakota County, Maxar 0 750 SCALE IN FEETDate: 7/24/2025 Radar Feedback Layout - Wachtler Avenue CR 8 Radar Feedback NB Radar Feedback SB Page 115 of 170 ROUNDABOUTMENDOTA HEIGHTS RD HAVENVIEW CT WESTVIEWTERVISITATIONDRWEST V I E WCIRSWAN DRROGERSAVEKRESSINAVEPONDHAVEN LNDODD RDDODD RDCONDONCTHAZEL CT LAKE DR VISITATIONDRMONET CT PAGEL RDMENDOTA HEIGHTS RD Dakota County, Maxar, Microsoft 0 350 SCALE IN FEETDate: 7/24/2025 Radar Feedback Layout - Lake Drive MSAS 111 Radar Feedback NB Saint Thomas Academy Radar Feedback SB Visitation School Page 116 of 170 This page is intentionally left blank 9.b REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 6, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Adopt Resolution 2026-63 Approving a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit for a new in-ground swimming pool at 1187 Culligan Lane [Planning Case No. 2026-17] ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager ACTION REQUEST: Adopt Resolution 2026-63 Approving a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Permit for Brookside Pools to allow for the construction of a new in-ground swimming pool located at 1187 Culligan Lane. BACKGROUND: Brookside Pools is the Applicant and Owners’ Representative of the property located at 1187 Culligan Lane, and has requested a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit to allow for the construction of a new in-ground swimming pool on the property. The property is 21,998 sq-ft. in size (0.51 acres), and is part of an established residential neighborhood. The lot is developed with an existing single-family dwelling, attached garage, driveway, and associated rear patio and landscaping. The property owner proposes to construct an 800-sq.ft. and six-ft deep in-ground swimming pool. The installation of the pool is subject to a separate administrative building permit review. Staff has not identified any conflicts with the setback requirements for the R-1 District, or the code requirements within Title 9-2: Swimming Pools. Other site impacts include the installation of concrete pool decking on the perimeter of the swimming pool, and small retaining walls with natural stone at the northwest corner and southern perimeter of the pool decking. The applicant has indicated that there will be minimal changes to topography or drainage as the site is already flat and open in this home’s rear yard.The rear yard currently is covered with turf grass, and this proposal includes work to return the disturbed areas of the yard to turf condition upon completion of the project. The subject site is located within the MRCCA Separated-from-River District. Within this district, a MRCCA Permit is required for the new construction of a structure, which includes swimming pools. The proposed improvements will not impact the Bluff Impact Zone or Bluff Setback, and Page 117 of 170 there are no impacts anticipated to any identified Primary Conservation Areas (PCAs) within the City's MRCCA Plan. These identified areas are illustrated on the MRCCA Map attached to the Planning Commission staff report, which confirms the significant distance of the subject site from any PCAs. At the September 22, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented. A duly noticed public hearing was held, and no residents came forward to speak regarding this application. The applicant and property owner were present and available to answer questions of the Commission. The Planning Commission discussed the location of the retaining walls on the provided plans and confirmed that setbacks were being met with the proposal. Following their discussion, the Planning Commission followed the staff recommendation and voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend to the City Council approval of this MRCCA Permit with findings-of-fact and certain conditions, as outlined in the attached [draft] Resolution. A copy of the 9/22/26 planning report with attachments is attached to this memo, as well as an excerpt from the unapproved Planning Commission meeting minutes. The City Council is asked to affirm the Planning Commission's recommendation with the adoption of Resolution 2026-63 Approving the MRCCA Permit for 1187 Culligan Lane. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Not Applicable. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Res. 2026-63 Resolution Approving a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit for a New In-Ground Swimming Pool Located at 1187 Culliga 2.Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes 9/22/26 3.Planning Commission Staff Report 9/22/26 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Environmental Sustainability & Stewardship Page 118 of 170 Resolution No. 2026-63 Page | 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2026-63 RESOLUTION APPROVING A MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA (MRCCA) PERMIT FOR A NEW IN-GROUND SWIMMING POOL LOCATED AT 1187 CULLIGAN LANE PLANNING CASE 2026-17 WHEREAS, Brookside Pools, (the “Applicant”) in coordination and on behalf of Chad and Anne Hope (the “Owner”) made an Application for a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit to allow for the construction of a new in-ground swimming pool on the property located at 1187 Culligan Lane, and legally described in Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LDR-Low Density Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, zoned R-1 Low Density Residential, and is situated in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Title 12-6A-3: Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District, a permit is required to approve any new development activities involving a building permit, land disturbance, vegetation removal, or special zoning approval, and the Applicant is seeking permission to construct a swimming pool structure under the rules and standards established by the R-1 District and the related Mississippi River Corridor Critical Overlay District ordinance and standards; and WHEREAS, on September 22, 2026, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this MRCCA Permit request, whereby planning reports were presented and received by the Commission, and comments from the public were allowed, and whereupon closing the hearing, the Commission recommended unanimously (7-0 vote) to approve the request from Brookside Pools for the MRCCA Permit, which would allow the new in-ground swimming pool and associated site work, as proposed and presented under Planning Case No. 2026-17, with certain conditions and findings-of-fact to support said approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation from the Planning Commission on Planning Case No. 2026-17 is hereby affirmed, and may be approved based on the following findings-of-fact: 1.The proposed construction of a new in-ground swimming pool with associated site improvements meets the general purpose and intent of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Separated from River Overlay District. 2.The proposed work and disturbance to construct the structure and associated site improvements has no direct impact to the Bluff Impact Zone, with no anticipated impact to Primary Conservation Areas, and the project includes sod work surrounding Page 119 of 170 Resolution No. 2026-63 Page | 2 the disturbed areas associated with this proposal to return the property to its pre- construction stability with residential turf lawn. The proposed project is within the spirit and intent of the MRCCA Separated from River Overlay District that provides for flexibility within the management purpose. 3.The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan. 4.The construction of the structure is shown in the plan to comply with all standards and regulations of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District and with the conditions included herein would be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable ordinances of City Code; the construction proposal represents reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses; and is consistent with the current single-family development pattern of the neighborhood. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the MRCCA Permit requested for the property located at 1187 Culligan Lane is hereby approved, with the following conditions: 1.A building permit must be approved and issued by the City prior to the commencement of any site work. 2.The proposed project must comply with all requirements of the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. All plans must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director. 3.All erosion control requirements must be put in place prior to the commencement of any grading and site work activities and must remain in place for the duration of the construction activities until proper site restoration plans are completed. 4.All grading and construction activity must comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes. 5.If any significant or heritage trees are proposed to be removed, the applicant and/or property owner must submit a Forest Alteration Permit to the City for review by the Community Development Manager and the Natural Resources Manager. 6.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. Page 120 of 170 Resolution No. 2026-63 Page | 3 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 6th day of October 2026. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 121 of 170 Resolution No. 2026-63 Page | 4 EXHIBIT A Address: 1187 Culligan Lane PIN: 27-44900-00-030 Torrens Cert. No. 194987 Legal Description: Lot 3, LEONE REARRANGEMENT, Dakota County, Minnesota. Page 122 of 170 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES EXCERPT FROM DRAFT/UNAPPROVED 9/22/26 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES A)PLANNING CASE 2026-17 BROOKSIDE POOLS, 1187 CULLIGAN LANE – MRCCA PERMIT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that Brookside Pools is the applicant and owner’s representative of the property located at 1187 Culligan Lane and has requested a Mississippi Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit to allow for the construction of a new in- ground swimming pool on the property. 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 referenced the dimensions of the pool and asked for clarification on the location of the retaining wall, specifically whether it is within the setback. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that a shorter retaining wall that does not trigger a building permit, such as this, is considered to be landscaping and can be in that location. She confirmed that the swimming pool does meet the necessary setbacks. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Chad Hope, 1187 Culligan Lane, commented that he is present to address any questions. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NATH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UDELL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UDELL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE MRCCA-CRITICAL AREA PERMIT REQUEST FOR 1187 CULLIGAN LANE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW IN-GROUND SWIMMING POOL, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE APPROVED AND ISSUED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY SITE WORK. Page 123 of 170 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES 2.THE PROPOSED PROJECT MUST COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. ALL PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. 3.ALL EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE PUT IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY GRADING AND SITE WORK ACTIVITIES AND MUST REMAIN IN PLACE FOR THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES UNTIL PROPER SITE RESTORATION PLANS ARE COMPLETED. 