2022-07-26 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda PacketAuxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less
than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may
not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2022 - 7:00 PM
Mendota Heights City Hall – Council Chambers
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights MN 55118
1.Call to Order / Roll Call
2.Approve the June 28, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes
3.Public Hearings
a.CASE No. 2022-12 Conditional Use Permit for new cellular equipment installation on
top of Two Rivers High School, located at 1897 Delaware Avenue
(Dish Wireless, LLC - Applicant / ISD-197 - Owner)
b.CASE No. 2022-13 Variance for new garage addition, located at 1057 Esther Lane
(Tim & Megan Altier - Applicant / Owner)
4.New / Unfinished Business
a.Commission Data Practices and Email Update
5. Adjourn Meeting
June 28, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 3
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 28, 2022
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 28,
2022 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Commissioners Patrick Corbett,
Sally Lorberbaum, Cindy Johnson, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. No absence.
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of May 24, 2022 Minutes
Commissioner Lorberbaum noted on page three, the fifth paragraph from the bottom, it should
state, “…information about…”
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2022 WITH THE NOTED CHANGE.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSTAIN: 1 (PETSCHEL)
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE 2022-11
ELIZABETH AND CALEB JOHNSON, 1903 HUNTER LANE – MRCCA PERMIT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Johnsons are seeking approval
of a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit to construct a new in ground
swimming pool on their property, located at 1903 Hunter Lane.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments
or objections to this request were received.
Community Development 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.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
PC PACKET PG.# 1
June 28, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 3
Elizabeth Johnson, applicant, stated that they were happy to work with their contractors to find a
location for the pool that would avoid tree removal. She stated that once they receive this approval,
they would submit a separate fence permit and solidify plans for vegetation.
Commissioner Johnson thanked staff for recommending the down lighting to ensure neighboring
properties would not be impacted. She referenced the Japanese lilac tree listed as an option noting
that is considered invasive and suggested that the applicant look at other option.
Mrs. Johnson confirmed that they would be happy to look at one of their other options.
Commissioner Johnson stated that during construction the existing trees should be fenced in order
to protect those root systems from construction vehicles. She asked and received confirmation
that the applicant is aware of the condition related to drainage of the pool only onto the subject
property.
Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close
the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE MRCCA PERMIT REQUEST FROM ELIZABETH
AND CALEB JOHNSON AND FOR 1903 HUNTER LANE BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF
FACT THAT THE PROPOSED POOL PROJECT IS COMPLIANCE WITH THE POLICIES
AND STANDARDS OF THE MRCCA ORDINANCE AND CITY CODE AND SUBJECT TO
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE APPROVED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT
OF ANY CONSTRUCTION WORK ON THE SWIMMING POOL OR RELATED
LANDSCAPING WORK. CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL OCCUR ONLY
BETWEEN THE HOURS OR 7 A.M. AND 8 P.M. WEEKDAYS; AND 9 A.M. TO 5
P.M. WEEKENDS.
2. BEST EFFORTS WILL BE MADE BY THE APPLICANT’S CONTRACTOR(S) TO
“COME CLEAN, LEAVE CLEAN” DURING THE COURSE OF ANY
CONSTRUCTION WORK PERFORMED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN ORDER
TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OR CONTAMINATION OF INVASIVE SPECIES TO
AND FROM THE PROPERTY.
3. ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE
WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND
CODES, AS WELL AS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. FULL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION PREVENTION
MEASURES WILL BE PUT IN PLACE PRIOR TO AND DURING GRADING AND
CONSTRUCTION WORK ACTIVITIES.
PC PACKET PG.# 2
June 28, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 3
4. THE POOL AREA SHALL BE ENCLOSED WITH FENCING, WHICH SHALL BE AT
LEAST FIVE FEET, BUT NOT EXCEEDING SIX FEET IN HEIGHT TO PREVENT
UNCONTROLLED ACCESS TO THE POOL AREA. SAID FENCE MUST HAVE
SELF-CLOSING AND SELF-LATCHING GATES WITH PROVISIONS FOR
LOCKING AND SHALL BE COMPLETELY INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE FILLING
OF THE POOL AND PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY C.O. OR FINAL
INSPECTION BY THE CITY.
5. ANY NEW LIGHTING FOR THE POOL MUST INCLUDE DOWNCAST/CUT-OFF
FEATURES THAT PREVENT GLARE OR LIGHT SPILL-OVER, AND ALL NEW
LIGHTS MUST BE DIRECTED DOWN OR TOWARDS THE POOL AREA ONLY
AND AWAY FROM ANY NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
6. ANY DRAINAGE OR BACK-FLUSHING OF WATER FROM POOL SHALL BE
DIRECTED ONTO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ONLY. ANY DRAINAGE ONTO
PUBLIC STREETS OR OTHER PUBLIC DRAINAGE WAYS SHALL REQUIRE
PERMISSION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.
7. ALL NEW TREES AND VEGETATION, INCLUDING GROUND COVER FOR
RESTORING DISTURBED AREAS ON THE SUBJECT SITE, SHALL CONFORM TO
THE LANDSCAPE PLAN – EXHIBIT D AS PRESENTED, REVIEWED AND
APPROVED UNDER THIS MRCCA PERMIT APPLICATION.
8. PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF ANY ESCROW PAYMENT, ALL DISTURBED
AREAS IN AND AROUND THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE RESTORED AND HAVE
AN ESTABLISHED, PROTECTED AND PERMANENT GROUND COVER
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE POOL PROJECT IS COMPLETED.
FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL REFERENCED CONDITION
EIGHT, NOTING THAT HE HAS NOT YET SEEN THAT TYPE OF CONDITION.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI STATED THAT STAFF
PROPOSES THAT CONDITION BECOME STANDARD GOING FORWARD TO PROVIDE
A REMINDER TO APPLICANTS.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 5, 2022 meeting.
