Loading...
2021-07-20 Council agenda packetCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA July 20, 2021 – 6:00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Moment of Silence – In memory of Officer Scott Patrick (EOW July 30, 2014) 5. Adopt Agenda 6. Consent Agenda a. Approve the July 6, 2021 City Council Minutes b. Approve the May 11, 2021 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes c. Approve Resolution 2021-61 Accept Donation to Marie Park Playground Grand Opening d. Acknowledge May 2021 Par 3 Financial Report e. Approve Ordinance No. 570 Amending 2021 Fee Schedule f. Approve Resolution 2021-62 Accept Park Bench Donation–Rogers Lake Park, Ivy Hills Park g. Approve Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for Holy Family Maronite Catholic Church for September 11, 2021 h. Approve Cooperative Agreement with Great River Greening for Valley Park i. Approve Resolution 2021-63 Fire Hall Final Payments j. Approve the June 2021 Building Activity Report k. Approval of Claims List 7. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) *See guidelines below 8. Public Hearings a. Resolution 2021-59 Sweeney Addition Easement Vacation b. Resolution 2021-58 Right-of-Way Vacation for Eugenia Avenue 9. New and Unfinished Business a. Discussion of Use of Lights at Marie Park b. Consider the Adoption of Ordinance No. 568 Mississippi River Revised Critical Area Plan 10. Community Announcements 11. Council Comments 12. 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.” DATE: July 20, 2021 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Moment of Silence—In Memory of Officer Scott Patrick COMMENT: INTRODUCTION At its meeting of July 20th, the City Council and members of the audience will be asked to observe a moment of silence to remember Officer Scott Patrick. BACKGROUND Officer Patrick was shot and killed while in the service of others on July 30, 2014. As a way to remember his sacrifice, it is the practice of the Mendota Heights City Council to observe a moment of silence at its second regular July meeting. This is the meeting which is the closest to, and in advance, of the anniversary date of his death. ACTION REQUIRED Those in attendance at the July 20th City Council meeting will be asked to observe a moment of silence to honor the memory of fallen Mendota Heights Police Officer Scott Patrick. _________________________ Mark McNeill City Administrator CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, July 6, 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, Mazzitello, and Miller were also present. Councilor Paper was absent. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Levine presented the agenda for adoption. City Administrator Mark McNeill noted that as part of items 8b and 8c, the Council would also be asked to adopt the summary publications for these ordinances, should those be adopted. Councilor Mazzitello moved adoption of the agenda as amended. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Levine presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Miller moved approval of the consent calendar as presented, pulling items F, G, I, and M. a. Approval of June 15, 2021 City Council Minutes b. Approval of June 15, 2021 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 Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS F) APPROVE NEW ON-SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSE FOR COPPERFIELD MH LLC DBA THE COPPERFIELD, 735 MAPLE STREET Councilor Duggan asked if this licensing period would be for 11 months, running August 2021 through June 2022. City Administrator Mark McNeill confirmed that the licensing year runs through June 30th each year. He noted that the restaurant will not open until August, so there was no need to include July. Mary Jule Erickson, representing a new restaurant named The Copperfield, stated that they are excited to be part of the community and are hoping to open in August. She reviewed the hours and stated that they hope it will be a neighborhood place where everyone feels comfortable. She highlighted some of the menu options and noted that they will also provide grab and go options. Councilor Duggan commented that it looks like it will be a great building and noted that it looks terrific. He wished the business good fortune. Councilor Duggan moved to approve the ON-SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSE FOR COPPERFIELD MH LLC DBA THE COPPERFIELD, 735 MAPLE STREET. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 G) APPROVE RESOLUTION 2021-57 REGARDING RECEIPT OF AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT FUNDING Councilor Duggan asked how the government arrived at the amount of the allocation and the determination that it would be paid out in 2021 and 2022. Finance Director Kristen Schabacker stated that the allocation was determined at a per capita amount of $105 using census data. Councilor Duggan referenced the last whereas statement in the proposed resolution and stated that he would prefer “because” to be replaced with “since”. City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that the resolution was provided by the State and therefore he would be hesitant to change the language. Councilor Duggan noted that in item one he would prefer to replace “collect” with “receive”. He stated in item two he would prefer to include the words ‘the Council’ along with staff. City Administrator Mark McNeill noted that the Council will always be involved in expenditures, but that item calls for two individuals for contact purposes. Councilor Duggan noted in item three if reimbursed should be replaced with reimbursable. Mayor Levine asked if Councilor Duggan would like to formally amend the resolution or if he simply brought those forward for discussion. Councilor Duggan commented that he was bringing those forward for suggestion purposes. Councilor Duggan moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2021-57 REGARDING RECEIPT OF AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT FUNDING, AMENDING THE LAST WHEREAS STATEMENT TO REPLACE “BECAUSE” WITH “SINCE” AND IN ITEM ONE “COLLECT” SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH “RECEIVE”. The motion died for lack of second. Councilor Mazzitello moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2021-57 REGARDING RECEIPT OF AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT FUNDING as presented. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 I) APPROVE RESOLUTION 2021-60 ENDING PANDEMIC PEACETIME EMERGENCY DECLARATION Councilor Duggan referenced the third whereas noting that it was spelled incorrectly, suggested that “provided” be replaced with “provide” and noted that he would like to remove the word indefinitely. Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson noted that the word indefinitely was taken from the original resolution adopted by the Council on March 17, 2020. Councilor Duggan commented that he believes that word indefinitely should be removed. City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that this would rescind the action that was previously taken, and that word was included in the original resolution. It was the consensus of the Council that the spelling correction to WHEREAS could be made. Councilor Mazzitello noted that this refers to a past action and therefore “provided” would be correct. Councilor Mazzitello moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2021-60 ENDING PANDEMIC PEACETIME EMERGENCY DECLARATION, with the spelling correction to the third WHEREAS. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 M) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS LIST Councilor Duggan referenced the significant claims list and asked if the Marie playground project was on budget, over budget or under budget. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the total contract was for approximately $137,000 with the final shade structures. He was unsure if the total amount in claims had come in for that project. He stated that $7,500 was added for a pedestrian concrete pad. Councilor Duggan stated that he has received some questions from residents as to why the equipment was being replaced as it did not appear to be in poor condition. Mayor Levine stated that the equipment was past its lifespan. Recreation Coordinator Meredith Lawrence stated that the project is on budget. She stated that playgrounds are on a replacement schedule to ensure safety and to meet the playground standards. Councilor Duggan moved to approve the CLAIMS LIST. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the public wished to be heard. PUBLIC HEARINGS No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) RESOLUTION 2021-55 APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF SWEENEY 2ND ADDITION – 777 WENTWORTH AVENUE Community Development Director Tim Benetti reviewed 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 (Dakota Co. Road 8) and addressed as 777 Wentworth Avenue. Councilor Mazzitello referenced the proximity of lot four to the creek that runs through the property and asked if the developer is aware that a wetland permit would be required for construction on that lot. Mr. Benetti confirmed that is a condition of the resolution and the developer is aware. Councilor Mazzitello asked, and received confirmation, that it was the opinion of Dakota County that only two access points along the County right-of-way be provided rather than one access per lot. He asked if the driveways must separate prior to leaving the right-of-way. Mr. Benetti replied that the City has asked that the separation of the driveways be designed so they separate at the right-of-way line. Councilor Mazzitello stated that he did not notice that stipulation in the resolution, and asked that it be added as a condition. He commented that separation would need to occur within the 15 feet between Wentworth and the property lines to ensure there is not a shared driveway on private land. Councilor Duggan asked for details on park dedication fees. Mr. Benetti noted that Mr. Sweeney paid $8,000 which covers two park dedication fees and therefore only the 2 new lots being platted would require park dedication fees. Councilor Duggan referenced condition 11 related to invasive species removal required in disturbed areas and asked if that is a new condition as he does not recall seeing that in past resolutions. Mr. Benetti commented that condition was at the suggestion of a Planning Commission member. He stated that typically it is okay to leave invasive species in place for slope stability. He noted that the applicant has agreed to work with City staff on that issue. He confirmed that the condition was acceptable to the developer but is not standard practice for the City. Councilor Duggan asked for details on the need for a wetlands permit. Mr. Benetti commented that more details on the wetland permit would be known once the building plans are finalized. Councilor Mazzitello stated that the removal of invasive species is a goal in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore may be a more common condition in the future. Mayor Levine asked where the creek flows to from this property. Mr. Benetti commented that the creek flows from east to west, under the County road system. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided additional details on the path the creek takes. Mayor Levine asked for details on storm water management. Mr. Ruzek stated that there will be two basins that will treat the majority of the water from this site. Mayor Levine commented that a community member had a concern with the traffic impact. Mr. Ruzek stated that staff would not expect this development to have a major impact on the roads. He stated that this layout would allow for vehicles to pull out forward onto the County. Mayor Levine commented that most people back out of driveways, but this is a busy intersection. She asked if the Council would have any interest in adding a requirement that the homes have a turnaround to allow vehicles to face outward when leaving. Mr. Ruzek stated that he would prefer not to include that as a requirement on as it would add additional hard surface. He noted that homeowners may desire that feature and choose to come in for a driveway permit. Councilor Duggan referenced the westerly lot with the curved end and asked if there was an averaging to the setback or width of the lot. Mr. Ruzek commented that he looked at the north property line and property line on the other side of the creek, which was close to 130 feet. He noted that there is a 25-foot easement along the creek. Councilor Mazzitello moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2021-55 APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF SWEENEY 2ND ADDITION LOCATED AT 777 WENTWORTH AVENUE WITH THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION STATING THAT THE SHARED ACCESS POINTS ALONG COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY MUST BE SPLIT BEFORE THE ACCESS ENTERS INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE LOTS. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 B) ORDINANCE NO. 566 AMEND CITY CODE TITLE 5 REGARDING POLICE REGULATIONS AND TITLE 12 REGARDING THE TEMPORARY KEEPING OF GOATS FOR PRESCRIBED GRAZING Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated the Council was being asked to consider an ordinance amendment, which would allow for the temporary keeping of goats on properties for prescribed grazing purposes. Prescribed grazing refers to the natural elimination of certain invasive or noxious vegetation by goats, with grazing allowed by special permit only. Councilor Mazzitello commented that this is a thorough ordinance and commended staff and the Planning Commission. He stated that there are a number of items that seem instructional and asked if a pamphlet containing that information would be provided for the residents. Mr. Benetti stated that the Planning Commission agreed that some of the language was more appropriate for a pamphlet and stated that staff will be creating a pamphlet for residents. Councilor Mazzitello referenced paragraph I. Violation of the ordinance and asked who would be held accountable, the property owner or the contractor, or both. Mr. Benetti replied that ultimately the property owner would be the responsible party, but the goat provider would also need to provide their contact information for the permit and could be held liable for violations. Councilor Mazzitello asked if the contractor could be asked to pull the permit for the homeowner. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that could be done. Councilor Duggan referenced the subject of fencing and that the temporary fencing cannot exceed six feet in height. He asked if a homeowner were to go through this process and believed it complete but had invasive species return in six months, would they need to go through the permitting process again. It was confirmed that they would require another permit. He asked if the fence could remain up after the grazing. Mr. Benetti commented that if the fence meets regulations and the homeowner desires to leave it up, that could be done with a fence permit. He noted that typically providers bring their own temporary fencing. Mayor Levine thanked the Planning Commission for this ordinance. She commented that this is a phenomenal way to control buckthorn in the community. Councilor Duggan noted on page 122, Item C, and Item 9, regarding homeowners associations, and asked if that language would supersede the City Code. Mr. Benetti commented that if an HOA prohibits this activity, those properties would not be able to participate unless they received approval from the HOA. Councilor Duggan moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 566 AMENDING TITLE 5–POLICE REGULATIONS AND TITLE 12–ZONING REGARDING TEMPORARY KEEPING OF GOATS FOR PRESCRIBED GRAZING. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Councilor Mazzitello moved to authorize the SUMMARY PUBLICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 566. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 C) ORDINANCE NO. 569 AMEND CITY CODE TITLE 3 REGARDING PEDDLERS, SOLICITORS, AND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS City Administrator Mark McNeill provided background information and explained that the Council is asked to amend the City Code regarding peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants. Councilor Mazzitello stated that the example of a transient merchant could be someone selling goods out of a van and asked if there would be zoning restrictions for where a transient merchant could be located. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that transient merchants would be limited to a business zoned site, if permitted by the City. Councilor Duggan referenced the certain sales prohibited section and asked if the word “otherwise” is necessary. City Administrator Mark McNeill commented that these items may be legal if not door to door. He suggested keeping the language. He noted that nonprofit organizations are exempt from registering. Mayor Levine referenced ice cream trucks and asked if those would be allowed. City Administrator Mark McNeill noted the section that governs that type of activity and advised that would remain unchanged. He commented that ice cream trucks do not appear to be prohibited. Councilor Mazzitello moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 569 AMENDING CITY CODE TO ALLOW FOR PEDDLERS, SOLICITORS, AND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Councilor Duggan moved to authorize the SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 569. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 D) SET CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING DATES FOR FY22 BUDGET REVIEW City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that the City Council is asked to establish three work session dates in August to discuss the FY 2022 budget. It was the consensus of the Council to hold work sessions on August 16th, August 17th, and if necessary, August 18th. E) APPOINTMENT OF CHERYL JACOBSON TO CITY ADMINISTRATOR EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2021, AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT Mayor Levine stated that the Council is asked to approve the appointment of Cheryl Jacobson to City Administrator, following the September 30th retirement of current City Administrator Mark McNeill. Councilor Miller commented that he is excited and believes this will be a good transition. He commented that Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson has worked under City Administrator Mark McNeill and is starting with a wealth of knowledge about the community. Councilor Mazzitello commented that it is a rare opportunity for an organization to be able to grow talent from within and commented that this will create a seamless transition. Councilor Duggan agreed that this option makes the most sense, considering the cost for a recruitment process. He noted that the philosophy of the City has always been to first look within. Councilor Duggan moved to appoint CHERYL JACOBSON TO BECOME CITY ADMINISTRATOR FOR MENDOTA HEIGHTS, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2021 AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Mark McNeill announced the Summer Concert Series events. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Duggan thanked everyone involved in the fireworks display, noting that they were outstanding. He complimented the staff who maintain the parks and trails. He referenced a park in West St. Paul that includes a water feature and noted that perhaps Mendota Heights could consider a similar recreational opportunity in the future. He referenced an article related to a natural resources teacher. He stated that this is the 65th year of the incorporation of the City of Mendota Heights. He looks forward to having dancing opportunities in Mendota Heights. Councilor Miller thanked the residents for coming out to the fireworks display on July 4th. He extended a thank you to the Police Department for the traffic control they provided at the event. Councilor Mazzitello reflected on the 4th of July weekend and read some excerpts from the Declaration of Independence. He stated that July 4th celebrates the separation from England but also the dedication of those that gave their lives to provide this country with our freedom. Mayor Levine stated that she gravitated towards the preamble to the Constitution and the words “more perfect”. She believed that everyone has a role to play to make the community better than it was before, always with room to improve. ADJOURN Councilor Mazzitello moved to adjourn. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 7:29 p.m. ____________________________________ Stephanie Levine Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING MAY 11, 2021 The May meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on Tuesday, May 11, 2021, at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. 1. Call to Order – Chair Steve Goldade called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call – The following Commissioners were present: Chair Steve Goldade, Commissioners: Jaffrey Blanks, Patrick Cotter, Bob Klepperich, and Stephanie Meyer; absent: Commissioner Dan Sherer and Amy Smith. Student Representative: Niko Hess. Staff present: Recreation Program Coordinator, Meredith Lawrence, Assistant City Administrator, Cheryl Jacobson and Public Works Director, Ryan Ruzek. 3. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 4. Approval of Agenda Motion Blanks/second Cotter, to approve the agenda A roll call vote was performed: Commissioner Blanks aye Commissioner Cotter aye Commissioner Meyer aye Commissioner Klepperich aye Chair Goldade aye 5.a Approval of Minutes from April 13, 2021 Regular Meeting Commissioner Klepperich noted that under roll call in the minutes, Pat Hinderscheid was listed as present and should not be. Motion Klepperich/second Blanks to approve the minutes of the April 13, 2021 Parks and Recreation Commission Regular Meeting as amended. A roll call vote was performed: Commissioner Meyer aye Commissioner Klepperich aye Chair Goldade aye Commissioner Cotter aye Commissioner Blanks aye 6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) Chair Goldade stated that his neighbor made the comment that the parks should have more picnic tables and more grills. 7. Ac knowledgement of Reports Chair Goldade read the titles of the three updates (Par 3, Recreation, and Park Improvement Updates) and polled the Commissioners for questions. 7.a Par 3 Update Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence briefly reviewed the Report. She stated that the turf is in great condition and staff will begin aeration the following day. She reported that the irrigation system is turned on and things seem to be doing well following the well pump project. She stated that the new sign has been installed as part of the rebranding of the course. She stated that the May 1st family golf tournament had been canceled as there was not a great response for the event. She stated that there is a junior tournament planned for June 19th. Chair Goldade stated that the sign looks awesome. He believed the price point for the family golf event was a bit high and perhaps the weather was too cool to draw people in. He hoped that staff tries that event again the following year. 7.b Recreation Update Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence replied that registration for programming has had a great response from residents. She noted that the Fourth of July fireworks display has been approved by the City Council. She also noted the upcoming “See-a-Truck” Event at Mendakota Park on Saturday. She confirmed that the best viewing for the fireworks is in Mendakota Park. Chair Goldade stated that he was excited about the upcoming truck event and asked if there are any COVID-19 precautions in place. Ms. Lawrence replied that there have been some recently lifted restrictions. She reviewed the precautions that would be in place following the City’s COVID-19 preparedness plan. Commissioner Cotter commented that the movies and bands in the park seemed like great options to provide community entertainment and asked if the City would perhaps think about more of those events. He commented that it is a great option to use the parks. Commissioner Blanks agreed. Ms. Lawrence commented that staff can look to budget additional dollars in 2022. She noted that the events planned for 2021 will exhaust the budget. Commissioner Cotter asked that the item be added to a future agenda related to budgeting. 7.c Parks Improvement Update Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence provided an update on the Marie Park playground project, noting that while there has been a delay in getting the equipment to the site, the project should remain on schedule. She stated that staff is soliciting quotes for pickleball courts, hoping to have those installed by the end of the summer. She stated that staff is also soliciting quotes for basketball court striping. She reviewed the balance of the special parks fund. Commissioner Meyer stated that she received a question related to the pitching mounds. She explained that parents have noticed that the mounds are very wobbly compared to others in different locations. Ms. Lawrence replied that the pitching mounds are not the property of the City and are the property of the athletic association. She stated that staff has been attempting to ensuring safety on the City owned fields, but the portable mounds are not the property of the City. Commissioner Cotter asked if there is a specific rotation for woodchip installation, or how that determination is made to add woodchips. He stated that Rogers Lake could use additional woodchips. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that he could find out additional details from public works. He noted that staff hires a contractor to complete that service. Ms. Lawrence stated that staff measures monthly to ensure proper depth and they are awaiting installation of the new mulch. Chair Goldade asked that the pickleball additions be moved up to midsummer to allow residents to enjoy that amenity earlier in the summer season. He stated that he looks forward to the safety features that the new equipment at Marie Park will provide. Student Representative Hess referenced the path at the back of Friendly Hills that goes to the middle school, noting that it is somewhat rough and perhaps could be improved. Motion Cotter/second Blanks to acknowledge the staff reports. A roll call vote was performed: Commissioner Cotter aye Commissioner Blanks aye Commissioner Klepperich aye Chair Goldade aye Commissioner Meyer aye 8. New Business 8.a Par 3 Senior Golf Pass Discussion Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence stated that this request is to consider offering an annual senior pass for the Par 3 course. She stated that this concept was passed down from the City Council for the Commission to consider. She reviewed the current discounts that the City offers to residents. She stated that the punch cards have been successful, noting that over 100 have been sold already for the 2021 season. She explained that the City Council would like to see an increase in seniors at the course, perhaps using the morning hours. She provided additional details on the proposed senior golf pass. She stated that if the Commission is interested in adding this pass, an ordinance amendment would be necessary, and she provided details on that process. She stated that the anticipated start for the program would be the first week of June, if recommended for approval. She noted that if approved, this would be reviewed after the season to determine if it should continue in future years. Commissioner Klepperich asked if this is something the City Council really supports. He found the process a bit clumsy as it is coming from the City Council. He stated that it also seems clumsy to introduce this halfway through the golf season. He believed it would be more appropriate to look at this at the start of the next season. Commissioner Meyer asked if the price is set through ordinance at $200, would it then continue to be $200 for the entire 2022 season. Ms. Lawrence replied that the fee ordinance is reviewed each year, and this would be a part of that process. She explained that the price could easily be changed at the end of the season, dependent on the results of this season. She stated that if approved, the pass would need to remain an option for 2021 but could be removed prior to the 2022 season if desired. Commissioner Meyer asked if the morning hours would conflict with league play. Ms. Lawrence replied that there are leagues on Wednesday and Friday mornings for a portion of the summer. She stated that the league would not encompass the entire timeframe of the pass. She stated that there would be certain mornings when the course would not be available due to maintenance. Chair Goldade asked for details on how the $200 price came to be. Ms. Lawrence stated that staff researched what other courses are charging for their fees. Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson replied that cost was suggested by the City Council because of the shorter season this pass would be available. Commissioner Cotter stated that he understands the intent to increase play in the mornings and asked if the season pass was also suggested to offer additional options to seniors. He stated that seniors are probably the most likely to use golf carts and asked why that is excluded from the pass. He noted that perhaps it would be better to have a higher cost that includes the cart. Ms. Lawrence stated that the City Council is aware that the course is not as busy in the morning hours as it could be and perhaps some of the seniors are going to other locations. She stated that there is also a desire to get the senior community more active and at the course following the restrictions from the previous year due to COVID-19. She stated that most courses do not include carts with their passes. She stated that some courses do offer a cart pass but noted that the Par 3 only has six carts available so that would also be a consideration. She provided details on the different league hours in the evenings, noting that those are beginning to start more in the afternoon with some people still working from home. Chair Goldade stated that he loves the idea. He asked for guidance on the direction staff would like from the Commission. Ms. Lawrence stated that she would like a recommendation from the Commission. She stated that if there are changes the Commission would like to see, those should be provided. Chair Goldade noted that he would recommend a lower cost as 21 rounds or more would need to be played in order to make it a better deal than the punch card. He noted that if this begins in June, someone would have 12 weeks to play 21 rounds which would equate to two rounds per week. He stated that he would not want the senior pass to be a higher cost than the punch card. He stated that he would base the cost at one round per week, which would be $150. He stated that he loves the idea of offering discounts to residents and beginning with seniors. Motion Goldade/second Cotter to recommend the plan for a senior golf pass as presented with the following modification, that the cost be reduced from $200 to $150. Further discussion: Commissioner Blanks asked if it is known how often seniors are golfing or utilizing their punch card. Ms. Lawrence replied that she does not have demographics on punch card use. She stated that seniors are typically the group utilizing the morning hours. Commissioner Klepperich stated that another community offered a senior pass and when traffic for the course slowed down dramatically in September and October, the only traffic using the course during that time was typically the senior population utilizing their pass. Commissioner Blanks stated that one thing he likes about the $200 cost is that it encourages seniors to come to the course more often to encourage activity and social engagement. Chair Goldade stated that he would not want the motion to fail because of the lower cost he suggested. He acknowledged that there are additional weeks if the fall is included. He stated that he would happily change the motion to include $200. Commissioner Cotter agreed that he would support $200 as well. He stated that the decision could also be left to the City Council. He acknowledged that once a price is set, it is difficult to raise that price at a later time. Motion Goldade/second Cotter to amend the motion to recommend the plan for a senior golf pass as presented with a cost of $200. A roll call vote was performed: Commissioner Blanks aye Commissioner Klepperich aye Commissioner Meyer aye Chair Goldade aye Commissioner Cotter aye 8.b Request for Usage of the Lights at Marie Park Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence stated that staff has been approached by a resident representing pickleball players in the community requesting that the hockey lights be used to allow nighttime play of pickleball. She stated that currently lights are not used during the summer season for any recreation activities. She stated that the lights are used for hockey because of the earlier sunset time. She stated that some troubles have been experienced in the past with the light timers. She stated that the resident is requesting that the lights be on until 10 p.m. which would align with the closing time of the park. She stated that the lights would need to be varied because of the sunset time. She stated that during May, sunset time is often 8:52 p.m. which does allow for nighttime use. She stated that the pleasure rink is lit in the winter, which is actually the basketball court and therefore there could be some nighttime use of the basketball court which could lead to complaints. She stated that she could work with maintenance staff to determine if the pleasure rink lights could be disengaged from the system during the summer hours. She stated that Friendly Hills would not be lit as the statement was made that the courts would not be lit. She estimated a cost of $30 per month. She stated that staff does not recommend using the lights until 10pm but welcomed the input of the Commission. Chair Goldade stated that he loves the idea and suggested that September be used as a pilot program to allow the lights on for two hours after sunset not to exceed 7:30 p.m. He also suggested that a letter be sent to neighbors to gain input. He agreed that there is not a reason to use the lights in the summer but believed additional court use could be provided in the fall when sunset begins to come earlier. He asked who would turn the lights off if the timer malfunctions. Ms. Lawrence stated that when there have been light issues in the past, she has been the one to receive the call and either she comes in or someone from park maintenance comes in to address the issue. Chair Goldade stated that he would like to include the neighbors to gain their reaction. Commissioner Blanks commented that 10 p.m. seems late to encourage that activity but noted that he was not aware how much that would impact neighbors. Commissioner Cotter stated that he likes the idea of a pilot project in the fall. He agreed that there is no reason in the summer months because of the late sunset time. He asked how late the lights stay on for hockey. Ms. Lawrence replied that the lights are on until 9 p.m. Monday through Saturday and until 6 p.m. on Sundays. Commissioner Cotter commented that the lights should not be on later than those hours as that is the precedent. He asked if more noise is generated from pickleball than hockey. He stated that it would be a great idea to have this option through a pilot program this fall. Chair Goldade commented that basketball is noisier than pickleball and would not want to include that. Commissioner Klepperich agreed that basketball generates more noise and would not want to include that and encourage nighttime play. Commissioner Cotter asked if there are additional public safety concerns in the summer compared to the winter for later park use. Ms. Lawrence replied that she is not aware of any public safety concerns. She stated that typically in the fall sunset does not occur much earlier than 7 p.m. in the fall and therefore if the cutoff is 7:30, that would only be about 30 minutes of lighting. Chair Goldade stated that he would like to see the lights used more in line with daylight savings when sunset occurs earlier. He stated that the details could be refined but agreed that the timeframe would not be that long for the pilot program and could run into October. Ms. Lawrence replied that daylight savings occurs in November and reviewed some of the sunset times for October, noting that lights would only be on for less than an hour if the end time is 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Blanks asked if 8 p.m. would be more appropriate. Commissioner Cotter agreed and noted that he would support 8 p.m. in the fall for a pilot program. He stated that he would also only want to light the pickleball court and not the basketball court. Ms. Lawrence referenced the previous statement from Chair Goldade asking that the pickleball courts be installed by July. She commented that would be difficult based on contract availability, but staff would try to get those completed as soon as possible. She stated that the statement was made to the Friendly Hills neighborhood that those courts would not be lit and asked for input from the Commission if they wanted to include those courts. It was the consensus of the Commission not to include Friendly Hills at this time and only use Marie Park for the pilot program. Commissioner Meyer commented that she would support the pilot program this fall. She stated that in reference to the basketball court, kids are already driving their vehicles and using those lights to light the courts, so she was unsure how much noise it would add to include those lights. Chair Goldade asked if staff has a recommendation for the neighbors that should be notified. Ms. Lawrence replied that for the addition of pickleball at Friendly Hills, neighbors within 500 feet were notified. She stated that letters could be sent to residents within a certain distance informing them that the Commission would be considering this in July at which time a recommendation would be made to the City Council. Student Representative Hess commented that the basketball courts are used quite often, and it is a way for teenagers to connect. He did not think that should be discouraged. He agreed that residents close to the park should be notified to allow them to provide input. He did not believe lights should be turned off too early because the courts would be used. Motion Cotter/second Blanks to direct staff to present the City Council with a recommendation for a pilot project to use the lights at Marie Park beginning in the middle of September until the time the lighting is switched for winter programming; residents within 500 feet should be notified; this should appear on the July agenda to allow resident input to be received and considered. Further discussion: Ms. Lawrence replied that hockey lighting typically does not occur until mid- December. She stated that the nets are removed before that time and the lighting could go along with the net removal. Commissioner Cotter agreed that the timeframe could coincide with the removal of the nets. Chair Goldade commented that staff could have the authority to stop the pilot program if it is not working and there is an increase in calls to the police. A roll call vote was performed: Commissioner Cotter aye Commissioner Meyer aye Chair Goldade aye Commissioner Blanks aye Commissioner Klepperich aye 9. Unfinished Business 9.a Asset Management Plan Review Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence stated that staff has been working to develop an asset management plan which will be used in strategic planning discussions and guiding for capital improvement planning and budgeting. She stated that she will bring the document to the Commission regularly for review and discussion. She provided a brief overview of the document. She stated that trails and natural resources were not included as those are covered in different maintenance programs. She welcomed any comments or feedback the Commission may have. Commissioner Klepperich asked if the skate park should be included as its own park. Ms. Lawrence replied that staff attempted to categorize this by park, recognizing that some parks and/or features have garnered additional input. She commented that additional guidance will be provided on that item within the strategic planning process and would be addressed in the near future. Chair Goldade asked if this would be part of the work the Commission does with the City Council in June. Ms. Lawrence stated that the document will be a resource in terms of the current amenities. She stated that they would not plan to review this line by line at the June meeting and stated that discussion will be more broadly focused on the needs of the community and vision for the next five to ten years. Commissioner Cotter appreciated the document and noted that he would like to review it further. He stated that once strategic planning is completed, a review of this document would be appropriate as it will help to guide budgeting. Chair Goldade congratulated the team of staff that worked on this document noting that it is well organized and thought out. 9.b Park Strategic Planning Update Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson stated that she sees the asset management plan as something that will assist in the strategic planning process and can then be used as guiding document as the Commission goes forward with its work. She stated that there may be additions to some of those pages following the strategic planning exercises. She stated that these sessions are scheduled for June 2nd and 8th. She stated that a facilitation contract has been signed and staff has been working with that group in anticipation of the planning sessions. She stated that staff has also been working with the group to plan the different types of community engagement related to parks and provided an update. She noted that external stakeholders will also be engaged and provided details on that process. She hoped that all Commission members are able to attend the planning sessions. Chair Goldade asked if there is a strategy to reach out to the 60 plus aged population. Ms. Jacobson provided additional details noting that staff is working with the tenant association for the two senior buildings within the community. She agreed that it will be helpful to have input from youth and seniors in order to provide better programming opportunities for those populations. 10. Staff Announcements Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence shared the following announcements: • “See-a-Truck” Event happening this weekend • Hiring for summer employment opportunities • Exciting to see people out using the parks • Other events can be found on the City’s website 11. Student Representative Update Student Representative Hess commented that he believes that the main focus for youth should be on recreational facilities. He provided the examples of sport courts, soccer fields, basketball courts, and the skate park. He noted that trails and benches are also popular for youth in the community. 12. Commission Comments and Park Updates Commissioner Meyer • Residents are excited for the playground at Marie Park • Residents have expressed that it would be nice to have more picnic tables available at parks Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence noted that the City has provided picnic tables to restaurants to allow additional outdoor seating at Market Square Park. Commissioner Blanks • Mendakota Park is heavily used with baseball and softball • Tennis courts and bicycle use has increased at Valley park • Suggested that the park bench donation program be advertised more as that would allow for funding of additional benches and tables Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that could be included in the summer edition of the Heights Highlights. Commissioner Cotter asked if the program could be expanded to allow donations of picnic tables in addition to benches. Commissioner Cotter • The parks are in great condition • Two large dead trees near the skate park • Sand looks great for the volleyball court • Picnic tables were in full use • Noticed two kayaks laying on the ground near the rental racks Commissioner Klepperich • Reported some maintenance issues to staff related to Ivy Hills • Also reported some maintenance issues at Civic Center • Thanked staff, the Student Representative, and all members of the Commission for their dedicated service Chair Goldade • Is putting together a group of students to gather input on Valley View Heights • Tree removal was completed at Wentworth • The pond looks high at Wentworth • Encouraged drivers to drive safely on Marie Avenue as park users park along the roadside to access the ballfield Mr. Ruzek replied that nothing should be high because there has not been much rain. He noted that staff could check that out. 13. Adjourn Motion Cotter/Second Blanks to adjourn the meeting at 8:02 PM A roll call vote was performed: Commissioner Meyer aye Chair Goldade aye Commissioner Cotter aye Commission Blanks aye Commissioner Klepperich aye Minutes drafted by: Amanda Staple TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Request for City Council Action DATE: July 20, 2021 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator, and Assistant City Administrator FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-61 Accepting Donation to the Marie Park Playground Grand Opening INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to formally accept a donation which was received for the Marie Park Playground Grand Opening for ice cream. BACKGROUND By state law, all donations to the City must be accepted by the City Council by means of a resolution. On July 1, the City hosted a grand opening event to celebrate the new playground that was installed at Marie Park. As part of the ribbon cutting, funds were donated in order to enable an ice cream truck onsite to provide ice cream free of cost to those in attendance at the event. The event was well attended with over 100 park goers in attendance. Approximately 100 ice cream bars were given out from the Mik Mart Ice Cream truck for a grand total of $398.58. This generous donation was provided by Jimmy and Stephanie Levine. The City is grateful for the generosity of this financial donation. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve Resolution 2021-61. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion adopt RESOLUTION 2021-61 FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF A DONATION TO THE MARIE PARK PLAYGROND GRAND OPENING. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-61 FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF A DONATION TO THE MARIE PARK PLAYGROND GRAND OPENING 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 RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights hereby accepts a donation in support of the Marie Park Playground Grand Opening: DONOR DONATION VALUE Jimmy and Stephanie Levine $398.58 for Ice Cream $398.58 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 20th 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 20, 2021 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator, Assistant City Administrator FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator SUBJECT: May Par 3 Financial Report INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to acknowledge the May Par 3 Financial Report. BACKGROUND Attached is the May Par 3 Financial Report. In the month of May, the course had a total of 2,285 rounds of golf played. Including May, the Par 3 had a total of $31,332 in monthly revenue. The 2021 year-to-date revenue total including May is $97,588. The course’s May expenditures totaled $22,937. The year-to-date expenditure total is $67,246. As of now the course is showing a $30,342 operating surplus. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council acknowledge the May Par 3 Financial Report. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion acknowledge the May Par 3 Financial Report. MONTHLY EXPENDITURE REPORT MAY 2021 MENDOTA HEIGHTS PAR 3 BUDGET TO ACTUAL REPORT May 2021 (41.67% OF YEAR) May REVENUES May YTD YTD YTD BUDGET 2021 2021 % 2020 GREENS, LEAGUE & TOURN FEES $100,000 $25,514 $50,569 50.57% $23,207 RECREATION PROGRAMS $35,000 $3,064 $41,875 119.64% $36,881 CONCESSIONS $19,000 $2,705 $4,074 21.44% $0 SUNDRY REVENUE $0 $49 $1,071 0.00% $50 INTEREST $450 $0 $0 0.00% $0 CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS $0 $0 $0 0.00% $0 PAR 3 FUND REVENUE TOTAL $154,450 $31,332 $97,588 63.18% $60,138 EXPENDITURES May YTD YTD YTD BUDGET 2021 2021 % 2020 CLUBHOUSE SALARIES $34,300 $4,362 $9,408 27.43% $1,487 ADMINISTRATIVE SALARIES $24,676 $2,181 $9,131 37.00% $9,571 FICA/PERA $10,596 $1,029 $2,859 26.98% $1,861 MEDICAL INSURANCE $6,653 $554 $2,772 41.67% $2,772 U/E & W/C INSURANCE $2,750 $0 $1,100 40.00% $3,324 RENTALS $4,750 $1,043 $1,142 24.04% $47 UTILITIES $13,945 $1,125 $4,064 29.14% $3,695 PROFESSIONAL FEES - AUDIT $2,850 $0 $0 0.00% $798 PROF FEES - CONSULTING FEES $1,100 $0 $0 0.00% $0 PROF FEES - GROUNDS MGMT $4,500 $0 $0 0.00% $0 PROF FEES - GROUNDS WAGES $22,000 $2,644 $5,488 24.94% $3,069 PROF FEES - TREE MAINTENANCE $1,500 $0 $0 0.00% $0 ADVERTISING/NEWSLETTER $0 $0 $0 0.00% $0 LIABILITY/AUTO INSURANCE $4,800 $0 $3,997 83.28% $3,893 OPERATING COSTS/SUPPLIES $7,650 $937 $3,875 50.65% $1,221 FUEL $1,750 $223 $411 23.47% $216 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE $39,350 $8,000 $18,456 46.90% $16,302 SUNDRY/DUES/MILEAGE/CLOTHING $4,500 $14 $3,421 76.02% $600 CONTINGENCY $0 $0 $0 0.00% $0 ONLINE REG & CREDIT CARD FEES $4,275 $826 $1,123 26.27% $1,116 PAR 3 EXPENDITURES TOTAL $191,945 $22,937 $67,246 35.03% $49,972 7/12/2021 Request for City Council Action DATE: July 20, 2021 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Approval of Ordinance 570 Amending the 2021 Fee Schedule INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to approve Ordinance 570 which would add fees to the 2021 Fee Schedule in relation to Prescribed Goat Grazing and Peddlers/Transient Merchants. BACKGROUND At the July 6th meeting, the City Council approved two Ordinances which amended the City Code to add regulations to allow for prescribed goat grazing and for peddlers and transient merchants in our city. The City Council is now asked to approve the cost of these permits/licenses. The Prescribed Goat Grazing permit is proposed to be $100.00 per year. The permit allows for three (3) prescribed grazing permits per calendar year, with each grazing period not to exceed thirty (30) days per event. The $100.00 fee would cover all three permits, whether the property owner uses all or not; and will cover any permit processing review and inspections if needed. Most of the comparable cities that allow goat grazing have permit fees ranging from a low of $25.00/permit to $193.00/permit. The Peddler and the Transient Merchant licenses are both proposed to be $100 per year. This is the same fee the city charges for other licenses that require background investigations to be completed by the police department (liquor, tobacco, massage establishments, etc.). A peddler license would be effective on the day it is approved and run through the end of the calendar year. A transient merchant permit would run for one, 14-consecutive day period. Only one transient merchant permit per vendor would be allowed each calendar year. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Council approve Ordinance 570 Amending the 2021 Fee Schedule to add fees for Prescribed Goat Grazing permits, Peddlers Licenses, and Transient Merchant Licenses. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion approve Ordinance 570 Amending the 2021 Fee Schedule to add fees for Prescribed Goat Grazing permits, Peddlers licenses, and Transient Merchant licenses. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 570 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2021 FEE SCHEDULE FOR PRESCRIBED GOAT GRAZING PERMITS AND FOR PEDDLERS AND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS LICENSES The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Section 1. The City’s Fee Schedule for 2021 is hereby amended by adding the following: PRESCRIBED GOAT GRAZING PERMIT - $ 100 PEDDLERS LICENSE – $ 100 TRANSIENT MERCHANTS LICENSE - $ 100 Section 2. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this 20th day of July, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS _________________________________ Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST ___________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 20, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-62 Park Bench Donation – Rogers Lake Park, Ivy Hills Park and Along the Augusta/Lemay Shores Trail COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked accept a park bench donation from Laura Hoss for a new park bench at Rogers Lake Park to be placed near the Skate Park, Steven and Angela Commers for a Park Bench to be placed along the Ivy Hills park/Sylvandale Road trail connection, and from Rick Reynen for a Park Bench along the Augusta/Lemay Shores Trail. BACKGROUND The Park Bench Donation program was adopted in 2001. Through the program, a resident may donate $1000 to the city to offset the costs to purchase and install a park bench. Any costs above the donated amount would be the responsibility of the city. DISCUSSION Laura Hoss has submitted a request to make a donation through the City’s Park Bench Donation Program. Ms. Hoss has requested to place the bench near the Skate Park. The bench is Memory of Matt Engelhart. Matt was instrumental in getting the skate park established and presented a petition in front of the City Council when he was in middle school. He loved the park and skated there through his early teens and twenties. The desired language for the plaque is: In Loving Memory of Matt Engelhart, just a good old dude. To infinity and beyond. Steven and Angela Commers have also submitted a request to make a donation through the City’s Park Bench Donation Program. Mr. and Mrs. Commers have requested to place the bench near the new trail to be constructed from Sylvandale Road into Ivy Hills Park. Staff will work with the Commers on a specific location. The desired language for the plaque is: Molly Egan Commers and Fred Commers 1936-2018 Rick Reynen has also submitted a request to make a donation through the City’s Park Bench Donation Program. Mr. Reynen has requested to place the bench near the trail connecting the Augusta Shores and Lemay Shores developments. Staff will work with the Home Owners Associations on a specific location. The desired language for the plaque is: In Loving Memory of Harlan C. Verke BUDGET IMPACT The $1000 donation will be used toward the purchase and installation of the park bench. Costs exceeding $1000 may be drawn from the Parks Equipment/Maintenance budget. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends accepting the park bench donation. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion pass RESOLUTION 2021-62, A RESOLUTION FORMALLY ACCPETING A GIFT FOR A PARK BENCH DONATION. This action requires a simple majority vote. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-62 FORMALLY ACCEPTING A GIFT FOR A PARK BENCH DONATION WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to follow Minnesota Statute 465.03 “Gifts to Municipalities”; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Statute requires a resolution to accept gifts to municipalities; and WHEREAS, the City has previously acknowledged gifts with a resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights has duly considered this matter and wish to acknowledge the civic mindedness of citizens and officially recognize their donations. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights formally accepts $1,000 from Laura Hoss for a park bench donation to be placed in Rogers Lake Park near the Skate Park, $1,000 from Steven and Angela Commers for a Park Bench to be placed near the new trail in Ivy Hills Park, and from Rick Reynen for a Park Bench to be placed along the Augusta/Lemay Shores Trail. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this twentieth 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 20, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Temporary On-Sale Liquor License-Holy Family Maronite Catholic Church Introduction The City Council is asked to approve a temporary on-sale liquor license for Holy Family Maronite Catholic Church and approve the use of the City Hall parking lot for overflow parking during the event. Background Pursuant to State Statutes and our City Code, no person shall sell or give away liquor without first having received a license. Temporary On-Sale Liquor licenses shall be granted only to clubs and charitable, religious or nonprofit organizations for the sale of intoxicating liquor. The licenses are subject to final approval by the Director of Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement. Holy Family Maronite Catholic Church, located at 1960 Lexington Avenue South, is planning to hold their Annual Lebanese Fall Festival on their property on Saturday, September 11, 2021. They have submitted an application for a Temporary On-Sale Liquor license to allow for the sale of wine and beer at this event. Liquor liability insurance has also been obtained. It should be noted that Temporary On-Sale Liquor licenses have been issued in the past to charitable, nonprofit and religious organizations within the city with no incidents or negative reports. The church has also requested use of the City Hall parking lot for the overflow parking during the event. This has been approved in the past with no problems or issues reported. Recommended Action Staff recommends the City Council approve the Temporary On-Sale Liquor license for Holy Family Maronite Catholic Church for September 11, 2021, and approve the use of the City Hall parking lot for overflow parking during the event. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 20, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician SUBJECT: Approve Cooperative Agreement with Great River Greening for Valley Park COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to approve an agreement with Great River Greening for the Valley Park Oak Woodland Enhancement project. BACKGROUND Great River Greening, a non-profit conservation organization, has received an appropriation from the State of Minnesota under the Metro Big Rivers Phase 9 plan to restore and enhance natural systems associated with the Minnesota, Mississippi, and St. Croix Rivers and their tributaries in the Metro Areas. Great River Greening desires to contribute $57,000 to enhance and restore oak woodland forest within Valley Park, through its partnership with the City. Great River Greening is requesting that the City enter into an agreement establishing this partnership, which would require the City to contribute $9,000 towards the proposed project. The $9,000 is proposed to be invoiced at $3,000 per year over a three year period. As a stipulation of the agreement, Great River Greening will provide: • Woody and herbaceous invasive species removal • Follow-up and continuing maintenance of the removal areas throughout the grant period • Revegetation through broadcast seeding of native herbaceous species As stated in the agreement the City of Mendota Heights will provide: • Outreach and commination to park users and the community to build awareness of the project and address concerns • Access to Great River Greening and their contractors to perform enhancement work • Mark property boundaries as necessary • Coordination to ensure compliance with the City’s Natural Resources Management Plan DISCUSSION The grant period begins once the agreement has been executed, and ends June 30, 2024, or until all obligations of the agreement have been satisfactorily fulfilled, or unless earlier terminated as provided, whichever occurs first. BUDGET IMPACT The agreement requires $9,000.00 in contributing funds that the City would provide. These funds would be taken from the City’s operating budget at $3,000 per year over three years. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Approve Cooperative Agreement with Great River Greening agreement and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute such agreement. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the Cooperative Agreement with Great River Greening to be executed by the Mayor and City Clerk. This action requires a simple majority vote. GREAT RIVER GREENING COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, hereinafter referred to as “Agreement”, is made 14 of July, 2021, by and between the City of Mendota Heights, hereinafter referred to as “the City” and GREAT RIVER GREENING, hereinafter referred to as the “GRG”. RECITALS: Greening is a non-profit 501 (c)(3) conservation organization based in St. Paul, Minnesota organized for the purpose of restoring natural areas and open spaces through community engagement; and Great River Greening has received as an appropriation under Minn. Laws 2019, Regular Session, Chapter 2, Article 1, Section 2, Subd 5(b) Metro Big Rivers Phase 9, $1,061,000 is from the fund to the commissioner of natural resources for an agreement to acquire land in fee and permanent conservation easements and to restore and enhance natural systems associated with the Mississippi, Minnesota and St. Croix Rivers and their tributaries in the metropolitan area and as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 84.026. As a recipient of this funding, the Landowner is subject to the terms as described in Exhibit A GRG desires to contribute $57,000 towards the partnership project; and The City desires to contribute $9,000 towards the partnership project; and The City seeks to enter into an agreement with the Greening for the purpose of detailing partnership contributions and the provision of Technical Services in support of the Valley Park Oak Woodland Enhancement project. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and agreement contained within this agreement, the City and GRG hereby agrees as follows: Scope of Services. The scope of services is outlined below in the following text, and is further expanded upon in Exhibit B, Scope of Services. GRG agrees to provide the following list of services for Enhancement of Oak Woodland, Valley Park, Mendota Heights: • Woody and herbaceous invasive species removal • Maintenance of invasive species removal areas during grant period • Revegetation through broadcast seeding in targeted areas The City agrees to provide the following list of services for Enhancement of Oak Woodland, Valley Park, Mendota Heights: • Outreach and communication to park users and the local community to build awareness of the project and address concerns as they arise. • Access to GRG and contractors related to habitat enhancement work • Property boundary marking as necessary • Coordination to ensure that enhancement activities comply with City Natural Resource Management Plan 1. Compensation and Terms of Payment a. Compensation The Parties agree that GRG will complete or arrange for services to be completed under this Agreement. The cost of such services will be funded by joint contributions of the parties. The City’s contributions/compensation under this agreement shall be paid to GRG, plus expenses and construction costs necessary to complete the project described in Section 3 Scope of Work of this contract, not to exceed $9,000. This is proposed as a yearly payment of $3000 in the years 2021, 2022, 2023. GRG shall contribute $57,000 match to the City’s contribution over the course of the project. After City contribution, GRG shall assume fiscal responsibility for all services completed under this agreement. GRG’s financial obligation, as set out above, shall be in accordance with the Outdoor Heritage Fund which is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, and may be met through actual payment for services to a third party or calculation of the value, on an hourly basis, for “in-kind” services provided. 