4.ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY MUST COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES. 5.IF ANY SIGNIFICANT OR HERITAGE TREES ARE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED, THE APPLICANT AND/OR PROPERTY OWNER MUST SUBMIT A FOREST ALTERATION PERMIT TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER AND THE NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGER. 6.ALL WORK ON SITE WILL ONLY BE PERFORMED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 A.M. AND 8:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY; 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. WEEKENDS. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 6, 2026 meeting. Page 124 of 170 Planning Commission Meeting Date: September 22, 2026 Agenda Item: CASE No. 2026-17 MRCCA Permit Application of Brookside Pools for a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit to authorize the construction of a new in-ground swimming pool at 1187 Culligan Lane. Department: Community Development Contact: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Action Request: The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing on the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit. The role of the Planning Commission is to consider this application for consistency with the City's Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Action Deadline: 11/9/2026 Introduction: Brookside Pools is the Applicant and Owners’ Representative of the property located at 1187 Culligan Lane, and has requested a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit to allow for the construction of a new in-ground swimming pool on the property. A public hearing notice for this item was published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. No public comments have been received as of the submittal of this report. Background: The applicant is requesting a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit to allow for the construction of a new in-ground swimming pool at the property located at 1187 Culligan Lane. The subject site is 21,998 sq-ft. in size (0.51 acres), and is located within the Leone Rearrangement plat. The property is part of an established residential neighborhood and the lot is developed with an existing single-family dwelling, attached garage, driveway, and associated rear patio and landscaping. The property is located within the MRCCA Separated-from -River District. Within this district, a MRCCA Permit is required for most new construction of a structure, including accessory structures. The purpose of the MRCCA District is to identify development standards and considerations for land uses that have potential to affect primary conservation areas and public river corridor views, and to establish design standards that protect those primary conservation areas and public river corridor views from development impacts, including protection standards for the biological and ecological functions of vegetation, natural character and topography of the MRCCA, bluff and shoreline stability, water quality, and other resources identified in the MRCCA Plan. Page 125 of 170 Proposed Improvements: The property owner proposes to construct an 800-sq.ft. and six-ft deep in-ground swimming pool. Other site impacts include the installation of concrete pool decking on the perimeter of the swimming pool, and small retaining walls with natural stone at the northwest corner and southern perimeter of the pool decking. The applicant has indicated that there will be minimal changes to topography or drainage as the site is already flat and open in this home’s rear yard. The property is part of a developed residential neighborhood and is located within the MRCCA District, but at a significant distance from any bluffs or other conservations areas outlined in the City’s MRCCA Plan and DNR’s MRCCA maps. The construction of the proposed structure would normally be permitted by City Code through an administrative permitting process and building permit. However, due to the location’s designation as a MRCCA District, additional site plan review is required. The proposed swimming pool is sited to modify an existing turfed backyard, and does not cause new disturbance to a previously undisturbed area. Analysis: The subject property is located within the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area (MRCCA) District, and is subject to the standards established for this Overlay District that are more restrictive than the R-1 base zoning district standards. Therefore, the construction of a new structure requiring a building permit, also requires a MRCCA Permit and associated site plan review. R-1 Accessory Structure Requirements: The property owner is proposing to construct a new 20x40 in-ground swimming pool. City Code Section 12-4A-8: Accessory Structure Standards designates an in-ground swimming pool as a type of :Non-Building Accessory Structure”. The ordinance notes that Non-Building Accessory Structures are any physical improvement to a lot that does not meet the definition of building. There is no limit on the number of permitted non-building accessory structures on a property, however the structures are still subject to permitting requirements, and must meet accessory structure setbacks and impervious surface standards. The proposed location for the swimming pool is consistent with required setbacks for the R-1 Zoning District. The pool’s location has no conflicts with required setbacks from any property lines, and the total impervious surface on the property, with the inclusion of this swimming pool and surrounding patio/decking, is approximately 31%, below the maximum 35% required in City Code. Swimming Pools in Residential Districts: Title 9-2: Swimming Pools outlines the minimum standards for the design and construction of swimming pools within the city. This chapter requires certain additional setbacks for swimming pools and their equipment, as well as outlines fencing requirements for enclosure of a swimming pool. The property’s survey shows that current fencing exists which encloses the back yard of the home. The provided plans do not appear to be in conflict with the Swimming Pool standards of City Code. MRCCA Critical Area Permit: Per Title 12, Chapter 6 Critical Area Overlay District a Critical Area Permit is required for the subject project. Understanding the purpose of the Critical Area regulations is important to this application. Page 126 of 170 Pursuant to City Code Title 12-6A-1, the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is to: •Establish districts under which building height and structure placement are regulated to protect and enhance the Mississippi River’s resources and features consistent with the natural and built character of each district. •Identify development standards and considerations for land uses that have potential to negatively affect primary conservation areas and public river corridor views. •Establish standards that protect primary conservation areas and public river corridor views from development impacts and ensure that new development is established consistent with the purpose of the MRCCA. •Establish design standards for private facilities that are consistent with best management practices and that minimize impacts to Primary Conservation Areas (PCAs), Public River Corridor Views (PRCVs) and other resources identified in the MRCCA plan. •Establish design standards for public facilities that are consistent with best management practices and that minimize impacts to primary conservation areas, public river corridor views and other resources identified in the MRCCA plan while recognizing that they serve the public interest by providing access to the Mississippi River Corridor or require locations within the river corridor and therefor require some flexibility. •Establish standards that sustain and enhance the biological and ecological functions of vegetation; preserve the natural character and topography of the MRCCA; and maintain stability of bluffs and critical area steep slopes and ensure stability of other erosion- prone areas. •Establish standards that protect water quality from pollutant loadings of sediment, nutrients, bacteria, and other contaminants; and maintain stability of bluffs, shorelines, and other areas prone to erosion. •To create standards for subdivisions and development or redevelopment of sites that protect and enhance the natural and scenic value of the MRCCA, protect and restore biological and ecological functions of primary conservation areas, and encourage restoration of native vegetation where restoration opportunities have been identified in the MRCCA Plan. The following summary of the site is provided as reference: Standard Subject Property Conditions MRCCA Sub District Separated from River Bluff on Site? No. Bluff Impact Zone (BIZ) No. The northwest corner of the subject property is located approximately 320-ft away from the Bluff Impact Zone at its nearest point. Significant Vegetative Stands or Primary Conservation Area (PCA) No. The proposed project is located fore than 350-ft from any PCA or significant vegetation. Subject to Section 12-6A-9 Vegetation Management No, does not meet criteria as no significant vegetative removal is being conducted as part of the proposed improvements. The Page 127 of 170 applicant has indicated that the location of the proposed swimming pool contains existing turf grass. At this time, there are no plans for tree removals. The impacted areas within the rear yard will be returned to its existing turf grass standards following completion of the project. Subject to Section 12-6A-10 Land Alteration Standards and Stormwater Management No. The proposed improvements are not within the Bluff Impact one, at or below the Ordinary High Water Mark, or the Water Quality Impact Zone. Subject to Section 12-6A-11 Subdivision and Land Development Standards No. The property is not being subdivided, and is not part of a master-planned or phased common development plan. Subject to Section 12-6A-12 Site Plan Requirements Yes. Must include Site Plan and Landscaping Plan. The applicant has indicated that there are no landscaping removals and no landscaping installations as part of their contracted project. In lieu of the Landscaping Plan, the applicant has submitted documentation indicating the homeowners’ intent to sod the project area and install an irrigation system. As described in Section 12-6A-4 C.3., the Separated from River (SR) sub-district describes the management purpose as: “...provides flexibility in managing development without negatively affecting the key resources and features of the river corridor. Minimizing negative impacts to primary conservation areas and minimizing erosion and the flow of untreated storm water into the river are priorities…” As indicated on the attached GIS maps, the Bluff Impact Zone (BIZ) is located to the northwest of the property, approximately 320-ft from the subject property. The proposed in- ground swimming pool will not impact the Bluff Impact Zone or Bluff Setback. The proposed site plan illustrates that the proposal is within the rear yard of the existing home, in an area with generally level grades. There are no impacts anticipated to any identified Primary Conservation Areas (PCAs) within the MRCCA District. The attached MRCCA Maps illustrate the general proximity of the PCAs in the area and at a significant distance from the improvement area on the parcel. Per Code Sect. 12-6A-12, the Detailed Site Plan must be drawn to scale and the proposed project accurately described through narrative and supporting maps and/or plans. The applicant’s letter of intent is