New/Unfinished Business
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that there are three applications on the
docket for the July meeting; and gave reminder on the Thursday PC Workshop meeting.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:18 P.M.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
PC PACKET PG.# 3
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE:July 26, 2022
TO:Planning Commission
FROM:Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:Planning Case 2022-12
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICANT:DISH Wireless LLC (I.S.D. 197)
PROPERTY ADDRESS:1897 Delaware Avenue (Two Rivers High School)
ZONING/GUIDED:R-1 One Family Residential / Public & Semi-Public
ACTION DEADLINE:August 22, 2022
INTRODUCTION
DISH Wireless is seeking a conditional use permit (CUP) to add new wireless or cellular communication
equipment on top of the Two River High School facility, located at 1897 Delaware Avenue. Title 12-1D-
4 of the Code requires conditional use permit approval for wireless antennas, subject to conditions.
BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject property is the location of Two Rivers High School and I.S.D. 197 district offices. The property
is zoned R-1 One-Family Residential and guided Public/Semi-Public.
The school was originally granted a CUP in 1998 (Res. 98-25) that approved the placement of cellular
equipment on the side of the school. Later in 2003, the school received an additional CUP to install a new
cellular tower on the campus site, but it appears the school either did not install this tower or it has since
been removed. The school was then later granted additional CUP’s in 2012, 2013 (Sprint) and in 2105
(Verizon) to place or install new wireless antenna equipment on top of the school building.
At this time, only Verizon Wireless and T-Mobilehave installations on the school’s rooftop. Dish Wireless,
is in the process of building out a nationwide, wireless network (as a result of the 2018 T-Mobile/Sprint
merger), which created an opening in the cellular communications market for another wireless carrier.
Dish is proposing to install two (2) antenna mounts and an equipment platform, with one equipment cabinet
on the rooftop. One antenna mount will contain 2 antennas; while the other antenna mount will contain one
antenna. The equipment platform will be contained within a 5’ x 7’ leased area of the rooftop.
ANALYSIS
City Code Section 12-1D-14 contains regulations regarding wireless antennas, towers, and accessory
structures and requires a conditional use permit in all zoning districts. The purpose of the Code section is
to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community while accommodating the
communication needs of residents and businesses, and is necessary to:
1. Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties and personal injury from tower collapse through
structural standards and setback requirements.
PC PACKET PG.# 4
Planning Report-Case #2022-12 (CUP-Dish Wireless) Page 2
2. Protect the aesthetic qualities of the community by requiring tower and antenna equipment to be
screened from properties within viewing distance of the site and to be designed in a manner to blend
in with the surroundings and complement existing structures.
3. Maximize the use of existing and approved freestanding antenna towers, buildings, and existing light
poles for new wireless telecommunication antennas.
4. Minimize the number of freestanding antenna towers needed to serve the community by utilizing
collocation.
5. Facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and businesses.
Section 12-1D-14 also contains specific evaluation criteria for determining or allowing the approval of a
conditional use permit related to new wireless communication systems. Some of these criteria are not
applicable, due to the nature of any pre-existing towersand/or communication support structure(s) that may
exist on a site. Whenever any provider wishes to add antennas, expand or adjust a tower (height), or install
additional support accessory structures, a conditional use permit is required. The following provisions and
standards have been analyzed and noted in this planning report, based on the submitted materials:
C. Building Mounted Antennas:
1. Permitted Buildings: Antennas may only be mounted on institutional buildings (churches, schools,
businesses, etc.) or multiple-family dwellings two (2) stories or higher. Wireless
telecommunications antennas are not permitted on attached or detached single-family homes or
townhome dwellings.
Staff Comments: The existing location is on top of an institutional building (school); therefore this request
can be considered a permitted use or right by means of this CUP application.
2. Flush Mounting; Color:
a. Building mounted antennas must be flush mounted to the sides of the building and painted the
color of the building exterior unless the applicant can demonstrate to the council that
protrusion above the roofline is necessary for communication effectiveness.
b. In no case shall building mounted antennas or any attachment thereto be allowed to protrude
more than fifteen feet (15') above the roofline of the building.
Staff Comments:Not applicable, the existing building-mounted wireless antenna structures were approved
in 1998, and subsequent communication equipment were approved in 2012, 2013 and 2015. The existing
flush mounted arrays along the north elevation of the school building appear to meet this standard, and this
application is not requesting to flush or side mount (on the school wall) any of these new cell arrays. The
building color matching standard applies to flush or wall mounted panels and antennas only.
The proposed antenna arrays are roof-mounted only. The applicant has provided a structural engineering
and coverage reports that support the request to place these panels on top of the school building for added
and uninterrupted coverage. The new upgraded equipment is shown to be 12’-2” from roof top to highest
point of the new antenna arrays. This standard is being met and all new arrays will be compliant with the
15-foot height limits.
E. Aesthetics:
1. Design: All freestanding antenna towers shall be of a monopole type design. The use of guyed
towers is prohibited.
2. Color:
a. Those portions of all freestanding antenna towers and all antennas which protrude into the air
shall be painted eggshell.
b. Those portions of all antennas that are flush mounted to the sides of buildings shall be painted
to match the exterior of the building.
PC PACKET PG.# 5
Planning Report-Case #2022-12 (CUP-Dish Wireless) Page 3
3. Screening: All accessory buildings to all freestanding towers shall be screened from public view
by a landscape plan according to the landscape standards of the appropriate zone and as described
in subsection 12-1D-13-2D1 of this article subject to council review.
4. Advertising: Advertising of any kind shall not be permitted on any freestanding antenna tower,
antenna, or accessory structure.
5. Lighting: Artificial lighting of any kind shall not be permitted on any freestanding antenna tower,
antenna, or accessory structure unless such lighting is required by the FCC, the FAA, or another
federal or state regulatory body. If such a requirement exists, only the minimum amount of lighting
required shall be allowed.
6.Prohibitions: Structures, functions, uses or activities that are not found by the city to be specifically
necessary for the proper functioning of the antennas shall be prohibited on any antenna or tower
without express permission from the city unless the city grants a waiver to this requirement.
Staff Comments:The proposed cell equipment is not considered a freestanding tower; no guyed wires
will be present. The antenna support frames are physically attached to the roof of the school building, as
per the structural engineering designs and reports.
The plans show the antenna arrays will be mounted on galvanized steel
frames. The plans are absent of any details on color or paint; however, City
Code states antennas that protrude in the air must be painted eggshell, which
is an off-white or slightly tan/yellow tinted color base (see color palette
image – right).
