Loading...
052626 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA May 26, 2026 at 7:00 PM Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3.Election of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair for Year 2026 4.Approval of Minutes a.Approve meeting minutes from the April 28, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting. 5.Public Hearings 6.New and Unfinished Business a.CASE No. 2025-08 Concept PUD Application of Indigo Signs for a Planned Unit Development Amendment Concept Plan Review for the property located at 750 N. Plaza Drive 7.Updates/Staff Comments 8.Adjourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aid. However, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests. Page 1 of 51 April 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 22 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 2026 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 28, 2026, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Cindy Johnson, Brian Udell, Jason Stone, Jeff Nath, and Steve Goldade. Those absent: None Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of March 31, 2026 Minutes COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NATH, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 31, 2026. Further discussion: Commissioner Goldade noted a clarification under those absent to state, “Brian Jason Stone.” Commissioner Corbett and Commissioner Nath accepted that amendment to the motion to accept the correction. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 New and Unfinished Business 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 Page 2 of 51 4a. April 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 22 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. 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 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2026-06 PAUL LINNELL, 1603 DODD ROAD AND 688 WENTWORTH AVENUE – LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Page 3 of 51 April 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 22 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 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. Page 4 of 51 April 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 22 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. 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. Page 5 of 51 April 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 22 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 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. C) TABLED - PLANNING CASE 2026-05 BUELL CONSULTING ON BEHALF OF THE TOWERS LLC, 739 WENTWORTH AVENUE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the subject property, located at 739 Wentworth Avenue, is owned by the City and utilized as Wentworth Park. The applicant, Buell Consulting, on behalf of The Towers LLC, requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a 149-foot wireless telecommunications monopole tower. The Towers LLC is a partner of Verizon Wireless. The public hearing for this application was opened on March 31, Page 6 of 51 April 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 22 2026, and 14 residents spoke relating to the application. The applicant requested that the Commission table the item to the next meeting in order to provide supplemental information as a response to questions submitted through public comments. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 2,000 ft. of the site; many inquiries and questions have been received, and 63 public comments have been received as of the submittal of the report. Comments received after that time have 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 that the Planning Commission table the application, based on the assessment that revised plans must be submitted to address the height-to-setback ratio identified in the zoning ordinance. If the Commission chooses to table the request, staff will bring back the application when revised plans are submitted and reviewed. Additional notice will take place once a meeting date has been set. The applicant has stated that they would consent to an extension of the application review deadline beyond June 27th, which is the current deadline. Commissioner Nath noted that both an approval and a denial would move forward to the City Council, whereas tabling would bring this back to the Commission. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that even if a recommendation of approval were provided, it would be dependent on the amount of changes within the revised plans as to whether another public hearing would be required, which would send it back to the Commission. Commissioner Corbett asked if the City has done anything to conduct an electromagnetic survey itself as a third party. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the City has not conducted that, and all materials provided were required as part of the CUP process. Commissioner Corbett stated that he believes the City should do that itself to have the data. He stated that this item brought forward a lot of discussion in the community and its leaders. He stated that the worst thing they could do is have a group of people without cell phone coverage and a group of people who have coverage and are upset about a pole in the park, and the issue is still not resolved. He commented that he has reached out to a few companies that could work with the City to do that study and provide the City with quantitative data. He stated that all the maps that were provided say good, so based on that marketing data, he is unsure what the problem is. He stated that the data is obscure and biased. He stated that valuation data was provided by the applicant, which is also obscure and is different from the scenario being discussed. Commissioner Goldade asked if the item were to be tabled, it would not come back to the Commission. Page 7 of 51 April 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 22 Chair Field stated that unless the applicant withdraws their request, it could be administratively approved in June without action. He stated that if they were to table the request with the permission of the applicant, it would need to come back to the Commission in May. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that the case would come back to the Commission unless withdrawn by the applicant. She stated that staff did not specify which meeting it would return to at this time, but staff would not allow the case to get to the point where it would be administratively approved. She stated that the applicant has a right to the review timeline and currently, the City has issued one extension, so any further extensions would need the permission of the applicant. She stated that the applicant has stated that they would look to sign an extension waiver, as they would like to submit revised plans. Sarah Buell, representing the applicant, spoke on behalf of The Towers LLC and thanked the Commission for tabling the request as it allowed additional time to process, respond to community feedback, and provide additional information. She stated that they have provided additional clarification on their application and would like to address the public comments related to health and radiofrequency concerns, property value impact, compatibility with the character of the park, and the evaluation and/or exploration of alternatives. She stated that the top concern was related to health and radiofrequency emissions and provided additional information on the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which establishes the FCC as the federal authority regulating radiofrequency emissions. She stated that the federal agencies are the experts and authorities relating to RF emissions from towers, and for the Commission or Council to consider that in part of the review, it would be a violation of federal law. Scott Buell, representing the applicant, stated that the next theme of public comments related to property values. He was curious as to why an evaluation from an appraiser did not seem to fit the bill, as stated by Commissioner Corbett, and provided additional information on the appraisals that were done by an independent firm and appraisers with the highest level of credentials. He stated that the conclusion was that the tower would not measurably impact property values, noting that five paired sales were analyzed in communities nearby. He provided more information on those sales, noting that all five properties sold at or above market conditions, regardless of proximity to a tower. He concluded that property values would not be impacted by the proposed tower and moved to the next comment theme of incompatibility with the property. He stated that the zoning ordinance sets forth how they are supposed to balance different interests across the city. He stated that there are specific regulations for towers, and if they comply with those, the project would then be compatible. He referenced the comment theme related to the location selection and alternatives and provided information on the network coverage needs, noting the factors that are not considered, such as other carriers and/or what happens with someone’s service when they enter their home or basement. He identified areas with strong coverage as well as poor coverage and stated that