attached to this report detailing the overview of the work proposed, and the Site Plan, Swimming Pool Plan, and Erosion Control Plan, are also included. Vegetation Management: The applicant is not proposing to remove any trees on the property as part of these improvements. The survey of the property indicates that there are no significant or heritage trees within the project area. The applicant’s narrative also indicates that the homeowners Page 128 of 170 have planned for this pool to be designed to minimize changes to the existing topography. Land Alteration Standards: The site plan illustrates a silt fence installation to the east and west of the project area, providing a perimeter adjacent to the home, as the grades on site lower with drainage arrows showing the path towards the rear of the existing home. The site plan also indicates that there will be small retaining walls installed to the northwest and the south of the proposed swimming pool. Low retaining walls do not require engineered drawings or a building permit, but would be considered landscaping and can count towards impervious surface calculations. There are no concerns with the impervious surface as proposed. Subsection 10 of the City’s MRCCA Ordinance regulates land alteration standards and stormwater management. The ordinance allows this level of work proposed with the installation of a new in-ground pool and associated site impacts. Additional conditions beyond general compliance with the Land Disturbance Guidance Document standards have been included in the recommendation section of this report, noting that erosion control measures must be in place for the duration of the project. Overall, the proposed construction of a new in-ground swimming pool is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, does not impact blufflines or the bluff setback, includes erosion control measures to mitigate temporary and permanent impacts to the established yard from construction, and has no noticeable impact to neighboring property or nearby Primary Conservation Areas. With the conditions included herein, staff finds that the project meets the intent of the MRCCA regulations and City standards for development in this district. Interagency Review: Under the MRCCA Ordinance, the city is required to submit the MRRCA permit request to the MNDNR and the National Park Service (NPS). The plans and project information was transmitted to both agencies for their review and comment. At the time of publication of this report, the City has not received comments on this application from either agency. Staff will provide a verbal update if there is correspondence at the Planning Commission meeting. Alternatives: 1.Recommend Approval of the MRCCA-Critical Area Permit request for 1187 Culligan Lane, which would allow for the construction of a new in-ground swimming pool, based on the findings-of-fact that the proposed project is compliant with the policies and standards of the MRCCA Overlay District and City Zoning Code standards, and with certain conditions; or 2.Recommend Denial of the MRCCA-Critical Area Permit request for 1187 Culligan Lane, based on certain revised or amended findings-of-fact that the application does not meet certain policies and standards of City Code as determined by the Planning Commission; 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: Page 129 of 170 Staff recommends approval of the MRCCA-Critical Area Permit request for 1187 Culligan Lane to allow construction of a new in-ground swimming pool, based on certain Findings-of- Fact attached to this report and with the following conditions: 1.A building permit must be approved and issued by the City prior to the commencement of any site work. 2.The proposed project must comply with all requirements of the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. All plans must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director. 3.All erosion control requirements must be put in place prior to the commencement of any grading and site work activities and must remain in place for the duration of the construction activities until proper site restoration plans are completed. 4.All grading and construction activity must comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes. 5.If any significant or heritage trees are proposed to be removed, the applicant and/or property owner must submit a Forest Alteration Permit to the City for review by the Community Development Manager and the Natural Resources Manager. 6.All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday through Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM weekends. Attachments: 1.Findings of Fact for Approval 2.Site Location Map 3.MRCCA Primary Conservation Areas Map 4.Project Narrative 5.Certificate of Survey/Existing Conditions Plan 6.Swimming Pool Plans 7.Site Plan 8.Erosion Control Plans 9.Landscape Proposal - Sod 10.Landscape Proposal - Irrigation Page 130 of 170 Planning Case 2026-17 (MRCCA Permit for 1187 Culligan Lane) Page 1 of 1 FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL MRCCA -Critical Area Permit for Planning Case No. 2026-17 (1187 Culligan Lane) The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1.The proposed construction of a new in-ground swimming pool with associated site improvements meets the general purpose and intent of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Separated from River Overlay District. 2.The proposed work and disturbance to construct the structure and associated site improvements has no direct impact to the Bluff Impact Zone, with no anticipated impact to Primary Conservation Areas, and the project includes sod work surrounding the disturbed areas associated with this proposal to return the property to its pre-construction stability with residential turf lawn. The proposed project is within the spirit and intent of the MRCCA Separated from River Overlay District that provides for flexibility within the management purpose. 3.The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan. 4.The construction of the structures is shown in the plan to comply with all standards and regulations of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District and with the conditions included herein would be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable ordinances of City Code; the construction proposal represents reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses; and is consistent with the current single-family development pattern of the neighborhood. Page 131 of 170 6666666666666666666666666666 66 66666666³ "" " "* !* !"" ! " " " * *³ !" "" " " " " "³³ ³ ³ ! """³ ! ³ * ³66 66666 6 66666666666 6 6FMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFM 6 6 6 66 666666!!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 1885 1179 1889 1253 1880 1890 1870 1215 1881 1948 1941 1933 1903 1217 1892 1190 1203 1875 1901 1247 19911949 1905 1919 1907 1954 1199 1187 1936 1219 1942 12001206 1205 1911 1921 1169 1181 1940 1916 1902 1193 1224 1920 1235 1908 1158 1159 1935 1162 1163 1908 1914 1230 1871 1875 1885 1254 18651860 1242 HUNTER LNCULLIGAN LN GLENHILL RDHUNTER CT VERONICA LN RCPDIPRCPRCP RCP Dakota County, MN Site Location Map1187 Culligan Lane Date: 9/17/2026 City ofMendotaHeights0200 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. Legend 66 Storm Pipe, City of Mendota Heights Watermain, SPRWS Gravity, By Others Gravity, City of Mendota Heights FM Force Main, City of Mendota Heights Page 132 of 170 MRCCA Primary Conservation Areas (PCA's) MRCCA Data Resource Layers MRCCA Boundary City and Township Boundaries Parcels MRCCA Primary Conservation Areas Natural Drainage Routes Shore Impact Zones Native Plant Communities Significant Existing Vegetative Stands BIZ Wetlands 100 Year Floodplain River 100 ft Page 133 of 170 Page 134 of 170 Page 135 of 170 Page 136 of 170 Page 137 of 170 Page 138 of 170 Page 139 of 170 Page 140 of 170 Proposal #8032 Landscape Service Date 8/17/2026 Customer Anne Hope | 1187 Culligan Lane | Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Property Hope, Anne Residence | 1187 Culligan Lane | Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Landscape Install 2026 Sod Installation o Grade construction area with topsoil as needed to establish proper drainage and ensure water moves away from structures. o Prepare and fine-grade soil for new sod installation. o Install new sod throughout disturbed construction areas. o Proposal includes approximately 3,000 sq. ft. of sod. o Final sod quantities may fluctuate based on the actual area requiring repair following pool installation. Sod Installation Price:$8,867.76 Subtotal $8,867.76 Estimated Tax $0.00 Total $8,867.76 Optional Services Initial next to the Optional Services you would like to accept. Irrigation Repair $95.00 ·Hourly rate for irrigation repairs needed after landscape install o Plus materials Lighting $0.00 ·Buried 2 wire with waterproof connections ·Pathway lights and up lighting per design ·Transformer to be installed at ***Five-year workmanship warranty & all manufacturer warranties included. | 1415 5th Street South, Suite E | Hopkins, MN 55343 Page | 1 Page 141 of 170 Landscape Service at Hope, Anne Residence 8/17/2026 Payment Schedule Description Total Price Sod Installation $8,867.76 $8,867.76 Terms & Conditions Landscape Installation Terms & Conditions: 1.WJM Partners Inc. DBA Barrett Lawn Care (hereafter “Barrett”) will perform or arrange performance of the work shown in the attached Proposal. A.Materials: Quantity and measurements of materials listed are estimated as accurately as possible, however, final quantity of material may vary depending on the needs of the project. Until completion of the project, all materials are the property of Barrett. Any surplus materials which remain following completion of the project remain the property of Barrett. B.Design Layout: Any Design created by Barrett is for general layout purposes only. Locations of plants, hardscapes and other items on the design are not exact and are only a guide. 2.Pricing & Changes: Costs associated with this project will be as provided in the attached Proposal. Changes to the scope of work will result in additional charges. Alteration or deviation from the proposal involving costs greater than $500.00 requires written approval from the Client. Written approval includes emails, text messages, or any other writing from the Client showing approval for the change to take place. Any unwritten changes made to the scope of work will be billed at rates consistent with the accepted Proposal. A. All product and pricing information is based on the latest information available and is subject to change. Unless signed, this propsal pricing is good for 90 days. 3.Utilities: Barrett will contact Gopher State One Call at least 48 hours prior to the start of any project that requires digging or excavation. It is the responsibility of the Client to notify Barrett in writing, and mark any private utilities and underground and/or buried items, including but not limited to: irrigation systems, invisible pet fencing, private gas or electrical lines, and any other privately installed utilities, whether or not such items are owned by the Client. Barrett is not responsible for damage to and/or interruption of any utilities resulting from unmarked or mismarked private utilities. Any damage to Barrett, its employees, subcontractors, equipment, or materials as the result of any unmarked or | 1415 5th Street South, Suite E | Hopkins, MN 55343 Page | 2 Page 142 of 170 Landscape Service at Hope, Anne Residence 8/17/2026 mismarked private utilities shall be the responsibility of the Client or Client’s insurance coverage. 