Staff recommends this new equipment should be painted to match the existing or other cell providers’
equipment. From visual inspections of the school site and visible cell equipment on top of the school
building, it appears this color may be an eggshell, light gray or similar (see photo image – below). Staff
suggests the Applicant agrees to paint or provide a color that closely matches to the current equipment.
All of the supporting accessory equipment or control rooms are either on top of the school roof or inside
the building. There are no plans to place any equipment or structures on the ground-level outside the school
yard. No added screening measures should be needed or required as part of this project.
No advertising or signage (except for safety or warning messages) is proposed to be placed or displayed on
the wireless antenna panels, nor will any advertising be allowed.
Artificial lighting of any kind shall not be permitted on any freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or
accessory structure unless such lighting is required by the FCC, the FAA, or another federal or state
regulatory body. If such a requirement exists, only the minimum amount of lighting required is allowed.
Upon review of these plans, it appears that all “structures, uses or activities” being proposed for this site
are deemed necessary for the proper functioning of the antennas and related communications equipment,
PC PACKET PG.# 6
Planning Report-Case #2022-12 (CUP-Dish Wireless) Page 4
and the city is not granting any waiver to any prohibited uses or activities under this CUP. The applicant
is required to comply with this provision under the approvals granted under any CUP.
F. Safety:
2. Compliance With Building And Electrical Codes: All antennas, freestanding antenna towers, and
accessory structures shall conform to all building and electrical codes.
Staff Comments:The applicant is required to comply with this provision.under the approval granted under
any CUP, and is made part of the new building permit approving the installation of said improvements.
The Building Official may request or require a third-party engineering or inspection firm to verify that all
new antenna equipment is or will be installed according to all State of Minnesota building code and safety
requirements.
G. Accessory Structures for Antennas:
1. Location and General Requirements: Accessory buildings to antennas or freestanding antenna
towers must lie completely within all applicable setbacks from all property lines and must otherwise
conform to all requirements for accessory buildings within the description of the specific zone.
2. Architecture:
a. Accessory structures and equipment buildings shall be designed to be architecturally
compatible with any principal structures on the site or, in the absence of such structures, with
their immediate surroundings in an aesthetically pleasing manner.
b. Accessory structures shall be finished on all sides.
c. The planning commission shall review and the council shall approve the design of any
accessory structures and equipment buildings.
Staff Comments:There is an existing, enclosed accessory support structure located on top of the school
building, which serves the other two cellular providers. Dish Wireless is planning to install a small, 5’ x 8’
uncovered steel grated platform as their supporting equipment area. This platform is planned to be located
near the upper wall section of the “penthouse” floor of the school, which should not be visible from the
streets or surrounding neighborhoods (see oblique-aerial image – below).
H. Additional Requirements:
1. Abandoned Structures:
a. Removal Required: Unused or obsolete freestanding antenna towers, antennas, structures or
apparatus must be removed within six (6) months of when the operation ceases.
b. Bond: A successful applicant shall provide an abandonment bond to the city equal to one and
a half (11/2) times the current cost of removal and disposal of all antennas and accompanying
apparatus as estimated by a consultant selected by the city and paid for by the applicant, which
bond shall be used by the city to remove the antennas and apparatus should they become
unused or obsolete and the applicant or its successors or assigns become disbarred or
otherwise fail to remove said antennas and apparatus.
PC PACKET PG.# 7
Planning Report-Case #2022-12 (CUP-Dish Wireless) Page 5
Staff Comments:The applicant has provided information that as part of their lease agreement with ISD-
197, they are required to remove any equipment and restore the school property within 90-days from
expiration or termination of any lease agreement. The city normally requires an abandonment bond for
services or providers on city owned or managed sites. In the case of the school property however, we
reserve the rights to the school district to manage and enforce the removal, disposal and restoration work
should the cellular equipment be abandoned, or need to be removed for any reason they deem appropriate.
2. Other Required Licenses: The applicant must submit proof of any applicable federal, state, or local
licenses to the council prior to receiving a building permit.
Staff Comments:The applicant stated there a no Federal licenses required to install or operate this new
system, other than the FCC market license for frequencies. The Applicant is required to submit proof or
record of any required licensures to the city prior to issuance of a building permit, and shall comply with
this provision under the approvals granted under this CUP..
3. Interference With Public Safety Systems Prohibited: The applicant must agree in writing to support,
participate in and refrain from interfering with public warning systems and public safety
communications and other radio frequencies as may be regulated by the federal communications
commission (FCC).
Staff Comments:The applicant is required to comply with this provision under the approvals granted
under any CUP. The Applicant has provided a written response to the City that: “DISH Wireless L.L.C.
(“DISH”) shall comply with all FCC rules regarding interference with other radio services and all FCC
rules concerning human exposure to radio frequency energy.
4. Coverage/Interference And Capacity Analyses: The applicant shall demonstrate, by providing a
coverage/interference analysis and capacity analysis, that the location and height of any
freestanding antenna tower or antenna as proposed is necessary to meet the communication,
frequency reuse and spacing needs of the communication services system, and to provide adequate
coverage and capacity to areas that cannot be adequately served by locating the towers in a less
restrictive district or on an existing structure, freestanding antenna tower or antenna including
such in neighboring municipalities.
Staff Comments:The applicant is required to comply with this provision under the approvals granted
under any CUP; and has provided a written response to the City stating: “DISH Wireless L.L.C. (“DISH”)
shall comply with all FCC rules regarding interference with other radio services and all FCC rules
concerning human exposure to radio frequency energy. “
5. Compliance With FCC Regulations; Noninterference Required: All new or existing
telecommunications service and equipment shall meet or exceed all federal communications
commission (FCC) standards and regulations and shall not interfere with any other
communications, computers, laboratory equipment or manufacturing equipment, including
television and other home electronics. The applicant shall provide to the city a report from a
qualified professional engineer guaranteeing noninterference and a copy of the FCC approval of
the antenna in regard to noninterference.
Staff Comments:The applicant is required to comply with this provision under the approvals granted
under any CUP; and has provided a written response to the City stating: “DISH shall comply with all FCC
rules regarding interference to other radio services and human exposure to radio frequency energy. In the
unlikely event that interference does occur, DISH agrees to fully cooperate with the entity experiencing
interference to identify and correct, to the extent reasonably possible, any issues caused by the DISH
installation.”