there is a significant coverage gap for Verizon, as shown in green on the map. He explained that the solution would be to place a tower at 885 feet, which is the elevation of Wentworth Park, in order to effectively provide coverage. He stated that the AT&T tower would not be tall enough to provide the needed coverage, and the St. Stephens Church tower is too far east to provide benefit. He stated that the proposed location would be optimal as it would allow coverage of the entire area shown with the one tower. Page 8 of 51 April 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 22 Ms. Buell stated that there are two circles shown on the map and provided additional clarification on the differences between the circles. She stated that a site must fall within the white circle in order to meet the needs of the network. Mr. Buell commented that topography also plays a large part in the site selection. He provided details on the substantial improvement in coverage that would occur with the tower in place. He stated that once they understood the needs of the network, they then compared that to the City’s zoning/siting guidelines. He stated that they first reviewed the preferred land use areas, but could not find something suitable because of the low elevation and/or the small size of the property. He stated that parks are listed as alternate land uses, and there is no other property in the search area more viable than the proposed property. He stated that if they are unable to construct the new tower, Verizon will be prohibited from providing reliable wireless service to its customers in the gap area. He stated that the City has changed its perception of the ordinance in how height is read, which means that the setback will need to change and will result in a change in design. He commented that the City Council does have the authority to waive any or all of the design requirements to approve a stealth structure. He stated that, given that they need to change their design, they are authorized to request the approval of a stealth design, which would allow them to keep this location. He stated that the proposed location is the best place in the park to place a cell tower, as it is screened and away from most other park activity. He stated that they can work with the City to tweak other things in the design to provide a stealth tree design. He asked the Commission to recommend approval of the request with the condition that the tower be changed to a stealth tree design. He stated that if the Commission could not do that, they would appreciate the Commission table the request to allow them to work on the design with staff. Commissioner Corbett stated that with respect to the property valuations, there are professional opinions opposite to what has been provided. He stated that he also works in real estate and is familiar with this issue. He stated that these homes are next to cell towers that were then sold, compared to a home that was not near a tower but now is. He stated that he was an RF engineer and understands that there is no correlating data that is supportive of health concerns from towers. He stated that the applicant was adamant that this is the only site that works and asked if staff were involved in that review, as it seems that the applicant chose this location with very little detail of the other sites. Mr. Buell stated that they approached the City with Wentworth Park in mind. Commissioner Stone asked if the applicant believed it would have been helpful to ask if the City had other sites in mind. Mr. Buell stated that maybe that could have been helpful, but in his mind, the only other feasible location would be the Par 3 Golf Course, which would be closer to homes than the proposed location, which would be 400 feet from any home. Commissioner Corbett asked if the white circle is the one-mile radius in which they need to be operating, and why the engineer believes that they are limited to that one-mile ring. Page 9 of 51 April 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 22 Mr. Buell stated that when an RF engineer issues a search ring, they are trying to fix a need in a specific area, noting that one mile is about as big as they go. He stated that the identified search area would provide coverage to the most people while fixing issues in the system that may exist. Commissioner Corbett stated that where he lives would not be fixed by this tower, even though it is within the white circle. Mr. Buell replied that the area has very low elevation, and the radiofrequency cannot bend all the way down there. He stated that there would be some improvement, as the blue, which is the worst, would turn green. Commissioner Corbett asked if there is a way to window the coverage in different height ranges to show what that would look like. He stated that perhaps two 70-foot towers were built, one in Wentworth Park and one in Valley Park, and whether that would provide coverage to more people. Commissioner Johnson appreciated that the applicant attempted to address some of the previous concerns expressed by members of the community. She stated that she does not have the data to determine whether putting up one 150-foot tower would solve the problems or whether additional towers would be needed in the future. She stated that data would help her make decisions on the best placement and in thinking of future needs. She was also interested in whether two smaller towers would be a better solution, or whether that would still require additional towers in the future. She recognized that this request is for Verizon, but there are also other carriers. She referenced the tower on Highway 13, which was stated to be too short, and asked if that tower could be extended or whether another taller tower could be added to the same site. She commented that the City Code was written in hierarchical order, with parks and open spaces further down on the list, and the applicant intended to provide data showing why the options above were not valid. She appreciated the clearer explanation of the map, as that was confusing in the packet. She also appreciated the applicant going back to address the height issue within the ordinance. Mr. Buell stated that supplemental materials show why there were no other sites that worked within the search area. He asked if Commissioner Johnson had read that information and still wanted more information. Commissioner Johnson stated that perhaps she needs more information from the City related to data and the coverage issues that exist. Mr. Buell stated that he cannot predict what will be needed in the future as technology advances and the demand for data increases. He commented that existing sites are being upgraded to handle more, but in this area, they need coverage. He recognized that there is concern that this action could set a precedent related to structures in parks and hoped that there could be one structure that could solve most problems, rather than multiple towers in other park locations, as suggested by Commissioner Corbett. Ms. Buell stated that a goal of the City is to minimize the number of towers needed to provide service to the community, and this proposal considers that goal. She stated that there is a need for coverage, and the ground elevation and tower height paired together are needed to provide Page 10 of 51 April 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 22 coverage within the gap area. She stated that the tower would also provide the ability for two other carriers to co-locate. She acknowledged that Commissioner Johnson is requesting additional data on the need and stated that the coverage map has been provided, and testimony was received at the last meeting regarding the lack of coverage and the inability of a resident to call emergency services. She stated that in additional community feedback, they heard about an accident involving a vehicle and a power pole, which knocked out power and resulted in residents being unable to call emergency services. She stated that additional input was received from residents who are unable to make calls from inside their homes, noting that, combined with the inability to call for emergency services, creates a public safety concern. She stated that this project is intended to address those public safety concerns. Commissioner Corbett appreciated that it would address some things, but he would still have concerns for public safety in his home. He recognized that they cannot predict the future, and this is what Verizon thinks it needs, but the City is unsure whether this is what they need. He believed that the City should do a holistic study of all carriers and develop a strategic approach to putting in infrastructure. He stated that he would even be open to changing the Code to allow more towers if they were less visible and had less impact on property values. He stated that there are other opposing regulations of the City that would deter a tower from being placed in a park. He believed that more residents would support two towers at heights of 50 or 75 feet rather than one tower at 150 feet. Commissioner Nath referenced the coverage map and asked how the other areas still marked in green would be provided with coverage, as this tower would not provide service to those areas. He asked what would stop carriers from coming forward