4.Permits: Government permits required will be obtained by Barrett or subcontractors. Unless otherwise noted, costs associated with permits will be included in the Proposal. Barrett is not responsible for surveying the property or determining boundary lines, easements, or encroachments located on the property and recommends that the Client hire a professional surveyor to locate and clearly mark the boundaries of the property. 5.Client Responsibilities: Client is responsible for complying with and notifying Barrett of all covenants and/or restrictions applicable to the property along with obtaining any necessary prior approval from private entities including but not limited to: homeowner’s associations, management companies, etc. Barrett relies upon Client’s representations that they are the lawful owner of the property upon which work is being completed or has legal authority to authorize the work on the property. Barrett is not liable for damages, actions, or losses brought or incurred by the Client as a result of work performed by Barrett on property not owned by the Client, or for which the Client did not have legal authority to authorize such work. Nothing in this paragraph will absolve the Client of his/her obligation to Barrett to pay for all work performed by Barrett. 6.Indemnity: Client shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Barrett and its respective officers, agents, and employees, harmless against all loss, damage, expense and liability caused by any act of Barrett. Client agrees that Barrett shall not be strictly liable for any and all loss, damage, expense, and liability arising hereunder. Each of the foregoing indemnities, shall include the right of Barrett to recover reasonable attorney’s fees in connection with any action to enforce the rights of the respective parties hereunder. 7.Unforeseen Conditions: Unforeseen soil and underground conditions may cause additional work which may result in additional costs and charges to complete the project. These conditions include, but are not limited to: high water table, unknown springs, buried stumps, foundations, concrete, debris, or trash. If such conditions are discovered, Barrett will promptly discuss these conditions with the Client. Barrett shall not be liable for any damage arising out of run-off from neighboring properties or changes made to the Client’s property that result in a change of the slope or drainage damage to adjacent properties. Delays due to inclement weather or Acts of God, shall not be a basis for termination of this Agreement or reduction in the amount owed. No starting or completion dates are expressly or impliedly guaranteed. 8.Terms of Payments: If Barrett provides a Payment Schedule with these Terms and Conditions, | 1415 5th Street South, Suite E | Hopkins, MN 55343 Page | 3 Page 143 of 170 Landscape Service at Hope, Anne Residence 8/17/2026 payments must be made in accordance with the Payment Schedule. If no payment schedule is provided, 50% of the Proposal total is due prior to the start of work on the project, with the remaining balance, including any additional amounts owed due to changes, is due upon substantial completion of the project. Barrett accepts payment by cash, check, or credit card. Unless otherwise provided in the invoice, payments are due within 30 days of substantial completion of the Proposal work. Any portion of an invoice not paid within 30 days by Client is subject to a late fee of $50.00 and will accrue interest at a rate of 1.5% per month or the maximum allowable by law. Client agrees to pay any collection costs incurred by Barrett, including but not limited to reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and court costs. 9.Subcontractors: Client grants Barrett the right to subcontract work according to Barrett’ needs. Subcontractors will carry insurance commensurate to paragraph 10 for all times while working on the Client’s project. 10.Insurance: Barrett and each subcontractor, if applicable, shall procure and maintain in full force and effect, at all times during the term of this Agreement, the following insurance: General Liability insurance; Commercial auto insurance; and Worker’s Compensation insurance as required by state law. Certificates of Insurance are available upon request. 11.Warranty: Warranties are addressed in the attached Warranty Information Sheet. All Warranties do not go into effect until the project is paid in full. Warranty is void if project is not paid in full within 30 days after receipt of invoice by Client. Payment may not be held by Client in lieu of warranty. 12.Promotional Use: Client grants Barrett the right to take pictures, video and written accounts of this landscape project for promotional purposes. Client further grants Barrett the right to place a promotional yard sign on the Client’s property from the date this Agreement is signed, through 14 days following completion of the work. 13. PRE-LIEN NOTICE: This notice is to advise you of your rights under Minnesota law (Minn. Stat. §514.011) in connection with the improvement to your property. (A)Any person or company supplying labor or materials for this improvement to your property may file a lien against your property if that person or company is not paid for the contributions. (B)Under Minnesota law, you have the right to pay persons who supplied labor or materials for this improvement directly and deduct this amount from our contract price, or withhold the amounts due them from us until 120 days after completion of the improvement unless we give you a lien waiver signed by persons who supplied any labor or material for the improvement and who gave you timely notice. | 1415 5th Street South, Suite E | Hopkins, MN 55343 Page | 4 Page 144 of 170 Landscape Service at Hope, Anne Residence 8/17/2026 14.Cancellation: Client must notify Barrett in writing within three days after signing this agreement of intent to cancel this agreement. Failure to give proper cancellation notice will result in a charge of 5% of the total Proposal amount, plus any costs incurred in preparation for, execution and installation of the project. Products which have been custom ordered for this project must be paid in full regardless of cancellation notice. Damages for failure to complete the project as ordered shall not exceed the total Proposal amount. 15.Choice of Law: This agreement will be governed by the laws of Minnesota. The parties agree to make a good faith effort to resolve any disputes which arise from this agreement through direct contact, in an informal manner. Should informal efforts be unsuccessful, the parties agree to venue any dispute in Hennepin County courts. 16.Severability: Should any part of this agreement be deemed unlawful, the remainder shall remain in effect and be fully binding on the parties. 17.Merger: This proposal and any attachments indicated below constitute the entire agreement between the parties, all prior negotiations and commitments being merged herein. The following attachments, along with these Terms and Conditions, comprise the entire Agreement: You, the Client, may cancel this transaction at any time prior to midnight of the third business day after the date of this transaction. This sale is subject to the provisions of the Home Solicitation Sales Act and the Home Improvement Act. This instrument is not negotiable. Landscape Warranty Warranty terms: Barrett Lawn Care will use the highest quality products from reputable suppliers on each project 1)For irrigation projects, Barrett Lawn Care will warranty all workmanship for five years and honor all manufacturer warranties if Barrett Lawn Care, at a minimum, does spring start-up and fall winterization of irrigation systems. If the system is not serviced by Barrett Lawn Care, all material and workmanship warranties will be void. 2)Balled and burlapped (B&B) plant material will be replaced one time, at no charge, if the plant material fails within the first year (12 months). In some cases, not every branch will survive. It will be at the discretion of Barrett Lawn Care to replace partially failing B&B plant material or prune for health of the tree. Acts of Nature (i.e. hail, flood, wind, pest damage, etc.) or insufficient/excessive water are not | 1415 5th Street South, Suite E | Hopkins, MN 55343 Page | 5 Page 145 of 170 Landscape Service at Hope, Anne Residence 8/17/2026 warrantied. 3)Shrubs grown in containers (#1, #2, #5, etc.) will be replaced one time, at no charge, if the plant material fails within the first year (12 months). In some cases, not every branch will survive. It will be at the discretion of Barrett Lawn Care to replace partially failing plant material. Acts of Nature (i.e. hail, flood, wind, pest damage, rabbit, deer, etc.) or insufficient/excessive water are not warrantied. 4)Perennials will be replaced one time, at no charge, if the plant material fails within the first growing season. Acts of Nature (i.e. hail, flood, wind, pest damage, etc.) or insufficient/excessive water are not warrantied. 5)Hardscapes Barrett will warranty all workmanship for 1 years. Acts of Nature (i.e. hail, flood, wind, pest damage, etc.) or insufficient/excessive water are not warrantied. **Materials for hardscapes Barrett will honor their manufacturer warranties. Once product is decided on that information is available. Acts of Nature (i.e. hail, flood, wind, pest damage, etc.) or insufficient/excessive water are not warrantied. 6)Ground covers and annuals carry no warranty. 7)Sod carries no warranty as it is installed without a complete root structure; therefore, it is the responsibility of the client to care for it following the “landscape care sheet” in order to establish a mature root structure. Seed carries no warranty; it is the responsibility of the client to follow the landscape care sheet for proper watering instructions. 8)Watering and cost associated with watering any plant materials is responsibility of the client. All Warranties do not go into effect until the project is paid in full. Warranty is void if project is not paid in full within 30 days after receipt of invoice by Client. Payment may not be held by Client in lieu of warranty. Warranties from Barrett do not transfer with ownership. By By Bethany Kozicki 8/17/2026Date Date Hope, Anne Residence | 1415 5th Street South, Suite E | Hopkins, MN 55343 Page | 6 Page 146 of 170 Proposal #8069 Irrigation Install 2026 Date 8/18/2026 Customer Anne Hope | 1187 Culligan Lane | Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Property Hope, Anne Residence | 1187 Culligan Lane | Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Irrigation Install 2026 Irrigation Install Irrigation Install to include: ·Install Hunter & Rainbird spray heads and rotor heads for adequate water coverage ·Install 1" poly pipe, crimp clamps, poly fittings, and manifold fittings ·Install Hunter 1" valves, multi-strand wire and valve boxes ·Install irrigation Hydrawise smart controller. Save up to 70% on water bill ·System will be capable of adding drip zone for any new planting material ·Barrett Lawn Care will coordinate backflow installation by a master plumber. First year backflow test included with install ***Five-year workmanship warranty & all manufacturer warranties included. ***First year winterization included (at no additional charge). Next year's start-up also included (at no additional charge). Irrigation Install Price:$8,188.94 Subtotal $8,188.94 Estimated Tax $0.00 Total $8,188.94 Barrett Lawn Care | 1415 5th Street South, Suite E | Hopkins, MN 55343 Page | 1 Page 147 of 170 Irrigation Install 2026 at Hope, Anne Residence 8/18/2026 Payment Schedule Schedule Price Sales Tax Total Price 50% Downpayment $4,094.47 $0.00 $4,094.47 Remainder due upon completion $4,094.47 $0.00 $4,094.47 $8,188.94 $0.00 $8,188.94 Barrett Lawn Care | 1415 5th Street South, Suite E | Hopkins, MN 55343 Page | 2 Page 148 of 170 Irrigation Install 2026 at Hope, Anne Residence 8/18/2026 Terms & Conditions Irrigation Installation Terms & Conditions: 1.WJM Partners Inc. DBA Barrett Lawn Care (hereafter “Barrett”) will perform or arrange performance of the work shown in the attached Proposal. A.Materials: Quantity and measurements of materials listed are estimated as accurately as possible, however, final quantity of material may vary depending on the needs of the project. Until completion of the project, all materials are the property of Barrett. Any surplus materials which remain following completion of the project remain the property of Barrett. B.Design Layout: Any Design created by Barrett is for general layout purposes only. Locations of plants, hardscapes and other items on the design are not exact and are only a guide. 