2. Condition of Payment All services provided by GRG pursuant to this agreement shall be performed to the satisfaction of the City and its authorized agent, and in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. Payment shall be withheld for work found by the City or its authorized agent to be unsatisfactory, or performed in violation of federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules or regulations. The City contributions/compensation under this agreement shall be paid to GRG, plus expenses and construction costs necessary to complete the project described in this contract, not to exceed $9,000. GRG will invoice the City on a quarterly basis upon completion of work. 3. Effective Date of Contract This agreement shall be effective 15 July, 2021. 4. Term of Contract This agreement shall remain in effect until June 30, 2024, or until all obligations set forth in this agreement have been satisfactorily fulfilled or unless earlier terminated as provided, whichever occurs first. 5. Notices The City shall appoint an authorized agent for the purpose of administration of this agreement. GRG is notified of the authorized agent of the City as follows: City of Mendota Heights Great River Greening Authorized Contact Authorized Contact Krista Spreiter David Schmitz Address Address 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 251 Starkey St, Ste 2200 St. Paul, MN 55107 Contact Phone Number Contact Phone Number 651-255-1123 (612)242-3540 Email Address Email Address kristas@mendota-heights.com dschmitz@greatrivergreening.org 7. Partner and State Audit Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 16C.05, Subd. 5 (2007), the books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of GRG relative to this agreement shall be subject to examination by the City and the State Auditor. Complete and accurate records of the work performed pursuant to this agreement shall be kept by GRG for a minimum of six (6) years following termination of this agreement for such auditing purposes. The retention period shall be automatically extended during the course of any administrative or judicial action involving the City regarding matters to which the records are relevant. The retention period shall be automatically extended until the administrative or judicial action is finally completed or until the authorized agent of the City notifies GRG in writing that the records need no longer be kept. 8. Indemnity GRG agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the City , its employees and officials harmless from any claims, demands, actions or causes of action, including reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses resulting directly or indirectly from any negligent act or omission on the part of the GRG, or its subcontractors, partners or independent contractors or any of their agents or employees, in the performance of or with relation to any of the work or services to be performed or furnished by the vendor or the subcontractors, partners or independent contractors or any of their agents or employees under the agreement. GRG shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, and the coordination of all services furnished by GRG under this agreement. GRG shall, without additional compensation, correct or revise any errors or deficiencies in GRG's final reports and services. 9. Insurance GRG shall not commence work under this agreement until it has obtained, at its own cost and expense, all insurance required herein. All insurance coverage is subject to approval of the City and shall be maintained by GRG until final completion of the work. a. Workers' Compensation 1) State: Minnesota – Statutory 2) Employer's Liability with minimum limits of: Bodily Injury by Accident: $100,000 each Accident Bodily Injury by Disease: $100,000 each Employee Bodily Injury by Disease: $500,000 policy limit 3) Benefits required by union labor contracts: as applicable In the event Greening is a sole proprietor and has not elected to provide workers' compensation insurance, Greening shall be required to execute and submit an affidavit of sole proprietorship in a form satisfactory to the City before entering into the agreement. b. Commercial General Liability Including Premises, Operations, Products, Completed Operations, Advertising, and Personal Injury Liability, with the following minimum limits of liability: $2,000,000 Aggregate $2,000,000 Products & Completed Operations Aggregate $1,000,000 Personal Injury & Advertising Injury $1,000,000 Occurrence $ 100,000 Fire Damage Limit $ 5,000 Medical Expense Policy should be written on an occurrence basis and include explosion, collapse and underground. c. Commercial Auto Liability Automobile Liability should include Hired and Non-Owned, and the City should be named as an additional insured. Minimum limits of liability shall be: If split limits: $1,000,000 each person/$1,000,000 each occurrence for Bodily Injury $1,000,000 each occurrence for Property Damage If combined single limit: $1,000,000 per occurrence d. Proof of Insurance Insurance certificates evidencing that the above insurance is in force with companies acceptable to City and in the amounts required shall be submitted to City for examination and approval prior to the execution of the agreement, after which they shall be filed with City. The insurance certificate shall name the City as an additional insured and specifically provide that a certificate shall not be materially changed, canceled or non-renewed except upon sixty (60) days prior written notice to City. Neither City failure to require or insist upon certificates, nor other evidence of a variance from the specified coverage requirements, amends Greening's responsibility to comply with the insurance specifications. 10. Subcontracts GRG shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this agreement nor assign this agreement without the prior written approval of the authorized agent of the City. GRG shall ensure and require that any subcontractor agrees to and complies with all of the terms of this agreement. Any subcontractor of Greening used to perform any portion of this agreement shall report to and bill GRG directly. GRG shall be solely responsible for the breach, performance or nonperformance of any subcontractor. 11. Force Majeure City and GRG agree that GRG shall not be liable for any delay or inability to perform this agreement, directly or indirectly caused by, or resulting from, strikes, labor troubles, accidents, fire, flood, breakdowns, war, riot, civil commotion, lack of material, delays of transportation, acts of God or other cause beyond reasonable control of GRG and the City. 12. Data Practices GRG, its agents, employees and any subcontractors of Greening, in providing all services hereunder, agree to abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as amended, and Minn. Rules promulgated pursuant to Ch. 13. GRG understands that it must comply with these provisions as if it were a government entity. GRG agrees to indemnify and hold the City, its officers, department heads and employees harmless from any claims resulting from the GRG’s unlawful disclosure, failure to disclose or use of data protected under state and federal laws. 13. Termination This agreement may be terminated by either party, with or without cause upon 30 days written notice to Greening or the Authorized Agent of the City. 14. Independent Contractor It is agreed that nothing contained in this agreement is intended or should be construed as creating the relationship of a partnership, joint venture, or association with the City and Greening. Greening is an independent contractor, and it, its employees, agents, subcontractors, and representatives shall not be considered employees, agents or representatives of the City. Except as otherwise provided herein, GRG shall maintain, in all respects, its present control over the means and personnel by which this agreement is performed. From any amounts due Greening, there shall be no deduction for federal income tax, FICA payments, state income tax, or for any other purposes which are associated with an employer/employee relationship unless otherwise required by law. Payment of federal income tax, FICA payments, state income tax, unemployment compensation taxes, and other payroll deductions and taxes are the sole responsibility of Greening. 15. Notices Any notices to be given under this agreement shall be given by enclosing the same in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, and depositing the same with the United States Postal Service, addressed to Greening at its address stated herein, and to the authorized agent of the City at the address stated herein. 16. Controlling Law The laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern all questions and interpretations concerning the validity and construction of this agreement, the legal relations between the parties and performance under the agreement. The appropriate venue and jurisdiction for any litigation hereunder will be those courts located within the County or City, State of Minnesota. Litigation, however, in the federal courts involving the parties will be in the appropriate federal court within the State of Minnesota. If any provision of this contract is held invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will not be affected. 17. Successors and Assigns The City and GRG, respectively, bind themselves, their partners, successors, assigns, and legal representatives to the other party to this agreement and to the partners, successors, assigns, and legal representatives of such other party with respect to all covenants of this agreement. Neither the City nor GRG shall assign, sublet, or transfer any interest in this agreement without the prior written consent of the other. 18. Changes The parties agree that no change or modification to this agreement, or any attachments hereto, shall have any force or effect unless the change is reduced to writing, dated, and made part of this agreement. The execution of the change shall be authorized and signed in the same manner as for this agreement. 19. Severability In the event any provision of this agreement shall be held invalid and unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be valid and binding upon the parties unless such invalidity or non-enforceability would cause the agreement to fail its purpose. One or more waivers by either party of any provision, term, condition or covenant shall not be construed by the other party as a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same by the other party. 20. Entire Agreement It is understood and agreed that the entire agreement of the parties is contained herein and that this agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between the City and GRG relating to the subject matter hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be duly executed intending to be bound thereby. PARTNER BY: ___________________________ Name DATE: ___________________________ GREAT RIVER GREENING: BY: ___________________________ Executive Director DATE: ___________________________ GRANT MANAGER INT: TR 7/14/2021 Director of Operations INT: TR 7/14/2021 Director of Finance INT: KR/7/14/2021________ EXHIBIT A: Insert GRANT Specific Information or Agreement State of Minnesota – 2019 Outdoor Heritage Fund Metro Big Rivers Habitat – Phase 9 Grantee Landowner Great River Greening City of Mendota Heights 251 Starkey St, Ste 2200 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Saint Paul, MN 55107 (651) 665-9500 (651)255-1123 Great River Greening has received as an appropriation under Minn. Laws 2019, Regular Session, Chapter 2, Article 1, Section 2, Subd 5(b) Metro Big Rivers Phase 9, $1,061,000 is from the fund to the commissioner of natural resources for an agreement to acquire land in fee and permanent conservation easements and to restore and enhance natural systems associated with the Mississippi, Minnesota and St. Croix Rivers and their tributaries in the metropolitan area and as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 84.026. As a recipient of this funding, the Landowner is subject to the terms below: COMPLIANCE The Landowner acknowledges that these funds are proceeds from the State of Minnesota Outdoor Heritage Fund which is subject to certain legal restrictions and requirements, including Minnesota Statutes Chapter 116P. The Landowner is responsible for compliance with this and all other relevant state and federal laws and regulations in the fulfillment of the Project. LIABILITY The Landowner must indemnify, save, and hold the State, its agents, and employees harmless from any claims or causes of action, including attorney’s fees incurred by the State, arising from the performance of this grant agreement by the Grantee or the Grantee’s agents or employees. This clause will not be construed to bar any legal remedies the Grantee may have for the State's failure to fulfill its obligations under this grant agreement. ACCESS AND MONITORING The Landowner agrees to allow the Recipient and the State access at any time to conduct periodic site visits and inspections to ensure work progress in accordance with this grant agreement, including a final inspection upon program completion. At least one monitoring visit per grant period on all state grants of over $50,000 will be conducted and at least annual monitoring visits on grants of over $250,000. Following closure of the program, the State’s authorized representatives shall be allowed to conduct post-completion inspections of the site to ensure that the site is being properly operated and maintained and that no conversion of use has occurred. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND ENDORSMENT Acknowledgment. The Landowner must acknowledge financial support from the Outdoor Heritage Fund in program publications, signage and other public communication and outreach related to work completed using the appropriation. Acknowledgment may occur, as appropriate, through use of the fund logo or inclusion of language attributing support from the fund. Endorsement. The Landowner must not claim that the State endorses its products or services. ECOLOGICAL AND RESTORATION PLAN For all restorations, the Grantee in coordination with the Landowner must prepare and retain an ecological restoration and management plan that, to the degree practicable, is consistent with current conservation science and ecological goals for the restoration site. Consideration should be given to soil, geology, topography, and other relevant factors that would provide the best chance for long-term success and durability of the restoration. The plan must include the proposed timetable for implementing the restoration, including, but not limited to, site preparation, establishment of diverse plant species, maintenance, and additional enhancement to establish the restoration; identify long-term maintenance and management needs of the restoration and how the maintenance, management, and enhancement will be financed; and use current conservation science to achieve the best restoration. LONG TERM MANAGEMENT As a partner with Great River Greening, the Landowner commits to maintaining the investment put forward over time. Dakota County, Maxar, Microsoft00.04 0.080.02 Miles Valley Park Forest Enhancement OHFacres_1 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: July 20, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Final Payment and Acceptance of Fire Station Addition/Remodel COMMENT: Introduction The Council is asked to approve Resolution 2021-63, to accept work and approve two final payments for the fire station addition/remodel. Background The City Council awarded 20 contracts on March 5, 2019, for the remodel/addition of the fire station. The City Council approved the final payment for four of the contracts on December 15, 2020, seven of the contracts on January 19, 2021, one contract on February 18, 2021, and eight contracts on May 4, 2021. One of the contracts approved for final payment was Ford Metro on May 4, 2021. However, since then, other work done to resolve issues left on another portion of the contract. The Construction Manager negotiated with Ford Metro because of their quality work, which resulted in a change order, even though their original contract had been closed out. That resulted in an additional $1,600 worth of work. That should now be paid, and the Ford Metro contract would again be closed out. The other component contract is for earthwork which was done by Construction Results. That work has now been completed, and can be closed out. The contract work for the two components for the project have now been completed, inspected, and approved. This will start the one-year guarantee period. All required paperwork needed for the final payments have been submitted. This will close out all the contracts for the fire station addition/remodel. The two payments are not listed on the July 20th claim list. The two checks will be written as manual checks, once the final payments are approved by the City Council Discussion The two contracts ready for final payment are: Name Pay Request Original Contract Amount Contract Ford Metro $1,600.00 $125,670.00 CP-08 Glazing, Aluminum Storefronts Construction Results $25,580.40 $483,000.00 CP-01 Earthwork & Site Utilities Total: $27,180.40 Budget Impact There are sufficient funds to cover these two final payments. The final financial report for the Fire Station Project expenditures is still in process. A report will be provided to the Council upon completion. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council accept the work and approve the final payments descried herein. Action Required If Council concurs with the staff recommendation, they should pass a motion adopting Resolution 2021-63 “RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR TWO MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE STATION REMODEL AND EXPANSION FINAL PAYMENTS”, by simple majority vote. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-63 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR TWO MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE STATION REMODEL & EXPANSION FINAL PAYMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to written contracts signed on March 5, 2019, with the City of Mendota Heights, and with; Ford Metro and Construction Results Corporation they have satisfactorily completed the two component improvements for the fire station expansion/remodel in accordance with such contract. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the work completed under said two contracts are hereby accepted and approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby directed to issue proper orders for two final payments on such contracts in the amount of: 1. Ford Metro . $ 1,600.00 2. Construction Results $25,608.00 taking the two contractor’s receipts in full. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 20th day of July 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ___________________________ Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk 7/7/2021 Mendota Heights Building Activity Report Mike Andrejka, Building Official June 1, 2021 thru June 30, 2021 January 1, 2021 thru June 30, 2021 January 1, 2020 thru June 30, 2020 January 1, 2019 thru June 30, 2019 Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected SFD 3 2,109,800.00$ $22,143.42 SFD 7 4,935,550.00$ $51,797.23 SFD 3 1,465,280.00$ $16,492.17 SFD 3 2,449,742.00$ 24,090.42$ Apartment 0 -$ $0.00 Apartment 0 -$ $0.00 Apartment 0 -$ $0.00 Apartment 1 9,135,000.00$ 63,519.64$ Townhouse 0 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 2 1,000,000.00$ $8,641.88 Townhouse 0 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 0 -$ -$ Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ -$ Misc 88 2,218,191.85$ 26,742.07$ Misc 410 6,959,213.69$ 91,558.79$ Misc 295 3,992,675.28$ 52,303.53$ Misc 351 4,809,779.98$ 97,596.50$ Commercial 1 650,000.00$ $6,941.14 Commercial 9 9,429,041.35$ $80,268.29 Commercial 7 1,062,090.00$ $9,670.19 Commercial 14 11,036,914.00$ 41,205.89$ Sub Total 92 4,977,991.85$ 55,826.63$ Sub Total 428 22,323,805.04$ 232,266.19$ Sub Total 305 6,520,045.28$ 78,465.89$ Sub Total 369 27,431,435.98$ 226,412.45$ Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Plumbing 17 $2,202.52 Plumbing 126 $12,304.52 Plumbing 103 $8,948.70 Plumbing 136 16,253.75$ Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 -$ Sewer 1 $75.00 Sewer 15 $1,125.00 Sewer 10 $750.00 Sewer 4 300.00$ Mechanical 46 $9,077.37 Mechanical 213 397.00$ $24,683.42 Mechanical 131 $11,841.99 Mechanical 155 18,124.80$ Sub Total 64 11,354.89$ Sub Total 354 38,112.94$ Sub Total 244 $21,540.69 Sub Total 295 34,678.55$ License No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Contractor 0 $0.00 Contractor 0 $0.00 Contractor 0 $0.00 Contractor 232 11,600.00$ Total 156 4,977,991.85$ 67,181.52$ Total 782 22,323,805.04$ 270,379.13$ Total 549 6,520,045.28$ 100,006.58$ Total 896 27,431,435.98$ 272,691.00$ NOTE: All fee amounts exclude SAC, WAC and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan review fee and valuation totals REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 20, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-59 Public Hearing on Sweeney Addition Easement Vacation COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to hold proceedings for Resolution 2021-59, a public hearing on an easement vacation commenced by petition. BACKGROUND The Sweeney Addition plat was approved by City Council in 2020. The Sweeney addition plat subdivided a larger parcel into three residential lots with a potential subdivision of four lots. DISCUSSION A developer purchased this property and the City Council approved the final plat of the Sweeney 2nd Addition at their July 6, 2021 meeting. An existing easement from the Sweeney Addition plat will need to be vacated. New easements have been dedicated on the Sweeney 2nd Addition. BUDGET IMPACT The costs for this vacation will include a mailing to all parcels within 350 feet of the plat boundary and recording of the document at Dakota County. The costs of the mailing are included in the Final Plat application. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council approve the resolution for the easement vacation. ACTION REQUIRED Staff recommends that the City Council pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 2021-59, “RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EASEMENT VACATION WITHIN SWEENEY ADDITION”. This action requires a simple majority vote. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-59 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EASEMENT VACATION WITHIN LOT 2 & LOT 3, BLOCK 1, SWEENEY ADDITION WHEREAS, Lot 2 and Lot 3, Block 1, Sweeney Addition exist in Dakota County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Platted drainage and utility easements along the shared property line of Lot 2 and Lot 3, Block 1, Sweeney Addition are not required for drainage and utility purposes; and WHEREAS, The Sweeney Addition is proposed to be platted as Sweeney 2nd Addition dedicating additional drainage and utility easements; and WHEREAS, a notice of hearing on said vacation has been duly published and posted more than two weeks before the date scheduled for the hearing on said vacation, all in accordance with the applicable statutes; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on said vacation on July 20, 2021, at the City Hall of Mendota Heights; and WHEREAS, the City Council then proceeded to hear all persons interested in said vacation and all persons were afforded an opportunity to present their views and objections to the granting of said vacation. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the vacation of the drainage and utility easement along the shared property line of Lot 2 and Lot 3, Block 1, Sweeney Addition situated in the City of Mendota Heights is in the best interest of the public and the City, and it is not detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. 2. That the above described drainage and utility easement be and the same is hereby vacated. 3. That the City Clerk be and is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and present to Dakota County, notice of completion of these vacation proceedings, all in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 20th day of July, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ATTEST ________________________________ Stephanie Levine, Mayor ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 20, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-58 Public Hearing on Right-of-Way Vacation for Eugenia Avenue COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to hold proceedings for Resolution 2021-58, a public hearing on a right-of- way vacation commenced by petition for Eugenia Avenue. BACKGROUND The city of Mendota Heights received a petition for vacating Eugenia Avenue right-of-way between Hiawatha Avenue and Sibley Memorial Highway. A copy of the petition and plat are attached which shows the areas of right-of-way that were dedicated for public use. This right-of-way request has been presented to previous City Council in the early 1980’s and most recently in 2009. DISCUSSION State Statute governs the procedure for vacating a public way. A petition for vacating a public way requires signatures from a majority of the abutting land owners having an interest in the land. In this case, the properties on Sutcliff Circle are not properties having an interest in the land as the entire 30 feet of existing public right-of-way was dedicated from the two northern properties. When considering a vacation, a city is may vacate only if it is in the best interest of the public. Specific to this petition request, the Council should consider if this right-of-way may serve a purpose in the future which if the right-of-way is vacated, would no longer be feasible. One example would be if there was a trail along Sibley Memorial Highway, would this right-of-way be able to serve a purpose of a neighborhood trail connection. If the Council desires to proceed with the vacation, a drainage and utility easement would be necessary for maintenance of existing private utilities. A second consideration would be if the property along Sibley Memorial Highway would be able to subdivide due to this vacation. At the time of writing this memo, three written responses were received. One is from 606 Sibley Memorial Highway which is one of the petitioners, and the other two are from neighbors with one in support and one opposed. Additional comments will be printed and provided to the Council at the meeting or be given during the hearing. BUDGET IMPACT The Mendota Heights fee schedule includes a required $250 application fee to cover mailing and recording fees and staff time which was received from the petitioner. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council open the hearing and hear any comments. ACTION REQUIRED Staff recommends that the City Council pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 2021-58, “RESOLUTION APPROVING A RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION COMMENCED BY PETITION”. This action requires a simple majority vote. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-58 RESOLUTION APPROVING A RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION COMMENCED BY PETITION WHEREAS, The Cherokee Park Heights Plat, Dakota County, Minnesota was approved in 1924 and identified dedicated right-of-way for Eugenia Avenue; and WHEREAS, an area of Eugenia Avenue Right-of-Way described below is not required for roadway purposes: Eugenie Avenue between Sibley Memorial highway (noted as Sibley Highway on plat) and Hiawatha Avenue (noted as Pierce Street on plat); and WHEREAS, said described area is added to Lot 1 and Lot 21, Block 1, Cherokee Park Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota from the centerline of the platted alley to the respective corners of said lots; and WHEREAS, said described area is also covered under a drainage and utility easement; and WHEREAS, a notice of hearing on said vacation has been duly published and posted more than two weeks before the date scheduled for the hearing on said vacation, all in accordance with the applicable statutes; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on said vacation on July 20, 2021, at the City Hall of Mendota Heights; and WHEREAS, the City Council then proceeded to hear all persons interested in said vacation and all persons were afforded an opportunity to present their views and objections to the granting of said vacation. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the vacation of the described portion of Eugenia Avenue Right-of-Way, is in the best interest of the public and the City, and it is not detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. 2. That the above described right-of-way be and the same is hereby vacated. 3. That the City Clerk be and is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and present to the proper Dakota County officials notice of completion of these vacation proceedings, all in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this twentieth day of July, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk ? ?((((G!. G!. G!.G!. G!.66666666666666666666666666" " ! ³ "" * * * * * * *6666 6 66666666666 66666!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 606 605 597 613623 588 573 591 583 572 598 600 569 596622614606 567 630 569 57466850 19954172144 17613589 13 0 85 84123 804011311074107 170 7010457 99 91 5351 45 2 3 5 37 133 101 17129264 15520 9 17 14215 10 10505084104074 74 13 0 13 0 1013 0 13 0 294040 5013 0 14210SUTCLIFF CIRSIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYHIAWATHA AVEEugenia Ave Right-of-Way Vacation Date: 6/10/2021 City of Mendota Heights080 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 1 Ryan Ruzek From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Maggie Christopher Monday, July 12, 2021 9:35 AM Ryan Ruzek vacating land Hi Ryan, Eric and I wanted to share our thoughts on the proposed vacation of the land west of us. When we bought our  home, we knew that was open land and appreciated the green space. We would be concerned if it was  vacated that the portion closest to Highway 13 could be sold and someone could build there. Hwy 13 is noisy  and that would open it up to alot more noise in our backyard if those woods were taken away for any reason.  So we really appreciate it staying as open greenspace.  We will occasionally see people walking across it, but we have never seen any trash or heard anyone being  noisy on that land.  