with additional requests for towers, as this one tower would not fully solve the problem. He did not believe the tower was necessary or would be a good use of the parkland. Commissioner Stone agreed with the comments of Commissioner Nath. He asked if there was a reason the Sibley Memorial tower could not be increased on the Xcel site. Mr. Buell replied that it is not at the Xcel property and is on a smaller property. He explained that the setbacks of the B-1 district require a setback equal to the structure height; the tower cannot be increased in height. He stated that even if a 150-foot tower could be built in that location, the elevation in that location is 75 to 80 feet lower, which would mean it would not provide the necessary coverage. Chair Field asked if Verizon could co-locate on that tower and put a shorter tower at Wentworth. Mr. Buell did not believe there would be value in co-locating on the lower tower and was unsure of the value of a shorter tower at Wentworth. He stated that more towers would be necessary if a shorter tower were constructed at Wentworth. Commissioner Nath stated that there are two opportunities for other carriers and asked if those typically fill quickly by other carriers. He recognized that this request is for Verizon, but that would not help residents with AT&T. Page 11 of 51 April 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 22 Mr. Buell replied that it would depend upon how attractive the location is to other carriers. He stated that if there is a network need, those carriers would budget to co-locate on the tower. He believed that would be likely in this location given the service gaps. Commissioner Nath recognized that The Towers LLC is an independent company for putting up towers. Mr. Buell confirmed that they would market the location to other users. Commissioner Corbett asked if they had spoken with other carriers yet. Mr. Buell stated that he has not done so personally and was unsure if The Towers LLC had done that yet. Commissioner Corbett asked if, as a third party, the service coverage could be overlaid for all the carriers. Mr. Buell stated that The Towers LLC could probably prepare an RF frequency map of that nature. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Katarina Miketin, owner of OneTen Cycles and resident of 791 Wentworth Avenue, stated that the interesting part of this is what they have not said. She stated that she was approached by Buell Consulting in 2021 to place a tower on her commercial building and proposed a much smaller tower, 65 feet tall, with a similar lease and financial terms. She stated that the proposed tower is more than twice that height and is on public parkland, which is far more impactful on homes. She stated that in the December work session there was a consensus of the Council to build a monopole and a discussion of lease terms, before key questions were resolved. She believed that the financial structure was prioritized before full public review, and she commented that the economics do not align. She commented that this impact would be permanent, as there is no other Wentworth Park. She stated that she is a single mom who moved from Duluth, and she invested in her home and business in Mendota Heights. She noted that the tower is designed for multiple carriers, yet there would be no option for revenue sharing, and the City would receive a minimal lease payment. Chair Field stated that the lease terms are not under consideration tonight. Ms. Miketin stated that alternatives clearly exist and have not been demonstrated as infeasible. She did not believe that residents should be used as props in the applicant’s presentation. She expressed additional concerns with property values and public health related to radiofrequency exposure. She commented that allowing the tower in a park would set a precedent and believed that this decision could open the door for similar future uses. George Eliou, 757 Upper Colonial Drive, stated that he has lived in three other houses within the green coverage areas on the Verizon map and has been a Verizon customer for 21 years. He thanked the Commission for their questions, as they addressed many of his concerns and questions. He spoke of his experience in physics and engineering and stated that engineers will write a letter Page 12 of 51 April 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 22 from the best-case point of view of a company. He believed that the presence of residents tonight shows that a tower would not be compatible with the character of the park and community. He spoke about the incompatibility of the height of the request with sections of the City Code. He did not believe the request should move forward because of the incompatibility with the City Code. He stated that if that is the only site that works and the request does not comply, they do not need the tower. Peter McKenzie, 1415 Cherry Hill Road, introduced himself and stated that his biggest argument against this proposal is related to emerging technology and what it brings to ground-based infrastructure. He stated that the applicant is requesting the tower to solve a problem that its own company is attempting to solve from orbit. He provided additional information on the service that is being created that uses Starlink to provide service to users with no ground towers required. He stated that the reported lease is $15,000 per year, while the average lease on a monopole is $45,000 per year, and municipal benchmarks go up to $72,000 per year. He stated that Wentworth Park belongs to the community, and a private entity should never be allowed to get a foothold within the park for technology that will be obsolete long before the lease expires. Joan Brandes, 1465 Cherry Hill Road, commented that she has Xfinity for cable, landline, and cellular service and was told that Xfinity leases through Verizon. She stated that in her review, she was unable to find the distance of a tower from a home of 200 feet. She stated that realtors and appraisers often disagree. She stated that the appraisal information was a beautiful package, but two of the five examples were water towers, and all five homes had been built after the structure was there. She commented that she visited all five properties, and for two of the homes, you could not even see the tower from the home. She noted that those sales were also during the period when it was difficult to find homes, and many sales had over 20 offers. She also commented on information she found online related to potential impacts from towers and the impact on property values. Stan Linnell, 1407 Cherry Hill Road, thanked the Commission for its work, noting his previous service on the Park Commission and his experience as a landscape architect. He stated that the applicant proposes to take up 2,500 square feet of parkland, which is irreplaceable. He recognized that this is an ideal location for the company, but it is not ideal for the residents. He noted additional options that have not seemed to have been explored. Larry Carpenter, 1440 Farmdale Road, stated that one week ago, he drove through these dead zones and did not experience static or dropped calls. He did not believe this was a cell phone tower issue, but more of a provider issue. He believed that residents could choose a different provider that gives them the service they want. Joan Demeules, 1620 Diane Road, stated that her home is within the dead zone and she was surprised, disappointed, and frustrated with the phone and internet service where she lives. She stated that if she could put a tower on her property, she would. She stated that she does not care where the tower goes or which provider puts it up, but there are issues with cell phone and internet coverage in the community that need to be improved. She commented that just as people expect nice streets and streetlights, the residents also need proper service for phone and internet. She stated that she does not have particular feelings about the park or the height or appearance of the Page 13 of 51 April 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 22 tower, but believed that cellular and internet service are basic things that residents are entitled to have. Dean Simmons, 780 Upper Colonial Drive, commented that this past week, Buell Consulting submitted a report which concluded that the Wentworth tower will not measurably impact the property values of the homes. He stated that he submitted a detailed report to staff detailing his concerns with that report, including sample size bias, the paired sales technique, significant housing appreciation of the St. Paul area, and other amenities, and a lack of quantitative data. He stated that peer-reviewed studies have come to different conclusions, showing opposite findings related to the impact on property values. He noted that the properties reviewed had towers built many years prior and would not be a comparison of a tower just built. He commented that the Wentworth tower would be in a park, whereas the report reviewed towers in industrial areas. He commented that the Commission should deny this request as Buell Consulting has not accurately shown that the tower would not impact property values. Ben Paterson, 710 Evergreen Knolls, commented on the beauty of Wentworth Park. He referenced a change in the ordinance