2.Pricing & Changes: Costs associated with this project will be as provided in the attached Proposal. Changes to the scope of work will result in additional charges. Alteration or deviation from the proposal involving costs greater than $500.00 requires written approval from the Client. Written approval includes emails, text messages, or any other writing from the Client showing approval for the change to take place. Any unwritten changes made to the scope of work will be billed at rates consistent with the accepted Proposal. A. All product and pricing information is based on the latest information available and is subject to change. Unless signed, this propsal pricing is good for 90 days. 3.Utilities: Barrett will contact Gopher State One Call at least 48 hours prior to the start of any project that requires digging or excavation. It is the responsibility of the Client to notify Barrett in writing, and mark any private utilities and underground and/or buried items, including but not limited to: irrigation systems, invisible pet fencing, private gas or electrical lines, and any other privately installed utilities, whether or not such items are owned by the Client. Barrett is not responsible for damage to and/or interruption of any utilities resulting from unmarked or mismarked private utilities. Any damage to Barrett, its employees, subcontractors, equipment, or materials as the result of any unmarked or mismarked private utilities shall be the responsibility of the Client or Client’s insurance coverage. 4.Permits: Government permits required will be obtained by Barrett or subcontractors. Unless otherwise noted, costs associated with permits will be included in the Proposal. Barrett is not responsible for surveying the property or determining boundary lines, easements, or encroachments located on the property and recommends that the Client hire a professional surveyor to locate and clearly mark the boundaries of the property. 5.Client Responsibilities: Client is responsible for complying with and notifying Barrett of all covenants and/or restrictions applicable to the property along with obtaining any necessary prior approval from private entities including but not limited to: homeowner’s associations, management companies, etc. Barrett relies upon Client’s representations that they are the lawful owner of the property upon which work is being completed or has legal authority to authorize the work on the property. Barrett is not liable for damages, actions, or losses brought or incurred by the Client as a result of work performed by Barrett on property not owned by the Client, or for which the Client did not have legal authority to authorize such work. Nothing in this paragraph will absolve the Client of his/her obligation to Barrett to pay for all work performed by Barrett. 6.Indemnity: Client shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Barrett and its respective officers, agents, and employees, harmless against all loss, damage, expense and liability caused by any act of Client, Client’s tenants, residents, and other parties utilizing Client’s property. Client agrees that Barrett shall not be strictly liable for any and all loss, damage, expense, and liability arising hereunder. Each of the foregoing indemnities, shall include the right of Barrett to recover reasonable attorney’s fees in Barrett Lawn Care | 1415 5th Street South, Suite E | Hopkins, MN 55343 Page | 3 Page 149 of 170 Irrigation Install 2026 at Hope, Anne Residence 8/18/2026 connection with any action to enforce the rights of the respective parties. 7.Unforeseen Conditions: Unforeseen soil and underground conditions may cause additional work which may result in additional costs and charges to complete the project. These conditions include, but are not limited to: high water table, unknown springs, buried stumps, foundations, concrete, debris, or trash. If such conditions are discovered, Barrett will promptly discuss these conditions with the Client. Barrett shall not be liable for any damage arising out of run-off from neighboring properties or changes made to the Client’s property that result in a change of the slope or drainage damage to adjacent properties. Delays due to inclement weather or Acts of God, shall not be a basis for termination of this Agreement or reduction in the amount owed. No starting or completion dates are expressly or impliedly guaranteed. 8.Terms of Payments: If Barrett provides a Payment Schedule with these Terms and Conditions, payments must be made in accordance with the Payment Schedule. If no payment schedule is provided, 50% of the Proposal total is due prior to the start of work on the project, with the remaining balance, including any additional amounts owed due to changes, is due upon substantial completion of the project. Barrett accepts payment by cash, check, or credit card. Unless otherwise provided in the invoice, payments are due within 30 days of substantial completion of the Proposal work. Any portion of an invoice not paid within 30 days by Client is subject to a late fee of $50.00 and will accrue interest at a rate of 1.5% per month or the maximum allowable by law. Client agrees to pay any collection costs incurred by Barrett, including but not limited to reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and court costs. 9.Subcontractors: Client grants Barrett the right to subcontract work according to Barrett’ needs. Subcontractors will carry insurance commensurate to paragraph 10 for all times while working on the Client’s project. 10.Insurance: Barrett and each subcontractor, if applicable, shall procure and maintain in full force and effect, at all times during the term of this Agreement, the following insurance: General Liability insurance; Commercial auto insurance; and Worker’s Compensation insurance as required by state law. Certificates of Insurance are available upon request. 11.Warranty: Warranties are addressed in the attached Warranty Information Sheet. All Warranties do not go into effect until the project is paid in full. Warranty is void if project is not paid in full within 30 days after receipt of invoice by Client. Payment may not be held by Client in lieu of warranty. 12.Promotional Use: Client grants Barrett the right to take pictures, video and written accounts of this landscape project for promotional purposes. Client further grants Barrett the right to place a promotional yard sign on the Client’s property from the date this Agreement is signed, through 14 days following completion of the work. 13. PRE-LIEN NOTICE: This notice is to advise you of your rights under Minnesota law (Minn. Stat. §514.011) in connection with the improvement to your property. (A)Any person or company supplying labor or materials for this improvement to your property may file a lien against your property if that person or company is not paid for the contributions. (B)Under Minnesota law, you have the right to pay persons who supplied labor or materials for this improvement directly and deduct this amount from our contract price, or withhold the amounts due them from us until 120 days after completion of the improvement unless we give you a lien waiver signed by persons who supplied any labor or material for the improvement and who gave you timely notice. 14.Cancellation: Client must notify Barrett in writing within three days after signing this agreement of intent to cancel this agreement. Failure to give proper cancellation notice will result in a charge of 5% of the total Proposal amount, plus any costs incurred in preparation for, execution and installation of the project. Products which have been custom ordered for this project must be paid in full regardless of cancellation notice. Damages for failure to complete the project as ordered shall not exceed the total Barrett Lawn Care | 1415 5th Street South, Suite E | Hopkins, MN 55343 Page | 4 Page 150 of 170 Irrigation Install 2026 at Hope, Anne Residence 8/18/2026 Proposal amount. 15.Choice of Law: This agreement will be governed by the laws of Minnesota. The parties agree to make a good faith effort to resolve any disputes which arise from this agreement through direct contact, in an informal manner. Should informal efforts be unsuccessful, the parties agree to venue any dispute in Hennepin County courts. 16.Severability: Should any part of this agreement be deemed unlawful, the remainder shall remain in effect and be fully binding on the parties. 17.Merger: This proposal and any attachments indicated below constitute the entire agreement between the parties, all prior negotiations and commitments being merged herein. The following attachments, along with these Terms and Conditions, comprise the entire Agreement: You, the Client, may cancel this transaction at any time prior to midnight of the third business day after the date of this transaction. This sale is subject to the provisions of the Home Solicitation Sales Act and the Home Improvement Act. This instrument is not negotiable. By By Cara Craig 8/18/2026Date Date Barrett Lawn Care Hope, Anne Residence Barrett Lawn Care | 1415 5th Street South, Suite E | Hopkins, MN 55343 Page | 5 Page 151 of 170 This page is intentionally left blank 9.c REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 6, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance No. 609 Creating a Moratorium for New Wireless Telecommunication Infrastructure Uses ITEM TYPE: Ordinance DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Adopt Ordinance No. 609, an Interim Ordinance Placing Temporary Moratorium on Conditional Use Permits for Wireless Telecommunication Towers, Antennas, and Accessory Structures Associated with Said Use in All Zoning Districts of the City of Mendota Heights, and Directing a Study to be Conducted; and Authorize Publication of Summary Ordinance. BACKGROUND: The purpose of Ordinance 609 is to create a moratorium to allow for the study of the City's current official controls relating to Conditional Use Permits and the associated review of new wireless telecommunication towers or similar infrastructure. The output of this study is anticipated to result in a revised ordinance regulating this use, and the adoption of new official controls. Adoption of a moratorium can aid the City in the zoning ordinance amendment process, by allowing a City to study an issue without the pressure of time generated by pending applications. Cities may use a moratorium to protect the planning process, particularly when formal studies may be needed on a particular issue. A moratorium is an interim ordinance that expires within 12-months, unless it is extended by the City Council and a public hearing is held. Per state law, an interim ordinance requires that a city is: •Conducting studies on the issue; and/or •Has authorized the study to be conducted. In this specific case, the City has