Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
06 02 2026 CC Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 2, 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.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. 6.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 May 19, 2026, City Council Meeting b.Approve Minutes from the May 19, 2026, City Council Work Session c.Acknowledge Minutes from the April 28, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting d.Acknowledge Minutes from the March 18, 2026 Airport Relations Commission Meeting e.Approve Out of State Travel Authorization for Parks and Recreation Director Meredith Lawrence to attend the National Recreation and Park Association Conference f.Approve a Massage Enterprise License Page 1 of 116 g.Approve the Hiring of Kate Dougherty as Communications Coordinator h.Adopt Resolution No. 2026-36 Approving an Administrative MRCCA Minor Development Permit to 1296 Aspen Way (Planning Case No. 2026-09) i.Acknowledge the April Par 3 Financial Report j.Approve April 2026 Treasurer's Report k.Approve Claims List 7.Presentations a.Gun Violence Awareness Month-2020 Project 8.Public Hearings 9.New and Unfinished Business a.Planned Unit Development Concept Plan Review - Application of Indigo Signs for a Planned Unit Development Amendment Concept Plan Review for the property located at 750 North Plaza Drive (Planning Case No. 2025-08) b.Municipal Campus Building Project Resolution 2026-37 Approving Schematic Design for the Police Station and City Hall Municipal Campus Building Project and Authorizing Proceeding with the Design Development Phase of the project. 10.Community / City Administrator Announcements 11.City Council Comments 12.Adjourn Next Meeting June 16, 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 116 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA DRAFT Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, May 19, 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 Deb Gagnon, 751 Upper Colonial Drive, commented that her kitchen window overlooks the tennis courts at Wentworth Park. She stated that the proposed 149-foot tower would go beyond the trees that exist in the park and hoped that the City could at least request a three-dimensional rendering of what the tower would look like in the park. She was opposed to the tower. Gayra Ostgaard, 757 Upper Colonial Drive, stated that she spoke at the last meeting about the proposed tower at Wentworth Park. She asked how the City is reconciling the proposed 149-foot tower with the identified 49-foot height restriction, why the Planning Commission expressed concern that the Council may approve the request even though it did not meet City Ordinance, and what support the City is providing for the Planning Commission’s request for an independent study. She commented that the City has since stated that an independent analysis is being conducted, but noted the unanswered questions that still exist related to the study. She stated that it is unknown who is going to conduct the study and what would be studied. She asked that the information be shared publicly when it is available. She also asked why the City Code was rewritten in January 2025 to allow for freestanding towers in residential areas and parks, and what experts were brought in to assist with that change. She commented that it was a private resident who discovered the 49-foot height restriction, not the City. She stated that Page 3 of 116 6.a May 19, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 of 6 the question is whether a tower belongs in this park, noting that this park is the second-highest equity- ranked park in the city. Prior to January 2025, freestanding wireless towers were prohibited in Mendota Heights and then the Zoning Code was changed. It was rewritten to allow for a pathway for freestanding towers in R- residential areas and parks, and specifically up to 150 feet. She asked members of the Council if they would like to live next to a 150-foot tower. She noted that what happens in Wentworth Park will set the precedent for all other parks. Residents deserve to know whether this was policy direction was truly driven by independent planning, or if it was industry interests and internal staff discussions. She commented on the length of time the applicant has to prepare updated plans, as they have agreed to an extension through August, but noted that residents will only be notified about seven days before the meeting. She commented on the impact this process has had on the trust of residents. 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 items E and H. a.Approval of May 5, 2026, City Council Minutes b.Approve a License Renewal for a Massage Therapy Business and License Renewals for Massage Therapists c.Approve Liquor License Renewals for Mendakota Country Club and Teresa’s Mexican Restaurant d.Approve a Joint Powers Agreement Between Dakota County and the City of Mendota Heights for Conducting Post-Election Reviews e.Approve Resolution 2026-35 Recognizing National Public Works Week f.Approve March 2026 Treasurer’s Report g.Award a Professional Services Contract for a Fiber Optic Installation Project h.Accept the Resignation of Firefighter Joe Fabiano i.Approval of Claims List Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS E) RESOLUTION 2026-35 RECOGNIZING NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK Councilor Mazzitello honored all the individuals who work in and around Mendota Heights in the Public Works Department, highlighting the different jobs that they do. He noted that often, the public does not recognize the many jobs that public works does to improve the quality of life for people they do not even know or see. Councilor Mazzitello moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2026-35 RECOGNIZING NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK. Councilor Maczko seconded the motion. Page 4 of 116 May 19, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 of 6 Further discussion: Councilor Maczko commented that the first thing you notice when you come into a community is things like streets and lights, which are handled by public works. He agreed that public works are first responders as they need to clear the streets for anything else to function properly. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 H) ACCEPT THE RESIGNATION OF FIREFIGHTER JOE FABIANO Councilor Maczko recognized the service that Mr. Fabiano provided over the last two years as a Mendota Heights firefighter and wished him the best in his future endeavors. Councilor Maczko moved to accept THE RESIGNATION OF FIREFIGHTER JOE FABIANO. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Further discussion: Mayor Levine also expressed thanks for Mr. Fabiano’s service. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PRESENTATIONS A)DELAWARE AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION – DAKOTA COUNTY Joe Morneau, Dakota County, presented an overview of the design considerations, highlighted key features, and discussed anticipated impacts to adjacent properties, roadway detours, and the project schedule. Councilor Lorberbaum shared positive feedback she has received from a resident along Delaware related to the communication about the project. Councilor Maczko noted questions he had related to the width of the curb radii. He stated that vehicles tend to go faster around wider radii and asked why the low-volume residential streets are proposed to have those radii. Mr. Morneau provided additional information about the proposed radii. He compared the street widths in West St. Paul compared to Mendota Heights and the related planning process. He stated that they used a standard-length school bus and what it needs to make a turn onto a narrower street. He also commented on the improvements proposed that would assist pedestrians. He recognized that there is a trade-off when considering multiple safety needs. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that he can share the turning radius information for the school buses. He noted that the Marie intersection is proposed to match existing conditions and is a controlled intersection where vehicles are expected to come to a complete stop. Councilor Maczko asked if there was crash history on Delaware where the turn lane was added. Page 5 of 116 May 19, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 of 6 Mr. Morneau replied that there were nine crashes over the four-year period that was reviewed. He commented on the benefit they believe will be provided by separating the right turn movements. Councilor Paper asked how many of the 20 properties left for right-of-way acquisition are in Mendota Heights. Mr. Morneau replied that he was unsure of the property locations. Councilor Mazzitello commented that the County has outdone itself with this project. Mayor Levine thanked Mr. Morneau for his presentation and for the great communication and outreach the County has had for this project. PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) RESOLUTION 2026-26 SANITARY SEWER UTILITY RATE ADJUSTMENT Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the Council was being asked to approve Resolution 2026-26, providing a new sanitary sewer utility billing rate for 2026. Councilor Maczko commented that treatment is the highest cost for sanitary sewer. He noted that if infiltration can be reduced, the flow can be reduced, and asked what could be done to reduce infiltration. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided information on the improvements that were made to the pipes as part of the Friendly Hills road project last year. He stated that areas with high infiltration are identified and improved when appropriate and noted other proactive measures the City takes to address the issue. Councilor Lorberbaum asked for clarification on the resolution number, and it was confirmed to be 2026- 26. Councilor Lorberbaum moved to approve RESOLUTION 2026-26 AUTHORIZING SANITARY SEWER USAGE RATES BEGINNING IN 2026. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Mayor Levine asked if there is an ideal fund balance. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that they are headed in the right direction and the fund is on a healthy trend. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page 6 of 116 May 19, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 of 6 B) RESOLUTION 2026-24 STORM SEWER UTILITY RATE ADJUSTMENT Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided a brief background on this item. The Council was being asked to consider adoption of Resolution 2026-24, providing a new storm sewer utility billing rate for 2026. Councilor Maczko asked if the funds within this account are also used to install new pipe. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted surveys are sent to residents as part of road projects, which ask them to identify drainage issues. He stated that each road project typically includes the installation of additional pipe to assist with those drainage issues. Councilor Maczko commented that these funds help to cover those costs that would otherwise be assessed to residents. He stated that pond maintenance is also a necessary action that is funded by this account. Councilor Lorberbaum moved to adopt RESOLUTION N0. 2026-24 AUTHORIZING STORM WATER UTILITY RATES BEGINNING IN 2026. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Further discussion: Councilor Mazzitello stated that this action and the previous action raise the sewer rates to spread the necessary costs across the community, including the City. He stated that 17 years ago, the City was in a position where it had not adjusted utility funds for 15 years, and the fund balances were in deficit. He commented that the rates had to be raised by over 40 percent to get out of that deficit, and these incremental increases, based on analysis, ensure that the City has the necessary funds and avoids that situation where drastic increases are needed. Mayor Levine commented that the planned expenditures will improve the environment, increase sustainability, and improve water quality. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 C) MUNICIPAL CAMPUS PROJECT UPDATE City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson provided an update on the municipal campus project and the input received through recent community engagement. She also provided an update on the funds allocated to the project within the bonding bill from the legislature. Councilor Maczko encouraged residents to attend the upcoming Council workshop on this topic. He asked that the residents on the committee also be invited. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson announced upcoming community events and activities. COUNCIL COMMENTS Page 7 of 116 May 19, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 6 of 6 Councilor Paper noted the upcoming Scott Patrick Memorial 5k is scheduled for June 6th. He also congratulated all upcoming high school graduates. Councilor Maczko commented on the passing of a resident and 26-year member of the Fire Department, John Lepakko, and his service to the community both locally and abroad. Councilor Lorberbaum stated that this is National EMS Week and recognized the high-stress jobs that make a significant difference in the community. She stated that it is also National Mental Health Awareness Month and recognized that achieving mental health is a daily process. Councilor Mazzitello agreed that mental health is one of the most important aspects and encouraged residents to get to know their neighbors. He thanked the CDH students for attending the meeting tonight. He shared a historical fact from May 19, 1776, related to the Battle of the Cedars. He recognized the upcoming Memorial Day holiday, which commemorates those who have given their lives in service of this country. Mayor Levine acknowledged the Oak Awards that were given out by the Natural Resources Commission and recognized the award recipients. She also recognized the efforts of City staff who were critical in obtaining the State bonding dollars, highlighting the work of City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson and Police Chief Kelly McCarthy, as well as the legislative representatives who supported the request from Mendota Heights. She stated that she recently spoke with residents about the municipal campus project at the Touch a Truck event and was surprised that many residents were unaware of the project. ADJOURN Councilor Mazzitello moved to adjourn. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 7:22 p.m. ____________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Nancy Bauer City Clerk Page 8 of 116 May 19, 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, May 19, 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 Maczko, and Paper were in attendance. 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, and City Clerk Nancy Bauer. FY2027 BUDGET INFORMATION AND PREVIEW City Administrator Jacobson provided an overview of the annual budget preparation timeline, noting that the Council will hold its budget work session in August, with preliminary adoption due by the end of September and final approval in December. She stated that the City uses a base-budgeting approach aligned with Council strategic priorities. The budget begins with the prior year as the base, with adjustments for inflation, staffing, contracts, new programming, and capital needs. Departments assume continuation of existing services unless changes are proposed and rely on historical budget and expense data. City Administrator Jacobson added that new requests are submitted through the budget request process, and the City also utilizes a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Finance Director Schabacker noted that larger items are included in the CIP and are over $25,000. Councilor Mazzitello commented that CIP items are depreciated. Councilor Paper inquired when the amount was last raised. Finance Director Schabacker stated that the threshold was last raised a couple of years ago. Councilor Maczko asked whether the CIP includes street improvement or sanitary sewer projects. Finance Director Schabacker responded that components of these projects are included in the CIP and noted that the City also follows a Capital Asset Policy. Page 9 of 116 6.b May 19, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 2 Finance Director Schabacker reviewed fund types including the General Fund, Utility Fund, Enterprise Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Special Parks Fund, Debt Service, Reserve Funds and Capital Project Fund . Councilor Lorberbaum asked about the Facility Reserve Fund and its allowable uses. Finance Director Schabacker explained that the fund supports capital improvements and repairs to city facilities. In response to questions regarding revenue sources, she noted that the fund currently has no dedicated funding source. She added that future funding options, such as levy revenues or Utility Franchise Fees, will need further discussion. Finance Director Schabacker stated the main revenue source for the City is property taxes. City Administrator Jacobson noted that some residents had expected a tax decrease once the Par 3 debt service was paid off. She explained that the Council redirected those funds to support increased Natural Resources programming, which offset the reduction in the Par 3 levy and resulted in no decrease in property taxes. Staff and Council reviewed how the city determines the total property tax levy necessary to fund existing costs and new budget requests. Councilor Maczko asked if the city would receive additional revenue if home