to accommodate towers on municipal land and asked if there was a plan or any form of due diligence. He stated that the consultant had uncertain statements tonight when attempting to answer questions. He commented that he has spoken to several people who have not experienced any problems with their Verizon service. He spoke about the emerging technology that will use satellites to provide service and commented that Buell is fighting for an archaic cause that is not met with certainty. Mike Solac, 664 2nd Avenue, stated that he drove the neighborhoods last night while using the phone, and there was one instance of breakups, but no dropped calls. He commented about the technology provided by different providers, noting previous poor service with Verizon and AT&T, and stated that their service improved when they changed to T-Mobile. He provided information on the technology used by T-Mobile to provide service compared to the technology used by Verizon to provide service. He stated that T-Mobile tried to do a tower in Wentworth but ended up on 13. He stated that Verizon is lagging and is trying to jump ahead with a large tower. He stated that Buell is a sales group and not technology experts. He believed that the City and League of Minnesota Cities should develop a way to review towers and complete a review to determine where towers should be placed. He stated that people can change service providers, and the City needs to plan for the future. Andrea Leon, 1445 Farmdale Road, referenced language from the Comprehensive Plan related to Conditional Use Permits and stated that the proposed tower does not meet those standards and should be denied. She commented on the frequent reference to parks within the Comprehensive Plan, which shows their value to this community, while cellular towers are not mentioned once. She stated that Wentworth Park is the space the Comprehensive Plan references when speaking about the value of the City’s natural resources. She commented that Wentworth Park is heavily utilized, and the remaining open green space is limited. She did not believe that placing a tower on this remaining green space would be considered preservation of green space as the Comprehensive Plan describes. She commented that the tower and its fenced area would turn the green space into an industrial area. She stated that the tower is not in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the standards of approval for a CUP. Page 14 of 51 April 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 22 Cammie Evans, 796 Lower Colonial Drive, spoke about property values and the appraisal statement submitted by Buell. She commented that she also visited the five properties mentioned in the report and spoke with some of the homeowners and/or neighbors. She noted that she did not have cellular coverage while outside of two of the homes. She stated that in speaking to one of the neighbors about this tower request, the neighbor stated that the tower would be a bad idea. She stated that a neighbor funded their own study for the public record, which affirms a very clear impact on property values. She stated that, according to the City Code, this permit request must be denied. Elanore Eliou commented that she is nine years old and provided input on playing with her friends at Wentworth Park, noting that they have picnics and play tag in the green space where the tower is proposed. She commented on how the tower will change the character of the park and compared this situation to The Lorax, where the people make a choice that cannot be undone. She commented on the duration of the lease, noting that she would be 49 before the lease expires. She asked the Commission to think about the impact of this decision on children. Gayra Ostgaard, 757 Upper Colonial Drive, stated that the proposed tower is not consistent with the 2040 Parks Master Plan and should be denied on that basis. She stated that the Master Plan was published in June 2025, is aligned with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and is clear about what the parks are for. She stated that the tower is not a recreation amenity or aligned with nature and is instead an industrial item that would be placed into a park. She reviewed the items the public requested through the Master Plan process, noting that not one comment requested a tower in a park. She referenced the equity prioritization tool found within the Master Plan, noting that Wentworth is the second-highest ranking park on that tool, second only to the dog park. She stated that this is one of the most important spaces they have to ensure equitable access to park amenities and nature. She commented that this proposal would do the opposite of investing in the park and would instead reduce the green space, place an industrial structure in the park, and impact the very people the plan says should be prioritized. She stated that Wentworth is a highly programmed neighborhood park that should expand flexible and gathering space, and this proposal would remove space from the park. She commented that parks are essential and every square foot should work for people, not corporations. She stated that the Parks Master Plan is meant to prevent things like this request. She noted that once you put a structure like this in a neighborhood park, you never get that space back and asked the Commission to deny the proposal. George Battis, 758 Bachelor Ave stated that he is a retired physician, and they chose Mendota Heights because of its community and its uniqueness. He cautioned the City against making decisions that will change that character. He commented on issues he previously experienced with a certain carrier, but once he changed carriers, he did not have any issues. He commented that this is a provider issue. He did not believe that the character of the park should be changed and urged the City to deny the request. Todd Peterson, 779 Upper Colonial Drive, asked the Commission to deny the request as it does not meet the criteria required for a CUP. He referenced the City responses within the packet that he did not agree with and provided alternative facts related to property value impacts and whether the use is in harmony with the use and character. He noted that this tower will not blend as it is Page 15 of 51 April 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 22 twice the height of the tallest tree in the park. He stated that he is not against providing better service to his neighbors, but did not believe this is the right location. Cristen and Ellie Olstrom, 1402 Cherry Hill Road, reviewed the Mendota Heights vision and stated that Wentworth Park is a neighborhood amenity and not just a site. She commented that this request does not meet the criteria necessary for a CUP. She spoke about the health exposure from cellular towers and stated that no conclusive data shows that placing a structure like this close to families has no risk. She asked whether this proposal would meet the least intrusive requirement. She commented that it is the City’s responsibility to ensure that decisions align with its mission and vision and asked the Commission to deny the request. Tim Milner, 834 Park Place Drive, stated that he would like the City to approve this request. He stated that he purchased his home in 1996 and discovered that he was in the dead zone and continues to be today. He stated that he owns a business and has 49 Verizon lines because that carrier has the strongest service in the south metro. He commented that while it is simple for some to change carriers, that is not the case for others. He stated that he has investigated all opportunities for alternative service and is one of two people in the Park Place neighborhood who have a landline. He stated that his landline does not work very well because the switchbox is about 50 years old and has issues with corrosion and outdated parts. He encouraged anyone who does not want to believe any of this to make the calls and experience the issues he has dealt with since 1996. He stated that he has to use Wi-Fi calling at home through Xfinity, as do any visitors to his home. He stated that Xfinity also has issues in his neighborhood, as the cable used to provide service is becoming outdated, and noted that he had to have commercial service brought into his home to support the video calls he is required to make for his business. He commented that Xfinity is not planning to replace the cables because demand continues to drop as people continue to switch to cellular service. He stated that Quantum has begun to bring fiber into the neighborhoods, but has stated that there is not enough demand to bring the service into the Park Place neighborhood. He stated that he reached out to another fiber provider and was told he would have to pay $17,000 to get that fiber brought into the neighborhood, while the other neighbors would only have to pay $300 to connect once the fiber is there. He stated that people spoke about alternatives, but those options are dying out in terms of landlines and copper lines because more people continue to choose cellular service. He commented that he cannot continue to live in a desert without service and without the ability to call for help if he needs it. He stated that the City needs to plan for essential services for its residents. He