determined that the existing Conditional Use Permit review process for wireless telecommunication infrastructure may not adequately address various impacts to the public health, safety, and general welfare that this specific use may present. The Page 152 of 170 purpose of this interim ordinance is to protect the planning process and allow the City to complete a study and consider adoption of zoning regulation amendments without new applications impacting the timeline of this review, study, or official City actions. Earlier this year, the City considered a Conditional Use Permit application for a new wireless telecommunications tower. As part of the City's review process, several questions came up from both the public and the Planning Commission relating to the City's official controls for this land use, including what data and minimum requirements are needed for the City's review. The City already imposes a Conditional Use Permit process on this use in all zoning districts of the City, however concerns were brought forward that the official controls may not be sufficient for the City to adequately review and approve these Conditional Use Permits. The City's response to these concerns is to propose two separate but concurrent studies in 2027. As part of the Preliminary Budget adopted on September 15, the Administration Department included a budget request for $60,000 to conduct a cellular coverage study. The aim of this study is to gather data on the cellular coverage issues that have previously been brought up by residents of Mendota Heights. As part of this study, staff would be seeking data as well as recommendations for the City to consider to inform future planning, public safety, and infrastructure decision-making. Alongside this proposed study, staff would be evaluating the City's official zoning controls relating to cellular infrastructure, and work with the City Council and Planning Commission to identify ordinance issues specific to Mendota Heights. It is this second part of the study which necessitates the implementation of an interim ordinance for a moratorium on this use. The City's current ordinance regarding this use may be inadequate, and is not sufficiently or clearly providing the performance standards necessary to implement a clear and enforceable code in tune with the policy direction of the City Council. With the adoption of a moratorium ordinance, new applications for Conditional Use Permit for this use-type will be paused for the duration of the study, not to exceed 12 months. The interim ordinance does include an exception for modifications to existing telecommunications infrastructure that are typically reviewed as part of administrative building permits. Staff will be authorized to begin researching other ordinances and market standards for the zoning regulation of new wireless telecommunication towers, and prepare discussion materials for the Planning Commission and City Council to review. With this study, no additional budget needs are anticipated, as this work would be part of the standard work duties and function of the Community Development Manager. This work would take place regardless of if the cellular coverage study remains accounted for in the final 2027 budget. If the City Council adopts the moratorium, the next steps that staff will take include: •Evaluate the current Wireless Telecommunications ordinance for inadequate, incorrect, or unclear language. •Study other ordinances implemented by neighboring communities in the Twin Cities market. •Discuss lessons learned with peer communities, focusing on communities with similar development and land use patterns. Page 153 of 170 •Work with the Planning Commission and City Council on issue identification and goals for new or revised regulatory controls. •Prepare a draft ordinance for discussion. Ordinance No. 609 has been posted for 10 days on the City's website and at City Hall. Staff recommends that the City Council approve Ordinance No. 609, placing a temporary moratorium on new wireless telecommunications infrastructure, and they may make an additional motion for the consideration of summary ordinance publication (4/5ths vote required), as noted below: (1) Adopt Ordinance No. 609, to place a temporary moratorium on Conditional Use Permits for wireless telecommunication towers, antennas, and accessory structures associated with said use in all zoning districts of the City, and directing a study to be conducted; and (2) Authorize Publication of a Summary Ordinance of Ordinance No. 609 FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Not Applicable. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Ordinance No. 609 - Interim Ordinance - Moratorium for Cellular Study 2.Summary of Ordinance No. 609 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 154 of 170 Ord #609 – Interim Ordinance – Moratorium for Cellular Study page 1 of 2 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 609 AN INTERIM ORDINANCE PLACING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS, ANTENNAS, AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ASSOCIATED WITH SAID USE IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, AND DIRECTING A STUDY TO BE CONDUCTED. WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has determined that certain wireless telecommunication towers, antennas, and accessory structures may cause secondary effects that may be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Mendota Heights; and, WHEREAS, the City’s comprehensive plan, zoning, and development regulations may not adequately address various impacts to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare that wireless telecommunication towers, antennas, and associated accessory structures may present; and, WHEREAS, to provide for adequate time for study, analysis, and to consider finalization of potential city code amendments regarding wireless telecommunication towers, antennas, and associated accessory structures, and to preserve the status quo within the City, the City desires to enact a temporary prohibition on the siting, allowance, processing, and issuance of any permits, land-use entitlements, and other applications for new wireless telecommunication towers, antennas, and associated accessory structures. The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Section 1. Findings and Purpose. 1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 462.357, the City has the authority to regulate the use of land through the adoption and enforcement of official controls. 2. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 462.355, the City has the authority to adopt an interim zoning ordinance for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. 3. The City desires to protect the planning process by providing sufficient time for its review of the City’s zoning ordinances prior to any further action on new wireless telecommunications facilities. 4. The City desires to protect the planning process by ensuring that any ordinance changes need not be expedited and that all issues related to wireless telecommunication towers, antennas, and associated accessory structures (siting, height, setbacks, aesthetics, required submittals and documentation) can be completely examined. 5. The City desires to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens by its study of its official controls in these areas. 6. The City finds that City Code Title 12: Zoning does not adequately address the regulatory controls for wireless telecommunication towers, antennas, and associated accessory structures. 7. The City Council deems it necessary to adopt an Interim Ordinance placing a moratorium on all new Conditional Use Permit applications for new wireless telecommunication towers, antennas, and/or associated accessory structures for a period of 12 months from the effective date of this Interim Ordinance to permit the planning process to take place and allow City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council sufficient time to study the issue and update the City’s processes. Section 2. Temporary Restrictions on wireless telecommunications infrastructure. Page 155 of 170 Ord #609 – Interim Ordinance – Moratorium for Cellular Study page 2 of 2 1. During the moratorium no development approvals, including but not limited to preliminary plats, re- zonings, variances, conditional use permits, site plans, or building permits shall be issued for a new wireless telecommunications tower, antenna, or associated accessory structure. 2.This moratorium shall not apply to administrative procedures for improvements to existing wireless antenna facilities within the City of Mendota Heights, as detailed in City Code Section 12-4A-12:D.4.g. Section 3. Intent and Authorization. 1. It is the intent of this ordinance to allow the City of Mendota Heights to complete an in-depth study concerning adoption of revisions of the City Code and official processes related to Conditional Use Permits for new wireless telecommunications towers, antennas, and associated accessory structures. 2. City staff is directed and authorized to conduct a study of the City Code and official controls that may need to be adopted or amended to protect the public health, safety, and welfare as they relate to wireless telecommunication towers, antennas, and associated accessory structures. Section 4. Enforcement. The City may enforce this Ordinance by mandamus, injunctive relief, or other appropriate civil remedy in any court of competent jurisdiction. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Administrator, in consultation with the City Attorney, to initiate any legal action deemed necessary to secure compliance with this Ordinance. A violation of this Ordinance is also subject to the City’s general penalty in City Code Section 1-4-1. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage and shall remain in effect until October 6, 2027, or until the adoption of the official controls being studied, whichever occurs first. Section 6. Severability. Every section, provision, or part of this Interim Ordinance is declared severable from every other section, provision, or part hereof to the extent that if any section, provision, or part of this Ordinance shall be held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not invalidate any other section, provision, or part thereof. ADOPTED this 6th day of October, 2026 by the City Council for the City of Mendota Heights. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST ___________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 156 of 170 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 609 AN INTERIM ORDINANCE PLACING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS, ANTENNAS, AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ASSOCIATED WITH SAID USE IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, AND DIRECTING A STUDY TO BE CONDUCTED. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, on October 6, 2026, Ordinance No. 609 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that, because of the lengthy nature of Ordinance No. 609, the following summary of the ordinance has been prepared for publication. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the ordinance adopted by the City Council enacts a temporary moratorium prohibiting the siting, allowance, processing, and issuance of any permits, land-use entitlements, and other applications for new wireless telecommunication towers, antennas, and associated accessory structures, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 462.355 and authorizes the Mendota Heights city staff to complete a study concerning the official controls of the zoning ordinance to protect the planning process and the public health, safety, and welfare of the community as it relates to the use of land for wireless telecommunication towers, antennas, and associated accessory structures. A printed copy of the whole ordinance is available for inspection by any person during the City’s regular office hours at the office of the City Administrator/City Clerk or on the City’s website. PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, this 6th day of October, 2026. CITY COUNCIL OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS /S/Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor Attest /s/Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 157 of 170 9.d REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 6, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Request for Proposals - Mendota Heights 2050 Comprehensive Plan Update ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager ACTION REQUEST: Authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the completion of the City's 2050 Comprehensive Plan Update BACKGROUND: Every 10 years, cities in the seven-county metro area must update their Comprehensive Plans. The Plan establishes Mendota Heights' vision for future development and guides growth, redevelopment, and improvements through goals, policies, and maps. The City is seeking a highly qualified planning consultant to lead the update of its 2050 Comprehensive Plan. The selected firm is expected to collaborate closely with City staff, City Council, Commissions, engineering consultants, residents, and community stakeholders to develop and oversee the update to ensure the plan complies with Minnesota Statutes and Metropolitan Council requirements, including those contained in the Imagine 2050 system statements for the City of Mendota Heights. State Statute requires the Metropolitan Council to review all Comprehensive Plans for conformance with metropolitan system plans and compatibility with adjacent and affected jurisdictions. Plans must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council by December 31, 2028, and to adjacent jurisdictions six months prior. Failure to submit an adopted plan may result in the Metropolitan Council withholding sewer permits and connections. Attached is the draft Request for Proposals (RFP) to complete the work for the 2050 Comprehensive Plan. If the City Council authorizes the release of the RFP, the following schedule would be followed: •Council authorization to release RFP: October 6, 2026 •RFP release: October 7, 2026 •Proposal deadline: November 2, 2026 Page 158 of 170 •Contract approval: December 1, 2026 Staff recommends authorization to release the RFP. Following the proposal review and consultant selection process, the proposed consultant contract will be presented to the City Council for approval prior to the commencement of Comprehensive Plan work. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: There is no cost associated with the release of the RFP. The 2026 budget includes $9,500 allocated for beginning this process, and the preliminary 2027 budget includes $100,000 to cover the expenses of completing this plan. It is expected that the bulk of the work will be completed in 2027, with finalization continuing into 2028. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Request For Proposals - Mendota Heights 2050 Comprehensive Plan Update (draft) CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 159 of 170 1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 2050 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Proposals Due November 2, 2026 @ 4:00 pm RFP Contact Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager smadden@mendotaheightsmn.gov (651) 255-1142 Page 160 of 170 2 INTRODUCTION The City of Mendota Heights is seeking proposals from qualified planning and multidisciplinary consulting teams to assist with preparation of its 2050 Comprehensive Plan Update. Consulting teams should have experience in public engagement, land use planning, housing, and redevelopment planning related to fully developed suburban communities. The updated plan is expected to include both statutory required elements related to regional systems and a refreshed vision of expected change and growth unique to Mendota Heights. The selected firm is expected to collaborate closely with City staff, City Council, Commissions, residents, and community stakeholders to develop and oversee the update to ensure the plan complies with Metropolitan Council requirements and the Imagine 2050 system statements for the City of Mendota Heights. BACKGROUND Mendota Heights, Minnesota is a first-ring southern suburb of the Twin Cities nestled in Dakota County right where the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers meet. Mendota Heights residents pride themselves on their excellent city services and maintaining a tight-knit, small-town atmosphere while giving residents direct highway access to major employment areas in downtown St. Paul and downtown Minneapolis, Bloomington Mall of America, and the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The city has a population of 11,744 and offers high-quality residential and business areas. Both I-35E and I-494 traverse the city, as well as MN Highway 62. The Minnesota and Mississippi rivers form a natural green belt around the community, enabling it to maintain a quiet, private way of life. The city welcomes high quality business development and approximately 25 percent of the land has been reserved for that purpose. Most of the land in the community is now platted, though there is still construction activity in infill and redevelopment areas. At the same time, excellent public and private schools and a well-educated populace complement the traditional but progressive character of the city. Citizens place a high emphasis on parks, natural resources, open space and recreation areas. Per capita incomes and average property values are among the highest in the region, and the city is uniquely home to two regional private schools, including St. Thomas Academy and Visitation School, as well as being served by the highly rated Independent School District 197. The environment has played a significant role in the City’s land use planning. The city boasts more than 295 acres of parkland and 17 public parks with a multitude of recreational opportunities and regional trail connections. Unique to this community is a Native American gathering place and burial ground named Oheyawahe, meaning "a sacred place much visited" in the Dakota language, which is on the National Register of Historic Places. Through proactive development and planning, the city has preserved these open spaces, encouraged spacious residential developments, and has planned for diversified, high technology employment and business centers. The rich abundance of woods, Page 161 of 170 3 wetlands, and open space areas that provide the natural feel of the community today are a testament to that land use planning work. Civic pride and aesthetic excellence are high priorities in Mendota Heights. SCOPE OF WORK The consultant will be responsible for ensuring that the comprehensive plan update complies with all Minnesota Statutes and the Metropolitan Council’s Imagine 2050 requirements, including the 2050 System Statements for the City of Mendota Heights and the minimum requirements outlined in this RFP. The City also encourages potential consultants to share alternative ideas beyond those described in this request for proposal. Generally, the work will include performing research and analysis, conducting public meetings, developing goals and policies, preparing alternative plans and final plans, and recommending measures to implement the plan. The final scope of services will be finalized once a consultant is selected, but must include the following: 1.Coordination of Consultants for Separate Plan Elements As part of the comprehensive plan update, at a minimum the planning consultant selected for this project will be responsible for the following sections of the Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with the Metropolitan Council requirements: Land Use & Growth Transportation Parks and Trails Housing Economic Development Natural Resources Climate and Resilience Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Implementation A Parks System Master Plan was adopted by the City in 2025. The utility plans are anticipated to be completed under a separate contract managed by the Public Works Department. There are at least three individual master plans: Natural Resources, Surface Water Management, Parks System. The planning consultant is responsible for coordinating with the City’s Natural Resources, Parks & Recreation, and Public Works departments as necessary to meet plan requirements. The planning consultant is responsible for all public engagement related to these elements of the plan. They will facilitate and implement the work of all consultants into one single product that maintains a consistent style and voice throughout the final document. It is expected that clear, defined roles will be developed at the onset of the project outlining all responsibilities. Page 162 of 170 4 2.Special Planning Sections for 2050 Comprehensive Plan The following special topic areas should be incorporated into the 2050 Comprehensive Plan in addition to the required Met Council plan elements: •Strategies for aging single-family and multi-family housing •Redevelopment strategies and community design initiatives for aging commercial/industrial areas o Exploring Industrial/Office redevelopment opportunities is an ongoing policy goal of the Mendota Heights City Council •Economic Development component that analyzes current trends and includes short and long-term growth strategies 3.Community Engagement The City of Mendota Heights values the input of both its residential and business communities. The comprehensive plan update process will include a public engagement strategy designed to successfully gather input to ensure the plan reflects the City’s vision. The consultant will be responsible for creating a public engagement plan and supporting staff with its implementation. The selected consultant will work with advisory commissions, staff, and the City Council to refine the communications and public engagement strategy to best suit Mendota Heights’ residents and stakeholders. The engagement plan will include multiple tools for in-person, print, and digital engagement. Engagement tools must be appropriate to the scale and goals of comprehensive planning. Meeting notes and summaries should be provided for each engagement activity. The community engagement process should also include actions and steps that keep the community updated on the overall comprehensive plan update process. The process must include multiple forms of community engagement with regular public updates, which may include but are not limited to: •Community education •Website content & social media •Online engagement tools and surveys •Public workshops •Community events, i.e., Winter Whirl, Touch a Truck, Heights Fest •City Council and Commission meetings •Stakeholder interviews 4.General Technical Assistance The selected firm will be responsible for providing general technical assistance throughout the completion of the project, including but not limited to mapping services, text drafting, creation of graphics and tables, professional recommendations, coordination with other firms or departments, and final preparation of the project. Page 163 of 170 5 5.Policy Framework and Documentation The consultant shall be responsible for a combination of reviewing the existing 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Metropolitan Council community and system statements and requirements for Mendota Heights, and community engagement results. The policy work will include review of identified 2050 Comprehensive Plan policies with City staff and identified City Commissions and City Council. The consultant should identify additional studies that may be required to support 2050 Comprehensive Plan vision, goals and implementation strategies. The resulting deliverable will conclude in the drafting of the 2050 Comprehensive Plan and Implementation Plan. The consultant will manage the Plan through the final stages of adoption, conduction of required public hearings, and obtaining City Council approval. The consultant shall manage project timeline goals to submit to the Metropolitan Council, and seek City Council ratification. 