6. Environmental Impact Statement: In the event that the FCC or other agency or other governmental
body having jurisdiction requires the applicant to submit an environmental impact statement or
similar document, a copy of this document shall be submitted to the city.
Staff Comments:Not applicable.
PC PACKET PG.# 8
Planning Report-Case #2022-12 (CUP-Dish Wireless) Page 6
7. Nonconformances: Existing nonconforming freestanding antenna towers, antennas, or accessory
structures shall be allowed to continue operation unless use of the freestanding antenna tower,
antenna, or accessory structure for its intended purpose ceases for a continuous period of six (6)
months, in which case, resumption of use shall require a reapplication for a conditional use permit.
Staff Comments:The applicant is required to comply with this provision under the approvals granted
under any CUP.
8. Area Map: All applications for either a freestanding antenna, a freestanding antenna tower, or a
building mounted antenna shall be accompanied by a map of all existing towers and antennas of
the same provider within a two (2) mile radius of the proposed site and all future planned antennas
of the same provider for the next five (5) years within a two (2) mile radius of the proposed site.
Staff Comments:A coverage map has been provided by the Applicants (attached hereto); and the
Applicants will answer any additional questions the commissioners (or city council) may have on this
coverage issue.
9. Costs To Applicant: All costs of an application, including, but not limited to, those incurred by city
staff time and resources, engineering studies by consultants, and other data as may be required by
the city staff, the planning commission or the city council shall be borne in full by the applicant.
Staff Comments:The applicant is required to comply with this provision.
10. Variances: The council may at its discretion waive any or all of the requirements of this section in
order to approve a unique "stealth" or "camouflage" design of freestanding antennas or poles or
building mounted antennas if, in the opinion of the council, said apparatus will be sufficiently
disguised as trees, light poles, church steeples, or other similar objects.
Staff Comments:There are no variance(s) being requested or processed with this CUP application.
ALTERNATIVES for ACTION
Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1. Recommend APPROVAL of the Conditional Use Permit to Dish Wireless for the proposed
cellular/wireless communication equipment, located on top of the Two River High School facilities,
1897 Delaware Avenue, based on the findings-of-fact that the new equipment will be fully compliant
with the standards and regulations of City Code; or
2. Recommend DENIAL of the Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit to Dish Wireless and for
the property located at 1897 Delaware Avenue, with specific findings-of-fact as determined by the
Planning Commission that support such a denial; or
3. TABLE the request, pending additional information if requested by the Planning Commission; and
direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60-days, in compliance with MN
STATUTES 15.99.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the new wireless antenna improvements
proposed by Dish Wireless, and to the property located at 1897 Delaware Avenue, with the condition that
the applicant abides by all regulations in Title 12-1D-14 of the City Code, as outlined in this staff report,
and the following conditions:
1) The Applicant shall abide by all regulations in Title 12-1D-14 of the City Code.
2) The Applicant shall meet all Federal Communication Commission (FCC) standards and regulations
related to the operation and maintenance of these new antenna features.
PC PACKET PG.# 9
Planning Report-Case #2022-12 (CUP-Dish Wireless) Page 7
3) A building permit must be approved prior to any installation or new construction work. The Applicants
must provide the name and contact information of a private, third-party structural engineering
inspection firm or structural inspector to provide reports to the city’s Building Official confirming all
new work and structural additions were done in accordance with State of Minnesota Building Codes.
4)The new antennas and related equipment shall comply with all applicable electricalcodes.
5)The new antenna arrays and supporting structural materials shall be painted to match the existing
painted color(s) with the other existing cellular communication equipment on the school.
6)No added lighting or advertisement of any kind, including any noticeable provider/company logo
shall be placed on any part of the antenna arrays, which may be noticeable or viewed by the general
public from the ground or surrounding properties.
FINDINGS OF FACT
FOR APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit
for
Cellular-Wireless Antenna Equipment
1897 Delaware Avenue (Two Rivers High School Facility)
________________________________________________________________________
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed conditional use request:
1. The proposed project is consistent with the conditional use permit requirements allowing such
wireless equipment and facilities with an institutional (school) use.
2. The proposed project will not negatively affect the public health, safety and general welfare of the
students, faculty and/or the community.
3. The proposed wireless antenna equipment will not result in any significant physical or significant
changes to the existing school structure or visual exterior appearance.
4. Installing the new wireless antennas and equipment will help increase cellular coverage and data
and cellular capacity in the city’s service area.
PC PACKET PG.# 10
7/19/22, 12:03 PM Dakota County GIS
gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/1/1
TWO RIVERS HS -1897 Delaware AvAAe.
Disclaimer:Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate,but accuracy is not guaranteed.This is not a legal document and should not be
substituted for a title search,appraisal,survey,yy or for zoning verification.
