Loading...
05 05 2026 CC Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA May 5, 2026 at 6:00 PM Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Approval of the Agenda The Council, upon majority vote of its members, may make additions or deletions to the agenda. These items may be submitted after the agenda preparation deadline. 5. Fire Department Badge Pinning-- Fire Captains Pat Noack and Daniel Goldenstein 6. Public Comments - for items not on the agenda Public comments provide an opportunity to address the City Council on items which are not on the meeting agenda. All are welcome to speak. Individuals should address their comments to the City Council as a whole, not individual members. Speakers are requested to come to the podium and must state their name and address. Comments are limited to three (3) minutes. No action will be taken; however, the Mayor and Council may ask clarifying questions as needed or request staff to follow up. 7. Consent Agenda Items on the consent agenda are approved by one motion of the City Council. If a councilmember requests additional information or wants to make a comment on an item, the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. Items removed from the consent agenda will be taken up as the next order of business. a. Approve Minutes from the April 21, 2026, City Council Meeting b. Approve Minutes from the April 21, 2026, City Council Work Session Meeting c. Acknowledge Minutes from the March 31, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting d. Approve General Fund Transfer e. Adopt Ordinance 608: No Parking on Delaware Avenue f. Approve a Grading Permit for 1416 Dodd Road, Somerset Country Club g. Approve Contract to Paint Streetlight Poles Page 1 of 151 h. Approve Contract for Expansion of the Wentworth Basketball Court i. Approve Contract for the Hockey Board Replacement at Wentworth Park j. Adopt Resolution 2026-34 to Defer Street Rehabilitation Assessment at 706 Cheyenne Lane k. Approve Liquor License Renewal for Somerset Country Club l. Approve a Right-of-Way License Agreement for Ivy Keep II Owners Association m. Approve Claims List 8. Presentations a. ZOOMS STEM Design Challenge--Visitation School b. Metro Transit Update 9. Public Hearings 10. New and Unfinished Business a. Friendly Hills Park Temporary Outfield Fence b. Par 3 Golf Course Tree Spading Project c. Resolution 2026-31 Approving a Variance to the front-yard setback for an accessibility ramp at 537 Junction Lane [Planning Case No. 2026-02] d. Resolution 2026-32 Approving a Lot Line Adjustment for 1603 Dodd Road and 688 Wentworth Avenue e. Resolution 2026-33 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for an attached garage size of 1,499 square feet at 1961 Glenhill Road [Planning Case No. 2026-07] f. Municipal Campus Project Update 11. Community / City Administrator Announcements 12. City Council Comments 13. Adjourn Next Meeting May 19, 2026 at 6:00PM Information is available in alternative formats or with the use of auxiliary aids to individuals with disabilities upon request by calling city hall at 651-452-1850 or by emailing cityhall@mendotaheightsmn.gov. Regular meetings of the City Council are cablecast on NDC4/Town Square Television Cable Channel 18/HD798 and online at townsquare.tv/Mendota-Heights-Streaming Page 2 of 151 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA DRAFT Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, April 21, 2026 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, was held at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Levine called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Councilors Lorberbaum, Paper, Mazzitello, and Maczko were also present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Levine presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Mazzitello moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the public wished to be heard. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Levine presented the consent agenda and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Lorberbaum moved approval of the consent agenda as presented, pulling item I. a. Approval of April 7, 2026, City Council Minutes b. Approve City Administrator Out of Metro Travel Request c. Approve Resolution 2026-27 Accepting a Park Bench Donation d. Adopt Resolution 2026-30 Accepting Donation of a Sauna for Fire Department Use e. Approve Appointment of Fire Captains Pat Noack and Daniel Goldenstein f. Accept the Resignation of Katie Bengtson and Authorize Recruitment for Communications Coordinator g. Adopt Resolution 2026-28 Approving the Amended and Restated Criminal Justice Network JPA h. Authorize Renewal of Workers Comp Insurance Policy 5/1/2026 – 5/1/2027 i. Approve Temporary Liquor License – Beth Jacob Congregation j. Approve Liquor License Renewals Page 3 of 151 D April 21, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 of 7 k. Adopt Resolution 2026-29 to Accept Bids and Award Contract for the Hampshire Estates Street Improvements l. Award of a Professional Services Contract for the Hampshire Estates Street Improvements m. Award Professional Services Contract for Test Bore Drilling Services as Part of the Public Works Facility Geothermal Assessment Project n. Approve January & February 2026 Treasurer’s Reports o. Approval of Claims List Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS I) Approve Temporary Liquor License – Beth Jacob Congregation Councilor Lorberbaum recused herself from this item. Councilor Mazzitello moved to approve TEMPORARY LIQUOR LICENSE – BETH JACOB CONGREGATION. Councilor Maczko seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Councilor Lorberbaum rejoined the Council. PRESENTATIONS A) DAKOTA AREA REFERRALS AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES (DARTS) Mike Lavin, DARTS President, provided an overview of the organization and how it serves the residents of Mendota Heights. He provided additional information on the different services offered to seniors and their caregivers, as well as details on the number of Mendota Heights residents served by the program. He noted an upcoming fundraising breakfast event scheduled for April 23rd at Mendakota Country Club. Councilor Lorberbaum commented that there is a resident in the community who has difficulty getting around and asked what process would be followed for that person to get a ride to the upcoming library opening. She asked if there would be a charge for that service. Mr. Lavin commented that the resident or their caregiver would call DARTS and schedule an individual ride. He stated that there is a cost. He added that they do work with insurance companies and County waiver programs for those who qualify. Councilor Lorberbaum asked for the estimated cost for different services, such as home services or yard clean-up. Mr. Lavin replied that if someone called for home service repairs, the first hour charge would be $110, which includes a $30 trip charge. He stated that it is very affordable when you think of contracted services. He commented that their team can do things very quickly and provided examples of the work that could Page 4 of 151 April 21, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 of 7 be done within one hour. He stated that most calls are between 60 and 90 minutes. He stated that yard clean-up would be $125 for spring or fall yard clean-up. Councilor Mazzitello thanked Mr. Lavin for attending and asked how someone would volunteer and/or donate to this organization. Mr. Lavin stated that someone could call or fill out the application on the website. He stated that based on the information in the application, they would determine where someone would best fit within the organization. Mayor Levine thanked Mr. Lavin for attending and thanked DARTS for the services provided to the community. B) E-BIKE SAFETY CAMPAIGN Recreation Coordinator Willow Eisfeldt stated that in November 2025, Police Chief Kelly McCarthy approached the Parks and Recreation Department about a collaboration for an e-bike safety campaign at the direction of the City Council. She stated that staff have developed a comprehensive campaign to spread awareness on how to safely and legally operate an e-bike, especially on the many shared-use trails in Mendota Heights, and provided a brief overview. Councilor Paper recognized that safety information was sent to schools with students 15 years old and up and asked if the information was sent out to the youth aged 14. Recreation Coordinator Willow Eisfeldt commented that she could send out the information to the middle schools as well. She noted that hopefully the outreach and social media will also reach residents, both youth and guardians. Councilor Paper asked for more information on the classification labeling and specifically asked for more information on potential consequences. Police Chief Kelly McCarthy replied that violations are enforceable, whether an ordinance violation or a State law violation. She stated that e-bikes could also be impounded. Councilor Paper used an example where a group of riders is stopped, and some of the kids are under 15. He asked what would happen in that scenario. Police Chief Kelly McCarthy replied that they would contact the parents, and then would either have the parents come to get the kids and the e-bikes, or the e-bikes would be impounded, and the kids would be driven home. She stated that they would educate, but if the conduct was outside of that, a citation could be issued. She clarified that the impounded bikes could be returned to the parents. Councilor Maczko asked if the 15-mph speed has been adopted as part of a City ordinance or whether the ticket would be written under County ordinance. Police Chief Kelly McCarthy replied that only the County can enforce that on the County trails. She stated that the City has also recommended that speed, but it has not been adopted through an ordinance. Page 5 of 151 April 21, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 of 7 Councilor Maczko asked if the 15-year-old specification is enforceable. Police Chief Kelly McCarthy replied that the age limitation is State law and is enforceable. Councilor Maczko asked if the City should consider adopting an ordinance with that speed limit. Police Chief Kelly McCarthy replied that it would not be her decision; that would be a decision of the City Council. Councilor Lorberbaum used a scenario where she is walking the trail and an e-bike is coming up behind her. She asked if the e-bike would be required to pass on the left. Police Chief Kelly McCarthy replied that there is no law stating how any bikes pass a pedestrian, but as long as they pass safely, there would be no issue. Mayor Levine commented that she did not see anything on e-motos being banned. Police Chief Kelly McCarthy stated that e-motos are not allowed on public property at all. She stated that e-motos can only be operated on someone’s private property, unless they are street legal, which would also require the driver to be licensed. Mayor Levine referenced the potential enforcement actions and encouraged the education campaign to include the prohibition on e-motos. She stated that enforcement consequences should also be included in the campaign, as that may assist with prevention. Councilor Mazzitello commented that staff did a great job on the educational video. Mayor Levine thanked Recreation Coordinator Willow Eisfeldt and Police Chief Kelly McCarthy for their collaborative efforts. She stated that she would support a review to ensure all State, County, and City laws and regulations are consistent. PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 607: AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO REPEAL AND REPLACE TITLE 11: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS; AND AUTHORIZE PUBLICATION OF SUMMARY ORDINANCE Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the Council was being asked to adopt Ordinance No. 607: an Ordinance Amendment to repeal and replace Title 11: Subdivision Regulations. Councilor Lorberbaum thanked staff, acknowledging that this was a lot of work. She asked if the definition of reverse curve had been included in the draft ordinance. Page 6 of 151 April 21, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 of 7 Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that she received that comment from Councilor Lorberbaum and spoke about it with Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek. She stated that the term is within MnDOT standards and confirmed that could be included in the definitions section. Councilor Maczko asked how a Planned Unit Development (PUD) would interact with these subdivision regulations. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that a PUD is a zoning application to establish a new zoning district for a development and may or may not be associated with a subdivision application at the same time. She stated that often a property has been subdivided many years ago, while there is still property that would be subdivided in the future. She stated that a PUD would have to comply with the subdivision ordinance in place, but a PUD does not always include a subdivision application. Councilor Maczko referenced the super block and a request that would include a subdivision application and PUD request. He asked if that application would still need to meet these requirements. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that the subdivision request would need to meet these requirements, and the PUD request would be reviewed concurrently in that situation. Councilor Mazzitello stated that this action has been on his to-do list for the past five years on the Council. He commented that Community Development Manager Sarah Madden has done exemplary work on this. He noted a grammatical suggestion of a double space, noting that it was the only error he found in the document. Councilor Mazzitello moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 607: AN AMENDMENT TO REPEAL AND REPLACE IN FULL TITLE 11 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilor Mazzitello moved to authorize PUBLICATION OF A SUMMARY ORDINANCE OF ORDINANCE NO. 607. Councilor Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 B) RESOLUTION 2026-22 APPROVING THE LEXINGTON HEIGHTS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT – FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN; AND ORDINANCE NO. 606 APPROVING A ZONING AMENDMENT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT (PLANNING CASE NOS. 2025-16 AND 2026-03) Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a brief background on this item. The Council was being asked to consider Resolution 2026-22, Approving a Planned Unit Development Amendment – Final Development Plan, for the Lexington Heights Planned Unit Development; and Ordinance No. 606 Approving a Zoning Amendment to Planned Unit Development Overlay District. Councilor Lorberbaum acknowledged that Mr. Riley offered to meet with each Councilor individually prior to the meeting date, as he could not attend tonight. She noted that most of her questions were Page 7 of 151 April 21, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 6 of 7 answered through that process. She noted that the basketball court will be converted to two pickleball courts, as that was a question at the last meeting. She commented that the original application had a height difference between the new building and the existing buildings. She noted that the style of the new building had changed and asked about the height difference as currently proposed. Joe McElwain, Chase Real Estate, replied that there is no difference in height, as that remains the same as the original proposal. He explained that the architectural style was changed to better match the existing buildings. Councilor Mazzitello moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2026-22, APPROVING A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN – AMENDMENT TO THE 1983 LEXINGTON HEIGHTS APARTMENTS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2300 LEXINGTON AVENUE. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Further discussion: Councilor Mazzitello expressed appreciation to Condor Company and Mr. Riley for reaching out to the neighbor to the north to ensure that they were comfortable with the changes that had been made and to address any requested accommodations. He acknowledged that the property owner has been a great community partner and was excited to see this moving forward. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Abstain: 1 (Maczko) Councilor Mazzitello moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 606, AMENDING THE LEXINGTON HEIGHTS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND A ZONING AMENDMENT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Abstain: 1 (Maczko) COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson announced upcoming community events and activities. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Mazzitello commented that earlier today, there was a work session, which included a number of topics, including performance standards. He noted the number of residents who subscribe to receive all Commission and Council packets. He encouraged residents to sign up for the link to the packets to be emailed to them. He commented that he enjoyed the Annual Fire Recognition Banquet that took place last weekend. He also shared historical facts from 1776 and 1775, leading up to the 250th anniversary of the nation, and encouraged residents to study history. Councilor Paper commented that registration is open for the Scott Patrick Memorial 5k. Page 8 of 151 April 21, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 7 of 7 Councilor Maczko commented that the municipal campus project continues to move forward and encouraged residents to participate in the upcoming resident engagement opportunities. He also commented on the Annual Awards Banquet for the Fire Department, which recognized retiring firefighters and other awards. He referenced the two Captains who were appointed tonight and the efforts, commitment, and dedication of all firefighters. He stated that the Fire Department continues to thrive in the paid-on-call model, which speaks to the quality of the department and the individuals who come forward to serve. He recognized two firefighters who retired, noting that they came on board when he was Chief. Councilor Lorberbaum stated that April 25th is National Take Back Day and encouraged residents to clean out their medicine cabinets, noting that unused prescription drugs can be dropped off 24/7 at the Police Department. She commented that Mendota Heights is very lucky for the individuals who continue to serve the community as firefighters. She stated that at the last meeting, she asked residents to reach out about the cellular tower proposal and noted that she has received some great responses and encouraged residents to continue to be engaged. Mayor Levine stated that for the clean-up event, they can pick up the materials at City Hall during those hours, but the cleaning up can occur any time over that weekend, or any time if residents see trash around the parks and community. She also recognized the retiring firefighters and those who received awards during the fire banquet. ADJOURN Councilor Mazzitello moved to adjourn. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 7:09 p.m. ____________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Nancy Bauer City Clerk Page 9 of 151 This page is intentionally left blank April 21, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA DRAFT Minutes of the City Council Work Session Tuesday, April 21, 2026 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the Mendota Heights City Council was held at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Levine called the work session to order at 4:30 p.m. Councilors Lorberbaum, Mazzitello and Maczko (arrived at 4:39 pm) were in attendance. Councilor Paper was absent. Others present included: City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator Kelly Torkelson, Finance Director Kristen Schabacker, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, Parks & Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence, Police Chief Kelly McCarthy, Community Development Manager Sarah Madden, Assistant City Engineer Lucas Ritchie, Administrative/Special Projects Coordinator Noel Mills Ford, and City Clerk Nancy Bauer. INDEPENDENCE DAY/250TH ANNIVERSARY EVENT UPDATE City Administrator Jacobson provided an overview of the request for additional city events and activities over the Fourth of July weekend in recognition of the nation’s 250th anniversary. She noted that because the fourth falls on a Saturday, staff will observe the holiday on Friday, resulting in many staff being out of town. Due to limited staffing, it would be challenging to schedule additional events. City Administrator Jacobson added that the Dakota County Historical Society will hold an event at the Sibley House in Mendota, and the city has arranged for food trucks at Mendakota Park prior to the fireworks display on July 4. Parks & Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director Lawrence added that two food trucks will be available at Mendakota Park. Councilor Lorberbaum read her email to City Administrator Jacobson asking about additional events for that weekend and then read City Administrator Jacobson’s response to her request. Mayor Levine suggested having a banner installed at Mendakota Park for the holiday weekend. Page 10 of 151 E April 21, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 2 City Administrator Jacobson noted that the City funds fireworks and that no additional funding had been allocated for 250th anniversary events. Staff will instead focus on promoting the activities occurring in Mendota, as well as the food trucks and the fireworks. Councilor Maczko asked whether Mendakota Country Club contributes to the cost of the fireworks display. City Administrator Jacobson stated that they have not contributed to the fireworks costs for some time. Parks & Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director Lawrence added that Mendakota Country Club remains a great partner by providing the launch location and other support for the fireworks display. RADAR FEEDBACK SPEED LITMIT SIGNS Public Works Director Ruzek reminded the Council and reviewed the proposal presented last fall to purchase 12 radar feedback signs for installation on County roads designated as Municipal State Aid Streets. State Aid Funds would be used for the purchase, and the signs would collect data to support a traffic study. Staff continue to receive speeding complaints, and many State Aid routes carry traffic from higher-volume roadways, and the signs would be strategically placed in areas with speed transitions. Staff indicated that the existing signs have been effective. Purchasing additional signs would provide another tool to help reduce speeding. Councilor Mazzitello asked if the new signs would be mobile and it was confirmed that they would be mobile. Councilor Maczko sought clarification on why a study was needed. Public Works Director Ruzek stated that the current signs do not collect data. One of the signs alerts drivers when they are 10 miles above the posted speed limit, which indicates that there are speeding concerns. He also noted that the signs can be programmed as desired by staff. Councilor Maczko stated that the money spent to purchase the signs could be spent on fixing the roads. Chief McCarthy stated that most local streets do not have a significant speeding problem and noted that the study included in the packet was 20 years old. She also described the long-term impacts of speeding. She referenced the speed camera on Marie Avenue last year, noting that it captured drivers traveling 15 to 20 miles per hour over the speed limit and noted that there is a public perception of speeding on local streets. The speed feedback signs help align public perception with actual driving behavior. The speed feedback signs will collect data and help slow drivers down. Public Works Director Ruzek noted that data collected from speed feedback signs would also assist in planning traffic calming measures for future street projects. Page 11 of 151 April 21, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 3 City Engineer Ritchie stated that the estimated $30,000 cost for the purchase of 12 feedback signs is at the high end. The number of signs purchased could also be reduced. Councilor Mazzitello inquired about the amount of annual State Aid Funds received. Public Works Director Ruzek noted it was approximately $630,000. Councilor Mazzitello noted that the investment would be worthwhile, as the data collected would help identify problem areas for future improvements. Councilor Lorberbaum also stated that the purchase of speed feedback signs would be a worthwhile investment. They do remind drivers of their speed and do make a difference. Councilor Maczko stated he would like to see data demonstrating that speeding problems exist in areas without speed feedback signs. Public Works Director Ruzek noted that a speed study could cost about $10,000. Mayor Levine stated that she also thought purchasing the speed feedback signs would be worth the investment. Councilor Mazzitello noted that a speed survey may have been conducted before and after for the Marie Avenue project between Dodd Road and Delaware Avenue. That feedback may have helped with the design of that project. Public Works Director Ruzek noted that this item would be placed on a future City Council agenda. PERFORMANCE MEASURE REPORT Assistant City Administrator Torkelson reviewed the City of Mendota Heights Strategic Priorities and a draft Strategic Priorities Performance Measures Report for 2025. She requested feedback on whether the report includes the desired metrics, whether the City Council would like additional future data included, and whether the Council was interested in developing key performance indicators (KPIs) for the report. Mayor Levine suggested collecting data on the number of businesses in the city, tracking how many businesses are gained or lost each year, and maintaining year-over-year comparisons and collecting similar data for housing units. Councilor Mazzitello suggested collecting the same data for affordable housing within the city. Councilor Maczko noted that it was a good summary report for 2025. He is also interested in data from comparable cities as well as year-to-year trends. Page 12 of 151 April 21, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 4 Assistant City Administrator Torkelson noted that future reports will have year-to-year data. Mayor Levine requested that the Facebook posts metric be separated into City Facebook posts and Parks and Recreation Facebook posts. Councilor Mazzitello noted that the metrics used to evaluate strategies should be measurable. He recommended reviewing these at the next strategic planning goal session, including how each strategy will be measured and the goals. City Administrator Jacobson noted that the strategic priority plan and the refinement of goals have progressed significantly, and that developing KPIs will be a next step in further refining the strategic plan. Councilor Mazzitello gave an example of city road reconstruction/rehabilitation, noting that there are 72 miles of streets and the goal is to reconstruct or rehabilitate them within 25 years. Mayor Levine cautioned against focusing too heavily on measurable data points and suggested looking at overall strategies. Councilor Lorberbaum noted that developing KPIs would be staff-intensive, both in terms of tracking and working toward achievement. Councilor Maczko stated he liked the strategies and priorities. He expressed interest in reviewing the KPIs and provided an example of tracking LED lights and instead track whether energy consumption had been reduced in kilowatt hours. Mayor Levine noted that the focus should be on initiatives and their progress, with staff identifying the initiatives that are most meaningful to the community. Councilor Mazzitello suggested that staff develop measurable items, after which Council would determine whether it would like to establish goals based on those measurable items. Assistant City Administrator Torkelson recommended developing performance measures for each strategy and tracking the data over multiple years. Mayor Levine noted that the number of registered voters compared with other cities and serves as a useful benchmark. Tax levels relative to other cities could also be used as a measurable data point. Fire Department and Police Department data is not captured in this data. Assistant City Administrator Torkelson stated there was some fire data in the report. Some of the information could be captured through a community survey, such as residents’ perceptions of how informed they feel about City activities and how safe they feel in the city. Currently, the city does not have a method in place to collect this data. Page 13 of 151 April 21, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 5 Councilor Lorberbaum suggested providing feedback to staff on which data should be changed or added. Assistant City Administrator Torkelson noted that the report is challenging, particularly in determining the appropriate level of detail for the data. She noted that some of the data may help identify areas that should be prioritized. It is helpful to have the data listed to represent some of the goals. Councilor Mazzitello suggested that metrics could include the number of fire calls per year and the cost associated with responding to those fire calls. ADJOURNMENT The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 5:53 p.m. _________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 14 of 151 This page is intentionally left blank March 31, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 16 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 31, 2026 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 31, 2026, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Cindy Johnson, Brian Udell, Jeff Nath, and Steve Goldade. Those absent: Chair Litton Field and Commissioner Jason Stone. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Election of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair for Year 2026 Commissioner Corbett opened the floor for nominations for the positions of Chair and/or Vice Chair. Commissioner Goldade asked if there should be elections with both the Chair and Vice Chair absent. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that typically elections are held at the February meeting, but that was a workshop meeting, so the elections were placed on this agenda. She stated that it would be nice to have the elections so that a Chair or Vice Chair could preside over the meeting tonight. Commissioner Goldade asked if they could postpone the elections to the next meeting. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that could be done. COMMISSIONER GOLDADE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO POSTPONE THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS TO THE APRIL MEETING. Further discussion: Commissioner Udell asked if any of the Commissioners present would be absent at the next meeting, to avoid this situation repeating. Commissioner Corbett commented that he would not be present at the next meeting. Commissioner Udell stated that it is also unknown if those absent tonight will be present at the next meeting. Commissioner Corbett stated that if they are going to delay, he would prefer to delay until May so that he could be present as well. Page 15 of 151 F March 31, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 16 Commissioner Goldade stated that he would be okay with changing his motion to postpone the elections to May. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that the only rule in City Code is to have the administrative meeting in February, and that has already passed. She confirmed that the Commission has postponed this decision in the past. Commissioner Goldade accepted a friendly amendment to change his motion to postpone the election to the May 26, 2026, meeting. Commissioner Johnson agreed. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Approval of Minutes COMMISSIONER GOLDADE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UDELL, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2026. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER UDELL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NATH, TO APPROVE THE WORK SESSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2026. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2026-02 CLARENCE TWEH, 537 JUNCTION LANE – VARIANCE Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the applicant, Clarence Tweh, is requesting approval of a variance to the front yard setback for the installation of an accessibility ramp for the property at 537 Junction Lane. The City Code permits small structures such as accessibility ramps to encroach five feet into the front yard setback without the need for a variance; however, the proposed location of this ramp would encroach more than five feet into the front yard and, as such, requires a variance from the City. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350 feet of the site; three comments were received. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Page 16 of 151 March 31, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 16 Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Nath asked if there would be any other way to accommodate the slope without going all the way around. Community Development Manager Saah Madden replied that, based on the contractor's information, an 18-foot width between the stoop and driveway, and the rise would not allow an accessibility ramp without a turnback. She stated that with the landing size and slope required, some sort of turnback would be required. Commissioner Johnson noted information received in a letter related to the dimensions and whether they were accurate. She asked if staff had double-checked the dimensions. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that staff were onsite with the contractor and have no reason to doubt the dimensions. Commissioner Corbett opened the public hearing. Jacob Burke, 533 Junction Lane, commented that he has a good relationship with his neighbor and does not intend to deny access to anyone in the neighborhood, but is opposed to the application as presented. He believed that this alters the character of the neighborhood and noted that he is the resident who questioned the measurements of the contractor. He stated that this variance is also silent on the materials that would be used. He stated that the ramp could better match the character of the neighborhood with other materials. He commented that although he has a great relationship with the property owner, this property is not homesteaded and is used as a group home. He believed that these businesses operating in a residential neighborhood should be required to maintain the character of the neighborhood. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Commissioner Corbett asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NATH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UDELL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Nath asked if this could be approved, with the contingent that the City would double-check the measurements. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that there would be an inspection with a formal building permit. She stated that they are still discussing whether a building permit or an administrative permit would be required and noted that an administrative permit would not require an inspection. Page 17 of 151 March 31, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 16 Commissioner Johnson asked and received confirmation that a condition could be added requiring an inspection. Commissioner Corbett asked if the applicant would be required to meet the plan dimensions. Commissioner Udell stated that condition two would require no deviations from the ramp plan. Commissioner Nath asked who would watch to ensure that the applicant follows the requirements. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that a condition could be added requiring an additional staff inspection if one is not required by the Building Code. Commissioner Johnson asked if any rules apply to a group home running as a business in a residential area that would differ from a R-1 standard home. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that a group home is a permitted single- family use within State Statute, so there would not be additional code requirements for structures. She stated that there are no material requirements for an accessibility ramp in the City Code. She stated that the Commission could request different building materials, but that is not something she has discussed with the applicant, and she would need to verify their ability to accommodate that. Commissioner Goldade asked if there would be a way to get a second opinion on the building of the ramp. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that if more information is needed, the application could be tabled and staff could be directed to obtain that information. Commissioner Goldade noted the requirement for the current ramp to be removed within 90 days and asked how tabling would impact that timeline. He stated that he believes that a ramp should be allowed, but would like more information on materials and verification of dimensions. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the 90 days would start once the variance is approved. Commissioner Johnson stated that she would guess that the objection is related to the silver railings and asked if staff could request a different material. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that staff could have those conversations with the applicant. Commissioner Udell recognized that the measurements provided were called into question and asked if the idea would be that if those measurements were inaccurate, the encroachment could be reduced. Page 18 of 151 March 31, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 16 Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that if the item were tabled, staff could be directed to work with the applicant and bring back additional information on materials, and staff could verify the dimensions. COMMISSIONER GOLDADE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NATH, TO TABLE THE CASE AND DIRECT STAFF AND THE APPLICANT TO VERIFY THE DIMENSIONS AND PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ON THE MATERIALS PROPOSED FOR THE RAMP. Further discussion: Commissioner Udell stated that he would push back on the materials piece as he worries that would stray too far from the purview of the Commission. He agreed that the dimensions should be verified, but disagreed with the materials piece. Commissioner Nath stated that they were mostly asking staff to get more information on the materials from the applicant. Commissioner Udell agreed that is fair. Commissioner Johnson stated that the contention would be that the materials would not meet the criteria of the variance relating to altering the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Corbett agreed that they should be discussing the materials and hoped that would be built into the design. He stated that a chain link fence is allowed, and that color is not dictated. He appreciated the concern for the dimensions but believed that they could move this forward with appropriate conditions. AYES: 4 NAYS: 1 (Corbett) B) PLANNING CASE 2026-04 M&M HOME CONTRACTORS, 655 CALLAHAN PLACE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that M&M Home Contractors is the applicant and owner’s representative of the property located at 655 Callahan Place and has requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for a residential building height of 20 feet for the construction of a new single-family home located at 655 Callahan Place. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350 feet of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Page 19 of 151 March 31, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 16 Commissioner Johnson asked about the roof height of the two neighboring properties. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided information on the estimates that were used to determine the average of less than 15 feet. Commissioner Corbett opened the public hearing. Brian Ross, 653 Callahan Place, stated that he lives to the east of this property and expressed concerns with the height of the building proposed. He commented that this home is being setback further on the property, and he expressed concerns with the shadowing that could occur on his property. He asked that the build revise their plan to a lesser building height. Rosemary Husbands, 659 Callahan Place, stated that she lives to the west of the subject property and asked that the builder consider the trees along the property line. She wanted to ensure that the root systems were not damaged during construction. She commented on the drainage patterns from the previous home and expressed concerns that there would be more runoff from a larger roof. She asked that the runoff from this property not go onto her property. She asked that there be consideration for low wattage lighting to ensure that a building of this size remain understanded rather than overstated. She did not want to see bright spotlights or lighting that could impose itself on wildlife or the native habitat. Mike Fritz, M&M Homes, stated that their goal is to work with the neighbors to ensure there are no issues and/or address any existing issues. He stated that they are pulled all the way to the front setback, and 93.4 feet remains from the home to the back of the lot. He stated that the proposed home would be a 4,200 square foot rambler and provided information on the roof pitches. He stated that this application is for a CUP for the building height and noted that he would be willing to speak with the neighbor to address her concerns with the trees and runoff. He stated that they tried to manage the front and back setbacks as best they could. Commissioner Johnson asked if the front setback is in alignment with the other two homes. Mr. Fritz replied that the front setback is 50.5. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the garage extends in front of the home, and the front of the garage is evenly aligned with the homes on either side. Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification on the proposed building height. Mr. Fritz replied that the tallest midpoint is 17.6. He recognized that both neighboring homes are around 13 feet, which is under the Code maximum. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Commissioner Corbett asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Page 20 of 151 March 31, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 16 COMMISSIONER NATH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UDELL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Nath noted that the request is related to the peak in the middle of the home, which should alleviate the issue of shade mentioned by the neighbor. He supported the request. Commissioner Johnson stated that while she does have concerns for the neighbors, she was happy to hear that the builder was willing to work with them. She noted that this request falls within the requirements of the City Code. COMMISSIONER UDELL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GOLDADE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY M&M HOME CONTRACTORS FOR THE PROPERTY AT 655 CALLAHAN PLACE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE APPROVED AND ISSUED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. ALL APPLICABLE ZONING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. 2. THE BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL NOT EXCEED 20 FEET, AS MEASURED PER THE DEFINITION OF BUILDING HEIGHT IN CITY CODE. 3. THE BUILDING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE PLANS SUBMITTED AND DATED JANUARY 29, 2026. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Community Development Manager Sarah Madden advised the City Council would consider this application at its April 7, 2026, meeting. C) PLANNING CASE 2026-05 BUELL CONSULTING, INC. ON BEHALF OF THE TOWERS LLC, 739 WENTWORTH AVENUE (WENTWORTH PARK) – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that Buell Consulting, on behalf of The Towers LLC, requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a 149-foot wireless telecommunications monopole tower. The Towers LLC is a partner of Verizon Wireless. The subject property, located at 739 Wentworth Avenue, is owned by the City and utilized as Wentworth Park. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 1,250 feet of the site; several inquiries have been made, and 29 public comments have been received. Page 21 of 151 March 31, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 16 Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. She stated that the applicant, in response to the comments received, has requested that the application be tabled until the April meeting, as that would allow the applicant to provide written responses to the comments received. She stated that the public hearing should still be opened tonight, and the item should be tabled with the public hearing remaining open. Commissioner Johnson asked if there was a map identifying freestanding antennas, as well as future planned antennas, within a two-mile radius of the proposed site, as required by City Code. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that information was provided within the packet on the coverage map. Commissioner Johnson stated that the narrative mentioned that this would help with coverage in Ramsey County and asked for more information, as she did not notice that change on the map. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that, from the information provided to staff, the proposed service level would impact the area surrounding the park. She stated that she was unsure if this tower would impact service in Ramsey County. She stated that the service area would improve in this area, noting that staff have received complaints about the current service levels in this area. Commissioner Johnson asked how wide the area is that would improve, as she did not believe that the area of improvement was very large for such a large tower. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that she did not have the dimension for the radius, but noted that the height tends to provide coverage to a larger area. Commissioner Udell recognized that there are many residents present tonight. He understood that the public hearing would remain open and asked if someone speaking tonight would prevent them from speaking at the April meeting. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that if someone speaks today and wants to speak at the next meeting, they could speak if they wanted to say something new, but the intention is that they would not be repeating the same comments. Commissioner Goldade asked if the Commission had considered a telecommunications tower in the past, or whether this is unique in that it would be located in a park. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that there was a similar application in 2006 in a park, which was withdrawn. She stated that there have been some building-mounted towers in the past six years. Page 22 of 151 March 31, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 16 Commissioner Johnson stated that the City Code identifies preferred land uses and alternate land uses. She stated that when the Code language was amended, it may have created confusion. She noted that public spaces and parks were to be considered as alternate land uses, not preferred. She asked if the applicant had shown reasonable satisfaction that the applicant could not find a preferred location. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden referenced a memorandum from the applicant describing that sites nearby were not adequate to address the coverage gap. Commissioner Johnson noted that there is a school nearby, and perhaps the tower could be located on the school. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the nearby buildings are limited to a 15-foot height, which would not provide the needed coverage. Commissioner Johnson asked that the applicant identify which locations on the map are current towers and which are proposed for the future. Commissioner Corbett opened the public hearing. Sarah Buell spoke in representation of the applicant and asked that this item be tabled until the next meeting. She thanked the public for their feedback, which will help ensure accountability, strengthen the planning process, and provide a higher level of diligence. She stated that they are requesting additional time to process and respond to the feedback and make any necessary changes to their plan. Joan Brandes, 1465 Cherry Hill Road, stated that she has had a cell phone for the last 30 years with service. She commented that sometimes service is not perfect. She stated that she travels a lot in the southern suburbs, and they are lucky to have hills, valleys, and trees. She recognized that there are many places where conversations will drop, and service has continued to get better over the years. She suspected that the service would continue to improve, noting that there is no 5G service near this area. She believed there should have been a longer notification period for residents. She commented on recent activity in the park and stated that it would be a shame that the area where children were playing would be taken up by this equipment. She stated that this is the last clean place in the park and believed that there are other amenities that would better benefit the community. She commented on another tower that is an eyesore, along with the construction equipment that she also believes to be an eyesore. She asked how the rent for the tower was figured out and believed that the lease better served Verizon than the City. She did not believe that $15,000 a year would be enough. She referenced comments recently made by the Mayor, who stated that it is the obligation of the City to ensure proper infrastructure and cell phone service, and that the $15,000 could be used in the park. She did not agree with the comments of the Mayor. She stated that there has been no information on the alternatives, noting that a ten-mile radius would service many other areas outside Mendota Heights. Amelia Vandarious, 1312 Wachtler Avenue, stated that their coverage is delightful and asked if a survey could be completed to determine if there are people without service and whether there are Page 23 of 151 March 31, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 16 alternatives that could be considered for those with poor service. She stated that if there is a need for the improved service, perhaps a study could be done to ensure the benefit would outweigh the cost. Jack Evans, 796 Lower Colonial Drive, stated that he supports the request to table this as he agreed that more information is needed on this application. He commented that much more information is needed, including the alternatives. He stated that when the City Council requested the coverage maps in August, the consultant objected, stating that it was proprietary information and asked how modeling could then be done without that information. He stated that the park is the last option to be considered. He commented that there is no information on the impact of the tower, and there are vague renderings within the application. He referenced the before and after views and wanted to better understand what that impact would be for homeowners. He stated that the residents were notified less than one week ago. He asked that the notification for the next meeting be provided earlier to ensure that residents have enough time to respond. He recognized that the prior notice would stand if this were tabled, but asked that another notification be provided prior to the next meeting. Benjamin Paterson, Evergreen Knolls, stated that Mendota Heights prides itself on being the best- kept secret with a small-town feel, and this tower would go against that vision. He stated that studies have shown that a view of a cellular tower can decrease property values by 9.78 percent. He stated that the park is a place for gathering and believed that the tower could be damaging to the feel of the park. He asked if other alternatives had been explored and encouraged the community to continue to pursue alternatives. He asked for an accurate representation of the tower, noting differences in the application information and the pictures shown by the City. He provided additional information on the ownership of Vertical Bridge and asked how Middle Eastern backers based in Tokyo would encourage local businesses to thrive. He provided information on health impacts from 5G towers. He also questioned the timing of the notification, as many people were away on spring break when the notification was received. Ken Noack, 677 4th Avenue, stated that he lives in the cellular dead zone and has experimented with three different carriers. He experienced dropped calls with all three carriers, but noted that he was able to obtain a booster through Verizon, which helped a bit. He stated that he has petitioned the Council to improve the cellular coverage. He stated that there was a storm that came through a few years ago that knocked out the power, which meant that his landline and booster did not work. He stated that the same night, a home was hit by lightning, but luckily, they still had power and could call for help. He stated that if that were to happen to him, he would not have been able to call for help. He stated that his sister was visiting and was trying to rebook her flight home, and it took three hours because of the poor coverage at his home. He recognized that now people often work from home and was unsure how they could do that without coverage. He stated that in this day and age, you would think they would have coverage and service. He understood that people do not want to look at a tower, but the towers are in every community, and it should not be a problem for Mendota Heights. He commented that when Cherryhill was developed, there was an ugly water tower that sat near the park and obstructed the views of others, but they understood that it was necessary infrastructure that was needed to help people in the community. He stated that this is also an important infrastructure that is needed in the city. Page 24 of 151 March 31, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 16 Kevin Byrnes, 740 Wentworth Avenue, stated that he submitted questions prior to the meeting. He asked for a quick summary of the entities involved in this, noting more than four entities. He stated that a lease was already negotiated and approved before the public hearing, which seems out of order. He was unsure if Verizon was pushing this or the tower company that