Maggie Christopher  Request for City Council Action DATE: July 20, 2021 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator, and Assistant City Administrator FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Discussion of Use of Lights at Marie Park INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to consider a favorable recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding the use of the existing rink lights at Marie Park for night time pickleball and basketball play. BACKGROUND Marie Park has six pickleball courts within the park’s hockey rink. Courts are widely popular and are often used throughout the day and evening, weather permitting. Rink lights are used at Marie Park to allow evening use during the hockey season, which typically runs from December-February. Due to early sunset times in the winter, rink lights are on from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. Lights are generally controlled by timers. If a timer fails, city staff including the Recreation Program Coordinator, Public Works Parks Maintenance staff and Warming House Attendants are notified and address any issues. Staff received a request asking to light the Marie Park pickleball courts during park evening hours in the summer months to enable night time pickleball play. The City Code establishes park hours from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. The request asked that the lights be on until 10 p.m. each evening. DISCUSSION At its May 11 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission considered the request for the use of Marie Park rink lights for night time pickleball play during the summer until 10 p.m. In its discussion, the Parks and Recreation Commission did not feel lights were needed during the summer months due to later sunset times, but did feel a pilot program could be beneficial in the months of September and October. Commissioners discussed the need for the pilot program to be re-evaluated for 2022 after the 2021 season. This pilot would only take place at Marie Park. The Commission asked for the City Council to discuss the proposed pilot program and if the Council was interested in continuing the discussion direct staff to send notices to neighbors within 500 feet of the park to solicit feedback. At the May 18 City Council meeting, the Council reviewed the Commission’s recommendation and directed staff to send out notices to neighboring property owners in order to better understand the interest from residents. Notices were mailed on June 7 notifying neighbors of the July 13 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting where they could voice their opinion about the proposed pilot program. At the July 13 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting the Commission discussed the proposed pilot program permitting the use of lights for evening pickleball play during September and October. Staff addressed the City’s ability to illuminate the lights at both the hockey and pleasure rink which would enable nighttime basketball and pickleball play. The Commission was made aware they could recommend that both rinks to be illuminated or only one of the rinks. Student Representative Niko Hess relayed that the student population in Mendota Heights would like to play basketball later in the evening after school, if possible. Staff provided the commissioners with letters that had been asked to be acknowledged as part of the formal record. Included in this City Council packet are all of the emails staff has received regarding this request to this point. After a staff presentation and discussion at the July 13 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended 4-0 in favor of trying the pilot program for 2021. The recommendation from the Commission is to utilize the lights within the hockey rink and pleasure rink for both pickleball and basketball play from mid-September to October 31 until 8 p.m. The commission discussed reviewing the program after the 2021 season and discussing whether or not it should be continued into 2022. BUDGET An estimated cost to utilize the lights would be approximately $30 per month at Marie Park. RECOMMENDATION The Parks and Recreation Commission is recommending the use of the existing Marie Park rink lights for pickleball and basketball from mid-September to October 31. The lights would be on until 8 p.m. This would be a pilot program for 2021 and would be re-evaluated for 2022. The Commission is also recommending that the Recreation Program Coordinator can terminate the pilot program at any time if directed by the City Council or City Administrator. ACTION REQUIRED If the City Council concurs, it should, by motion, direct staff to implement the pilot program for 2021 from mid-September to October 31 at Marie Park for nighttime basketball and pickleball play until 8:00pm. DATE: July 13, 2021 TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Review Request for the Usage of Lights at Marie Park INTRODUCTION Staff has been approached by a resident who is interested in the City utilizing the existing hockey lights at Marie Park to enable night time pickleball play. BACKGROUND Currently, the City utilizes the lights at Marie Park for the hockey season, which typically runs from December-February. Due to early sunset times in the Winter, rink lights are on from 5:00pm-9:00pm, which enables the rink to be used into the evening. During ice rink use, warming houses are typically staffed although staff has started utilizing timers for the lights. The past Winter staff experienced some issues with the timers where they weren’t working properly resulting in lights not turning on and off when programmed. Although staff believes this issue has been addressed, the City would not plan to staff the site. The City Code establishes park hours from 6:00am-10:00pm. The resident has asked that the lights stay on until 10:00pm. Based on sunset times the time the lights would need to be on would vary based on sunset times, the later in the Summer the earlier the lights would need to be on. In May sunset times are as late as 8:52pm, thus play can go later into the evening without the need for lights. DISCUSSION This item was brought to the Parks and Recreation Commission at its May 11 meeting. The Commission recommended discussing a trial program for night time pickleball play from mid- September to October 31. The lights would be on until 8:00pm. The pilot program would be re- evaluated for 2022. This trial period would only take place at the Marie Park pickleball courts. The Commission asked for the City Council to discuss this proposed pilot program and if interested in continuing the discussion direct staff to send notices to neighbors within 500 feet of the park boundaries to solicit feedback. At its May 18 City Council meeting the City Council directed staff to send out notices to neighboring property owners in order to better understand the interest from residents. Notices were mailed on June 7 to notify neighbors of the July 13 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting where they could voice their opinion about the proposed pilot program. BUDGET IMPACT: The Finance Director has estimated the cost to utilize the lights would be approximately $30 per month at Marie Park. RECOMMENDATION: The Commission should review the request and make a formal recommendation to the City Council on next steps. The recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission will be presented at the July 20 City Council meeting in order for the City Council to make a final decision on whether or not a pilot program will be utilized for the Fall of 2021. From:Larsen, Anne To:Meredith Lawrence Subject:RE: Lights at Marie Park Date:Wednesday, May 5, 2021 11:27:32 AM Hi Meredith, Thank you for considering the request! Yes, there are several people playing on the courts in the evening and would love to be able to continue under the lights. Several of our neighboring communities have lights on their PB courts until 10pm. Thanks again! Anne From: Meredith Lawrence <MeredithL@mendota-heights.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 10:49 AM To: Larsen, Anne <Anne.Larsen@HelloFurther.com> Subject: RE: Lights at Marie Park CAUTION: This email originated outside of our organization. Before acting on this email please make sure you know the sender and verify their email address. Use caution before opening attachments, clicking links or replying to this email. Hi Anne— Thanks for reaching out to me! In the past we have not turned the lights on for night time pickleball, as they have only been on for the ice skating season as we have the warming houses open and staffed. I can bring your request to the Parks and Recreation Commission to ask for their recommendation going forward. Currently sunset is at 8:23pm, are there people wanting to play later than that? The park hours are 6am-10pm. Thanks, Meredith Lawrence, CPRP, CPSI Recreation Program Coordinator City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Direct: 651-255-1354 City Offices: 651-452-1850 email: meredithl@mendota-heights.com From: Larsen, Anne <Anne.Larsen@HelloFurther.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 10:19 AM To: Meredith Lawrence <MeredithL@mendota-heights.com> Subject: Lights at Marie Park Hi, Wondering if the lights can be activated for the pickleball/tennis courts in the summer evenings? It seems they are activated for the winter months, but not summer? Thanks! Anne Larsen 651.353.0108 This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the named addressee you must not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the named addressee you must not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. From:Tony Ruiz To:Stephanie Levine; duggan.ultan@gmail.com; Jay Miller; Joel Paper; John Mazzitello; Meredith Lawrence; Tony Ruiz Subject:Marie Park Concerns Date:Friday, May 21, 2021 1:58:01 PM My name is Tony Ruiz. I reside at 1775 Victoria Road and have been a resident here for 29 years. I have two adult children and six grandchildren ages 3-11 years old who play at Marie Park. I want to take this opportunity to bring to your attention a few concerns I have noticed recently at Marie Park, mostly concerning noise. 1. The bangboard on the tennis courts. This bangboard is not used everyday but when it is, can you imagine someone creating a banging sound right outside your back door for 10-15 minutes? 2. Basketball court. More young men are playing basketball, ages 16-25 which is fine. But, they are bringing boomboxes and car radios and creating a lot of noise. At dusk, they point their cars at the court and turn on their lights which can continue into the darker hours and is annoying to surrounding homes. It also brings an increase of bad language (F- - - Y - -, and A - - H- - -). How would you like to be a parent or grandparent like me bringing your grandchildren to the play area and witness and hear that kind of language? 3. As a current varsity and college fast-pitch umpire, I have experience witnessing teams playing loud music before games and between innings. Now here we are at Marie Park with 10-U softball and baseball games with loud music before games and between innings. Is it necessary? The loud music is very irritating. The difference between the two settings are that at high schools, homes are 300-400 yards away, and at little Marie Park it is right across the street or pond. 4. The addition of pickleball has been a good asset to our community. However, we do not need night lighting and more pickleball courts. It will create parking and heavy usage of cars in Marie Park. I am concerned about kids walking about the area with that much traffic. As a past recreation director in the City of St. Paul for 39 years, I want to emphasize that I enjoy Marie Park and those playing tennis, pickleball, basketball, 10-U softball and baseball games. I am not for the added traffic and noise created from boomboxes, car radios, and foul language. Thank you for taking my concerns, and I hope to hear back from you soon. Tony Ruiz 651-681-0815 From:Lauriegarciamn To:Stephanie Levine; duggan.ultan@gmail.com; Jay Miller; Joel Paper; John Mazzitello; Meredith Lawrence; Steve Goldade; Bob Klepperich; Amy M Smith; Patrick Cotter; Jaffrey Blanks; Daniel Sherer; Steph Meyer Subject:CITY COUNCIL and PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION: Resident Feedback and Concerns Date:Tuesday, June 1, 2021 8:14:36 PM Dear City Council Members, Mayor, and Recreation Commission Members, I am a resident that lives on the perimeter of Marie Park. I just found out about your working session scheduled for tomorrow. I hope that you will read my input and that someone can acknowledge receipt of my email. I wanted to give input regarding lighting and plans for future use of the park as well as feedback on the process for obtaining resident input. My family has lived on the perimeter of the park since 2012. I tried to find an agenda for your meeting on the city website, but the agenda is pretty empty. I understand that there will be discussion on the park amenities and use, with the goal of making a 10-year plan. I understand that you may be discussing additional use of lights in the park during the summer. We are very opposed to additional lighting. We feel that it would negatively impact neighbors on the border of the park. We feel that inherent extension of park use hours via lighting in the summer is not necessary and will add more noise into the night hours. We would also encourage you to clarify noise ordinances for the parks and post signage at the parks to avoid problems and misunderstandings. We understand that you may be discussing adding additional court space at the park. Marie Park seems to have enough amenities for a small neighborhood park. We have enjoyed sharing the space in the hockey rink between courts and open space for other uses. Our teen daughter wanted to learn to skate during the pandemic, and she made use of the portion of the rink for practice. We have seen other neighbors using the space to learn to ride bikes, etc. Please do not add additional courts at Marie Park. I would encourage you to take into consideration the size and location of each park as you make plans. The recent increased use of the baseball fields has considerably increased parking on Lilac Lane. It is less safe for us to walk around the block during games. I would also like to comment that I was disappointed that the city did not reach out directly to the residents who live on the border of the parks to solicit feedback before your planning session. In the past, when the city considered adding street lighting on Victoria, residents were given a direct mailing and a contact person to reach out to to share feedback. I would hope that you would reach out to residents before any final decisions that affect bordering properties. I also searched the city website and did not find information on a point person to reach out to in order to get more information. Thank you, Laurie Garcia and family From:Kim Smith To:Meredith Lawrence Subject:Marie Park Date:Sunday, June 6, 2021 9:33:22 PM As a Mendota Heights resident of almost 30 years I just want to thank you for your work on bringing back a vibrancy to Marie Park that we havent seen in years. The pickleball courts are a big favorite among all ages. Its fun to see families playing as well as the seniors. The new tennis courts have brought back tennis players to the park on a regular basis. The basketball court with the additional basket has totally rejuvenated the BB life at Marie. To see the large number of teenagers gathering to play BB instead of finding trouble elsewhere is a joy to see. The new playground going in is icing on the cake. I have lived directly across from the park for almost 30 years. It has always been a bit sleepy but now its hopping. I have become an avid pickleballer and am happy that they are adding the additional court. I have also talked to the city a number of times about lighting the courts in the summer. Many days during the summer the mid afternoon is too hot to play so many families and seniors will come to play after dinner into the evening. When it starts to get dark we have to quit. It seems it should be equitable for all sports. The city lights the rink for hockey in the winter so why not PB players in the summer months. If its a noise issue you are concerned about you need to understand that we hear pucks hitting the boards over and over again on winter nights when the hockey players are playing. I don't think the sound of pickle ballers is any different. When we bought our house on a park we expected to have commotion for all the different seasons...kids baseball, basketball, hockey and now pickleball !! Its a joy to see all the different age groups using the space as it was meant to be used. We look forward to seeing the additional PB court and the lights this summer. If you build it they will come-- so bring it on. 1783 Lilac Lane Kim Smith From:Greg Johnson To:Meredith Lawrence Subject:Marie Park Lights Date:Tuesday, July 13, 2021 9:23:33 AM Meredith Lawrence-Recreation Program Coordinator, My wife and I will not be able to attend the Parks Commission Meeting to comment so I would like to share some comments here. We do not agree with the recommendation to approve a pilot program for light usage at Marie Park whether it be for pickleball or any other activity. While we agree pickleball in particular is a great activity for our community, we take issue with the need for not only the lights but also the excessive number of courts in this small neighborhood park, Marie Park. Of the homes that have property abutting the park, we are the farthest in distance from the courts. Due to the way that sound travels so well to the Eastern and Northern border properties in this park and the park hours, we consistently and very clearly hear the sounds of pickleball and the players from 6am until dark. If we want to get a break from the noise we must close our windows and choose not to be outside. Using lights will continue to contribute to the constant noise of pickleball and possibly basketball with no break in noise for park border residents. While some may think that this is not an issue, it is for the residents who live along this park. Approving this recommendation is a slippery slope, for now it is a request for lights until 8 pm in the fall. Then someday 10pm and all year long? What about the residents along this small park? You may think "well they knew what they were getting into". Yes we did- and so did others- to live along a small right sized neighborhood park. Our home was the home of my wife's grandparents, built in 1939. Her grandfather was instrumental in the planning of the city and in fact owned a good portion of the land that was dedicated to the park. The intention of this park was to service the small neighborhood area, not the entire community of Mendota Heights...whether it be pickleball players, or some other activity. It is a park situated among homes and has functioned and coexisted well since it was dedicated in the 70's servicing the neighborhood but also not encroaching on the quality of life of the homeowners who live along the park. With the concept of the neighborhood park, there is an ebb and flow of sounds, due to the right sized amenities it basically works well near homes. This is opposed to constant & repetitive sounds or high intensity sounds and high intensity usage that you would find at a park such as a Sports Complex. At Marie Park, the intensity of noise and constancy of noise with the addition of the 6 courts (which I do not believe were brought to the neighborhood residents) and the full court basketball court have changed this neighborhood park such that it has become incompatible with the homes that so closely surround it. It may be great for people many blocks away but the noise on the border properties on this little park has changed dramatically for the worse and so has the accessibility for the neighborhood kids. Other residents have stated that they would never want to live near a single pickleball court, much less 6 courts. Please consider the residents that live along this park. And when planning future updates please consider the importance of the intention of these neighborhood parks, how sound travels in certain parks, the need for balance and restraint, and the consequences in the overabundance of amenities that occur in one location. There are consequences to decisions. And the residents that border the park are paying for them not only in their taxes but also in the loss of quality of life for the changed designation of this park from a neighborhood park to something that continues to become less and less compatible with homes nearby. Please do not pass a recommendation for lighting the pickleball courts. And also consider reducing the number of courts to 2 in order to align this amenity with the size of this park, the designation of this park, the acoustics of this park, and so that the neighborhood kids can have their space in the rink to rollerblade or learn how to ride a bike as they used to do before the 6 courts were installed. Thank you for your time and consideration, Greg Johnson From:lespilgrim@juno.com To:Meredith Lawrence Subject:Pickleball Date:Tuesday, July 13, 2021 10:46:07 AM Greetings! I have been out of town and am at a meeting tonight and have just been made aware of the notice that was sent out to residents living within distance of the pickleball court in Marie Park. Here is what I appreciate about this pickleball court: 1) People so enjoy it. This is a great game. 2) Somebody had the smart idea of NOT digging up more earth to create the pickleball court and to instead repurpose existing infrastructure. Here is what I do not appreciate about the pickleball court: 1) It's a loud game in so many ways. All day long. 2) The noise clearly carries all the way to my home blocks away. Both human noise and game noise. 3) As an aside: Mendota Heights is becoming a loud city. A rare confluence of major traffic in our community: Hwy 62, 35E, 494, 13. Noisy. I do not want to be the NIMBY person in my neck of the woods. I like to see people enjoying themselves. This is a great community resource. But, do I want more lights on after dark in my community? Not really. Noise that carries from sun-up to beyond? Not really. Do I want to be the person to shut this lighting idea down? Not really. But asked to choose, I think the games should end with sunset and call it a day and let the surrounding neighborhood have some "quite time." Best and thank you, Leslie Pilgrim 1704 Vicki Lane From:Cindy Johnson To:Meredith Lawrence Subject:Marie Park Date:Tuesday, July 13, 2021 4:14:31 PM Meredith, In response to the letter regarding lights for the pickleball courts, please refer to my email sent to the council, yourself, and the commission on June 2 prior to your joint workshop. I noted many concerns and how they related to our Comprehensive Plan. I also noted that lighting would have a detrimental impact on residents nearby ...such impacts are related to increased noise, overcrowding (which has caused increased and non-stop noise), lighting affecting pollinators in all seasons (except winter), light pollution to the nearby residents, and more. As stated in Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan, Marie Park is a Neighborhood Park and yet it has been treated and "improved" as though it is a Community Park. Six Pickleball Courts and now a lighting request is just too much for a neighborhood park. Note how the neighborhood parks have just 2 tennis courts, the same should apply to pickleball courts, so as not to overwhelm one particular small neighborhood park. Please follow the Comprehensive Plan while also considering the neighbors that live along the park and do not pass a recommendation for lights at this neighborhood park. If lights are an overwhelming desire, look to our Community Parks not our Neighborhood Parks for that type of "improvement" as it is more fitting to a Community Park, which is designed to serve the larger community. Respectfully, Cindy Johnson Resident MH Planning Commissioner U of M Master Gardener NRMP Steering Committee Member From:Cindy Johnson To:Stephanie Levine; Ultan Duggan; Jay Miller; Joel Paper; John Mazzitello; Meredith Lawrence Cc:Steve Goldade; Bob Klepperich; Amy M Smith; Patrick Cotter; Jaffrey Blanks; Daniel Sherer; Steph Meyer Subject:Workshop today Date:Wednesday, June 2, 2021 1:46:14 PM Dear Mayor, Councilmembers, and Parks Commissioners, As you enter into your strategic planning workshop this afternoon I hope that you will take in this information as you plan for the future of our parks. As a longtime resident that was actively involved in the development of the MH 2040 Comprehensive Plan and now as a Planning Commissioner, I have learned a lot about how our city was designed and planned. I also have had the recent privilege to serve on the city's Steering Committee for the NRMP, a city wide document that is focused on "system-wide ecologically-based planning" that is designed and intended to be used for the entire city including -private property, commercial property, parks, and specific natural areas, city property & row, etc. I have copied some information for your consideration from the 2040 Comp Plan: types of parks, Ch4, Ch7, and I have highlighted some important points from those chapters. Also below that info, I have summarized concerns that I am hearing from neighbors that I believe will be of interest to you and your planning for this workshop. Copied from our 2040 Comp Plan, Chapter 4 lists the types of Parks. Please note the important distinction between types of parks. This is very valuable information when you are planning park maintenance and amenities. 1) Neighborhood Park Neighborhood parks are the foundation of the park system and serve as the recreational and social focus of the neighborhood. They accommodate a wide variety of age and user groups, both children and adults. They create a sense of place by bringing together the unique character of the site and the neighborhood. Mendota Heights should seek to achieve a balance between active and passive neighborhood parks. Neighborhood parks range from 5 to 30 acres and serve a ½-mile area. Communities often will operate a joint neighborhood park with the school district and elementary schools. The city’s neighborhood parks include Friendly Hills, Hagstrom-King, Ivy Hills, Marie, Valley View Heights, Victoria Highland, and Wentworth. 2) Community Park Community parks are designed to meet the recreational needs of several neighborhoods or larger segments of the community. They are intended for ball fields, larger athletic facilities, and community gatherings. They can also be designed to preserve unique landscapes and open spaces. They serve a ½-mile to five mile radius. The city’s community parks include Kensington, Valley, Roger’s Lake, Mendakota, and Sibley Athletic Complex. The city also provides an off-leash dog park only, located off Acacia Blvd., south of the Historic Pilot Knob area. The dog park is on approximately 3 acres of a larger city owned piece of land that is approximately 10.9 acres. The dog park was approved as a temporary dog park under an interim use permit in 2015, and this permit expired in 2020. The city has not yet determined if this dog park Update will continue, or allow the lands to be developed into an industrial use, which is what the site is guided for under this 2040 Plan. 3) Natural Resource Area Natural resource areas are lands set aside to preserve significant or unique landscapes. They are often, but not always, properties with steep slopes, drainage ways, ravines, or wetlands. In addition, there may be locations where local tree protection, shoreland and critical area ordinances, or state and local wetland ordinances restrict development in some way. Natural Resource areas include Friendly Marsh, Copperfield Ponds, Valley Park, Pilot Knob Preservation, and Dodge Nature Center. Also copied from the 2040 Comp Plan is a few items of note from Ch.7 Natural Resources. This chapter is important for all areas of our city but I would suggest that it is especially important as the city develops the strategic plan for the parks. While some parks are designated as Natural Areas, other parks serve an important function as connectors to those natural areas as well as connectors for pollinators in our Pollinator Friendly city. With the recent work on the city's NRMP, I have had the privilege of serving on the steering committee. I have highlighted some important points that I would like to share with all of you for consideration. It may become more evident as to why I highlighted these when you read the concerns from neighbors below. In the 2040 Comp Plan, Chapter 4 is Parks & Trails Chapter. The goals and policies of this CH.4 PARKS & TRAILS GOAL 2: Provide a park system that assures high quality facilities, buildings, grounds, trails, amenities, and natural settings. Goal 3: Use the park system as a means to enhance and sustain the environment of each neighborhood and the city as a whole. Policies 1. Provide facilities, programs and opportunities in the park system that bring people together and create community. 2. Ensure that stormwater is managed in park facilities in a manner that protects and preserves water quality and the ecology of the watershed. Goal 4: Cooperate with Dakota County and surrounding communities in park and recreation facilities and programming. Policies 3. Encourage the preservation of open space by private property owners and the city. 4. Explore new opportunities and continue to work cooperatively with School District #197, St. Thomas, Visitation, Fort Snelling State Park, and other entities to provide maximum recreational opportunities and avoid duplication in programming and facilities. Ch 7 NATURAL RESOURCES The City of Mendota Heights is fortunate to have a wide variety of natural resources throughout the community. These natural resources are an important recreation, aesthetic, and ecological asset to the community of Mendota Heights. During the city’s developing stages, a strong emphasis was placed on preserving high quality open spaces and woodland areas. Residents enjoy numerous lakes, streams, wetlands, open spaces, parks, trails, and the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers. These natural areas provide tremendous benefits to the community and its residents and are an important focal point of Mendota Heights. Protect, Connect, Restore and Manage Ecosystems, Plant Communities & Species The quality of life for the community of Mendota Heights highly depends on how it manages its natural resources—the air, minerals, land, water, and biota that form the foundation to life in the city. This chapter is a guide for managing the city’s natural resources in a sustainable way. It will help protect and enhance residents’ quality of life for current and future generations by suggesting strategies to protect, connect, restore and manage ecosystems, plant communities, and species. Purpose The environmental benefits provided by the community’s natural resources are essential for human life. Protecting and preserving these natural resources require preventing, and providing treatment for, potential harmful pollutants that can adversely affect the health of our air, water, and soil. Some of the strategies for addressing pollutants include, but are not limited to: stormwater infiltration and treatment, providing flood control, providing and preserving healthy soil for plants, and providing and preserving habitat for pollinators and wildlife. Natural resources can also provide economic value, recreation, health benefits, and aesthetic beauty. Healthy natural resources help ensure that Mendota Heights has a high quality of life that can be sustained for future generations GOAL 1: Develop a professional, comprehensive, strategic Natural Resources Management Plan for city-wide natural areas and natural resources. Policies 1. Develop capabilities to monitor and implement the Natural Resources Management Plan through city staff expertise, as well as through partnerships with community groups, volunteers, and adjacent communities and agencies, thus recognizing the interconnectedness of ecosystems. 