Map Scale
1 inch =200 feet
7/19/2022
PC PACKET PG.# 11
PC PACKET PG.# 12
PC PACKET PG.# 13
PC PACKET PG.# 14
PC PACKET PG.# 15
PC PACKET PG.# 16
5' x 8' PlatformCell Arrays
PC PACKET PG.# 17
PC PACKET PG.# 18
PC PACKET PG.# 19
PC PACKET PG.# 20
PC PACKET PG.# 21
T-1SHEET INDEXVICINITY MAPDIRECTIONSSITE INFORMATIONPROJECT DIRECTORY11"x17" PLOT WILL BE HALF SCALE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTEDGENERAL NOTESSITE PHOTOGOPHER STATE ONE CALLUTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF MINNESOTA(800) 252-1166WWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORGxxxxxxxxxxxxxxDISH Wireless L.L.C. SITE ID:MNMSP00377BDISH Wireless L.L.C. SITE ADDRESS:1897 DELAWARE AVE.,SAINT PAUL, MN 55118MINNESOTA CODE COMPLIANCESCOPE OF WORKPC PACKET PG.# 22
A-11PC PACKET PG.# 23
A-21PC PACKET PG.# 24
A-3312PC PACKET PG.# 25
A-421PC PACKET PG.# 26
A-521PC PACKET PG.# 27
A-6132246PC PACKET PG.# 28
A-7147258369PC PACKET PG.# 29
A-8147258369PC PACKET PG.# 30
A-9147258369∅∅ ∅∅ PC PACKET PG.# 31
E-1231PC PACKET PG.# 32
E-214725836PC PACKET PG.# 33
E-3LOAD SERVEDVOLT AMPS(WATTS)L1 L2TRIPCKT#PHASELOAD SERVEDVOLT AMPS(WATTS)L1 L2TRIPCKT#213PC PACKET PG.# 34
G-112”PC PACKET PG.# 35
G-2123PC PACKET PG.# 36
G-3147258369PC PACKET PG.# 37
S-11324PC PACKET PG.# 38
S-212453PC PACKET PG.# 39
RF-11234PC PACKET PG.# 40
GN-1PC PACKET PG.# 41
GN-2PC PACKET PG.# 42
GN-3PC PACKET PG.# 43
GN-4xxxxxxxPC PACKET PG.# 44
GN-5PC PACKET PG.# 45
PC PACKET PG.# 46
PC PACKET PG.# 47
PC PACKET PG.# 48
PC PACKET PG.# 49
PC PACKET PG.# 50
PC PACKET PG.# 51
PC PACKET PG.# 52
PC PACKET PG.# 53
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE:July 26, 2022
TO:Planning Commission
FROM:Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:Planning Case 2022-13
VARIANCE
APPLICANT:Tim & Megan Altier
PROPERTY ADDRESS:1057 Esther Lane
ZONING/GUIDED:R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE:August 3, 2022 (60-Day Review Period)
INTRODUCTION
Tim & Megan Altier, owners of 1057 Esther Lane, are requesting consideration of a variance to encroach
approximately 3.3-ft. into the 10-ft. side yard setback, in order to provide an expanded attached garage
addition to the existing single-family dwelling.
A public hearing notice for this item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed
to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. The Applicants received one email
letter of support from a neighboring resident, and signatures of consent/support from two neighboring
owners, including the neighbor to the north who is immediately adjacent to the proposed addition.
BACKGROUND / SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located in the Kirchner
Addition, which is one of the historically older
R-1 One Family Residential zoned
neighborhoods in the community, and is
generally identified as one of the few “North
End” neighborhoods. This neighborhood is
comprised of smaller, single-family residential
lots and properties that were originally platted
in 1944. There are a number of properties that
do not conform to many of the minimum
setback or lot-size standards under the R-1
district.
The neighborhood features a number of homes
that were originally built with single-car
attached or smaller two-car garages. The
subject property is an irregular shaped parcel,
located along a slight curved segment of
Esther Lane. The property consists of 16,816-
sf. (0.39 acres) of land area; and contains a
PC PACKET PG.# 54
Planning Report-Case #2022-13 (Altier) Page 2
small 1,486-sf. one-story, flat-roofed dwelling structure built in 1956, with a small (374-sf.) single car
attached garage and narrow over-head garage door opening (see image - below).
View of Dwelling - 1057 Esther Lane
According to the Applicant’s survey, the existing dwelling sits approx. 27-feet from the front line, and each
northerly corner of the garage measures 14.9-ft. and 12.6-ft. respectively from the north lot line. The
property contains a fairly wide driveway of 34.5-ft. in width, which runs parallel along the north property
line and a short concrete block retaining wall, and eventually extends around the north side of the garage
as an added outdoor parking space. The owners do not intend to make any changes to this driveway.
The Altier’s are requesting to provide a small expansion (4’-7”) along the north side of the existing garage,
which would extend slightly beyond the back of the garage, wraps around the back of the garage, and ties
back into the main dwelling. The addition provides a wider, two-car garage door, a direct access into the
home, and adds approx. 302-sf. of added garage space, or 676-sf. of total garage area (see image – below).
The expanded garage would result in adjusted setbacks from 14.9’ down to 10.2’, and from 12.6’ down to
6.7’ at the respective corners to the north lot line (image – below). Although the new NE corner meets the
10-foot setback, the newer NW back corner encroaches approximately 3.3-ft. into the 10-ft. side yard
PC PACKET PG.# 55
Planning Report-Case #2022-13 (Altier) Page 3
setback, which necessitates approval of this variance. The applicant has provided a narrative explaining
their reasons for making this request.
ANALYSIS
City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variance requests. The city must consider a number of variables when
recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i) practical difficulties;
and (ii) impact to the community.
The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in
a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner
is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance, if
granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality or neighborhood. It is also noted that economic
considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. In addition, variances are only to be permitted
when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with
the comprehensive plan.
Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further provides other issues the city may consider when granting or denying a
variance, noted as follows:
x Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community.
x Existing and anticipated traffic conditions.
x Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety.
x Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan.
x Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate undue
hardship or difficulty.
When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have
been met in granting a variance, and provide findings-of-fact to support such a recommendation to the City
Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to meet these standards, or has
not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings-of-fact supporting
a recommendation of denial must be determined.
As part of any variance request, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and
findings, which for this case, are noted below (in italic text), followed by a brief staff response:
1. Are there any practical difficulties that help support the granting of this variance? (“practical
difficulties” means the owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by City Code)
PC PACKET PG.# 56
Planning Report-Case #2022-13 (Altier) Page 4
Applicant’s Response: YES - The lot has an unusual shape that prohibits building a two car attached
garage structure elsewhere. The lot line on the north side of the property is not parallel to the existing
building. The current one car garage could be expanded on the east side of the property (front of the
home) without encroaching on the 10’ standard setback requirement. However, the rear of the
proposed structure does require a roughly 4' variance because the property line is not square to the
building. Had the original building been constructed 4' south of its current placement on the lot, a
variance would not be required for the garage expansion. The proposed structure is well under the
1200 sq. ft. ordinance limits.
The existing one car garage has never been accessible from the interior of the home. During an
extensive remodel in 2019, an access door was added to the back of the home (west) in anticipation
of a garage expansion. During an appraisal of the property after the remodel, the home owners were
advised that a two car attached garage accessible from the interior of the home adds significant value
to the property. The home owners considered a two car tandem garage to avoid encroachment into
the required setback, but this plan leaves us with vehicle mobility challenges and storage challenges
that make use of a tandem structure unreasonable for use.