convinced Verizon to sign on. George Eliou, 757 Upper Colonial Drive, stated that he is in a unique situation as he has lived in three homes in this area and has never had a problem with cellular phone coverage. He stated that he would like to see more information on the benefits of coverage and stated that perhaps unique things could be considered for the homes experiencing issues. He questioned what they would be gaining out of this in comparison with changing the character of Mendota Heights. Peter Gagnon, 751 Upper Colonial Drive, stated that fiber optics has been put through the neighborhoods, and all cell phones now have Wi-Fi calling. He stated that you do not need as much coverage for phone service as you do for the data side, and believed that this tower would be more for Verizon to provide more data services. He commented that Comcast and CenturyLink already provide internet service. He stated that the City should receive more coverage information and believed that there are other solutions available. He understood that there are dead zones, but believed there are solutions to address those situations. John Huber, 1359 Cherryhill Road, stated that he was the Mayor for eight years and served another eight years on the City Council in the past. He stated that from his experience over the last 65 years, there was a time when there were dead spots in coverage around the community. He stated that the coverage has improved in the community. He hoped that the Commission would look around at the people in attendance tonight, as the public input helps the discussion and guides the decisions made. He stated that he was not in favor of this in 2006 and is not in favor of it now because he did not see the need, although he respected the position of the resident who expressed coverage issues. He did not believe the City needed the $15,000. Sandy McGowan, 774 West Wentworth, stated that she has been trying to review the technical information over the past seven days and did not believe that was enough time to review the information. She stated that she goes through the park twice a day, and she loves the green space, which is the only green space left in the park. She stated that to the north of the pond, there is a little green area, but it is always saturated by the pond. She commented that a monopole is huge and intimidating and believed that it would destroy the ambiance of the park. She sympathized with those who are having service issues, but believed there are alternate areas where a tower could be located. Randy Pentel, 815 Deer Trail Court, provided a number of scientific medical reports related to the risks and dangers, which state that any tower should be at least 500 meters from any residences. He noted that his home is within that area. He noted the area where weak spots were identified on the coverage map, noting that his home is also within that area, and he has excellent in-home coverage. He noted a 4G amplifier near his home. He stated that Highway 35E is also lined with 5G towers. He stated that the $15,000 for the lease breaks down to $1,250 a month and did not believe that was worth the potential health risks. Page 25 of 151 March 31, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 16 Commissioner Corbett asked why the towers should not be within 500 meters of homes. Mr. Pentel replied that the reasoning is for health risks and offered to provide the reports to the Commission. He provided some specific information from the reports. David Williams, 755 Wentworth, stated that he is 34 feet from the setback and received this information during spring break. He stated that he could not fathom that a tower of this height could be placed 34 feet from a lot line. He stated that he has an eight-acre parcel and believed that if he submitted a request to place something of this height, 34 feet from the lot line, it would be rejected. He recognized that he does not currently have a structure near the lot line, but he could subdivide and build homes like his neighbor did. He asked that more work be done to determine the impact on property values and the health risks. He stated that this is being done under the premise that it is needed, when only a small portion of the population has service issues. He suggested that the tower instead be placed on the site owned by AT&T nearby, where there is currently a 50-foot tower. He commented that $15,000 is nothing, and the impact on property values will be more than that. He noted that only three to five percent of the population have gaps in coverage and believed that there should be true information should be provided on the actual coverage. He commented that there are antennas from multiple carriers throughout the community, and as a Verizon customer, he has never had issues with coverage. He did not believe that parkland should be given up based on the information provided. John Vaupel, 1299 Laura Street, stated that this could be a precedent-setting vote as they do not currently have towers in the parks. He stated that this is not just an issue for the Wentworth area but throughout the community, as this decision could open up the door for towers in other parks. Dean Simmons, 780 Upper Colonial Drive, stated that he was dismissed by the lack of notification and communication from the City on this issue. He stated that all taxpayers pay for parks in the community, and therefore, this is an issue that affects all residents of Mendota Heights. He believed that the next notification should be sent to all residents in Mendota Heights. Ms. Buell thanked the residents for their feedback tonight and welcomed any additional comments that may come. She noted a question related to the entities involved and explained that Verizon Wireless initiates any proposal like this where there is a clear need. She stated that Verizon initiated the action, but is not in the business of owning towers, and Vertical Bridge (which is also known as The Towers LLC) is in the business of build to suit towers. She stated that Verizon then leases space on the tower. She stated that Buell Consulting was hired by Verizon and Vertical Bridge to assist with zoning, site acquisition, and to assist with the development process. She stated that the lease would be between the property owner and the tower company, and Verizon or any other carrier would lease space from the tower company. She explained that they would not be proposing this if there were not a need, noting the cost for this type of project. COMMISSIONER NATH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GOLDADE, TO TABLE THE APPLICATION TO THE APRIL 28, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Page 26 of 151 March 31, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 16 Further discussion: Commissioner Corbett stated that he also has concerns with the park, but as a Verizon customer, he does not have coverage in his home. He stated that he would like to see more information on site selection, alternative selections, and why they were deemed non-usable, coverage data, the radius of coverage that would be provided, and the need for the tower. He stated that the mapping would go a long way to show the need. He stated that he personally knows there is a need, but that mapping could show others who do not have a need. Commissioner Johnson stated that she would also want to see the alternative locations within the preferred land use areas. She also wanted to see the current and future tower/antenna placement mapping. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that they will use the same radius of mailed notices for the next meeting. She noted that the radius of 1,250 feet exceeds the requirement of 350 feet. She stated that they would also post this in Friday News, but would not be sending a mailer to every address. She commented that there was also a sign-up sheet in the lobby, which allowed residents to sign up for emailed notices. She stated that agenda reports are released on the Friday before the meeting. Commissioner Corbett recognized the timing of agenda packets before meetings and noted that while it would be nicer to receive that information sooner, it is already a task for staff to have the information prepared by that deadline. The Planning Commission took a brief recess at 9:03 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:06 p.m. D) PLANNING CASE 2025-04 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS – ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that at the City Council’s goal and priority setting work session early in 2025, the Council identified Title 11: Subdivision Regulations as a priority for future evaluation and revision. Staff began the process of revising the ordinance to improve clarity, update terminology, and reflect the goals and strategic priorities of the City Council. Hearing notices were published in the City’s official newspaper; no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Page 27 of 151 March 31, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 16 Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. She recognized that there are some formatting issues that will be corrected before the City Council meeting. Commissioner Goldade commented that the Commission reviewed this at the February worksession meeting. Commissioner Johnson noted page 12 of the February packet, Section 11-1-6, which mentions a forest and tree inventory and the suggested changes. She asked if that language was being moved somewhere else, as she was concerned that the language related to significant vegetation had just been removed. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden noted that on page 142 of the current packet, the forest and significant tree inventory is still listed as required submittal information for a lot split. She reviewed the language that was removed, noting that the only requirements for vegetation removal that exist are within wetland areas or within the MRCCA, noting that both of those areas have their own regulatory requirements. She noted that significant vegetation is also not defined, and if there is a desire to regulate that, it should be within landscaping and not within this section. She stated that the language has been restructured to address the actual requirements and regulations. She stated that significant vegetation is not defined and is not part of a lot split application. Commissioner Johnson was disappointed that was not defined outside of the MRCCA. Commissioner Corbett stated that it is also not mapped out and would be difficult to enforce. Commissioner Johnson referenced Section 11-1-11, violations and penalty, Item D, and asked if the Natural Resources Commission should also be listed. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided the page number of the current packet. She stated that the role of the Natural Resources Commission includes specific cases when a planning application would be considered by that group. She provided additional context on the involvement of the Parks and Recreation Commission, as mentioned. Commissioner Johnson referenced Section 11-3-1 related to design standards and asked if they should also include “policies such as the Surface Water Management Policy and NRMP Policy”. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that if they wanted to add an additional item under that for other City plans, they could. She asked if the Surface Water Management Plan had been adopted under Code. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek confirmed that is adopted under Chapter 14. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden noted that the NRMP is adopted under the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that she would hesitate to use the examples, as the City often Page 28 of 151 March 31, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 16 adopts new plans that would then be missing. She confirmed that broad language could be used to provide the desired clarity without calling out specific plans. Commissioner Johnson referenced Section 11-3-8, protected areas, and asked if they should also include primary conservation areas or native species. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that could be added. Commissioner Johnson referenced Section 11-4-2 and asked if language related to native plantings requirements should be added or whether that would be found in landscape standards. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that this is specifically for new street construction and provided additional clarification. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek clarified that he believes that Commissioner Johnson would want to include ground cover in addition to sod. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that this is when roads are built for the first time and not for reconstruction projects. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that ground cover could also include seed rather than sod. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that they could say ground cover rather than sod. Commissioner Corbett asked for the definition of ground cover. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek was unsure if that is defined, but stated that they could use the language “ground cover as defined under the Land Disturbance Guidance Document”. COMMISSIONER NATH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UDELL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE TITLE 11 – SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AS OUTLINED IN THE REDLINED ORDINANCE. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NATH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UDELL, TO RESCIND THE MOTION. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Corbett opened the public hearing. Page 29 of 151 March 31, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 16 Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Commissioner Corbett asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER GOLDADE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UDELL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NATH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UDELL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE TITLE 11 – SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AS OUTLINED IN THE REDLINED ORDINANCE. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Community Development Manager Sarah Madden advised the City Council would consider this application at its April 21, 2026, meeting. New and Unfinished Business Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided an update on recent City Council action on planning-related cases. She noted that the April meeting will include the two tabled applications and one new application. Adjournment COMMISSIONER NATH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UDELL, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:41 P.M. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Page 30 of 151 7.d REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE:May 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM:Approve General Fund Transfer ITEM TYPE:Consent Item DEPARTMENT:Finance CONTACT:Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director ACTION REQUEST: Approve General Fund Transfer BACKGROUND: In preparation for the 2025 audit, there is one transfer that needs to be approved by Council. It is a transfer from the General Fund to the Equipment Reserve Fund for squads and equipment purchased in 2025. The amount of the transfer is $678,767.38. In June 2024, the Council approved the take home squad program. In 2025, the Department purchased 13 squads and equipment under the program and through insurance replacement. The Department was able to secure 2025 pricing for those squads. The only future purchases will be for replacement for current expiring leases. The funding for this transfer is a combination of Public Safety funds received from the State, underspent amounts from the 2025 police department budget and $90,000 from the 2026 police department. There is a line item included in the 2026 budget specifically allocated for squad builds that will not need to be done. There will be a presentation at a future date to update Council on the take home squad program. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The Take Home Squad Program is a budgeted expense. The requested general fund transfer is a related accounting and audit action. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 31 of 151 This page is intentionally left blank 7.e REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE:May 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM:Adopt Ordinance 608: No Parking on Delaware Avenue ITEM TYPE:Consent Item DEPARTMENT:Engineering CONTACT:Lucas Ritchie, Assistant City Engineer ACTION REQUEST: Adopt Ordinance 608 amending City Code: Title 6, Chapter 3, Section 3 to establish parking restrictions on Delaware Avenue. BACKGROUND: Dakota County, in partnership with the Cities of Mendota Heights and West St. Paul, is developing plans to reconstruct Delaware Avenue between Marie Avenue and Dodd Road. As part of the proposed roadway configuration, parking will be prohibited along the west side of Delaware Avenue. Currently, City Code restricts parking on Delaware Avenue between Interstate 494 and Emerson Avenue. Ordinance 608 extends this restriction north from Emerson Avenue to Dodd Road. Municipal State Aid requirements necessitate adoption of a no parking ordinance or resolution to obtain plan approval and to allow use of funds for Mendota Heights’ project costs. Dakota County is scheduled to present the final project design at the May 19, 2026, City Council meeting. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: None at this time. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ord 608 An Ordinance Amending Title 6, Chapter 3, Section 3 of the City Code No Parking Delaware Avenue CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Page 32 of 151 Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 33 of 151 City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 608 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3 OF THE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota ordains as follows: The following streets are hereby added to Title 6, Chapter 3, Section 3, Paragraph C of the City Code: Parking Prohibited On Certain Streets: No person shall park or leave standing any motor vehicle on the following streets or portions thereof in the City: Action Street Side Location Add Delaware Avenue (County Road 63) West From Emerson Avenue to Dodd Road This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication. Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this 5th day of May, 2026. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ___________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 34 of 151 This page is intentionally left blank 7.f REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE:May 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM:Approve a Grading Permit for 1416 Dodd Road, Somerset Country Club ITEM TYPE:Consent Item DEPARTMENT:Engineering CONTACT:Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Approve a grading permit for 1416 Dodd Road, Somerset Country Club. BACKGROUND: City Ordinance 14-1 requires that properties proposing any land disturbance activity in excess of 5,000 square feet apply for a grading permit if not part of a separate approval process. Somerset Country Club submitted a Wetland Conservation Act permit, requesting a no-loss determination to fill a pond on their property. The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) consisting of the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the US Army Corps of Engineers reviewed the application and no comments were submitted. A Notice of Decision was issued in March granting the no-loss application. The project will consist of filling a pond and restoring the original fairway that existed prior to 1970. This project will be subject to the rules and regulations of the Mendota Heights’ Land Disturbance Guidance Document. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The Mendota Heights fee schedule identifies a $200 fee for this activity to cover staff time in reviewing and inspecting the improvements. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Somerset Country Club Incidental Pond Removal Description 2. NOD_Somerset Country Club_No Loss_2026_3_9 3. Pond Creation CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy Page 35 of 151 Somerset Country Club Incidental Pond Removal Description In the 1970’s, a pond was created in-house as an aesthetic to the golf course. We now ŘôÍīĖƏôϙťēÍťϙĖťϙēÍŜϙÍϙIJôČÍťĖŽôϙôƯôèťϙon the 100-year old Classic Golf Course Architecture we’d like to restore, as the pond is blocking the original fairway line. The pond is fortunately not part of the watershed. During removal of the pond, all Best aÍIJÍČôıôIJťϙ„ŘÍèťĖèôŜϙſĖīīϙæôϙŪŜôîϟϙ‹ŪƯĖèĖôIJťϙôŘĺŜĖĺIJϙèĺIJťŘĺīϙæĖĺ-logs will wrap around the perimeter of the pond during construction, and afterwards, until turf is established in its place. The old pond will be seeded to Kentucky Bluegrass, and erosion control seeding blankets will be placed over the seed to speed establishment, as well as prevent wash-out erosion during any heavy rain events. Page 36 of 151 Page 37 of 151 Page 38 of 151 Page 39 of 151 Page 40 of 151 This page is intentionally left blank Page 41 of 151 This page is intentionally left blank 7.g REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE:May 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM:Approve Contract to Paint Streetlight Poles ITEM TYPE:Consent Item DEPARTMENT:Public Works CONTACT:John Boland, Public Works Superintendent ACTION REQUEST: Approve a contract with Bullfrog Industries in the amount of $15,190 for the painting of 55 streetlight poles. BACKGROUND: The City owns 125 streetlight poles within the industrial park. In 2021, 37 poles were repainted as part of a maintenance effort. Over the past six years, an additional 35 poles have been replaced due to corrosion or damage from vehicle accidents. To continue proactive maintenance and extend the life of the remaining infrastructure, staff solicited quotes to repaint 55 poles that have not recently been replaced or painted. The work will include full surface preparation, priming, and application of a finish coat. In addition, a Noxyde coating will be applied to the bottom eight feet of each pole, which is recommended for environments with heavy salt use to prevent corrosion. The following quotes were received: • Bullfrog Industries: $15,190 • OLS Restoration: $17,275 FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Funding for this project is available within the Streetlight District fund, and sufficient budget has been allocated for this work. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 42 of 151 This page is intentionally left blank 7.h REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE:May 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM:Approve Contract for Expansion of the Wentworth Basketball Court ITEM TYPE:Consent Item DEPARTMENT:Parks and Recreation CONTACT:Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director John Boland, Public Works Superintendent Lucas Ritchie, Assistant City Engineer ACTION REQUEST: Approve a contract with Kirchner Contracting for the expansion of the Wentworth Basketball Court. BACKGROUND: With the expansion of the Marie, Hagstrom-King, and Ivy Hills Park basketball courts from half court (one hoop court) to full court (two hoop court), there has been a noticeable increase in the amount of community usage. In order to continue to provide recreational amenities for all ages, the Parks and Recreation Commission has recommended expanding the existing basketball court at Wentworth Park to a two hoop court. Staff met onsite to review the existing basketball court and determine specifications to expand the concrete pad. Staff is recommending the installation of a 41'X48' (1968 square feet) concrete pad to provide a full court configuration with retaining usage of the existing half court. Staff has designed the additional court area to include a center drainage system, which will be piped to the ditch south of the hockey rink. This design will help keep the court surface dry and playable during the season. The drainage system will also be designed to allow for winter use, as it can be plugged to facilitate flooding of the adjacent pleasure rink. This project will include two new basketball poles and backboards. Staff received the following quotes for the project: Kirchner Contracting, Inc.=$39,450 Page 43 of 151 JWS Construction, LLC=$44,262 Kirchner Contracting has completed work for the City in the past and staff has been happy with their work. This project is estimated to be completed by the end of July. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Included in the FY2026 budget was $45,000 for the Basketball Court Expansion Project at Wentworth Park utilizing the Special Park Fund. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 44 of 151 7.i REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE:May 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM:Approve Contract for the Hockey Board Replacement at Wentworth Park ITEM TYPE:Consent Item DEPARTMENT:Parks and Recreation CONTACT:John Boland, Public Works Superintendent Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Approve a contract with Kirchner Contracting for the replacement of the hockey boards at Wentworth Park. BACKGROUND: The boards surrounding the hockey rink and pickleball courts at Wentworth Park are included in the 2026 Capital Improvement Plan for removal and replacement. Existing posts and footings have experienced heaving and twisting due to freeze-thaw cycles, resulting in structural instability. Staff is proposing the removal and disposal of the existing green treated rink boards and posts and the replacement of new 2.375" diameter galvanized fence posts with attached 4"x6" green treated posts for new rink board supports. Staff additionally recommends saw-cutting and removing the existing asphalt around the perimeter of the rink following board removal. This will address surface heaving and provide a more stable base for reconstruction. Due to saturated soil conditions at the site, the new rink will utilize driven heavy-duty sign posts in lieu of traditional concrete footings. This approach is intended to improve long-term performance and reduce susceptibility to frost movement. The replacement rink boards will be constructed using pressure-treated lumber, with vertical tongue-and-groove boards used in the radius sections to achieve a durable and consistent finish. Staff received the following quotes for the project: Kirchner Contracting, Inc.=$40,900 JWS Construction, LLC=$43,750 Page 45 of 151 Kirchner Contracting has completed work for the City in the past and staff has been happy with their work. This project is estimated to be completed by the end of August. The pickleball courts will need to be taken offline for a short period of time during construction--staff will ensure proper notice and communication is provided prior to this temporary closure. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Included in the FY2026 budget was $45,000 for the Hockey Board Replacement Project at Wentworth Park utilizing the General Fund levy. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 46 of 151 7.j REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE:May 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM:Adopt Resolution 2026-34 to Defer Street Rehabilitation Assessment at 706 Cheyenne Lane ITEM TYPE:Consent Item DEPARTMENT:Engineering CONTACT:Lucas Ritchie, Assistant City Engineer ACTION REQUEST: Approve Resolution 2026-34, deferring the street rehabilitation assessment at 706 Cheyenne Lane for the Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvement project. BACKGROUND: State statute permits the deferment of special assessments for qualifying situations, including undeveloped property, senior citizens, individuals with permanent and total disability, military service, and properties enrolled in the Green Acres program. Staff has received a written request for an assessment deferment for the property associated with 706 Cheyenne Lane as part of the Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvement project. The request was submitted on behalf of Gayl Elias, who resides at 706 Cheyenne Lane (Property ID 27-27800-15-020). Ms. Lisa Elias, daughter of the property owner, is requesting that the City Council defer the assessment levied against the property in the principal amount of $5,086.04. The attached resolution would authorize the deferment of the assessment amount for this property. If approved, the deferred assessment will be recorded with Dakota County and remain with the property. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The City will carry the special assessment until the title of the property transfers to a new owner, or the assessment paid. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2026-34 Deferring the Making of Assessment for the Property Located at 706 Page 47 of 151 Cheyenne Lane (PID 27-27800-15-020) for the Friendly Hills Neigh 2. Email Request CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 48 of 151 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNEOSTA RESOLUTION 2026-34 DEFERRING THE MAKING OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 706 CHEYENNE LANE (PID 27-27800-15-020) FOR THE FRIENDLY HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Clerk, with the assistance of the Public Works Director, has calculated the proper amount to be specially assessed for the Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvements; and WHEREAS, the assessment roll for said improvements has been filed with the City Clerk and at all times since its filing has been open to public inspection; and WHEREAS, a hearing on said assessments was duly held at 6:00 p.m. on October 21, 2025, at the City Hall in the City of Mendota Heights, MN and; WHEREAS, Ms. Gayl Elias, is the owner of certain property more particularly described as Parcel No. 27-27800-15-020 the legal description of which is described as the following situated in Dakota County, Minnesota; Lot 2, Block 15, Friendly Hills Rearr, Dakota County, Minnesota, Section 36, Township 28, Range 23 WHEREAS, Lisa Elias, daughter of the property owner, has requested that the making of an assessment against said property by reason of senior citizenship be deferred until such time as the assessment term has expired, the property is sold, or otherwise transferred in title ownership. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the assessment roll for said improvements be corrected to defer the making of an assessment at this time against the property of Ms. Gayl Elias (parcel no. 27-27800-15-020) for the street rehabilitation improvements. 2. That upon the future sale of title transfer of said property there shall be levied an assessment in the principal amount of $5,086.04, plus interest at the rate of 4.99% per annum from October 21, 2025. 3. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to correct the assessment roll for said improvements as set forth above. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of May 2026. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS _______________________________ ATTEST: Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ____________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 49 of 151 From:Lisa Elias To:Ryan Ruzek Cc:Lucas Ritchie Subject:Re: senior deferment for my senior mother Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2026 11:58:28 AM You don't often get email from lisa.elias.metal@gmail.com. Learn why this is important I'm able to sign on her behalf. Is there a form you can send me via email? On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 11:47ௗAM Ryan Ruzek <RRuzek@mendotaheightsmn.gov> wrote: Hi Lisa, Deferments are typically requested at the time they are adopted. We did reach out to Dakota County who is currently managing the assessment, and they said we could process one after the fact. There would be a $27 correction fee for the deferment to be applied to this year’s installment. Deferred assessment still accrue interest as an FYI. Please let me know if this is something you desire and we can bring your request to City Council. If I can get your approval by noon tomorrow, We should still be able to bring this to City Council on May 5th. Do you have authority to request this on your mothers behalf or is she able to sign a letter requesting the deferment? Thank you, Ryan Website | Connect Ryan E. Ruzek, P.E. Public Works Director City of Mendota Heights D: 651-255-1152 Page 50 of 151 You don't often get email from lisa.elias.metal@gmail.com. Learn why this is important From: Lisa Elias <lisa.elias.metal@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 8:35 AM To: Ryan Ruzek <RRuzek@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Subject: senior deferment for my senior mother Ryan, My mother (Gayl Elias) is a 99 year old currnetly living in her home in hospice care. It's my understanding that her property taxes are going up because of the recent street rehabilitation in her neighborhood @ 706 Cheyenne Lane in Mendota Hieghts. She can not afford this....she is on a fixed income and are having touble keeping up with bills. What can I do about this? I need to request a deferment for my mother and was given your email about this matter. Please get back to me as soon as possible. Thank you, Lisa Elias https://lisaeliasmetalstudio.com/ Page 51 of 151 This page is intentionally left blank 7.k REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE:May 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM:Approve Liquor License Renewal for Somerset Country Club ITEM TYPE:Consent Item DEPARTMENT:Administration CONTACT:Nancy Bauer, City Clerk ACTION REQUEST: Approve the renewal of a liquor license for Somerset Country Club. BACKGROUND: Current liquor licenses are set to expire on June 30, 2026. Somerset Country Club has submitted a complete application and fees for their liquor license renewal. A background investigations has been conducted by the Police Deparement with no adverse findings. If the renewal application is approved by the City Council, the liquor license will be forwarded to the State Alcohol and Gambling Enforcemnet Division for review and approval. Upon receiving the state approval, staff will issue the liquor license. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 52 of 151 This page is intentionally left blank 7.l REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE:May 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM:Approve a Right-of-Way License Agreement for Ivy Keep II Owners Association ITEM TYPE:Consent Item DEPARTMENT:Engineering CONTACT:Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: The Ivy Keep II Owners Association, Inc. is seeking a Right-of-Way License Agreement from the city to install a private irrigation line under Ivy Hill Drive. BACKGROUND: Ivy Hill Drive was rehabilitated with the Emerson Avenue Street Improvement Project. During construction of Ivy Hill Drive, a private irrigation feeder line was damaged as it was an unmarked private utility. Due to this irrigation feeder line leaking under the roadway, it was capped behind the street to prevent damage to the new road. Staff notified the management company and the irrigation company of the association. The city does not have records of the irrigation line being permitted. The association desires to bore a new line under the roadway to serve the building across the street. The association is proposing to bore a four-inch PVC pipe to act as casing pipe for a smaller diameter irrigation feeder line. The association is proposing to use the roadway crossing option as quotes for a new connection to the St. Paul Regional Water system was estimated to cost over $50,000. A License Agreement is the City’s permission for a private entity or property owner to install an improvement or minor structure within city-owned right-of-way. The attached License Agreement would allow the association to install the casing pipe and irrigation feeder line to restore their irrigation system. The association will also be required to register the irrigation pipe with the Gopher State one call system so that the utility can be marked to avoid future damage. The agreement also provides for ownership, maintenance and liability of the irrigation feeder pipe by the association. This agreement was drafted by the city attorney. The association has reviewed the license document, and accept the terms and conditions of this license agreement. Page 53 of 151 FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The city received the $350 right-of-way license application fee and an additional $500 escrow for legal expenses to draft the agreement. ATTACHMENTS: 1. License_Agreement Ivy Keep II Owners Association, Inc. HOA - IV2 signed DOCS-#239070- v1 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Environmental Sustainability & Stewardship, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 54 of 151 1 239070v1 LICENSE AGREEMENT This LICENSE AGREEMENT (“License”) is made this day of , 2026 (the “Effective Date”), by and between CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, a Minnesota municipal corporation, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 (“City”), and IVY KEEP II OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, whose registered address is at 10340 Viking Drive, Ste. 105, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (“Licensee”). RECITALS A. Licensee is a homeowners’ association, a nonprofit corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, for townhomes located near and served by Ivy Hills Drive, in the City of Mendota Heights, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota; and B. Ivy Hills Drive is a local street, with public right-of-way that includes public utilities and infrastructure; and C. Licensee wishes to re-activate a capped private irrigation line (the “Private Utility”) that is located in the City’s right-of-way, adjacent to a parcel owned by Licensee (PID: 271785101052), in the approximate location indicated on Exhibit A (the “Licensed Premises”); and D. The City is willing to allow Licensee to use the Licensed Premises for this sole purpose, according to the terms and conditions set forth in this License. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Grant of License. The City does hereby grant Licensee a non-exclusive, revocable license to use and maintain a private irrigation line within the Licensed Premises. Such License shall extend to Licensee only and shall not run with the land. 2. Term. The term of this License shall commence on the Effective Date, and continue for a through June 1, 2031 (the “Termination Date”), unless terminated early as provided in this License (the “Initial Term”). This License may renewed for one (1) additional 5-year term (the “Renewal Term”) upon Licensee providing the City with written notice of Licensee’s intent to renew the License. Such notice of intent to renew the License must be given at least 90 days prior to the Expiration Date. The terms and conditions during Renewal Term shall be the same as the terms and conditions during the Initial Term. If the Licensee wishes to continue the License beyond the Renewal Term, a new license shall be required. Licensee shall notify the City in writing of its wish to enter into a new license at least 90 days prior to the expiration of the Renewal Term. Doc ID: 9b79836116343f9822a7ca4b269d7b55c465a31bPage 55 of 151 2 239070v1 3. Interest Created. Licensee certifies, represents, and acknowledges that Licensee has no title in or to the Licensed Premises, nor to any portion thereof, and has not, does not, and will not claim any such title nor any easement by necessity, or by prescription or otherwise over the Licensed Premises. Licensee acknowledges that City’s right-of-way rights of the Licensed Premises is now and shall continue to be superior to those rights conveyed by this License. Licensee further acknowledges that Licensee’s use and maintenance of the Private Utility in the Licensed Premises includes the risk that it might become necessary that the Private Utility be disturbed, removed, or discontinued as directed by the City. 4. Improvements. Other than routine maintenance or repairs to the Private Utility, the Licensee shall not make any further additions, alterations, or improvements in or to the Licensed Premises without the City’s prior written consent. 5. Licensee’s Obligations. At all times for the duration of this License, the Licensee is obligated to do the following: A. Prior to any work by Licensee to reactivate the Private Utility, Licensee shall provide to the City all proposed plans and specifications for such work. No work may commence until such plans are approved by the City. B. Upon completion of the work, the City shall inspect the work for compliance with the approved plans, and notify the Licensee of any deficiencies to be corrected. Licensee shall perform such corrections prior to final acceptance of the work by the City. C. Following acceptance of the work by the City, Licensee shall register the Private Utility with Gopher State One-Call and comply with all related requirements. D. Licensee shall maintain the Private Utility according to all applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations, and according to the terms and conditions of this License. 6. Right to Access; Private Utility Removal. The City, its employees, agents, contractors/sub-contractors, and utility providers and companies (collectively, the “City Parties”), shall have full and free right to access and inspect the Licensed Premises, or install, repair and maintain any public or private improvements within the Licensed Premises. The City Parties have the right to remove the private irrigation time as part of any public improvement, utility improvement, or in an emergency situation. Should such a situation arise, the City Parties will make reasonable efforts to provide reasonable notice to the Licensee of the need to remove the Private Utility, and shall repair the Licensed Premises and, if applicable, the Private Utility to the state in which such property and Private Utility were in prior to access by the City Parties. Doc ID: 9b79836116343f9822a7ca4b269d7b55c465a31bPage 56 of 151 3 239070v1 7. Indemnification. Licensee shall hold the City Parties harmless from and indemnify and defend the City Parties against any claim or liability arising in any manner from this License and the Licensee’s Use of the Licensed Premises for the Private Utility, or relating to the death or bodily injury to any person or damage to any personal property present on or located in or upon the Licensed Premises, including the person and personal property of Licensee or Licensee’s employees, invitees, and guests, unless such claim or liability arises from the intentional action or gross negligence of the City Parties. Licensee agrees to pay all sums of money in respect to any labor, service, materials, supplies, or equipment furnished or alleged to have been furnished to Licensee in or about the Licensed Premises, and not furnished on order of the City. Licensee may contest any lien for such services, materials, supplies, or equipment, on the condition that Licensee first provide to the City cash, bond, credit, or other security against such lien that the City reasonably determines to be sufficient, the intent of this Section being that no lien shall ultimately attach to the Licensed Premises. 8. Insurance. If reasonably available as part of a standard homeowner’s policy and without substantial additional cost, Licensee is required to maintain a general liability insurance policy that provides coverage for damage to others, or injury to persons or public property related to the Private Utility in the Licensed Premises. Such coverage shall be on an as occurrence basis and shall include contractual liability coverage with respect to the indemnity obligation in Section 7 of this License. Such policy shall contain a clause which provides the insurer will not change, non-renew, or materially change the policy without first providing the City thirty (30) days prior written notice. Licensee shall provide the City with a Certificate of Insurance for such coverage upon City request. 9. Assignment or Sublicensing. Licensee shall not sublicense any portion of the Licensed Premises or transfer or assign this License without obtaining the prior written consent of the City, which consent the City may grant or deny at the City’s sole discretion. The City’s consent to any assignment of this License shall not be a waiver of the City’s rights under this Section as to any assignment. 10. Notices. All communications, notices, and demands of any kind that either the City or Licensee may be required or desires to give to or serve on the other party shall be made in writing and personally delivered or certified by U.S. Mail, return receipt requested to the following addresses: If to the City: City of Mendota Heights Attention: City Administrator 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 If to Licensee: Ivy Keep II Owners Association, Inc. Attention: Cindy Anderson 10340 Viking Drive STE 105 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Doc ID: 9b79836116343f9822a7ca4b269d7b55c465a31bPage 57 of 151 4 239070v1 11.No Representation by City. Neither the City, the City Parties, nor any other agent or representative of the City has made any warranty or other representation with respect to the Licensed Premises. 12.Termination and Surrender. The City reserves the right to terminate this License at will, and the City shall give Licensee not less than sixty (60) days of prior notice of any termination. Upon termination of this License by the City, the Licensee shall peaceably surrender the Licensed Premises in its unimproved and “as is” condition. The City shall enforce this Section by any means possible, legally or equitably. 13.Miscellaneous. A.Choice of Law; Venue. Minnesota law, without regard to its choice-of-law provisions, governs this License. Venue for all legal proceedings that result out of this Agreement, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Dakota County, Minnesota. B.Counterparts. This License may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which, when taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. C.Amendment or Modification. This License may not be changed or modified orally, but only upon written agreement signed by the party against whom enforcement of any waiver, change, modification, or discharge is sought. D.Severability. If any term or provision in this License is deemed to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of the License shall remain in effect and be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. E.Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of all obligations under this License. F.No Other Agreements. This License fully governs the relationship between the City and Licensee related to the placement of the Private Utility in the Licensed Premises, and no other representations or promises are included in this License. G.Incorporation of Recitals and Exhibit. The Recitals at the beginning of this License, and the Exhibit attached to this License are each one true and correct and are incorporated into and made part of this License. [Signature page follows] Doc ID: 9b79836116343f9822a7ca4b269d7b55c465a31bPage 58 of 151 5 239070v1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Licensee have executed this instrument to be effective as of the Effective date first written above. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie %Levine, Mayor Nancy Bauer, City Clerk LICENSEE: IVY KEEP II OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. By: [printed name] Its: [printed name] This instrument was drafted by: The City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 President Bruce Anderson Doc ID: 9b79836116343f9822a7ca4b269d7b55c465a31bPage 59 of 151 6 239070v1 EXHIBIT A Location of the Private Utility Doc ID: 9b79836116343f9822a7ca4b269d7b55c465a31bPage 60 of 151 Page 61 of 151 P Page 62 of 151 Page 63 of 151 Page 64 of 151 Page 65 of 151 Page 66 of 151 Page 67 of 151 Page 68 of 151 Page 69 of 151 Page 70 of 151 Page 71 of 151 Page 72 of 151 8.a REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE:May 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM:ZOOMS STEM Design Challenge--Visitation School ITEM TYPE:Presentation DEPARTMENT:Administration CONTACT:Noel Mills Ford, Administrative Special Projects Coordinator Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator ACTION REQUEST: Recognize students from Visitation School and their participation in the ZOOMS STEM Design Challenge. Two groups of 6th graders and one group of 8th graders will provide a brief overview of their projects and share their experience with the program. BACKGROUND: The Minnesota Zoo and Flint Hills Resources notified Mayor Levine that students from Visitation School, located in Mendota Heights, earned the opportunity to compete in the 2026 ZOOMS STEM Design Challenge Exhibition on March 3 at the Minnesota Zoo. The students' work stood out among more than 1,600 projects completed this year by students at 85 different schools, which are both record-highs for the program. The ZOOMS STEM Design Challenge is a yearlong program that brings together thousands of students from across Minnesota, challenging them to propose STEM-centered solutions for real-world challenges facing the Minnesota Zoo and its animals. This year, more than 5,100 students worked in groups and designed habitat and enrichment solutions for the Zoo's five California sea lions. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 73 of 151 This page is intentionally left blank 8.b REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE:May 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM:Metro Transit Update ITEM TYPE:Presentation DEPARTMENT:Administration CONTACT:Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator Noel Mills Ford, Administrative Special Projects Coordinator ACTION REQUEST: Information only. The Council will hear a presentation from Metro Transit. BACKGROUND: In November 2024, Metro Transit presented their Network Now Concept Plan to City Council. Network Now is Metro Transit's vision for bus and rail service investments through 2027. The plan guides improvements to grow ridership, enhance mobility, and meet the travel needs of the region. Metro Transit representatives will provide an update on the Network Now Concept Plan, including an update on the establishment of Metro Transit micro. Metro micro service is an affordable and accessible type of multi-passenger public transit ("microtransit") that delivers app-based on-demand services to improve connections to existing transit service. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 74 of 151 This page is intentionally left blank 10.a REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE:May 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM:Friendly Hills Park Temporary Outfield Fence ITEM TYPE:New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT:Parks and Recreation CONTACT:Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Approve the annual installation of a temporary fence by City staff at the Friendly Hills Park ball field for use seasonally from April 15–July 31. BACKGROUND: Friendly Hills Park is located at 16 Navajo Lane and features tennis courts, a hockey rink (with pickleball courts utilized in the warmer months), warming house, picnic shelters, basketball court, playground, and a ball field. The park is popular among residents who often use the open field space to hit practice golf balls, fly kites, kick around soccer balls and other types of free play. Most recently, the outfield of the ball field has been used for organized soccer from August-October. For the 2026 spring and mid-summer season, the Two Rivers Athletic Association (TRAA) has requested a temporary outfield fence be installed at Friendly Hills Park. TRAA has reserved the ball field on weekday's from 5:00-9:00pm, Saturday's from 9:00am-3:00pm, and Sunday's from 3:00-9:00pm. TRAA intends to use the Friendly Hills ball field for games and is requesting the installation of a temporary fence in the outfield until the end of July. For a more enjoyable playing experience, TRAA feels that all game fields should have fencing. TRAA has requested the fence be installed 200 feet from home plate. The attached aerial photo shows where the fence would be situated in relation to the park. The City has previously approved the use of temporary fences at Marie Park and Valley Park. The fences are purchased by TRAA and remain property of the association, but are installed by city public works maintenance staff. Prior approvals have been approved by the City Council and annually, staff tracks any complaints received. Staff received the request from TRAA on Monday, April 6. For requests like this that may Page 75 of 151 temporarily or permanently limit the recreational amenity usage of a park or could cause a change in the usage of the park, the City sends out a notice letter to nearby residents and provides an opportunity during a Parks and Recreation Commission meeting for residents to voice their opinions or raise concerns about the proposed project. At the time the request was received, there was no time to achieve the City's standard 10-day window of providing notice to nearby residents prior to the April 14 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. Due to the timing of the request and baseball season beginning in late April, staff was requested to bring this item directly to the City Council. Notice letters were mailed on April 21 to residents within 350 feet of the park boundary, encouraging those with comments or concerns to provide comments to staff or attend the May 5 City Council meeting to speak. Additionally, the Parks and Recreation Commission was made aware of the item and was provided an opportunity to submit comments to staff to be included in the packet. Included in the packet are all correspondence received by 4:30pm on Wednesday, April 29. Any correspondence received after the packet release deadline will be provided to the City Council in advance of the meeting for review. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: TRAA would be responsible for purchasing and replacing the fencing as needed. City staff would be responsible for installing the fence at the beginning of the season and removing the fence at the end of the season. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Map of Friendly Hills Temporary Fence 2. Friendly Hills Email #1 3. Friendly Hills Email #2 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 76 of 151      200-ftPage 77 of 151 From:Jennifer Weichert To:Meredith Lawrence Subject:Re: City Council Item Date:Thursday, April 23, 2026 9:37:54 PM Attachments:image001.png Thank you for seeking comments about this outfield fence. As you are well aware baseball has dominated the attention, money and land at most every park throughout our city. It is long past time to dedicate space to other sports and activities that are more appropriate for the greater number of park users from young children through our seniors. These fences have eliminated wonderful opportunities for land usage for football, soccer and lacrosse as well as just open spaces. They are an eye sore and should be eliminated. Seriously how many of our little leaguers actually hit long ball home runs. I back onto Victoria Highlands Park and watch many ball games. I have yet to see any error free home runs necessitating these fences. It is time for the City to decrease baseball expenditures (maintenance on these fields is very costly and there are already too many fields) Our focus should be on creating opportunities for ALL residents to enjoy our parks; we should be putting in bocce ball courts which can be used by all age groups and can be made useable by handicap people. Remember our consultant study found Mendota Heights has 6 times as many ball fields as the average communities of similar size. Too much emphasis on a sport not geared to today’s popular sports and activities. I vote NO. Get Outlook for iOS From: Meredith Lawrence <MLawrence@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2026 12:04:56 PM To: Jaffrey Blanks <JBlanks@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; Michelle Muller <michellerachelmuller@gmail.com>; Kirsten Ramirez <KRamirez@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; Daniel Van Lith <DVanLith@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; Michael Toth <michael.toth8@gmail.com>; Jennifer Weichert <JWeichert@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; Pau Cortes Valdes <PCortesValdes@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Subject: City Council Item Good afternoon: On Monday, April 6 the City received a request to add a temporary fence to the outfield of the baseball field at Friendly Hills Park. For requests like this that may temporarily or permanently Page 78 of 151 limit the recreational amenity usage of a park or could cause a change in the usage of the park, the City sends out a notice letter to nearby residents and provides an opportunity during a Parks and Recreation Commission meeting for residents to voice their opinions or raise concerns about the proposed project. At the time the request was received, there was not time to achieve our standard 10 day window of providing notice to nearby residents prior to the April 14 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. Staff intended to bring this item to the May 12 Parks and Recreation Commission to hold the public comment opportunity and have the Commission make a formal recommendation to the City Council on next steps. I have been given direction based on the timeline of the request to bypass the May Parks and Recreation Commission meeting and take this item directly to the City Council on May 5 with no formal PRC recommendation. I have attached the notice letter that has been mailed out to nearby residents. If you have any comments on this item, I can most certainly provide them to the City Council as part of the presentation—if interested please send any comments to me via email by 4:30pm on Tuesday, April 28. With not having this item on the May PRC agenda, we will likely be moving the May meeting to a work session. More to come! Thank you, Meredith A. Lawrence, CPRE, CPWP-M Parks & Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director City of Mendota Heights Direct: 651-255-1354 Website | Connect Page 79 of 151 From:Daniel Van Lith To:Meredith Lawrence Subject:Re: City Council Item Date:Monday, April 27, 2026 2:05:10 PM Attachments:image001.png Meredith, I am opposed to adding a fence to the field at Friendly Hills Park as it cuts into one of the few spaces in MH that can support soccer/lacrosse (or just free play in general) It is another item to mow around and turns the that area into a single use space. Dan Van Lith On Apr 22, 2026, at 12:05ௗPM, Meredith Lawrence <MLawrence@mendotaheightsmn.gov> wrote: Good afternoon: On Monday, April 6 the City received a request to add a temporary fence to the outfield of the baseball field at Friendly Hills Park. For requests like this that may temporarily or permanently limit the recreational amenity usage of a park or could cause a change in the usage of the park, the City sends out a notice letter to nearby residents and provides an opportunity during a Parks and Recreation Commission meeting for residents to voice their opinions or raise concerns about the proposed project. At the time the request was received, there was not time to achieve our standard 10 day window of providing notice to nearby residents prior to the April 14 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. Staff intended to bring this item to the May 12 Parks and Recreation Commission to hold the public comment opportunity and have the Commission make a formal recommendation to the City Council on next steps. I have been given direction based on the timeline of the request to bypass the May Parks and Recreation Commission meeting and take this item directly to the City Council on May 5 with no formal PRC recommendation. I have attached the notice letter that has been mailed out to nearby residents. If you have any comments on this item, I can most certainly provide them to the City Council as part of the presentation—if interested please send any comments to me via email by 4:30pm on Tuesday, April 28. Page 80 of 151 With not having this item on the May PRC agenda, we will likely be moving the May meeting to a work session. More to come! Thank you, <image001.png> Meredith A. Lawrence, CPRE, CPWP-M Parks & Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director City of Mendota Heights Direct: 651-255-1354 Website | Connect <Friendly Hills Temporary Fence.docx> Page 81 of 151 Nanc y Bauer From: Sent: To: Subject: Website I Connect Meredith Lawrence Tuesday, May 5, 2026 1 :35 PM Nancy Bauer FW: Friendly Hills Park Temporary Baseball Fence Meredith A. Lawrence, CPRE, CPWP-M Parks & Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director City of Mendota Heights Direct: 651-255-1354 From: Cheryl Jacobson <CJacobson@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2026 8:42 AM To: Ryan Ruzek <RRuzek@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; Meredith Lawrence <MLawrence@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Subject: FW: Friendly Hills Park Temporary Baseball Fence For the record. From: Stephanie Levine <SLevine@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2026 7:01 AM To: Daniel Sherer <daniel.a.sherer@gmail.com> Cc: Cheryl Jacobson <CJacobson@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; Sally Lorberbaum <SLorberbaum@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; John Mazzitello <JMazzitello@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; John Maczko <JMaczko@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; Joel Paper <JPaper@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Subject: Re: Friendly Hills Park Temporary Baseball Fence Dear Dan, Thanks for contacting the city council regarding the need for an outfield fence at Friendly Hills. This item is on the agenda for tonight's meeting, and your letter will be made part of the public record. Enjoy the beautiful baseball weather, Stephanie 1 Stephanie B. Levine Mayor City of Mendota Heights C:651-302-0861 Website I Connect From: Daniel Sherer <daniel.a.sherer@gmail.com > Date: Monday, May 4, 2026 at 11 :15 PM To: Sally Lorberbaum <SLorberbaum@ mendotaheightsmn.gov>, Stephanie Levine <SLevine@mendotaheightsmn.gov>, John Maczko <JMaczko@me ndo tahe ightsmn.gov>, John Mazzitello <JMa zzitello@mendotaheightsmn.gov>, Joel Paper <JPaper@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Cc: Cheryl Jacobson <CJ aco bson@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Subject: Friendly Hills Park Temporary Baseball Fence You don't often get email from daniel.a.sherer@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Dear Mayor and Council, TRAA is requesting approval at Tuesday's meeting for a temporary outfield fence to be installed at Friendly Hills Park. The fence would be installed as soon as possible and removed at the end of the baseball season (early July). The field has not been used for games in recent years (mostly practices), but due to the continued growth of TRAA baseball and softball, we are experiencing a shortage of fields which necessitates using Friendly Hills for games. The 11-yr old teams will be using this field along with 8-9 yr old kid pitch teams. As you know, Mendota Heights has a deep-rooted baseball tradition characterized by a community-wide commitment to the sport. Despite nationwide trends showing reduced participation, our youth program continues to grow. We have 522 players rostered on 49 teams and most of them play on Mendota 2 Heights fields (tee-ball teams play on school fields and 14/1 5-yr old teams play in WSP due to the lack of a full-size baseball field in Mendota Heights). I had advised Parks and Rec Director, Meredith Lawrence, of plans to use Friendly Hills for games and install a temporary fence back in February. We were able to find some temporary fencing at a discount price and submitted a formal request to install an outfield fence on April 5th. Fences were installed on three fields at Two Rivers High School in April and the remaining fencing is reserved for the Friendly Hills Park field, pending approval from City Council. An outfield fence provides a more enjoyable experience for the kids. It makes it feel like a real field and provides an opportunity for the players to hit a legitimate home run, which is a memorable milestone for any child. It also provides the safety benefit of delineating the baseball field from other sectors of the park, helping prevent users of the playground, basketball court, etc. from entering the field of play. Lastly, the fence is currently stored in my yard and if I can't install it soon, my wife might be moving me out of the house:). Regards, Dan Sherer Mendota Heights, MN 55120 TRAA Baseball Commissioner (Volunteer) 3 Nanc y Bauer From: Sent: To: Subject: Website I Connect Meredith Lawrence Tuesday, May 5, 2026 1 :36 PM Nancy Bauer FW: Friendly Hills Park Outside Fence Meredith A. Lawrence, CPRE, CPWP-M Parks & Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director City of Mendota Heights Direct: 651-255-1354 From: Cheryl Jacobson <CJacobson@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2026 8:43 AM To: Ryan Ruzek <RRuzek@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; Meredith Lawrence <MLawrence@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Subject: FW: Friendly Hills Park Outside Fence For the record. From: Stephanie Levine <SLevine@mendotaheightsmn .gov> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2026 7:02 AM To: Nick Kalkman <NKalkman@Bell.Bank> Cc: Cheryl Jacobson <CJacobson@mendotaheightsmn.gov >; baseball@traawarriors.com; John Maczko <JMaczko@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; Joel Paper <JPaper@mendotaheightsmn .gov>; Sally Lorberbaum <SLorberbaum@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; John Mazzitello <JMazzitello@mendotaheightsmn .gov> Subject: Re: Friendly Hills Park Outside Fence Dear Nick, Thanks for contacting the city council regarding the need for an outfield fence at Friendly Hills. This item is on the agenda for tonight's meeting, and your letter will be made part of the public record. Enjoy the beautiful baseball weather, Stephanie Stephanie B. Levine Mayor 1 City of Mendota Heights v:OO I -.)U.c-UOO I Website I Connect From: Nick Kalkman <NKalkman@Bell.Bank> Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2026 at 4:20 AM To: Stephanie Levine <SLevin e@mendotaheightsmn.gov>, Sally Lorberbaum <SLorberbaum@m endotaheightsmn.gov>, John Mazzitello <JMazzitello@mendo taheightsmn.gov>, Joel Paper <JPaper@ mendotaheightsmn.gov>, John Maczko <JMaczko@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Cc: Cheryl Jacobson <CJacobson@mendotaheightsmn.gov>, baseball@traawarriors.com <baseball@traawarriors.com> Subject: Friendly Hills Park Outside Fence Some people who received this message don't often get email from nkalkman@bell.bank. Learn why this is important Morning City Council, Please consider putting in a baseball fence at Friendly Hills Park. The kids will have a much better baseball experience with the fence in place. Pretty much every field that our kids play on in other cities has a fence to set a boundary to either keep the ball in play or to designate a home run (which is every kids dream). Thank you for your consideration! Nick Nick Kalkman Senior Mortgage Banker NMLS 848682 2 BellOBank Mortgage Family and Employee Owned 971 Sibley Memorial Hwy I Suite 201 I Lilydale, MN 55118 Phone 651 . 785.60871 Fax 1-855-800-9801 nkalkman@bell.bank I www.homebuy ingmn.com Facebook A Local and National Award-Winning Company ,Apply now! ► ' EQUAL HOUSING LENDER PS: Referrals are the greatest compliment we can receive. Cli ck here to help a friend with their mortgage__,_ Bell cares about safeguarding your information. Never email or text documents that contain personal or sensitive information. Please contact me to discuss possible options I can provide to securely upload documentation that may contain personal information. ****NOTICE: The information in this e-mail and any attachments is for the sole use by the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the addressee, any review, use, retention or distribution of this e-mail or its attachments is prohibited and may be a violation of law. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this e-mail and all attachments. Any opinions or comments are personal to the sender and may not represent those of Bell Bank. This e-mail and its attachments neither constitute an agreement to conduct transactions by electronic means nor create a legally binding contract or enforceable obligation in the absence of a fully signed written agreement.**** 3 Nancy Bauer From: Sent: To: Subject: Website I Connect Meredith Lawrence Tuesday, May 5, 2026 1 :36 PM Nancy Bauer FW: Support for Fri endly Hills Park Outfield Fence Meredith A. Lawrence, CPRE, CPWP-M Parks & Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director City of Mendota Heights Direct: 651-255-1354 From: Cheryl Jacobson <CJacobson@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2026 8:43 AM To: Ryan Ruzek <RRuzek@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; Meredith Lawrence <MLawrence@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Subject: FW: Support for Friendly Hills Park Outfield Fence For the record. From: Patrick Mitsch <mits0413@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2026 8:06 AM To: Stephanie Levine <SL evine@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; Sally Lorberbaum <SLorberbaum@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; John Mazzitello <JMazzitello@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; Joel Paper <JPaper@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; John Maczko <JMaczko@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Cc: baseball@traawarriors.com; Cheryl Jacobson <CJacobson@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Subject: Support for Friendly Hills Park Outfield Fence You don't often get email from mits0413@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Good morning, My name is Pat Mitsch and I am an 8 year resident of Mendota Heights with 3 children involved in various sports in the Two Rivers Athletic Association (baseball, basketball, soccer, flag football). I am writing this e-mail in support of the Friendly Hills Park outfield fence. I am a baseball coach in the Two Rivers athletics association and have seen the benefits of offering a baseball fence for in-house rec baseball and travel baseball games. It offers a better experience for the kids playing and puts Mendota Heights on par with other communities' baseball facilities including those who use city park fields for their home field. The fence also helps demonstrate that there are teams using the field for the baseball season which I have seen helps keep the field in better condition. This fence will be temporary for the baseball season and will be down before fall soccer season begins. 1 Thank you for considering. Pat Mitsch 2 Nancy Bauer From: Sent: To: Subject: Website I Connect Meredith Lawrence Tuesday, May 5, 2026 1 :36 PM Nancy Bauer FW: Support for Temporary Outfield Fence at Friendly Hills Park Meredith A. Lawrence, CPRE, CPWP-M Parks & Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director City of Mendota Heights Direct: 651-255-1354 From: Cheryl Jacobson <CJacobson@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2026 10:53 AM To: Meredith Lawrence <MLawrence@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; Ryan Ruzek <RRuzek@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Subject: FW: Support for Temporary Outfield Fence at Friendly Hills Park For the record. From: Darrin Hubbard <darrin.g.hubbard@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2026 10:52 AM To: Stephanie Levine <SLevine@mendotaheightsmn.gov >; Sally Lorberbaum <SLorberbaum@mendotaheightsmn.gov >; John Mazzitello <JMazzitello@mendotaheightsmn.gov >; Joel Paper <JPaper@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; John Maczko <JMaczko@mendotaheightsmn .gov > Cc: baseball@traawarriors.com; Cheryl Jacobson <CJacobson@mendotaheightsmn.gov > Subject: Support for Temporary Outfield Fence at Friendly Hills Park You don't often get email from darrin.g.hubbard@gmail.com . Learn why this is important Dear Mayor Levine and Members of the City Council, I'm writing as a resident and engaged community member to express my strong support for the installation of a temporary outfield fence at Friendly Hills Park for the upcoming youth baseball season. This is a simple, low-cost improvement that would have a meaningful impact on the experience of the kids who use the field. An outfield fence helps create a more complete and enjoyable game environment by establishing clear boundaries for play, including home runs, something that adds excitement and structure for young athletes learning the game. Equally important, the fence provides a practical safety benefit. By creating a visible barrier, it helps deter children, spectators, and pets from unintentionally wandering onto the field during games and practices. This added layer of safety is especially valuable in a shared park setting. 1 Many youth fields in neighboring communities already have outfield fences, and this temporary solution is a practical. tow-risk wav to provide a sirnitar experience here. Thank you for your consideration and support of youth recreation in our community. Sincerely, Darrin Hubbard 2 This page is intentionally left blank 10.b REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE:May 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM:Par 3 Golf Course Tree Spading Project ITEM TYPE:New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT:Parks and Recreation CONTACT:Trey Carlson, Recreation Facilities Coordinator Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Approve the spading in of nine trees at the Mendota Heights Par 3 Community Golf Course for a not-to-exceed amount of $20,000. BACKGROUND: Staff have received complaints from homeowners along Bachelor Avenue regarding golf balls hitting personal property (e.g. cars, windows, siding, etc). In the past five years, several mature trees that provided screening have been removed due to disease. Although the City has replanted trees at a 1:1 ratio and has added additional trees in some locations, the new trees have not grown large enough to provide comparable screening. In response to complaints, staff has taken reasonable action to resolve the concerns, including planting trees in locations where existing trees were removed, adding a large sign at the first hole with information on liability and golfer etiquette when playing near homes, and adding signage at individual holes to make golfers aware there are homes in proximity and to encourage golfers to choose the appropriate club. The City has also recommended that property owners plant trees on their property as another means of protection. Staff has also provided residents with the avenue to file an insurance claim with the City's insurance provider for damage. Staff have received a request asking the City to consider spading in large trees to provide a natural barrier between homes along Bachelor Avenue and the golf course. Considering complaints from four homeowners over the last nine years, staff assessed the option of adding large spaded trees at three locations where tree coverage has been reduced as a possible measure to help minimize, though not eliminate, the likelihood of golf balls reaching nearby homes/properties. Page 82 of 151 The three planned sites for tree spading would be along Bachelor Avenue (see attached map): Hole #1 would receive a grouping of trees in the left rough just short of the bunker that would provide a natural barrier to the properties at 716 and 720 Bachelor Avenue. Hole #3, would receive a grouping of trees directly behind #3 green that would provide a natural barrier to 724 Bachelor Avenue. These trees would be planted at the bottom of the slope as it relates to Bachelor Avenue. The three trees that were planted last summer would be transplanted to other locations throughout the course. Hole #4, would receive a grouping of trees that would be planted just west of the maintenance path and would provide a natural barrier to 758 and 776 Bachelor Ave. While the proposed trees may help reduce impacts from errant golf balls, they cannot fully eliminate risk. The likelihood of the success of the trees as a barrier would increase the more mature the trees become. Additionally, the City and the contractor cannot guarantee the survival of the spaded trees as external factors such as growing conditions, course users and golf equipment and wildlife could impact the health of the trees. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Staff worked with vendors to determine what could be planted on site and the costs associated with the project. Davey Tree has provided a quote for nine spruce trees, each measuring 10 feet in height to be spaded in for $14,040. Additionally, staff would be responsible for removing the existing trees and replanting them, mulching, and re-sodding the areas that have been impacted. The specific species would be determined in conjunction with the Natural Resources Manager and the cost per tree can fluctuate based on specific species, so the total cost of the tree portion of the project is still not definitive. Staff are estimating the total project cost not to exceed $20,000. This expenditure was not budgeted for the 2026 fiscal year. The Par 3 Golf Course Fund at the end of 2025 had an approximate balance of $245,000. The Par 3 has some significant capital projects slated for the next ten years that staff intends to pay for through this fund. A copy of the Par 3 Golf Course's Capital Improvement Plan is included for financial forecasting in relation to future fund needs. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Par 3 - Aerial View of All Planting Locations 2. CIP Par 3 - 2027-2036 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 83 of 151 /RFDWLRQ +ROH /RFDWLRQ +ROH /RFDWLRQ +ROH Page 84 of 151 Page 85 of 151 10.c REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE:May 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM:Resolution 2026-31 Approving a Variance to the front-yard setback for an accessibility ramp at 537 Junction Lane [Planning Case No. 2026-02] ITEM TYPE:Resolution DEPARTMENT:Community Development CONTACT:Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager ACTION REQUEST: Adopt Resolution 2026-31 Approving a Variance to the front-yard setback for an accessibility ramp at 537 Junction Lane. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Clarence Tweh, is requesting approval of a Variance to the front-yard setback for the installation of an accessibility ramp for the property at 537 Junction Lane. The City Code permits small structures such as accessibility ramps to encroach 5-ft into the front yard setback without the need for a Variance, however the proposed location of this ramp would encroach more than 5-ft into the front yard and as such requires a Variance from the City. The subject parcel is approximately 7,102 square feet in size and contains a single-family dwelling. The property is zoned R-1 Low Density Residential and guided for low density residential development. The existing single-family home was built in 1968 and is part of the John H Morrison’s Addition subdivision, originally platted in 1923. The lot is substandard in total size to the current base standards for an R-1 lot. There is an accessibility ramp already in place on the property which was identified as a code enforcement violation, leading to this Planning Application being submitted. The current ramp extends from the front stoop of the home towards the street and not only encroaches into the front-yard setback, but encroaches into public right-of-way. With this Variance request, the applicant has committed to relocating the ramp to a new alignment which no longer encroaches onto public right-of-way and which is closer to the existing dwelling. The proposed location of the new accessibility ramp (displayed on the revised plan dated 4/12/26) would attach to the existing stoop heading east 4-ft, then turn south for an additional 12-ft 3-in, and finally turn back west towards the driveway for 30-ft 6-in and make a new connection point with the existing driveway. There is a small retaining wall at the perimeter of the length of the driveway which is driving the need for additional length of ramp and the turnback in the Page 86 of 151 ramp's alignment, so that the ramp can be constructed at a 1:12 slope. Based on the needed slope for the accessibility ramp, and the existing setback of the home and front stoop, there is not an alternative location where the ramp could be installed without the need for a Variance. The Planning Commission met at their regular meeting on March 31 to hold a duly noticed public hearing on the Variance application. Following the public hearing on March 31, the Planning Commission discussed the public comments received relating to the proposed Variance request to reduce the front-yard setback for this ramp. As part of their deliberation, the Planning Commission voted to table the application and directed staff to work with the applicant to confirm the dimensions shown on the provided plan, and to inquire about alternative materials that could be used for the ramp. Staff presented this application again on April 28 and was able to verify that they had met with the applicant on-site to field verify the dimensions of the rise between the existing driveway and the existing front stoop. A small one- inch (1") adjustment was made to the rise. Through discussion with the applicant, the plan for the new ramp was revised and the Variance request was reduced from 10-ft 3-in to 8-ft 9-in. The revised plan was discussed by the Planning Commission at their April 28 meeting. A copy of the 4/28/2026 planning report with attachments is enclosed with this memo. As noted in the attachment, staff had recommended approval of the application request. Following their discussion, the Planning Commission affirmed the staff recommendation and voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend to the City Council approval of this Variance with findings- of-fact and certain conditions of approval as outlined in the attached [draft] Resolution 2026- 31. The City Council is asked to affirm the Planning Commission's recommendation and adopt Resolution 2026-31 Approving a Variance to the front-yard setback for an accessibility ramp at 537 Junction Lane. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2026-31 Resolution Approving a Variance to the Front-Yard Setback for an Accessibility Ramp at 537 Junction Lane 2. Excerpt from Approved Planning Commission Minutes 3-31-26 3. Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes 4-28-26 4. April 28 2026, Planning Commission Staff Report CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy Page 87 of 151 Resolution No. 2026-31 Page | 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2026-31 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT-YARD SETBACK FOR AN ACCESSIBILITY RAMP AT 537 JUNCTION LANE PLANNING CASE 2026-02 WHEREAS, Clarence Tweh, (the “Applicant”) made an Application for a Variance to the front-yard setback to allow for an accessibility ramp, located on the property at 537 Junction Lane, and legally described in Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LDR-Low Density Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, zoned R-1 Low Density Residential; and WHEREAS, Title 12-4A-3: Yards and Open Space: C1.c allows for a 5-ft encroachment into the front yard in the case of accessibility ramps, and the Applicant is seeking approval of a Variance request to allow an accessibility ramp within the front yard of the Subject Property which would encroach 13-ft 9-in into the front yard, exceeding the 5-ft encroachment allowance, and the Variance requested is for a 8-ft 9-in reduction in the front-yard setback under this provision, as proposed and presented under Planning Case No. 2026-02; and WHEREAS, Title 12-5B-7 of the City Code (Variances) allows for the Council to grant variances or certain modifications from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code, and impose conditions and safeguards with variances if so needed or granted; and WHEREAS, on March 31, 2026, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Variance request, whereby a planning report was presented and received by the Commission, and comments from the applicant and public were allowed, and whereupon closing the hearing, the Commission recommended (4-1 vote) to table the application to the next available regular Planning Commission meeting date, to request additional clarification on the plans from the applicant to be reviewed and discussed at their next meeting; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2026, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission continued their review of the Variance request, whereby an updated planning report was presented and received by the Commission, and following their review, the Commission recommended unanimously (7-0 vote) to approve the request from Clarence Tweh for the Variance, which would allow the reduction in the front-yard setback, as proposed and presented under Planning Case No. 2026-02, with certain conditions and findings-of-fact to support said approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation from the Planning Commission on Planning Case No. 2026-02 is hereby affirmed, and may be approved based on the following findings-of-fact: Page 88 of 151 Resolution No. 2026-31 Page | 2 1. Under Title 12-5B-7 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.” 2. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a Variance to allow a 13-ft 9-in encroachment into the front yard and 8-ft 9-in setback reduction for the installation of an accessibility ramp, by the following: a. The proposed installation of an accessibility ramp is a reasonable use of property and is consistent with a single-family residential property’s development pattern; b. The subject site is a substandard lot, platted prior to current City Code requirements for minimum lot size and setback dimensions; the existing home is compliant with the front yard setback requirements and contains an existing stoop compliant with encroachment flexibilities permitted within City Code. Due to the change in grade from the front stoop to the driveway, and the required slope for an accessibility ramp, there is no alternative alignment for an accessibility ramp to tie into that existing stoop without the need for a Variance from the front-yard setback and encroachment requirements. The alignment is needed due to the grading of the property, and a turnback within the ramp alignment necessitates this Variance request. c. The reason for the Variance request is to permit a reasonable installation of an accessibility ramp to serve the residents of the home. This alignment and accessibility ramp installation will correct an existing code violation which is on file against the subject property and remove an encroachment on public right-of-way at cost to the property owner and for this reason the request is not solely based on economic considerations. 3. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-5B-7 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. Page 89 of 151 Resolution No. 2026-31 Page | 3 4. Approval of this Variance is for 537 Junction Lane only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Variance requested for the property located at 537 Junction Lane is hereby approved, with the following conditions: 1. The 13-ft 9-in encroachment into the front yard and 8-ft 9-in Variance is exclusively for the installation of an accessibility ramp within the front yard. 2. The Applicant shall not deviate from the ramp plan under this application review without first seeking and receiving city approvals, unless City Code provides for certain or allowable improvements to be made without any additional application review process. 3. No work begins on the proposed ramp installation until an administrative permit has been issued by the City. 4. The existing accessibility ramp which is a violation of City Code and encroaches into the front yard and public right-of-way must be removed within 90 days of this Variance approval. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of May 2026. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 90 of 151 Resolution No. 2026-31 Page | 4 EXHIBIT A Address: 537 Junction Lane PIN: 27-49200-01-021 Legal Description: Lot 2, Block 1, John H. Morrison’s Addition to St. Paul, Dakota County, Minnesota, Excepting from said lot the north ninety (90) feet of said lot, according to the plat thereof. Page 91 of 151 MARCH 31 APPROVED MINUTES EXCERPT FROM APPROVED 3/31/26 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES A) PLANNING CASE 2026-02 CLARENCE TWEH, 537 JUNCTION LANE – VARIANCE Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the applicant, Clarence Tweh, is requesting approval of a variance to the front yard setback for the installation of an accessibility ramp for the property at 537 Junction Lane. The City Code permits small structures such as accessibility ramps to encroach five feet into the front yard setback without the need for a variance; however, the proposed location of this ramp would encroach more than five feet into the front yard and, as such, requires a variance from the City. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350 feet of the site; three comments were received. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Nath asked if there would be any other way to accommodate the slope without going all the way around. Community Development Manager Saah Madden replied that, based on the contractor's information, an 18-foot width between the stoop and driveway, and the rise would not allow an accessibility ramp without a turnback. She stated that with the landing size and slope required, some sort of turnback would be required. Commissioner Johnson noted information received in a letter related to the dimensions and whether they were accurate. She asked if staff had double-checked the dimensions. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that staff were onsite with the contractor and have no reason to doubt the dimensions. Commissioner Corbett opened the public hearing. Jacob Burke, 533 Junction Lane, commented that he has a good relationship with his neighbor and does not intend to deny access to anyone in the neighborhood, but is opposed to the application as presented. He believed that this alters the character of the neighborhood and noted that he is the resident who questioned the measurements of the contractor. He stated that this variance is also silent on the materials that would be used. He stated that the ramp could better match the character of the neighborhood with other materials. He commented that although he has a great relationship with the property owner, this property is not homesteaded and is used as a group Page 92 of 151 MARCH 31 APPROVED MINUTES home. He believed that these businesses operating in a residential neighborhood should be required to maintain the character of the neighborhood. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Commissioner Corbett asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NATH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UDELL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Nath asked if this could be approved, with the contingent that the City would double-check the measurements. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that there would be an inspection with a formal building permit. She stated that they are still discussing whether a building permit or an administrative permit would be required and noted that an administrative permit would not require an inspection. Commissioner Johnson asked and received confirmation that a condition could be added requiring an inspection. Commissioner Corbett asked if the applicant would be required to meet the plan dimensions. Commissioner Udell stated that condition two would require no deviations from the ramp plan. Commissioner Nath asked who would watch to ensure that the applicant follows the requirements. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that a condition could be added requiring an additional staff inspection if one is not required by the Building Code. Commissioner Johnson asked if any rules apply to a group home running as a business in a residential area that would differ from a R-1 standard home. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that a group home is a permitted single- family use within State Statute, so there would not be additional code requirements for structures. She stated that there are no material requirements for an accessibility ramp in the City Code. She stated that the Commission could request different building materials, but that is not something she has discussed with the applicant, and she would need to verify their ability to accommodate that. Commissioner Goldade asked if there would be a way to get a second opinion on the building of the ramp. Page 93 of 151 MARCH 31 APPROVED MINUTES Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that if more information is needed, the application could be tabled and staff could be directed to obtain that information. Commissioner Goldade noted the requirement for the current ramp to be removed within 90 days and asked how tabling would impact that timeline. He stated that he believes that a ramp should be allowed, but would like more information on materials and verification of dimensions. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the 90 days would start once the variance is approved. Commissioner Johnson stated that she would guess that the objection is related to the silver railings and asked if staff could request a different material. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that staff could have those conversations with the applicant. Commissioner Udell recognized that the measurements provided were called into question and asked if the idea would be that if those measurements were inaccurate, the encroachment could be reduced. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that if the item were tabled, staff could be directed to work with the applicant and bring back additional information on materials, and staff could verify the dimensions. COMMISSIONER GOLDADE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NATH, TO TABLE THE CASE AND DIRECT STAFF AND THE APPLICANT TO VERIFY THE DIMENSIONS AND PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ON THE MATERIALS PROPOSED FOR THE RAMP. Further discussion: Commissioner Udell stated that he would push back on the materials piece as he worries that would stray too far from the purview of the Commission. He agreed that the dimensions should be verified, but disagreed with the materials piece. Commissioner Nath stated that they were mostly asking staff to get more information on the materials from the applicant. Commissioner Udell agreed that is fair. Commissioner Johnson stated that the contention would be that the materials would not meet the criteria of the variance relating to altering the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Corbett agreed that they should be discussing the materials and hoped that would be built into the design. He stated that a chain link fence is allowed, and that color is not dictated. He appreciated the concern for the dimensions but believed that they could move this forward with appropriate conditions. AYES: 4 Page 94 of 151 MARCH 31 APPROVED MINUTES NAYS: 1 (Corbett) Page 95 of 151 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES EXCERPT FROM DRAFT/UNAPPROVED 4/28/26 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES A) TABLED - PLANNING CASE 2026-02 CLARENCE TWEH, 537 JUNCTION LANE – VARIANCE Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the applicant is requesting approval of a variance to the front-yard setback for the installation of an accessibility ramp for the property at 537 Junction Lane. The City Code permits small structures, such as accessibility ramps, to encroach five feet into the front yard setback without the need for a Variance; however, the proposed location of this ramp would encroach more than five feet into the front yard and, as such, required a Variance from the City. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that this item was presented under a duly noticed public hearing process on March 31, 2026, and one member of the public spoke relating to the application. The Planning Commission directed staff to work with the applicant to confirm the dimensions shown on the plan and to inquire about alternative materials that could be used for the ramp. On April 8th, staff met with the applicant on-site, and with updates, the requested variance has been reduced from ten feet three inches to eight feet nine inches. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. She stated that the applicant has provided a commitment to utilize a wood construction option should that be the desire of the Commission. She noted that it was not included as a condition, as there is no requirement in the City Code related to the materials to be used. Chair Field noted that the public hearing was closed at the last meeting. Commissioner Udell stated that this item was tabled to verify the measurement, and that has been done. COMMISSIONER UDELL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS PROPOSED, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE 13-FT 9-IN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD AND 8-FT 9-IN VARIANCE IS EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN ACCESSIBILITY RAMP WITHIN THE FRONT YARD. 2. THE APPLICANT SHALL NOT DEVIATE FROM THE RAMP PLAN UNDER THIS APPLICATION REVIEW WITHOUT FIRST SEEKING AND RECEIVING CITY APPROVALS, UNLESS CITY CODE PROVIDES FOR CERTAIN OR ALLOWABLE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS. Page 96 of 151 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES 3. NO WORK BEGINS ON THE PROPOSED RAMP INSTALLATION UNTIL AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE CITY. 4. THE EXISTING ACCESSIBILITY RAMP, WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF CITY CODE AND ENCROACHES INTO THE FRONT YARD AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, MUST BE REMOVED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THIS VARIANCE APPROVAL. Further discussion: Commissioner Johnson noted that the dimensions provided were what is needed for the correct slope for ADA compliance. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Page 97 of 151 Planning Commission Meeting Date:April 28, 2026 Agenda Item: Tabled - CASE No. 2026-02 Variance Application of Clarence Tweh for a Variance to the front yard setback to accommodate the installation of an accessibility ramp at 537 Junction Lane Department:Community Development Contact:Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Introduction: The applicant, Clarence Tweh, is requesting approval of a Variance to the front-yard setback for the installation of an accessibility ramp for the property at 537 Junction Lane. The City Code permits small structures such as accessibility ramps to encroach 5-ft into the front yard setback without the need for a Variance, however the proposed location of this ramp would encroach more than 5-ft into the front yard and as such requires a Variance from the City. This item was presented under a duly noticed public hearing process on March 31, 2026. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to property owners within 350 feet from the subject property. Three written public comments were submitted to the City, and at the March 31st public hearing, one member of the public spoke relating to the application. Following the public hearing on March 31st, the Planning Commission discussed the public comments received relating to the application and the proposed Variance request to reduce the front-yard setback for this ramp. As part of their deliberation, the Planning Commission directed staff to work with the applicant to confirm the dimensions shown on the provided plan, and to inquire about alternative materials that could be used for the ramp. On April 8th, staff met with the applicant on-site to field verify the dimensions of the rise between the existing driveway and the existing front stoop and can confirm that a small adjustment has been made to the plans to reflect a rise of 27” as opposed to the original display of 28”. With this update and through discussion with staff, the applicant has updated the ramp plan to reduce the variance request from 10-ft 3-in to 8-ft 9-in. Background: The subject parcel is approximately 7,102 square feet in size and contains a single-family dwelling. The property is zoned R-1 Low Density Residential and guided for low density residential development. The existing single-family home was built in 1968 and is part of the John H Morrison’s Addition subdivision, originally platted in 1923. The lot is substandard in total size to the current base standards for an R-1 lot. There is an accessibility ramp already in place on the property which was identified as a code enforcement violation, leading to this Planning Application being submitted. The current ramp extends from the front stoop of the home towards the street and not only encroaches into the Page 98 of 151 front-yard setback, but encroaches into public right-of-way. With this Variance request, the applicant has committed to relocating the ramp to a new alignment which no longer encroaches onto public right-of-way and which is closer to the existing dwelling. Even with this relocation, a Variance to the front-yard setback is still needed. Analysis: City Code requires structures in the R-1 Low Density Residential District to be setback a minimum of 30-ft from the front property line. The Code provides flexibility on all lots within the City for some encroachments into the yard in cases of decks, stoops, uncovered porches, and accessibility ramps, per 12-4A-3: YARDS AND OPEN SPACE: C1.c (below) c. Uncovered and/or open terraces, steps, porches, decks, egress windows, accessibility ramps, stoops or similar structures that do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and do not extend more than five feet (5') in into the front yard or rear yard; or more than three feet (3') into a side yard. The existing home is setback 30-ft from the front property line, consistent with the zoning district requirements. However, in this case the existing front stoop already extends 4-ft 2-in into the front yard. There is an existing sidewalk and small set of stairs that connect to this front stoop, and the connection point is a rise of 27”, which is not sufficient slope for an accessibility ramp. For any accessibility ramp to be installed and to tie into this front stoop, the alignment would always encroach further into the front yard than permitted by City Code. The existing lot width of the subject property is 65-ft, as opposed to the 100-ft minimum required in current City Code standards. This reduction in lot width and the location of the front entrance of the home centered on the lot leaves less space for an alignment of an accessibility ramp that could connect directly to the driveway in the location of the existing sidewalk, and instead requires a turnback to gain more space to achieve adequate slope. The proposed location of the new accessibility ramp (displayed on the revised plan dated 4/12/26) would attach to the existing stoop heading east 4-ft, then turn south for an additional 12-ft 3-in, and finally turn back west towards the driveway for 30-ft 6-in and make a new connection point with the existing driveway. This revised alignment would reduce the front yard encroachment from 15-ft 3-in to 13-ft 9-in, and further reduce the variance request for the ramp's setback from 10-ft 3-in to 8-ft 9-in. With this updated alignment, the proposed ramp extends an additional 5-ft 10.5-in into the front yard beyond the south edge of the existing sidewalk. The existing connection point to the driveway has a rise of 27" from the driveway to the point of the ramp’s beginning at the front stoop, which has been field verified by the City's Engineering staff. There is a small retaining wall at the perimeter of the length of the driveway which is driving the need for additional length of ramp and the turnback in the ramp's alignment, so that the ramp can be constructed at a 1:12 slope. Based on the needed slope for the accessibility ramp, and the existing setback of the home and front stoop, there is not an alternative location where the ramp could be installed without the need for a Variance. Page 99 of 151 City Code Section 12-5B-7 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 12-5B-7(E)(1) further provides other issues the city may consider when granting or denying a variance, noted as follows: a. Practical Difficulties exist that apply to the structure or land in question that are unique to such property or immediately adjoining property; and b. Such Practical Difficulties do not apply generally to other land or structures in the Zoning District in which said land is located; and c. That the granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the Applicant; and d. That granting the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area; or e. That granting the proposed Variance will not in any other way impair health, safety, comfort, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this Zoning Ordinance; and f. That the granting of such Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the Page 100 of 151 Applicant but is necessary to alleviate a Practical Difficulty. g. If all the conditions are met, then the City Council may grant such Variance and impose conditions and safeguards therein. When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have been met in granting a variance, and provide findings of facts 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 in the application materials (included in the attachments and noted below in italic text). 1. Are there any practical difficulties that support the granting of the Variance? Applicant’s Response: The property is shorter than many and does not provide sufficient space to install a ramp within the location of the city setback. The driveway and property are sloped, requiring the ramp to account for the additional grade. Staff’s Response: The existing single-family home is compliant with the front yard setback of the R-1 zoning district. However, the lot is substandard in total size and width. The existing lot width of the property is 65-ft as opposed to the 100-ft required in current ordinance standards, and the property is an existing lot platted prior to 1982. The City Code provides some flexibility in side-yard setbacks for existing homes on substandard lots, but does not explicitly address additional encroachment for these low-level structures, beyond the exception already granted to all properties and all yards in 12-4A-3. The City’s Comprehensive Plan addresses flexibility in existing lots for the purposes of enhancements to the City’s housing stock. Staff would disagree that the property is shorter than many due to its existing compliance with the front yard setback. However, staff agrees that the slope needed for an accessibility ramp must be accommodated through the use of a turnback, and the slight change in grade and the small retaining wall adjacent to the driveway is a practical difficulty to accommodating a ramp connection within the allotted 5-ft encroachment in City Code. Due to this factor, there is no alternative location for the accessibility ramp that would be able to comply with this front-yard setback standard. 