Loading...
2021-07-06 Council agenda packetCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA July 6, 2021 – 6:00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Adopt Agenda 5. Consent Agenda a. Approval of June 15, 2021 City Council Minutes b. Approval of June 15, 2021 City Council Work Session Minutes c. Acknowledge the May 25, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes d. Approve Resolution 2021-56 Accepting Donations for Park and Recreation Related Items e. Accept Police Officer Resignation and Authorize Police Officer Recruitment Process f. Approve New On-sale and Sunday Liquor License for Copperfield MH LLC dba The Copperfield, 735 Maple Street g. Approve Resolution 2021-57 Regarding Receipt of American Rescue Plan Act Funding h. Authorize the Addition of Pickleball Courts at Friendly Hills Park Hockey Rink i. Approve Resolution 2021-60 Ending Pandemic Peacetime Emergency Declaration j. Acknowledge Quarterly Update for 2021-22 City Council Strategic Priorities k. Approve the May 2021 Fire Synopsis l. Approval of May 2021 Treasurer’s Report m. Approval of Claims List 6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) *See guidelines below 7. Public Hearings -none 8. New and Unfinished Business a. Resolution 2021-55 Approving the Preliminary and Final Plat of Sweeney 2nd Addition – 777 Wentworth Avenue (Mike Fritz - M & M Homes & LDK Builders) b. Ordinance No. 566 Amend City Code Title 5 Regarding Police Regulations and Title 12 Regarding the Temporary Keeping of Goats for Prescribed Grazing c. Ordinance No. 569 Amend City Code Title 3 Regarding Peddlers, Solicitors, and Transient Merchants d. Set City Council Work Session Meeting Dates for FY22 Budget Review e. Appointment of Cheryl Jacobson to City Administrator effective October 1, 2021, and Authorize Execution of Employment Agreement. 9. Community Announcements 10. Council Comments 11. Adjourn Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: “The Citizen Comments section of the agenda provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. All are welcome to speak. Comments should be directed to the Mayor. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per person and topic; presentations which are longer than five minutes will need to be scheduled with the City Clerk to appear on a future City Council agenda. Comments should not be repetitious. Citizen comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens, nor will any decisions be made at that presentation. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Citizen comments will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made, but rather for hearing the citizen for information only. If appropriate, the Mayor may assign staff for follow up to the issues raised.” For viewing City Council meetings, tune in to Comcast Cable Channel 18 or view online at https://www.townsquare.tv/webstreaming during the posted meeting times. Meetings can also be viewed on demand, after the original airing, at https://www.townsquare.tv/webstreaming . CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, June 15, 2021 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 Duggan, Paper, Mazzitello, and Miller, 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 Miller moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Levine presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Mazzitello moved approval of the consent calendar as presented, pulling item c. a.Approval of June 1, 2021 City Council Minutes b. Approval of June 2, 2021 Joint Council-Parks Rec Commission Planning Session Minutes c.Approval of June 8, 2021 Joint Council-Parks Rec Commission Planning Session Minutes d. Approval of June 9, 2021 Council Work Session Minutes e.Acknowledge April 2021 Par 3 Financial Report f.Approve Renewal of Massage Licenses g.Approve Hiring of Office Support Assistant h.Approve Resolution 2021-52 Accept Bids-Award Sanitary Sewer Cleaning and Televising Project i.Approve Resolution 2021-51 Accepting Donations for City Events j.Approve Room Rental Policy k. Approve Building Activity Report l.Approval of Claims List Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS C) APPROVAL OF JUNE 8, 2021 JOINT COUNCIL-PARKS REC COMMISSION PLANNING SESSION MINUTES Councilor Duggan commented that the Council, staff and the Parks and Rec Commission spent over 12 hours meeting to discuss the future of the parks. He commented that it was a positive experience and the intent was to plan to maintain the existing park infrastructure while perhaps adding some new features. He appreciated the effort from everyone involved. Councilor Duggan moved to approve JUNE 8, 2021 JOINT COUNCIL-PARKS REC COMMISSION PLANNING SESSION MINUTES. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Andrew Gotham, 1533 Dodd Road, stated that he is building mason beehives for Dodge Nature Center the following day at 5:30 p.m. He invited any members of the public to participate and learn. Councilor Duggan asked if this would be an opportunity for the public to learn how to build the hives. Mr. Gotham confirmed that they would be building the hives together and they will be donated to the Dodge Nature Center. He estimated that 12 to 15 hives would be constructed. Mayor Levine thanked Mr. Gotham for this work to protect our pollinators. She congratulated him on his pending Eagle Scout badge. Mr. Gotham provided additional background information on mason bees, explaining that they are more efficient than honeybees and spend more time pollinating. PRESENTATIONS A) FY 2020 CITY AUDIT Finance Director Kristen Schabacker stated that Matt Mayer from BerganKDV is present to provide the results of the 2020 audit. Matt Mayer reported that the City received an unmodified opinion. He noted that in terms of legal compliance there were no findings. He stated that there was one finding of internal control and compliance standards which was the lack of segregation of accounting duties. He noted that there was no compliance of internal control findings related to federal awards (CARES). He provided a brief overview of the general fund and other related City funds. Mayor Levine acknowledged the work of staff that goes into this process each year. Councilor Duggan commented that Finance Director Kristen Schabacker does an excellent job and expressed appreciation for her work and efforts to help keep the City financially stable. B) 2021 WORK PLAN BY DAKOTA COUNTY MASTER GARDENERS Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the Council is being asked to acknowledge the work plan from the local master gardeners. Cindy Johnson, Master Gardener, provided background information on the Master Gardener Program and reviewed the mission statement and priorities of the program. She highlighted statistics for the program from the past year noting that the work completed in 2020 was valued by Dakota County at $190,000. She provided photos of projects they have worked on in the community that provide a benefit to the environment, pollinators and help to educate the community. She stated that one of the most impactful concepts that arose through the partnership with the City was for the Master Gardeners to review development proposals to provide input on landscaping. She presented the 2021 work plan and provided a brief overview. Mayor Levine expressed thanks for the work the Master Gardeners do within the community. Councilor Mazzitello thanked Ms. Johnson and asked how this work plan builds off the 2016 work plan. Ms. Johnson replied that she believes that this has plateaued in recent years, but noted that they are working to grow relationships in order to expand the program. Councilor Mazzitello asked at what point in the process developers should coordinate with the Master Gardeners on their landscaping plans. Ms. Johnson commented that they would love to have a point of contact with the developer prior to the review by the Planning Commission. Councilor Duggan commented that he believes the developer should work with the Master Gardeners earlier in the process, before significant investment has been put into the landscaping plans. He asked if the City is working towards establishing a Natural Resources Commission. Ms. Johnson stated that as a new member of the Planning Commission, she looks forward to working with staff to learn more about the development process and how the Master Gardeners could be better incorporated to capitalize on development/redevelopment projects. Mayor Levine stated that she has enjoyed the curb cut raingardens that have been incorporated into street projects. Ms. Johnson replied that it is a great program. She provided more details raingardens. Councilor Duggan asked if this information is available on the City’s website. Ms. Johnson commented that they would like to work with City staff to incorporate more educational information on the website. Councilor Duggan thanked Ms. Johnson for her enthusiasm, dedication, and expertise. Mayor Levine agreed that the community is a better place because of the work Ms. Johnson and her group completes. PUBLIC HEARING A) RESOLUTION 2021-44 VACATING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT – PINE CREEK ESTATES Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek presented Resolution 2021-44 Vacating Drainage and Utility Easements-Pine Creek Estates, commenced by petition. He asked the Council to conduct a public hearing. Councilor Mazzitello noted that items 8a. Resolution 2021-44 Vacating Drainage and Utility Easements- Pine Creek Estates and 9a.Resolution 2021-50 Approving the Final Plat of Audrey Addition, appear to be linked and asked if there is a preferred order in which these items should be considered. Mr. Ruzek replied that the items could be considered in the order they appear on the agenda. Councilor Mazzitello stated that a preliminary plat was approved in July 2020, even though there was a unanimous recommendation of denial from the Planning Commission. He asked what would be the ramifications if the Council were to deny the final plat request. City Attorney Elliott Knetsch replied that the preliminary plat was approved and is valid for two years. He noted that if action is delayed, the City could run up against the time deadline outlined in state statutes. Councilor Duggan referenced the draft language within the resolution related to the public hearing and asked for clarity on specific language. He asked if the order of consideration should be changed. Councilor Mazzitello commented that his question was simply whether these actions were in the correct order and stated that he does not object to the order listed on the agenda. Mr. Ruzek commented that if there are issues related to the final plat, he would prefer the discussion of 9a. to occur first, to ensure that the existing easements remain in place if the final plat is not approved. Mayor Levine commented that it appears there may be an issue as to whether the final plat would be approved, and if not approved, the vacation of the easement would not be needed. City Administrator Mark McNeill commented that this item could be tabled, the next item could then be considered, and then the Council could come back to 8a. to hold the public hearing on vacating the drainage and utility easements. Councilor Mazzitello moved to table item 8a. Resolution 2021-44 Vacating Drainage and Utility Easements-Pine Creek Estates. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) RESOLUTION 2021-50 APPROVE FINAL PLAT OF AUDREY ADDITION (F/K/A MOEHN ADDITION) 1770 DODD ROAD (LAKES, LLC/SEAN DOYLE - DEVELOPER) Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Council was being asked to consider adopting a resolution approving the final plat of a new subdivision titled “Audrey Addition”. The owner and developer is Sean Doyle of Lakes, LLC. Councilor Mazzitello asked staff to recap the activity of the Planning Commission on this case. Mr. Benetti commented that there was a challenge related to the variance request, as the two back lots would not have street frontage on a public roadway. He stated that when the adjacent property developed there was an agreement that this property would be able to subdivide in a similar manner, but a length of time passed, and a variance was then needed in order to create the lots. He stated that the variance was already approved and recorded by resolution therefore that is not part of the discussion tonight. He commented that the final plat is consistent with the preliminary plat. Councilor Duggan commented that the Planning Commission was challenged in issuing the variance as it did not feel it met the City requirements. He stated that when Pine Creek was developed, there was an understanding that this parcel would be allowed to similarly develop. He stated that the Pine Creek development also created a challenge for this property in creating two landlocked parcels. He stated that based on the history of the situation, the Council agreed to grant the variance. He stated that if this property would have developed in conjunction with Pine Creek, it would have been allowed. Councilor Miller commented that while this would have been allowed to go forward in 1992, the standards have changed since that time which is why he opposed the variance. He asked if the private driveway would have curb and gutter. Mr. Benetti replied that has not yet been decided. Councilor Miller stated that he believed the original agreement included widening the driveway and sprinkling the homes that will not have public street access. Mr. Benetti replied that the recommendation from the Fire Department was an either/or option, noting that a wider roadway would not require sprinkling. He noted that the turnaround and hydrant were also included to increase safety. Mayor Levine asked for details on the lot sizes. Mr. Benetti replied that all of the lots are compliant with the Code standards. Councilor Duggan referenced the proposed resolution language and provided suggested grammatical changes. Staff agreed with the proposed language changes. Councilor Mazzitello asked if the applicant would be willing to make this a public right-of-way. Sean Doyle, developer, replied that he is willing to work with the city. He stated that he had spoken with Mr. Peterson years ago about this property but when presented to him from city staff it was presented as an approved plat but the added clarity about the easement would be needed. He stated that he was presented the option to provide a 16-foot private driveway and sprinkle the two homes not abutting a public street, or to provide a 20-foot-wide private driveway and not sprinkle the homes. He stated that it is an option and is not a decision that he would have to make at this time. Councilor Mazzitello commented that the issue is that there is not 60 feet of right-of-way for a public street. Mr. Doyle commented that the intent is not to have a public street but instead a shared driveway between the homes. Councilor Duggan commented that the installation of a fire hydrant would be required. Mr. Doyle agreed. Mayor Levine invited members of the public to provide input. Jake Deeb, 1780 Dodd Road, stated that he does not oppose the project as long as it is completed right. He stated that some residents thought this was going to be a City street. He asked if curb-gutter would be included and how it would be maintained. City Administrator Mark McNeill stated this would be a private driveway maintained by the residents. Kathleen Orm, 1760 Dodd Road, commented that the private driveway has been an issue. She stated that when it was installed, the Fire Department made the comment that the driveway had to be raised, which flooded her home. She stated they have tried to mitigate the flooding but if it is raised again, it will cause additional drainage problems. She asked if the widened driveway would all fall onto the subject property. Mr. Benetti replied that in reference to the current driveway that serves the existing properties that would be removed and improved to add the additional width within the existing easement. He noted that all of the existing properties agreed to the rights of the existing easement in 1992, but a new easement would be recorded along with maintenance rights and shared costs between the existing and new properties. Ms. Orm commented that currently her property does not contribute towards the maintenance of the driveway. She stated that she does not see a reason that should change. Councilor Mazzitello noted that is a private agreement between the property owners and is not a City matter. Councilor Duggan asked if there has been a report of flooding for the property at 1760 Dodd Road. He stated that when a development is approved, it cannot negatively impact a neighboring property. Councilor Mazzitello confirmed there is language within the Code that provides that protection. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that this could be viewed as an opportunity to improve the existing conditions that could perhaps improve the flooding at 1760 Dodd Road. Councilor Mazzitello commented that he believes this is too far along in the process to change this to a public street, as the variance and preliminary plat have already been approved. He stated that he does not believe it should have gotten to this point, as there are continued problems with shared driveways. He stated that this is the last shared driveway and flag lot that he will approve. Councilor Miller commented that he did not agree to approve the variance or the preliminary plat and therefore would continue to not support this item. Councilor Paper commented that he also opposed the application last summer, but the approval was granted. He stated that even though he opposed the preliminary plat, this application fits within the rules of the City and therefore he will support the matter. Mayor Levine commented that when a previous body makes a decision, even if you do not agree with it, you are required to support that decision. She stated that the Council is a group and it is the job of the Council to support a previous decision, even if they do not agree with it. Councilor Mazzitello moved to approve RESOLUTION 2021-50 APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF AUDREY ADDITION LOCATED AT 1770 DODD ROAD WITH THE GRAMMATICAL CHANGES AS PROPOSED. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 (Miller) PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) A) RESOLUTION 2021-44 VACATING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT – PINE CREEK ESTATES Councilor Mazzitello moved to remove item 8a. from the table. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the Council was being asked to hold a public hearing for Resolution 2021-44, vacating a drainage and utility easement commenced by petition. Councilor Miller moved to open the public hearing. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 There being no one coming forward to speak, Councilor Mazzitello moved to close the public hearing. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilor Duggan asked if the language for this resolution should be adjusted because of the action taken on the final plat. Mr. Duggan suggested changes, but it was determined the changes were not necessary. Councilor Mazzitello moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2021-44 APPROVING AN EASEMENT VACATION WITHIN PINE CREEK ESTATES. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 (Miller) NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS (CONTINUED) B) RESOLUTION 2021-53 CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO APPROVE VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek presented Resolution 2021-53, calling for a public hearing to approve the vacation of right-of-way request by petition. Councilor Miller commented that the property owners of 606 Sibley Memorial Highway and 591 Hiawatha Avenue have petitioned for this. He asked if the other abutting property owners were aware of the petition. Mr. Ruzek commented that he did not believe those properties were aware at this time but they would be notified prior to the public hearing. Councilor Mazzitello commented that the properties to the west received their 30 feet of right-of-way when that subdivision was platted and therefore what remains is the 30 feet for the eastern plat. Mr. Ruzek commented that the additional 30 feet never existed for those properties to the west as it was never platted. Councilor Mazzitello commented that the statement was made that the additional 30 feet would make the property subdividable. He noted the property appears to be within the critical area and about the topography of the area. Mr. Ruzek explained that the property does not lie within the critical area zone. Mayor Levine stated she visited the site and could see why the property owners have requested the vacation. Councilor Duggan commented that it seems to be a reasonable request. He asked if the City has a need for the property. Mr. Ruzek commented that the only need may be for a trail connection. He stated that if the easement is vacated and later an easement is needed, the City would need to purchase it. Councilor Paper commented that this is overdue and a regular action of the City when the property is not needed for public use. Councilor Paper moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2021-53 CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN EASEMENT VACATION COMMENCED BY PETITION. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 C) RESOLUTION 2021-54 SUPPORT FOR THE SUBMITTAL OF A REQUEST FOR STATE BONDING FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AT OHEYAWAHE/HISTORIC PILOT KNOB City Administrator Mark McNeill presented Resolution 2021-54, supporting the submittal of a request for state bonding for capital improvements at Oheyawahe/Historic Pilot Knob. Mayor Levine commended staff for doing a great job to move quickly on this item as it is a worthy project. She expressed appreciation of the work the Task Force members are doing. Councilor Duggan moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2021-34 SUPPORT FOR THE SUBMITTAL OF A REQUEST FOR STATE BONDING FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AT OHEYAWAHE/HISTORIC PILOT KNOB. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Mark McNeill announced the upcoming Kids Dance on June 23rd at 6 p.m. He stated that the ribbon cutting for the new playground at Marie Park will be at 5 p.m. on July 1st. He stated that the 4th of July fireworks will be held on July 4th. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Duggan wished everyone a happy Father’s Day. Councilor Paper commented that the planning sessions with the Park and Rec Commission were great and commended the volunteer members of the Parks and Recreation Commission that contributed. He commented that the Cable Commission is looking for new members and encouraged residents to apply. He thanked Andrew Gotham and all of the Eagle Scouts in the community. He also congratulated former Mayor Garlock for another successful 5k event. Councilor Miller commented that he has an ailing parent that caused him to miss the last Council meeting and the planning workshops. He thanked everyone for the kind sentiments they have expressed. He encouraged residents to be mindful of the children that are out and about during the summer months. Councilor Mazzitello commented that the previous day had been Flag Day, which commemorates the day the government adopted the national flag that has grown throughout time. He encouraged everyone to reflect on what Flag Day means to them. Mayor Levine acknowledged the work the Pilot Knob Task Force has been doing along with the Master Gardeners. Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson noted the Eagle Scout project for Andrew Gotham will be held at 1288 Dodd Road on Wednesday, June 16th at 5:30 p.m. ADJOURN Councilor Mazzitello moved to adjourn. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 8:18 p.m. ____________________________________ Stephanie Levine Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of Work Session Meeting Held Tuesday, June 15, 2021 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 4:45 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Levine called the meeting to order at 4:48 p.m. Councilors Duggan, Paper, Mazzitello, and Miller, were also present. City Administrator Mark McNeill was also present. CITY ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW Mayor Levine said that the purpose of the work session was to interview Cheryl Jacobson for the position of City Administrator. The position will become vacant upon the retirement of Mark McNeill at the end of September. Cheryl Jacobson joined the meeting at this time, and Administrator McNeill left the meeting. The City Council conducted the interview. Following the interview, Jacobson left, and McNeill rejoined the meeting. The Council determined that it would provisionally offer the position to Ms. Jacobson. There would need to be a background investigation conducted, and an Employment Agreement negotiated. Ms. Jacobson then rejoined the meeting, and agreed to accept the position. It was determined that official action to formalize the hiring would take place at the July 6th City Council meeting. ADJOURN There being no further business, Councilor Mazzitello made the motion to adjourn the meeting, which was seconded by Councilor Miller. The motion carried 5-0. Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 5:41 PM. Minutes Taken By: Mark McNeill City Administrator CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2021 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 25, 2021 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, Sally Lorberbaum, Cindy Johnson, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of April 27, 2021 Minutes COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2021. Further discussion: Commissioner Katz noted on Page 5 the fourth paragraph, it should state, “…approval or denial.” Instead of: “...approval of denial.” Chair Field also noted on Page 11, it should read, “Chair Field…” instead of “Chair Fields…” AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2021-06 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS – ZONING CODE AMENDMENT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the City of Mendota Heights is asked to consider an ordinance amendment to City Code Title 12 – Zoning, specifically Section 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures, which would amend and revise certain design standards and allowances for various accessory structures in the city. Hearing notices were published and posted to the City’s website; no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti 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 reviewed the available actions the Commission could take. Commissioner Katz noted that the staff reports notes that this would be for residential areas only but advised that there are a few homes located within industrial zoning. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that because of the underlying industrial land use, those homes would need to come in and apply for a variance, therefore this would not apply to this instances. Commissioner Petschel referenced the language limiting to a single level and not allowing lofts. He asked for clarification on how a shop area in the lofted part of a detached garage would be viewed. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that would be viewed as a livable or habitable space and therefore that would be discouraged. He explained that what could be a shop one day could easily be converted into living space the next. He stated that once a building is built the property owners could change the intended use and therefore staff would want to ensure it is clear that cannot be used for habitable space. Commissioner Petschel agreed that secondary residences should not be created on a property but noted that is usually prevented by not allowing plumbing. Community Development Director Tim Benetti agreed that plumbing, kitchen features and mechanical access are typically what qualify something as a dwelling unit. Commissioner Corbett asked if the roof height is a local definition and should be repeated throughout the Code. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that measurement definition is consistent throughout Code with the exception of an accessory structure under 144 square feet. He stated that he would like to limit the scale of the accessory structures under 144 square feet. Commissioner Corbett commented that it would be nice to have a consistent definition for roof height. He asked how the numbers were determined within the table by staff. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that those numbers were a reflection of a review of ordinances from other communities and then tweaking that information in attempt to best fit this community. Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that she reviewed the table and the percentage changes between the categories are not consistent. She suggested making the dimensions more in line with the other proportional advances. She recommended 2,400 square feet rather than 2,600. Commissioner Corbett stated that this would allow structures that are 100 percent than what is currently allowed in terms of height. He stated that he would imagine that the setbacks are related to the impacts for neighboring properties. He asked if different setbacks should be considered for larger accessory buildings as the largest building allowed would be three times the size of some homes in Mendota Heights. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that initially he had a suggested increased setback but after speaking with legal counsel and other planners, it was suggested that the same setback for a home be used. He stated that if the Commission feels a larger setback is warranted, he would support that. Commissioner Corbett commented that he would find a larger setback reasonable. He noted that a home on one third of an acre could abut an eight-acre lot that could support a larger accessory structure, therefore he would support a larger setback as a larger lot would have space to provide that additional setback. He referenced the playhouse accessory structure language and asked if a resident would be prohibited from purchasing a premade plastic playhouse because they already have the maximum size of accessory buildings. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that this language would apply to permanent structures, not the plastic temporary structures that are easily moved around the yard. He stated that the language was intended to address the recent inquiries and demand to permanent playhouse, or treehouse structures. Commissioner Johnson referenced accessory structure 144 square feet or less, which is limited to a single story less than 15 feet in height, noting that there is also language allowing 1.5 stories but still under 15 feet in height. She asked for clarification. She stated that an accessory structure 15 feet in height setback five feet from the property line would impact the light and air for the neighboring property and could bring about complaints. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that if the setback is changed, that would put a lot of structures into nonconforming status, and he would not recommend doing that. He recommended leaving the accessory structures of 144 square feet or less at a five-foot setback. He noted that if the setback is desired to be increased for the other allowed accessory structures that could be done. Commissioner Corbett explained that the height different mentioned between the two statements related to accessory structures under 144 feet is the difference in how the measurement is completed. Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that currently today, the City allows for accessory structures under 144 feet to have a height of 15 feet at the midpoint. He noted that changes to that language would place existing structures in nonconforming status. He stated that limiting those structures to one story could be done. Commissioner Corbett commented that it has been mentioned that the midpoint of 15 feet is high. He stated that it would seem it could be warranted to change that but was unsure how many structures would become nonconforming. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that most sheds range from ten to 12 feet in height, at most. He noted that sheds are typically temporary structures and therefore he was unsure how much of an issue it would be for some to become nonconforming. Commissioner Johnson stated that perhaps language could be included to address those existing sheds that would become nonconforming. She stated that even though sheds are considered temporary, some people go to a large expense in designing and constructing them. Community Development Director Tim Benetti reviewed the guidance for nonconforming uses. He stated that if the desire is to limit to a certain height, he suggested 15 feet at the top in order to keep everyone in a safe range to not create an issue with nonconformance but could support the 15 feet midpoint as well. Commissioner Johnson stated that she likes the ideas brought forward related to the table and reviewing that more in detail related to setbacks. She referenced the temporary or elevated playhouses. She noted that some treehouses have become very popular for both adults and children and are not meant to be temporary. She asked if the floor of the treehouse could be at 12 feet with a railing at three feet for a total height of 15 feet. She asked if there would be setbacks for the structure or whether a treehouse could be placed next to a privacy fence, which would circumvent the purpose of a privacy fence. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that a playhouse or treehouse would currently fall under an accessory structure of 144 square feet or less and would have a five-foot setback requirement. Chair Field asked if the word temporary were removed to describe those accessory structures, would it alleviate some of the confusion that has been expressed towards the plastic playhouse example. Community Development Director Tim Benetti agreed that could be done. Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that treehouse and playhouse have not been defined within this language and therefore perhaps those definitions need to be added. Chair Field stated that there have been a lot of suggestions made tonight, but someone would need to make a motion to incorporate those suggested changes. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that the terms playhouse and treehouse are pretty universal, and he would be inclined to leave the language as such. He stated that portion could also be removed from the ordinance at this time and could be brought back in the future when the more comprehensive review of the ordinance is completed. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she would support removal of that language at this time. Commissioner Johnson agreed as she believed that more thought should be put into that and how it could impact adjacent properties. She asked if the Commission feels that 15 feet would be appropriate five feet from the property line for accessory structures under 144 square feet. Commissioner Corbett noted that the “problem structure” would be smaller in size than what is already allowed. He stated that he would like to change the limit to 15 feet at the high point rather than midpoint. He asked if the Commission feels that calculations could be done tonight for the discussed changes, or whether this should be tabled. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that he would strongly suggest that the setback remain at five feet for structures under 144 square feet. He stated that B-2 and B-3 would require a ten-foot setback. He noted that if the desire is for an increased setback for the larger accessory structures, that could be made equivalent to the setback for a home. Chair Corbett noted that the issue of midpoint and high point is always a challenge. Commissioner Petschel commented that he would be comfortable with a midpoint of 12 feet, which would be fairly standard across the metro area as well as the majority of readily available structures at local stores. He stated that given with how people may play around with the geometry of roofs, someone could build a 15-foot box with a flat roof, which is not the intention. He stated that he would like to see people able to use their garages for other activities, as is common in the northern portion of the community. He noted that often times there are stairs to the lofted portion of a garage for additional structure. He noted that he would strike almost the entire portion of section six related to garages. He agreed that a backdoor should not be left for habitability. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that the few times he has received inquiries, he has always been clear that the space cannot be converted into a dwelling unit or habitable space. He noted that often times workspace is morphed into a rental space or additional living space. He stated that he would be okay with shop tools or equipment stored/used in that area as long as it does not disturb neighbors. Commissioner Toth asked if the change to a midpoint of 12 feet for the structures under 144 square feet would eliminate the possibility of a barn style garden shed. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that would still be allowed and explained how those barn style roofs are measured. Commissioner Johnson asked the top height of the shed with a 12-foot midpoint. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that it would depend on the pitch of the roof but estimated that it would be below 15 feet. Commissioner Johnson stated that perhaps the high point is 12 feet. Commissioner Corbett stated that he would still want to define it with a midpoint for consistency but wanted to ensure that the sheds available for purchase at store would fit within that range. Commissioner Johnson suggested that a midpoint of ten feet be used. Commissioner Lorberbaum provided the example of someone with an eight-acre lot building a large accessory structure and then sold and subdivided their lot and asked what would happen to the accessory structure in that instance. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that the accessory structure could remain as long as it remains on the lot with the principal dwelling unit; it could not be subdivided onto a new parcel. He stated that if the accessory structure were not proposed to remain on the lot with the original home it would be required to be removed. It was confirmed that was actually done in a previous case where the accessory structure was required to be removed prior to filing the lot split. Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that she supports removal of the playhouse/treehouse language to be considered at another time. She referenced the setback language and photographic example and asked how far the structures can be apart. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the accessory structures must be five feet from a principal structure. Chair Field stated that he spoke with staff this morning and obtained an opinion from legal counsel as well. He noted that if the table is expanded above five acres, he does have a lot that is over five acres in size and therefore there could be a perceived opinion that he could benefit from the change. He stated that he wanted to disclose that information in case someone objects to him voting on the matter. 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 LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 565, WHICH AMENDS CERTAIN SECTIONS OF ZONING CODE, TITLE 12 – ZONING, WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: A 12 FOOT MIDPOINT SHOULD BE USED IN 1, 2 AND 3; IN C1 B3 2,400 SQUARE FEET SHOULD BE USED; AND SECTION 3 SHOULD BE DELETED. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM WITHDREW HER MOTION. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that a larger structure would tend to have a larger demand for engineered roof trusses that would require or necessitate a higher roof line or structure which is why 18 or 20 feet is suggested for the midpoint for item B3. He stated that he would be open to suggestions. Chair Field noted that the setback for larger accessory structures was also not included in the potential motion. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that if desired, that could be left for the comprehensive zoning review. Commissioner Petschel asked if that language would be more appropriate for the next section related to detached garages. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that it falls under the broad category of height and this section applies to all accessory structures, regardless of shed or garage. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 565, WHICH AMENDS CERTAIN SECTIONS OF ZONING CODE, TITLE 12 – ZONING, WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: PROPERTIES OVER FIVE ACRES (AS NOTED IN THE TABLE) LIMITED TO 2,400 SQUARE FEET WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; SETBACKS FOR PROPERTIES THAT FALL INTO CATEGORIES UNDER B.2.b.(1), (2) AND (3) REVISED TO 10 FEET, 15 FEET AND 18 FEET RESPECTIVELY; AND SECTION C.3 SHALL BE REMOVED. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO AMEND SECTION C.1C.(6) TO STATE THAT ANY DETACHED GARAGE WITH AN ALLOWED UPPER STORY OR LOFT SHALL NOT BE USED AS A HABITABLE SPACE AND THAT THE LOFT SPACE NOT BE SUBTRACTED FROM THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE. COMMISSIONER CORBETT STATED THAT HE WOULD ACCEPT THAT WITH THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE “ OR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT OR LIVING SPACE”. CHAIR FIELD CONFIRMED THE LANGUAGE TO THEN READ, “ANY ATTACHED GARAGE WITH AN ALLOWED UPPER STORY OR LOFT SHALL NOT BE USED AS HABITABLE SPACE OR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.” COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL NOTED THAT HE WOULD ALSO LIKE THE LANGUAGE THAT THE LOFT SPACE NOT BE SUBTRACTED FROM THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE. COMMISSIONER CORBETT AND COMMISSIONER JOHNSON APPROVED INCLUSION OF THE LANGUAGE AS SUGGESTED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL. COMMISSIONER TOTH ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION ON THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED FOR LARGER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. COMMISSIONER CORBETT CLARIFIED THAT WOULD BE 18 FEET. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 B) PLANNING CASE 2021-02 MIKE CASHILL, 806 BACHELOR AVENUE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that at the April 27, 2021 regular Planning Commission meeting, the applicant presented for consideration a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow an oversized detached garage, with added variances to allow the garage to exceed the maximum area of 1,800 square feet; and allow the garage to exceed the maximum height of 15 feet up to 17.5 feet (measured) or 24 feet in overall height. The Commission elected to table this matter to the May 25th meeting and kept the public hearing open. The Commission further directed staff to work on a Zoning Code amendment for further consideration at the same May 25th meeting. Community Development Director Tim Benetti 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 reviewed the available actions the Commission could take. Chair Field welcomed input from the applicant. Mike Cashill, applicant, commented that he is present to address any questions. Chair Field referenced the previous language related to the potential for a lot split and impact to accessory structure. He noted in that in a previous instance an accessory structure was required to be demolished in order to proceed with the lot split and asked that the applicant acknowledge that stipulation. Mr. Cashill confirmed he understands that and noted that he does not have the intent to split his lot in the future. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Johnson stated that she would like to comment and commend the homeowner for replacing some of the trees. She stated that some of the trees chosen are native trees that will help to enhance the pollinator friendly City. She referenced the comments from the Natural Resources Technician and stated that while there were ill trees and trees that were not in good condition, some of those trees are native even though they have struggled. She stated that while some of the volunteer trees are pollinator friendly, they are not generally that desirable. She stated that the cherry trees will be missed by butterflies and the birds. She stated that perhaps the homeowner could find a place on their property to plant cherry trees. She stated that crab apples trees can be a challenge and suggested an alternative, such as serviceberry trees. She also appreciated that the homeowner will be removing buckthorn. Commissioner Petschel noted that his only concern in the findings of fact would be whether this would be subject to the amended standards. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that is included in the introduction but could be tied into the end of the motion. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO THE FINDINGS OF FACT WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT AND CONDITIONAL UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE NO. 565. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM ASKED WHERE THE APPLICANT WOULD BE LEFT IF THE ORDINANCE IS CHANGED AND THE MOTION IS MADE CONTINGENT. CHAIR FIELD STATED THAT IF THE AMENDMENTS ARE NOT APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL, THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE DIRECTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS A RECOMMENDATION. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM ASKED WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE APPLICANT IN THAT INSTANCE. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE ORDINANCE MAY NOT PASS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. CHAIR FIELD NOTED THAT THE MOTION COULD BE MADE CONTINGENT UPON THE ORDINANCE AS APPLICABLE TO THIS APPLICATION. HE STATED THAT WOULD ALLOW THE COUNCIL TO MAKE CHANGES TO DIFFERENT PORTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE WITHOUT IMPACTING THIS CASE. IT WAS CONFIRMED THAT THE LANGUAGE WOULD BE CLARIFIED THAT THE ACTION IS CONTINGENT UPON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE NO. 565 AS IT RELATED TO THIS APPLICATION. COMMISSIONER KATZ COMMENTED THAT HE WOULD HOPE THIS ITEM BE ADDED TO THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA AS THE PROPERTY LINE TOUCHES PARK LAND. HE NOTED THAT ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING COULD BE ADDED TO THE GOLF COURSE TO BUFFER THE USE. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI CONFIRMED THAT COULD BE DONE. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 1, 2021 meeting. C) PLANNING CASE 2021-05 JOE OPACK, 662 IVY FALLS COURT – VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Joe Opack, owner of 662 Ivy Falls Court, is requesting a variance to allow a new half-circle shaped driveway on the subject property. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site. The applicant provided a “Neighbor Signatures of Consent” from six of his neighbors not objecting to the variance request. No other comments were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti 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 reviewed the available actions the Commission could take. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Joe Opack, applicant, commented that he appreciates consideration of his request. He stated that the main door of the home is fairly obvious to the floorplan and it does not have access in the winter months. He stated that he would like to provide access without the use of steps for his older relatives that visit his home. Commissioner Katz referenced the ash trees and asked if those trees are alive. Mr. Opack commented that he was informed that the previous homeowner treated the trees. He stated that if they cannot be saved, he would plan to replace the trees as he would like to keep as many trees as possible. Commissioner Katz commented that even though trees are treated, they still tend to die because of the Emerald Ash Borer. He stated that the root system for the trees is also most likely around where the driveway will run and therefore this could be a good time to remove those trees. Mr. Opack commented that the contractors he has consulted did not believe the trees would be impacted by this project and that a decision would be needed at this time. He noted that they are mature trees, and he would like to keep them. Commissioner Johnson asked the distance from the proposed driveway and tree trunks. She stated that about 20 feet of the trunk is needed in order to avoid root impacts. Mr. Opack stated that he could have an arborist review the situation before making a decision. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked why 12 feet was selected for the driveway width. Mr. Opack commented that he does not feel he would use the driveway a lot for their personal use and want it as a spot for their visitors to park on their driveway to access the front door and then continue to pull through and avoid backing out onto the busy roadway. Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that she has a horseshoe driveway and believes Mr. Opack will love it. She commented that the driveways would generally align with those across the street. Commissioner Corbett asked if the applicant considered a sidewalk from the street to the door and why that would not be adequate. Mr. Opack commented that he considered that. He noted that he has relatives from Nebraska that routinely visit, and he would like to provide access without steps, noting that there are about eight steps from the garage side. He commented that he believes there are overnight parking restrictions that would prevent guests from parking on the road and then using the front door. Commissioner Lorberbaum noted that the driveway would provide closer access for those with mobility issues. Commissioner Corbett asked if an internal circle was considered rather than two curb cuts. Mr. Opack commented that he considered other alternatives but noted those options seemed to use more cement. He stated that they felt this design would be the best choice for the neighborhood and preference for the neighbors. Commissioner Corbett asked if there is a stop sign at the Sylvandale Curve and it was confirmed there is not. He stated that could support it being a unique circumstance in terms of traffic and not having people park on the roadway. Commissioner Johnson asked about another alternative that would have two curb cuts rather than three. Mr. Opack commented that they did consider that but that would result in a large amount of sidewalk through the yard. Commissioner Toth referenced the original building permit and asked if those plans included a curved driveway. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that he did not review the original building permit. He noted that the property was previously addressed from Sylvandale and the previous property owner switched it to Ivy Falls Court. He noted that this driveway would not change the addressing or functionality of the property. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY, WHICH WOULD EXCEED THE 25 FOOT WIDTH ALLOWED AT THE PROPERTY LINE, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT SUPPORT THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED AS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 1, 2021 meeting. D) PLANNING CASE 2021-08 PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 566 – PRESCRIBED GOAT GRAZING CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS – ZONING CODE AMENDMENT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Planning Commission is being asked to consider a draft ordinance which would allow the temporary keeping of goats on properties for prescribed grazing purposes only. Prescribed grazing refers to the natural elimination of certain invasive or noxious vegetation by goats, with said grazing allowed by special permit only. Hearing notices were published. Community Development Director Tim Benetti 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 reviewed the available actions the Commission could take. Chair Field asked if there is anyone interested in immediately using goats if approved. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that at least four or five property owners have requested this use. He stated that while there is perhaps an issue with timing, buckthorn remains throughout the season and therefore goats could be used midsummer or into the fall. Commissioner Katz referenced C5 related to the number of goats and prescribed grazing area. He asked if the prescribed grazing area would be the entire lot, or the area grazed specifically. Chair Field noted that the temporary enclosure would define the grazing area. Commissioner Johnson stated that a resident took time and effort to speak to experts and provided that input to the City. She stated that several of those suggestions could be important to add into the ordinance. She referenced comments that were provided related to the number of allowed goats in order to use the goats for a smaller period of time. She stated that she understands many cities use the one tenth threshold but believed the topography and amount of material to be grazed helps to determine the number of goats needed rather than the size of the area. She stated that while the language suggests that supplemental feeding can occur, she would not suggest that as the goats should be hungry to eat the buckthorn. She stated that if the goats become unhealthy, they should be removed and treated offsite by the contractor that owns the goats. She stated that the Invasive Jumping Worm is in Mendota Heights and is difficult to control, noting that the only way to stop the spread of that is through prevention. She referenced the use of a hoof bath for the goats which would help to prevent the spread of the Invasive Jumping Worm. She stated that goats should also be required to have a three day clean out period on their home property before being brought to a new location. Commissioner Corbett asked where that information was gained. Commissioner Johnson stated that it was within an email from a resident dated February 21st. She commented that it is important to think about the invasive species aspect. She stated that she would also support the use of a higher number of goats in order to use the goats for a smaller period of time. Commissioner Corbett stated that those comments seem appropriate. He agreed that the need for the number of goats should depend upon the density of the invasive material. He referenced the three day clean out period and asked for details on whether a goat would be counterproductive after a certain number of days if the seeds are coming back out. Commissioner Johnson commented that she believes it would be smart to work to reduce introduction of new invasive species. Chair Field stated that because there is no pressing urgency, perhaps Commissioner Johnson connect staff with the author of the email in order to incorporate those suggestions into the ordinance language. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she hopes that the Commission provide any additional comments to staff as well to ensure the next review would be more expedient. Commissioner Toth referenced the issues of shelter and predator control. He asked how it would be handled if a goat were killed by a predator; if there would be a policy related to daily fecal control; and daily care, specifically whether someone is checking the condition of the goats daily. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked how this ordinance differs from the ordinance used by Inver Grove Heights. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that staff from that city did a lot of research and the City Attorney agreed that this was a good ordinance to start with, so there is not much difference in this proposed ordinance. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that the proposed fence would not exceed six feet in height and asked if something should be included for a minimum fence height to ensure the barrier is sufficient. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that could be done. Commissioner Corbett noted that there would be a desire for natural containment from the owner of the goats. He stated that staff could follow up with a goat owner to determine an appropriate minimum. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked why the applicant would not be the property owner rather than the goat owner. She stated that the property owner should perhaps be the applicant and the goat owner could be a co-applicant. Community Development Director Tim Benetti used the example of a homeowners association, noting that the goat owner could then represent the property as one applicant rather than listing multiple applicants. Chair Field stated that perhaps it would be a joint application between the property owner and goat owner to ensure the conditions related to the goats are addressed. He stated that if there is an issue, the goat owners should be accountable for their goats and if the property owner is the only applicant the contact information for the goat owner may not be provided. Commissioner Katz stated that perhaps there would be a courtesy to neighbors that notification would be provided to neighbors if this permit is desired. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that is part of the ordinance as proposed. Commissioner Petschel stated that requiring a goat owner to be on the application would be similar to what is required for building permits, in which a roofing contractor is listed for roof replacement. Commissioner Corbett asked if there is licensing required for people to own goats and use them in this way. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that while there are companies out there that do this type of work, there is not specific licensing required. Commissioner Corbett asked how a goat provider would be held liable. Commissioner Petschel commented that liability insurance would be required. Commissioner Johnson stated at the February 23rd meeting it was stated that Burnsville had an animal event questionnaire and asked if that would be included or not included. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the permit application or template format has not yet been developed. He explained that a lot of information would be required to be supplied for the permit. Chair Field opened the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO TABLE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE JUNE MEETING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 New/Unfinished Business B) PLANNING CASE 2021-07 ORDINANCE NO. 568 – MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA (MRCCA) - CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS – ZONING CODE AMENDMENT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Planning Commission is being asked to review draft Ordinance No. 568, which represents the beginning steps in the replacement and creation of a new Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Ordinance for the community. Community Development Director Tim Benetti suggested the idea of the Commission holding a workshop to discuss this topic as it will take multiple hours to get through the nuisances of this item. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she has a number of comments. Community Development Director Tim Benetti suggested that be done in email to staff. Commissioner Petschel asked if the actual overlay is changing. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the outline or demarcation of the corridor has not changed. Chair Field confirmed the intent of the Commission to hold a workshop. He stated that an invitation could be extended to the City Council and/or Park and Recreation Commission as optional, should those members have an interest in this topic. He asked that the workshop not be in close proximity to the regular Commission meeting date. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that he would attempt to coordinate that and send out potential dates. Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review: • The Comprehensive Plan has been deemed complete by the Metropolitan Council, and is going through its final review. The new plan will be brought back to the city for official adoption later. Adjournment COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:27 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Request for City Council Action DATE: July 6, 2021 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator, and Assistant City Administrator FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-56 Accepting Donations INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to formally accept additional donations which were received for the 2021 Officer Scott Patrick Memorial 5K and Cliff Timm Memorial Fishing Derby, as well as a donation for a tree at Marie Park from the MOMS Club of Mendota Heights. BACKGROUND By state law, all donations to the City must be accepted by the City Council by means of a resolution. On June 5, the annual Scott Patrick Memorial 5K Race was held. There were 372 participants in the 5K this year, which raised over $16,000 for Special Olympics of Minnesota. An additional donation from Ultan Duggan was received which had not been listed in an earlier resolution of acknowledgement. On August 12th, the annual Cliff Timm Memorial Fishing Derby will be held. A donation from Sally Lorberbaum was received for the event. The MOMS Club of Mendota Heights recently donated $200 to be used to add a tree at Marie Park near the new playground. The City is grateful for the generosity of these donations. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve Resolution 2021-56. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion adopt RESOLUTION 2021-56 FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF DONATIONS FOR PARK AND RECREATION RELATED ITEMS. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-56 RESOLUTION 2021-56 FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF DONATIONS FOR PARK AND RECREATION RELATED ITEMS. WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to follow Minnesota Statute 465.03 “Gifts to Municipalities”; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Statute requires a resolution to accept gifts to municipalities; and WHEREAS, the City has previously acknowledged gifts with a resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights have duly considered this matter and wish to acknowledge the civic mindedness of citizens and officially recognize their donations. NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights is accepting donations from the following people in support of the Scott Patrick Memorial 5K Race and Cliff Timm Memorial Fishing Derby, as well as an additional tree to be added to Marie Park from a community organization: 2021 5K Donations DONOR DONATION VALUE Ultan Duggan $100 cash $100 2021 Cliff Timm Memorial Fishing Derby Donations DONOR DONATION VALUE Sally Lorberbaum $100 cash $100 Tree Donation DONOR DONATION VALUE MOMS Club of Mendota Heights $200 Cash for Tree $200 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 6th day of July 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk Request for City Council Action DATE: July 6 , 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Kelly McCarthy, Chief of Police Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Police Officer Resignation and Position Recruitment INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to accept the resignation of Police Officer Chad Willson and authorize staff to begin the Police Officer Recruitment process. BACKGROUND Chad Willson has resigned his position as a Police Officer effective June 25, 2021. To fill the resulting vacancy, staff requests authorization to begin the Police Officer recruitment process. The recruitment process will start with a position posting/advertisement. It is anticipated that the application period will run from approximately July 12 to August 13. Interested applicants must submit a cover letter, resume, city application and application supplement. Applications will be evaluated and ranked, and interviews and testing conducted. After the initial posting period, the hiring process is anticipated to take four to six weeks. BUDGET IMPACT Funding for the position is provided for in the 2021 budget. ACTION RECOMMENDED Staff recommends that the City Council accept Chad Willson’s resignation effective June 25, 2021 and authorize staff to begin the recruitment process to fill a Police Officer vacancy within the department. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, accept the resignation of Chad Willson effective June 25, 2021 and authorize staff to begin the Police Officer recruitment process. Request for City Council Action DATE: July 6, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: On Sale Intoxicating / Sunday Liquor License for Copperfield MH LLC dba The Copperfield, 735 Maple Street COMMENT: Introduction The City Council is being asked to consider the approval of a new On-sale Intoxicating Liquor/Sunday Liquor license for Copperfield MH LLC dba The Copperfield, to be located at 735 Maple Street. Background Copperfield MH LLC has applied for an On-sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor license for their new restaurant to be located at 735 Maple Street. The applicants have submitted a complete license packet and paid the required license and background investigation fees. The Mendota Heights Police Department has completed a thorough investigation of the applicants and found no issues or concerns. The restaurant will have seating for 163 guests inside and 42 outside on the patio. If approved, the license would be effective August 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. The license would not be issued until the applicants have received a Certificate of Occupancy from the Mendota Heights Building Inspector and submitted a copy of the State of MN Department of Health Restaurant license. Recommendation Staff recommends the Council approve an On-sale Intoxicating Liquor and Sunday Liquor license for Copperfield MH LLC dba The Copperfield, 735 Maple Street. Action Required A motion to approve an On-sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor license for Copperfield MH LLC dba The Copperfield, 735 Maple Street, subject to receipt of a certificate of occupancy from the Mendota Heights Building Inspector and the Minnesota Department of Health restaurant license. Date: July 6, 2021 To: Mayor and City Council From: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director Mark McNeill, City Administrator Subject: Resolution Accepting American Rescue Plan Funding Comment: Introduction: The City Council is asked to adopt Resolution 2021-57, which accepts American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) monies by the City, and by its adoption agree to follow Federal guidelines in use of the funds . Background: In March, Congress adopted the ARPA, which provides stimulus and pandemic recovery funds to state, local, and tribal governments. $65 billion is allocated to cities nationally. Because Mendota Heights is a city of fewer than 50,000 people, the State of Minnesota is charged with distributing funds to the City. The U.S. Department of the Treasury has adopted guidelines for the use of the funds. Broadly, it is to be used for expenses in response to the public health emergency, expenses relating to the negative impacts of the pandemic, premium pay for essential workers, revenue replacement, and infrastructure improvements to sewer, water, and broadband. Funds must be committed by December 31, 2024, and be expended by the end of 2026. To use the funds, the City must agree to abide by the Federal guidelines. Budget Impact: The allocation for Mendota Heights is $1,191,105. The City will receive one half of the funding this summer, and the other half in 2022. Recommendation: For the City to use these funds, we recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution acknowledging the amount of the funds; the dates by which they are to be received, committed, and spent; and that the City will agree to follow the Federal guidelines. Action Required: If the City Council concurs, it should, by motion, adopt Resolution 2021-57: A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE CORONAVIRUS LOCAL FISCAL RECOVERY FUND ESTABLISHED UNDER THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT Kristen Schabacker Mark McNeill Finance Director City Administrator CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS RESOLUTION 2021-57 A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE CORONAVIRUS LOCAL FISCAL RECOVERY FUND ESTABLISHED UNDER THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT WHEREAS, since the first case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was discovered in the United States in January 2020, the virus has impacted every part of life: infecting millions and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands, social distancing became a necessity, businesses closed, schools transitioned to remote education, travel was sharply reduced, and millions of Americans lost their jobs; and WHEREAS, as a result of the Pandemic cities have been called on to respond to the needs of their communities through the prevention, treatment, and vaccination of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, city revenues, businesses and nonprofits in the city have faced economic impacts due to the Pandemic; and WHEREAS, Congress adopted the American Rescue Plan Act in March 2021 (“ARPA”) which included $65 billion in recovery funds for cities across the country; and WHEREAS, ARPA funds are intended to provide support to state, local, and tribal governments in responding to the impact of COVID-19 and in their efforts to contain COVID-19 in their communities, residents, and businesses; and WHEREAS, $1,191,015 has been allocated to the City of Mendota Heights (“City”) pursuant to the ARPA (“Allocation”); and WHEREAS, the United States Department of Treasury has adopted guidance regarding the use of ARPA funds; and WHEREAS, the City, in response to the Pandemic, has had expenditures and anticipates future expenditures consistent with the Department of Treasury’s ARPA guidance; and WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota will distribute ARPA funds to the City because its population is less than 50,000. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City intends to collect its share of ARPA funds from the State of Minnesota to use in a manner consistent with the Department of Treasury’s guidance. 2. City staff, together with the Mayor and the City Administrator are hereby authorized to take any actions necessary to receive the City’s share of ARPA funds from the State of Minnesota for expenses incurred because of the Pandemic. 3. City staff, together with the Mayor and the City Administrator are hereby authorized to make recommendations to the City Council for future expenditures that may be reimbursed with ARPA funds. Adopted by the City Council of Mendota Heights, Minnesota this 6th day of July, 2021. ___________________ Stephanie Levine, Mayor Attest: ___________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Request for City Council Action DATE: July 6, 2021 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator, and Assistant City Administrator FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Authorize Purchase Order for the Friendly Hills Park Pickleball Addition INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to authorize a purchase order to install surfacing at the Friendly Hills Park hockey rink in order for the facility to be used for pickleball. BACKGROUND In 2020 the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed the need for more pickleball courts in Mendota Heights. At the time the four pickleball courts at Marie Park were highly used and residents had requested additional courts in the City. The commission discussed the addition of dedicated pickleball courts within the City, but ultimately decided to look at surfacing and lining an existing hockey rink. The Commission decided Friendly Hills was the desired location. The Commission directed staff to send a notice to residents within 500 feet of the Friendly Hills hockey rink to solicit feedback on the addition of pickleball to the park. Two residents attended the October 13 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting during the open forum period to ask questions, but were not formally in favor or against the proposed improvement. At the October 20 City Council meeting, staff presented the Parks and Recreation Commission’s recommendation for the addition of pickleball courts at Friendly Hills Park. The City Council directed staff to obtain quotes for the project. DISCUSSION Staff received one quote to install a professional surfacing similar to that of a tennis court to the Friendly Hills hockey rink. The final product will be the same as the surfacing at the Marie Pickleball courts. Staff is proposing the main rink would be colored in a light blue with white line striping for pickleball. A lighter blue will be selected to limit the melting of ice on sunny winter days. Three other contractors were asked to submit quotes, but were unable to bid the project this summer due to busy schedules. The quote received is as follows: • Surface Pro $23,000.00 Surface Pro was the contractor who installed the pickleball surfacing at Marie Park in 2019 and staff was happy with their work. The quote includes surface inspection and cleaning, court inspection and repair for chips, cracks and dings, surfacing and painting. The contractor will also line six pickleball courts within the rink with USTA approved white line paint. The contractor estimates completion of the project by the end of the summer. Mendota Heights Public Works will install the footings and net posts for the six courts. BUDGET IMPACT The costs for the installation of the new amenity are proposed to be paid for out of the Special Park Fund. The Special Parks Fund has a sufficient balance to cover the $23,000 expense to add pickleball courts to Friendly Hills Park. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending the City Council authorize the purchase order for the Friendly Hills hockey rink surfacing to enable pickleball play. ACTION REQUIRED If the City Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize staff to execute a purchase order to Surface Pro for $23,000 to add six pickleball courts within the existing hockey rink at Friendly Hills Park. PROPOSAL__________________________________________________ 3731 Thurston Ave Suite 103 Anoka MN 55303 612-245-0750 www.surfacepromn.com Proposal Date: 6/18/2021 Proposal Submitted To: Contact Name: Meredith Site address:Friendly Hills Phone:651-302-3301 Email: Mlawrence@mendotaheightsmn.gov Business name if applicable: City of Mendota Heights MN We hereby bid to complete the following: Resurface 203x76 outdoor rink in light blue with 6 pickleball courts in white lines. Surface Inspection and Cleaning: Court will be cleaned thoroughly to remove all dirt and residue from the surface. Clear entire court of debris. Power wash all loose materials and debris from every part of the surface. *Note: this process will take an on site water supply Court Inspection: Chips, Cracks, Dings- These areas will be repaired with portland and binder filler, applying pressure with a tool, such as a putty knife or trowel.This is done to insure that material comes in contact with all surfaces of the crack or void. The filler will be allowed to set a minimum of one hour. If material shrinks below grade level, material will be reapplied in the same manner and allowed to set. Surfacing/Resurfacing: Apply two squeegee coats of Acrylic Resurfacer (ACR) will be applied in strict accordance with the SportMaster product specifications and guidelines. Surface coats will be applied at the manufacturer’s recommended rates per square yard for each coat. Painting Apply two squeegee coats of SportMaster Color-plus Acrylic Tennis Court Paint in strict accordance with the SportMaster product specifications and guidelines. Acrylic paint coats will be applied at the manufacturer’s recommended rates per square yard for each coat. Line the courts using white USTA approved line paint Colors to be: Light blue Total for surfacing 203x76 outdoor rink into 6 pickleball courts, price includes all materials and labor: $23,000.00 •Price does not include any posts or nets. Water to be provided for SurfacePro on site. Please read this entire contract before signing. All material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in a substantial workmanlike manner with payments made as follows. Payment information Customer shall make payment of 50% at start project (To be received by Surface Pro LLC before starting project) Final payment of 50% upon completion unless other wise noted in this contract. A monthly finance charge of 3% can be added to any payments more than 30 days past due. WARRANTY AND NOTES: All workmanship is warrantied for 2 years, this includes and is limited to issues of pealing or de-lamination due to improper installation. De-lamination can occur due to water penetration and sitting water in puddles or low corners of the court, this is not covered in the 2 year warranty. CRACKS: Crack-filling does not imply crack elimination. Cracks can and often will reappear. This is normal, it is called reflection, Surface Pro LLC is not responsible for cracks returning after repairs. Surface Pro LLC is Not responsible for existing grades and drainage or compacting existing base. Cracks if not patched will continue to expand over a period of time and conventional repair methods may become unavailable. *This estimate is based solely on the contractor's observations at the time of entering into this contract. If additional concealed conditions are discovered once the work has commenced, which were not visible at the time of entering into this contract, Contractor will identify the unforeseen conditions and notify the Customer of any additional costs, if any. *Customer agrees to pay for all unexpected or unanticipated extra costs, including but not limited to, soil corrections, protection of the project from weather conditions and all other similar costs. Customer will be responsible for all additional costs and time for work due to concealed conditions. Such conditions may also extend the time for completion of the work under this contract. *Estimate does not include any allowance for hazardous waste removal. All hazardous waste removal will be treated as an unforeseen condition and is the sole responsibility of the customer. *The construction site will be a dangerous area. Customer waives all claims against Surface Pro LLC for injuries or damages that customer or any member of customers family, friends, or guests may suffer while on or around the property during construction due to these and other hazards. *All unforeseen conditions will be treated on a time and materials basis at the rate of $95.00/ hour plus materials. •This contract may be canceled by Surface Pro LLC, at anytime up until the start of the project, due to unforeseen last minute price increases or difficulty sourcing the materials because of unforeseen circumstances. If this contract is canceled for this reason all upfront or downpayment monies will be returned to customer unless other arrangements have been agreed upon in writing. Waste generated from our work will be removed. Contractor is not responsible for pets not properly restrained leaving the property. Direct contact with your job supervisor will be available to you at all times should you have any questions or concerns either by phone or in person. Pre -Lien Notice 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. Respectfully submitted Mike Langmade This proposal may be withdrawn Surface Prop LLC if not accepted within 30 days. Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra costs will be executed only upon written order (minimum change order cost is $250.00), and will become an extra charge over and above the proposal price. All agreements are contingent upon accidents, or delays beyond our control. _______________________________________________________________________ _ Acceptance of proposal by customer The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payments will be made as outlined above. Signature____________________________ Date_______________ Contractor: Surface Pro LLC Request for City Council Action DATE: July 6 , 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-60 Ending Pandemic Peacetime Emergency Declaration INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to approve resolution 2021-60 ending the Peacetime Emergency Declaration for COVID-19 declared under City of Mendota Heights resolution 2020-23. BACKGROUND On March 13, 2020 Governor Walz declared a Peacetime State of Emergency which authorized the use of necessary State resources in support of the Statewide COVID-19 pandemic response. In connection with the Governor’s declaration, at its March 17, 2020 meeting, the City Council proclaimed and declared a local emergency under resolution 2020-23. The City’s emergency declaration provided direction to the City Administrator and staff to implement operational changes, as needed, to ensure that public services were maintained. Section 6 of the Resolution, provided that the emergency declaration continue indefinitely, until revoked by the City Council. As COVID-19 vaccination rates are increasing and positive cases are decreasing in Minnesota, Governor Walz with agreement of the Minnesota Legislature relinquished his emergency powers effective July 1, 2021, ending the peacetime emergency. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION RECOMMENDED Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution 2021-60, Rescinding the Declaration of Local Emergency due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, Resolution 2021-60, Rescinding the Declaration of Local Emergency due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS RESOLUTION NO. 2021-60 RESCINDING THE DECLARATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY DUE TO COVID-19 PANDEMIC WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020 Governor Tim Walz declared a Peacetime State of Emergency under Minnesota Statutes 2020, section 12.31 subdivision 2 authorizing any and all necessary State resources to be used in support of the COVID-19 response; and WHEREAS, under the authority given by Minnesota Statutes, Section 12.29, and Title 2, Chapter 3 of the Mendota Heights City Code (Emergency Management Organization), the City Council, on March 17, 2020, passed Resolution 2020-23 declaring that a local emergency existed within the City of Mendota Heights; and WEHREAS, The City’s emergency declaration provided direction to the City Administrator and staff to implement operational changes, as needed, to ensure that public services were maintained and provided that the emergency declaration continue indefinitely, until revoked by the City Council; and WHEREAS, As COVID-19 vaccination rates are now increasing and positive cases are decreasing in Minnesota, Governor Walz, with the agreement of the Minnesota Legislature, relinquished his emergency powers effective July 1, 2021, ending the peacetime emergency. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA that the Declaration of a Local Emergency proclaimed under Resolution 2020-23 is hereby rescinded, effective upon approval. Adopted by the City Council of City of Mendota Heights this 6th day of July, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ______________________________ Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk DATE: July 6, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: City Council Strategic Priorities –Second Quarter Update INTRODUCTION Staff will provide the City Council with a strategic priorities progress report for the second quarter. BACKGROUND During February and early March, the City Council established priorities and strategies to pursue over the next two years (2021-2022). The resulting list, which includes five priority areas, 20 strategies and a number of example action items, serves as a framework to plan and budget city activities, services, amenities and facilities. As reflected in the update, strategies and action items are in varying stages of being addressed. Some are not yet started; some are parked/paused for future consideration and/or action; and some are in process or work is ongoing. Progress and outcome details are noted, as well. The update document is a flexible document. Information such as timing and status may change from time-to-time, depending on other strategies and action items, staff workload, and City Council decisions. Staff will report to the City Council on a quarterly basis progress made on identified strategic priorities. Attachment: 2021-2022 City Council Strategic Priorities Q2: 2021 Report BUDGET IMPACT None. However, many of the Council’s strategies and resulting action items are interrelated and outcomes will depend on city budgets and funding and how the City Council will want to proceed overall. Potential costs and budget impacts will occur as individual action items are developed and proceed. REQUESTED ACTION Informational item. Council may choose to discuss items as needed. Vision Mendota Heights will be recognized as a high quality, family oriented residential community, with a spacious, natural feel and the amenities of a city. Mission To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Mendota Heights by providing quality public safety, infrastructure, and planning for orderly and sustainable growth. Priority: Enhance City Governance and Services Strategy Action Item (Examples) Action Timing Action Status Contact/Assigned To Est. Budget/ Source Progress Notes/Outcomes 2021 2022 Parked Enhance connections with community partners, businesses and residents • Offer and/or support community social events and programming such as summer and winter festivals, additional concerts, 4TH of July Fireworks, fall bonfire, etc.  ONGOING City Council City Administrator Asst. City Administrator Varies Completed Events: See-a-Truck 5/15; Movie Night 6/4; Officer Scott Patrick Memorial 5k 6/5; and Kids Dance 6/23; Marie Park Playground Dedication 7/1; Scheduled Events: 4th of July Fireworks; Teddy Bear Band 7/14; Goombas concert 7/23; Fishing Derby 8/12; Parks Celebration Events 8/13-8/15. Programming: Most recreation programming and sporting camps began during the month of June. Art and Theater camps to begin in July and August • Continue to inform residents about COVID-19 and the city’s response to the “new normal” post pandemic  ONGOING City Administrator Asst. City Administrator Police Chief COVID-19 information (e.g. vaccine, small business relief, and Minnesota Stay Safe plan adjustments) has run consecutively in Friday News. The City’s website also includes a standing COVID-19 page with information updates and links. • Encourage and partner on programs to support local businesses (e.g. Takeout Tuesdays)  IN PROGRESS Mayor City Administrator • Create a City Ambassador Program, post COVID-19 pandemic  • Work with Minnesota Grown to determine feasibility of locating a farmers market in Mendota Heights or alternatively establish a location with available plots for community gardening  IN PROGRESS Asst. City Administrator Farmers Market (Complete): Referred to MN Farmers Market Association (MFMA). Ordered MFMA Farmers’ Market Manual for continued research on operating a city sponsored farmers market. The establishment of a city- sponsored farmers market is a significant undertaking and is not feasible at this time. Community Garden Plots: As final rules are published, staff will research the use of American Rescue funds as a funding source to support the establishment of community garden plots (at Friendly Hills tot lot location). Cultivate civic engagement and participation • Establish a resident Civics Academy  Attract, retain and develop a qualified workforce • Assess the morale of employees by conducting an employee survey  IN PROGRESS Asst. City Administrator $4,750 Met with consultant from Gallup to assess conducting the Gallup Q12 Employee Engagement Survey as a possible survey tool. Received price proposal with a first year cost of $4,750 (Administrative console $2,500; staff survey $2,250). Budget decision needed for FY22. • Conduct a “table top” exercise practicing emergency management operations and test the functionality of the Mendota Heights Emergency Operations Center (Fire Station training room)  Promote recognition of Mendota Heights through area brand development • Work with the Northern Dakota County Chamber of Commerce and area businesses to study costs/benefits of implementing a city hotel lodging tax  Priority: Create a Vision for City Development and Redevelopment Areas Strategy Action Item (Examples) Action Priority Action Status Assigned To Est. Budget/ Source Progress Notes/Outcomes 2021 2022 Parked Analyze options and decide development of Bourne Lane property • Determine desired use of the property (i.e. park, regional sporting venue, tax base).  NOT STARTED City Council City Administrator Use for parks or regional sporting venue: The use of Bourne Lane as a future park space/regional sporting venue is an early concept considered as part of parks strategic planning. The idea needs research and community engagement, and would be part of a broader parks and city development plan. Create a clear and understandable Zoning Code in order to meet projected growth and market demands • Conduct a comprehensive review and revise, as needed, Zoning Code Ordinances to reflect changes made in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (e.g. MRCCA, Institutional Zoning, general text revisions)  IN PROGRESS CD Director 2040 Comp Plan: Plan advanced in approval through the Met Council CD Committee and Environmental Committee in mid-June. Full approval will be considered at the Met Council’s 07/14 meeting; if approved, it is anticipated that the plan will return for full approval by the City Council on 08/04. Zoning Code Ordinances: The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed draft MRCCA Ordinance No. 568 at its meeting on 06/22; Council consideration is planned for the 07/20 meeting. Support worker mobility and resident technology use by addressing the lack of cellular capacity in the city • Investigate the feasibility and benefits of cellular network providers installing small cell network coverage nodes within Mendota Heights  ONGOING PW Director Priority: Conserve, Protect and Enhance Natural Resources Strategy Action Item (Examples) Action Priority Action Status Assigned To Est. Budget/ Source Progress Notes/Outcomes 2021 2022 Parked Establish a Natural Resources Advisory Commission • Formally approve the creation and develop new commission bylaws and structure; advertise and appoint commission members  NOT STARTED City Council City Administrator PW Director Timeline for creation of Commission structure, necessary approvals, and implementation of Commission to begin in August with Commission readiness by Q1-2022. Determine dedicated funding sources to support Natural Resources policies and activities • Establish annual city budget for natural resources for FY22  IN PROGRESS City Council City Administrator Finance Director PW Director The FY22 budget will include initial budget items for establishment of the Natural Resources Advisory Commission and related activities for implementation in early 2022. • Determine future use of Par 3 bond payment dollars and plan for 2023 availability  IN PROGRESS City Council City Administrator City funding sources were reviewed as part of the Parks and Recreation Strategic Planning session including the possibility of capturing par 3 bond payments beginning in FY2023. Conversation regarding the use of funds will continue. Join Minnesota GreenStep City Program • Determine city process and take actions needed to complete organizing steps to becoming a recognized GreenStep City  COMPLETE PW Director Recycling Coordinator The City Council approved resolution 2021-21 authorizing the participation in the Minnesota GreenStep City Program on 03/02/2021. Staff continues to inventory existing best practices. Develop seasonal maintenance strategies and policies that support the environment • Continue to implement road salt reduction practices including maximized use of a brine system for snow and ice control  PAUSED PW Director PW Superintendent Retain and reclaim naturally landscaped sites throughout the city • Evaluate mowing standards within Park Maintenance and develop natural areas plan and standards to further promote pollinator friendly habitat  ONGOING PW Director PW Superintendent Continue to assess City tree/shade canopy and re-evaluate/revise response strategies • Reevaluate and update Emerald Ash Borer Tree Replacement and Treatment Policy  ONGOING PW Director Natural Resources Tech Completed: Held annual resident tree sale event early this spring. The City continues to work with Rainbow Treecare on cost effective prevention and treatment of privately owned ash trees. Staff re-evaluated EAB treatment activities and results from prior treatments and determined that replacement of diseased trees is more effective. • Establish standards/specifications to continue to diversify tree species used in tree inventory replacements  NOT STARTED PW Director Natural Resources Tech Protect Surface Water Quality • Implement priorities identified in the existing plan  ONGOING PW Director Staff began researching development of a grant program to assist in neighborhood pond treatment. Priority: Maintain and Improve City Infrastructure and Assets Strategy Action Item (Examples) Action Priority Action Status Assigned To Est. Budget/ Source Progress Notes/Outcomes 2021 2022 Parked Address City Hall and Police Department Building Safety and Functionality Improvements • Decide timing of recommended improvements from the City Hall/Police Department building/space needs assessment  IN PROGRESS City Administrator Asst. City Administrator Police Chief CNH space needs assessment was presented during a City Council work session held in April. Development of shelf ready building plans (for when correction in the construction market happens) will be considered by the City Council in the FY22 budget process. Revise long range infrastructure management and improvement plan • Update City Capital Improvement Plan to expand sections on equipment, facilities, parks and Public Works (e.g. rolling 5-year plan)  IN PROGRESS City Administrator Asst. City Administrator PW Director Finance Director City CIP: The comprehensive City CIP will be updated in conjunction with the FY22 budget. Parks Asset Management Plan: Development of this plan continues as a part of the Parks and Recreation Strategic Planning process. Overall this plan will be used to assist in establishing the Parks projects list and annual budgets. Manage traffic congestion and improve high use roadways • Continue to participate in regional discussions and solutions for Dodd Road, Delaware Avenue and the Viking Lakes development impacts  ONGOING City Administrator Police Chief PW Director The Traffic Safety Committee did not meet during the second quarter. Priority: Encourage & Support Park Opportunities and Improvements Strategy Action Item (Examples) Action Priority Action Status Assigned To Est. Budget/ Source Progress Notes/Outcomes 2021 2022 Parked Determine dedicated funding source(s) to support Mendota Heights parks • Research a proposal for resident consideration of a Parks Referendum  IN PROGRESS City Council City Administrator Asst. City Administrator Finance Director City funding sources were reviewed as part of the Parks and Recreation Strategic Planning including the possibility of a future Parks referendum. Research will continue and development of a proposed parks project list for annual budgeting and a possible referendum is being formulated. • Determine future use of Par 3 bond payment dollars and plan for 2023 availability  IN PROGRESS City Council City Administrator Asst. City Administrator Finance Director City funding sources were reviewed as part of the Parks and Recreation Strategic Planning session including the possibility of capturing par 3 bond payments beginning in FY2023. Conversation regarding the use of funds will continue. Upgrade existing park and recreation facilities • Replace Wentworth Warming House  PAUSED City Administrator Asst. City Administrator PW Director $275,000- $500,000 Levy/SPF/Grant Cost of building materials increased significantly due to COVID-19. Given the cost increase, project build was paused and staff reviewed the grant with the DNR for a possible extension request. Council will consider the project and budget for FY22. • Decide and complete skatepark renovations  PAUSED Asst. City Administrator Rec. Program Coordinator $150,000- $350,000 Levy/SPF Renovation of the Rogers Lake Skatepark is included on the parks project priority list. The City Council will consider the project scope for FY22 budget consideration. • Add dugouts to baseball/softball fields at Mendakota Park  PAUSED City Administrator Asst. City Administrator PW Director $100,000 SPF The addition of dugouts is a parks project priority. The City Council will consider the project scope and special parks fund budget for 2021 or 2022. • Add lights to Civic Center Park  The addition of lights is a potential parks improvement project—additional research and community engagement is needed. • Add lights to baseball/softball fields at Mendakota Park  The addition of lights is a potential parks improvement project—additional research and community engagement is needed. • Add markers and other signage to the city trail system  Reimagine Park/Public space to maximize use • Create use plan for vacant Friendly Hills Tot Lot (e.g. as community garden)  NOT STARTED Asst. City Administrator PW Director • Consider feasibility of Bourne Lane property as future park space/regional sporting venue  NOT STARTED City Council City Administrator The use of Bourne Lane as a future park space/regional sporting venue is an early concept considered as part of parks strategic planning. The idea needs research and community engagement, and would be part of a broader parks and city development plan. Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: July 6, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Scott Goldenstein, Assistant Fire Chief SUBJECT: May 2021 Fire Synopsis Fire Calls: In May, the Fire Department was paged for service a total of 24 times. Types of calls: Fires: 1 The Mendota Heights Fire Department responded to an outdoor rubbish fire at a restaurant in the city. Medical/Extrication: 3 For the month of May, the department was called to three calls that were medical in nature. (Details of medical calls are omitted for this report). Hazardous Situations: 3 The department responded to a downed power line call. In addition, we were paged to the following gas calls: one outdoor gas line that had been pinched off, and one broken dryer exhaust causing elevated carbon monoxide readings in a local hotel. Service Calls: False Alarms/System Malfunctions: 5 The station was called to respond to three carbon monoxide alarms. Upon our investigation, no carbon monoxide was found to be present. We also responded to an activated smoke alarm with no problem found. Finally, we responded to a sprinkler system activation call where the dry system charged, but no sprinkler heads were activated. Mendota Heights 17 calls Lilydale 1 call Mendota 3 calls Sunfish Lake 1 call Other 2 calls Good intent Calls: 2 The station was paged to a downed power line that, in fact, was actually a downed low voltage line. We were also paged to a smoke scare at a commercial building with high heat, a haze in the air, and a burning smell that actually ended up being due to a failing roof mounted HVAC unit. Dispatched and Cancelled En route: 8 The Fire Department was paged out and later cancelled before our arrival on scene in our coverage areas. Mutual/Auto-Aid Other: 2 Twice, we were paged for auto aid assistance by South Metro Fire but we were later cancelled before our arrival at each call. May Training May 12 18:30 Rescue Equipment Mandatory 3 Option 1 This mandatory drill was dedicated to working with rescue equipment and proper patient care at rescue scenes (two stations were set up for this drill). Vehicles were also used to establish rescue scenarios allowing firefighters to refresh skills that included: vehicle stabilization skills, setting up proper staging areas, and proper patient access. May 13 07:00 Rescue Equipment Mandatory 3 Option 2 This mandatory drill was dedicated to working with rescue equipment and proper patient care at rescue scenes (two stations were set up for this drill). Vehicles were also used to establish rescue scenarios allowing firefighters to refresh skills that included: vehicle stabilization skills, setting up proper staging areas, and proper patient access. May 19 18:30 Fire Apparatus Operator Mandatory 4 Option 1 This mandatory drill was dedicated to proper fire apparatus operation. Multiple sites were used and each person on the crew was to 1) set up the truck, 2) attach the hose to a fire hydrant, and 3) supply water to their crew on the hose line. May 24 18:30 Fire Apparatus Operator Mandatory 4 Option 2 This mandatory drill was dedicated to proper fire apparatus operation. Multiple sites were used and each person on the crew was to 1) set up the truck, 2) attach the hose to a fire hydrant, and 3) supply water to their crew on the hose line. May 25 07:00 Fire Apparatus Operator Mandatory 4 Option 3 This mandatory drill was dedicated to proper fire apparatus operation. Multiple sites were used and each person on the crew was to 1) set up the truck, 2) attach the hose to a fire hydrant, and 3) supply water to their crew on the hose line. Number of Calls 24 Total Calls for Year:122 FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE ACTUAL FIRES Structure - MH Commercial $70,000 Structure - MH Residential $0 Structure - Contract Areas $0 Cooking Fire - confined $0 Vehicle - MH $1,000 Vehicle - Contract Areas $250 Grass/Brush/No Value MH Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES Other Fire 1 * OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $0 $0 $0 Excessive heat, scorch burns MEDICAL Emergency Medical/Assist 3 Vehicle accident w/injuries Extrication ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$0 Medical, other HAZARDOUS SITUATION $1,670 Spills/Leaks 2 Carbon Monoxide Incident 1 Power line down 2 Arcing, shorting $72,670 Hazardous, Other SERVICE CALL Smoke or odor removal $250 Assist Police or other agency Service Call, other GOOD INTENT Good Intent Dispatched & Cancelled 10 Current To Date Last Year Smoke Scare 1 17 94 88 HazMat release investigation 1 8 9 Good Intent, Other 3 5 6 FALSE ALARMS 1 3 8 False Alarm 2 13 22 Malfunction 1 Unintentional 3 Total:24 123 133 False Alarm, other MUTUAL AID FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH Total Calls 24 Inspections 31 Investigations 0 WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year Re-Inspection 0 Fire Calls 308.5 1900.5 2262.5 Meetings 9.5 140.5 420.5 Meetings 0 Training 361.5 1929 1013.5 Special Activity 108 232.5 341 Administration 9 Fire Marshal 40.5 241.5 0 Plan Review/Training 0.5 TOTALS 828 4444 4037.5 TOTAL:40.5 *outside rubbish/trash fire Lilydale Mendota Sunfish Lake Other MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT MAY 2021 MONTHLY REPORT FIRE LOSS TOTALS LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS Mendota Heights Mendota Heights Only Structure/Contents Mendota Heights Only Miscellaneous Mendota Heights Total Loss to Date Contract Areas Loss to Date Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: July 6, 2021 TO: Mayor Levine and City Council; City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2021-55 Approving Preliminary and Final Plat of SWEENEY 2nd ADDITION [Planning Case No. 2021-09] Introduction City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution approving the preliminary and final plat of a new subdivision titled “Sweeney 2nd Addition”. The applicant (developer) is Mike Fritz with M & M Homes along with LDK Builders. The subject property is generally located at the NE corner of Wentworth and Wachtler Avenue (Dak. Co. Road 8), and addressed as 777 Wentworth Avenue. Background On September 17, 2019, the City Council adopted Res. No. 2019-64, which approved the [original] plat of Sweeney Addition, a three lot subdivision requested by the former owner Mr. Ed Sweeney. Mr. Sweeney later filed and recorded this plat with Dakota County. In late March 2021, staff met with representatives of M & M Homes and LDK Builders, where they expressed an interest in taking over the Sweeney property, and developing it with four new homes. Mr. Sweeney later sold the rights to his property; and M & M Homes/LDK are now seeking approval to re-plat the original Sweeney Addition into the four (4) lots as shown on the attached plat maps. At the June 22, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented on this proposed plat; and a public hearing was conducted. There were no comments or objections from the public, except for one letter from a neighboring owner (included with PC meeting minutes). A copy of the 06/22/2021 report, along with all related attachments and meeting minutes are appended to this memo. Please also note the drainage and utility easement shown between Lots 2 and 3 on the original Sweeney Addition plat (shaded/hatched pattern) will need to be vacated under separate council action. Public Works staff will be requesting the city council set a public hearing date for the July 20th meeting in order to authorize this easement vacation. All new drainage/utility easements will be re-established and platted in the new Sweeney 2nd Addition plat (as shown). Recommendation Due to the development situated along County Road 8, this plat was also presented to the Dakota County Plat Commission on June 9, 2021. The DC-PC recommended approval with certain conditions; and is presenting this recommendation and findings for approval to the Dakota County Board of Commissioners on July 20, 2021. City staff added a condition this plat may not be released or signed by the city until final county approval has been granted. At the June 22nd meeting, the Planning Commission recommended favorably (3-1 vote) to approve the Preliminary and Final Plat of Sweeney 2nd Addition, with findings-of-fact and amended conditions, as noted in the attached draft resolution. Action Required Adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2021-55 APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY and FINAL PLAT OF SWEENEY 2nd ADDITION LOCATED AT 777 WENTWORTH AVENUE. This matter requires a simple majority vote. Attachments • Draft Resolution No. 2021-55 • Planning Report for Planning Case No. 2021-09 w/ attachments • 06/22/2021 PC Meeting Minutes CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-55 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT (SUBDIVISION) OF SWEENEY 2nd ADDITION LOCATED AT 777 WENTWORTH AVENUE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2021-09) WHEREAS, under Planning Case No. 2019-17, former owner Ed Sweeney submitted a request of a subdivision plat titled “Sweeney Addition”, which would authorize the creation of three (3) new single-family lots on the property located at 777 Wentworth Avenue (the “Subject Property”), and legally described in attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, on September 17, 2019, the City Council adopted separate Resolution No. 2019-64, which approved the Sweeney Addition subdivision plat, which was later filed and recorded by Ed Sweeney with Dakota County; and WHEREAS, under Planning Case No. 2021-09, Mike Fritz with M & M Homes, in conjunction with LDK Builders (collectively the “Applicants”) submitted a follow-up request to re-plat the original Sweeney Addition, requesting approval of a similar preliminary plat and final plat subdivision to be titled “Sweeney 2nd Addition”, which would create four (4) new single family lots on the subject property, described and illustrated on the attached Exhibit B-1 and Exhibit B-2, respectively; and WHEREAS, Title 11-1-1 of the City Code (Subdivision Regulations) allows the subdivision of properties, provided the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district; and WHEREAS, on June 22, 2021, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this item, the Planning Commission recommended favorably (3-1 vote) to approve the subdivision request, with certain findings-of-fact and conditions of approval as noted herein. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the preliminary and final plat subdivision of Sweeney 2nd Addition as proposed under Planning Case No. 2021-09, and for the property located at 777 Wentworth Avenue, can be approved based on the following findings of fact: A. The proposed plat meets the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Code. B. The proposed plat request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. The proposed lots will meet the minimum standards required under the R-1 One Family Residential District. D. A wetlands permit for future construction on Lot 4 will require compliance with applicable land disturbance and drainage standards to ensure there are no negative impacts to the surrounding water body and natural environment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the preliminary and final plat subdivision of Sweeney 2nd Addition as proposed under Planning Case No. 2021-09, is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. The concept plans presented under this plat request do not represent or provide approval of final building layouts or setbacks. Final layouts and setbacks must meet R-1 Zone standards and shall be approved under separate building permits for each lot. 2. Prior to any new development work on the site, all existing (and non-conforming) structures on the subject property will be removed with an approved demolition permit issued by the City. 3. A building permit, including all new grading and drainage work, must be approved by the City prior to the commencement of any new construction work. 4. A complete and detailed landscaping plan must be submitted with a new building permit on each lot for review and approval by city staff. As per the city’s Pollinator Friendly Policy, the developer will ensure all new trees and landscaping complies with the city’s Native Plantings List. 5. All new construction and grading activities throughout this development site and on each new buildable lot will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 6. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 7. A wetlands permit must be obtained prior to any proposed site development activities (including the new storm water basin) or any new home permit is approved on Lot 4 of this plat. 8. An additional park dedication fee of $4,000.00 must be paid before the final plat is released by the city for recording with Dakota County. 9. All work on this development site will only be allowed between the hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday through Friday and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on the weekends. 10. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established and permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed. 11. The Applicant shall remove invasive species or plantings in any disturbed areas. 12. No invasive species, including vegetation or trees are to be planted in the development. 13. The twenty-five foot (25’) buffer along the adjacent creek channel should be planted with a native plant seed mix. 14. Approval of this plat is also subject to approval from the Dakota County Board of Commissioners, which include the following added conditions: a. Dakota County requires the release of the existing restricted access filed under recorded Document No. 3368590 by a quit claim deed from the County to the property owner; and thereafter a new restricted access document by means of a new quit claim deed to the County is required and must be filed with the County at the time of recording this proposed plat. b. No work shall commence in the County right of way until a permit is obtained from the County Transportation Department; and c. No permit will be issued until the plat has been filed with the County Recorder’s Office. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 6th day of July, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 EXHIBIT A Property Legal Description: PID# 27-73650-01-011 and 27-73650-01-030 Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, SWEENEY ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota. Abstract Property EXHIBIT B-1 Preliminary Plat of Sweeney 2nd Addition EXHIBIT B-2 Final Plat of Sweeney 2nd Addition Planning Staff Report DATE:June 22, 2021 TO:Planning Commission FROM:Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT:Planning Case 2021-09 PRELIMINARY / FINAL PLAT of SWEENEY 2nd ADDITION APPLICANT:Mike Fritz (M & M Homes) PROPERTY ADDRESS:777 Wentworth Avenue ZONING/GUIDED:R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE:September 23, 2021 INTRODUCTION The applicant is seeking a new preliminary and final plat approval on the property generally located at the northeast corner of Wentworth Avenue and Wachtler Avenue (Dakota Co. Road No. 8). The property is officially addressed as 777 Wentworth Avenue. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcels. As of the submittal of this report, there have been no comments or objections to this subdivision request. BACKGROUND The overall property originally began as a 3.22 +/- acre sized, single-family parcel, with an existing single- family dwelling, two-car tuck-under garage, a 20’ x 40 detached garage, and a couple of accessory sheds. At the June 25, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, the former property owner Ed Sweeney, presented a new preliminary plat titled “Sweeney Addition” which proposed a subdivision plat consisting of three new lots on the parcel. Mr. Sweeney intended to keep one lot (the middle) for himself and sell off the other two for future development. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the plat, and the City Council later adopted Resolution No. 2019-47 on July 2, 2019, approving the preliminary plat with certain conditions. On September 17, 2019, the City Council later adopted Res. No. 2019-64, which approved the Final Plat of Sweeney Addition. Mr. Sweeney later filed/recorded this plat with the county. In late March 2021, staff met with Mr. Mike Fritz with M & M Homes and others on the subject site, where they expressed an interest in taking over the entire Sweeney property, and developing it with four new homes. Shortly thereafter, it was announced that Mr. Sweeney sold the rights to his property to LDK Builders and M & M Homes (Mike Fritz). Mr. Fritz and his group are now seeking to officially re-plat the original Sweeney Addition into four lots, to be titled “Sweeney 2nd Addition”. Planning Report: Case #2021-09 Page 2 ANALYSIS ™Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan;and is scheduled to remain guided LR-Low Density Residential under the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is requesting to subdivide the subject property into four (4) parcels, consisting of one parcel with 0.71 acres and the remaining three with 0.58 acres each. The overall site consists of 2.54 of total net developed acres. The comp plan providesthat new single-family residential developments must not exceed a maximum density of 2.9 units per acre. In this case, the calculations is 1.58 units/acre (calc. 4 units @ 2.54 ac. = 1.58). ™Plat Standards Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district. All new lots must have a minimum of 15,000 sf. of lot area and minimum 100-feet of frontage along a public roadway. All four lot meet these minimum standards. The developer has provided a general “Preliminary Plan” for the plat, which illustrates the proposed dwelling pad sites for four new homes. This Plan also includes the proposed grading/drainage plans and erosion control plans. These pad sites are not the official or represent the final locations of each new home; and should be viewed for illustrative purposes only by demonstrating how the new house pads can fit on each lot, and how new grades and other improvements may work on the site. The final dwelling layout, grades, landscaping and other improvements will be approved under separate building permits for each lot. With the proposed pad layout established on the far-westerly Lot No. 4, and due to the curvilinear shaped corner lot line arrangement on this lot, the three remaining lots have a front yard setback well beyond the standard 30-foot setback for R-1 District lands, and are shown with an 80-foot setback from Wentworth Avenue. The large depths of the lots will easily accommodate rear yard setbacks for each new home; and the side yard setbacks will be determined by the height of each new dwelling, at either 10-feet or 12.5 feet. The new driveways to serve these four homes are shown with a split-fingered design, with two driveways meeting at the front ROW/property boundary line on a single, 30-foot wide shared access point off Wentworth Avenue. These two shared access points were made part of the conditions of approval set by Dakota County with the original Sweeney Addition. Beyond the ROW line, the new driveways are required to split apart and meet the required 5-ft. setback from lot lines; and maintain at least a 10-ft. separation from edge to edge. City Code Section 11-2-3 requires any new plat to identify and delineate any adjacent wetland features and any existing slopes greater than 33% in grade. Under the original Sweeney Addition plat, the city required Mr. Sweeney to identify this area of the nearby creek channel and sloped areas, and required this area be covered by a drainage and utility easement. This easement is still shown on the survey/preliminary plat map of the site in the westerly area of new Lot 4; and there are no changes to this easement proposed under this new plat. All new drainage and utility easements around each lot will be re-established under the new plat. As part of the original Sweeney Addition plat review, the city also conditioned that a separate wetlands permit must be obtained prior to any proposed development activities or new home permit on Lot 3, which is now essentially Lot 4 in this new second addition plat. The proposed layout shown on the Preliminary Plans is not official or the final determination of the new home layout; and the future wetlands permit review will provide a more accurate depiction or development plan for this lot next to the creek/wetland feature. Planning Report: Case #2021-09 Page 3 Lot 4 is shown with new retaining wall running along the westerly edge of the graded pad site. This wall starts out at 2-ft. in height (near the road ROW edge), and increases up to 10-ft. in height along most of the wall’s length along the creek channel. The wall then turns 90-degrees to the right (east) and runs along the back edge of the new bio-filtration pond on the back of this lot. Similar walls are also planned along the westerly and northerly edges of Lots 3 and 2 , but are slightly smaller at approx. 4-6 feet in overall height. The back area of Lots 2 and 4 contain a new oval-shaped bio-filtration basin for on-site stormwater management. The Lot 2 basin is connected to the basin behind Lot 4 with a 10-inch PVC pipe, where the stormwater eventually empties out to the west and into the creek. The developers will be removing the old dwelling on the property, along with the surrounding outbuildings. As part of these old structure removals, a number of trees along the front edge of Wentworth Avenue will need to be removed for the new homes and driveways. A number of trees will also be removed along the east edge of the plat and the area of the new storm basin feature near the northwest corner. The developers have stated they will make every effort to save and protect any significant tree(s) throughout the site; and have agreed to provide individualized and custom designed (architectural) landscape plans on each new home site that will comply with the city’s Pollinator Friendly Policy, with new trees and vegetation to comply with the related Native Plantings List. ™Dakota County Review Because this property fronts on a Dakota County road system (County Road No. 8), this plat requires county review and approval. This proposed plat was presented to the Dakota County Plat Commission on June 9, 2021; and the subsequent review letter summarizing the county plat commission’s findings is appended to this planning report. The former owner previously dedicated the requested amount (40-feet) of right-of-way to Dakota County along both segments of Wentworth Avenue and Wachtler Avenue. This new replat does not require any new or additional ROW dedication. The county also recognized and approved the original westerly shared access along Wentworth Avenue (granted under the first Sweeney Addn. plat) to be shifted 20-feet to the east, due to the added 4th lot and lot line adjustment requested under this new 2nd Addition subdivision. The county has conditioned that any access/driveway construction work, or any work within the county right-of-way must be approved by separate permit through Dakota County Transportation Department. As part of the original Sweeney Addition in 2019, the county also requested the former owner provide a quit claim deed to restrict access along Wentworth and Wachtler Avenues, except for those two shared access areas along Wentworth Ave. Because the developer has requested the shift of the west access, the county has agreed to release the original restricted access agreement made with Mr. Sweeney in 2109; and requeststhe new owner(s) provide another restricted access agreement that reflects the revised access points for this development site. The plat commission memo also states that this plat will be presented to the Dakota County Board of Commissioners on July 20, 2021. If the plat is recommended for approval by the city planning commission and approved later by the City Council at the July 6th agenda, the city will add a condition this plat may not be released or signed by the city until final county approval has been granted on this plat. REQUESTED ACTION Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of Sweeney 2 nd Addition, based on the attached findings of fact and conditions of approval as noted herein; OR Planning Report: Case #2021-09 Page 4 2. Recommend denial of the Preliminary and Final Plat of Sweeney 2nd Addition based on certain revised or determined findings of fact (by the Planning Commission); OR 3. Table the plat application, and request additional information from the Applicant and/or city staff. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission may forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the Preliminary and Final Plat of Sweeney 2nd Addition, with the following conditions: 1. The concept plans presented under this plat request do not represent or provide approval of building layouts or setbacks. Final layouts and setbacks must meet R-1 Zone standards and shall be approved under separate building permits for each lot. 2. Prior to any new development work on the site, all existing (and non-conforming) structures on the subject property will be removed with an approved demolition permit issued by the City. 3. A building permit, including all new grading and drainage work, must be approved by the City prior to the commencement of any new construction work. 4. A complete and detailed landscaping plan must be submitted with a new building permit on each lot for review and approval by city staff. As per the city’s Pollinator Friendly Policy, the developer will ensure all new trees and landscaping complies with the city’s Native Plantings List. 5. All new construction and grading activities throughout this development site and on each new buildable lot will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 6. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 7. A wetlands permit must be obtained prior to any proposed site development activities (including the new storm water basin) or any new home permit is approved on Lot 4 of this plat. 8. An additional park dedication fee of $4,000.00 must be paid before the final plat is released by the city for recording with Dakota County. 9. All work on this development site will only be allowed between the hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday through Friday and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on the weekends. 10. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established and permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed. Attachments 1. Site map 2. Dakota Co. Plat Commission Review Ltr. 3. Preliminary / Final Plat – Sweeney 2 nd Additio(06/15/2021)n 4. Preliminary Site Plans – Sweeney 2 nd Addition 5. Tree Preservation & Protection Plan (Plantings List) Planning Report: Case #2021-09 Page 5 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Preliminary Plat of Sweeney 2 nd Addition 777 Wentworth Avenue The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed plat meets the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Code. 2. The proposed plat request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed lots will meet the minimum standards required under the R-1 One Family Residential District. 4. A wetlands permit for future construction on Lot 4 will require compliance with applicable land disturbance and drainage standards to ensure there are no negative impacts to the surrounding water body and natural environment. Planning Report: Case #2021-09 Page 6 EXISTING DWELLING – 777 WENTWORTH AVENUE (Mr. Sweeney’s Residence) LOOKING NORTHWARD – TOWARDS RESIDENCE Planning Report: Case #2021-09 Page 7 LOOKING NORTHWESTERLY –FRONT AREA OF LOT 1 LOOKING NORTHERLY - BACK SIDE OF LOT 1 (SHED IN BACKGROUND) Planning Report: Case #2021-09 Page 8 LOOKING WESTERLY – REAR YARD AREA OF RESIDENCE LOOKING WESTERLY Planning Report: Case #2021-09 Page 9 LOOKING NORTHERLY - REAR AREA OF NEW LOT 3 LOOKING WESTERLY – TOWARD CREEK (AREA OF LOT 3) 777777 WWeennttwwoorrtthh AAvvee.. Disclaimer:Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate,but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal,survey,yy or for zoning verification. Map Scale 11 iinncchh ==110088 ffeeeett 6/18/2021 Dakota County Surveyor’s Office Western Service Center ‚ 14955 Galaxie Avenue ‚ Apple Valley, MN 55124 952.891-7087 ‚ Fax 952.891-7127 ‚ www.co.dakota.mn.us June 15, 2021 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re: SWEENEY 2ND ADDITION MENDOTA HEIGHTS The Dakota County Plat Commission met on June 9, 2021, to consider the preliminary plat of the above referenced plat. The plat is adjacent to County Road 8 (Wentworth Ave. and Wachtler Ave.) and is therefore subject to the Dakota County Contiguous Plat Ordinance. The proposed replat plat includes 4 residential lots. The right-of-way needs for a two-lane urban roadway are 50 feet of half right of way. However, due to the existing houses in the area and the recent County construction project to the east, the Plat Commission allowed modification to the right-of-way needs and required 40 feet of half right of way on the SWEENEY ADDITION in 2019. The Dakota County Access Spacing Guidelines along CR 8 for a two-lane roadway are 1/8 mile (660 feet) spacing. The plat includes two access openings as shared driveways. The proposed plat relocates the western access 20 feet easterly from the SWEENEY ADDITION. The County would require releasing the existing restricted access Document No. 3368590 by a quit claim deed from the County to the property owner. With the recording of this proposed plat, a new restricted access document would be required a quit claim deed to the County. As noted, the proposed shared driveways should be narrowed or tapered at the right of way line towards CR 8, which would limit one vehicle to access CR 8. The driveway design will be reviewed through the permitting process. Restricted access should be shown along all of CR 8 except for two 30- foot access openings along the new right of way line. A quit claim deed to Dakota County for restricted access is required with the recording of the plat mylars. The Plat Commission has approved the preliminary and final plat, provided that the described conditions are met, and will recommend approval to the County Board of Commissioners on July 20, 2021. Traffic volumes on CR 8 are 2,700 ADT and are anticipated to be 3,700 ADT by the year 2030. These traffic volumes indicate that current Minnesota noise standards for residential units could be exceeded for the proposed plat. Residential developments along County highways commonly result in noise complaints. In order for noise levels from the highway to meet acceptable levels for adjacent residential units, substantial building setbacks, buffer areas, and other noise mitigation elements should be incorporated into this development. No work shall commence in the County right of way until a permit is obtained from the County Transportation Department and no permit will be issued until the plat has been filed with the County Recorder’s Office. The Plat Commission does not review or approve the actual engineering design of proposed accesses or other improvements to be made in the right of way. Nothing herein is intended to restrict or limit Dakota County’s rights with regards to Dakota County rights of way or property. The Plat Commission highly recommends early contact with the Transportation Department to discuss the permitting process which reviews the design and may require construction of highway improvements, including, but not limited to, turn lanes, drainage features, limitations on intersecting street widths, medians, etc. Please contact Gordon McConnell regarding permitting questions at (952) 891-7115 or Todd Tollefson regarding Plat Commission or Plat Ordinance questions at (952) 891-7070. Sincerely, Todd B. Tollefson Secretary, Plat Commission c: Mike Fritz, M and M Quality SHEET INDEXT01 TITLE SHEETS10 BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYC10 GRADING & DRAINAGEC20 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROLC30 SWPPPTHE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION IN THIS PLAN ISUTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D. THIS UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL WASDETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF CI/ASCE38-02, ENTITLED "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THECOLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACEUTILITY DATA."THE EXISTING UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN IN THIS PLAN HASBEEN SURVEYED BY OTHERS; THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELDVERIFY EXACT LOCATIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCINGCONSTRUCTION AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. NOTIFY 811 ORGOPHER STATE ONE CALL (1.800.252.1166).PRELIMINARY PLANS FOR THESWEENEY ROAD 2ND ADDITIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNJUNE 2021PROJECT LOCATIONPLAN REFERENCES:1. MINNESOTA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION - STANDARDSPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION, LATESTEDITION.2. CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTASTANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, LATEST EDITION.3. UNREINFORCED CONCRETE PER ACI 330R-08 AND ACI330.1-03.T01OWNERS:M&M Home Contractors, Inc.413 Paul Ave SCologne, MN 55322Attn: Mike Fritz, PresidentPh: (612) 554-2556mfritz@mandmquality.comLDK Builders, Inc.Attn: Larry Kuperus, Ownerldkbuilders@gmail.comSURVEY:Acre Land Surveying, Inc.9140 Baltimore St NE Ste 100Blaine, MN 55449Attn: Joshua P. Schneider, PLSPh: (763) 238-6278js.acrelandsurvey@gmail.comCIVIL:Civil Methods, Inc.PO Box 28038St. Paul, MN 55128Attn: Kent Brander, PEPh: (763) 210-5713kent.brander@civilmethods.comCITY / TOWNSHIP:City of Mendota Heights1101 Victoria CurveMendota Heights, MN 55118Attn: Ryan Ruzek, Public Works DirectorPh: (651) 452-1850rruzek@mendotaheightsmn.govWATERSHED DISTRICT:Lower Mississippi WMO4100 220th St W, Ste. 102Farmington, MN 55024Attn: Joe Barten, AdministratorPh: (651) 480-7784joe.barten@co.dakota.mn.usARCHITECT:STRUCTURAL:KEBDESIGNED:LIC. NO.:DATE:KENT E. BRANDERDRAWN:CHECKED:KEBDMP44578I 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.06-07-2021CIVIL METHODS, INC.P.O. Box 28038St. Paul, MN 55128o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.comDATE / REVISION:OWNER:TITLE:SHEET NO:MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNSWEENEY ROAD 2ND ADDITION6/7/2021 4:56 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\0689_Sweeney Road 2nd Addition\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\0689_Title.dwg06-07-2021 Preliminary Grading and Drainage PlanFeet0 2000 4000 G=892.80TF=893.10LL=882.80WOBG=882.30G=900.50TF=900.80LL=892.50WOBG=892.00G=902.50TF=902.80LL=894.50WOBG=894.00G=884.20TF=884.50LL=874.20WOBG=873.7033' - 12" PVC SCH 40 @ 0.91%8708728688668648668688708729009028808788848828868848788768748848 7 8 8 7 6 8748728708 9 2 890886894896898900900898896894892890886884876874898896892894143'-10"PVCSCH40@9.08%8788768 8 2 8808808929008868888908888868888908 8 0882-7.9%-6 .0 %-3 .4 %-4.3%CB01RIM: 877.00INV IN: 872.64 6" SINV OUT: 871.00 10" WFES01INV: 858.0CB02RIM: 858.00INV IN: 854.30 6" EINV OUT: 854.30 12" WFES02INV: 854.0856858860860858856BENCHMARKSEE SURVEY DOCUMENTATIONC10KEBDESIGNED:LIC. NO.:DATE:KENT E. BRANDERDRAWN:CHECKED:KEBDMP44578I 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.06-07-2021CIVIL METHODS, INC.P.O. Box 28038St. Paul, MN 55128o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.comDATE / REVISION:OWNER:TITLE:SHEET NO:MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNSWEENEY ROAD 2ND ADDITION6/7/2021 4:58 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\0689_Sweeney Road 2nd Addition\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\0689_Grading.dwg06-07-2021 Preliminary Grading and Drainage PlanFeet03060LEGEND:PROPERTY LINESETBACKEASEMENTPROP. CONTOUREX. CONTOURROCK RIPRAP, RANDOM CRUSHEDINFILTRATION BASIN SEED/PLANTINGSPROP. FLOW DIRECTIONGENERAL NOTES:1. The subsurface utility location information in this plan is utility quality level D. This utility qualitylevel was determined according to the guidelines of CI/ASCE 38-02, titled “Standard Guidelinesfor the Collection and Depiction of Existing Subsurface Utility Data.” Engineer does not guaranteethe accuracy of utility locations or that all existing utilities are shown.2. See Preliminary Plat for proposed parcel nomenclature and easements.3. Tree Preservation: it is anticipated that all trees will be removed within the grading limits indicated.4. Contractor is responsible for locating utilities prior to digging.5. Construction shall comply with all applicable governing codes.6. Contractor is solely responsible for jobsite conditions, including safety of all persons and propertythroughout the duration of the project (not limited to working hours).7. Final grade shall be 0.5' below top of foundation elevation around building; all drainage shall bedirected away from buildings.8. Damaged items or property not identified for removal shall be repaired or replaced at Contractor'sexpense; no extra compensation will be allowed for repair or replacement not indicated on plansor agreed upon with prior written authorization from the Owner.9. Contours shown to finished grade.10. Point elevations shown at flow line, unless otherwise noted.1. Excavate basin to subgrade with light-weight equipment or from outside the basin footprint tominimize compaction. If compacted, scarify subgrade 12".2. Rough grade to within 6" of subgrade elevation during mass site grading operations. Excavate tofinal subgrade and install engineered soil media after upstream drainage area has beenstabilized.3. Prevent sheet flow from disturbed unvegetated areas from entering the graded basin directly;install sediment control log around top of basin (to remain in place until upslope area iscompletely vegetated and homes constructed).4. Plant native seed mix and blanket / hydromulch bottom and sideslopes (to overflow) of basins(see Sheet C50).INFILTRATION BASIN NOTES:BIOFILTRATION BASIN 1BOT = 875.0OUT = 877.0HWL = 879.3EOF = 879.3BERM = 879.8BIOFILTRATION BASIN 2BOT = 856.0OUT = 858.0HWL = 860.0EOF = 860.0BERM = 860.56" CPEPUNDERDRAIN @0.5% W/ CLEANOUT(SEE DETAIL)6" CPEPUNDERDRAIN @0.5% W/ CLEANOUT(SEE DETAIL)RETAINING WALLADD MAILBOXES ANDPADS PER CITY & USPSSTANDARDSREMOVE AND DISPOSEENTRANCE & CULVERT15" CMP CULVERTI=897.7 (E), 897.5 (W)15" CMP CULVERTI=886.5 (E), 885.0 (W)RIPRAPREINFORCEDOVERFLOWEL 860.0RIPRAPREINFORCEDOVERFLOWEL 879.3 33' - 12" PVC SCH 40 @ 0.91%143'-10"PVCSCH40@9.08%-7.9%-6 .0 %-3 .4 %-4.3%C206/7/2021 4:58 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\0689_Sweeney Road 2nd Addition\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\0689_Erosion.dwgEROSION CONTROL NOTES:1. See SWPPP sheet for additional information; Contractor is responsible for obtaining MPCANPDES Construction Stormwater Permit prior to disturbance.2. Install construction entrance and perimeter controls prior to beginning grading operations.Additional stabilized entrances may be used; all construction traffic must enter and exit sitethrough stabilized entrance.3. Topsoil and erosion control items shall conform to Mn/DOT 2574-2575.4. A minimum of 4" of topsoil shall be placed in all green space.5. Erosion control blanket, Mn/DOT Cat.3 (3885) shall be installed as indicated.6. Inlet sediment control shall be in place during all phases of construction and until site isseeded and mulched. Type shall be as appropriate depending on construction phase.7. Inlet protection shall be removed by Contractor prior to winter freeze, and replaced in thespring if site stabilization is not achieved, or at the direction of the City Engineer.8. Sod or seed areas to be mowed / maintained with low-maintenance turf, Mn/DOT Mix25-131 (3876) or as directed by Owner.9. Seed infiltration basin bottom and sides with native wet & dry-tolerant seed, Mn/DOT Mix33-261. Alternatively, "rain garden" plant plugs may be installed for immediateestablishment of vegetation.10. Seed natural areas with general roadside Mn/DOT Mix 25-141 or alternate prairie mix.11. All seeded areas, including infiltration basin shall be seeded (or planted) and covered withhydraulic mulch matrix (3884.B2) or blanket (Cat. 0), unless noted otherwise.12. Sediment control logs shall be minimum 6" diameter and installed as indicated. Logs maybe straw, wood, or fiber (no compost) (3897).13. Random crushed riprap per Mn/DOT 3601 shall be of class and quantity as indicated, andshall include geotextile fabric (3733).14. Erosion discovered during construction shall be repaired immediately by the Contractor.15. Contractor is responsible for preventing sediment transport from site; sediment tracked ontoadjacent streets will be swept immediately upon discovery (incidental).16. Developer is responsible for removing erosion control features upon establishment ofpermanent erosion control.KEBDESIGNED:LIC. NO.:DATE:KENT E. BRANDERDRAWN:CHECKED:KEBDMP44578I 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.06-07-2021CIVIL METHODS, INC.P.O. Box 28038St. Paul, MN 55128o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.comDATE / REVISION:OWNER:TITLE:SHEET NO:MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNSWEENEY ROAD 2ND ADDITION6/7/2021 4:58 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\0689_Sweeney Road 2nd Addition\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\0689_Erosion.dwg06-07-2021 Preliminary Grading and Drainage PlanBENCHMARKSEE SURVEY DOCUMENTATIONLEGEND:PROPERTY LINESETBACKEASEMENTPROP. CONTOUREX. CONTOURROCK RIPRAP, RANDOM CRUSHEDSILT FENCESEDIMENT CONTROL LOGINLET PROTECTIONDETAIL ID: NO./SHEETSTABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCEINFILTRATION BASIN SEED/PLANTINGSPROP. FLOW DIRECTIONFeet03060EROSION CONTROL BLANKET, CAT. 31480 SY EC BLANKET, CAT 31190 LF SILT FENCERIPRAP W/ FABRIC AT OUTLETSSTABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE C30ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MPCA'S. All