2. Implement a formal Natural Resources Management and Sustainability Commission to aid in the execution of the strategic Natural Resources Plan. This Commission may begin as a Task Force, whose charge would be to establish the by-laws and city ordinance necessary to establish this commission. 3. Develop site-specific management plans that identify and prioritize opportunities to enhance and protect the city’s high-quality areas and address significant issues, such as: vegetation plans, tree planting plans, tree inventories, green infrastructure, surface waters, roadside restoration, wildlife management, tree diseases, pests, and invasive species. 4. Establish and continually update priorities for sites, including public parks and open space, and management activities. 5. Develop and continually maintain tracking of management activities, using frameworks such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to gather, manage, and analyze data. 6. Develop and implement city strategies to increase tree canopy, during existing operational, new development, and redevelopment activities. 7. Seek partnerships and grant opportunities to help implement natural resources goals. 8. Work with Dakota County and other agencies to maintain and/or acquire, where feasible, natural greenway corridors to foster ecosystem continuity. 9. Protect steep slopes, bluffs, and other sensitive areas from erosion and other threats, specifically throughout the development process. 10. Encourage and promote the use of conservation design principles. 11. Explore the opportunity to develop a Natural Resource Matching Fund and work with agency partners to achieve the vision and goals of the Natural Resources Management Plan GOAL 2: Protect, connect, restore, buffer, and manage natural areas, wildlife habitat, and other natural resources, for high ecological quality and diversity of plant and animal species. Policies 1. Monitor new developments for restoration and invasive plant management. 2. Monitor tree disease and pest outbreaks (i.e. Emerald Ash Borer) with the implementation of control and replanting programs, such as an Integrated Pest Management program, for current tree diseases as well as emerging diseases and pests. 3. Continue to partner with outside agencies and community groups to monitor and control invasive species and noxious weeds. 4. Restore areas throughout the city with pollinator-friendly or native species to protect and enhance habitat for native pollinators and birds in accordance with City Resolution 2016-01 (see Appendix - E). 5. Monitor wildlife populations and address overpopulation as needed. 6. In new development and redevelopment, retain mature trees that have high ecological value, replace lost trees, and plant additional trees if not present originally. 7. Explore the development of ordinances and or policies that establish minimum soil standards for development and redevelopment that can support turf, plantings, and/or healthy turf alternatives. 8. Look for opportunities to reduce or minimize impervious cover city-wide. 9. Emphasize the use of, and identify areas including public open space and park land, that could be restored to include native species, pollinator plants, wildlife habitat, or turf alternatives. 10. Prior to approval of landscape and development plans, work with applicants to encourage the preservation and installation of high ecosystem value communities. 11. Encourage avenues for homeowners to take on ownership of, and responsibility for, boulevard trees where the location of the tree is considered appropriate as well as an overall community benefit. 12. Implement the strategic planting of trees to avoid monoculture plantings and choose tree species identified as most resilient to changing climate and weather patterns. GOAL 3: Protect and restore the natural ecological functions of the city’s water resources with emphasis on the improvement of stormwater management. Policies 1. Explore and develop operational and procedural modifications to better enhance and support the thriving of the natural environment. 2. Work with partners to implement projects and develop and support programs that encourage infiltration, to reduce stormwater runoff and pollution to water-bodies. 3. Work with partners to monitor Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS). Set goals for AIS removal and management, and reintroduction of native species. Educate lakeshore owners and residents about AIS. 4. Identify areas within the city, including public and private land that are lacking adequate stormwater treatment, and other stormwater BMPs. Implement projects to establish functioning stormwater treatment in order to protect and improve the city’s water resources. 5. Implement the city’s Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP) through the use of ordinances, policies, and development standards. 6. Carry out steps toward meeting the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) Swimmable, Fishable, Fixable water quality standards. 7. Manage public riparian areas to be resilient to stormwater runoff. 8. Improve the process for review and inspection of native planting and permanent stormwater Best Management Practices on development projects to increase successful establishment. GOAL 4: Enhance and provide public education and understanding of nature, natural systems, and environmental issues by providing programs, materials, and information; while promoting a culture of stewardship on public and private lands. Policies 1. Educate adults, families, schools, community groups, and staff on natural resources topics, improving compliance and understanding of environmental regulations and requirements. 2. Continue to develop, improve, and expand audiences through the use of diverse methods of education and outreach including: programs, field trips, brochures, exhibits, signage, articles, website, video, social media, service learning, and community gatherings and events. 3. Collaborate with other agencies, such as Watershed Districts, Watershed Management Organizations, and surrounding County and Metropolitan Cities to share information and ideas regarding natural resources. 4. Develop and promote stormwater educational outreach programs, using available programs offered through outside agencies, and utilizing volunteer groups such as Master Gardeners, Master Water Stewards, and Master Naturalists. 5. Implement, encourage, and sustain collaborative city programs such as residential curb-cut rain gardens and green infrastructure, throughout road re-construction projects. 6. Educate homeowners, commercial and institutional property owners, and city Public Works staff, on turf management Best Management Practices (BMPs), as well as lawn alternatives, to reduce the amount of traditional turf throughout the city. 7. Develop a Natural Resources webpage on the city’s website that offers city resources, community updates and activities, volunteer opportunities, links to useful resources, and other topics as they relate to natural resources. 8. Provide education and training on tree care for private landowners. 9. Engage residents in the strategic planting of trees in order to encourage a more diverse, native community forest. 10. Develop material (print as well as electronic media) to teach property owners environmentally friendly ‘backyard’ practices, including but not limited to: sustainable lawn care, native plantings, drought-tolerant landscaping, rain gardens, proper disposal of yard and animal waste, and composting. 11. Educate residents, developers, and others on the impact of noise, and other forms of pollution (i.e. light, air quality, heat, etc.). 12. Provide programs to support residents in their stewardship efforts. Explore innovative ideas and opportunities to serve the community in stewardship efforts such as grant and rebate programs, curbside buckthorn pick-up program, city-sponsored tree sale, etc. 13. Develop and implement city-led initiatives to engage citizens in the stewardship and care of natural areas and infrastructure through programs such as Adopt-a-Park, Adopt-a-Roadside Pollinator Planting, Adopt-a-Boulevard, Adopt-a-Tree, and Adopt-a-Storm Drain. 14. Implement, evaluate, or enhance citizen participation in monitoring programs such as the Wetland Health Evaluation Program (WHEP), State and Metropolitan Council water monitoring programs, as well as other Citizen Science monitoring programs that monitor vegetation, aquatic invasive species, as well as those programs that monitor wildlife such as birds, bats, bees, aquatic wildlife, and insects 15. Encourage citizen engagement in the city’s annual Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit meeting and process, and use this as a forum to share concerns, discuss proposed community initiatives, and offer suggestions concerning stormwater. GOAL 5: Address issues that impact air quality, light pollution, and noise pollution, such as vehicle emissions, traffic flow, air traffic, lighting, and street design. Policies 1. Evaluate proactive solutions to air quality issues such as the installation of an electric vehicle charge stations, and mass transit options. 2. Consider taking an advocacy role to encourage the MPCA and the Minnesota Department of Health to address air quality issues and improve air quality. 3. Strive to monitor and limit community exposure to excessive noise levels and review and evaluate current city policies and ordinances regarding noise. 4. Develop ordinances that proactively and effectively deal with noise pollution and its impact on all facets of the community, including human, ecological, safety, security, and energy. 5. Encourage use of research-based systems, such as Backlight-Uplight-Glare (BUG) that reduce light pollution and provide guidelines for effective control of unwanted or unhealthy light for residents, as well as wildlife. 6. Develop ordinances that proactively and effectively deal with light pollution within the city and work with neighboring communities to coordinate lighting solutions and address its impact on all facets of community: human, ecological, safety, security, and energy. 7. Increase efforts to provide healthier lighting solutions for residents and the preservation of the city’s natural assets. An important distinction in our parks is the type of park. Neighborhood Parks are to serve a half mile area and therefore should be planned as such. You will see from the summary of concerns at Marie Park...that residents feel that this park recently has not been treated as a neighborhood park and has become overcrowded, has no noise relief that it once had as a neighborhood park, and that it has become inconsistent with the neighborhood park designation. Marie Park is the smallest of the neighborhood parks but has the distinction of having the most residential property lines that touch the park, this is not counting properties across the street which increases that number even moreso. Due to this and possibly the pond, noise travels very well and actually amplifies from the park to homes that border it. You can often hear a conversation that is being had in one end of the park across to the other end, much like when on a lake you can hear conversations across the lake. These unique characteristics of this park should be taken into consideration when planning for this park in particular. Summary of neighbors complaints: 1-Noise- This is a constant problem due to the number of pickleball courts and constant ponging sound and yelling of participants, loud tennis backboard, addition of the basketball hoop which attracts numerous adult basketball games with yelling,swearing and playing of loud music, numerous nights of baseball also with loud music. Residents do not mind the baseball games and kids cheering nor the basketball playing as that is part of the park but it is the other things that have now come with it and the additional usage that has not allowed any "downtime" for residents or the ability for residents to enjoy the sounds of nature periodically as they had before without the additions. (Adult screams, grunts, and yelling is a different and more shocking sound than that of kids cheering, laughing, playing.) The music can not only be heard in neighboring yards but also inside homes with windows closed and their own music/tv on. Music playing loudly for a team or group seems to be inconsistent with this park designation. 2-Overcrowding- The designation and size of park is important to consider. Four pickleball courts seems to be too many, 1-2 seems more appropriate for this designation, size of park, and proximity of homes. Four courts take up too much of the hockey rink which has caused a loss of space for children learning to ride bikes, rollerblade, or practice hockey. Residents would prefer to have it reduced to 1- 2 and have the other space for children and even teens learning how to rollerblade or practice hockey. I have many new neighbors with young children that feel their children can't go play basketball, when it was one hoop kids could go down there and play or practice, now they can't. If more pickleball is desired there should be a balance of courts in the parks similar to how the tennis courts were planned years ago in the neighborhood parks (1-2 per park) or an addition of a Sports Complex type park would be appropriate to accommodate those desires. Also with the addition of the 2nd basketball hoop the "pleasure" rink was about 1/4 the size it has been in the past. This allowed no room for children or non-hockey players to skate. It is small to begin with and was so overcrowded that there was no room to skate this past winter. It needs to be the full size (not just in between the hoops) especially since the hockey rink is very popular and often full of kids, teens, adults playing hockey. As a small city, we often reference the fact that we need to use and do use and collaborate with other cities' and the county for amenities that they offer. This seems to be a good practice to consider for our parks and the size of our city. 3-Lighting- Spring/Summer/Fall lighting seems more appropriate for a Sports Complex park designation not a neighborhood park. Even though there is lighting in the winter, other seasonal lighting contributes to the noise issues when residents are out on their patio or have their windows open. It also contributes to light pollution and takes away the night sky for people and pollinators, which for a neighborhood park with pollinator plantings along the hockey rink is a detriment in these seasons. Since we are a pollinator friendly city and have goals and policies from Ch. 7 of the Comprehensive Plan this is not a minor issue as our parks are pollinator connectors to natural areas. If lighting is desired it should be considered and planned for a Sports Complex type park not a neighborhood park. 4-Buffer Zones & Invasive Species- In accordance with our Comp Plan the stormwater ponds in our parks are important as is removing invasive species in our parks. As a Master Gardener and Steering Committee member for the NRMP, it is my personal hope that future planning will reflect those goals of the Comp Plan and that a process for determining amenities will take into account all aspects of the the parks and then allocate improvements based on space left after looking at buffer zones and natural areas that serve as a a means to clean our water before it is discharged to the river and as pollinator connectors in the city. I would hope that the PIMP for parks would include invasive species removal, buffer zones, and native plantings would be on every park PIMP. I hope you will have time to reflect upon the highlighted items from the Comprehensive Plan and see how they directly relate to the neighbor's concerns with how Marie Park has changed recently and for how you aspire to plan for the maintenance and future of the parks in MH. Thanks so much for your time! Hope you have a great workshop! Respectfully, Cindy Johnson Resident MH Planning Commissioner U of M Master Gardener NRMP Steering Committee Member Request for City Council Action DATE: July 20, 2021 TO: Mayor Levine and City Council; City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 568 – Amending Title 12 – Zoning with the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Overlay District Ordinance [Planning Case No. 2021-07] INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to give consideration of a proposed ordinance amendment, which would replace (in its entirety) the existing Chapter 3 – Critical Area Overlay District of Title 12 – Zoning, with a new Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District chapter. This ordinance amendment applies to those properties located within the established Miss. River Corridor area, as identified on the attached MRCCA Map – Figure 9-2. BACKGROUND The Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) is a land corridor along the Mississippi River in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. It comprises 72 miles of river and 54,000 acres of surrounding land in 30 local jurisdictions. Land uses in the MRCCA are regulated by cities and townships through locally adopted MRCCA plans and ordinances that comply with Minnesota Rules Chapter 6106. Community’s ordinances regulate structure placement, structure height, vegetation clearing, land alteration, and subdivision of land to preserve the corridor’s unique natural, recreational, and cultural features. The MRCCA was designated in 1976 by Executive Order following passage of the Minnesota Critical Areas Act of 1973. The MRCCA was the first and remains the only critical area in the state. In 1988, the National Park Service designated the Mississippi National River & Recreation Area, which shares the same border as the MRCCA. In 2009, the Minnesota Legislature directed the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to establish rules to replace the 35+ year old standards and guidelines under Executive Order 79-19 (Designation of Mississippi River as a Critical Area). DNR initiated this process by soliciting comments on the scope of the rulemaking, and launched an extensive public involvement process, including the formation of focused working groups comprised of professional planners, engineers, scientists, consultants and interest groups to advise the development of new draft rules. Although the DNR completed draft rules in 2011; this project was put on hold and the DNR’s authority to continue the rulemaking expired. In 2013, the Minnesota Legislature restored the DNR’s rulemaking authority and made changes to the statutory language guiding rule development to better address local government concerns. After this rulemaking restarted, the DNR again met with local governments numerous times individually and in groups to obtain input on the 2011 draft rules, as well as with other agencies and interest groups. The DNR made revisions to the 2011 draft rules based on feedback received, and as a result an initial document referred to as the “working draft rules” was completed, which led to the formation of the first MRCCA “model ordinance” in 2016. This draft document was prepared by the DNR for all of those metropolitan communities situated along the Mississippi River with similar critical area overlay districts, including the City of Mendota Heights. Local communities within the corridor are required to complete a MRCCA plan as a separate chapter of their 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update; and complete an official zoning ordinance update (amendment) by end of 2021. The City was notified in January 2021 that the DNR has given approval of the City’s proposed MRCCA plan (Ch. 9 of the 2040 Plan), and staff is now happy to report the 2040 Comprehensive Plan has been approved by the Metropolitan Council. At the February 2, 2021 council meeting, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 562, an Interim Ordinance Placing a Moratorium on Proposed Development, Subdivision or Certain Construction and Building Activity Requiring a Permit for Properties Situated in the Critical Area Overlay District. During this moratorium period, staff was able to research and present information related to this new MRCCA ordinance to the planning commission for review, comments and suggestions. On February 23, 2021, city staff presented to the planning commission a version of the MRCCA Model Ordinance from DNR, dated 02/02/2021, for discussion purposes only. No public hearing or official action was taken at that meeting. On May 25, 2021, staff presented a draft Ordinance No. 568 to the planning commission, again with no public hearing or official action taken at that meeting. Due to the complicated and detailed nature of this ordinance, it was suggested to hold a separate Workshop Meeting with city staff and the planning commission, whereby the group would review and focus its attention on the creation of this new and important ordinance. This workshop was held on June 10th, whereby an updated draft ordinance document was created and directed to be placed on the next June 22nd meeting. This ordinance was essentially created from the 02/22/2021 and 06/23/2021 MRCCA model ordinance document provided by the DNR. Due to its size, a copy of this model ordinance is not being provided in this packet, but can be made available to any councilmember if requested. SUMMARY OF NEW ORDINANCE Under the existing Critical Area (CA) Overlay ordinance, the city uses this chapter to regulate development and construction activities for properties in this corridor area. This corridor is situated primarily along the north/northwesterly sections of the city, and is a single or unified overlay area established and mapped out by the DNR. This original Critical Area boundary did not change under this new update; however, this overlay district has now been separated into three (3) overlay districts: ROS – Rural and Open Space; RN – River Neighborhood; and SR – Separate from River (refer to MRCCA map Figure 9-2). A significant change from the old to the new MRCCA chapter is definitions. Under the original ordinance the city only had eight (8) terms or definitions; while under the new draft ordinance there are ninety-two (92) new terms/definitions. The Planning Commission elected to add a few new definitions (than what was offered under the model ordinance), namely “Keystone Species”, “Public Works Director”, “Zoning Administrator” and “Underground Springs”. Administratively, all new development or construction work will still require a critical area permit (note: city staff will continue to use “Critical Area Permit” as the identifier on the permit application). Variances to any requirement(s) of this chapter can also be requested and approved, subject to a complete application review and consideration (hearing) process by the PC and Council. Conditional use permits (CUP) and interim use permits (IUP) are also allowed for certain activities or uses. Under the old ordinance, a CUP was required to permit any activity on slopes greater than 18% but not less than 40% (no work allowed on slopes 40% or more). This is no longer allowed under this new ordinance, as the Bluff Impact Zone (BIZ) must be left as a protected area, and not impacted or affected by any major construction work or other strictly regulated activities. CUPs or IUPs are allowed to approve any Nonmetallic Mining, Wireless Communication Towers, Stairways/Lifts/Landings, or a request to exceed structure height limitations. The general or overall structure setback standards under the CA were 40-ft. from a bluffline; and 100-ft. from normal high water mark of any water body. Under the new rules, all structures and impervious surfaces must not be placed in the shore or bluff impact zones, unless exempted under the ordinance. The ROS district requires a 200-ft. setback from the Miss. River’s or 150-ft. from the Minn. River’s OHWL; RN: 100-ft. from Miss. River; and SR: not applicable since these parcels do not front on either Mississippi or Minnesota River bodies. Structure setbacks from blufflines are as follows: ROS: 100-ft. ; RN: 40-ft.; and SR: 40-ft. Decks and Patios will again be regulated, but allowed with certain, limited setback encroachments (depending on the physical characteristics of the individual property). The new ordinance also provides for updated and very detailed regulations and standards for Vegetation Management (12-3-9) and Land Alterations and Stormwater Management (12-3-10) in the corridor. Staff also provided a more detailed and expanded submittal requirements under the Site Planning Requirements in Section 12-3-12. One slight change to the new ordinance is that any critical area permit or other will only require a public hearing at the planning commission, and does not need a separate (additional) hearing at the city council. City Council retains the final decision-making and authority on granting any permit or application requested in the MRCCA district. The draft ordinance also includes a five part table at the end of uses and activities that are generally identified as either exempt or non-exempt. 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 commissioners review the updated draft MRCCA ordinance. Upon opening and closing the hearing, with no comments from the public, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (by 4-0 vote) to approve the proposed Ordinance No. 568 as presented herein. This ordinance has 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. 568 as presented; make a motion to deny the ordinance; or table the ordinance to a future meeting date. Action to approve the ordinance requires a simple-majority vote of the council. Staff also requests the council consider adopting the related Summary Publication of Ordinance No. 568, and note this action requires 4/5 majority vote of the council to approve. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 568 AN ORDINANCE REPLACING AND AMENDING TITLE 12 ZONING CHAPTER 3 CRITICAL AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT WITH NEW TITLE 12 ZONING CHAPTER 3 MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA (MRCCA) OVERLAY DISTRICT SECTION: 12-3-1: Authority, Policy and Intent 12-3-2: General Provisions and Definitions 12-3-3: Administration 12-3-4: Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Districts 12-3-5: Special Land Use Provisions 12-3-6: Structure Height, Placement and Lot Size 12-3-7: Performance Standards for Private Facilities 12-3-8: Performance Standards for Public Facilities 12-3-9: Vegetation Management 12-3-10: Land Alteration Standards and Stormwater Management 12-3-11: Subdivision and Land Development Standards 12-3-12: Site Plan Requirements 12-3-13: Official Review Process 12-3-14: Notification to Resource Agencies 12-3-15: Exemptions 12-3-1: AUTHORITY, POLICY AND INTENT: A. Statutory Authorization. This Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) overlay district chapter is adopted pursuant to the authorization and policies contained in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 116G, Minnesota Rules, Parts 6106.0010 - 6106.0180, and the planning and zoning enabling legislation in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462 and 473. B. Policy. The Legislature of Minnesota has delegated responsibility to local governments of the state to regulate the subdivision, use and development of designated critical areas and thus preserve and enhance the quality of important historic, cultural, aesthetic values, and natural systems and provide for the wise use of these areas. C. Intent. The Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area regulations are intended to: 1. Establish districts under which building height and structure placement are regulated to protect and enhance the Mississippi River's resources and features consistent with the natural and built character of each district. 2. Identify development standards and considerations for land uses that have potential to negatively affect primary conservation areas and public river corridor views. 3. Establish standards that protect primary conservation areas and public river corridor views from development impacts and ensure that new development is sited consistent with the purpose of the MRCCA. 4. Establish design standards for private facilities that are consistent with best management practices and that minimize impacts to Primary Conservation Areas (PCAs), Public River Corridor Views (PRCVs) and other resources identified in the MRCCA plan. 5. Establish design standards for public facilities that are consistent with best management practices and that minimize impacts to primary conservation areas, public river corridor views and other resources identified in the MRCCA plan while recognizing that they serve the public interest by providing access to the Mississippi River corridor or require locations within the river corridor and therefor require some flexibility. 6. Establish standards that sustain and enhance the biological and ecological functions of vegetation; preserve the natural character and topography of the MRCCA; and maintain stability of bluffs and critical area steep slopes and ensure stability of other erosion-prone areas. 7. Establish standards that protect water quality from pollutant loadings of sediment, nutrients, bacteria, and other contaminants; and maintain stability of bluffs, shorelines, and other areas prone to erosion. 8. To create standards for subdivisions and development or redevelopment of sites that protect and enhance the natural and scenic value of the MRCCA, protect and restore biological and ecological functions of primary conservation areas, and encourage restoration of native vegetation where restoration opportunities have been identified in the MRCCA Plan. 12-3-2: GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS: A. Jurisdiction. The provisions of this chapter apply to land within the river corridor boundary as described in the State Register, volume 43, pages 508 to 519 and shown on the city’s official zoning or MRCCA maps on file with the city. B. Enforcement. The city zoning administrator and public works director are jointly responsible for the administration and enforcement of this chapter. Any violation of its provisions or failure to comply with any of its requirements, including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of variances or conditional uses, constitutes a misdemeanor and is punishable as defined by law. Violations of this chapter can occur regardless of whether or not a permit is required for a regulated activity listed in Section 12- 3-3. C. Severability. If any section, clause, provision, or portion of this chapter is judged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this chapter shall not be affected thereby. D. Abrogation and Greater Restrictions. It is not intended by this chapter to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this chapter imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. To the extent any other chapters or sections are inconsistent with this chapter, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. E. Underlying Zoning. Uses and standards of underlying zoning districts apply except where standards of this chapter are more restrictive. F. Definitions. Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this chapter shall be interpreted to give them the same meaning they have in common usage and to give this chapter its most reasonable application. For the purpose of this chapter, the words “must” and “shall” are mandatory and not permissive. All distances, unless otherwise specified, are measured horizontally. ACCESS PATH means an area designated to provide ingress and egress to public waters. ADJACENT means having a boundary that physically touches or adjoins. AGRICULTURAL USE means a use having the meaning given under Minnesota Statutes, section 40A.02. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN means subdivision design methods such as conservation design, transfer of development density, or similar zoning and site design techniques that protect open space and natural areas. BIOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS mean the functions of vegetation in stabilizing soils and slopes, retaining and filtering runoff, providing habitat, and recharging groundwater. BLUFF means a natural topographic feature having: A. A slope that rises at least 25 feet where the grade of the slope averages 18 percent or greater, measured over any horizontal distance of 25 feet, from the toe of the slope to the top of the slope. Where the slope begins below the ordinary high water level, the ordinary high water level is the toe of the slope [See Figure 1 – below]; FIGURE 1: BLUFF DIAGRAM or B. A natural escarpment or cliff with a slope that rises at least ten feet above the ordinary high water level or toe of the slope, whichever is applicable, to the top of the slope, with a slope of 75 degrees or greater [See Figure 2 – below]. FIGURE 2: NATURAL ESCARPMENT BLUFF AND BLUFF IMPACT ZONE DIAGRAM BLUFF IMPACT ZONE (BIZ) means a bluff and land located within 20 feet of the bluff. See Figure 2 for natural escarpment or cliff example and Figure 3 for more common bluff example. FIGURE 3: TOE, TOP AND BLUFF IMPACT ZONE DIAGRAM BLUFFLINE means a line delineating the top of the bluff. More than one bluffline may be encountered proceeding landward from the river. See Figure 2 for natural escarpment or cliff example and Figure 3 for more common bluff example. BLUFF, TOE OF means a line along the bottom of a bluff, requiring field verification, such that the slope above the line exceeds eighteen (18) percent and the slope below the line is eighteen (18) percent or less, measured over a horizontal distance of twenty-five (25) feet. See Figure 2 for natural escarpment of cliff example and Figure 3 for more common bluff example. BLUFF, TOP OF means a line along the top of a bluff, requiring field verification, such that the slope below the line exceeds eighteen (18) percent and the slope above the line is eighteen (18) percent or less, measured over a horizontal distance of twenty-five (25) feet. See Figures 1 and 2. BUILDABLE AREA means the area upon which structures may be placed on a lot or parcel of land and excludes areas needed to meet requirements for setback, rights-of-way, bluff impact zones, historic properties, wetlands, designated floodways, land below the ordinary high water level of public waters, and other unbuildable areas. BUILDING means a structure with two or more outside rigid walls and a fully secured roof and affixed to a permanent site. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE means a document written after a compliance inspection, certifying that the development complies with applicable requirements at the time of the inspection. CITY means the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota. COMMISSIONER means the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. CONDITIONAL USE means a use having the meaning given under Minnesota Statutes, chapters 462. CONSERVATION DESIGN means a pattern of subdivision that is characterized by grouping lots within a portion of a parcel, where the remaining portion of the parcel is permanently protected as open space. CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION means a pattern of subdivision that is characterized by lots that are spread regularly throughout a parcel in a lot and block design. DECK means a horizontal, unenclosed, aboveground level structure open to the sky, with or without attached railings, seats, trellises, or other features, attached or functionally related to a principal use or site. DEVELOPER has the meaning given under Minnesota Statutes, section 116G.03. DEVELOPMENT has the meaning given under Minnesota Statutes, section 116G.03. DISCRETIONARY ACTION means an action under this chapter related to land use that requires a public hearing by local ordinance or statute, such as preliminary plats, final subdivision plats, planned unit developments, conditional use permits, interim use permits, variances, appeals, and rezoning. DOCK has the meaning given under Minnesota Rules, chapter 6115. ELECTRIC POWER FACILITIES means equipment and associated facilities for generating electric power or devices for converting wind energy to electrical energy as identified and defined under Minnesota Statutes, section 216E. ESSENTIAL SERVICES mean underground or overhead gas, electrical, communications, steam, or water distribution, collection, supply, or disposal systems, including storm water. Essential services include poles, wires, mains, drains, pipes, conduits, cables, fire alarm boxes, traffic signals, hydrants, navigational structures, aviation safety facilities or other similar equipment and accessories in conjunction with the systems. Essential services does not include buildings, treatment works as defined in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 115.01, electric power facilities or transmission services. FEEDLOT has the meaning given for animal feedlots under Minnesota Rules, chapter 7020. FLOODPLAIN has the meaning given under Minnesota Rules, chapter 6120. FULLY RECONSTRUCTS means the reconstruction of an existing impervious surface that involves site grading and subsurface excavation so that soil is exposed. Mill and overlay and other resurfacing activities are not considered fully reconstructed. HARD-SURFACE TRAIL means a trail surfaced in asphalt, crushed aggregate, or other hard surface, for multi-purpose use, as determined by local, regional, or state agency plans. HISTORIC PROPERTY means an archaeological site, standing structure, site, district, or other property that is: (a) Listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the State Register of Historic Places or locally designated as a historic site under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 471; (b) determined to meet the criteria for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places or the State Register of Historic Places as determined by the director of the Minnesota Historical Society; or (c) An unplatted cemetery that falls under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, chapter 307, in consultation with the Office of the State Archaeologist. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE means a constructed hard surface that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil and causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities and at an increased rate of flow than prior to development. Examples include rooftops, decks, sidewalks, patios, parking lots, storage areas, and driveways, including those with concrete, asphalt, or gravel surfaces. INTENSIVE VEGETATION CLEARING means the removal of all or a majority of the trees or shrubs in a contiguous patch, strip, row, or block. INTERIM USE has the meaning given under Minnesota Statutes, section 462. KEYSTONE SPECIES means a species on which other species in an ecosystem largely depend, such that if it were removed the ecosystem would change drastically. LAND ALTERATION means an activity that exposes the soil or changes the topography, drainage, or cross section of the land, excluding gardening or similar minor soil disturbances. LOCAL GOVERNMENT means counties, cities, and townships. LOT has the meaning given under Minnesota Rules, chapter 6120. LOT WIDTH means the shortest distance between lot lines measured at both the ordinary high-water level and at the required structure setback from the ordinary high-water level. [See Figure 3 – below]. FIGURE 3: LOT WIDTH DIAGRAM MARINA has the meaning given under Minnesota Rules, chapter 6115. MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA (MRCCA) means the area within the River Corridor Boundary (refer to separate definition noted herein). MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA PLAN means a chapter in the City of Mendota Heights comprehensive plan. MOORING FACILITY has the meaning given under Minnesota Rules, chapter 6115.0170. NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITY means a plant community that has been identified as part of the Minnesota Biological Survey or biological survey issued or adopted by a local, state, or federal agency. NATIVE VEGETATION means vegetation comprised of plant species, other than noxious weeds or invasive vegetation, that are indigenous to a region, and which reasonably could occur or flourish naturally on a site. NATURAL-SURFACE TRAIL means a trail composed of native soil and rock or compacted granular stone, primarily intended for hiking, equestrian, or mountain bike use, as determined by local, regional, or state agency plans. NATURAL VEGETATION means any combination of ground cover (excluding any vegetation considered invasive), understory, and tree canopy that, while it may have been altered by human activity, continues to stabilize soils, retain and filter runoff, provide habitat, and recharge groundwater. NONCONFORMITY has the meaning given under Minnesota Statutes, section 394.22. NONMETALLIC MINING means the construction, reconstruction, repair, relocation, expansion, or removal of any facility for the extraction, stockpiling, storage, disposal, or reclamation of nonmetallic minerals such a stone, sand, and gravel. Nonmetallic mining does not include ancillary facilities such as access roads, bridges, culverts, and water level control structures. For purposes of this subpart, “facility” includes all mine pits, quarries, stockpiles, basins, processing structures and equipment, and any structures that drain or divert public waters to allow mining. OFF-PREMISES ADVERTISING SIGNS means signs that direct attention to a product, service, business, or entertainment venue that is not exclusively related to the premises where the sign is located. ORDINARY HIGH-WATER LEVEL (OHWL) has the meaning given under Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.005. OVERLAY DISTRICT means a zoning district that is applied over one or more previously established zoning districts, establishing additional or stricter standards and criteria for covered properties in addition to those of the underlying zoning district. Overlay districts are often used to protect historic features and natural resources such as shoreland or floodplain. PARCEL has the meaning given under Minnesota Statutes, section 116G.03. PATIO means a constructed hard surface located at ground level with no railings and open to the sky. PICNIC SHELTER means a roofed structure open on all sides, accessory to a recreational use. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) means a method of land development that merges zoning and subdivision controls, allowing developers to plan and develop a large area as a single entity, characterized by a unified site design, a mix of structure types and land uses, and/or phasing of development over a number of years. Planned unit development includes any conversion of existing structures and land uses that utilize this method of development. PLAT has the meaning given under Minnesota Statutes, sections 505 and 515B. PORT means a water transportation complex established and operated under the jurisdiction of a port authority according to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 458. PRIMARY CONSERVATION AREAS (PCA) means resources and features, including shore impact zones, bluff impact zones, floodplains, wetlands, gorges, areas of confluence with tributaries, natural drainage routes, underground springs, unstable soils and bedrock, native plant communities, cultural and historic properties, and significant existing vegetative stands, tree canopies, and other resources identified in local government plans. PRIVATE FACILITIES mean private roads, driveways, and parking areas, private water access and viewing facilities, decks and patios in setback areas, and private signs. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER means an engineer licensed to practice in Minnesota. PUBLIC FACILITIES mean public utilities, public transportation facilities, and public recreational facilities. PUBLIC RECREATION FACILITIES mean recreational facilities provided by the state or a local government and dedicated to public use, including parks, scenic overlooks, observation platforms, trails, docks, fishing piers, picnic shelters, water access ramps, and other similar water-oriented public facilities used for recreation. PUBLIC RIVER CORRIDOR VIEWS (PRCVs) means views toward the river from public parkland, historic properties, and public overlooks, as well as views toward bluffs from the ordinary high water level of the opposite shore, as seen during the summer months and documented in the MRCCA chapter of the comprehensive plan. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES mean all transportation facilities provided by federal, state, or local government and dedicated to public use, such as roadways, transit facilities, railroads, and bikeways. PUBLIC UTILITIES mean electric power facilities, essential services, and transmission services. PUBLIC WATERS has the meaning given under Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.005. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR is a person designated by the City Administrator and approved by the City Council as being jointly responsible for the administration of this chapter. READILY VISIBLE means land and development that are easily seen from the ordinary high- water level of the opposite shore during summer months. RESOURCE AGENCY means a federal, state, regional, or local agency that engages in environmental, natural, or cultural resource protection or restoration activities, including planning, implementation, and monitoring. RETAINING WALL means a vertical or nearly vertical structure constructed of mortar and rubble masonry, rock, or stone regardless of size, vertical timber pilings, horizontal timber planks with piling supports, sheet pilings, poured concrete, concrete blocks, or other durable materials. ROCK RIPRAP means natural coarse rock placed or constructed to armor shorelines, streambeds, bridge abutments, pilings and other shoreline structures against scour, or water or ice erosion. RIVER CORRIDOR BOUNDARY means the boundary approved and adopted by the Metropolitan Council under Minnesota Statutes, section 116G.06, as approved and adopted by the legislature in Minnesota Statutes, section 116G.15, and as legally described in the Sate Register, volume 43, pages 508 to 518. RIVER-DEPENDENT USE means the use of land for commercial, industrial, or utility purposes, where access to and use of a public water feature is an integral part of the normal conduct of business and where the use is dependent on shoreline facilities. SELECTIVE VEGETATION REMOVAL means the removal of isolated individual trees or shrubs that are not in a contiguous patch, strip, row, or block and that does not substantially reduce the tree canopy or understory cover. SETBACK means a separation distance measured horizontally. SHORE IMPACT ZONE (SIZ) means land located between the ordinary high-water level of public waters and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50 percent of the required structure setback or, for agricultural use, 50 feet landward of the ordinary high water level. [See Figure 4 – below]. FIGURE 4: SHORE IMPACT ZONE DIAGRAM SHORELINE FACILITIES means facilities that require a location adjoining public waters for ingress and egress, loading and unloading, and public water intake and outflow, such as barge facilities, port facilities, commodity loading and unloading equipment, watercraft lifts, marinas, short-term watercraft mooring facilities for patrons, and water access ramps. Structures that would be enhanced by a shoreline location, but do not require a location adjoining public waters as part of their function, are not shoreline facilities, such as restaurants, bait shops, and boat dealerships. STEEP SLOPE means a natural topographic feature with an average slope of twelve percent (12%) to eighteen percent (18%), measured over a horizontal distance equal to or greater than fifty (50) feet, and any slopes greater than eighteen percent (18%) that are not bluffs. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES means facilities for the collection, conveyance, treatment, or disposal of storm water. STRUCTURE means anything constructed or installed or portable, except for aerial or underground utility lines such as sewer, electric, telephone, or gas lines, and utility line towers, poles, and other supporting appurtenances, the use of which requires a location on a parcel of land. It includes a movable structure while it is located on land which can be used for housing, business, commercial, agricultural, or office purposes either temporarily or permanently. Structure also includes fences, decks, billboards, swimming pools, and advertising signs. SUBDIVISION has the meaning given under Minnesota Statutes, section 462.352. SUBSURFACE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM (SSTS) has the meaning given under Minnesota Rules, part 7080.1100. TRANSMISSION SERVICES means: A. Electric power lines, cables, pipelines, or conduits that are: (1) used to transport power between two points, as identified and defined under Minnesota Statutes, section 216E.01, subdivision 4; or (2) for mains or pipelines for gas, liquids, or solids in suspension, used to transport gas, liquids, or solids in suspension between two points; and B. Telecommunication lines, cables, pipelines, or conduits. TREELINE means the more or less continuous line formed by the tops of trees in a wooded area when viewed from a particular point. The treeline is determined during all seasons as if under full foliage. UNDERGROUND SPRING means a place where water moving underground finds an opening to the land surface and emerges, sometimes as just a trickle, and in some cases only after a storm event, and in some cases seen in a continuous flow of water. VARIANCE means any modification or variation of official controls that a municipality has approved in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 462.357, subd. 6(2). WATER ACCESS RAMP means a boat ramp, carry-down site, boarding dock, and approach road, or other access that allows launching and removal of a boat, canoe, or other watercraft with or without a vehicle and trailer. WATER-ORIENTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE means a small building or other improvement, except stairways, fences, docks, and retaining walls, that, because of the relationship of its use to public waters, needs to be located closer to public waters than the normal structure setback. Examples include gazebos, screen houses, fish houses, pump houses, and detached decks and patios. WATER QUALITY IMPACT ZONE means land within the shore impact zone or within 50 feet of the OHWL of the river, whichever is greater, and land within 50 feet of a public water, wetland, or natural drainage route. WETLAND has the meaning given under Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.005. WHARF has the meaning given under Minnesota Rules, part 6115.0170. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR is a person designated by the City Administrator and approved by the City Council as being jointly responsible for the administration of this chapter. 12-3-3: ADMINISTRATION: A. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to identify administrative provisions to ensure this chapter is administered consistent with its purpose. B. Permits. A critical area permit is required for the construction of any new structure, building(s) or building additions, including construction of decks, retaining walls, signs, the installation and/or alteration of sewage treatment systems, vegetation removal consistent with Section 12-3-9 and land alterations consistent with Section 12-3-10. C. Variances. Variances to the requirements under this chapter may only be granted in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 462.357 and must consider the potential impacts of variances on primary conservation areas (PCAs), public river corridor views (PRCVs), and other resources identified in the MRCCA plan. In reviewing the variance application, and before granting a variance, the city shall: 1. Evaluate the impacts to these resources. If negative impacts are found, require conditions to mitigate the impacts that are related to and proportional to the impacts, and consistent with Section 12-3-3.E (below); and 2. Make written findings that the variance is consistent with the purposes and scope of this chapter as follows. a. The extent, location and intensity of the variance will be in substantial compliance with the MRCCA Plan; b. The variance is consistent with the character and management purpose of the MRCCA district in which it is located; c. The variance will not be detrimental to PCAs and PRCVs nor will it contribute to negative incremental impacts to PCAs and PRCVs when considered in the context of past, present and reasonable future actions; and d. The variance will not negatively affect other MRCCA resources identified in the city’s MRCCA Plan such as wetlands, river overlooks, parks and open space. D. Conditional and Interim Use Permits. All conditional and interim uses required under this chapter must comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 462.3595 and 462.3597 respectively, and must consider the potential impacts on primary conservation areas, public river corridor views, and other resources identified in the city’s MRCCA plan. In reviewing the application, and before granting a conditional or interim use permit, the city shall: 1. Evaluate the impacts to these resources and if negative impacts are found, require conditions to mitigate the impacts that are related to and proportional to the impacts, consistent with Section 12-3-3.E (below); and 2. Make written findings that the conditional or interim use is consistent with the purpose of this chapter as follows. a. The extent, location and intensity of the conditional or interim use will be in substantial compliance with the MRCCA plan; b. The conditional or interim use is consistent with the character and management purpose of the MRCCA district in which it is located; c. The conditional or interim use will not be detrimental to PCAs and PRCVs nor will it contribute to negative incremental impacts to PCAs and PRCVs when considered in the context of past, present, and reasonable future actions; and d. The conditional or interim use will not negatively affect other resources identified in the city’s MRCCA plan, such as wetlands, river overlooks, and parks and open space. E. Conditions of Approval and Mitigation. The city shall evaluate the impacts to PCAs, PRCVs and other resources identified in the MRCCA Plan, and if negative impacts are found, require conditions to mitigate the impacts that are related to and proportional to the impacts. Mitigation may include, but is not limited to: 1. Restoration of vegetation identified as “vegetation restoration priorities” in the city’s MRCCA plan. 2. Preservation of existing vegetation; 3. Increasing, enhancing, and or connecting habitat for pollinators, birds, and other wildlife; 4. Stormwater runoff management; 5. Reducing impervious surfaces; 6. Increasing structure setbacks; 7. Wetland and drainage route restoration and/or preservation 8. Limiting the height of structures; 9. Modifying structure design to limit visual impacts on the PRCVs; and 10. Other conservation measures. F. Nonconformities. 1. All legally established nonconformities as of the date of this ordinance may continue and will be regulated consistent with Minnesota Statutes, section 462.357, Subd. 1e. 2. New structures erected in conformance with the setback averaging provisions of Section 12-3-6.C.4 are conforming structures. 3. Site alterations and expansion of site alterations that were legally made prior to the effective date of this ordinance are conforming. Site alterations include vegetation, erosion control, storm water control measures, and other nonstructural site improvements. 4. Legally nonconforming principal structures that do not meet the setback requirements of Section 12-3-6.C may be expanded laterally provided that: a. The expansion does not extend into the shore or bluff impact zone or further into the required setback than the building line of the existing principal structure [See Figure 5 – below]; and b. The expanded structure’s scale and bulk is consistent with that of the original structure and existing surrounding development. FIGURE 5: EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES DIAGRAM G. Accommodating disabilities. Reasonable accommodation for ramps and other facilities to provide persons with disabilities access to the person’s property, as required by the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and the federal Fair Housing Act and as provided by Minnesota Rules, chapter 1341, must: 1. Comply with Sections 12-3-6 to 12-3-15; or 2. If Sections 12-3-6 to 12-3-15 cannot be complied with, ramps or other facilities are allowed with an administrative permit provided: a. The permit terminates on either a specific date or upon occurrence of a particular event related to the person requiring accommodation, provided that the permit’s termination date may be extended or the termination event may be modified upon request, as required by federal and state law; and b. Upon expiration of the permit, the ramp or other facilities must be removed. 12-3-4: MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA (MRCCA) DISTRICTS: A. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to establish districts under which building height and structure placement are regulated to protect and enhance the Mississippi River’s resources and features consistent with the natural and built character of each district. B. MRCCA District Map. The locations and boundaries of the MRCCA districts established by this chapter are shown on the MRCCA Overlay District Map which is incorporated herein by reference. The district boundary lines are intended to follow the centerlines of rivers and streams, highways, streets, lot lines, and municipal boundaries, unless a boundary line is otherwise indicated on the map. Where district boundaries cross property that has not be subdivided, the district boundary line is determined by the use of dimensions or the scale appearing on the map. For purposes of determining the application of this chapter to any particular parcel of land, the above referenced map shall be on file in the office of the zoning administrator and shall be available for inspection and copying. C. District Description and Management Purpose. The MRCCA within the city is divided into the following three (3) separate MRCCA Districts: 1. Rural and Open Space (ROS). a. Description. The ROS District is characterized by rural and low-density development patterns and land uses, and includes land that is riparian or visible from the river, as well as large, undeveloped tracts of high ecological and scenic value, floodplain, and undeveloped islands. Many primary conservation areas exist in the district. b. Management purpose. The ROS District must be managed to sustain and restore the rural and natural character of the corridor and to protect and enhance habitat, parks and open space, public river corridor views, and scenic, natural, and historic areas. 2. River Neighborhood (RN). a. Description. The RN district is characterized by primarily residential neighborhoods that are riparian or readily visible from the river or that abut riparian parkland. The district includes parks and open space, limited commercial development, marinas, and related land uses. b. Management purpose. The RN district must be managed to maintain the character of the river corridor within the context of existing residential and related neighborhood development, and to protect and enhance habitat, parks and open space, public river corridor views, and scenic, natural, and historic areas. Minimizing erosion and the flow of untreated storm water into the river and enhancing habitat and shoreline vegetation are priorities in the district. 3. Separated from River (SR). a. Description. The SR district is characterized by its physical and visual distance from the Mississippi River. The district includes land separated from the river by distance topography, development, or a transportation corridor. The land in this district is not readily visible from the Mississippi River. b. Management purpose. The SR district provides flexibility in managing development without negatively affecting the key resources and features of the river corridor. Minimizing negative impacts to primary conservation areas and minimizing erosion and the flow of untreated storm water into the river are priorities in the district. In addition, providing public access to and public views of the river, and restoring natural vegetation in riparian areas and tree canopy are also priorities in the district. 12-3-5: SPECIAL LAND USE PROVISIONS: A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to identify development standards and considerations for land uses that have potential to negatively impact primary conservation areas and public river corridor views. B. Underlying zoning. Uses within the MRCCA are generally determined by underlying zoning, with additional provisions for the following land uses: 1. Agricultural use. Perennial ground cover is required within 50 feet of the ordinary high water level and within the bluff impact zone. 2. Feedlots. New animal feedlots and manure storage areas are prohibited. Existing animal feedlots and manure storage areas must conform with Minnesota Rules, chapter 7020. 3. Forestry. Tree harvesting and biomass harvesting within woodlands, and associated reforestation, must be consistent with recommended practices in Conserving Wooded Areas in Developing Communities: Best Management Practices in Minnesota. 4. Nonmetallic mining. Nonmetallic mining requires a conditional use permit or interim use permit issued by the local government, subject to the following: a. New nonmetallic mining is prohibited within the shore impact zone and bluff impact zone and within the required structure setback from the bluffline and OHWL; b. Processing machinery must be located consistent with setback standards for structures as provided in Section 12-3-6.C; c. Only one barge loading area, which must be limited to the minimum size practicable, is permitted for each mining operation; d. New and, where practicable, existing nonmetallic mining operations must not be readily visible and must be screened by establishing and maintaining natural vegetation. The unscreened boundaries of nonmetallic mining areas are limited to only the barge loading area; e. A site management plan must be developed by the operator and approved by the local government before new nonmetallic mining commences. Operations must be consistent with the site plan throughout the duration of operations at the site. The site management plan must: (1) Describe how the site will be developed over time with an emphasis on minimizing environmental risk to public waters; (2) Explain where staged reclamation may occur at certain points during the life of the site; (3) Address dust, noise, storm water management, possible pollutant discharges, days and hours of operation, and duration of operations; and (4) Describe any anticipated vegetation and topographic alterations outside the pit, and reclamation plans consistent with the stated end use for the land; and; f. Existing and new nonmetallic mining operations must submit land reclamation plans to the local government compatible with the purposes of this ordinance. 