6.Project Timeline The proposal shall provide a proposed detailed schedule from project initiation to final completion. The schedule should identify each phase of the project and include a listing of key tasks within each phase, key milestones and approximate dates, and deliverables. Be sure to include tasks and target dates for those items specifically identified under Scope of Work. Specific timeline goals anticipated by the City include the following: December 2026 City Council and Planning Commission Kick-Off Early to mid 2027 Interactive public engagement and education on comprehensive planning and vision Mid to late 2027 Develop concepts and draft plan Late 2027 – early 2028 Interactive public engagement on draft Early 2028 Finalize plan May 2028 Distribute plan for agency/adjacent jurisdiction review November 2028 Submit plan for Metropolitan Council review DELIVERABLES The City of Mendota Heights reserves the right to alter any aspect of the finalized documents adopted at the end of this project. All documents, images, graphics, or similar materials created during this project will become the property of the City of Mendota Heights and may be used in outlets at the City’s discretion. All documents, materials, GIS data, maps, graphics, and similar, shall be submitted in a compatible version that allows for future revisions using existing software available to City staff. 1.Accessibility Online deliverables intended for public distribution as part of this project, including drafts, external forms, or standalone PDFs, must comply with applicable federal digital Page 164 of 170 6 accessibility requirements prior to delivery to the City. At a minimum, all public-facing online deliverables must: •Comply with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). •Conform to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1, Level AA. •Fully accessible to users of assistive technologies, including screen readers. Upon request by the City, the consultant shall submit an Accessibility Verification Report for any online deliverables intended for public distribution, confirming that it meets accessibility requirements. If requested, the Accessibility Verification Report must: •Identify the specific public-facing deliverable(s) reviewed. •Confirm compliance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). •Confirm conformance with WCAG 2.1, Level AA. •Describe the method(s) used to evaluate accessibility, such as software validation tools, manual testing, or assistive technology testing. PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS Questions regarding this RFP (Request for Proposals) and the proposed services shall be submitted in writing to Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager, at smadden@mendotaheightsmn.gov no later than noon on Monday, October 19, 2026. Written responses to all questions received will be posted on the City’s website no later than 4:00pm on Friday, October 23, 2026. No oral questions on the RFP will be accepted. The RFP submission deadline is 4:00 p.m. on Monday, November 2, 2026. Proposals shall be in PDF format and submitted electronically to smadden@mendotaheightsmn.gov. Submissions shall be a maximum of 15 pages including the cover letter. Submissions shall include: •A one-page cover letter that includes the consultant’s name, address, and main telephone number. Include the name, title, direct phone number, and e-mail for the main contact person. If the proposal is a joint venture, identify members and provide contact information. •A project timeline with identified milestones, phases, dates for submission of draft deliverables, and decision-making deadlines. The timeline should be responsive to the need to provide accurate information to allow the timely completion of ancillary infrastructure master plans while not making presumptions on the outcomes of public and policymaker input. •A schedule of project meetings including participants and meeting goals •Scope of work including the components and deliverables listed in this RFP •Any proposed modifications to the planning process described in this RFP •Project budget including reimbursable expenses and the cost distribution between components and deliverables •Identify the project team including project roles, estimated hours, experience on similar projects, consultant background, and hourly cost. Page 165 of 170 7 •Expectations for City resources (data, mapping, staff time, etc.) for each component •References including at least two from municipal organizations •Description of the nature, magnitude, and current status of any claims or suits against any project team members – individuals or firms – within the last three years in any matter related to professional activities. •In addition to the 15-page proposal, consultants may submit up to 15 pages with resumes of team members and information on similar projects by the project team. REVIEW AND SELECTION City staff shall evaluate all proposals received by the deadline; interviews may or may not be part of the selection process. The following criteria will be considered in the selection process: •The responsiveness to RFP, completeness of the RFP, adherence to submission requirements, and organization of proposal. •Demonstrated understanding of City goals, project components, and deliverables. •Qualifications and experience of personnel in the area of long-range planning, housing, economic development/redevelopment in fully developed suburban communities, community engagement, and the utilization of multiple communication tools in an effective manner. •Proposed budget and allocation of costs. •Feasibility of proposed timeline. The City reserves the right to amend, withdraw or cancel this RFP at any time. Any amendments, interpretations, or corrections to this RFP shall be by written addendum to the RFP and will be issued electronically to all firms notifying their intent to submit a proposal. PROPOSAL TASK DATE RFP Release October 7, 2026 Proposal Deadline November 2, 2026 Selection November 23, 2026 Contract Approved December 1, 2026 The City reserves the right to reject any, or all, proposals or to request additional information from any, or all, applicants. Consulting firms shall also identify any real or potential conflicts of interest, if selected to perform work described herein. CONTRACT Upon selection of a consultant, an Agreement or Contract of Services shall be entered into by the City and the consultant(s). It is expected that the contract will provide for compensation for actual work completed on a not to exceed basis with the following conditions: Page 166 of 170 8 •Deletion of specific components such as individual project meetings, will be at the discretion of the City. Payment or reimbursement shall be made based on actual hours worked on the various tasks required for the project in relation to the not-to- exceed cost. •The City shall retain ownership of all documents, plans, maps, reports and data prepared under this proposal. In addition to being provided with hard copy and digital documents throughout the project, the consultant shall supply the City with fully electronic files upon project completion. •If for any reason the selected firm is not able to commence services within 30 days after the acceptance of the proposal and award of contract, the City reserves the right to award the contract to another qualified consulting firm. •The consulting firm shall not assign any interest in their proposal or contract and shall not transfer any interest of the same without the prior written consent of the City. •The City shall expect the consultant to respond to routine questions which do not require considerable research as part of their not to exceed cost estimate. EXHIBITS AND LINKS (Copies of documents are available at City Hall and active links will be provided when the RFP is posted.) 2040 Comprehensive Plan 2025 System Statement Parks System Master Plan Natural Resources Master Plan Dakota County Housing Needs Assessment 2025 – Mendota Heights Overview Page 167 of 170 9.e REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 6, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: City Hall and Police Department Existing Building Conditions--Mold Remediation and Repair ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Staff will provide information on mold remediation and repairs within the existing city hall and police department building. BACKGROUND: City staff recently identified potential mold in portions of the existing City Hall and Police Department building. The City engaged a professional testing company to evaluate the areas of concern. Testing confirmed elevated mold conditions in a localized area of the Police Department squad room, including Chaetomium, commonly referred to as black mold. Mold was also identified in the area above the City Hall Large Conference Room and was identified as Cladosporium. The City took immediate steps to address the identified conditions. The affected area of the Police Department squad room was closed and sealed, and professional remediation was completed to remove the identified mold and affected materials. The area above the Large Conference Room was also professionally remediated. The City is conducting additional testing throughout City Hall and the Police Department to determine if there are any additional areas of concern. At this time, the full extent and source of the moisture that contributed to the mold have not been determined. Over the coming weeks, the City will continue investigating the source of the water or moisture and complete any necessary repairs or corrective work to address the underlying cause. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: ServPro was hired to complete remediation. Police squad room costs were quoted at $2,221.80 and Large Conference Room costs were quoted at $1,332.43. Additional costs will be incurred in order to correct the sources of water intrusion and fully repair the identified spaces. Those Page 168 of 170 costs are not known at this time. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 169 of 170 9.f REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 6, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Municipal Campus Building Project ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator ACTION REQUEST: Staff will provide an update on the status of project elements, including the EAW, draft soil borings report, and the wetland delineation. The update will provide an opportunity for the City Council to ask questions. No decisions will be made by the City Council at the meeting. BACKGROUND: The Municipal Campus Building Project is the proposed construction of a new Police Station and City Hall. The new building will replace the existing facility located at 1101 Victoria Curve, which was built in the late 1980s. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: None for this update. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 170 of 170