sheets of this planset, as well as therelated Project SWMP, are hereby referenced as part of this SWPPP; any related pages shall be revised asappropriate for differing site conditions. Specific reference permit sections included in parenthesesthroughout.EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL1. The contractor shall use phased construction whenever practical to minimize disturbed area at any one time.2. A 50' natural buffer shall be preserved within surface waters adjacent to construction. If not feasible, redundant (double)perimeter sediment controls separated by 5.0' are required. Special Waters require 100' buffer.3. All exposed soil areas must be stabilized as soon as possible to limit soil erosion but in no case later than after theconstruction activity in that portion of the site has temporarily or permanently ceased.4. The following shall be installed within of connection to surface water or property edge:4.1. Energy dissipation (riprap) at all outlet aprons4.2. Stabilization of temporary or permanent drainage swales within 200' of property boundary or connection to surface wateR(e.g., storm sewer inlet, drainage swale, etc.)5. A vehicle tracking BMP must be installed at the site entrance where haul vehicles are entering and exiting the site, including: rockpad, slash mulch, wash rack, etc. Streets must be swept within 24 hours of discovery of offsite tracking.6. Temporary stockpiles must have silt fence or other applicable sediment control device around the base of the pile.7. The Contractor shall be responsible to control sediment-laden surface water from leaving site. All mobilized sediment that hasleft the construction zone shall be collected by the contractor and properly disposed of at no additional cost to the owner.9. Inlets shall be protected from sediment at all times, with appropriate protection installed for each phase of development.10. Infiltration / filtration basins shall not be excavated to final grade until contributing drainage area has been fully stabilized, unlessrigorous are incorporated to keep sediment from draining to the basins (16.4).11. When excavating to within 3' of final grade of infiltration / filtration system, areas shall be staked to ensure vehicles andequipment do not compact the soil.12. Adjacent roads must be inspected and kept clear of sediment; roads to be swept within 24 hours of tracked sediment discovery.13. Additional temporary BMPs may be required to reduce the potential for sediment transport during construction. If deemednecessary by onsite personnel, Engineer or Owner shall be contacted immediately for approval or guidance, if available.Otherwise best judgment shall be used to provide rapid stabilization or sediment controls as necessary to minimize potentialpollutant discharge.CONSTRUCTION IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE & PHASING1. Install perimeter silt fence / sediment logs, and construction entrance as shown prior to site disturbance.2. Complete soil stripping and rough grading of site.3. Install bioretention areas and outlet means.4. Install parking pavement and curbing as indicated.5. Replace topsoil and establish vegetative cover.6. Complete site restoration and final stabilization measures (remove temporary controls after construction acitivity has ceased andvegetation is established).7. Submit Notice of Termination (NOT) to MPCA within 30 days.DEWATERING & BASIN DRAINING1. Dewatering water, if necessary, must be discharged to a temporary or permanent sediment basin when feasible; if not feasible,appropriate BMPs must be used to prevent sediment-laden water from discharging downstream.2. Use appropriate energy dissipation measures on all discharges to prevent erosion at discharge outlet. Discharge must not causenuisance or erosive conditions to downstream properties or receiving channels. Excessive inundation of downstream wetlands isnot permitted (if applicable).3. If filters with backwash water are used, all backwash water must be hauled offsite for disposal, returned to the beginning of thetreatment process, or incorporated into the site in a manner not causing erosion.INSPECTIONS & MAINTENANCE1. The contractor must routinely inspect the construction site once every 7 days during construction, and within 24 hrs of receivingmore than12" of rain in 24 hrs. Rainfall amounts must be measured by a properly installed rain gage onsite, or from a weatherstation within 1 mile of the project, or from a weather reporting system with site specific radar rainfall summaries (11.11).2. All inspections and rainfalls >12" must be recorded and retained onsite with the SWPPP. Inspections shall include: date/time,name of individual, date & amount of rainfall, findings, corrective actions, observed discharge/location/description, any proposedSWPPP amendments.3. Inspections may be suspended when work is stopped due to frozen conditions. The Contractor's inspector must resumeinspections within 24 hours after runoff occurs at the site or prior to resuming construction, whichever comes first.4. Silt fence (or related perimeter control device) must be maintained when accumulated sediment reaches12 the height of thedevice, or if device becomes ineffective (by the end of the next business day following discovery).5. Permanent and temporary sediment basins, if applicable, shall be drained and cleaned when sediment depth reaches12 oforiginal storage volume; complete within 72 hrs of discovery. Must be cleaned prior to project completion.6. Non-functional BMPs must be repaired or replaced by the end of the next business day following discovery.7. Inspect downstream ditch / drainage system for signs of erosion or sediment buildup during each inspection; stabilize within 7days.8. Inspect vehicle exit locations and adjacent streets; remove sediment from surfaces within 1 day.POLLUTION PREVENTION1. All solid waste generated at the site must be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal and state regulations.2. All hazardous materials must be properly stored/contained to prevent spills or leaks; materials must be properly disposed ofperapplicable regulations, including Minn. Rule Ch. 7045. Restricted access storage areas must be provided to preventvandalism.3. Vehicle or equipment washing must be confined to a defined area (minimum of 100' from pond or drainage ditch); runoffcontaining any hazardous materials must be collected and properly disposed of. Defined area must be delineated withheavy-duty silt fence (incidental); no engine degreasing is allowed on-site.4. Pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers, treatment chemicals, and landscape materials must be under cover to preventpollutant discharge, or protected by similar means to minimize potential contact with stormwater.5. Concrete and other washout waste must be effectively contained - solid and liquid washout waste must not contact ground andmust be disposed of properly in compliance with MPCA rules. A sign must be installed at washout area requiring personnel toutilize the proper facilities for disposal of concrete and other wastes.6. The contractor is solely responsible for monitoring air pollution and ensuring that it does not exceed levels set by any agency orLGU. This includes dust created by work performed at the site; air pollution and dust control measures are incidental to thecontract. The engineer may require additional dust control measures to be implemented, as necessary.7. Adequate temporary restroom facilities shall be present onsite in a stable and secure location during construction operations,and shall be maintained in an adequate functioning condition.FINAL STABILIZATION1. The Contractor must ensure final site stabilization meets the Permit requirements, and submit the NOT within 30 days.2. Final stabilization includes uniform perennial vegetative cover of at least 70% of the expected final growth density over the entirepervious surface area, or other equivalent cover to prevent soil erosion.3. All temporary synthetic and structural BMPs must be removed as part of final stabilization.RECORD RETENTION1. The SWPPP, all revisions to it, and inspection & maintenance records are the responsibility of the Contractor and must remain atthe site during construction hours. The materials may be kept in a field office, onsite vehicle, or "SWPPP Mailbox".2. Training documentation shall be provided by Contractor as outlined below and required.3. The SWPPP, project permits, inspection/maintenance logs, stormwater maintenance agreements, and stormwater managementdesign calculations must be retained for 3 years after submittal of permit NOT. Contractor shall provide Owner or Engineercopies of inspection and maintenance logs prior to final payment.TRAINING REQUIREMENTS1. The permittees must comply with the training requirements as outlined in Section 21 of the Permit. The Contractor shall have atrained individual performing BMP installations and inspections, as required.2. Training table (below) to be completed prior to construction, as appropriate.SITE AND CONSTRUCTION DESCRIPTION:This project includes site grading for a new residential subdivision in Mendota Heights, Dakota County, MN (Lat: 44.898390,Long: -93.125230).The site work will include disturbance of 2.35 acres of the 2.44 acre property for the grading of 4 residential lots, as well asdrainage and stormwater management features. Approximately 5,300 CY of material will be excavated and relocated on-site,and all areas will be stabilized and restored as indicated in the plans. Riprap will be installed at pipe outlets.The existing site is a residential lot and no groundwater or soil contamination is anticipated (16.15).The Contractor shall sign the MPCA NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit application as "Operator" and be solelyresponsible for meeting the erosion and sediment control requirements of the permit.Disturbed Area:2.35 acresPre-Construction Impervious Area:0.17 acresPost-Construction Impervious Area:0.63 acresNewly Created Impervious Area:0.46 acresPermanent Stormwater Treatment Required (If >1.0 acre):Not required by MPCA Permit; required by CityPERMANENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENTPermanent stormwater management is required by the City of Mendota Heights, and is described in detail in the projectStormwater Management Plan (SWMP) document. In summary, the site has been designed to capture and treat a WQV of 1.1"from the site impervious area using biofiltration (rain gardens). Discharge rates from the site have been maintained for the 2-,10-, and 100-year, 24-hour storms.The soil over the site consists of loam, sandy loam, and loamy sand, with most of the site classified as Hydrologic Soil Group(HSG) C, with low permeability. This indicates limited potential for infiltration practices to be used for stormwater management.The property drains primarily to the west, into a low area drained by a culvert discharging to the southwest. Small portions of theproperty drain to the northeast and the east. For the portion of the project that discharges to the west, further downstream therunoff enters a stream impaired for aquatic recreation. The additional measures required by Section 23.1 of the Permit fordischarge to an impaired water have been accounted for in the design and this SWPPP.SOILS MAPDOWNSTREAM SURFACE WATERS AND WETLANDSPROJECT SITEAUID 07010206-542UNNAMED CREEK TOMISSISSIPPI RIVERIMPAIRED USE: AQRFeet0 2000 4000RESPONSIBLE PARTIES & TRAINING SUMMARYCOMPANYCONTACT PHONETRAININGDATECOURSE / ENTITY CONTENTOWNER:NANANASWPPP PREPARER:CIVIL METHODS, INC. KENT E. BRANDER, PE763.210.57138/31/2018 CMI EDU SERIESSWPPP PREP FOR 2018NPDES PERMITGENERAL CONTRACTOR /INSPECTOR:EROSION & SEDIMENTCONTROL INSTALLER:PERMANENT BMPOPERATOR / MAINTAINER:NANANAKEBDESIGNED:LIC. NO.:DATE:KENT E. BRANDERDRAWN:CHECKED:KEBDMP44578I 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.06-07-2021CIVIL METHODS, INC.P.O. Box 28038St. Paul, MN 55128o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.comDATE / REVISION:OWNER:TITLE:SHEET NO:MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNSWEENEY ROAD 2ND ADDITION6/7/2021 4:58 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\0689_Sweeney Road 2nd Addition\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\0689_SWPPP.dwg06-07-2021 Preliminary Grading and Drainage PlanSITEDISCHARGEHSG CHSG CHSG BHSG B 304730483056313631463145314431343142314031393141316731663165316431633161316031593158315732003200315632063155315431533152315131503148314731963197307630753074307330773078307930713080306930723068307030813067306630643083308230623063305330523051306130493050306030593058305730543055309730983099310031073101314931833184318531863189319031913192319331943187320432033202320131743173317531763168316931703171317231623177317831803181318231798708728748768788 8 08 8 2 88488689089289489689890089289088888688488288087887687487287086886686486286085885687887688688889089289689489890088288087887687487290290089088888688488288 0 8 7 8 L106/17/2021 12:07 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\0689_Sweeney Road 2nd Addition\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\0689_Trees.dwgKEBDESIGNED:LIC. NO.:DATE:KENT E. BRANDERDRAWN:CHECKED:KEBDMP44578I 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.06-07-2021CIVIL METHODS, INC.P.O. Box 28038St. Paul, MN 55128o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.comDATE / REVISION:OWNER:TITLE:SHEET NO:MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNSWEENEY ROAD 2ND ADDITION6/17/2021 12:07 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\0689_Sweeney Road 2nd Addition\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\0689_Trees.dwg06-07-2021 Preliminary Grading and Drainage PlanLEGEND:PROPERTY LINESETBACKEASEMENTPROP. CONTOUREX. CONTOUREXISTING TREEFeet03060TREE - REMOVESEPARATE BUILDING PERMITS TO BEREQUIRED FOR INDIVIDUAL LOTS 1-4. PRIORTO PERMIT ISSUANCE, OWNER SHALL BEREQUIRED TO SUBMIT A LOT-SPECIFICVEGETATION PLAN INCLUDING TREE ANDPLANT SPECIES, PLACEMENT, ETC.INDIVIDUAL LOT LANDSCAPING AND TREEREPLACEMENT PLANS SHALL ADHERE TOCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTSPOLLINATOR-FRIENDLY POLICY, WHICHINCLUDES THE POLLINATOR-FRIENDLYPLANT LIST (SEE BELOW).POLLINATOR-FRIENDLY PLANTING LIST1 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SWEENEY ROAD 2ND ADDITION MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN DATE: JUNE 7, 2021 PREPARED FOR: M&M Home Contractors / LDK Homes Attn: Mike Fritz 413 Paul Ave S Cologne, MN 55322 PREPARED BY: Civil Methods, Inc. PO Box 28038 St. Paul, MN 55128 ENGINEER 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. Name: Kent Brander, PE Signed: Date: 06-07-2021 Registration: MN No. 44578 Sweeney Road 2nd Addition – SWMP June 2021 Civil Methods, Inc. Page | i Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 2. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 1 3. PROPOSED SITE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................ 2 4. STORMWATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................ 2 4.1 RUNOFF VOLUME CONTROL ................................................................................................................................ 2 4.2 RUNOFF RATE CONTROL ..................................................................................................................................... 2 4.3 WATER QUALITY CONTROL ................................................................................................................................. 3 APPENDIX A – SOILS INFORMATION APPENDIX B – DRAINAGE DIAGRAMS APPENDIX C – HYDROCAD REPORT Sweeney Road 2nd Addition – SWMP June 2021 Civil Methods, Inc. Page | 1 1. INTRODUCTION The property located at 777 Wentworth Ave in Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota is proposed to be subdivided into 4 residential lots. This SWMP addresses the grading and stormwater controls necessary to mitigate the impacts of the project. Governmental agencies with jurisdiction over drainage and stormwater for this project include: x City of Mendota Heights (City) x Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization (LMRWMO) x State of Minnesota (State) Where needed, site conditions have been modeled with the HydroCAD modeling software using the TR-20 methodology and Atlas 14 design rainfall amounts. Applicability x Project requires a NPDES/SDS Permit because more than 1 acre of soil disturbance is anticipated. x Project is subject to the rule and permitting requirements of LMRWMO. x Project is subject to City code, specifically the Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Regulatory Stormwater Requirements: 1) Provide for volume control onsite equal to 1.1 IN of runoff from all new impervious surfaces. 2) Limit peak runoff flow rates to existing conditions for the 2, 10, and 100-year storms. 3) Provide for 50% TP reduction relative to existing conditions. 4) Freeboard of 2 FT above 100-year HWL; EOF minimum 1.5 FT below lowest adjacent grade to structure. 2. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS Under existing conditions, the property contains a house, garage, accessory structures, driveway, and green space (lawn, trees, and garden areas). The property drains primarily to the west, into a low area drained by a culvert discharging to the southwest. Small portions of the property drain to the northeast and the east. The soil over the site consists of loam, sandy loam, and loamy sand, with most of the site classified as Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) C, with low permeability (see Appendix A). This indicates limited potential for infiltration practices to be used for stormwater management. Sweeney Road 2nd Addition – SWMP June 2021 Civil Methods, Inc. Page | 2 3. PROPOSED SITE CONDITIONS Under proposed conditions, the property will be divided into 4 residential lots. 2 shared driveway accesses will be provided (one for the two westerly lots, another for the two easterly lots). Custom graded pads are anticipated for all the lots. The amount of impervious area for the development is assumed to be 27268 SF (conservatively high assumption). Under proposed conditions, most runoff from the site will drain north into 2 proposed biofiltration basins with underdrains, will provide the requisite treatment for volume, rate, and water quality. Both basins will discharge to the west into the adjacent low area and creek. 4. STORMWATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS 4.1 RUNOFF VOLUME CONTROL The proposed project adds 27268 SF of impervious area to the site. City standards dictate that stormwater management measures must provide for the retention onsite of 1.1 IN of runoff from the new impervious area. This results in a volume control requirement of 2500 CF. Drawdown of water levels in infiltration or filtration facilities must occur within 48 hours. Using a conservatively low infiltration rate of 0.5 IN/HR, 2.0 FT depth of ponding below overflow is acceptable. Proposed biofiltration basins 1 and 2 will each retain a volume of 1252 CF with a depth of 2.0 FT below outlet elevation, for a total of 2504 CF volume retention. This design meets the infiltration volume and depth requirements. 4.2 RUNOFF RATE CONTROL As indicated above, stormwater management measures must limit peak runoff flow rates to that of existing conditions for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year storms. The site has been modeled with the HydroCAD modeling software to ensure this rate control requirement is met. The simulations have been run for Atlas-14 rainfall totals using the SCS method for runoff generation for the design rainfall events. A detailed description of HydroCAD model parameters and results are provided in Appendix C. Sweeney Road 2nd Addition – SWMP June 2021 Civil Methods, Inc. Page | 3 Table 1. Summary of Peak Discharge Information Discharge from the eastern biofiltration basin will be controlled with a 12” catch basin, with grate overflow at elevation 878.4 and a 7.7” orifice at elevation 877.0. The catch basin will discharge through a 10” HDPE outlet pipe connected at elevation 871. The outlet pipe will discharge into the western biofiltration basin at elevation 858.0. Discharge from the western biofiltration basin will be controlled with an 18” catch basin outlet structure, with grate overflow at elevation 858.0. The catch basin will discharge through a 12” HDPE outlet pipe connected at elevation 854.5. The outlet pipe will discharge to the west at elevation 854.0, with riprap provided at the outlet for energy dissipation. 4.3 WATER QUALITY CONTROL The water quality requirement of reduction of TP by 50% relative to existing conditions is achieved for the site due to the treatment provided by the biofiltration basins. Under existing conditions, no runoff treatment is provided and the existing house, driveway, and lawns discharge directly to the creek. Under proposed conditions, no significant source of phosphorus will be added to the site, but almost the entire site will be treated with the biofiltration basins. Per the Minnesota Stormwater Manual, assuming the phosphorus from the site is 55% particulate and 45% dissolved, bioretention systems with underdrains can be expected to remove 53% of TP from the site, which indicates greater than a 50% reduction of TP relative to existing conditions. Location Conditions Node 2-YR 10-YR 100-YR Existing A1X 1.68 3.81 9.62 Proposed B1P 1.32 3.78 8.49 Existing A2X 1.24 2.39 5.27 Proposed A2P 1.21 2.25 4.80 Existing A4X 0.13 0.28 0.66 Proposed N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 Existing A3X 0.29 0.65 1.64 Proposed A3P 0.05 0.10 0.21 NE Corner to North E Area to East DESIGN STORM RECURRENCE INTERVAL Main Area to Creek South Area to Creek Appendix A – Soils Information +\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS²'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD 678'<$5($ 1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH:HE6RLO6XUYH\1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\3DJHRIƒ  1ƒ  :ƒ  1ƒ  :ƒ  1ƒ  :ƒ  1ƒ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²-XQ7KHRUWKRSKRWRRURWKHUEDVHPDSRQZKLFKWKHVRLOOLQHVZHUHFRPSLOHGDQGGLJLWL]HGSUREDEO\GLIIHUVIURPWKHEDFNJURXQGLPDJHU\GLVSOD\HGRQWKHVHPDSV$VDUHVXOWVRPHPLQRUVKLIWLQJRIPDSXQLWERXQGDULHVPD\EHHYLGHQW+\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS²'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD 678'<$5($ 1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH:HE6RLO6XUYH\1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\3DJHRI +\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS 0DSXQLWV\PERO 0DSXQLWQDPH 5DWLQJ $FUHVLQ$2,3HUFHQWRI$2, 6SLOOYLOOHORDPWR SHUFHQWVORSHV RFFDVLRQDOO\IORRGHG %' %.LQJVOH\0DKWRPHGL 6SHQFHUFRPSOH[WR SHUFHQWVORSHV & &.LQJVOH\0DKWRPHGL 6SHQFHUFRPSOH[WR SHUFHQWVORSHV & 7RWDOVIRU$UHDRI,QWHUHVW  +\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS²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²'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD 678'<$5($ 1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV &RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH :HE6RLO6XUYH\ 1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\  3DJHRI Appendix B – Drainage Diagrams B1BENCHMARKSEE SURVEY DOCUMENTATIONFeet03060LEGEND:PROPERTY LINESETBACKEASEMENTPROP. CONTOUREX. CONTOURROCK RIPRAP, RANDOM CRUSHEDINFILTRATION BASIN SEED/PLANTINGSPROP. FLOW DIRECTIONRETAINING WALLXXXSUBCATCHMENT NODE IDBASIN NODE IDHYDROLOGIC MODELINGREACH NODE IDDRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARYDRAINAGE DIRECTIONA1XA4XA3XA2XKEBDESIGNED:LIC. NO.:DATE:KENT E. BRANDERDRAWN:CHECKED:KEBDMP44578I 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.06-07-2021CIVIL METHODS, INC.P.O. Box 28038St. Paul, MN 55128o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.comDATE / REVISION:OWNER:TITLE:SHEET NO:MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNSWEENEY ROAD 2ND ADDITION6/7/2021 4:05 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\0689_Sweeney Road 2nd Addition\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\0689_Grading.dwg06-07-2021 Drainage Diagrams G=892.80TF=893.10LL=882.80WOBG=882.30G=900.50TF=900.80LL=892.50WOBG=892.00G=902.50TF=902.80LL=894.50WOBG=894.00G=884.20TF=884.50LL=874.20WOBG=873.7033' - 12" PVC SCH 40 @ 0.91%8708728688668648668688708729009028808788848828868848788768748848 7 8 8 7 6 8748728708 9 2 890886894896898900900898896894892890886884876874898896892894143'-10"PVCSCH40@9.08%8788768 8 2 8808808929008868888908888868888908 8 0882 -7.9%-6 .0 %-3 .4 %-4.3%856858860860858856BENCHMARKSEE SURVEY DOCUMENTATIONB2Feet03060LEGEND:PROPERTY LINESETBACKEASEMENTPROP. CONTOUREX. CONTOURROCK RIPRAP, RANDOM CRUSHEDINFILTRATION BASIN SEED/PLANTINGSPROP. FLOW DIRECTIONRETAINING WALLXXXSUBCATCHMENT NODE IDBASIN NODE IDHYDROLOGIC MODELINGREACH NODE IDDRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARYDRAINAGE DIRECTIONA4PA1PA2PA3PB1PB2PKEBDESIGNED:LIC. NO.:DATE:KENT E. BRANDERDRAWN:CHECKED:KEBDMP44578I 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.06-07-2021CIVIL METHODS, INC.P.O. Box 28038St. Paul, MN 55128o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.comDATE / REVISION:OWNER:TITLE:SHEET NO:MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNSWEENEY ROAD 2ND ADDITION6/7/2021 4:06 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\0689_Sweeney Road 2nd Addition\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\0689_Grading.dwg06-07-2021 Drainage Diagrams CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 22, 2021 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 22, 2021 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Acting Chair Sally Lorberbaum, Commissioners Cindy Johnson, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: Chair Litton Field, Commissioners Patrick Corbett, and Michael Toth. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of May 25, 2021 Minutes COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2021. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER JOHNSON NOTED ON PAGE 9, THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, SECOND TO LAST SENTENCE, REVISE TO “…suggested an alternative of service berry trees.” ACTING CHAIR LORBERBAUM NOTED PAGE 4, THE FIRST LINE SHOULD STATE, “…most sheds range…”; PAGE 6, FIFTH PARAGRAPH, THE LAST WORD “…together.” REPLACE WITH “…apart.”; AND PAGE 14, SECOND PARAGRAPH SHOULD STATE, “…asked how it would be…” AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2021-09 MIKE FRITZ OF M & M HOMES, 777 WENTWORTH AVENUE – PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the applicant is seeking new Preliminary and Final Plat approval on the property generally located at the northeast corner of Wentworth Avenue and Wachtler Avenue (Dakota Co. Road No. 8). The property is officially addressed as 777 Wentworth Avenue. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; one letter was received that was provided to the Commission and no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti 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. Acting Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Mike Fritz, applicant, stated that he is present to address any questions the Commission may have. Commissioner Johnson asked the location of the retaining wall in Lot 4 in relation to the creek, specifically the distance between the creek and retaining wall. Community Development Director Tim Benetti identified the location of the retaining walls. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the 25-foot setback line is shown right in front of the wall, therefore the wall would be 25 feet from the center line of the creek. Mr. Fritz commented that the top of the wall on Lot 4 appears to be four feet in elevation. Commissioner Johnson asked if there would be a planting buffer planned along with the wall. She referenced the notes related to erosion control which mentions seeding with a general roadside mix or alternate prairie mix. She commented that she would prefer a native prairie mix. She asked what is planned to be planted between the wall and creek. Mr. Fritz commented that the north side of the wall along with that area are planned to be planted with a roadside mix. Acting Chair Lorberbaum commented that the retaining wall would be ten feet in height in some locations and stated that under the City regulations it states that a retaining wall should not exceed five feet in height. She asked for input from staff. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that restriction is within the critical area corridor and this property is not within that area. He stated that there is not a height limit outside the critical corridor but walls over four feet in height must be designed by a structural engineer. Commissioner Johnson stated that it is clear why some trees are proposed to be removed as they are in the area where construction is planned. She referenced tree number 3187 on Lot 1 and asked for details on why that tree is being removed. She stated that it appears some Siberian Elms are being removed but not all, noting that those are an invasive species. Mr. Fritz commented that 3172 (a Siberian Elm) falls on the center of the property line and therefore did not believe it could be removed as part of this project. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that if there were any Siberian Elms on the property it would appear those be recommended to be removed. Mr. Fritz commented that he would have to verify whose tree it is and speak with the adjacent property owner about that tree. Commissioner Johnson commented that the native plant list is not all inclusive and is just a recommendation to provide a starting point. She stated that there are many more native plants that may be appropriate for the site. Jim Carlson, 1562 Wachtler, asked if the lots would all be graded to be level or whether the lot on the end would still have a slope. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that Lot 1 is the highest lot on the site and there would be retaining walls that step down as the lots go west. He noted that each house would be slightly higher than the home to the west of it. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Acting Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF SWEENEY 2ND ADDITION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE CONCEPT PLANS PRESENTED UNDER THIS PLAT REQUEST DO NOT REPRESENT OR PROVIDE APPROVAL OF BUILDING LAYOUTS OR SETBACKS. FINAL LAYOUTS AND SETBACKS MUST MEET R-1 ZONE STANDARDS AND SHALL BE APPROVED UNDER SEPARATE BUILDING PERMITS FOR EACH LOT. 2. PRIOR TO ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT WORK ON THE SITE, ALL EXISTING (AND NON-CONFORMING) STRUCTURES ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL BE REMOVED WITH AN APPROVED DEMOLITION PERMIT ISSUED BY THE CITY. 3. A BUILDING PERMIT, INCLUDING ALL NEW GRADING AND DRAINAGE WORK, MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION WORK. 4. A COMPLETE AND DETAILED LANDSCAPING PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH A NEW BUILDING PERMIT ON EACH LOT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY CITY STAFF. AS PER THE CITY’S POLLINATOR FRIENDLY POLICY, THE DEVELOPER WILL ENSURE ALL NEW TREES AND LANDSCAPING COMPLIES WITH THE CITY’S NATIVE PLANTINGS LIST. 5. ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION AND GRADING ACTIVITIES THROUGH THIS DEVELOPMENT SITE AND ON EACH NEW BUILDABLE LOT WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES, AS WELL AS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. 6. FULL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION MEASURES WILL BE PUT IN PLACE PRIOR TO AND DURING GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION WORK ACTIVITIES. 7. A WETLANDS PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO ANY PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING THE NEW STORM WATER BASIN) OR ANY NEW HOME PERMIT IS APPROVED ON LOT 4 OF THIS PLAT. 8. AN ADDITIONAL PARK DEDICATION FEE OF $4,000 MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE FINAL PLAT IS RELEASED BY THE CITY FOR RECORDING WITH DAKOTA COUNTY. 9. ALL WORK ON THIS DEVELOPMENT SITE WILL ONLY BE ALLOWED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 A.M. TO 8:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY AND 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. ON THE WEEKENDS. 10. ALL DISTURBED AREAS IN AND AROUND THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE RESTORED AND HAVE AN ESTABLISHED AND PERMANENT GROUND COVER IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED. 11. INVASIVE SPECIES SHALL BE REMOVED AND NO INVASIVE SPECIES SHALL BE PLANTED. 12. THE BUFFER ALONG THE STREAM SHALL BE PLANTED WITH A NATIVE SEED MIX. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ASKED IF THE PLAT COULD BE CONDITIONED UPON REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI COMMENTED THAT IT WOULD NOT BE NORMAL TO REQUIRE TREE REMOVAL, AS THE TYPICAL GOAL IS TREE PRESERVATION. HE STATED THAT IF THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT CONDITION, STAFF COULD WORK WITH THEM. ACTING CHAIR LORBERBAUM STATED THAT HER CONCERN WOULD BE THAT THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE A LIST OF INVASIVE VERSUS NON-INVASIVE. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI AGREED THAT ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL TREE REMOVAL MAY BE AN OVERSTEP BUT IF THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO DO SO, THAT COULD BE INCLUDED. ACTING CHAIR LORBERBAUM STATED THAT THE ITEM COULD BE REMOVED FROM THE MOTION WITH THE GOOD FAITH EXPECTATION THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD REVIEW THAT ELEMENT. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ASKED IF IT WOULD BE BETTER TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN THE PLAT OR INCLUDED WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI NOTED THAT STAFF CAN INDICATE THAT INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL WOULD BE PREFERRED AS PART OF THE LANDSCAPING PLAN WHEN THE INDIVIDUAL BUILDING PERMITS COME THROUGH FOR EACH LOT. HE STATED THAT IF THE COMMISSION FEELS THOSE ARE REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS, THEY CAN BE ADDED. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ASKED IF THE REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE SIBERIAN ELMS. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT SHE WOULD PREFER ALL INVASIVE SPECIES BE REMOVED. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR RYAN RUZEK COMMENTED THAT HE WOULD SUGGEST THE LANGUAGE “WITHIN DISTURBED AREAS”. HE CLARIFIED THAT THERE IS OWNED LAND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CREEK AND FOR THE DEVELOPER TO GO INTO THAT AREA WOULD BE PAST WHAT IS REQUIRED OR WHAT THE CITY IS AUTHORIZED TO REQUIRE. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON ASKED IF THE AREA NEAR THE STREAM IS BEING DISTURBED. SHE STATED THAT IF THE INVASIVE SPECIES ARE NOT REMOVED, THE SEED PLANTED WOULD NOT BE SUCCESSFUL. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR RYAN RUZEK COMMENTED THAT WOULD CONFLICT WITH THE SURFACE WATER PLAN OF THE CITY AS THAT REQUIRES NO DISTURBANCE WITHIN 20 FEET OF THE CREEK, IF THAT CAN BE PREVENTED. HE STATED THAT ACTION WOULD CONFLICT WITH THE CURRENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND REGULATIONS. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT PERHAPS THAT IS A BLIND SPOT IN THE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT RELATED TO INVASIVE SPECIES WITHIN THE BUFFER ZONE. HE STATED THAT THE COMMISSION COULD NOT REQUIRE THAT WORK TO BE DONE AS IT CONFLICTS WITH THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. ACTING CHAIR LORBERBAUM STATED THAT SHE WOULD ALSO BE UNCOMFORTABLE REQUIRING THINGS THAT ARE NOT LISTED. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON COMMENTED THAT THE DNR HAS A LENGTHY LIST. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI NOTED THAT LOT 4 WOULD REQUIRE A SEPARATE WETLAND PERMIT, WHICH WOULD HAVE A MORE THOROUGH REVIEW. HE STATED THAT THIS ACTION IS SIMPLY TO PLAT THE FOUR LOTS. HE STATED THAT HE CAN WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE THOSE CONCERNS ARE ADDRESSED WHEN THE WETLAND PERMIT REVIEW IS COMPLETED. ACTING CHAIR LORBERBAUM STATED THAT SHE WOULD PREFER TO FOCUS ON THE PLATTING AT THIS TIME. AYES: 3 NAYS: 1 (Lorberbaum) Acting Chair Lorberbaum advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 6, 2021 meeting. From:eurekabeo@aol.com To:Tim Benetti Subject:Preliminary Plat of Sweeney 2nd Addition to Mendota Heights Date:Friday, June 18, 2021 1:49:27 PM Tim, As I will be unable to attend the June 22 Planning Commission meeting, I want to present some concerns to the proposed plat of Sweeney 2nd Addition to Mendota Heights and offer some suggestions for your consideration. CONCERNS: 1) The four housing lots near the intersection of Wentworth and Wachtler Avenues seem quite narrow. 2) Due to west-bound traffic on Wentworth going downhill at the site, there, already, is a traffic safety issue with the one existing homesite. Increasing the area to include four homesites will increase the potential for accidents particularly for the west-bound traffic as the hill creates a blind spot for vehicles until one gets relatively close to the access routes proposed for the homes. If the proposed addition is to proceed, I suggest the following recommendations be considered: 1) Consider reducing the number of lots from four to a maximum of three. 2) Currently, there are two proposed shared access routes onto Wentworth. Is it possible to consider having only one shared access route for all of the lots? 3) Are the shared access routes for the homes being designed so that the home- owners are driving forward and not backing out onto Wentworth when entering the public street? This would, presumably, help avoid the potential for accidents between homeowners and other traffic users. Safety issues for this proposed addition are crucial as there is considerable vehicle traffic along with pedestrian use on the adjacent trail. These duel uses compound the potential for accidents in this narrow space that is partially blinded by the hill. Any safety measures that can be considered will be appreciated. Thank-you, Bruce Opp 789 Evergreen Knolls Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Tel. 651-681-0401 Request for City Council Action DATE: July 6, 2021 TO: Mayor Levine and City Council; City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 566 – Amending Title 5 – Police Regulations and Title 12 – Zoning Regarding Temporary Keeping of Goats for Prescribed Grazing [Planning Case No. 2021-08] INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to give consideration of a proposed ordinance amendment, which would allow the temporary keeping of goats on properties for prescribed grazing purposes only. Prescribed grazing refers to the natural elimination of certain invasive or noxious vegetation by goats, with said grazing allowed by special permit only. BACKGROUND At the June 18, 2019 regular city council meeting, a resident addressed the council requesting the city consider allowing goats in the city, for the purpose of helping to remove by “natural means” the buckthorn and other invasive vegetation growing throughout his property. Goats are not allowed in the city; however, dogs, cats, and chickens are specifically identified as “domesticated” animals allowed by Code, and limited in numbers or by special permit. With the problematic and prolific growth of buckthorn and other invasives throughout the state and metro area, many cities have seen or experienced increased demand or requests from homeowners seeking permission to naturally manage buckthorn and other invasives with goats. A growing number of metro-wide communities now permit or allow the keeping of goats, either temporary or permanent inside their city limits, with specific and limited permits for goats to occupy and graze personal properties. The goats are mostly allowed under a temporary permit on sites, usually up to 30-days in most cases, which serve as an organic means of providing vegetation management and control, without the need for chemicals, herbicides, or extra human/manual labor such as cutting, clearing and removal. Buckthorn infestations can form dense growth on properties, which may lead inhibiting and destroying native or preferred vegetation, such as trees and shrubs that help promote or foster pollinator friendly species, or affect natural habitat for native insects, birds and mammals. Because growth of invasive species is uninhibited, it is up to the humans to manually manage the spread of the invasive vegetation. Prescribed grazing with goats is a popular tool being used nationally and regionally to manage buckthorn and other invasive and noxious vegetation. Benefits of using goats to control invasive vegetation include they typically are more time and cost effective than conventional removal methods, they reduce use of pesticides, and they easily address areas of challenging geography such as steep slopes. However, it is also known that annual treatment of invasive species such as buckthorn is required to limit establishment of new seedlings, which may include annual use of goats, herbicide, and mechanical treatment. Government agencies such as Dakota County and cities such as Minneapolis, St. Paul, Burnsville, Lakeville, Minnetonka and more have utilized goats for buckthorn management on public land; while other cities such as Eagan, Burnsville, Mahtomedi, Cottage Grove, Bloomington, Maplewood, Hudson WI, and Inver Grove Heights have developed ordinances that allow the temporary keeping of goats for prescriptive grazing by permit. In 2014, the Mendota Heights City Council allowed a demonstration project for goats to be brought in to Oheyawahe/Pilot Knob Park on a temporary basis, in order to eliminate a large infestation of buckthorn and other invasive vegetation growing in this park area. This temporary goat grazing project turned out to be very successful. On October 28, 2019, the City Council conducted a workshop meeting, whereby staff introduced the subject of allowing goats and presented preliminary information and examples of other city ordinances regulating goats in various metro communities. The Council provided a few comments or suggestions, and instructed city staff to begin preparing an ordinance regulating such animals, and present the findings and proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission for further study and recommendations. On November 26, 2019, city staff presented some preliminary and introductory information to the Planning Commission, comprised mostly of a few local city ordinances and permit applications that provide such goat grazing activity in other communities. No official action was taken. On February 23, 2021, staff again provided some additional information to the Planning Commission for continued discussion and review; and again no official action was taken. At the May 25, 2021 meeting, staff presented for the planning commission’s official consideration the first draft of Ordinance No. 566, with a public hearing. Upon considerable discussion, the commission tabled the hearing to the June 22, 2021 meeting; and directed staff to work with Commissioner Johnson in revising/tweaking the language in the draft ordinance. DISCUSSION The City can use its legislative authority when considering action on a zoning code amendment request and has broad discretion, provided said action is constitutional, rational, and in some way related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public. RECOMMENDATION At the June 22, 2021 meeting, staff presented for the commission’s review the updated draft ordinance. Upon opening and closing the hearing (there were no comments from the public), the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (by 4-0 vote) to approve the proposed Ordinance No. 566 as presented herein. This ordinance has also been reviewed and approved for language and content by the city attorney. ACTION REQUIRED City Council may either affirm this recommendation and make a motion to adopt the proposed Ordinance No. 566 as presented; make a motion to deny the ordinance; or table the ordinance to a future meeting date. Either action requires a simple-majority vote of the council. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 566 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PART OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY CODE TITLE 5 - POLICE REGULATIONS AND TITLE 12 – ZONING REGARDING THE TEMPORARY KEEPING OF GOATS FOR GRAZING PURPOSES The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Section 1. City Code Title 5 – POLICE REGULATIONS is hereby amended as follows: 5-3-1: Definitions is hereby amended by adding (underlined text) the following definitions: GOAT: An animal in the subspecies of Capra aegagrus hircus. GRAZING: For the purpose of this section, it shall mean goats eating vegetation. INVASIVE SPECIES: A nonnative species whose introduction and establishment causes, or may cause, economic or environmental harm or harm to human health, threatens or may threaten natural resources or the use of natural resources in the city. NOXIOUS WEED or VEGETATION: An annual, biennial, or perennial plant that the State of Minnesota designates to be injurious to public health, the environment, public roads, crops, livestock, or other property. PRESCRIBED GRAZING: The temporary use of goats as a landscape management technique to control the growth of invasive plant and/or noxious weeds or vegetation at a specific location and for a defined length of time. For the purpose of this definition, goats used for prescribed grazing are not considered pets or farm animals. PRESCRIBED GRAZING PERMIT: A permit issued for a limited duration that allows prescribed grazing within City limits. Section 2. City Code Title 5 – POLICE REGULATIONS is hereby amended by adding the underlined language and renumbering subsequent sections as follows: 5-3-11: TEMPORARY KEEPING OF GOATS FOR PRESCRIBED GRAZING: A. Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to establish conditions under which the temporary and periodic use of a limited number of goats for invasive and noxious vegetation control is permitted and to establish the requirements for doing so in order to protect the environment and the health, safety, and welfare of the general population. B. Prescribed Goat Grazing Permit Required: No goat may be kept, maintained, or harbored on any property in the city unless a goat grazing permit has been approved and issued. A permit may be granted only for: 1. A parcel or lot of record that is 0.5 acres or more in size; or 2. A prescribed grazing area located on more than one parcel or lot provided the grazing areas on each parcel/lot are contiguous and an aggregate of 0.5 acres or more in size. C. Application for Permit: The applicant must submit the following information for the request to be considered. 1. The applicant shall complete an application form provided by the City and filed with the City Clerk. The applicant shall also pay the application fee for the permit which shall be established by the City fee schedule. Permit fees shall not be prorated or refundable. 2. A detailed site plan of the premises on which prescribed grazing is sought to occur, including the location and the dimensions of the proposed grazing area, a list of the vegetation existing on the site and sought to be controlled by the prescribed grazing. 3. The full name and address of the following persons: a. The applicant; and b. The owner(s) of the premises on which prescribed goat grazing is sought to occur and for which the permit would apply. 4. The street address of the premises on which prescribed grazing is sought to occur and for which the permit would apply. 5. The number of goats to be kept on the premises under the permit, not to exceed two (2) goats per every one-tenth (0.10) acre of the prescribed grazing area. 6. A list of person(s) owning, providing, managing and monitoring the goats, including their full name, address, and 24-hour contact information accompanied by evidence of liability insurance as required by this Section. 7. The type of fencing to be used for the required enclosure, and date the temporary fence will be installed. 8. Date the goats will arrive on the premises for which the permit would apply, and the latest date the goats will be removed from the premises for which the permit would apply. 9. A statement certifying whether the property’s homeowners’ association rules, if any, prohibit the keeping of goats on the property for which the permit is sought. 10. The signature of the owner(s) of the premises or a homeowners’ association board officers where the prescribed grazing will occur. 11. Any other and further information as the City deems necessary. D. Granting or Denying Issuance of Permit: The City may grant a permit under this Section provided the application filed demonstrates compliance with the requirements of this section. The City shall deny a permit hereunder for any of the following reasons: 1. The application is incomplete or contains false, fraudulent, or deceptive statements. 2. The applicant does not or has not complied with one or more of the provisions of this Section. 3. The premises for which the permit is sought, including, but not limited to, the proposed grazing area, is not in compliance with any provisions of this subdivision, other City Code provisions or state laws relating to zoning, health, fire, building, or safety. 4. The applicant or owner of the premises where the prescribed grazing is to occur has been previously convicted of a violation under this Section within the past two (2) years. 5. The owner of the goats has violated any provision hereunder, or on more than two prior occasions, the owner's goats have been found running at large. E. Duration of Permit: The duration of a permit under this section shall be as follows: 1. Prescribed grazing shall not be permitted for more than thirty (30) consecutive days. No more than three (3) prescribed grazing permits may be issued within one (1) calendar year for the same property. There shall be a minimum of thirty (30) days between the expiration of the first permit issued and the second permit issued in a twelve (12) month period. F. Conditions of Permit: The keeping of goats is permitted pursuant to a permit granted under this Section, subject to the following conditions: 1. Transferability of Permit: A permit issued hereunder shall be nontransferable and shall be solely for the property listed on the permit. 2. Liability Insurance: The provider or owner of the goat(s) to be utilized under the permit shall have and maintain insurance coverage for claims arising from prescribed grazing in the amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 general aggregate and shall provide to the City proof of the required insurance coverage prior to issuance of the permit. The City shall have no liability for any damages that may be caused by goats kept on a property pursuant to a prescribed grazing permit. The permit holder shall be responsible for any damage caused by goats used for prescribed grazing purposes. 3. Monitoring: Goat provider or owner must have staff available to respond to any emergency complaints or concerns at all time of the day or night. Applicant will furnish an emergency contact number when applying for any permit. 4. Right-of-Entry for Inspection: The premises for which a permit is issued shall, at all reasonable times, be open to inspection by the city staff to determine compliance with the permit, other City Code provisions and state laws relating to zoning, health, fire, building, or safety. 5. Number of Goats Permitted: No more than two (2) goats per every one-tenth (0.10) acre of the prescribed grazing area shall be on the premises at one time under the permit. 6. Proper Enclosures: The prescribed grazing area shall be fully and securely enclosed with proper enclosures, and fully maintained for the duration of the prescribed grazing permit, as required and provided herein. Fencing must be designed to prevent escape by goats and to protect the goats from the intrusion of other predatory animals. All sides of the enclosure(s) shall be of sufficient height and the bottom of the enclosures shall be constructed or secured in a manner as to prevent the goats from escaping over or under the enclosure(s). The prescribed grazing activity shall be fully and properly enclosed at all times. It is unlawful and a violation of the permit for any goat to be allowed to run at large during the duration of this permit. An enclosure shall meet the following requirements: a. Permanent enclosures: Fences and structures constructed to enclose prescribed grazing goats, but intended to remain at the expiration of the prescribed grazing activity, shall comply with the regulations for the zoning district in which the prescribed grazing is located and shall be permitted separately from the prescribed grazing activity. b. Temporary enclosures: i. temporary fencing and structures for the sole purpose of enclosing prescribed grazing goats shall be allowed for the duration of the prescribed grazing. All temporary fencing or structures shall be removed within seven (7) days of the removal of the goats from the premises as required under the permit; ii. temporary fences must not exceed six-feet (6’) in height; iii. temporary fences may be electric or electrified as specified in the approved prescribed grazing permit. Where electric fences are used, a double fence system with a non-electric outer fence, maintained a minimum of three (3) feet from the electric fence, is required to serve as a safety barrier to reduce the possibility of the public coming in contact with the electric fence. If an existing natural barrier or permanent structure exist as to prevent contact with or serve as a barrier to the electric fence, then the second outer fence may not be required for the applicable segment of fencing; and iv. the outer fence may be allowed up to the property line of the premises on which the permit applies, and shall not be located within any public or private right-of-way. 7. Signage, Temporary: The permit holder shall install and maintain temporary signs on the premises for the duration of the permit as follows: a. all signs must be located on each side of the enclosed area and visible to the public; b. the signs must state the purpose of the goats and enclosure, and provide any caution or warning message in a manner that is visible to the public; c. the signs must contain emergency contact information of the owner of the goat(s); d. the signs shall be setback a minimum of ten (10) feet from property line if freestanding, or placed on the enclosure fence; e. all signs shall be removed when goats are removed from the premises; and f. any electric or electrified fence in association with prescribed grazing must have a warning sign posted on every boundary of the enclosure at least every fifty (50) feet along each side of the fence. The warning sign shall clearly identify the electric fence. No single sign shall exceed four (4) square feet in area. Each sign shall be clearly visible on the approach to the fence and be posted on or within one (1) foot of the electric or electrified fence. 8. Shelter: Temporary shelters for the goats may be allowed as per the discretion of the provider. 9. Herd Specifics: Only females, neutered male goats, or unneutered male goats less than six months old that accompany female goats are allowed. 10. Odor and Cleanliness: The property must be maintained in a clean, sanitary condition so as to be free from offensive odors, fly breeding, dust, and general nuisance conditions. 11. Natural Resources Protection: Prescribed grazing shall not adversely affect significant natural resources. Prescribed grazing activities shall comply with the following: a. prescribed grazing activities shall comply with the best management practices established by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, and all other pertinent agencies; b. prescribed grazing activities shall not impair water quality as defined by the Federal Clean Water Act; c. threatened or endangered plant species shall be protected from grazing activities; and d. no goats may be brought onto a property that is known to have the Invasive Jumping Worm (Amynthas species). 12. Conservation Easements: If the proposed prescribed grazing area is within a conservation easement, all requirements of the conservation easement must be met. If the terms of the conservation easements do not allow prescribed grazing, then the permit will be denied. G. Feeding of Goats: No supplemental feeding of grain based feed or foods will be allowed, except for vitamin or mineral supplements. All goats on the premises shall be provided with and have daily access to fresh drinking water. H. Care of Goats: All goats used under the permit shall receive proper veterinary treatment and regular deworming. In the event that a prescribed grazing goat becomes ill, hurt, or perishes, the permit holder and the owner of the goat is responsible for immediate on-site care or removal of the goat from the property. Overall care of the goats shall include the following: 1. Goats that become parasitized or otherwise unhealthy shall be removed by the contractor and removed off site for treatment; if treatment involves chemicals that negatively impact insects or microbes when passed in goat feces or urine. 2. To ensure the biosecurity of the grazing site, all goats introduced to the permitted grazing site must come clean and leave clean. I. Violation and Penalties: If a violation of the terms of this Section or the prescribed goat grazing permit is found, the City shall give written notice thereof to the permit holder. If the violation is not remedied within ten (10) days of the date of the notice, a misdemeanor citation may be issued and/or the prescribed goat grazing permit may be revoked. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City may immediately revoke the permit and/or a misdemeanor citation may be immediately issued if there is a violation of 5-3-11(G) or 5-3-11(H) or if a permit holder’s goat(s) have been found running at large on two (2) or more occurrences within the term of the permit. The City shall notify the permit holder of the opportunity to appeal the revocation to the City Council in writing, and the City shall specify the length of time the permit holder has to file an appeal. The permit holder shall file the request for the hearing in front of City Council within ten (10) days of the date of the revocation or shall be deemed to have waived the right to appeal. 5-3-1112: EXEMPTIONS FROM PROVISIONS: and 5-3-1213: PENALTY: Section 3. City Code Title 12 – ZONING is hereby amended as follows: Title 12-5-1: RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE is hereby amended by adding the underlined language and deleting the double-line struck-through language, and renumbering subsequent sections as follows: 12-5-10: TEMPORARY GOAT GRAZING A. The temporary and periodic use of a limited number of goats for invasive and noxious vegetation control on residential properties is permitted subject to the review and approval of a Prescribed Goat Grazing Permit, as per City Code Title 5-3-11. 12-5-1011: ABATEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES and Title 12-8-1: COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE is hereby amended by adding the underlined language and deleting the double-line struck-through language, and renumbering subsequent sections as follows: 12-8-8: TEMPORARY GOAT GRAZING A. The temporary and periodic use of a limited number of goats for invasive and noxious vegetation control on commercial or industrial properties is permitted subject to the review and approval of a Prescribed Goat Grazing Permit, as per City Code Title 5-3-11. 12-8-89: ABATEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES Section 4. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law. Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this 6th day of July, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST Lorri Smith, City Clerk Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: June 22, 2021 TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 566 – Amending Title 5 – Police Regulations and Title 12 – Zoning Regarding Temporary Keeping of Goats for Prescribed Grazing Introduction The Planning Commission is being asked to consider the updated draft ordinance on the temporary keeping of goats on properties for prescribed grazing purposes only. Prescribed grazing refers to the natural elimination of certain invasiveor noxious vegetation by goats, with said grazing allowed by special permit only. This ordinance has been updated and amended from the commissioner comments provided at the May 25, 2021 regular meeting; and also include revisions or suggested language from Planning Commissioner Johnson. Recommendation Review and consider the updated draft ORDINANCE NO. 566 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PART OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY CODE TITLE 5 - POLICE REGULATIONS AND TITLE 12 – ZONING REGARDING THE TEMPORARY KEEPING OF GOATS FOR GRAZING PURPOSES. Should the Planning Commission determine this draft ordinance at this time adequately fulfills the intent and purpose to allowing for the temporary keeping of goats on properties, and meets the general goals and policies of the 2030 and 2040 Comprehensive Plans, the commission may choose to make a motion to recommend approval of this draft ordinance and forward on to city council for final considerations. If the Planning Commission feels this ordinance requires further study, analysis or information to make a determination or recommendation, the commission can make a motion to TABLE this matter to a later meeting date. June 22, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 15 B) PLANNING CASE 2021-08 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS – ZONING CODE AMENDMENT *2$76 Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Planning Commission is being asked to consider the updated draft ordinance on the temporary keeping of goats on properties for prescribed grazing purposes only. Prescribed grazing refers to the natural elimination of certain invasive or noxious vegetation by goats, with said grazing allowed by special permit only. This ordinance has been updated and amended from the Commissioner comments provided at the May 25, 2021 regular meeting; and includes suggested language from Commissioner Johnson. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this request. Acting Chair Lorberbaum referenced Item E1 and asked for clarity on the use of the word “ideally”. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that this item was added by the suggestion of Commissioner Johnson, because ideally there should be enough goats to complete the activity within three to five days, but it would not be required. He stated that staff would work with the providers to get the goats in and out in the most efficient manner and would think the provider would be in favor of that as well. Acting Chair Lorberbaum commented that while that would be preferred, she would prefer to remove that language. Commissioner Johnson stated that perhaps some of the items that do not quite fit within the ordinance could be part of an informational pamphlet, such as that statement. Acting Chair Lorberbaum confirmed the consensus of the Commission to remove that statement. Commissioner Johnson referenced Item 5, noting a potential conflict in the number of goats specified per size of the parcel and the ability for the contractor to specify the number of goats required to efficiently complete the work. Commissioner Petschel asked if legal counsel stated that would be a contradiction. Commissioner Johnson commented that she believed that statement was made. Commissioner Petschel commented that he would read that as a maximum number of goats, stating that the contractor could determine the number of goats needed to efficiently complete the work as long as the maximum is not exceeded. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that language could be included in the pamphlet as well. June 22, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 15 Commissioner Petschel asked if a maximum number of goats should be set in ordinance or whether any number of goats left at the discretion of the contractor would be allowed. Commissioner Katz stated that he would like the language to remain as stated to limit the noise from the goats on the site. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that he would prefer to remove that statement and include it in a pamphlet noting that staff could work with the contractor to set the number of goats and make adjustments if there are issues. Commissioner Petschel agreed and noted that if a problem arises, a maximum number of goats could be added to the ordinance. Commissioner Katz agreed that there could be some instances when perhaps the work could be completed in one day with more goats rather than keeping goats overnight on a site, which would be preferred. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that the first statement for Item 5 would remain, and the second sentence would be removed. Acting Chair Lorberbaum asked why the plan to dispose of manure was removed. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that was removed at the request of the Commission. Commissioner Johnson reviewed some of the research she has done on this topic and determined that item is an impossibility. Commissioner Katz referenced Item 9 and asked if it is standard to specify neutered male goats. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that is standard practice. Commissioner Johnson referenced Item 11C, and suggested that the language, “threatened or endangered plant species shall be protected from grazing activities” remain and the remainder of the language should be removed and placed in the pamphlet. She suggested that Item E be removed as well as it would be difficult to manage. Acting Chair Lorberbaum referenced Item G and asked if that is something the City could monitor. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that was a request by Commissioner Johnson. He explained that the purpose of having the goats is for them to eat the invasive species rather than feeding the goats separately. He stated that he would not be out regulating whether the goat is being fed in addition. Commissioner Johnson stated that of the providers she spoke with the intention is to have the goats get into a site and do their job, but that language would provide that clarification. She referenced June 22, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 15 Item HB, recommending that the first sentence remain, and the remainder of the language be removed and included in the pamphlet. She referenced Item HC and recommended that be removed as after speaking with contractors she learned the survivability of the seeds is low after it passes through the system of the goat. She stated that the cleanout period can be difficult on the goat’s system and is not recommended. Acting Chair Lorberbaum asked if the ten-day period is typical related to the request to appear before the Council following revocation. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that language was suggested by the City Attorney. Acting Chair Lorberbaum commented that seems like a short period of time as the Council only meets twice per month. Commissioner Petschel commented that he understands that language to be that the permit holder shall file the request for the hearing within ten days, not that the hearing needs to occur within ten days. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that the permit holder would need to file for the hearing within 10 days following revocation or their right to appeal would be lost. COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 566 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PART OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY CODE TITLE 5 – POLICE REGULATIONS AND TITLE 12 – ZONING REGARDING THE TEMPORARY KEEPING OF GOATS FOR GRAZING PURPOSES. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 Community Development Director Tim Benetti advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 6, 2021 meeting, pending a final review by the City Attorney. Acting Chair Lorberbaum noted that the public hearing was not held. Acting Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Acting Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: May 25, 2021 TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 566 – Amending Title 5 – Police Regulations and Title 12 – Zoning Regarding Temporary Keeping of Goats for Prescribed Grazing Introduction The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a draft ordinance which would allow the temporary keeping of goats on properties for prescribed grazing purposes only. Prescribed grazing refers to the natural elimination of certain invasiveor noxious vegetation by goats, with said grazing allowed by special permit only. Background At the June 18, 2019 regular council meeting, a resident addressed the city council requesting the city give consideration to allowing goats on his private property, for the expressed purpose of helping to control the large amount of buckthorn on his parcel. On October 28, 2019, the City Council conducted a follow-up Workshop Meeting, whereby staff introduced the subject and presented preliminary information and examples of other city ordinances regulating goats in various metro communities. The Council provided a few comments or suggestions, such as requiring written permission from the neighbors, perimeter fencing height, and setback restrictions from bodies of water. The Council instructed city staff to begin preparing an ordinance regulating such animals, and present the findings and proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission for further study and recommendations. Goats are not allowed to be kept within the city limits at this time. However, in 2014 the city council allowed a demonstration or pilot project for a number of goats to be allowed in the Oheyawahe/Pilot Knob Park area on a temporary basis, in order to help control or manage a large infestation of buckthorn and other invasive vegetation that had overgrown this area. This first ever goat grazing project turned out to be very successful, and helped spur the notion to allowing goats in other parts of the community. Dogs, cats, and chickens are identified as “domesticated” animals allowed by Code, but limited in numbers or by special permit. Horses are also allowed in residential zones with specific standards related to shelter placement (100’ from nearest residence). With the problematic and prolific growth of buckthorn and other PC Case No. 2021-08 – Goat Grazing Ord. Page 2 of 3 invasives throughout the state and metro area, many cities have seen or experienced increased demand or request from homeowners seeking permission to naturally manage buckthorn (and other invasives) with grazing goats. A growing number of metro-wide communities now permit or allow the keeping of goats (either temporary or permanent) inside city limits, with specific (limited) permits for goats to occupy and graze personal properties. The goats are mostly allowed under a temporary permit on sites, usually up to 30-days in most cases, which serve as a natural mean of providing invasive vegetation management and control, without the need for chemicals, herbicides, or extra human/manual labor such as cutting, clearing and removal of brush materials. Prescribed grazing with goats is a popular tool being used nationally and regionally to manage buckthorn and other invasive and noxious vegetation. Buckthorn infestations can form dense growth on properties, which may lead inhibiting and destroying native or preferred vegetation, such as trees and shrubs that help promote or foster pollinator friendly species, or affect natural habitat for native insects, birds and mammals. Because growth of invasive species is uninhibited, it is up to the humans to manually manage the spread of the invasive vegetation. Benefits of using goats to control invasive vegetation include they typically are more time and cost effective than conventional removal methods, they reduce use of pesticides, and they easily address areas of challenging geography such as steep slopes. However, it is also known that annual treatment of invasive species such as buckthorn is required to limit establishment of new seedlings, which may include annual use of goats, herbicide, and mechanical treatment. Government agencies such as Dakota County and cities such as Minneapolis, St. Paul, Burnsville, Lakeville, Minnetonka and more have utilized goats for buckthorn management on public land; while other cities such as Eagan, Burnsville, Mahtomedi, Cottage Grove, Bloomington, Maplewood, Hudson WI, and Inver Grove Heights have developed (or are developing) ordinances that allow the temporary keeping of goats for prescriptive grazing by permit. Ordinance Research & Information At the previous February 23, 2021 meeting, staff provided an introductory memo on a proposal to allow goat grazing (by special permit) in the community. This memo included information on the City of Burnsville’s Policy No. 5.198, titled “Use of Prescribed Grazing for Land Management”, along with an example of an “Animal Event Permit” to allow goats for prescribed grazing. While a policy may work for some communities, the City of Mendota Heights does not use or develop very many policies related to specific land uses or activities in the community. Ordinances, by themselves provide more “teeth” when it comes to standards, provisions, and enforcement of certain regulations. Since the February 23rd meeting, city staff has been following the development of a recent and similar ordinance with our neighboring community of Inver Grove Heights. IGH has developed a very comprehensive and detailed ordinance, and MH staff felt this ordinance and its provisions can easily be developed into our own ordinances, and reflects well to the needs of our own property owners. Please also know this draft ordinance will require extensive city attorney review; and as such, this ordinance may need to be reviewed first at the May 25th meeting; tabled or delayed to a follow-up meeting if necessary. Staff will provide an update on the status of this legal review at the meeting. PC Case No. 2021-08 – Goat Grazing Ord. Page 3 of 3 Recommendation Give initial review and consideration of Draft ORDINANCE NO. 566 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PART OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY CODE TITLE 5 - POLICE REGULATIONS AND TITLE 12 – ZONING REGARDING THE TEMPORARY KEEPING OF GOATS FOR GRAZING PURPOSES. Should the Planning Commission determine this draft ordinance at this time adequately fulfills the intent and purpose to allowing for the temporary keeping of goats on properties, and meets the general goals and policies of the 2030 / 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the commission may choose to make a motion to recommend approval of this draft ordinance and forward on to city council for final considerations. If the Planning Commission feels this ordinance requires further study, analysis or information to make a determination or recommendation, the commission can make a motion to TABLE this matter to a later meeting date. The Planning Commission may also wish to discuss or request if a Joint Workshop Meeting with the City Council, or perhaps even with the Parks Commission, is needed to fully discuss these new standards and regulations being proposed under this new ordinance; and have this matter brought back for follow-up consideration at a later meeting date. GOATS - ORDINANCE COMPARISON MATRIX Source: City of Inver Grove Hts. BURNSVILLE EAGAN HASTINGS COTTAGE GROVE MAPLEWOOD FARIBAULT MAHTOMEDI BLOOMINGTON PURPOSE/ALLOWED USE Grazing of controlling significant invasive, noxious or unwanted vegetation Prescribed grazing shall mean the use of goats as a landscape management technique to control the growth of undesirable vegetation, including noxious weeds and invasive plant or trees at a specific location for a defined length of time. temporary and periodic use of limited number of goats for invasive species and other weed control permit the temporary keeping of goats brought in for the purpose of vegetation management where vegetation, which may include nonnative, invasive or noxious species cannot be otherwise reasonably removed using conventional methods. to permit the keeping and maintenance of goats and sheep brought in temporarily for the purpose of vegetation management. This section amends the Maplewood Zoning Code to allow the temporary keeping of goats and sheep in the Small-Lot Single-Dwelling & Rural Conservation Dwelling zoning district. specified period and for the express purpose of controlling invasive and/or noxious vegetation temporary and periodic use of a limited number of goats for invasive species and other weed control is permitted and to establish the requirements for doing so in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general population. only allowed where vegetation, which may include non-native, invasive or noxious species, cannot otherwise be reasonably removed using conventional mechanical methods, such as buckthorn. Is allowed only where vegetation, which may include non-native, invasive or noxious species, cannot otherwise be reasonably removed using conventional mechanical methods. Must be managed under a written plan indicating the pre-grazing plant species inventory, the targeted species for control and frequency of monitoring for evaluating management goals. FEE N/A Initial license: $50. Renewal: $25 $50 (grazing permit) $50/year (grazing permit) $75 (grazing permit) $25 (General Zoning Compliance Certificate) $50 $193 annual, $96 Temp LOT SIZE parcel, lot or contiguous area of 0.5 acres or greater parcel, lot or contiguous area of 0.5 acres or greater At least 1.5 acres N/A N/A N/A parcel, lot or contiguous area of 0.5 acres or greater Is not allowed on sites less than one acre in size. ZONING DISTRICTS N/A N/A A – Agriculture, I -1 Industrial Park, and PI – Public Institution Zoning Districts only allowed in all zoning districts and is not subject to the regulations in Zoning Ordinance allowed in all zoning districts for vegetation management with a permit Prescribed grazing shall be limited to properties that are primarily used for public, semi-public, or institutional uses, such as parks, trails, public or private schools & other lots at the discretion of the city planner if contiguous with allowed properties N/A N/A APPROVAL PROCESS Annual permit required for the contractor. Property owner applies for the permit. Detailed site plan required Property owner applies for the permit. Detailed site plan required. Initial inspection by city required. Property owner applies for the permit. Detailed site plan required. The Officer shall grant a permit for the temporary keeping of goats after the property owner has obtained the written consent of at least 60 percent of the property owners of privately or publicly owned real estate that are located adjacent (i.e., sharing property lines) on the outer boundaries of the premises for which the permit is being requested, or in the alternative, proof that the applicant’s property lines are one hundred fifty (150) feet or more from any house or business. Permit required. No information specified. Property owner applies for the permit. Detailed site plan required. Initial City staff inspection required Requires an annual or temporary commercial animal license. NUMBER OF GOATS ALLOWED Max of 2 goats per every 1/10 acres of enclosed grazing area Max of 2 goats per every 1/10 acres of enclosed grazing area The number of goats allowed per permit shall be determined based on the size of the area where goats will be kept. Up to four goats on parcels that are 10,000 square feet in area or less, with one additional goat per every 1,000 square feet of lot area over 10,000 square feet. Up to four (4) goats on parcels that are ten thousand (10,000) square feet in area or less, with one (1) additional goat per every one thousand (1,000) square feet of lot area over ten thousand (10,000) square feet, to a maximum of seventy-five (75) goats per parcel. N/A Max of 2 goats per every 1/10 acres of enclosed grazing area Herd size must not exceed one goat per every one-tenth acre of the designated enclosure area. GOATS - ORDINANCE COMPARISON MATRIX Source: City of Inver Grove Hts. DURATION of PERMIT Max of 2 times per year Max of 30 days per event with 30 days in-between events. under 2 acres: max 30 days. 2 times per year. Min 60 days between events. 2 acres or more: at the discretion of city staff. Permits not granted Dec - March up to 30 days. Two permits per year Up to 30 consecutive days or 60 days in any 12-month period No property owner or person shall store on a property goats or sheep for more than sixty (60) days in any twelve (12) month period under 2 acres: max 30 days. 2 times per year. Min 60 days between events. 2 acres or more: at the discretion of city staff under 2 acres: max 30 days. 2 times per year. Min 60 days between events. 2 acres or more: at the discretion of city staff Is allowed for no more than 30 consecutive days per location on a site. A minimum of 30 days must pass before goats may graze the same location. Is not allowed December through March. LIABILITY INSURANCE Contractor must have proof of Natural Resources Department public liability insurance, covering all operations for the sum of at least $2,000,000 against liability for bodily injuries to one person from the accident, $2,000,000 for the injury of two or more persons, and for at least $2,000,000 against liability for damage or destruction of property. Contractor must have proof of insurance coverage for claims arising from prescribed grazing activity in the amount of $1,000,000.00 per occurrence and $2,000,000.00 general aggregate and shall provide to the city proof of coverage prior to the issuance of the permit. The City shall have no liability for any damage that may be caused by goats kept on a property pursuant to this section. Property owners and permittees under this section shall be jointly and severally liable List of person(s) managing and monitoring the goats has proof of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence. Proof of effective insurance policy or a copy thereof providing liability insurance covering claims arising out of the prescribed grazing activity. No $ specified. The owner of the goat(s) to be utilized under the permit shall have and maintain insurance coverage for claims arising from prescribed grazing in the amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 general aggregate and shall provide to the City proof of the required insurance coverage prior to issuance of the permit. The City shall have no liability for any damages that may be caused by goats kept on a property pursuant to a prescribed grazing permit. The permit holder shall be responsible for any damage caused by goats used for prescribed grazing purposes. Permit app: Attach a certificate of liability insurance of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury MONITORING ./ ENFORCEMENT N/A Site open to inspection at all times. The permit holder under this subdivision must occupy the premises for which the permit is issued at all times that the permit is in effect and goats are present on the premises. Site open to inspection at all times Site open to inspection at all times N/A Supervision: The prescribed gazing service must list on its grazing permit application contact information for the party responsible for promptly addressing issues associated with prescribed grazing on the specified property. The responsible party shall be available to be contacted at all hours of the day and all days of the week. Site open to inspection at all times. provide 24-hour contact telephone number of the person who owns the goats to be used for the prescribed grazing; N/A NUISANCE CONTROL N/A N/A The property must be maintained in a clean, sanitary condition so as to be free from offensive odors, fly breeding, dust, and general nuisance conditions. A plan to dispose of goat manure in a safe and adequate manner with removal of waste within 24 hours. Habitual Bleating. It shall unlawful for any person to keep or harbor a goat which habitually bleats. Habitual bleating is defined as bleating for repeated intervals of at least 5 minutes with less than 1 minute of interruption. The bleating must also be Goats shall not be kept in such a manner as to constitute a nuisance to the occupants of adjacent property. All sites on which goats or sheep are kept or maintained shall be kept clean from filth, garbage, and any substances which attract rodents. The site shall be cleaned frequently enough to control odor. Manure shall not be allowed to accumulate in a way that causes an unsanitary condition or causes odors detectible on another property clean from filth, garbage and any substances which attract rodents. The premises shall be cleaned frequently to control the odor. Manure shall not be allowed to accumulate in a way that causes an unsanitary condition or causes odors detectible on another property. Goats shall not be kept in such a manner as to constitute a nuisance to the occupants of adjacent property. prohibits harboring of a goat which habitually bleats. Habitual bleating is defined as bleating for repeated intervals of at least Goats used for prescribed grazing must have animal wastes regularly removed from shelters if shelters are provided. GOATS - ORDINANCE COMPARISON MATRIX Source: City of Inver Grove Hts. audible off of the owner’s or caretaker’s premises. five (5) minutes with less than one (1) minute of interruption. The bleating must also be audible off of the premises for which the permit is issued. FENCE / ENCLOSURES Fencing required. No front yard fencing. Comply with existing fence and screening codes. Energized fencing allowed. If energized fence is within 30 feet of other property, double fencing required. Fencing required. No front yard fencing. Comply with existing fence and screening codes. Temporary removed in 5 days of end date. Energized fencing allowed and double fencing is required. goats must be contained by an adequate containment fence at all times. If an electric fence is used it must display a warning that the fence is electric. Fencing required. Temporary removed in 7 days of end date. Energized fence must have warning signs. Fencing required. Fencing required. No front yard fencing. Permanent must comply with existing fence and screening codes. Energize fencing allowed and double fencing may be required per city planner. Fencing required. Comply with existing fence and screening codes. Temporary removed in 5 days of end date. Energize fencing allowed and double fencing is required. Goats used for prescribed grazing are required to be fenced using permanent or temporary fencing and may be provided a shelter from the weather within their fenced enclosure. Fencing is required and must be designed to prevent escape by goats and access by other animals. Temporary enclosure fencing must be removed within seven calendar days after the expiration of the license duration or the goats are removed, whichever occurs first. NOTIFICATIONS Apply 15 days in advance of work. Notify City within 10 days of work. Notify city the day of work. N/A N/A Notice given to property owners within 150 feet of the grazing area. If, within 10 days of such notice, there are objections by 75% of the property owners in the notice area, then the permit must be approved by the Council. N/A N/A N/A N/A SIGNAGE If visible to the public, notification sign required with emergency contact. Size specified. Signs required for duration of permit N/A Warning signs on electric fence N/A Notification sign and warning sign for energized fence Notification sign and warning sign for energized fence 11) Signs must not exceed four square feet in size and must be placed in conspicuous locations near the fenced enclosure, but not in any right-of way areas. (12) Signs must warn the public to not enter the grazing enclosure and to not pet or feed the goats. SHELTERS Shelters, if provided, must follow all City structure and setback requirements. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Shelters, if provided, must: (A) Not be located in a front yard area, (B) Be less than 200 square feet, (C) Be less than seven feet in height, (D) Be set back a minimum of 100 feet from any lot used residentially and 150 feet from any dwelling on a neighboring lot, (E) Be designed for the use and built in a workmanship manner using approved materials, and (F) Be removed within seven calendar days of the expiration of the license duration or the goats are removed from the Property, whichever occurs first. Vers. 05/25/2021 Ord. 566 – Goat Grazing Permit Page 1 of 7 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 566 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PART OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY CODE TITLE 5 - POLICE REGULATIONS AND TITLE 12 – ZONING REGARDING THE TEMPORARY KEEPING OF GOATS FOR GRAZING PURPOSES The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Section 1. City Code Title 5 – POLICE REGULATIONS is hereby amended as follows: Title 5-3-1: Definitions is hereby amended by adding (underlined text) the following definitions: GOAT: means an animal in the subspecies of Capra aegagrus hircus. GRAZING: means goats eating vegetation. PRESCRIBED GRAZING: means the temporary use of goats as a landscape management technique to control the growth of invasive and noxious vegetation at a specific location and for a defined length of time. For the purpose of this definition, goats used for prescribed grazing are not considered pets or farm animals. PRESCRIBED GRAZING PERMIT: means a permit issued that allows prescribed grazing within City limits. Section 2. City Code Title 5 – POLICE REGULATIONS is hereby amended by adding the underlined language and deleting the double-line struck-through language, and renumbering subsequent sections as follows: 5-3-11: TEMPORARY KEEPING OF GOATS FOR PRESCRIBED GRAZING: A. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to establish conditions under which the temporary and periodic use of a limited number of goats for invasive and noxious vegetation control is permitted and to establish the requirements for doing so in order to protect the environment and the health, safety, and welfare of the general population. B. Prescribed Goat Grazing Permit Required. No goat may be kept, maintained, or harbored on any property in the city unless a goat grazing permit has been approved and issued. A permit may be granted only for: 1.A parcel or lot of record that is 0.5 acres or more in size; or Vers. 05/25/2021 Ord. 566 – Goat Grazing Permit Page 2 of 7 2. A prescribed grazing area located on more than one parcel or lot provided the grazing areas on each parcel/lot are contiguous and an aggregate of 0.5 acres or more in size. C. Application for Permit. The applicant must submit the following information for the request to be considered. 1. An applicant shall complete an application form provided by the City and filed with the City Clerk. The applicant shall also pay the application fee for the permit which shall be established by the City fee schedule. Permit fees shall not be prorated or refundable. 2. A detailed site plan of the premises on which prescribed grazing is sought to occur, including the location and the dimensions of the proposed grazing area, a list of the vegetation existing on the site and sought to be controlled by the prescribed grazing. a. The full name and address of the following persons: b. The applicant; and 3. The owner(s) of the premises on which prescribed goat grazing is sought to occur and for which the permit would apply. 4. The street address of the premises on which prescribed grazing is sought to occur and for which the permit would apply. 5. The number of goats to be kept on the premises under the permit, not to exceed one (1) goat per every one-tenth (0.10) acre of the prescribed grazing area. 6. A list of person(s) owning, providing, managing and monitoring the goats, including their full name, address, and 24-hour contact information accompanied by evidence of liability insurance as required by this Section. 7. The type of fencing to be used for the required enclosure, and date the temporary fence will be installed. 8. Date the goats will arrive on the premises for which the permit would apply, and the latest date the goats will be removed from the premises for which the permit would apply. 9. A statement certifying whether the property’s homeowners’ association rules, if any, prohibit the keeping of goats on the property for which the permit is sought. 10. The signature of the owner(s) of the premises where the prescribed grazing will occur. 11. Any other and further information as the City deems necessary. D. Granting or Denying Issuance of Permit. The City may grant a permit under this Section provided the application filed demonstrates compliance with the requirements of this section. TheCityshalldenya permithereunderforany ofthefollowingreasons: 1. Theapplicationisincompleteorcontainsfalse,fraudulent,ordeceptive statements. Vers. 05/25/2021 Ord. 566 – Goat Grazing Permit Page 3 of 7 2. The applicant does not or has not complied with one or more of the provisions of this Section. 3. The premises for whichthepermitis sought, including, but not limitedto, the proposed grazing area, is not in compliance with any provisions of this subdivision,otherCity Codeprovisionsorstatelawsrelatingtozoning, health,fire,building,orsafety. 4. Theapplicantorownerofthepremiseswheretheprescribedgrazingisto occurhasbeen previouslyconvictedofaviolationunderthisSectionwithin thepasttwo (2)years. 5. The ownerof thegoats hasviolated anyprovision hereunder,oronmore thantwo prior occasions,theowner'sgoatshavebeenfoundrunningat large. E. Durationofpermit.Theduration ofa permitunder thissectionshallbeasfollows: 1. Prescribedgrazingshallnotbepermittedformorethanthirty(30)consecutivedays.Nomore than two (2) prescribed grazing permits may be issued within one (1) calendar year for the same property. There shall be a minimum of thirty (30) days between the expiration of the first permit issuedandthesecondpermitissuedinatwelve(12)monthperiod. F. Conditions of Permit. The keepingof goats ispermitted pursuant toa permit granted under this Section,subjecttothefollowingconditions: 1. Transferability of permit. A permit issued hereunder shall be nontransferable and shall be solelyforthepropertylistedonthepermit. 2. Liabilityinsurance.The provider or ownerofthegoat(s)tobeutilizedunderthepermitshall have and maintain insurance coverage for claims arising from prescribed grazing in the amount of $1,000,000per occurrence and $2,000,000 general aggregate and shall provide to the City proof of the required insurance coverage prior to issuance of the permit. The City shall have no liability for any damages that may be caused by goats kept on a property pursuant to a prescribed grazing permit. The permit holder shall be responsible for any damage caused by goats used for prescribed grazing purposes. 3. Monitoring: Goat provider or owner must have staff available to respond to any emergency complaints or concerns at all times of day or night. Applicant will furnish an emergency contactnumberwhenapplyingfor permit. 4. Right-of-Entry for Inspection. The premises for which a permit is issued shall, at all reasonable times, be open to inspection by the city staff determine compliance with the permit,otherCityCodeprovisionsandstatelawsrelatingtozoning,health,fire,building,or safety. 5. Numberofgoatspermitted.Nomorethantwo(2)goatspereveryone-tenth (0.10)acreofthe prescribed grazingareashall beonthepremisesat onetimeunderthepermit. 6. Proper enclosures. The prescribed grazing area shall be fully and securely enclosed with proper enclosures, andfullymaintainedfortheduration oftheprescribedgrazingpermit,as Vers. 05/25/2021 Ord. 566 – Goat Grazing Permit Page 4 of 7 required and provided herein. Fencing must be designed to prevent escape by goats and to protect the goats from theintrusionofother predatoryanimals. All sides oftheenclosure(s) shallbeofsufficientheightandthebottomoftheenclosures shallbe constructedorsecured in a manner as to prevent the goats from escaping over or under the enclosure(s). The prescribedgrazingactivityshallbefullyandproperlyenclosedatalltimes.Itisunlawfuland aviolationofthe permit foranygoat tobe allowedtorunat largeduringthe duration ofthis permit.Anenclosureshallmeetthefollowingrequirements: a. Permanent enclosures. Fences and structures constructed to enclose prescribed grazing goats, but intended to remain at the expiration of the prescribed grazing activity, shall comply with the regulations for the zoning district in which the prescribedgrazingis locatedandshallbepermittedseparatelyfromtheprescribed grazing activity. b. Temporaryenclosures. i. Temporary fencing and structures for the sole purpose of enclosing prescribed grazing goats shall be allowed for the duration of the prescribed grazing.All temporary fencing or structures shall be removed within seven (7) days of the removalofthegoatsfromthepremisesasrequiredunder thepermit. ii. Temporaryfences must not exceed six-feet (6’) in height. iii. Temporary fences may be electric or electrified as specified in the approved prescribed grazing permit. Where electric fences are used, a double fence system with a non-electric outer fence, maintained a minimum of three (3) feet fromthe electric fence, is required to serve as a safety barrier to reduce the possibility of the public coming in contact with the electric fence. If an existing natural barrier or permanentstructureexistastopreventcontactwithorserveasabarriertotheelectric fence,thenthesecond outerfencemaynot be required fortheapplicablesegment of fencing. iv. The outer fencemaybe allowed uptothe propertyline of the premises on which the permitapplies,andshallnot be locatedwithinanypublicorprivateright-of-way. 7. Signage, Temporary: The permit holder shall install and maintain temporary signs on the premises forthedurationofthepermitasfollows: a.Signsrequiredfordurationofpermit. b.Asignshallbelocatedoneachsideoftheenclosed areaand visibletothepublic. c.Thesignsmustcontainemergencycontactinformationofthe owner ofthegoat(s). d.Thesignsshall besetbackaminimumoften (10)feetfrom propertylineiffreestanding, orplacedontheenclosurefence. e.All signsshall beremovedwhengoatsareremoved fromthe premises. Vers. 05/25/2021 Ord. 566 – Goat Grazing Permit Page 5 of 7 f.Any electric or electrified fence in association with prescribed grazing must have a warningsignpostedoneveryboundaryoftheenclosureatleasteveryfifty (50)feetalong eachsideofthefence.Thewarningsignshallclearlyidentifytheelectricfence.Nosingle sign shall exceed four (4) square feet in area. Each sign shall be clearly visible on the approachtothefenceandbepostedon or withinone(1)foot oftheelectricorelectrified fence. 8. Shelter: Notemporarysheltersallowed. / Temporary shelters for the goats may be allowed as per the discretion of the provider. [need PC input] 9. Herd Specifics: Only females, neutered male goats or unneutered male goats less than six monthsoldthataccompanyfemalegoatsareallowed. 10. Odor and Cleanliness: The property must bemaintained in a clean, sanitary condition so as tobefreefrom offensive odors,flybreeding, dust, and generalnuisance conditions. Aplan shall be in place to dispose of goat manure in a safe and adequate manner with removal of wastewithin24hours. 11. Noise: It shall be unlawful for any person to keep or harbor a goat which habitually bleats. Habitual bleating is defined as bleating for repeated intervals of at least five (5) minutes with less than one (1) minute of interruption. The bleating must also be audible off of the owner’s or caretaker’s premises. 12. Naturalresourcesprotection.Prescribedgrazingshallnotadverselyaffectsignificantnatural resources.Prescribedgrazingactivitiesshallcomplywith thefollowing: a.Prescribed grazing activities shall comply with the best management practices established bythe Minnesota Department of Agriculture, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, and all other pertinentagencies. b.Prescribed grazing activities shall not impair water quality as defined by the Federal CleanWaterAct. c.Threatened or endangered plant species shall not be negatively impacted by prescribed grazingactivities. d.Prescribedgrazingmustcomplywithany wetland or shoreland regulationssetforthinthe CityCode. 13. Conservation easements. If the proposed prescribed grazing area is within a conservation easement, all requirements of the conservation easement must be met. If the terms of the conservationeasementsdonotallow prescribedgrazing,thenthepermit will bedenied. G. Feedingand careof goats. All supplementalfeed forthegoats shall besecurely storedinwater- tight and vermin-proof containers. All goats on the premises shall have daily access to fresh drinkingwater(notfromnearbylakes,ponds,etc.). Allgoatsusedunderthepermitshallreceive proper veterinarytreatment andregular deworming. Inthe event that a prescribed grazing goat Vers. 05/25/2021 Ord. 566 – Goat Grazing Permit Page 6 of 7 becomes ill, hurt, or perishes, the permit holder and the owner of the goat is responsible for immediateon-sitecareorremoval ofthegoatfromtheproperty. H. Violation and Penalties. If a violation of the terms of this Section or the prescribed goat grazing permit is found, the City shall give written notice thereof to the permit holder. If the violation is not remedied within ten (10) days of the date of the notice, a misdemeanor citation may be issued and/or the prescribed goat grazing permit may be revoked following notice and a hearing before the City Council. The City Clerk may summarily revoke a permit if a permit holder’s goat(s) have been found running at large on two (2) or more occurrences within the term of the permit. 5-3-1112: EXEMPTIONS FROM PROVISIONS: and 5-3-1213: PENALTY: Section 3. City Code Title 12 – ZONING is hereby amended as follows: Title 12-5-1: RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE is hereby amended by adding the underlined language and deleting the double-line struck-through language, and renumbering subsequent sections as follows: 12-5-10: TEMPORARY GOAT GRAZING A. The temporary and periodic use of a limited number of goats for invasive and noxious vegetation control on residential properties is permitted subject to the review and approval of a Prescribed Goat Grazing Permit, as per City Code Title 5-3-11. 12-5-1011: ABATEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES and Title 12-8-1: COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE is hereby amended by adding the underlined language and deleting the double-line struck-through language, and renumbering subsequent sections as follows: 12-8-8: TEMPORARY GOAT GRAZING A. The temporary and periodic use of a limited number of goats for invasive and noxious vegetation control on commercial or industrial properties is permitted subject to the review and approval of a Prescribed Goat Grazing Permit, as per City Code Title 5-3-11. 12-8-89: ABATEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES Vers. 05/25/2021 Ord. 566 – Goat Grazing Permit Page 7 of 7 Section 4. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law. Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this _____ day of June, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST Lorri Smith, City Clerk May 25, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 18 D) PLANNING CASE 2021-08 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS – ZONING CODE AMENDMENT *2$76 Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Planning Commission is being asked to consider a draft ordinance which would allow the temporary keeping of goats on properties for prescribed grazing purposes only. Prescribed grazing refers to the natural elimination of certain invasive or noxious vegetation by goats, with said grazing allowed by special permit only. Hearing notices were published. Community Development Director Tim Benetti 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 reviewed the available actions the Commission could take. Chair Field asked if there is anyone interested in immediately using goats if approved. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that at least four or five property owners have requested this use. He stated that while there is perhaps an issue with timing, buckthorn remains throughout the season and therefore goats could be used midsummer or into the fall. Commissioner Katz referenced C5 related to the number of goats and prescribed grazing area. He asked if the prescribed grazing area would be the entire lot, or the area grazed specifically. Chair Field noted that the temporary enclosure would define the grazing area. Commissioner Johnson stated that a resident took time and effort to speak to experts and provided that input to the City. She stated that several of those suggestions could be important to add into the ordinance. She referenced comments that were provided related to the number of allowed goats in order to use the goats for a smaller period of time. She stated that she understands many cities use the one tenth threshold but believed the topography and amount of material to be grazed helps to determine the number of goats needed rather than the size of the area. She stated that while the language suggests that supplemental feeding can occur, she would not suggest that as the goats should be hungry to eat the buckthorn. She stated that if the goats become unhealthy, they should be removed and treated offsite by the contractor that owns the goats. She stated that the Invasive Jumping Worm is in Mendota Heights and is difficult to control, noting that the only way to stop the spread of that is through prevention. She referenced the use of a hoof bath for the goats which would help to prevent the spread of the Invasive Jumping Worm. She stated that goats should also be required to have a three day clean out period on their home property before being brought to a new location. Commissioner Corbett asked where that information was gained. May 25, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 18 Commissioner Johnson stated that it was within an email from a resident dated February 21st. She commented that it is important to think about the invasive species aspect. She stated that she would also support the use of a higher number of goats in order to use the goats for a smaller period of time. Commissioner Corbett stated that those comments seem appropriate. He agreed that the need for the number of goats should depend upon the density of the invasive material. He referenced the three day clean out period and asked for details on whether a goat would be counterproductive after a certain number of days if the seeds are coming back out. Commissioner Johnson commented that she believes it would be smart to work to reduce introduction of new invasive species. Chair Field stated that because there is no pressing urgency, perhaps Commissioner Johnson connect staff with the author of the email in order to incorporate those suggestions into the ordinance language. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she hopes that the Commission provide any additional comments to staff as well to ensure the next review would be more expedient. Commissioner Toth referenced the issues of shelter and predator control. He asked it would be handled if a goat were killed by a predator; if there would be a policy related to daily fecal control; and daily care, specifically whether someone is checking the condition of the goats daily. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked how this ordinance differs from the ordinance used by Inver Grove Heights. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that staff from that city did a lot of research and the City Attorney agreed that this was a good ordinance to start with, so there is not much difference in this proposed ordinance. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that the proposed fence would not exceed six feet in height and asked if something should be included for a minimum fence height to ensure the barrier is sufficient. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that could be done. Commissioner Corbett noted that there would be a desire for natural containment from the owner of the goats. He stated that staff could follow up with a goat owner to determine an appropriate minimum. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked why the applicant would not be the property owner rather than the goat owner. She stated that the property owner should perhaps be the applicant and the goat owner could be a co-applicant. May 25, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 17 of 18 Community Development Director Tim Benetti used the example of a homeowners association, noting that the goat owner could then represent the property as one applicant rather than listing multiple applicants. Chair Field stated that perhaps it would be a joint application between the property owner and goat owner to ensure the conditions related to the goats are addressed. He stated that if there is an issue, the goat owners should be accountable for their goats and if the property owner is the only applicant the contact information for the goat owner may not be provided. Commissioner Katz stated that perhaps there would be a courtesy to neighbors that notification would be provided to neighbors if this permit is desired. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that is part of the ordinance as proposed. Commissioner Petschel stated that requiring a goat owner to be on the application would be similar to what is required for building permits, in which a roofing contractor is listed for roof replacement. Commissioner Corbett asked if there is licensing required for people to own goats and use them in this way. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that while there are companies out there that do this type of work, there is not specific licensing required. Commissioner Corbett asked how a goat provider would be held liable. Commissioner Petschel commented that liability insurance would be required. Commissioner Johnson stated at the February 23rd meeting it was stated that Burnsville had an animal event questionnaire and asked if that would be included or not included. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the permit application or template format has not yet been developed. He explained that a lot of information would be required to be supplied for the permit. Chair Field opened the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO TABLE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE JUNE MEETING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 DATE: July 6, 2021 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 569 Amend City Code to Allow for Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Introduction The City Council is asked to amend the City Code regarding peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants. Background The current City Code regulating peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants does not allow for commercial- type selling door to door, or business to business, in our city. Minnesota cities have the authority to regulate the activities of peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants. However, this authority is not absolute. Regulations must be reasonable and not violate the rights protected by the state or federal constitutions. The City was recently questioned about the current City Code provisions by a prospective door to door company. In checking with the City Attorney, staff was advised that the City needs to update this section of its City Code to allow peddlers and solicitors to go door-to-door, and to allow transient merchants. Attached is language proposed to update the city code. Significant language changes proposed include: • Each peddler going door-to-door to sell a product or service, or a transient merchant, must obtain a license from the City. A background investigation would be completed for each person to obtain a license. The license fee is proposed to be $100. A peddler license would be effective from the date issued through December 31st of the year issued. A transient merchant license would be effective for one 14-consecutive day period at one location, per year. After approval, the applicant would be given a license card from the city stating they have been approved. • Solicitors, who are taking orders for products or services to be delivered at a future date, would be required to register with the city. No fee would be required and no background investigation would be completed. A solicitor would be given a registration card from the city stating they have registered with the city. • Non-commercial canvassing or fundraising by a charitable organization or a school, religious, or service organization and persons who are exercising their state or federal constitutional rights would not be required to register with the City. • The hours for all door to door activity, and for transient merchants, would be set for 9:00 am to one- half hour before sunset. • Residents would be able to prohibit all peddlers, solicitors, and canvassers from entering onto their property by placing a sign that is at least 4” x 4” stating “No Peddlers, Solicitors, or Transient Merchants” or some similar language. The City can have a number of these signs printed and laminated for residents to post on their property, if they choose to do so. Recommendation City staff recommends the Council discuss and adopt the proposed changes to the City Code to allow for peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants in our city. If approved, it would become effective upon publication in the City’s legal newspaper, which usually is done within 3 days. Residents would be advised of the new provisions in the city’s weekly electronic newsletter and on the City website. Action Requested If the Council concurs, the City Council should adopt ORDINANCE NO. 569 AMENDING CITY CODE TO ALLOW FOR PEDDLERS, SOLICITORS AND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS. This action requires a simple majority vote. cc: Police Chief CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 569 AMENDING TITLE 3, CHAPTER 3, OF THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY CODE REGARDING THE PEDDLERS, SOLICITORS, TRANSIENT MERCHANTS The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Section 1. Mendota Heights City Code Title 3, Chapter 3, Sections 1 through 5 is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows: 3-3-1: PURPOSE: To protect the public's health, safety and welfare, the city deems it necessary to regulate door-to-door or street solicitation through a licensing or registration process. 3-3-2: DEFINITIONS: For the purposes of this Chapter the terms defined in this Section have the meanings ascribed to them: MOBILE FOOD TRUCK: A motorized vehicle or trailer that is designed and operated for the purpose of preparing and/or selling food and nonalcoholic beverages to the general public. PEDDLER: Any person who goes door to door to residences, or business to business, for the purpose of selling or attempting to sell, and delivering immediately upon the sale, the goods or merchandise that the person is carrying. PROFESSIONAL FUNDRAISER: Any person, including a corporation or other entity, who, for compensation, performs any solicitations or other services for a religious, political, social, non-profit, or other charitable organization. REGULAR BUSINESS DAY: Any day during which the city hall is normally open for public business. Holidays defined by state law shall not be considered regular business days. SOLICITOR: Any person who goes door to door to residences, or business to business, for the purpose of obtaining or attempting to obtain orders for goods or merchandise including books, periodicals, magazines or personal property of any nature whatsoever for future delivery. TRANSIENT MERCHANT: Any person, firm or corporation who engages temporarily in the business of selling and delivering goods or merchandise, and who, in furtherance of such purpose, hires, leases, uses or occupies any building, structure, vacant lot, motor vehicle, or trailer. 3-3-3: EXCEPTIONS TO DEFINITIONS: For the purposes of this Chapter, the terms peddler, solicitor, and transient merchant shall not apply to: A. Non-commercial soliciting, including door to door canvassing and pamphleting intended for noncommercial purposes. B. Canvassing, soliciting, or fund raising for the purpose of a charitable organization if the organization is registered with the Minnesota attorney general. C. Fundraising for a school, religious, or service organization. D. Newspaper/magazine carriers. E. Merchants delivering goods in the regular course of business when the delivery occurs at the customer's home or place of business. F. Persons who sell products of the farm or garden occupied, grown or cultivated by such person. G. Persons who conduct garage sales, rummage sales, estate sales, or flea markets. H. Auctions conducted by a licensed auctioneer or an officer of the court conducting a court-ordered sale. I. Persons who are exercising their state or federal constitutional rights such as the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and the like. J. Any utility provider who has a franchise agreement with the City of Mendota Heights attempting to increase their customer base. 3-3-4: LICENSE REQUIRED FOR PEDDLERS AND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS AND LICENSE FEE: No peddler or transient merchant shall sell or offer for sale any goods or merchandise within the City without first obtaining a city license. Each peddler or transient merchant shall secure a separate license. The City Council shall establish the license fee for peddlers or transient merchants in the fee schedule. No refunds shall be made on unused portions of licenses. 3-3-5: REGISTRATION REQUIRED FOR SOLICITORS AND PROFESSIONAL FUNDRAISERS: No solicitor shall take orders for any goods or merchandise within the City without first registering with the city. No professional fundraiser shall perform any solicitations or other services within the city without first registering with the city. No fee will be charged for solicitors and professional fundraisers registering with the city. 3-3-6: LICENSE AND REGISTRATION FORM: The application for a license shall be made to the City Clerk on a form supplied by the City at least fifteen (15) regular business days before the start of business. Registration with the city shall be made to the City Clerk on a form supplied by the City. The license application and registration form shall state: A. Applicant’s name, former names, current address, date of birth, telephone number, and state issued identification number. B. The places of residence of the applicant for the previous five (5) years; C. A physical description of the applicant (hair color, eye color, height, weight, distinguishing marks) D. Full legal name of the business operation for which the applicant is peddling, soliciting, or selling for, and the permanent address and phone number of the business; E. The dates during which the applicant intends to conduct business; F. A statement as to whether or not the applicant has been convicted with the last five (5) years of any felony, gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor for violating any state or federal statute or any local ordinance, other than minor traffic offenses; G. A list of the three (3) most recent municipalities, if any, where the applicant has conducted business; H. Proof of any required county license; I. For a transient merchant, the address where the business is to be located; J. Written permission from the property owner for the location to be used by a transient merchant; K. A general description of the items to be sold or services to be provided; L. Descriptions and license plate numbers of all vehicles to be used; M. Any additional information deemed necessary by the City Clerk; N. Signature of applicant. 3-3-7: BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION: For peddlers and transient merchants, the applicant must authorize the Mendota Heights Police Department to investigate all facts set out in the application and conduct a personal background and criminal record check. The applicant shall further authorize the Police Department to release information received from such investigation to the City Clerk. Should the City deny the applicant's request for a license due, partially or solely, to the applicant's prior conviction of a crime, the City Clerk shall notify the applicant, in writing, of the following: 1. The grounds and reasons for the denial; 2. The applicable complaint and grievance procedure set forth in Minnesota Statute Section 364.06; 3. That all competent evidence of rehabilitation will be considered upon reapplying. When all of the requirements of this Chapter have been met, the Clerk shall issue a license. 3-3-8: HOURS ALLOWED: Peddlers, solicitors, professional fundraisers, and transient merchants are allowed to conduct business between the hours of 9:00 am to one-half hour before sunset. 3-3-9: CERTAIN SALES PROHIBITED: No peddler, solicitor, professional fundraiser, or transient merchant shall sell or solicit orders for goods or services which are otherwise illegal. 3-3-10: DURATION OF LICENSE AND REGISTRATION: Each peddler license and solicitor or professional fundraiser registration shall be valid from the date of approval and expire on December 31 of the year issued. Each transient merchant license shall be valid for one fourteen (14) consecutive day period, per year. 3-3-11: LICENSE NOT TRANSFERABLE: All licenses shall be nontransferable. 3-3-12: LICENSE TO BE CARRIED: Each peddler shall carry a city license. A license shall be conspicuously posted in a transient merchant’s place of business. The license shall be exhibited to any officer or citizen upon request. All peddlers, solicitors, professional fundraisers, and transient merchants shall wear a badge showing their name and company working for, if applicable. 3-3-13: PRACTICES PROHIBITED: No peddler, solicitor, professional fundraiser, or transient merchant shall call attention to their business or to their merchandise by crying out, by blowing a horn, or ringing a bell, or by any loud or unusual noise. 3-3-14: REVOCATION: Any license may be revoked by the Council for a violation of any provision of this Chapter if the licensee has been given a written notice and been informed of their right to a hearing. Notice of revocation will be delivered in person or by mail to the permanent residential address listed on the application. If no residential address is listed, the notice will be delivered to the business address provided on the application. Upon receiving the notice of revocation, the licensee shall have the right to request a public hearing before the City Council. If no request for a hearing is received by the city clerk within ten (10) regular business days following the date on the notice, the city may proceed with the revocation. If a public hearing is requested, a hearing shall be scheduled within twenty (20) regular business days from the date of the request or the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Within three (3) regular business days after the hearing, the City Council shall notify the licensee of its decision. If, in the discretion of the Chief of Police, imminent harm to the health or safety of the public may occur because of the actions of a peddler or transient merchant licensed under this ordinance, the Chief of Police may immediately suspend the license and provide notice of the right to a public hearing. Any person whose license is revoked under this section shall have the right to appeal that decision in court. 3-3-15: EXCLUSION BY PLACARD: Unless specifically invited by the property owner or tenant, no peddler, solicitor, professional fundraiser, transient merchant, or other person engaged in similar activities shall enter onto the property of another for the purpose of conducting business when the property is marked with a sign or placard that is at least four inches long and four inches wide, with print of at least 48 point in size, stating “Peddlers and Solicitors Prohibited,” or other comparable statement. No peddler, solicitor, professional fundraiser, or transient merchant shall remain in or upon any premises when told by the property owner or tenant to leave the premises. No person other than the property owner or tenant shall remove, deface, or tamper with any sign or placard under this section. 3-3-16: PENALTY: Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor. Section 2. Mendota Heights City Code Title 3, Chapter 3, Section 6 is hereby amended by adding the underlined language and deleting the struck-through language as follows: 3-3-617: MOBILE FOOD TRUCKS: (No additional changes to this section) Section 3. Mendota Heights City Code Title 3, Chapter 7, is hereby amended by adding the underlined language and deleting the struck -through language as follows: 3-7-1: REQUIREMENTS: The City of Mendota Heights Police Department (MHPD) is hereby required, as the exclusive entity within the City, to conduct a criminal history background investigation on any applicant seeking a license or permit for the following City of Mendota Heights ordinances, as required within: Liquor licenses (section 3-1-8 of this title) Massage therapy licenses (chapter 6 of this title) Peddlers licenses (section 3-3-7 of this title) Transient Merchants licenses (section 3-3-7 of this title) Section 4. If any provision of this ordinance is found to be invalid for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, the validity of the remaining provisions shall not be affected. Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its publication, or upon the publication of a summary of the ordinance. Adopted and ordained into an ordinance this 6th day of July, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ___________________________________ Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST ___________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 569 SUMMARY PUBLICATION AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, CHAPTER 3, OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING PEDDLERS, SOLICITORS, AND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota ordains as follows: Title 3, Chapter 3, Sections 1 through 5 of the Mendota Heights City Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with new language to allow for the licensing of peddlers and transient merchants. Solicitors taking orders for goods or services to be delivered at a future date are required to register with the city. Persons exercising their constitutional rights, nonprofit organizations, fundraising for a school/service organization, or utility providers who have a franchise agreement with the city are not required to obtain a license with the city. Unless specifically invited by the property owner or tenant, no peddler or solicitor shall enter onto the property of another for the purpose of conducting business when the property is marked with a sign stating “Peddlers and Solicitors Prohibited,” or other comparable statement. Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this 6th day of July, 2021. CITY COUNCIL OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS /s/Stephanie Levine, Mayor Attest: /s/ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Date: July 6, 2021 To: Mayor and City Council From: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director Mark McNeill, City Administrator Subject: Establish Budget Work Session Dates Comment: Introduction: The City Council is asked to establish three work session dates in August to discuss proposals for the FY 2022 budget. Background: It is expected that staff will have budget proposals ready to be distributed for discussion by the first week of August. The City Council usually establishes up to three work sessions to review the proposals, and hear from the individual departments about their requests. In recent years, the sessions have been in the afternoons, typically from 1:30 to 3:30 PM. A calendar for August is attached. Possible dates are: August 9 Monday August 16 Monday August 10 Tuesday August 18 Wednesday August 11 Wednesday August 19 Thursday August 23 Monday Recommendation: Staff recommends Tuesday, August 10th, and Monday, August 16th. If necessary, the third session could be Wednesday, August 18th. Action Required: The Council should decide upon three dates, and meeting times, for the FY 22 budget work sessions. Kristen Schabacker Mark McNeill Finance Director City Administrator Date: July 6, 2021 To: City Council and Mendota Heights Residents From: Stephanie Levine, Mayor Mark McNeill, City Administrator Subject: Appointment of New City Administrator Comment: Introduction: The City Council is asked to approve the appointment of Cheryl Jacobson to become Mendota Height’s next City Administrator, following the September 30th retirement of current City Administrator Mark McNeill. Background: Mark McNeill has informed the City Council of his intent to retire at the end of September. It was done at this time so as to allow the City Council sufficient time to choose a successor. He has served Mendota Heights as City Administrator since February, 2015. On June 9, the Council met in a work session to review options for his replacement. After discussion, it was determined that current Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson was interested and is well qualified, and that an external search would not be needed, pending the outcome of an interview with her for the position. She was interviewed by the City Council on June 15. She was offered the position, pending the requisite background investigations, and the negotiation of an Employment Agreement. The proposed employment agreement is attached. It is modeled upon an agreement which was provided by the League of Minnesota Cities. Highlights of the proposed Agreement are as follows: • Section 3, Compensation—She is recommended to be hired at Step 5 of the current pay plan ($140,297), and that her anniversary date for the position of City Administrator be 10/1. She would be entitled to the same COLA assigned to other non-union employees as of the first of the year. • Section 5, Leave Balances and Accruals—As this would be a promotion, she would continue with her current accumulations of sick leave and vacation. However, in addition, upon the assumption of the additional duties, she would receive 80 additional hours of vacation which would be placed into a deferred compensation account. • Section 6, 2021 Vacation Leave--Given that Ms. Jacobson will have a difficult time of using her current level of allocation of vacation this year, for 2021 only, any hours over the 200 hour cap would also be placed into a deferred comp bank. • Section 10, Professional Development—She would be allowed to attend one national conference, and one statewide conference annually. • Section 12, Automobile Allowance—She is proposed to receive $250 as a monthly vehicle allowance to compensate her for the use of her personal car while on City business. • Section 15, Termination Benefits—It is recommended that she receive compensation of six months’ pay and benefits in the event of an involuntary separation. If approved, Ms. Jacobson will assume the role of City Administrator on October 1. Until that time, she will work with Mr. McNeill to ensure an orderly transition. She will be the 10th Mendota Heights City Administrator, following these individuals: 1. Orville Johnson 2. Kevin Frazell 3. Tom Lawell 4. Kevin Batchelder 5. Cari Lindberg 6. Jim Danielson 7. David McKnight 8. Justin Miller 9. Mark McNeill Budget Impact: Funding for the compensation and benefits contained in this agreement are provided for in the City’s 2021 budget. Recommendation: We recommend that Ms. Jacobson be appointed as City Administrator effective October 1, 2021, and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the attached Employment Agreement on behalf of the City. Action Required: If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the following actions: 1. Appoint Cheryl Jacobson to be become City Administrator for Mendota Heights, effective October 1, 2021; and 2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the attached Employment Agreement on behalf of the City. Mark McNeill, Stephanie Levine, City Administrator Mayor City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota City Administrator Employment Agreement AGREEMENT made this _______ day of _______, 2021, by and between the CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Employer"), and CHERYL JACOBSON ("Employee"). The parties agree as follows: 1. POSITION. Employer agrees to employ Employee as its City Administrator. Employee agrees to serve as City Administrator in accordance with state statutes, City ordinances and the Code of Ethics of the International and Minnesota City/County Management Associations, and to perform such other legally permissible and proper duties and functions as the City Council shall from time to time assign. 2. PENSION PLAN. Employer shall contribute to PERA as required by State law for Employee or an alternate pension plan, if selected by Employee, authorized by State law. 3. SALARY. Employer shall pay Employee at step five (5) of the City Administrator’s pay grade in accordance with the City’s 2021 Compensation Plan, which is $140,297 per year starting October 1, 2021. The Employee shall receive the standard Cost of Living Adjustment increase on January 1, 2022 as provided to other non-union employees in accordance with the City’s Compensation Plan. Employer and Employee agree that an initial performance review will be conducted on Employee after six (6) months and annually thereafter. Assuming satisfactory review at annual performance evaluation, Employee shall move to the next step of the City Administrator’s pay grade as established in the City’s pay matrix. The anniversary for any subsequent step increases shall be October 1. 4. SENIORITY. For purposes of employment benefits such as sick leave, vacation leave, and the like, Employee will be credited with existing years of service with the City upon her first day of employment. 5. SICK LEAVE and PERSONAL LEAVE. Employee shall retain her existing hours of accrued extended disability and personal leave earned as Assistant City Administrator. Employee shall accrue extended disability and personal leave in accordance with the City's personnel policies. 6. VACATION LEAVE. Employee shall retain her hours of accrued vacation leave earned as Assistant City Administrator. Employee shall continue to earn three weeks of accrued vacation annually, and additional vacation time shall accrue in accordance with the City's personnel policies. Upon commencing employment as the City Administrator, Employee shall be credited with 80 hours of paid vacation leave to which the Employer agrees to contribute the monetary equivalent to a qualified deferred compensation plan for the benefit of the Employee’s retirement and in accordance with applicable state and federal laws. In addition, on December 1, 2021, any accrued vacation balance in excess of 200 hours shall be paid by the Employer as a contribution to a qualified deferred compensation plan for the benefit of the Employee’s retirement and in accordance with applicable state and federal laws. 7. HOLIDAYS. Employer shall provide Employee the same holidays as enjoyed by other non-union employees. 8. GENERAL INSURANCE. Employer shall provide Employee the same group health, dental, life and disability insurance benefits as provided to all other non-union employees. 9. DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS. Employer shall budget and pay the professional dues and subscriptions for Employee which are deemed reasonable and necessary for Employee's continued participation in national, regional, state and local associations necessary and desirable for Employee's continued professional participation, growth and advancement. 10. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT. Employer shall budget and pay necessary and reasonable registration, travel and subsistence expenses of Employee for professional and official travel, meetings and occasions adequate to continue the professional development of Employee and to adequately pursue necessary official and other committees thereof which Employee serves as a member. Such professional development shall include attendance at one national conference (subject to advance City Council approval), and one statewide conference annually. Employee shall use good judgment in his/her outside activities so he/she will not neglect his primary duties to the Employer. 11. CIVIC CLUB MEMBERSHIP. Employer recognizes the desirability of representation in and before local civic and other organizations. Employee is authorized to become a member of such civic clubs or organizations as deemed appropriate by Employee and Employer; and at Employer's expense. 12. AUTOMOBILE. Employee shall be paid a monthly allowance of $250.00 for use of her personal automobile for Employer business. 13. GENERAL EXPENSES. Employer shall reimburse Employee reasonable miscellaneous job-related expenses which it is anticipated Employee will incur from time to time when provided appropriate documentation. 14. HOURS OF WORK. It is understood the position of City Administrator requires attendance at evening meetings and occasionally at weekend meetings. It is understood by Employee that additional compensation and compensatory time shall not be allowed for such additional expenditures of time. It is further understood that Employee may absent herself from the office to a reasonable extent in consideration of extraordinary time expenditures for evening and weekend meetings at other than normal working hours. 15. TERMINATION BENEFITS. In the event Employee is terminated by the Employer during such time that Employee is willing and able to perform the duties of City Administrator, Employer agrees to pay Employee at the time of receipt of her last paycheck a lump sum cash payment equal to six (6) months aggregate salary and to continue to provide and pay for the benefits set forth in paragraph 8 for a period of six (6) months following termination. Payment for any accrued but unused vacation leave, personal leave, or extended disability shall be paid in accordance with applicable City personnel policies. However, in the event Employee is terminated because of her malfeasance in office, gross misconduct, conviction for a felony, or conviction for an illegal act involving personal gain to Employee, then Employer shall have no obligation to pay the termination benefits. If Employer at any time during the employment term reduces the salary or other financial benefits of Employee in a greater percentage than across-the-board reduction for all non-union employees, or if Employer refuses, following written notice, to comply with any other provisions of this Agreement benefiting Employee or Employee resigns following a formal suggestion by Employer that he/she resign, then Employee may, at his option, be deemed to be "terminated" on the effective date of Employee's resignation and the Employee shall also be entitled to receive the termination benefits set forth above. If Employee voluntarily resigns his/her position with Employer, Employee agrees to give the Employer thirty (30) days advance notice. If Employee voluntarily resigns her position with Employer, there shall be no termination pay due to Employee. 16. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of Employer to terminate the services of Employee at any time, for any reason, subject only to the provisions of this Agreement and statutory requirements. Furthermore, nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of Employee to resign at any time from his/her position with Employer, subject only to the provisions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Employer has caused this Agreement to be signed and executed on its behalf by its Mayor, and Employee has signed this Agreement, in duplicate, the day and year first written above. EMPLOYER: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BY: ____________________________ Stephanie Levine, Mayor DATE:__________________________ ATTEST: BY: _________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk DATE: _______________________________ EMPLOYEE: BY:__________________________________ Cheryl Jacobson