stated that the City must have considered that towers would be needed somewhere, and if they did not want a tower in the city, there would not have been discussion on the topic. He recognized that people do not like the spot or the appearance of an ugly cell tower, but believed that the City has an obligation to provide for essential services. He stated that they need to fix the issue that exists today in the dead zone. John Huber, 1359 Cherry Hill Road, stated that he spoke at the last meeting as well. He stated that from what he has heard, there is a high level of what seems to be technical challenges facing the City. He respected the expertise of staff and the Planning Commission, but also believed they should be permitted to ask for the help of unbiased experts. He recognized there would be a cost to that, but believed the City should do a full study of what is needed to address this problem. He did not dispute the statements of the previous resident and was sympathetic to what he was going Page 16 of 51 April 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 22 through. He was unsure that this was the fix they needed and encouraged staff and the Commission to suggest a six-month moratorium or study period to receive technical expertise on this matter. Graham Kerr-Vanderleeuw, 781 Wentworth Avenue, commented that he and his wife have engaged in three real estate transactions in Mendota Heights and were represented by the same realtor in those transactions. He commented that his realtor has provided him with a letter about the potential impacts on their property value if the tower is approved. He expressed concern that the record used for the Commission to make its determination seems to consist exclusively of assertions made by the applicant and information selected and provided by the applicant in support of those assertions. He stated that there is a divergence of interest between the applicant’s client, who is motivated by profit, and the motivations he believes should inform the discussion of this request at a community level. He commented that the interests of the applicant and their client are misaligned with the interests of the community. He believed that this discussion should be informed by an independent evaluation of the scope of cellular coverage in the community and potential solutions short of this drastic solution of a 149-foot monopole in Wentworth Park. Rita Desmond, 656 2nd Avenue, stated that she is in favor of addressing the service gap in the community. She stated that this winter she had company, and one of the guests was trying to use her cell phone but could not. She explained to her guest that they do not have cell phone service, and the guest was unsure why she would even buy a home in that community. She stated that she purchased her home 40 years ago when cell service was not an issue. She stated that she spoke with 30-year-olds who own their homes, and they stated that they would not purchase a home without access to cell phone service. She recognized that the lack of service would create a barrier to her selling her home in the future. John Trojack, 786 Upper Colonial Drive, commented that he has never had a problem with cell phone coverage at their property. He noted his experience in the law and referenced the FCC standards that were mentioned by the applicant, noting that those standards were adopted in 1996. He stated that people would not rely on an opinion of what is safe made 30 years ago, and that matter is before the US Court of Appeals, and the court has already ruled that the FCC’s reliance on those standards is arbitrary and capricious. He did not believe the FCC standards would be taken seriously in this application, noting the expert testimony of the effects of radiofrequency. He asked that the matter of safety and the proximity to children be considered. He objected to the proposal and asked the Commission to deny it. Paula Anderson, 790 Lower Colonial Drive, appreciated how the meeting was run and that everyone could feel welcome to provide their input. She stated that she is a little grey on the alternatives and believed that they could find a decision that could meet the needs of the community. She believed that the City should explore the root cause of the issue, noting that she is a Verizon customer with no issues with service. She had faith that the Commission would look at the options and find a solution that could meet the needs of the community outside of this proposal. Leona Opp, 789 Evergreen Knolls, stated that her home is within the dead zone, and as a Verizon customer, she had never experienced issues with service. She opposed the tower proposed within the park and spoke of how she and her husband, along with others in the community, enjoy the Page 17 of 51 April 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 17 of 22 park. She noted the protected wetland within the park and restrictions in height that would be implemented in the wetland had shoreline regulations. She stated that the Parks System Master Plan was finalized less than one year ago, and stated that Wentworth Park could benefit from a more flexible use area. She stated that the small amount of open space in the park should be reserved for future public use, rather than using 2,500 square feet for a cellular tower. She commented that the tower is also not listed as a priority within the Master Plan and asked the Commission to follow the plan and not approve the tower. David Williams, 755 Wentworth, commented that he rode his bike through the park before the meeting and counted 88 people in the park and several people playing in the green area where the tower is proposed. He believed that this was an easy denial based on the comments made tonight and was fearful of the decision the Council would make. He noted that this application had already been tabled once, and the applicant still could not provide the necessary information. He stated that if he developed his three lots next to the park, the tower could not be placed in the park, or at least not in that location. He acknowledged that the tower could not be in the proposed location because of the required setback that has been determined by staff, and questioned where it would then be placed. He stated that he can develop his eight-acre property, noting that his neighbor recently developed their property into four lots, with the last of the lots selling for $650,000 in 2023. He noted that the value of his property has been quoted at $750,000 a lot, and two of those lots would be within the 200-foot zone of the tower. He did not believe that this request made sense. He commented on the impact this tower would have on his property and believed that it would be seen as a taking, which would make the City liable for the property value impact on his land. He believed that this was an easy denial as the proposed location would not meet the required setbacks. He referenced the statement that the Commission could approve a stealth tower tonight and noted that even if it looks like a pine tree, it would still be twice the size of any other tree. He commented that property devaluation is real and easy to validate. Jack Evans, 796 Lower Colonial Drive, requested that the Commission deny the request to table the request and instead recommend denial of the application. He commented on the purpose of the tower ordinance, which is meant to minimize freestanding towers, ensure they blend into the community, and demonstrate that there are no preferred structures that exist that could be used. He stated that none of this has been done for this application. He stated that following the last meeting, he submitted a freedom of information request, which cost several hundred dollars, and it provided him with valuable information. He found it interesting to learn what the City had not done, which included analysis of preferred structures in this radius where technology could be put, and instead allowed Buell to skip that step and move to a request for a new tower. He commented that the City originally requested a monopine structure rather than a monopole structure, but Buell stated that it would cost too much, and they would not be interested in that. He found it interesting that Buell stated that there were no alternatives, but then presented an alternative when they found out the application was faulty. He stated that this request violates all the required steps within the ordinance. He commented on alternative locations that could be reviewed outside of the park. He stated that it does not make sense to continue to table this item because of the changes that would be necessary. He provided an example of a cell phone tower that was constructed on a church and appears to be a cross. He believed that small cell technology could be a better fit, and this should be denied, allowing exploration of alternatives. Page 18 of 51 April 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 18 of 22 Randy Pentel, 815 Deer Trail Court, stated that he hired an appraiser to complete a review and has submitted those results to the City. He stated that there seems to be a misunderstanding related to the minimum distance requirements of the FCC, which is recommended at 1,300 feet, which is significantly different than 200 to 300 feet. He stated that emfradar.com