In the planning commission notes from the meeting dated 2/27/2018, Commissioner Noonan,
supported by Commissioner Magnuson, commented that an "awkwardly aligned lot line, topography,
unusual site conditions, etc." in the past had fairly easily met the definition of practical difficulty.
Staff’s Response:The subject property as it exists today, with a typical single family dwelling and
attached garage can easily be determined as being used in a “reasonable manner” and permitted use by
City Code. The city must now give careful consideration of whether or not the use of the property as
altered by the variance, is reasonable or will remain reasonable after requested improvements are made.
The proposed garage expansion proposed under this plan is not excessive, both in size and scale when
compared to the existing home or the surrounding neighborhood dwellings. The owners should be
commended for wishing to limit the mass and scale of the new garage project on this unusually shaped,
lot for this neighborhood, even though they have a larger lot (16,816-sf.) than some neighboring parcels.
The Applicants request to construct the garage addition “parallel” with the existing alignment of the
home and garage, seems reasonable and practical, especially given the current layout and conditions of
the property. The encroachment along the side yard seems minimal, and enough space (6.7’) remains
to provide adequate spacing between this and the neighboring property.
The owners request to allow this expanded garage structure is consistent with many other homes and
properties throughout the community. Staff finds the overall use and enjoyment of the home and
property does not and will not change as a result of granting this variance; and the Applicant’s desire
to construct a small garage addition/connection to the rear portion of the existing house, even one that
requires this variance, can be considered a reasonable request and use of the property.
2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by
the property owner.
Applicant’s Response: YES- There are a number of sites in our "north end'" neighborhood that do not
conform to many of the standard R-1 setback requirements. Down the street from the subject, a
variance for a garage expansion and attachment to the dwelling was granted in 2020 for the property
located at 554 Junction Lane, with similar practical difficulties with the uniqueness of the lot shape.
The subject lot was platted prior to the current Mendota Heights zoning requirements (1956), which
has resulted in a neighborhood filled with pie-shaped and unusual shaped lots and many structures in
the neighborhood that do not conform to the current
zoning requirements.
PC PACKET PG.# 57
Planning Report-Case #2022-13 (Altier) Page 5
The dwelling immediately north of the subject (1055 Esther Ln) is non-compliant to the current 10-ft.
side setback requirements. Therefore, the proposed garage/addition poses no threat or any effect on
light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. This can be viewed in harmony
with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land
use plans for the community
Staff’s Response:Staff finds that there may be some unique circumstances to this property,
particularly with the slight misalignment or layout of the original dwelling to the north boundary line.
It is partially for this reason the subject dwelling has two different setback measurements of 14.9-ft.
and 12.6-ft. from this north line. The home also has a 25-ft. setback from the opposite (south) side
yard. If this home had been centered on the lot or moved closer to the south line, this variance would
not have been needed or may have permitted a larger expansion to the garage and or home.
Any reasonable addition to the existing one-car attached garage would have presented some challenges
or difficulties to any owner (past, present and future), without the need of a variance to accomplish such
improvement. Even if the owners chose to expand straight back from the existing garage, this addition
would have been hampered or limited by the angled north line as well. These difficulties in effect
creates some limitations and constraints to the owner, which were not created by others – and not the
current owners.
Homes with reduced setbacks along the front and side yards is a recognized and shared trait among
many properties in this “North End” and some neighboring properties. Even though staff has
acknowledged that other non-conforming lots or properties where variances may have been granted do
not add precedent value to a new variance request (i.e. variances should stand on their own merits and
be determined individually), it remains reasonable and acceptable for the city to give some favorable
weight to such physical circumstances, such as a uniquely shaped lot or existing (reduced) setbacks that
remain or impact the subject property and/or structures.
3. If the variance was granted, would it alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Applicant’s Response: NO - The house was built in 1956 and has a unique mid-century modern
architecture with a "flat" roofline. The only way to maintain the character of this building in this
neighborhood, while modernizing to a two car attached garage is to expand on the north side of the
building where the existing one car garage is located. Further, the plans are to match the exterior of
the garage to the current dwelling by using stucco and wood.
The guiding principles in the comprehensive plan provide for maintaining, preserving, and enhancing
existing single-family neighborhoods. The requested variance would preserve the residential character
of the neighborhood and would provide a substantial investment into a property to enhance its overall
use and enjoyment by the owner..
Staff’s Response:Based on general aerial mapping review and interpretation of this neighborhood
and other properties in the vicinity, it appears a number of both attached and detached garages may not
meet some of the current setback standards under the R-1 District.
The neighborhood is all but residential in character. The new garage addition represents a considerable
investment by the Applicant to bring the existing 1950’s style and designed dwelling into a nicer, more
up-to-date home for the owner and provide additional vehicle and personal equipment storage.
Staff believes the Applicant hasdemonstrated through their architectural/construction design plans, that
the new garage addition and features will be made to match the existing home, will not look out of
place, or detract from the overall design and feel of the existing dwelling, the neighboring properties or
overall neighborhood. Staff further believes the essential character of the neighborhood would not be
altered by granting this variance.
PC PACKET PG.# 58
Planning Report-Case #2022-13 (Altier) Page 6
4. Restrictions on Granting Variances.
The following restrictions should be considered when reviewing a variance:
a) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
When weighing the economic factor(s) of a variance application, taking economic considerations
into account alone should not be the reason for either denying – or even approving a variance. In
this particular case, the property owner is simply requesting to provide a small addition and
improvements to their home. This new addition/garage requires a small encroachment, and does
not impact the neighboring properties.
Although one can conclude this new attached garage addition will provide some economic value
and benefit to the owner by increasing their property value or marketability (future sale), the
Applicant has demonstrated other practical difficulties in this case, and some reasonable
explanations for requesting this variance. It is not clear how economic considerations alone may
affect the outcome of this variance request, as they do not appear to be the sole reason for rejecting
this variance.
b) Variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Staff finds that the request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the R-1 One Family
Residence district, as this proposed addition with attached garage are all consistent and allowed as
a permitted use in the underlying zoning. The city is not allowed to permit a variance on any use
not allowed in the district where the property is located (i.e. “use variance”); and this variance is
not requesting such use. The R-1 districts are most predominant throughout the community, and
this district is intended to maintain the character of even older neighborhoods, like the North End
in the community.