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. Applicant’s Response: There is a retaining wall along the driveway, to the grassy area of the yard is elevated from the driveway. Staff’s Response: The existing front stoop encroaches 4-ft 2-in into the front yard setback. With the need for a landing area to tie-in to the stoop, and the slope needed to accommodate this ramp, there is no alternative location for this structure which would not require a Variance. Staff has confirmed with the applicant team that there is a 27" rise between the driveway and the front stoop at the connection point of the existing sidewalk. With the 18-ft distance between the front stoop and the driveway, there is not enough space for a ramp alignment which is within 5-ft of the front wall of the home which would accommodate a 1:12 slope, and a turnback is necessary for any potential alignment of an accessibility ramp on this property. With the revisions to the ramp alignment as part of the Page 101 of 151 updated plans on 4/12/26, the applicant has displayed an alignment that accommodates the appropriate slope for an accessibility ramp on this property while reducing the encroachment into the front-yard setback from what was previously requested. Staff agrees with the applicant that the design, including the turnback, is needed to accommodate the 1:12 slope and cannot be avoided in this case where the property needs the accessibility ramp as an accommodation for the residents of the home. 3. The Variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Applicant’s Response: No. Staff’s Response: The proposed accessibility ramp extending into the front yard will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The existing ramp which is a code violation cannot continue to be located in its current alignment as it encroaches into the public right-of-way. This alternative alignment which is a 13-ft 9-in encroachment into the 30-ft front yard setback is reasonable for the property and is appropriate in this case where an accessibility ramp is needed to accommodate the residents at this property. Staff has worked with the applicant to address concerns about the extent of the Variance request and the applicant's team has modified the plans to reduce the Variance request to 8-ft 9-in. The applicant team have also indicated that with the updated plans dated 4/12/26, they would be able to construct the ramp with wood as opposed to the existing non-compliant ramp's metal materials. Staff agrees that this material change would increase the compatibility with the neighborhood as a whole. Conclusion: Staff has evaluated the Variance request and finds that the application does demonstrate practical difficulties in its substandard lot size and existing change in grade from the front entrance of the home to the sidewalk connection with the driveway. The slope needed to accommodate an accessibility ramp necessitates a turnback in the ramp alignment which cannot be accommodated within a 5-ft encroachment into the front yard, which would make any ramp installation at this property require a Variance request and approval. The proposed improvement to the property would eliminate an existing code violation and right-of-way encroachment and is less of an encroachment into the setback than the current condition of the violation. The applicant has also worked with city staff to explore alternative materials and adjusted the alignment to reduce the variance request where possible. The installation of an accessibility ramp at this home is not inconsistent with neighborhood character, and would be a reasonable use of a single-family dwelling within the City of Mendota Heights. Alternatives: 1.Recommend approval of the 13-ft 9-in encroachment into the front yard and 8-ft 9-in variance request from the front-yard setback for installation of the new accessibility ramp, based on the attached findings of fact and specific conditions of approval as included herein; or 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 City 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 Page 102 of 151 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 City hereby determines the Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a variance for a 13-ft 9-in encroachment and 8-ft 9-in setback reduction. The level of encroachment into the front yard setback is not reasonable use of the property. The change in grade does not constitute a practical difficulty and an alternative alignment could be found without the need for a Variance; the conditions requiring the ramp structure is therefore not considered a practical difficulty within the property. C. Because the City finds that the second prong of the three-part test (practical difficulty of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (reasonableness and essential character of the neighborhood). 3. Table the request and request additional information from the applicant or staff. Staff will extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN Statute. 15.99. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval (Alternative #1) of the proposed Variance as proposed by the applicant, based on the Findings of Fact as included herein, along with the following conditions: 1. The 13-ft 9-in encroachment into the front yard and 8-ft 9-in Variance is exclusively for the installation of an accessibility ramp within the front yard. 2. The Applicant shall not deviate from the ramp plan under this application review without first seeking and receiving city approvals, unless City Code provides for certain or allowable improvements to be made without any additional application review process. 3. No work begins on the proposed ramp installation until an administrative permit has been issued by the City. 4. The existing accessibility ramp which is a violation of City Code and encroaches into the front yard and public right-of-way must be removed within 90 days of this Variance approval. Attachments: 1. Findings of Fact for Approval 2. Site Location Map 3. Narrative Letter 4. Variance Application Checklist 5. Junction Lane Existing Layout 6. Junction Lane Ramp Plan, dated 04/12/26 7. Public Comment - Burke 3/28/26 8. Public Comment - Davis 3/23/26 9. Public Comment - Nadeau 3/28/26 Page 103 of 151 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Variance 537 Junction Lane The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: A.Under Title 12-5B-7 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 a Variance to allow a 13-ft 9-in encroachment into the front yard and 8-ft 9-in setback reduction for the installation of an accessibility ramp, by the following: i.) The proposed installation of an accessibility ramp is a reasonable use of property and is consistent with a single-family residential property’s development pattern; ii.) The subject site is a substandard lot, platted prior to current City Code requirements for minimum lot size and setback dimensions; the existing home is compliant with the front yard setback requirements and contains an existing stoop compliant with encroachment flexibilities permitted within City Code. Due to the change in grade from the front stoop to the driveway, and the required slope for an accessibility ramp, there is no alternative alignment for an accessibility ramp to tie into that existing stoop without the need for a Variance from the front-yard setback and encroachment requirements. The alignment is needed due to the grading of the property, and a turnback within the ramp alignment necessitates this Variance request. iii.) The reason for the Variance request is to permit a reasonable installation of an accessibility ramp to serve the residents of the home. This alignment and accessibility ramp installation will correct an existing code violation which is on file against the subject property and remove an encroachment on public right-of- way at cost to the property owner and for this reason the request is not solely based on economic considerations. 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. Page 104 of 151 Planning Report: Case #2026-02 Page 2 D.Approval of this Variance is for 537 Junction Lane only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. Page 105 of 151 66666666 6666666666666666 66666666666666! ! " "!!" " ! !"" ! " " !" " ! *66666 6 6666666666!!2!!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 531 530 554 550 546 524 558 990 995 523 540 536 560 547 1021 553 542 557 554 555 557 1011 1000 548 987 991 995 561 999 1050 1027 537543 1015 1003 525535539543 10351041 569 564 1054 987 JUNCTION LN WINSTON CT DIEGO LNESTHER LNNearmap US Inc, Dakota County, MN Site Location/Aerial Map 537 Junction Lane Date: 3/27/2026 City of Mendota Heights0100 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 contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. Page 106 of 151 Page 107 of 151 Page 108 of 151 Name: 537 Junction Existing Layout Concept Only Scale: 3/16"= 1'Page 109 of 151 18' Name: 537 Junction Ramp Option A Concept Only Scale: 3/16"= 1' Existing Concrete Page 110 of 151 1 | Page RE: CASE No. 2026-02 Variance Application of Clarence Tweh for a Variance to the front yard setback to accommodate the installation of an accessibility ramp at 537 Junction Lane Planning Commission Members, Our original correspondence dated on Wednesday, March 25, 2026, should no longer be considered as the “Planning Commission Agenda Packet” (Packet) was provided by Sarah Madden on March 27, 2026. The Packet contains additional information on the homeowner’s plans to modify the ramp that was not previously available. We remain opposed to the variance as described in the Packet; however, we would not be opposed to the variance if the plan utilized the existing sidewalk space and was made of materials consistent with the character of the home and neighborhood, so the essential character or the neighborhood remains intact. Why we are opposed to the variance as described in the packet: The current design for the variance fails the “practical difficulties” test criteria laid out of Page 12 of the Packet, specifically that it does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. We contend that the ramp does alter the essential character of the neighborhood as currently designed. The extent of the variance (11’) is only needed because of the chosen design of the ramp. In its current proposed state, the design is unsightly and out of character with the neighborhood. The packet information dismisses a ramp layout that fits the character of the neighborhood by utilizing the grounds under an existing sidewalk. The packet erroneously dismissed this layout configuration based on inaccurate measurements provided by the contractor (Page 13). The packet revealed that the homeowner intends to modify the ramp in alignment with Figure 1 below: Figure 1: Homeowner Proposed Ramp Plan Page 111 of 151 2 | Page We contest the accuracy of a primary measurement. The rise from the building stoop to the driveway is approximately 21”, not 28” (displayed in red in Figure 1). As stated on Page 13 of the Packet states this measurement of 28” was obtained by the applicant’s contractor. Based on improper installation of the existing ramp and conflicting measurements, the contractor’s measurements should, at minimum, be verified by a certified city inspector, prior to granting any variance at this address. This measurement has a material impact on the ramp design because it dictates the design, specifically the run, of the ramp and whether a turnback is required. Based on Figure 1, the existing concrete level landing is 8’ wide. The 5’ x 5’ level landing can be aligned with the right side of the existing concrete level landing, creating a scenario where there is a total of >21’ between the start of the ramp and accommodating 1:12 slope requirement. This would enable the ramp to be built without the turnback and be built as close as reasonably possible to the house (approximately 7’) where the existing sidewalk is located. Utilizing the grounds under the existing sidewalk is essential to having the ramp not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as it fits within the existing design of the home and neighborhood. Another essential factor in determining whether the ramp does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood is the materials of construction. Shiny metallic materials (as currently constructed) are not consistent with the character of the home’s wood siding and the residential nature of the neighborhood. The proposed variance is silent on the materials of construction. While it is understood the variance is specific to city ordinance: 12-4A-3, the ramp materials play a significant role in how the ramp impacts the character of the neighborhood. Because this ramp is intended to be constructed via a variance and the home is being utilized for business purposes, we request that the materials of construction are specified within any updated designs of the variance. In summary, we are opposed to the variance as currently drafted and disagree with “Staff Responses” “Conclusion” and “Staff Recommendation” on pages 13-15 of the Packet as the responses are based on erroneous information provided by the contractor that have not been verified by a well-credentialed individual without a vested interest in the outcome of the project. Therefore, the staff responses, conclusions, and recommendations by staff should not be taken into consideration by the planning commission. Finally, we do not want nor intend to prevent access of any disabled individuals from entering the business located at 537 Junction Lane; however, it is essential for business owners operating in a residential area to ensure they do not alter the essential character of the neighborhood to accommodate their business needs. Kind Regards, Jake & Emily Burke Page 112 of 151 From:Rachel Davis To:Sarah Madden Subject:Planning Case No. 2026-02 Date:Monday, March 23, 2026 6:40:10 PM [You don't often get email from rachel.davis@email.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Ms. Madden, I am writing in support of Planning Case No. 2026-02. As a neighbor to this property, I am happy to have this group home part of our community. The residents and staff are wonderful neighbors, and we would like to support this case to make the location safer and more accessible. Best, Rachel and Cory Davis 554 Junction Lane 612-229-0404 Page 113 of 151 RE: CASE No. 2026-02 Variance Application of Clarence Tweh for a Variance to the front yard setback to accommodate the installation of an accessibility ramp at 537 Junction Lane Planning Commission Members, Our names are Nick and Joann Nadeau. Our property extends from 546 Winston Ct down to what would be considered 54X Junction Lane, adjacent to 543 Junction Lane. The proposed ramp is directly visible from our property. We are opposed to the variance. The Planning Commission Packet notes that “Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the City may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical diƯicultiesЋ. The variance for the ramp does not meet the “practical diƯicultiesЋ assessment. 1. The change in grade does not constitute a practical diƯiculty and alternative alignment could be found without the need for a variance. a. We contest the accuracy of the measurements provided by the contractor, speciƱcally the Rise of 2͗Ћ as we do not believe this is accurate. b. We contend that the grade of the property allows the ramp to be installed with 5’ of the house and that a variance is not required. 2. The variance impacts the essential character of the neighborhood a. The proposed ramp, in its current design and front-yard location, creates a prominent and visually intrusive structure that is not consistent with the open, residential character of the neighborhood. Its size, placement, and clear visibility from the public right-of-way detract from the existing streetscape and risk establishing a precedent for similar intrusions. Feasible alternative designs appear to be available that would provide necessary accessibility while maintaining the essential character of Junction Lane. Sincerely, Nick and Joann Nadeau Page 114 of 151 This page is intentionally left blank 10.d REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE:May 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM:Resolution 2026-32 Approving a Lot Line Adjustment for 1603 Dodd Road and 688 Wentworth Avenue ITEM TYPE:Resolution DEPARTMENT:Community Development CONTACT:Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager ACTION REQUEST: Adopt Resolution 2026-32 Approving a Lot Line Adjustment Application by Paul Linnell for 1603 Dodd Road and 688 Wentworth Avenue [Planning Case No. 2026-06] BACKGROUND: The applicant, Paul Linnell, is requesting consideration of a simple lot line adjustment of the properties located at 1603 Dodd Road and 688 Wentworth Avenue. The subject site is located in a residential neighborhood at the southwest corner of Wentworth Avenue and Dodd Road. The property included in this resubdivision request consists of two existing parcels containing single-family homes, which are split remnants from Auditor’s Subdivision No. 3, dated 1906. The request is to adjust the shared lot line between the two subject properties by shifting it 42.3-ft to the west, increasing the lot size of 1603 Dodd Road and decreasing the lot size of 688 Wentworth Avenue. The applicant owns both parcels and has submitted the lot line adjustment in preparation for future sales of both lots. For the R-1 District, all new lots must have a minimum of 15,000-sf. of lot area and 100-ft of frontage, or lot width, along a City-approved street. Both parcels meet these minimums, and would continue to be compliant with the minimum 10-ft side yard setback requirement if this lot line adjustment were approved. This lot line adjustment will have little, if any, impact upon the neighboring properties, nor impede the normal use, enjoyment and purpose of the surrounding residential neighborhood. At the April 28, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented. A duly noticed public hearing was held, and no residents came forward to speak regarding this application. One public comment letter was received relating to future changes on the property which might affect the driveway locations on the properties. This application request does not modify the properties and the driveways are currently proposed to remain the same. The applicant was present and available to answer questions of the Commission. The Planning Page 115 of 151 Commission discussed the intention of the lot line adjustment application, and potential for future sale or redevelopment. A copy of the 4/28/2026 planning report with attachments is attached to this memo. As noted in the attachment, staff had recommended approval of the application request. Following their discussion, the Planning Commission agreed with the staff recommendation and voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend to the City Council approval of this Lot Line Adjustment with findings-of-fact and certain conditions, as outlined in the attached [draft] Resolution. The City Council is asked to affirm the Planning Commission's recommendation by adopting Resolution 2026-32 Approving this Lot Line Adjustment at 1603 Dodd Road and 688 Wentworth Avenue. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: n/a ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2026-32 Resolution Approving a Lot Line Adjustment at 1603 Dodd Road and 688 Wentworth Avenue 2. Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes 4-28-26 3. April 28 2026, Planning Commission Staff Report 4. Public Comment - McQuillan - 4-28-26 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy Page 116 of 151 Resolution No. 2026-32 Page | 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2026-32 RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 1603 DODD ROAD AND 688 WENTWORTH AVENUE PLANNING CASE 2026-06 WHEREAS, Paul Linnell, (the Owner and “Applicant”) of 1603 Dodd Road and 688 Wentworth Avenue made an Application for a Lot Line Adjustment as proposed under Planning Case No. 2026-06, for property as legally described in Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the subject properties are both guided Low Density Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and situated in the R-1 Low Density Residential District; and WHEREAS, Title 11-1-5.C of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, and the adjustment of a shared lot line between two parcels where the division is to permit the adding of a parcel of land to an abutting lot provided that the newly created property line will not cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation with the subdivision title or the zoning ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment of the shared side-yard property line between 1603 Dodd Road and 688 Wentworth Avenue, and the lots resulting after the adjustment are described and illustrated on attachment Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2026 the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Lot Line Adjustment application, whereby a planning report was presented and received by the Commission, and comments from the applicant and public were allowed, and whereupon closing the hearing, recommended unanimously to approve the lot line adjustment on the subject property, with certain conditions and findings-of-fact to support said approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council, that the recommendation from the Planning Commission on Planning Case No. 2026-06 is hereby affirmed, and the Lot Line Adjustment requested for the property located at 1603 Dodd Road and 688 Wentworth Avenue is approved based on the following findings-of-fact: 1. The proposed lot line adjustment request meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Approval of the lot line adjustment will have no visible impact on the subject properties; and poses no threat or creates any negative impacts on the character of the neighborhood. Page 117 of 151 Resolution No. 2026-32 Page | 2 3. The proposed adjustment does not cause any non-conformities on either parcel, based on the applicable zoning district standards for lot size and frontage requirements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Lot Line Adjustment requested for the properties located at 1603 Dodd Road and 688 Wentworth Avenue is hereby approved, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must record the Lot Line Adjustment (minor subdivision) at Dakota County indicating the newly revised property descriptions for the resulting lots. 2. All transfer or deed documents which convey the portion of lands under the lot line adjustment and lot split process shall be recorded with Dakota County. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of May, 2026. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 118 of 151 Resolution No. 2026-32 Page | 3 EXHIBIT A Property Address: 1603 Dodd Road Existing Legal Description: The northerly 150 feet, except the westerly 963.3 feet of Lot 37, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota Proposed Legal Description: The northerly 150 feet, except the westerly 963.3 feet of Lot 37, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota And that part of the east 142.3 feet of the west 963.3 feet of the north 150 feet of Lot 37, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota, lying easterly of the westerly 100.00 feet Property Address: 688 Wentworth Avenue Existing Legal Description: The east 142.3 feet of the west 963.3 feet of the north 150 feet of Lot 37, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota Proposed Legal Description: The westerly 100.00 feet of the following described property: The east 142.3 feet of the west 963.3 feet of the north 150 feet of Lot 37, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota Page 119 of 151 Resolution No. 2026-32 Page | 4 EXHIBIT B Page 120 of 151 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES EXCERPT FROM DRAFT/UNAPPROVED 4/28/26 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES A) PLANNING CASE 2026-06 PAUL LINNELL, 1603 DODD ROAD AND 688 WENTWORTH AVENUE – LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that Paul Linnell is requesting consideration of a simple lot line adjustment of the properties located at 1603 Dodd Road and 688 Wentworth Avenue. The application request includes the two addressed parcels and would adjust the shared lot line between the two subject properties by shifting it 42.3 feet to the west, increasing the lot size of 1603 Dodd Road and decreasing the lot size of 688 Wentworth Avenue. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350 feet of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. One public comment was received with questions today and has been provided to the Commission and posted in the lobby. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Corbett referenced the 100-foot curb and 1,500 square foot requirements and asked if impervious surface would ever be considered in a lot split request. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that with this lot, based on the existing home size, it is compliant with the 35 percent. She confirmed that impervious surface is reviewed as part of that process. Commissioner Goldade asked if the applicant had indicated why they are requesting this. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden noted that in the applicant’s narrative letter, it mentioned a previous application that increased the number of lots to three, but the application was withdrawn before the public hearing. She stated that following that attempt, the applicant purchased a property, and the lot line adjustment is more favorable for the future sale of the lots. Commissioner Goldade asked if 1603 Dodd is a historic site. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that it is not an official historic property, but it is an old home. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Paul Linnell, applicant, stated that this request provides flexibility between the two properties. He provided additional context on the challenges he incurred in a previous request to create three Page 121 of 151 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES lots, and it was decided that this would be the best path forward in providing flexibility in listing for the property 688 Wentworth and having a larger lot at 1603 Dodd Road. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NATH, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE APPLICANT MUST RECORD THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MINOR SUBDIVISION) AT DAKOTA COUNTY, INDICATING THE NEWLY REVISED PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE RESULTING LOTS. 2. ALL TRANSFER OR DEED DOCUMENTS WHICH CONVEY THE PORTION OF LANDS UNDER THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND LOT SPLIT PROCESS SHALL BE RECORDED WITH DAKOTA COUNTY. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 5, 2026, meeting. Page 122 of 151 Planning Commission Meeting Date:April 28, 2026 Agenda Item: CASE No. 2026-06 Lot Line Adjustment Application of Paul Linnell for a Lot Line Adjustment of the properties located at 1603 Dodd Road and 688 Wentworth Avenue Department:Community Development Contact:Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Introduction: Paul Linnell is requesting consideration of a simple lot line adjustment of the properties located at 1603 Dodd Road and 688 Wentworth Avenue. The application request includes the two addressed parcels and would adjust the shared lot line between the two subject properties by shifting it 42.3-ft to the west, increasing the lot size of 1603 Dodd Road and decreasing the lot size of 688 Wentworth Avenue. A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to all properties within 350-feet of the subject property. As of the date of this report, the City has not received any written public comments relating to this application request. Background: The subject site is located in a residential neighborhood at the southwest corner of Wentworth Avenue and Dodd Road. The property included in this resubdivision request consists of two (2) existing parcels, which are split remnants from Auditor’s Subdivision No. 3, dated 1906. The 1603 Dodd Road parcel is 28,778 square feet in size and contains an existing single-family home constructed in 1880. The 688 Wentworth Avenue parcel is 21,345 square feet in size and also contains an existing single-family home, constructed in 1973. The combined lot area is 1.147 acres. The applicant owns both parcels and has submitted the lot line adjustment in preparation for future sales of both lots. Analysis: This application was submitted prior to the City Council’s approval of the revisions to Title 11: Subdivision Regulations. It is subject to the code in place on the date the application was marked complete. For this case, City Code Title 11 stated: “Lot line adjustment request to divide a lot which is a part of a recorded plat where the division is to permit the adding of a piece of land to an abutting lot and the newly created property line will not cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation with this title or the zoning ordinance. . . The newly described parcel descriptions on the applicant’s survey indicate that the proposed lot line adjustment would shift the shared lot line 42.3-ft to the west. This request to modify Page 123 of 151 each lot’s boundary line meets this section of City Code, as the resulting parcels will be compliant with the minimum dimensional standards of the R-1 Zoning District. For the R-1 District, all new lots must have a minimum of 15,000-sf. of lot area and 100-ft of frontage, or lot width, along a City-approved street. Both parcels meet these minimums, and continue to be compliant with the minimum 10-ft side yard setback requirement. A summary of the existing properties, and the proposed configuration is provided in the following table: 688 Wentworth Avenue 1603 Dodd Road Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Lot Area (sq. ft)21,345 15,002 28,778 34,952 Lot Width (ft)142.3 100 223.5 265.8 Side yard setback (shared line - ft) 55 12.8 64 106 This lot line adjustment will have little, if any, impact upon the neighboring properties, nor impede the normal use, enjoyment and purpose of the surrounding residential neighborhood. Alternatives: 1.Recommend approval of the lot line adjustment, based on the attached findings-of-fact and based on certain conditions; or 2.Recommend denial of the lot line adjustment, based on the revised findings-of-fact that the proposed adjustment is not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan and may have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood and/or properties; or 3. Table the request and request additional information from staff and/or the applicant; Staff will extend the review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with Minnesota State Statute 15.99. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the lot line adjustment based on the attached findings-of-fact supporting the request, and with conditions as follows: 1. The applicant must record the Lot Line Adjustment (minor subdivision) at Dakota County indicating the newly revised property descriptions for the resulting lots. 2. All transfer or deed documents which convey the portion of lands under the lot line adjustment and lot split process shall be recorded with Dakota County. Attachments: 1. Findings of Fact for Approval 2. Site Location Map 3. Letter of Intent 4. Certificate of Survey Page 124 of 151 Planning Case No. 2026-06 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Lot Line Adjustment Linnell Properties – 688 Wentworth Ave and 1603 Dodd Road The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1. The proposed lot line adjustment request meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Approval of the lot line adjustment will have no visible impact on the subject properties; and poses no threat or creates any negative impacts on the character of the neighborhood. 3. The proposed adjustment does not cause any non-conformities on either parcel, based on the applicable zoning district standards for lot size and frontage requirements. Page 125 of 151 66666666666666"³ ³ *** * * * * "" *" " *** !* "³6666666666666666666!!2 !!2 !!2!!2!!2!!2!!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !. 654 1416 1635 694 1638 1650 724 662 1620720716702710 670 1648 1630 1603 1656 717 1549 723 688 689 739 695 1565 723 711 701707 1658 1623 1629 713 716 709 726 710 688 16607066947001656 729 728 1527 677 669 DODD RD4TH AVE WENTWORTH AVE EVERGREEN KNLS Nearmap US Inc, Dakota County, MN Site Location/Aerial Map /LQQHOO/RW/LQH$GMXVWPHQW Date: 8/22/2025 City of Mendota Heights0200 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. Page 126 of 151 Page 127 of 151 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEYCURRENT LANDOWNER OF BOTH PARCELSSURVEYOREXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 2LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTPROPOSED PARCEL AREASWETLANDSPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTSUTILITIESZONINGCERTIFICATION202516SISU LAND SURVEYING2580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828LEGENDEXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 2PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1Page 128 of 151 From:Anne Mcquillan To:Sarah Madden Subject:Case 2026-06 Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2026 5:05:48 PM Lot line adjustment688 Wentworth and 1603 Dodd. Hi Sarah, As I said in my voicemail, Mike and my concern is where the driveways will be located, specifically if Dodd Road address will be accessed off of Wentworth. There are already 5 driveways in close proximity to eachother and to the Dodd/Wentworth intersection. We have seen a major increase in traffic on Wentworth( especially heading east). It is already difficult to pull out safely and another driveway would only add to that. We do not have an issue with the line adjustment itself. We feel the driveway placement needs to be addressed. Anne and Mike McQuillan 683 Wentworth Ave Sent from my iPhone Page 129 of 151 This page is intentionally left blank 10.e REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE:May 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM:Resolution 2026-33 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for an attached garage size of 1,499 square feet at 1961 Glenhill Road [Planning Case No. 2026-07] ITEM TYPE:Resolution DEPARTMENT:Community Development CONTACT:Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager ACTION REQUEST: Adopt Resolution 2026-33 Approving a Conditional Use Permit Application for Homes by Tradition, LLC to allow for an attached garage size of 1,499 square feet for the new single- family home proposed at 1961 Glenhill Road BACKGROUND: Homes by Tradition is the Applicant and Owners’ Representative of the vacant property at the northwest corner of Glenhill Road and Victoria Curve (now addressed as 1961 Glenhill Road), and has requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow an attached garage size of 1,499 square feet as part of the new single-family home planned for construction on the subject property. The subject site is part of the Valley View Oak 2nd Addition subdivision and has never been developed. A Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit was approved for this property on February 3 to authorize the construction of a new home and associated site improvements. The City is currently reviewing the building permit for the new single-family home, and notified the applicant that the proposed attached garage size exceeded what was permitted by staff authorization within a building permit. The attached garages proposed for this home construction include two levels of garage, with a smaller lower level garage door entrance accessible by a side drive on the north side of the property, and a main level entrance accessed directly from the front of the property (facing east). The existing lot is vacant. The construction plan for this site is to construct a new 4,214 sq-ft home on the property, and the improvements associated with this CUP request include an attached garage size of 1,499 square feet. City Code Section 12-4A-8: ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS, Subsection D, Private Garage outlines the size standards for residential garages, limiting attached garages to 1,200 sq. ft., unless a Conditional Use Permit is obtained Page 130 of 151 to allow up to 1,500 sq. ft. The garage for this home will be on two levels, with 1,073 sq. ft. on the main level with a front- facing vehicular entrance to the east towards Glenhill Road, and 426 sq. ft. on the lower level with vehicular access from a curved side drive on the north side of the home. The total garage size of 1,499 sq. ft is within the range permitted by Conditional Use Permit. At the April 28, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented. A duly noticed public hearing was held, and no residents came forward to speak regarding this application. The applicant was present and available to answer questions of the Commission. The Planning Commission discussed the written public comment received with questions about the civil site plans, and staff confirmed that the building permit was addressing the conditions of approval for the MRCCA Permit application, and the impervious surface and stormwater management on site. A copy of the 4/28/2026 planning report with attachments is attached to this memo. As noted in the attachment, staff had recommended approval of the application request. Following their discussion, the Planning Commission followed the staff recommendation and voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend to the City Council approval of this CUP with findings-of-fact and certain conditions, as outlined in the attached [draft] Resolution. The City Council is asked to affirm the Planning Commission's recommendation with the adoption of Resolution 2026-33 Approving the Conditional Use Permit for 1961 Glenhill Road. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: n/a ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2026-33 Resolution 2026-33 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for an Attached Garage Size of 1,499 Square Feet at 1961 Glenhill Road 2. Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes 4-28-26 3. April 28 2026 Planning Commission Staff Report 4. Public Comment - Olstein 4-27-26 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy Page 131 of 151 Resolution No. 2026-33 Page | 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2026-33 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE SIZE OF 1,499 SQUARE FEET AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1961 GLENHILL ROAD PLANNING CASE 2026-07 WHEREAS, Homes by Tradition, (the “Applicant and Owners’ representative”) made an Application for a Conditional Use Permit for an attached garage size of 1,499 square feet at the property located at 1961 Glenhill Road, and legally described in Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LDR-Low Density Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and zoned R-1 Low Density Residential; and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Title 12-4A-8: Accessory Structure Requirements, a Conditional Use Permit is required for an attached garage size which exceeds 1,200 square feet up to 1,500 square feet in size; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2026, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this Conditional Use Permit request, whereby a planning report was presented and received by the Commission, and comments from the applicant and public were allowed, and whereupon closing the hearing, the Commission recommended unanimously (7-0 vote) to recommend to the City Council approval of the request from Homes by Tradition for the Conditional Use Permit, which would allow the proposed attached garage size of 1,499 square feet at 1961 Glenhill Road, as proposed and presented under Planning Case No. 2026-07, with certain conditions and findings-of-fact to support said approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation from the Planning Commission on Planning Case No. 2026-07 is hereby affirmed, and may be approved based on the following findings-of-fact: 1. The proposed use of the subject property as a single-family residential dwelling is consistent with City Code and the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The planned construction and use of 1,499 square feet of attached garage is consistent with garage size maximums, and the structure is compliant with the garage door height and width requirements for residential garages, as well as the required setbacks of the R-1 Zoning District 3. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will Page 132 of 151 Resolution No. 2026-33 Page | 2 not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Conditional Use Permit requested for the property located at 1961 Glenhill Road is hereby approved, with the following conditions: 1. A building permit, including a grading plan, must be approved and issued by the City prior to the commencement of any work on site. 2. The proposed project must comply with all requirements of the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. All plans must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director. 3. All grading and construction activity must comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of May 2026. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 133 of 151 Resolution No. 2026-33 Page | 3 EXHIBIT A Address: 1961 Glenhill Road PIN: 27-81251-00-013 Legal Description: That part of Outlot A, VALLEY VIEW OAK 2ND ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota, lying south of a line drawn from a point on the east line of said Outlot A, 132.00 feet southerly of the southeast corner of Lot 2, Block 1, said VALLEY VIEW OAK 2ND ADDITION to a point on the west line of said Outlot A, 325.00 feet northerly of the most westerly southwest corner of said Outlot A and said line there terminating. Page 134 of 151 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES EXCERPT FROM DRAFT/UNAPPROVED 4/28/26 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES B) PLANNING CASE 2026-07 HOMES BY TRADITION, 1961 GLENHILL ROAD – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that Homes by Tradition is the applicant and owners’ representative of the property at 1961 Glenhill Road, and has requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow an attached garage size of 1,499 square feet as part of the new single-family home planned for construction on the subject property. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350 feet of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. One comment was received earlier this week with questions on the civil site plans, and not this CUP request, and has been provided to the Commission and posted in the lobby. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Corbett recognized that the questions in the letter are not directly related to the CUP, but understood that there would be more pavement going to the garage than there would have been. He asked if there were any concerns with impervious surface or drainage. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the MRCCA permit recognized a side drive, but the plans did not include the floor plan of the garage. She stated that the impervious surface reviewed under the MRCCA that was approved did not change. She stated that as part of the building permit process, the City has reviewed the stormwater management and drainage plans. Dean Nelson, applicant, stated that this would be a three-car garage with an opportunity for a fourth car stall on the lower level for storage of lawn equipment. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Page 135 of 151 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UDELL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY HOMES BY TRADITION FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE SIZE OF 1,499 SQUARE FEET AT 1961 GLENHILL ROAD WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A BUILDING PERMIT, INCLUDING A GRADING PLAN, MUST BE APPROVED AND ISSUED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK ON SITE. 2. THE PROPOSED PROJECT MUST COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. ALL PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. 3. ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY MUST COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 5, 2026, meeting. Page 136 of 151 Planning Commission Meeting Date:April 28, 2026 Agenda Item: CASE No. 2026-07 Conditional Use Permit Application of Homes by Tradition for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an attached garage size of 1,499 square feet on the property located at 1961 Glenhill Road Department:Community Development Contact:Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Introduction: Homes by Tradition is the Applicant and Owners’ Representative of the property at 1961 Glenhill Road, and has requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow an attached garage size of 1,499 square feet as part of the new single-family home planned for construction on the subject property. A public hearing notice for this item was published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. No written public comments were received as of the submittal of this report. Background: The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Glenhill Road and Victoria Curve, and is generally east of the boundary with the City of Mendota. The subject site is part of the Valley View Oak 2nd Addition subdivision and has never been developed. A Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit was approved for this property on February 3rd to authorize the construction of a new home and associated site improvements, as outlined in Resolution 2026-10 which is attached to this report. During the review of the MRCCA Permit earlier this year, the City evaluated the site impacts for the construction of the new home, swimming pool, and grading measures. As part of that application the City needed civil site plans from the applicant, but construction documents and floor plans were not needed to evaluate the proposal for consistency with MRCCA rules and regulations. The City is currently reviewing the building permit for the new single-family home, and notified the applicant that the proposed attached garage size exceeded what was permitted by staff authorization within a building permit. The attached garages proposed for this home construction include two levels of garage, with a smaller lower level garage accessible by a side drive on the north side of the property, and a main level garage accessed directly from the front of the property (facing east). Proposed Improvements The existing lot is vacant. The construction plan for this site is to construct a new 4,214 sq-ft home on the property, generally located at the front of the lot, 33-ft from the front property line abutting Glenhill Road. The proposed improvements with that project include a new driveway, attached screen porch, deck, and patio, a swimming pool, a new infiltration basin, and the Page 137 of 151 development will include several retaining walls of varying heights. These site improvements were authorized with the prior MRCCA Permit approval. The improvements associated with this CUP request include an attached garage size of 1,499 square feet. City Code Section 12-4A-8: ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS, Subsection D, Private Garage outlines the size standards for residential garages, limiting attached garages to 1,200 sq. ft., unless a Conditional Use Permit is obtained to allow up to 1,500 sq. ft. The garage for this home will be on two levels, with 1,073 sq. ft. on the main level with a front- facing vehicular entrance to the east towards Glenhill Road, and 426 sq. ft. on the lower level with vehicular access from a curved side drive on the north side of the home. The total garage size of 1,499 sq. ft is within the range permitted by Conditional Use Permit. Additionally, all of the proposed garage doors are consistent with the maximum garage door height of 9-ft and 28 linear feet of garage door width is shown to be visible from the public right-of-way, which is less than the 36-ft maximum. Analysis: Pursuant to Title 12-5B-5, the city recognizes that the development and execution of Zoning Code is based upon the division of the city into districts within which regulations are specified. It is further recognized that the purpose of the Conditional Use Permit is to provide the City with the discretion and flexibility to achieve the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and to determine what, if any, uses other than those specifically permitted in the Zoning Ordinance may be suitable. To provide for these needs, the city may approve a conditional use for those uses and purposes, and may impose conditions and safeguards in such permits to ensure that the purpose and intent of this chapter is effectively carried out. The City may grant a conditional use provided the proposed use demonstrates the following: a) Use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, b) Use will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, c) Use will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value, and d) Use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan. a-c) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards; nor depreciate surrounding property value. Staff Response: The proposed garage is intended to support the needs of the planned single-family home and use of the property and will provide additional vehicular storage for the homeowner. As designed and shown on the Applicant’s submission, the total garage size includes two levels of private garage, with the lower level not visible from the public right-of-way. The civil site plans for this property were previously reviewed as part of a MRCCA Permit. That review and the site improvements for this parcel show a two-level home with a basement walkout construction style due to the existing grade of the lot as it abuts steep slopes and the Bluff Impact Zone. The lower level of this attached garage is shown to be connected to unfinished storage space within the basement of the home. The structure meets all required setbacks and other dimensional standards of the R-1 zoning district, and will have no adverse impact to traffic or surrounding property values. Page 138 of 151 d) The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in conflict on an on-going basis. Staff Response: The subject property is guided Low Density Residential (LR) in the City’s comprehensive plan and zoned for R-1. Both establish that use of property should generally be for single- family residential and supporting accessory uses. The Applicant is proposing to use the total garage space for storage of vehicles. Section 12- 8B-1 defines an attached garage as: A private garage that is accessory and attached to the principal structure, that is primarily used for personal vehicles and storage. Staff determines that the proposed project is consistent with the City’s zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan, as well as the City Code as it relates to private garages. Alternatives: 1.Recommend approval of the conditional use permit, based on the attached findings-of- fact and based on certain conditions; or 2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit, based on revised findings-of-fact that the proposed garage size is not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan and may have negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood and/or properties; or 3. Table the request and request additional information from staff and/or the applicant; Staff will extend the review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with Minnesota State Statute 15.99. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit request by Homes by Tradition for an attached garage size of 1,499 square feet at 1961 Glenhill Road with the following conditions: 1. A building permit, including a grading plan, must be approved and issued by the City prior to the commencement of any work on site. 2. The proposed project must comply with all requirements of the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. All plans must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director. 3. All grading and construction activity must comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes. Attachments: 1. Findings of Fact for Approval 2. Site Location Map 3. Applicant Letter 4. Main Level Floor Plan 5. Lower Level Floor Plan 6. Survey - 1961 Glenhill Road 7. Res 2026-10 Approving MRCCA Permit at 1961 Glenhill Road Page 139 of 151 Planning Case 2026-07 (Conditional Use Permit - Homes by Tradition) Page 11 of 11 FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit for Planning Case No. 2026-07 (Homes by Tradition) The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed use of the subject property as a single-family residential dwelling is consistent with City Code and the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The planned construction and use of 1,499 square feet of attached garage is consistent with garage size maximums, and the structure is compliant with the garage door height and width requirements for residential garages, as well as the required setbacks of the R-1 Zoning District 3. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 140 of 151 6666666666666666666666666666 6666666666666666666666666 6 66 66 66³ """ "* !* !"" ! ( ! " ³ * ³ * " " " " " " " " "" " " """ !* ! * " " "! " "!" ! "" ! ! "" " ³ ³* ³! * * * ³ ³" "" " " ! !!!³ ³ 6 6 66666666 F M !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !2 2025 1941 370 1310 1215 390 1948 1308 1217 1203 1290 1190 1949 1954 1936 1219 1942 12001206 1310 1300 1230 1224 1920 1290 330 1935 118711991205 1921 19141242 19111264 HIGHWAY 6 2 VICTORIA CURVG ST CENTRE POINTE CURVGLENHILL RDCULLIGAN LN 4TH ST HIGHWAY 62 Nearmap US Inc, Dakota County, MN Site Location/Aerial Map 1961 Glenhill Road Date: 4/23/2026 City of Mendota Heights0210 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. Page 141 of 151 Page 142 of 151 Page 143 of 151 Page 144 of 151 Page 145 of 151 Page 146 of 151 Page 147 of 151 Page 148 of 151 Page 149 of 151 From:Alan To:Sarah Madden Cc:Sally Lorberbaum Subject:Case No. 2026-07 Conditional Use Permit Date:Monday, April 27, 2026 12:38:20 PM [You don't often get email from olstein@comcast.net. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Dear Ms. Madden: I have reviewed the CUP request for the driveway and garage at 1961 Glenhill Road project. I have two comments/questions: 1. Considering the larger than normal impervious surface and position relative to the critical bluff has an adequate drainage plan been submitted to prevent excessive water run-off into Mendota during high precipitation events? 2. Has any thought been given to the relative position of the driveway to the blind S-curve on the Glenhill/Victoria curve intersection? We have to exercise caution when exiting from our drive way onto Glenhill Road because of the blind curve. Hope this is helpful. Best regards, Alan Olstein 1954 Glenhill Road Page 150 of 151 This page is intentionally left blank 10.f REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE:May 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM:Municipal Campus Project Update ITEM TYPE:New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT:Administration CONTACT:Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator ACTION REQUEST: Informational. A project update will be provided by city staff and/or ICS. BACKGROUND: The Mendota Heights Municipal Campus Project is the construction of a new city hall/police facility and the re-envisioning of the existing site to meet the current and future needs of Mendota Heights residents. The new building will replace the current facility, which faces significant health, safety, infrastructure, security and accessibility challenges. The project aims to create a modern, welcoming, and resilient civic hub that supports city operations and public safety. Key goals include improved safety and security, inclusive and accessible design, flexible and functional spaces, and responsible, sustainable use of public resources. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: None, for this project update. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 151 of 151