5. River-dependent uses. River-dependent uses must comply with the following design standards: a. Structures and parking areas, except shoreline facilities and private roads and conveyances serving river-dependent uses as provided in Section 12-3-15, must meet the dimensional and performance standards in this Chapter must be designed so that they are not readily visible, and must be screened by establishing and maintaining natural vegetation; b. Shoreline facilities must comply with Minnesota Rules, chapter 6115 and must: (1) Be designed in a compact fashion so as to minimize the shoreline area affected; and (2) Minimize the surface area of land occupied in relation to the number of watercraft or barges to be served; and c. Dredging and placement of dredged material are subject to existing federal and state permit requirements and agreements. 6. Wireless communication towers. Wireless communication towers require a conditional or interim use permit and are subject to the following design standards: a. The applicant must demonstrate that functional coverage cannot be provided through co-location, a tower at a lower height, or a tower at a location outside of the MRCCA; b. The tower must not be located in a bluff or shore impact zone; and c. Placement of the tower must minimize impacts on public river corridor views. d. Comply with the general design standards in Section 12-3-8.B. 12-3-6: STRUCTURE HEIGHT, PLACEMENT AND LOT SIZE: A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish standards that protect primary conservation areas and public river corridor views from development impacts and ensure that new development is sited consistent with the purpose of the MRCCA. B. Structure height. Structures and facilities must comply with the following standards unless identified as exempt in Section 12-3-15. 1. ROS District: the lesser of the height standard as determined by the underlying zoning district or thirty-five (35) feet. 2. RN District: the lesser of the height standard as determined by the underlying zoning district or thirty-five (35) feet. 3. SR district: Height is determined by the underlying zoning district, provided the allowed height is consistent with that of the mature tree line, where preset, and existing surrounding development, as viewed from the OHWL of the opposite shore. 4. Height shall be measured on the side of the structure facing the Mississippi River. 5. In addition to the conditional use permit requirements of Section 12-3-3.D, criteria for considering whether to grant a conditional use permit for structures exceeding the height limits must include: a. Assessment of the visual impact of the proposed structure on public river corridor views, including views from other communities; b. Determination that the proposed structure meets the required bluff and OHWL setbacks; c. Identification and application of techniques to minimize the perceived bulk of the proposed structure, such as: (1) Placing the long axis of the building perpendicular to the river; (2) Stepping back of portions of the facade; (3) Lowering the roof pitch or use of a flat roof; (4) Using building materials or mitigation techniques that will blend in with the natural surroundings such as green roofs, green walls, or other green and brown building materials; (5) Narrowing the profile of upper floors of the building; or (6) Increasing the setbacks of the building from the Mississippi River or blufflines; d. Identification of techniques for preservation of those view corridors identified in the MRCCA Plan; and e. Opportunities for creation or enhancement of public river corridor views. C. Location of Structure and Impervious Surfaces. 1. Structures and impervious surfaces must not be placed in the shore or bluff impact zones unless identified as an exemption in Section 12-3-15. 2. Structures and facilities, including impervious surfaces, must comply with the following OHWL setback provisions unless identified as exempt in Section 12-3-15. a. ROS District: 200 feet from the Mississippi River and 150 feet from the Minnesota River. b. RN District: 100 feet from the Mississippi River. c. SR District: (not applicable in the City of Mendota Heights) 3. Structures and facilities including impervious surfaces, must comply with the following bluffline setback provisions unless identified as exempt in Section 12-3-15: a. ROS District: 100 feet. b. RN District: 40 feet. c. SR District: 40 feet. 4. Where principal structures exist on the adjoining lots on both sides of a proposed building site, the minimum setback may be altered to conform to the average of the adjoining setbacks, if the new structure's scale and bulk riverward or bluffward of the setbacks required under Sections 12-3-6.C.2 and 12-3-6.C.3 are consistent with adjoining development. [See Figure 6 – below]. FIGURE 6: STRUCTURE SETBACK AVERAGING DIAGRAM 5. Subsurface sewage treatment systems, including the septic tank and absorption area, must be located at least 75 feet from the ordinary high water level of the Mississippi River and all other public waters. D. Lot Size and Buildable Area. 1. Lots abutting the Mississippi River in the ROS District must be at least two hundred feet (200’) in width, unless alternative design methods are used that provide greater protection of the riparian area. 2. All new lots must have adequate buildable area to comply with the setback requirements of Sections 12-3-6.C.2 and 12-3-6.C.3 so as to not require variances to use the lots for their intended purpose. 12-3-7: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE FACILITIES: A. Purpose. To establish design standards for private facilities that are consistent with best management practices and that minimize impacts to primary conservation areas, public river corridor views and other resources identified in the MRCCA plan. B. General design standards. All private facilities must be developed in accordance with the vegetation management and land alteration and storm water management requirements in Sections 12-3-9 and 12-3-10. C. Private roads, driveways, and parking areas. Except as provided in Section 12-3-15, private roads, driveways, and parking areas must: 1. Be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography so that they are not readily visible; 2. Comply with structure setback requirements according to Section 12-3-6.C; and 3. Not be placed within the bluff impact zone or shore impact zone, unless exempt under Section 12-3-15 and designed consistent with Section 12-3-8.B. D. Private water access and viewing facilities. 1. Private access paths must be no more than: a. Eight feet (8’) wide, if placed within the shore impact zone; and b. Four feet (4’) wide, if placed within the bluff impact zone. 2. Private water access ramps must: a. comply with Minnesota Rules, parts 6115.0210 and 6280.0250; and b. be designed and constructed consistent with the applicable standards in Design Handbook for Recreational Boating and Fishing Facilities. 3. Design and construction of private stairways, lifts, and landings are subject to the following standards: a. Stairways and lifts must not exceed four feet (4’) in width on residential lots. Wider stairways may be used for commercial properties and residential facilities held in common, if approved by a conditional use permit; b. Landings for stairways and lifts on residential lots must not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in area. Landings larger than 32 square feet are allowed for commercial properties and residential facilities held in common, if approved by a conditional use permit; c. Canopies or roofs are prohibited on stairways, lifts, or landings; d. Stairways, lifts, and landings must be located in the least visible portion of the lot whenever practical; and e. Ramps, lifts, mobility paths, or other facilities for persons with physical disabilities are allowed for achieving access to shore areas according to Section 12-3-7.D.3.a. through d. (as noted above), and as provided under Section 12-3-3.G. 4. One water-oriented accessory structure is allowed for each riparian lot or parcel less than three-hundred feet (300’) in width at the ordinary high water level, with one additional water-oriented accessory structure allowed for each additional 300 feet of shoreline on the same lot or parcel. Water-oriented accessory structures are prohibited in the bluff impact zone and must: a. Not exceed twelve feet (12’) in height; b. Not exceed one hundred twenty (120) square feet in area; and c. Be placed a minimum of ten feet (10’) from the ordinary high water level. E. Decks and patios in setback areas. Decks and at-grade patios may encroach into the required setbacks from the ordinary high water level and blufflines without a variance, when consistent with Sections 12-3-9 and 12-3-10, provided that: 1. The encroachment of the deck or patio into the required setback area does not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the required structure setback; 2. The area of the deck or patio that extends into the required setback area occupies no more than twenty five percent (25%) of the total area between the required setback and the 15 percent using the formula: [Required setback depth (ft.) x 0.15 x lot width at setback (ft.) x 0.25 = maximum total area] 3. The deck or patio does not extend into the bluff impact zone. [See Figure 7 – below]. FIGURE 7: DECK AND PATIO ENCROACHMENT DIAGRAM F. Fences. Fences between principal structures and the river are allowed if fences are: 1. not higher than six feet (6’); 2. not located within the SIZ and BIZ; and 3. not located in the regulatory floodplain. 12-3-8: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES: A. Purpose. To establish design standards for public facilities that are consistent with best management practices and that minimize impacts to primary conservation areas, public river corridor views and other resources identified in the MRCCA plan. Public facilities serve the public interest by providing public access to the Mississippi River corridor or require locations in or adjacent to the river corridor and therefore require some degree of flexibility. B. General design standards. All public facilities must be designed and constructed to: 1. Minimize visibility of the facility from the river to the extent consistent with the purpose of the facility; 2. Comply with the structure placement and height standards in Section 12-3-6, except as provided in Section 12-3-15; 3. Be consistent with the vegetation management standards in Section 12-3-9 and the land alteration and storm water management standards in Section 12-3-10, including use of practices identified in Best Practices for Meeting DNR General Public Waters Work Permit GP 2004-0001, where applicable; 4. Avoid primary conservation areas, unless no alternative exists. If no alternative exists, then disturbance to primary conservation areas must be avoided to the greatest extent practicable, and design and construction must minimize impacts; and 5. Minimize disturbance of spawning and nesting times by scheduling construction at times when local fish and wildlife are not spawning or nesting. 6. Minimize disturbance during bird migration and nesting times by scheduling construction at times when birds are not migrating or nesting. C. Right-of-way maintenance standards. Right-of-way maintenance must comply with the following standards: 1. Vegetation currently in a natural state must be maintained to the extent feasible; 2. Where vegetation in a natural state has been removed, native plants must be planted and maintained on the right-of-way; and 3. Chemical control of vegetation must be avoided when practical, but when chemical control is necessary the chemicals used must be in accordance with the regulations and other requirements of all state and federal agencies with authority over the chemical’s use. D. Crossings of public waters or public land. Crossings of public waters or land controlled by the Commissioner are subject to approval by the Commissioner according to Minnesota Statutes, sections 84.415 and 103G.245. E. Public utilities. Public utilities must comply with the following standards: 1. High-voltage transmission lines, wind energy conversion systems greater than five (5) megawatts, and pipelines are regulated according to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 216E, 216F, and 216G respectively; and 2. If overhead placement is necessary, utility facility crossings must minimize the visibility of the facility from the river and follow other existing right of ways as much as practicable. 3. The appearance of structures must be as compatible as practicable with the surrounding area in a natural state with regard to height and width, materials used, and color. 4. Wireless communication facilities must comply with Section 12-3-5.B.6. F. Public transportation facilities. Public transportation facilities shall comply with the structure placement and height standards in Section 12-3-6. Where such facilities intersect or abut two or more MRCCA districts, the least restrictive standards apply. Public transportation facilities must be designed and constructed to give priority to: 1. Providing scenic overlooks for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians; 2. Providing safe pedestrian crossings and facilities along the river corridor; 3. Providing access to the riverfront in public ownership; and 4. Allowing for use of the land between the river and the transportation facility. G. Public recreational facilities. Public recreational facilities must comply with the following standards: 1. Buildings and parking associated with public recreational facilities must comply with the structure placement and height standards in Section 12-3-6, except as provided in Section 12-3-15; 2. Roads and driveways associated with public recreational facilities must not be placed in the bluff or shore impact zones unless no other placement alternative exists. If no alternative exists, then design and construction must minimize impacts to shoreline vegetation, erodible soils and slopes, and other sensitive resources. 3. Trails, access paths, and viewing areas associated with public recreational facilities and providing access to or views of the Mississippi River are allowed within the bluff and shore impact zones if design, construction, and maintenance methods are consistent with the best management practice guidelines in the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ Trail Planning, Design, and Development Guidelines. a. Hard-surface trails are not allowed on the face of bluffs with a slope exceeding thirty percent (30%). Natural surface trails are allowed, provided they do not exceed eight feet (8’) in width. b. Trails, paths, and viewing areas must be designed and constructed to minimize: (1) Visibility from the river; (2) Visual impacts on public river corridor views; and (3) Disturbance to and fragmentation of primary conservation areas. 4. Public water access facilities must comply with the following requirements: a. Watercraft access ramps must comply with Minnesota Rules, chapters 6115.0210 and 6280.0250; and b. Facilities must be designed and constructed consistent with the standards in the Design Handbook for Recreational Boating and Fishing Facilities. 5. Public signs and kiosks for interpretive or directional purposes are allowed in the bluff or shore impact zones, provided they are placed and constructed to minimize disturbance to these areas and avoid visual impacts on public river corridor views. If illuminated, the lighting must be fully shielded and be directed downward. 6. Public stairways, lifts, and landings must be designed as provided in Section 12-3-7.D.3. 12-3-9: VEGETATION MANAGEMENT: A. Purpose. To establish standards that sustain and enhance the biological and ecological functions of vegetation; preserve the natural character and topography of the MRCCA; and maintain the stability of bluffs and steep slopes and ensure stability of other erosion-prone areas. B. Applicability. This section applies to: 1. Shore impact zones; 2. Areas within 50 feet of a wetland or natural drainage route; 3. Bluff impact zones; 4. Areas of native plant communities; and 5. Significant existing vegetation stands identified in the MRCCA plan. C. Activities allowed without a vegetation permit. 1. Maintenance of existing lawns, landscaping and gardens; 2. Removal of vegetation in emergency situations as determined by the city; 3. Right-of-way maintenance for public facilities meeting the standards in Section 12-3-8.C; 4. Agricultural and forestry activities meeting the standards of Section 12-3-5.B.1 and 12-3- 5.B.3; 5. Selective vegetation removal, provided that vegetative cover remains consistent with the management purpose of the MRCCA District, including the removal of: a. Vegetation that is dead, diseased, dying, or hazardous; b. Vegetation to prevent the spread of diseases or insect pests; c. An individual tree or shrub; and d. Invasive non-native species. D. Activities allowed with a vegetation permit. 1. Only the following intensive vegetation clearing activities are allowed with a vegetation permit: a. Clearing of vegetation that is dead, diseased, dying, or hazardous; b. Clearing to prevent the spread of diseases or insect pests; c. Clearing to remove invasive, non-native species; d. Selective removal of keystone species; e. Clearing to prepare for restoration and erosion control management activities consistent with a plan approved by the city; and f. The minimum necessary for development that is allowed with a building permit or as an exemption under Section 12-3-15. 2. General Performance Standards. The following standards must be met, in addition to a restoration plan under Section 12-3-9.F, in order for the City to approve a vegetation permit: a. Development is sited to minimize removal of or disturbance to natural vegetation; b. Soil slope stability, and hydrologic conditions are suitable for the proposed work as determined by the City Engineer; c. Clearing is the minimum necessary and designed to blend with the natural terrain and minimize visual impacts to public river corridor views and other scenic views; d. Vegetation removal activities are conducted to expose the smallest practical area of soil to erosion for the least possible time, and to avoid bird migration and nesting seasons; and e. Any other condition determined necessary to achieve the purpose of this section. E. Prohibited activities. All other intensive vegetation clearing is prohibited. F. Vegetation restoration plan. 1. Development of a vegetation restoration plan and reestablishment of native vegetation is required. a. For any vegetation removed with a permit issued under Section 12-3-9.D (above); b. Upon failure to comply with any provisions in this section; or c. As part of the planning process for subdivisions as provided in Section 12-3-11. 2. Restoration Plan Performance Standards. The vegetation restoration plan must satisfy the application submittal requirements in Section 12-3-12 and: a. Vegetation must be restored in one or more of the following restoration priority areas: (1) Areas with soils showing signs of erosion, especially on or near the top and bottom of steep slopes and bluffs; (2) Shoreline areas within twenty-five feet (25’) of the water with no natural vegetation, degraded vegetation, or planted with turf grass; (3) Areas on steep slopes and bluffs that are visible from the river with no natural vegetation, degraded vegetation, or planted with turf grass; or (4) Other approved priority opportunity areas, including priorities identified in the MRCCA plan. b. Include native vegetation that provides suitable habitat and effective soil stability, runoff retention, and infiltration capability. Vegetation species, composition, density, and diversity must be guided by nearby patches of native plant communities and by Native Vegetation Establishment and Enhancement Guidelines; c. Any highly erodible soils disturbed during removal and/or restoration must be stabilized with deep-rooted vegetation with a high stem density. d. Vegetation removed must be restored with native vegetation to the greatest extent practicable. The area (square feet) of the restored vegetation should be similar to that removed to the greatest extent practicable. e. For restoration of removed native plant communities, restored vegetation must also provide biological and ecological function equivalent to the removed native plant communities. The area (square feet) of the restored vegetation should be equivalent to that removed. f. Be prepared by a qualified individual or a licensed professional familiar with and experienced with native landscape materials and planting techniques, and g. Include a maintenance plan that includes management provisions for controlling invasive species and replacement of plant loss for three (3) years. 3. The city will issue a certificate of compliance after the vegetation restoration plan requirements have been completed to the satisfaction of Public Works Director. 12-3-10: LAND ALTERATION STANDARDS AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: A. Purpose. To establish standards that protect water quality from pollutant loadings of sediment, nutrients, bacteria, and other contaminants, and maintain the stability of bluffs, shorelines, and other areas prone to erosion. B. Land Alteration. 1. Within the bluff impact zone (BIZ), land alteration is prohibited, except for the following, which are allowed only by permit. a. Erosion control consistent with a plan approved by the City and consistent with Section 12-3-10.F. b. The minimum necessary for development that is allowed as an exception under Section 12-3-15; and c. Repair and maintenance of existing buildings and facilities. 2. Within the water quality impact zone, land alteration that involves more than ten (10) cubic yards of material or affects an area greater than one thousand (1,000) square feet requires a permit. C. Rock riprap, retaining walls, and other erosion control structures. 1. Construction, repair, or replacement of rock riprap, retaining walls, and other erosion control structures located at or below the OHWL must comply with Minnesota Rules, part 6115.0215, Subp. 4, item E, and 6115.0216, Subp. 2. Work must not proceed until approved by the commissioner, permitted by the US Army Corps of Engineers and all other permits are obtained. [See Figure 8 – below]. FIGURE 8: RIPRAP GUIDELINES DIAGRAM 2. Construction or replacement of rock riprap, retaining walls, and other erosion control structures within the bluff impact zone and the water quality impact zone are allowed with a permit consistent with the provisions of Section 12-3-10.F provided that: a. If the project includes work at or below the OHWL, the commissioner must approve or permit the project. b. The structures are used only to correct an established erosion problem as determined by the city. c. The size and extent of the structures are the minimum necessary to correct the erosion problem and are not larger than the following, unless a professional engineer determines that a larger structure is needed to correct the erosion problem: (1) Retaining walls must not exceed five (5) feet in height and must be placed a minimum horizontal distance of ten (10) feet apart; and (2) Riprap must not exceed the height of the regulatory flood protection elevation. 3. Repair of existing rock riprap, retaining walls, and other erosion control structures above the OHWL does not require a permit provided it does not involve any land alteration. D. Stormwater management. 1. In the bluff impact zone, stormwater management facilities are prohibited, except by permit if: a. There are no alternatives for storm water treatment outside the bluff impact zone on the subject site; b. The site generating runoff is designed so that the amount of runoff reaching the bluff impact zone is reduced to the greatest extent practicable; c. The construction and operation of the facility does not affect slope stability on the subject property or adjacent properties; and d. Mitigation based on the best available engineering and geological practices is required and applied to eliminate or minimize the risk of slope failure. 2. In the water quality impact zone, development that creates new impervious surface, as allowed by exemption in Section 12-3-15, or fully reconstructs existing impervious surface of more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet requires a storm water permit. Multipurpose trails and sidewalks are exempt if there is down-gradient vegetation or a filter strip that is at least five feet (5’) wide. 3. In all other areas, storm water runoff must be directed away from the bluff impact zones or unstable areas. E. Development on steep slopes. Construction of structures, impervious surfaces, land alteration, vegetation removal, or other construction activities may be allowed on steep slopes, except for those areas in the BIZ, and only if: 1. The applicant can demonstrate that the proposed development can be accomplished without increasing erosion or storm water runoff; 2. The soil types and geology are suitable for the proposed development; and 3. Vegetation is managed according to the requirements of Section 12-3-9. F. Conditions of land alteration permit approval. No permit for land alteration shall be approved unless: 1. Temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control measures to retain sediment onsite are consistent with the best management practices in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual; 2. Natural site topography, and soil and vegetation conditions are used to control runoff and reduce erosion and sedimentation; 3. Construction activity is phased when possible; 4. All erosion and sediment controls are installed before starting any land disturbance activity; 5. Erosion and sediment controls are maintained to ensure effective operation; 6. The proposed work is consistent with the vegetation standards in Section 12-3-9; and 7. Best management practices are used for protecting and enhancing ecological and water resources as identified in Best Practices for Meeting DNR General Public Waters Work Permit GP 2004-0001. G. Compliance with other plans and programs. All development must: 1. Be consistent with Minnesota Statutes, chapter 103B, and local water management plans completed under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 8410; 2. Meet or exceed the wetland protection standards under Minnesota Rules, chapter 8420; and 3. Meet or exceed the floodplain management standards under Minnesota Rules, sections 6120. 5000 – 6120.6200. 12-3-11: SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: A. Purpose. 1. To protect and enhance the natural and scenic values of the MRCCA during development or redevelopment of the remaining large sites within the corridor; 2. To establish standards for protecting and restoring biological and ecological functions of primary conservation areas on large sites; and 3. To encourage restoration of native vegetation during development or redevelopment of large sites where restoration opportunities have been identified in MRCCA plans. B. Applicability. 1. The design standards in this section apply to subdivisions, planned unit developments, and master-planned development and redevelopment of land involving ten (10) or more acres for contiguous parcels that abut the Mississippi River and twenty (20) or more acres for all other parcels, including smaller individual sites within the following developments that are part of a common plan of development that may be constructed at different times: a. Subdivisions; b. Planned unit developments; and c. Master-planned development and redevelopment of land. 2. The following activities are exempt from the requirements of this section. a. Minor subdivisions consisting of two (2) or fewer lots; b. Minor boundary line corrections; c. Resolutions of encroachments; d. Additions to existing lots of record; e. Placement of essential services; and f. Activities involving river-dependent commercial and industrial uses. 3. Application materials. Project information listed in Section 12-3-12 must be submitted for all proposed developments. 4. Design standards. a. Primary conservation areas, where they exist, must be set aside and designated as protected open space in quantities meeting the following as a percentage of total parcel area: (1) CA-ROS District: 50% (2) CA-RN District: 20%: and (3) CA-SR District: 10% if the parcel includes native plant communities or provides feasible connections to a regional park or trail system, otherwise no requirement. b. If the primary conservation areas exceed the amounts specified in Section 12-3- 11.B.4.(a), then protection of native plant communities and natural vegetation in riparian areas shall be prioritized. c. If primary conservation areas exist but to not have natural vegetation (identified as restoration priorities in the MRCCA Plan), then a vegetation assessment must be completed to evaluate the unvegetated primary conservation areas and determine whether vegetation restoration is needed. If restoration is needed, vegetation must be restored according to Section 12-3-9.F. d. If primary conservation areas do not exist on the parcel and portions of the parcel have been identified in the MRCCA Plan as a restoration area, vegetation must be restored in the identified areas according to Section 12-3-9.F and the area must be set aside and designated as protected open space. e. Storm water treatment areas or other green infrastructure may be used to meet the protected open space requirements if the vegetation provides biological and ecological functions. f. Transfer of development rights or the dedication of steep slopes, drainageways and wetlands as allowed under Section 11-1-8, or the dedication of land for public uses, including (but not limited to) public river access, parks, other open spaces or public facilities, and as allowed under Section 11-5-1 of the Mendota Heights City Code, may be counted toward the protected open space requirement. g. Protected open space areas must connect open space, natural areas, and recreational areas, where present on adjacent parcels, as much as possible to form an interconnected network. 5. Permanent protection of designated open space a. Designated open space areas must be protected through one or more of the following methods: (1) Public acquisition by a government entity for conservation purposes; (2) A permanent conservation easement, as provided in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 84C; (3) A deed restriction; or (4) Other arrangements that achieve an equivalent degree of protection. b. Permanent protection methods must ensure the long-term management of vegetation to meet its biological and ecological functions, prohibit structures, and prohibit land alteration, except as needed to provide public recreational facilities and access to the river. 6. Alternative design standards. The city will consider the following alternative design option to increase the permanent protection of Primary Conservation Areas (PCAs) in subdivisions and other new developments in the MRCCA District and encourage restoration of native vegetation communities: a. The City will grant density bonuses to increase the permanent protection of PCAs and/or native plant communities up to twenty percent (20%) of the parcel area in the CA-RN and CA-SR Districts, provided the protection and restoration of the entire development site is consistent with the requirements of this section; b. The City will approve density bonuses for a subdivision when the proposed subdivision meets the objectives and requirements of this chapter to protect and preserve bluffs, steep slopes, native vegetation, natural resources, views of the bluffs area, and open space; and c. The city shall determine the amount and location of the density bonus permitted for each subdivision based on site conditions, zoning district regulations, and potential impacts to the site and surrounding areas. d. Alterative design standards may be considered through a planned unit development or cluster development. Individual lots in a planned unit development or cluster development may not be required to meet the design standards of this section if it can be demonstrated that the overall development is compliant with the standards and purpose of this section. 