The subject property is designated as LR-Low Density Residential in the current 2040 Plan. Certain
land use goals and policies are noted below:
x Land Use Goal #2:Preserve, protect, and enrich the mature, fully developed residential
neighborhoods and character of the community.
o Land Use Policy #2: The city will emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and
general focus on aesthetics throughout the community, including within existing
developments and buildings.
o Land Use Policy #6: A mechanism will be developed to allow for the maintenance and
reinvestment in identified non-conforming properties
x Housing Goal #1:Preserve and improve existing neighborhoods and housing units.
o Housing Policy #1: Continue to enforce housing maintenance and zoning codes.
o Housing Policy #2: Explore options for flexibility in Zoning Code standards and encourage
reinvestment in existing houses
o Housing Policy #3. Provide for housing development that maintains the attractiveness and
distinct neighborhood characteristics in the community.
o Housing Policy #4. Support the maintenance and rehabilitation of the community’s existing
housing stock.
Other guiding principles in the comprehensive plan provide for maintaining, preserving, and enhancing
existing single-family neighborhoods. The requested variance would preserve the residential character
of the neighborhood, and would provide a substantial investment into a property to enhance its overall
use and enjoyment by the owner.
PC PACKET PG.# 59
Planning Report-Case #2022-13 (Altier) Page 7
The proposed garage addition creates no additional impacts or poses any threats on light and air, as
well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. This addition and request for variance can be
viewed or considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with
the current and proposed land use plans for the community.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the variance request to 1057 Esther Lane, based on the following
findings-of-fact that support the granting of the variance requested herein, and noted as follows:
A.Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict
application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying
out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part
test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted
by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of
the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.”
B.The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to
justify the granting of the variance for a reduced setback by the following:
i.) the proposed matching and small-scale addition to the attached garage and the existing home
is consistent with other homes and properties throughout the surrounding neighborhood, and
the overall use and enjoyment of the home and property does not change even with the
allowance of the variance, and therefore the requested variance is considered a reasonable
request;
ii.) the subject property was originally platted in 1944, creating a uniquely shaped style lot,
which was later developed in 1956; and due to the original alignment and layout of the
dwelling structure on the subject lot with varying setbacks, this design created some unique
circumstances, difficulties or impediments for the Owners to add a reasonable addition,
especially along this north side of the home, except by means of a variance.
iii.) approving the Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as the
neighboringproperties and residential neighborhoodarea will not be affected by the approval
of this variance; and
iv.) this new addition and request for variance is considered in harmony with the general purpose
of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use and housing
goals and policies as contained in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for the community.
C.The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but
not limited to the effect of the variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community,
existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the variance on the danger of fire and the
risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the
Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts
upon the neighborhood or the community in general.
D.Approval of this variance is for 1057 Esther Lane only, and does not apply or give precedential
value to any other properties throughout the city. All applicants for a variance must apply for and
provide a project narrative to the city to justify a variance; and all variance requests must be
reviewed independently by city staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code.
E.The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2022-
13, dated and presented July 26, 2022 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully
incorporated into Resolution No. 2022-____. (final number to be assigned later)
PC PACKET PG.# 60
Planning Report-Case #2022-13 (Altier) Page 8
F.The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his variance
request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by
the variance, and are noted as follows:
i.)The proposed encroachment for the addition shall not extend further than 3.3 feet into the
required 10-foot side-yard setback, as illustrated on the survey and site plan included in the
application submittal (Planning Case File No. 2022-13).
ii.)The new garage addition, including the roofline, will match the overall architecture and
design of the existing residential dwelling.
iii.)Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and
construction work activities.
iv.)All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and
local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance
Guidance Document.
v.)Approval of the variance is contingent upon City Council approval of the application and
corresponding site plan. If the variance is approved by the City Council, the Applicant shall
obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed addition within one-year from said
approval date.
2. Recommend denial of the variance request, based on the findings of fact that confirm the
Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting of the variance requested
herein, noted as follows:
A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict
application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying
out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part
test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted
by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of
the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.”
B. The Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order
to justify the granting of a variance for reduced setback. The proposed garage addition is not
essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and the fact the addition
requires a variance to normal setback standards does not provide any special or unique
circumstances in this case, and therefore this new garage addition is not considered or represents a
reasonable use of the property, especially if the owner were to reduce the garage addition,or expand
towards the back of the garage, thereby eliminating the need for the variance.
C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is
not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique
circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood).
3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days,
in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration to Alternative No. 1, approval of
the variance to 1057 Esther Lane and to Tim & Megan Altier, based on the findings-of-fact supporting this
variance application request, and the conditions noted herein.