will allow someone to search their area and provide an EMF rating. He showed the ratings of City Hall and the park, and also provided additional information on the recommended distance of a home from a tower. He provided additional information on the hot zones from a tower, noting that the safe zone is shown to be 400 meters from the tower. He agreed with the comments made by the previous speakers as well. Deborah Morgan, 1480 Cherry Hill Road, stated that her home is across from the tennis courts, and the exposure shown by the previous resident is very alarming. She stated that she can see the proposed location from her yard, and the tower would be an eyesore, noting that would be the least of her concerns, as she is more concerned with the potential health impacts. She commented on the number of people who enjoy the park every day and the sense of community that exists in that area. She stated that the proposed tower location is an area that allows for free play when the other amenities are being used. She recognized that there was an issue with cellular service, but believed that it could be solved in another way. She expressed major concerns with the environmental and health impacts of a tower, along with the impact that would occur on property values. She asked the Commission to deny the request tonight and focus on alternative options to solve the issue. Mr. Buell referenced the comments related to a previous request for a tower on the 110 Cycles property and noted that it was a completely different project without a carrier backing the request. He stated that they were aware that there was poor coverage and that it was a busy intersection. He stated that even police squad cars did not have coverage, which was an issue of safety that has since been fixed with towers on the Deerwood Bank property. He explained that it is a best practice to go through the lease process first, as it is a major risk to go through the expensive process of a zoning review without having a lease secured. Ms. Buell stated that the proposed tower height on that property complied with the zoning ordinance in 2021, which has since changed. Mr. Buell referenced a suggestion that this technology may not be necessary. He stated that someone is willing to invest a large amount of money to build this infrastructure, so it is deemed necessary. He commented that if the site is not needed by the carriers, the equipment would be removed and the tower would be taken down should the technology become obsolete. He noted statements related to the Comprehensive Plan and the parks, acknowledging that there is a lot of information in the plan, including language related to the importance of communication and infrastructure. He stated that while Verizon is not the applicant, they are one of the interested parties and are trying to improve their network that provides service to the community. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NATH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Page 19 of 51 April 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 19 of 22 AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Corbett recognized that the Commission has a few options before it and asked about the risk of this running out of review time if this matter is tabled. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the City does not yet have the written consent of the applicant to extend the review period beyond June 27th, but has received verbal consent. She stated that she would feel comfortable tabling the item, and if the consent is not signed, she would place the item on the May meeting agenda. She stated that if the applicant signs the extension, the goal would be to bring the application back where there is a revised plan set, and a new public hearing would be held to review those revised plans. Commissioner Corbett asked if making a recommendation tonight would force the Council to vote on this request. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that if a recommendation is made, this item would move forward to the City Council meeting on May 5th. She noted that under the current timeline, a decision would need to be made by June 23rd. Commissioner Corbett stated that there has been a lot discussed tonight, and ultimately, he does not believe that this application meets the requirements of a CUP, as this would seriously depreciate the value of property in this area, and this is not in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. He recognized that they needed to improve the infrastructure, but believed that it could be done in another way with proper third-party surveying and data that could guide better decisions. Commissioner Stone stated that it was great to have this level of public involvement, as this was a great representation of the community. He urged more residents to get involved in the Commissions. He stated that he will be voting to deny this request. He believed that it was a shame that some people lack empathy for those who do not have cell phone service. He acknowledged that there are issues with service in the community, but did not believe that a 150- foot tower is the solution. He supported the recommendation of Commissioner Corbett to hire a third party to collect data and develop a better solution. He believed it was an insult that the applicant stated that putting a tower 30 feet from someone’s property would not impact the value of their property, and encouraged the applicant to put a tower on their property in Eden Prairie to see how it impacts their property value. Commissioner Goldade asked what would be gained by tabling this request, as there have already been two meetings on this topic. He stated that he does not lean towards tabling the request and asked if anyone on the Commission is leaning towards tabling. Commissioner Corbett stated that perhaps additional time would allow the applicant to propose a lower tower that could not be seen, but did not believe that would be what the applicant would propose if this were tabled. Page 20 of 51 April 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 20 of 22 Commissioner Nath stated that if a recommendation is made, this will go to the City Council, which does not have to take into account the recommendation and can make its own decision. He stated that there is danger in denying this request, as the City Council could still approve. Commissioner Johnson stated that she would lean towards tabling this, as they do need coverage solutions, along with additional data that is required by the ordinance. She believed that there are new concerns that have been brought forward, including the distance from the base of the tower and the nearest setback line. She stated that there has also been a lot of discussion about the harm that could be generated from this request and the potential impacts on the rights of an adjacent property owner to develop. She noted that other valid concerns were expressed by the residents tonight and believed that the City should invest in a technical mapping to clearly identify the issues that exist, as well as how they could be resolved. She noted that the information would allow them to determine if the proposal would fit into that. Commissioner Udell stated that he also leans towards tabling for those reasons. He stated that revisions will be necessary regardless, so they should reevaluate. He stated that this conversation has gotten so vast, some of which is outside the purview of the Commission. He believed that the applicant should be allowed to make its revisions to come back before the Commission rather than punting this to the City Council. Commissioner Johnson stated that the mapping that she mentioned will help them determine whether this application would meet those needs and fit within the ordinance and required steps. Chair Field stated that this public hearing has been closed and asked if a new public hearing would be held if the application is revised. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that there would be a new public hearing. Chair Field asked if that would also reset the review clock. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that because the level of revisions is unknown, it is also unknown as to whether the review clock would be restarted. She stated that if the waiver were signed by the applicant that would extend the deadline. She noted that she can speak with the City Attorney to determine the level of revision that would restart the clock. She stated that if there is a motion to recommend denial, the Commission would need to state the reasons to formulate the revised findings of fact. Commissioner Udell referenced the potential health hazards of this request and stated that he did his own research and found that the Commission cannot use health as a reason to deny. He asked if health would be a valid reason to deny a request. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the City Attorney is not present tonight to answer that question. Page 21 of 51 April 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 21 of 22 Chair Field asked if a recommendation of denial from the Commission and denial from the City Council would enact a period of time during which the applicant could not reapply. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that there would be a waiting period before a new application could be submitted. Commissioner Corbett asked if another applicant could apply within that window. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that a new application from a new applicant would not fall into that window. COMMISSIONER GOLDADE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UDELL, TO TABLE CASE 2026-05. AYES: 5 NAYS: 2 (STONE AND NATH) Updates/Staff Comments Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided an update on recent City Council actions on items recommended by the Planning Commission. She noted that an appeal has been received for the property at 655 Callahan Place related to the Site Plan, so at the May Planning Commission meeting, the Commission will consider the appeal. She asked for input from the Commission on how that would be noticed. She commented that while the meeting would not be a public hearing, they could follow normal public hearing notice guidelines. Chair Field stated that even though it is not a public hearing, perhaps they should follow the normal public hearing notice process. The Commission agreed. Commissioner Nath asked and received confirmation that the Chair and Vice Chair elections would be held at the next meeting. Commissioner Goldade asked if the public hearing guidelines should be reviewed for potential updates after the cell tower case is completed, noting that he would not want to change those guidelines in the middle of this process. He noted that he would specifically like to set time limits for speakers. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden agreed that could be placed on a future agenda. She provided a brief update on the applications that will appear before the Commission at the May meeting. She noted that if the revised plans are received with enough time to review and post a public hearing, that could be on the May agenda, but anticipated that the applicant would extend the review period, which would push that case further out. Commissioner Johnson asked if there would be time and willingness to look into an independent technical mapping to provide more data. Page 22 of 51 April 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 22 of 22 Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that direction would need to come from the City Council, noting that it could be stated that the Commission recommended that. He was concerned that, with the other issues brought up, he did not believe that it would sway public opinion. Commissioner Johnson stated that in order to make an informed decision, they have to have an understanding of the real issue. Commissioner Corbett stated that this is the most critical piece of information, and the City has placed time, money, and trust in the data provided by a private applicant. He believed that moving forward, one pole tower at a time is also wrong, as the City should have its own strategy to address the issues that exist. He agreed that he could provide additional information to staff to connect them with the companies that could solve the problem. He asked if citizens have been polled on their current service and needs. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden noted that the agenda item has been tabled, as has the discussion on that item. She reviewed the ordinance language and requirements for application submittals and recognized the confusion that is generated from the use of grammar in that language. She stated that the burden of proof is placed on the applicant for the information they submit. Commissioner Corbett stated that a lot of issues arise because of the sole reliance on the information provided by an applicant. Commissioner Stone stated that they know where there are concerns with coverage and believed that the City has the ability to send out surveys to those areas to determine if the issue lies with the coverage ability or the carrier. Commissioner Johnson stated that there is data that is needed for the City to have an understanding of how to solve this problem. She believed that the City needs to invest in its own technical mapping. Adjournment COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:57 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Page 23 of 51 6.a Planning Commission Meeting Date: May 26, 2026 Agenda Item: CASE No. 2025-08 Concept PUD Application of Indigo Signs for a Planned Unit Development Amendment Concept Plan Review for the property located at 750 N. Plaza Drive Department: Community Development Contact: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Introduction: The applicant, Indigo Signs, is seeking a Planned Unit Development – Concept Plan Review for a modification to site signage within the Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development located at 750 North Plaza Drive. The subject site is currently zoned MU-Mixed Use with a Planned Unit Development Overlay District. The original Planned Unit Development (PUD) was approved in 2009, and there have been nine amendments to the PUD since its inception to allow for continued redevelopment of the Mendota Plaza. The Planned Unit Development Ordinance requires that any extensions, alterations, or modifications to building envelopes or structures must be approved via the standard review process for a new Planned Unit Development. This process starts with a Concept Plan Review, which is submitted to the City to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council. This item is intended only to be advisory to the Applicant. The Planning Commission may make recommendations regarding the Concept Plan and give reasons for that recommendation, but the discussion and recommendation is not binding on the City, and no formal determination is made regarding the application request. Formal determinations on the full Planned Unit Development Amendment proposal would follow this Concept Plan review step. Background: The Planned Unit Development (PUD) process is intended to provide a flexible zoning district for the design and development of land that is appropriate to the physical site characteristics of the development, and surrounding land uses. The flexibility that is granted by the City in approval of a Planned Unit Development is outlined through 'deviations' from City Code which would otherwise not be permitted, or might traditionally require a Variance approval. This flexibility is granted in return for a public benefit to the City and/or community, which may be other areas of zoning and city code requirements where standards are exceeded, or where a policy goal of the City is achieved. The Applicant would like to modify the Planned Unit Development to allow for an increase in signages allowances for the Area Identification Signs for the subject property. The request is to add language into the Planned Unit Development to increase the maximum height of a Page 24 of 51 freestanding sign to 45-ft, and to increase the maximum sign square footage to 375-sq.ft. There are two pylon signs on the property that are proposed to be replaced and upgraded to a new design with electrical signage components. The applicant has stated that the existing signs have reached the end of their useful life, and that replacement would help to attract and retain high-value tenants, and enhance the character of the property. Signage History: The original Planned Unit Development Agreement between the City and the property owner was executed in 2009. At that time, the PUD proposed to redevelop the Mendota Plaza property by remodeling the existing Mendota Plaza building, showed new commercial uses and residential buildings, and included public infrastructure improvements. The original PUD detailed the freestanding sign locations as shown in the Master Plan, and required that building signage comply with the “Design Standards” as well as City Code, and was subject to City Council review and approval. The Area Identification Signs were listed in the Design Standards as limited to 200-sq.ft. and 35-ft in height, and seven freestanding sign locations were outlined on the Master Plan. In 2010, sign permits were submitted for the update of the two pylon signs, and illustrated the existing signs as 30-ft tall (Pylon 1) and 45-ft tall (Pylon 2). The sign permits were approved by the City Council in accordance with the PUD Agreement. The first three amendments to the PUD were minor modifications to plans and adjustments to the language of the PUD Agreement, unrelated to signage. The fourth amendment to the PUD authorized the plans for White Pines Assisted Living on Lot 6. This amendment allowed for additional freestanding and building signage for that development, but did not relate to the pylon Area Identification Signs. The fifth amendment modified the site plan for Lot 6, and was unrelated to signage. The sixth amendment to the PUD in 2016 approved a re-plat (Mendota Plaza Expansion 2nd Addition) authorized the plans for a commercial building on Lot 1, Block 1 of the re-plat and a multi-family building on Lot 1, Block 2 (The Reserve). As part of this amendment, the approval process for signage was modified, removing the requirement for City Council approval of sign permits, and instead requiring a Comprehensive Sign Plan to be approved by staff as part of a sign or building permit, as well as continued compliance