12-3-12: SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS: A. Site Plan Required: No building permit, zoning approval, or subdivision approval shall be issued for any action or development located in an area covered by this chapter until a site plan has been prepared and approved in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. B. Site Plan Application: An official critical are permit application with a completed site plan shall be filed with the zoning administrator containing evidence adequate to show that the proposed use will conform with the standards set forth in this chapter. Three (3) full sets of plans (either 22” x 34” or 24” x 36” sized sheets), three (3) tabloid sized (11” x 17”) plan sets, plus an electronic file (PDF preferred) of the full application materials shall be submitted to the zoning administrator. No permit application shall be reviewed until it is complete. C. Site Plan Contents. A fully detailed Survey or Site Plan drawn to scale appropriate to the size of the project and suitable for the review to be performed, shall contain the following information: 1. A detailed description or narrative prepared by the owner(s) or developer(s) of the proposed project or development. 2. A complete and legible legal description, address and location of the property, with the name and address of the legal registered owner(s) and developer(s) of the property. 3. A detailed plan identifying the subject property, adjoining lands, roads, railroads, existing subdivisions, any primary conservation areas (PCA); public river corridor views, ordinary high- water level (OHWL) of any adjacent or affected wetlands features, bluff-lines and all required setbacks. 4. Existing topography as indicated on a contour map having a contour interval no greater than two feet (2') per contour. The contour map shall also clearly delineate any bluff line, bluff impact zone, all streams, including intermittent streams and swales, rivers, water bodies, any identifiable underground springs, and wetlands located on the site. 5. A plan delineating the existing drainage of the water setting forth in which direction the volume, and at what rate the stormwater is conveyed from the site. The plan must also include those areas on the site where stormwater collects and is gradually percolated into the ground or slowly released to a stream or lake. 6. A description of the soils on the site, including a map indicating all soil types by area to be disturbed. The description shall also include a soil report containing detailed information on the suitability of the soils for the type of development proposed as well as for the type of sewage disposal proposed. The plan must also describe any remedial steps to be taken by the developer to render the soils suitable. All areas proposed for grading shall be identified by soil type, both as to soil type of existing topsoil and soil type of the new contour. The location and extent of any erosion areas shall be included in the soils description. 7. A description of any features, buildings, or areas which are of historic significance. 8. A plan indicating the proposed finished grades of the project development site illustrating contours at the same intervals proposed above or in more detail if required to clearly indicate the relationship of proposed changes to existing topography and remaining features. 9. A landscape plan drawn to an appropriate scale, including dimensions, distance, location, type, size, and description of all existing and significant vegetation, clearly locating and describing any vegetation proposed for removal and all proposed landscape materials which will be added to the site as part of the development. All new landscaping must include native varieties of deciduous, coniferous and ornamental trees and shrubs, along with new pollinator friendly plants and vegetation, and no invasive species. 10. A proposed drainage plan of the developed site delineating in which direction, volume, and at what rate stormwater will be conveyed from the site and setting forth the areas of the site where stormwater will be allowed to collect and gradually percolate into the soil, or be slowly released to a stream or lake. The plan shall also set forth the hydraulic capacity of all structures to be constructed or exiting structures to be utilized, including volume or holding ponds. 11. An erosion and sedimentation control plan indicating the type, location, and necessary technical information on control measures to be taken both during and after construction, including the calculated anticipated gross soil loss expressed in tons/acres/year both during and after construction. 12. The proposed size, placement, alignment, height, and intended use of any structures, including retaining walls, to be erected or located on the site. 13. A clear delineation of all areas which will be paved or surfaced including a description of the surfacing material to be used. 14. A description of the method to be provided for vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed development and public access to the river and/or public river view opportunities both before and after development. The description must also include the development's impact on existing views of and along the river. 15. A description of all parking facilities to be provided as part of the development, of the site including an analysis of parking needs generated by the proposed development. 16. A clear delineation of the area or areas to be dedicated for public use. 17. A clear delineation of the location and amount of excavated soils to be stored on the site during construction. 18. Any other information pertinent to the project, which in the opinion of city staff and/or the applicant, is necessary or helpful for the review of the project. D. Minor Development: A minor development and/or minor change involving a single-family dwelling, may be approved by the City Council without a public hearing if the project plans conform to the general standards of this chapter. The city administrator shall bring the request to the attention of the city council at its next regular meeting following receipt of an administrative critical area permit application. Eligible projects include, but are not limited to, minor building additions, decks, fences, driveways, walkways, stairs, open patios or outdoor sitting areas, accessory storage sheds, gazebos, chicken coops, retaining walls two feet (2’) or less in height, landscaping materials and gardens, and similar structures. Proposed projects and sites must comply with the following conditions: 1. No part of the project shall impact any area with slopes greater than eighteen percent (18%). 2. No part of the project shall impact, disturb or be situated in a bluffline setback area as defined by this chapter, whether on the same parcel or on an abutting parcel of land , 3. The proposed project shall not expand the enclosed area of the principal or accessory structures by more than two hundred (200) square feet. 4. The proposed project shall not increase or exceed the height of any existing structure. 5. The proposed project shall be in compliance with all other requirements of this Chapter, and any other applicable regulations. 6. The proposed project shall not result in significant changes to the existing finished grade. 7. The proposed project areas shall include native vegetation. 12-3-13: OFFICIAL REVIEW PROCESS: Proposed developments or activities within the MRCCA shall be subject to the following review procedure: A. Referral to Planning Commission: Except as otherwise provided in subsection 12-3-12.G (Minor Developments) of this chapter, the zoning administrator shall refer all site plans to the planning commission. B. Planning Commission Notice and Hearing on Application and Site Plan: The planning commission shall hold a public hearing affording an opportunity for all parties interested to be heard. The city shall give not less than ten (10) nor more than thirty (30) days' notice of the time and place of the hearing. Notice of the hearing shall be published in the designated legal newspaper for the city, and shall contain a description of the land and the proposed use. At least ten (10) days before the hearing, the city shall mail a notice to the owner(s) of the property in question and to each of the property owners within three hundred fifty feet (350') of the outside boundaries of the land described in the site plan. Failure of the city to mail such notice or failure of the property owners to receive said notice shall not invalidate the proceedings. Within sixty (60) days after the date the city receives a complete application , and unless the statutory review period as provided for under Minnesota Statute §15.99 is extended or waived by the applicant, the planning commission shall conduct a hearing and forward a written report to the city council stating its findings and recommendation. C. City Council Consideration on Application and Site Plan. W ithin thirty (30) days after the receipt of the written report and recommendation of the planning commission, the city council shall meet and give full consideration to the application, site plan, written report and recommendation, without a public hearing. If the planning commission fails to make a written report or recommendation to the city council within sixty (60) days after the acceptance of the application and site plan, and unless the statutory review period has been expressly waived by the applicant as allowed under Minnesota Statute §15.99, the city shall set an additional public hearing before the city council. The hearing must be held within thirty (30) days after the expiration of the sixty (60) day period. Failure to receive a written report and recommendation from the planning commission shall not invalidate the proceedings or action of the city council. The city shall give not less than ten (10) nor more than thirty (30) days mailed notice of the time and place of a hearing to the owner(s) of the property in question and to each of the property owners within three hundred fifty feet (350') of the outside boundaries of the land described in the site plan. Failure of the property owners to receive the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings. After its consideration of an application and site plan, either with or without a public hearing, the city council may take final action upon the application and site plan or may continue the hearing for further investigation and study. The city council may also request further information from the applicant or from the planning commission. D. Any proposed amendment to this chapter may be referred to the planning commission for its consideration and recommendations. 12-3-14: NOTIFICATION TO RESOURCE AGENCIES: A. Amendments to this chapter and to the MRCCA plan must be submitted to the Commissioner as provided in Minnesota rule, part 6106.0070, Subp. 3, items B-I, and via email to the appropriate DNR Area Hydrologist. B. Notice of public hearings for discretionary actions, including critical area permits, conditional and interim use permits, variances, appeals, rezonings, preliminary plats, final subdivision plats, master plans, and PUDs, must be sent to the following entities at least twenty (20) days prior to the hearing: 1. The Commissioner in a format prescribed by the DNR; 2. National Park Service; and 3. Where proposed building heights exceed the height limits specified in Section 12-3-6 as part of the conditional use or variance process, to the adjoining local governments within the MRCCA, including those with overlapping jurisdiction and those across the river. C. Notice of final decisions for actions in Section 12-3-13, including findings of fact, must be sent to the Commissioner, the National Park Service, and adjoining local governments within the MRCCA within (10) days of the final decision. D. Requests to amend district boundaries must follow Minnesota Rule part 6106.0100, Subp. 9, item C. E. The DNR must be notified of master plans, PUDs, preliminary and final plats at the time of application submittal. 12-3-15: EXEMPTIONS: A. Purpose. To provide exemptions to structure placement, height, and other standards for specific river or water access-dependent facilities as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 116G.15 Subd. 4. B. Applicability. 1. Uses and activities not specifically exempted in this section must comply with this Chapter. Uses and activities exempted under shore impact zone and bluff impact zone must comply with the vegetation management and land alteration standards in Sections 12-3-9 and 12- 3-10. 2. Uses and activities in Section 12-3-15.B.3 are categorized as: a. E - Exempt means that the use or activity is allowed; b. (E) - Exempt if no alternative means that the use or activity is allowed only if no alternatives exist; and c. N - Not exempt means that a use or activity is not exempt and must meet the standards of this chapter. d. n/a – not applicable. 3. Use and activity exemptions classification a. General uses and activities. Use or Activity Setbacks Height Limits SIZ BIZ Applicable standards with which the use or activity must comply Industrial and utility structures requiring greater height for operational reasons (such as elevators, refineries and railroad signaling towers) N E N N Structure design and placement must minimize interference with public river corridor views. Barns, silos, and farm structures N E N N Bridges and bridge approach roadways E E E (E) Section 12-3-8 Wireless communication towers E E N N Section 12-3-5.B.6 Chimneys, church spires, flag poles, public monuments, and mechanical stacks and equipment N E N N Historic properties and contributing properties in historic districts E E E E Exemptions do not apply to additions or site alterations b. Public utilities. Use or Activity Setbacks Height Limits SIZ BIZ Applicable standards with which the use or activity must comply Electrical power facilities E E E (E) Section 12-3-8 Essential services (other than storm water facilities) E E E (E) Section 12-3-8 Storm water facilities E N E (E) Section 12-3-10 Wastewater treatment E N E N Section 12-3-8 Public transportation facilities E N (E) (E) Section 12-3-8 c. Public recreational facilities. Use or Activity Setbacks Height Limits SIZ BIZ Applicable standards with which the use or activity must comply Accessory structures, such as monuments, flagpoles, light standards, and similar park features E E (E) (E) Section 12-3-8; within BIZ, only on slopes averaging less than 30%. Exemptions do not apply to principal structures. Picnic shelters and other open-sided structures E N (E) N Section 12-3-8 Parking lots (E) N (E) (E) Section 12-3-8; within BIZ, only within 20 feet of toe of bluff; not on face of bluff; and must not affect stability of bluff Roads and driveways (E) N (E) (E) Section 12-3-8 Natural-surfaced trails, access paths, and viewing areas E N E E Section 12-3-8 Hard-surfaced trails and viewing platforms E N E (E) Section 12-3-8; within BIZ, only on slopes averaging less than 30% Water access ramps E N E (E) Section 12-3-8 Public signs and kiosks for interpretive or directional purposes E N E (E) Section 12-3-8 d. River-dependent uses. Use or Activity Setbacks Height Limits SIZ BIZ Applicable standards with which the use or activity must comply Shoreline facilities E N1 E (E) Section 12-3-5.B.5. Exemptions do not apply to buildings, structures, and parking areas that are not part of a shoreline facility Private roads and conveyance structures serving river-dependent uses E N1 E (E) Section 12-3-5.B.5. 1 River-dependent commercial, industrial, and utility structures are exempt from height limits only if greater height is required for operational reasons. e. Private residential and commercial water access and use facilities. Use or Activity Setbacks Height Limits SIZ BIZ Applicable standards with which the use or activity must comply Private roads serving 3 or more lots (E) N N (E) Section 12-3-7; in BIZ, only on slopes averaging less than 30%. Exemption does not apply to private roads serving fewer 3 lots or to private driveways and parking areas Access paths E N E E Section 12-3-7 Water access ramps E N E N Section 12-3-7 Stairways, lifts, and landings E N E E Section 12-3-7 Water-oriented accessory structures E N E N Section 12-3-7 Patios and decks E N N N Section 12-3-7.E Temporary storage of docks, boats, and other equipment during the winter months E N E N Erosion control structures, such as rock riprap and retaining walls E N E (E) Sections 12-3-10.C, 12-3-10.E, and 12-3-10.F Flood control structures E N E (E) Section 12-3-10 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 568 SUMMARY PUBLICATION AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12 ZONING CHAPTER 3 CRITICAL AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT Chapter 3 MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA (MRCCA) OVERLAY DISTRICT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, on July 20, 2021, Ordinance No. 568 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that, because of the lengthy nature of Ordinance No. 568, the following summary of the ordinance has been prepared for publication. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the ordinance adopted by the City Council replaces the entirety of Title 12: Zoning, Chapter 3: Critical Area Overlay District with Chapter 3: Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Overlay District. This ordinance was adopted in accordance with state law and in consultation with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The ordinance establishes districts, development standards, design standards, and other regulations for land use that are designed to protect primary conservation areas and public river corridor views from developmental and other adverse impacts. A printed copy of the whole ordinance is available for inspection by any person during the City’s regular office hours at the office of the City Administrator/City Clerk or on the City’s website. PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, this 20th day of July, 2021. CITY COUNCIL OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS /s/Stephanie Levine, Mayor Attest: /s/ Lorri Smith, City Clerk 4 MENDOTA LILYDALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERMINNESO T A RI V E R ROGERS LAKELAKE AUGUSTA LA K E L EMA Y GUN CLUB LAKE DODD RDDODD RDDELAWARE AVESIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYMARIE AVE W MENDOTA HEIGHTS RDLEXINGTON AVELILYDALE RDPILOT KNOB RDHUBER DR SI BLEYMEMORIALNORTHLAND DR WENTWORTH AVE WWACHTLER AVEWAGON WHEEL TRL MENDOTA RDHUNTER LNORCHARD PL VICTORIA RD SIVY FALLS AVE Mississippi RIver Critical Area District Map City of Mendota Heights µ0 3,000 6,000 Feet MRCCA DISTRICTS CA-ROS Rural & Open Space CA-RN River Neighborhood CA-SR Separated from River CA-RTC River Towns & Crossing City boundary Open Water June 2019 Source: City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, 2017 FIGURE 9-2 Map 9-2 MRCCA - District Map Created June 2019, Source: City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, 2017 MENDOTA LILYDALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERMINNESO T A RI V E R ROGERS LAKELAKE AUGUSTA LA K E L EMA Y GUN CLUB LAKE DODD RDDODD RDDELAWARE AVESIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYMARIE AVE W MENDOTA HEIGHTS RDLEXINGTON AVELILYDALE RDPILOT KNOB RDHUBER DR SI BL EYMEMORIALNORTHLAND DR WENTWORTH AVE WWACHTLER AVEWAGON WHEEL TRL MENDOTA RDHUNTER LNORCHARD PL VICTORIA RD SIVY FALLS AVE Mississippi RIver Critical Area District Map City of Mendota Heights µ0 3,000 6,000 Feet MRCCA DISTRICTS CA-ROS Rural & Open Space CA-RN River Neighborhood CA-SR Separated from River CA-RTC River Towns & Crossing City boundary Open Water June 2019 Source: City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, 2017 FIGURE 9-2 MENDOTA LILYDALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERMINNESO T A RI V E R ROGERS LAKELAKE AUGUSTA LA K E L EMA Y GUN CLUB LAKE DODD RDDODD RDDELAWARE AVESIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYMARIE AVE W MENDOTA HEIGHTS RDLEXINGTON AVELILYDALE RDPILOT KNOB RDHUBER DR SI BL EYMEMORIALNORTHLAND DR WENTWORTH AVE WWACHTLER AVEWAGON WHEEL TRL MENDOTA RDHUNTER LNORCHARD PL VICTORIA RD SIVY FALLS AVE Mississippi RIver Critical Area District Map City of Mendota Heights µ0 3,000 6,000 Feet MRCCA DISTRICTS CA-ROS Rural & Open Space CA-RN River Neighborhood CA-SR Separated from River CA-RTC River Towns & Crossing City boundary Open Water June 2019 Source: City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, 2017 FIGURE 9-2 MENDOTA LILYDALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERMINNESO T A RI V E R ROGERS LAKELAKE AUGUSTA LA K E L EMA Y GUN CLUB LAKE DODD RDDODD RDDELAWARE AVESIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYMARIE AVE W MENDOTA HEIGHTS RDLEXINGTON AVELILYDALE RDPILOT KNOB RDHUBER DR SI BL EYMEMORIALNORTHLAND DR WENTWORTH AVE WWACHTLER AVEWAGON WHEEL TRL MENDOTA RDHUNTER LNORCHARD PL VICTORIA RD SIVY FALLS AVE Mississippi RIver Critical Area District Map City of Mendota Heights µ0 3,000 6,000 Feet MRCCA DISTRICTS CA-ROS Rural & Open Space CA-RN River Neighborhood CA-SR Separated from River CA-RTC River Towns & Crossing City boundary Open Water June 2019 Source: City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, 2017 FIGURE 9-2 C) PLANNING CASE 2021-07 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS – ZONING CODE AMENDMENT (MRCCA) Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the Commission is being asked to once again review the proposed Ordinance No. 568, the new Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Ordinance for the community. This draft ordinance includes a number of added comments and suggested revisions offered by the Commission at the June 10, 2021 Planning Commission Workshop 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 recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Johnson suggested replacing “natural vegetation” with “native vegetation”. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted a new definition which was added for keystone species at the recommendation of Commissioner Johnson. He referenced another addition of “underground springs” and that added definition as well. Commissioner Petschel asked for the opinion of the Commission as to including keystone species as an exemption from selective vegetation removal and whether the Commission would want to take away the ability to selectively remove a tree. He stated that would be a big change and would like to have discussion. Acting Chair Lorberbaum agreed that is a good point as there may be a reason behind it. Commissioner Johnson stated selective vegetation removal could be done without a permit but if it is a keystone species, she believes a permit should be needed. Commissioner Petschel stated that keystone species is a lot of information that he does not entirely understand and would not want to endorse something he does not understand. Commissioner Johnson commented that she is working to create a list of keystone species for Minnesota. Acting Chair Lorberbaum asked whether it would be reasonable for a homeowner to expect to know that they would need to get the list. Commissioner Katz commented that he would hope that any homeowner in this area doing this type of work would be working with staff. Commissioner Petschel stated that it is not incumbent for a homeowner to know what they should or should not do, but to ensure proper remediation is completed if something is done that should not be. He stated that his concern would be that he does not know what keystone species are and whether he would support including that. Commissioner Johnson stated that she is working to provide a consolidated list to staff that could be used. Commissioner Petschel stated that he likes the idea of it, but it seems to be a bit of a power grab to say we are going to say that things can selectively be removed except for a list that has not yet been developed and will be added to. He stated that he dislikes that things can be added without review. He asked if the City has oversight as to what is added to the list of keystone species. Commissioner Johnson provided examples of keystone species and stated that the list is based on research information, but the City does not have oversight. Commissioner Petschel stated that his concern is that it is a placeholder statement that can be added to without oversight. He stated that the idea is solid, but the execution is flimsy. Commissioner Katz stated that he would compare it similar to a homeowners association. He stated that if someone is purchasing property within this area, they would be held to a different standard. Commissioner Johnson commented that this area already falls under the rules of another authority. Community Development Director Tim Benetti referenced the proposed language that was suggested to be added. He stated that keystone species can be removed from the definition and could instead be added under another area related to selective vegetation removal. Commissioner Johnson stated that she does not believe removal of keystone species should not be allowed but believed it should be allowed with a permit. Community Development Director Tim Benetti asked for the opinion of the Commission related to the definition of structure. It was the consensus of the Commission to use the State definition. It was the consensus of the Commission to move underground springs to “u” as underground springs rather than “s”. Commissioner Katz asked what is being done to protect the underground springs once identified. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that it would be treated the same way as another water source. Commissioner Johnson referenced the “conserving wooded areas in developing communities” is a link and whether that information is being provided by link. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that is a link. Commissioner Petschel asked if links should be provided within an ordinance. He noted that links go dead all the time and if that information is important, it should be provided in an external document as the link could go away. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that the additional statement could be included, as published by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The Commission agreed. Commissioner Johnson referenced language related to screening using natural vegetation. She stated that she would like to see a percentage of native vegetation included. Acting Chair Lorberbaum asked if it would be preferred to use native rather than natural. Commissioner Johnson stated that she did not believe entirely native would be necessary, but a percentage of native would be preferred. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that there are not many river- dependent uses and did not think the additional language is needed. Acting Chair Lorberbaum stated that she would prefer “A through D” rather than “A-D” on page 93. Commissioner Petschel noted on page 96/97 and asked if that area is mapped out anywhere as to the properties that would be subject to section five. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that is identified in the MRCCA chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and includes a map. He stated that there are certain areas identified by the DNR that have established vegetative stands. Commissioner Petschel stated that these standards apply to properties not just along the bluff but also properties across the street and the City should be cautious as to how landowners would be constrained. Community Development Director Tim Benetti displayed the map with the vegetative stands identified. Commissioner Petschel asked if there is a similar map of areas of native planting communities. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that there is not such a map. Commissioner Petschel commented that he could see that being used as a weapon during a public hearing through comments by a neighbor. Commissioner Johnson read the definition. Commissioner Petschel stated that he would support that item. He explained that his concern was that there would be someone that wants to remove a building and replace that with a new one, but the neighbors use that language to prevent the action, using the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law. Commissioner Johnson commented that it is well defined and therefore she did not believe that would be a concern. Commissioner Petschel reviewed the language that could be added related to selective removal of keystone species that could be allowed with a vegetation permit. Commissioner Johnson noted on page 98, Item F2B, it should read, include “native” vegetation. Acting Chair Lorberbaum noted that the link in that statement should be made as a reference. She noted on page 99, Item 3, it mentions City staff and asked for clarification on who that would refer to. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that could be clarified to read Public Works Director or Zoning Administrator. Commissioner Katz stated that his concern would be with whether the name of the position changes when staff turns over. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that “staff” could be removed, and it could just read “to the satisfaction of the City”. Acting Chair Lorberbaum asked if that would then mean the City Council. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that Public Works Director could be used. Acting Chair Lorberbaum referenced the use of the language “may be allowed” and commented that seems wishy washy and asked if different language should be used such as “shall be allowed”. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that he would interpret it as “may” gives the Commission more power whereas “shall” would give the applicant more power. It was the consensus of the Commission to use “may”. Commissioner Johnson noted another link that should be replaced with a reference. Acting Chair Lorberbaum noted on page 104, 12-3-12, the section begins with Item 3 and should instead start with “A”. It was noted that the item numbers in that section should be replaced with letters and sub-items should be numbered. Commissioner Petschel asked if section E has enough specifics and prohibitions given that the City does not allow the construction of chicken coops on grades greater than 18 percent. He stated that under the general case of development, such restrictive language is not included. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that he does prefer the term “may” as it provides leeway to deny an application even if the documentations are provided. Commissioner Petschel stated that it just seemed to be a contrast that the minor items are very specific, but the larger developments are not as specific. Commissioner Johnson referenced a commented received from former Commissioner Magnuson related to definitions, under bluff and asked for clarification. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that had been corrected. 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 KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO 568 WITH THE CHANGES AS NOTED BY THE COMMISSION. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated city staff will be working with the city attorney to finalize language, verify section references and content; and stated the City Council would consider this proposed ordinance at its July 20, 2021 meeting.