PC PACKET PG.# 61
SITE PHOTOS – 1057 ESTHER LANE
PC PACKET PG.# 62
576
530
584
1111
568
1105
592
571
521
575
560
1063
1057
569
600
1060
574
524
557
1116
1099
1117
1070
1119
1056
540 536
539 525543535
573
1057
1100
560
564
548
1021
1112
1051
554
555
1035
548
1076
1050
1068
13
1054
1062
1055
1038
546
10641061
10411054
547
1129
1035
1027
1044
1123
577
1040
1052
1050
1060
1131
531
1133
1015580 568 562 558 554 550 546
1135
537 523543
1022
1016
1067
1061
1119
587
604 506
1101
1055
1010
CHIPPEWA AVEVIEW LNDODD RDJUNCTION LN
JOHN ST
E
S
T
H
E
R
L
N
BUTLER AVE
SPRIN
G
S
T
KIRCH
N
E
R
A
V
E
A
S
H
L
E
Y
L
N
NORMA LNThis imagery is copyrighted and licensed by Nearmap US Inc, which retains
ownership of the imagery. It is being provided by Dakota County under the
terms of that license. Under that license, Dakota County is allowed to
provide access to the “Offline Copy Add-On for Government”, on which this
image services is based, at 6-inch resolution, six months after the capture
date, provided the user acknowledges that the imagery will be used in their
normal course of business and must not be resold or distributed for the
City of
Mendota
Heights0150
SCALE IN FEETDate: 7/21/2022
1057 ESTHER LANE (ALTIER)
GENERAL LOCATION MAP
PC PACKET PG.# 63
1057
571
1055
1051
1061
1064
1044
1054 1060
1050
1068
1038
1054
546
564
E
S
T
H
E
R
L
N
This imagery is copyrighted and licensed by Nearmap US Inc, which retains
ownership of the imagery. It is being provided by Dakota County under the
terms of that license. Under that license, Dakota County is allowed to
provide access to the “Offline Copy Add-On for Government”, on which this
image services is based, at 6-inch resolution, six months after the capture
date, provided the user acknowledges that the imagery will be used in their
normal course of business and must not be resold or distributed for the
City of
Mendota
Heights040
SCALE IN FEETDate: 7/21/2022
1057 ESTHER LANE (ALTIER)
SITE MAP
PC PACKET PG.# 64
PC PACKET PG.# 65
PC PACKET PG.# 66
PC PACKET PG.# 67
PC PACKET PG.# 68
PC PACKET PG.# 69
! " #$
%&'(&)* #& #& %&! +,-- ./$.-
01 ! " # PC PACKET PG.# 70
$%&$%$'(
'('('('('('('('(
'(
'(
'(
'(
'(
'(
'('(
'(
'(
'(
'(
'(
'(
'(
'(
'(
'('('('('('('('('('('('('('('('('('('('('('('('('('('('('('('('('('('('(
'(
'(
'(
'(
'(
'(
'(
'(
'(
'(
'(
'(
'(
'(
'('('('('('('('('('('('('('('('('('('('(
'('('(
'('('(
'('('(
'('('('('('('('('('('('('('(
'('('(
'('('(
'('('(
'('('('('('('('('('('(
'('('()()(
)()(
)()()()()()()(
)()()()()()()()()()(
)()()()()(
)()()()()()()()()()()()(
)()()()()(
)()()()($*+($,*+-&($,&*+.&($,#%*+$($,.*+&($," /' '' /' '#'+
! " #$
%&'(&)* #& #& %&! +,-- ./$.-
01 ''' PC PACKET PG.# 71
PC PACKET PG.# 72
PC PACKET PG.# 73
! " #
$%& '%() #% #% $%! *+ ,,--./
.,
01 PC PACKET PG.# 74
! " #
$%& '%() #% #% $%! *+ ,,--./
.,
01 !"# $ % PC PACKET PG.# 75
&'(&'& )
) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
) ) )*)*)
*)*)
*)*)*)*)*)*)*)
*)*)*)*)*)*)*)*)*)*)
*)*)*)*)*)
*)*)*)*)*)*)*)*)*)*)*)*)
*)*)*)*)*)
*)*)*)*)&+,)&-+,)'-(+,.()&-/'+,&)&-.+,()&-$ % % ! /(
! " #
$%& '%() #% #% $%! *+ ,,--./
.,
01 !"# )% !"*/0 PC PACKET PG.# 76
.
! " #
$%& '%() #% #% $%! *+ ,,--./
.,
01 * % "# /PC PACKET PG.# 77
&'(&'& )
)
)
)
) )
) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )*)*)*)
*)*)*)*)*)
*)*)*)*)*)
*)*)
*)*)*)*)*)
*)*)*)*)*)*)*)*)*)*)
*)*)
*)*)*)*)*)
*)*)*)*)*)*)*)*)*)*)&+,)&-+,)'-(+,.()&-/'+,&)&-.+,()&-$ % % ! /
! " #
$%& '%() #% #% $%! *+ ,,--./
.,
01 %/)/0 / PC PACKET PG.# 78
..&(&''+,(- +&+ + + +,)&-(++,.1)&-&+,-+,-(.+&+,&-+&+,&-'+ + +'+, )&-++,().-+'+, ()&-(.+) - +(+, -'+(+, - +, - ++,&) -.+,) -+,-(.+ +,) -+,&) -(.+&
! " #
$%& '%() #% #% $%! *+ ,,--./
.,
01 ,! # PC PACKET PG.# 79
! " #
$%& '%() #% #% $%! *+ ,,--./
.,
01 #% ! 22## % PC PACKET PG.# 80
'
! " #
$%& '%() #% #% $%! *+ ,,--./
.,
01 #% ! ##% ! PC PACKET PG.# 81
DATE: July 26, 2022
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kelly Torkelson, Assistant City Administrator
SUBJECT: Commission Data Practices and Email Update
Summary
To support compliance with the Minnesota Data Practices Act as well as to support a separation
of personal communication with commission communication, the city is rolling out city email
addresses for commission members.
Background
The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) is a series of state laws that outline
balancing the public’s right to know what the government is doing, the right to privacy and the
government’s need to function efficiently and responsibly. These laws outline a series of
classifications for data used within governmental operations. Classifications include:
• Public Data: Anyone can request it, the city cannot ask who they are or why they want
it.
• Private Data: Data is not accessible to the public, but it is accessible to the subject of
the data or by the parent or guardian if the subject of the data is a minor.
• Confidential Data: This is data that is not available to the public, it is not available to
the subject of the data, and it is only available to city staff on a need-to-know basis.
For the purposes of this discussion, we are mostly concerned with types of public data. This can
include things such as resident correspondence on commission business, correspondence with
city staff, meeting minutes and votes, meeting agenda and materials, and resident
communication with commission members, council members, or city staff. Government data
includes all data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated by the city, regardless
of physical form, storage media, or conditions of use. This includes paper files, computer files,
emails, photographs, charts, maps, videotapes, audio tables, handwritten notes, and working
documents.
As email has emerged as one of the most common tools of communication for city business, it is
an important component of the data practices landscape. In order to ensure that the city is able
to comply with Minnesota data practices laws, while also supporting a separation of personal
PC PACKET PG.# 82
and public communication for commission members, staff are rolling out city emails for
commission members.
Impact
Commission members will be receiving follow up information regarding their new city email
account, including how to access, following this meeting. The expectation moving forward is that
commission members will use their city emails for all future communication regarding
commission business.
Action:
None
PC PACKET PG.# 83