with the Design Standards. The Design Standards were also amended to allow for temporary signage in certain circumstances. The seventh amendment to the PUD modified the plans for Lot 8, and was unrelated to signage. The eighth and ninth amendments to the PUD authorized the phased construction of The Reserve II and The Retreat (multi-family apartment buildings), and were unrelated to signage for the PUD as a whole. Analysis: The proposed amendment may be considered minor in nature, however the Planned Unit Development Ordinance requires that changes to the Final Development Plan follow a full amendment process. That process includes a Concept Review, a Preliminary Development Plan, and a Final Development Plan. The ordinance states that these changes to the Final Development plan should be for the continued successful functioning of the PUD, or unless they are needed based on other changes in conditions since the completion of the Final Development Plan. Page 25 of 51 For this request, the applicant has stated that this would be a capital investment into the property, and that ownership would be ready to begin replacement and complete substantial construction within six months of approval. The signage improvements would also help to integrate the Area Identification Sign with the tenants in the Plaza. The pylons sign changes have been designed to be compatible with the other Area Identification Sign pylon adjacent to Highway 62, which has a more modern design. This renovation of the pylon structures would modernize the design and the proposed plans show channel lettering, internally illuminated tenant panels, and an electronic message center for a unified design. The applicant has provided an image of the third pylon sign in the development, adjacent to Highway 62 as a visual example of the design style. The existing sign adjacent to Dodd Road (Pylon 1) is estimated to be 31-ft tall with just over 180-sq.ft. of sign area. The proposed sign changes would conform to the 35-ft height standard, however would include 207 square feet of signage area, in excess of the 200 square foot maximum. This total sign area would include 55-sq.ft. of a digital display unit. The existing sign adjacent to the stormwater ponding is estimated to be 41-ft tall with just over 350-sq.ft. of sign area. The proposed sign changes would allow the pylon to be increased to 45-ft in height with 375-sq.ft. of sign area. There are no other proposed changes to the Planned Unit Development. Alternatives: n/a Staff Recommendation: The Planning Commission is asked to review the proposal for this Planned Unit Development Amendment - Concept Plan Review request, and provide advisory comments and recommendations to the applicant. Staff will compile the development review comments and share them with the City Council at their June 2, 2026 meeting to facilitate their step in this concept review process. Attachments: 1.Applicant Narrative 2.Site Aerial - Mendota Plaza - 750-790 N Plaza Dr 3.Existing Pylon Signs 4.Pylon 1 - Proposed 5.Pylon 2 - Proposed 6.Pylon Sign 3 - Existing 7.PUD Agreement - Exhibit H Design Standards Page 26 of 51 Date: April 22, 2026 City of Mendota Heights Attn: Planning Commission 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Members of the Planning Commission, On behalf of Paster Properties, Indigo Signs is hereby requesting an Amendment to the current Planned Unit Development for the following location: Property: Mendota Plaza 750 Plaza Dr. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 The proposed amendment is to modify the current verbiage and allow for an increase in signage allotment as it pertains to the Area Identification Signs for this property: 1) maximum height of up to 45 feet, and 2) maximum sign square footage of up to 375 square feet. This proposal does not change the planned use of the property or alter the retail nature previously set forth. It is intended to allow for signage updates that would contemporize the campus to remain a vital shopping experience and resource to Mendota Heights. The current allowances in the PUD are stated below (see also attached: Exhibit H – pgs 9-14): Standards – Sign and Height A.Area Identification Sign •Area Identification signs may not exceed 200 square feet with a maximum of 35 feet. PUD and sign plan approval may allow increase in size. •Seven Area Identification signs at locations shown on the Master Plan, Sheet C2.0 will be allowed. There are currently (3) Pylon Area Identification signs in use at Mendota Plaza. Two of the signs are original and one is a more recent addition. The two original signs have served long and well, but are in need of revitalization. It is the intention of Paster Properties to update the two original pylon signs to create a cohesive contemporary design that compliments the most recent addition, and enhances the character of the property overall. As one of the original pylon signs already exceeds the standards set forth above, and the proposed new signage would be slightly larger to accommodate the aesthetic values, we are requesting this change. Page 27 of 51 6a1. 2 Financial Commitment: This project will be self-funded by the property owner: Paster Properties. This property has been exclusively owned and managed by Paster Properties. Capital investments have been made by the owner to manage the property over the years but the current signage has reached it’s end of life. To attract and retain high-value tenants, the owners are looking to make a capital investment to enhance the character of this property and area for years to come. This investment would include replacing the existing sign cabinets of the two older pylon signs. •The past signage integrated the Area Signage with the tenants, and the new signage would do the same. The proposed sign cabinets now include channel lettering, internally illuminated tenant panels, and an electronic message center to create a unified design and ability to support all tenants. Current guidelines call for a restricted height of 35 feet and 200 square feet area. 1.Pylon 1 – The new proposed sign height conforms to this standard but the new square footage exceeds this by 7 sq feet. a)The proposed sign would have an overall height of 29’-8” and a total of 207 square feet of signage allowance. This allowance includes a 55 sq ft Dynamic Display unit. 2.Pylon 2 – Near the marsh area, was installed approximately 12 feet below grade compared to the normal parking lot grade. Instead of building all new, reusing the existing structure and seeking a new standard would be required. a)Current sign height taller than the standard as written and is 41’ H. New standard would be account for the new design and allow signage up to 45’ Height. b)Current sign square footage is 353 square feet. Standard is written to max at 200 sq feet. We would like the new standard to allow for 375 square feet to accommodate signage changes with the new design. Ownership is ready to begin replacement of the existing sign cabinets and complete substantial construction within 6 months of ratification. There is no change to the original PUD for additional industrial or commercial acreage, however upgrades to retail spaces have shown ecomonic uplift and an increase in employment rates. There would also be no change to the current open space or percent of impervious surface in the project area. As the intended changes are to create the ability to increase the sign size allowances for replacement of the current signs, this would reduce the demand for additional signs in the project area. Page 28 of 51 3 It is our intention to increase the traffic flow into the property for current and future tenants, however, we are not anticipating a change that would require significant alterations to the current roadways or infrastructure already existing or currently planned. We greatly appreciate your time and thoughtful consideration of this amendment. We would be glad to provide any additional information if helpful. Respectfully submitted, Brian O’Loughlin Indigo Signs (952)908-9134 Brian.olughlin@indigosigns.com Krystal Prueser Indigo Signs (952)908-9132 Krystal.prueser@indigosigns.com Page 29 of 51 Map Scale 1 inch = 150 feetN 20’40’ Pylon Sign 3 (no changes) Pylon Sign 2 (no change to location) Pylon Sign 1 (no change to location) 25’200’28 ’10’Mendota Plaza 750 North Plaza Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Site Aerial Area Identification Signs Placements & Set-backs Page 30 of 51 6a2. 156.0”48.0"48.0 "177.50”159.50” 180.0”47.0”43.0” 132.75” Mendota Plaza Existing Pylon 1 Placement: Southeast corner of Plaza Dr & Dodd Rd - Existing Brick Columns and Footings to Remain - Remove & Dispose of Existing Pylon Cabinet & Caps - Replacing with New Pylon/EMC Cabinet and Caps Page 31 of 51 6a3. 56.0”281.0”56.0 ”148.0”41.0”264.0” 240.50" Mendota Plaza Existing Pylon 2 Placement: East of McDonald’s - Existing Brick Columns and Footings to Remain - Remove & Dispose of Existing Pylon Cabinet & Caps - Replacing with New Pylon Cabinet & Caps Page 32 of 51 Page 33 of 51 6a4. Page 34 of 51 Page 35 of 51 6a5. Page 36 of 51 Page 37 of 51 6a6. Page 38 of 51 6a7. Page 39 of 51 Page 40 of 51 Page 41 of 51 Page 42 of 51 Page 43 of 51 Page 44 of 51 Page 45 of 51 Page 46 of 51 Page 47 of 51 Page 48 of 51 Page 49 of 51 Page 50 of 51 Page 51 of 51