values increased while the levy remained the same as the previous year. Finance Director Schabacker stated if property values increase while the levy stays the same as the previous year, individual property taxes would generally decrease. Finance Director Schabacker continued by stating that other revenue sources, including police and fire services, grants, and permits, are considered before setting the levy. The levy is then used to calculate the tax rate. Dakota County provides key figures near budget time, including tax capacity, TIF district valuations (which includes two), and fiscal disparities, all which factor into determining the city’s final tax capacity. A Levy and Tax Capacity Rate chart for the City of Mendota Heights from 2020 to 2026 was reviewed. Comparisons of other Dakota County cities were discussed. A 2026 Levy Comparison for Dakota County Cities was reviewed. City Administrator Jacobson noted budget driver predictors include the economy (tariffs, general cost of goods and services, and demand), new requirements or mandates, City Council Priorities and Goals, the CIP for maintenance and replacement, and the municipal campus project. Assistant City Administrator Torkelson explained that a new federal mandate requires all public materials produced by the City to be ADA accessible. In response to a question from Councilor Paper, she noted that the requirement applies to future documents, and any linked documents on the City’s website will also need to be made ADA accessible. She stated that this is an unfunded mandate and must be implemented by April 2028. Page 10 of 116 May 19, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 3 The Council discussed the potential use or sale of the city owned property located at Bourne Lane. It was the consensus of the group to gather more information regarding the property. The Council discussed the potential approval of charitable gambling, specifically pull tabs, within the city. No direction from the council was provided on this topic. Other potential revenue sources were discussed including a local option sales tax, lodging tax, and the ability to adjust Utility Franchise Fees in the future. Mayor Levine inquired about the balance of the fund balance. Finance Director Schabacker noted that the fund balance would remain flat due to purchases that had been paid for. Mayor Levine inquired about holding off on raising taxes for the municipal campus project for three years and using the fund balance to cover the costs during that time. This would need to be discussed regarding the financing of the bonds. Councilor Maczko noted that Wayzata is building their own cell tower to help generate revenue. Public Works Director Ruzek noted that Inver Grove Heights and Eagan have their own cell towers and receive $60,000 per year per provider. Councilor Lorberbaum suggested naming rights of a ballfield to raise revenue. Parks & Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director Lawrence noted this topic was discussed at a City Council meeting about three years ago, and there was no support for banners or signs associated with naming rights. The matter could be brought back to the City Council for further consideration. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Councilor Mazzitello, was seconded by Councilor Paper, and the meeting adjourned the meeting at 5:55 p.m. _________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 11 of 116 This page is intentionally left blank April 28, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 22 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 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 12 of 116 6.c 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 13 of 116 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 14 of 116 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 15 of 116 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 16 of 116 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 17 of 116 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 18 of 116 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 19 of 116 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 20 of 116 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 21 of 116 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 22 of 116 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 23 of 116 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 24 of 116 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 25 of 116 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 26 of 116 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 27 of 116 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 28 of 116 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 29 of 116 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 30 of 116 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 31 of 116 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 32 of 116 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 33 of 116 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES March 18, 2026 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, March 18, 2026 at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. 1.CALL TO ORDER Chair Norling called the meeting to order at 5:57 pm. Commissioners present: Norling, Arbit, Bobbitt, Sloan, Neuharth Commissioners absent: Hamiel, Dunn Staff present: City Administrator Jacobson and Administrative Coordinator Desmond 2.ELECTION OF OFFICERS – CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Commissioner Bobbitt nominated Gina Norling for Chair. Nomination was seconded by commissioner Sloan. No other nominations were made. Motion Carried 5-0 Election of Vice Chair was tabled to the May meeting. Motion by Neuharth, Second by Sloan. Motion Carried 5-0 3.CONSENT AGENDA a.Approve Minutes from the January 21, 2026 Meeting b.Acknowledge Airport Operational Statistics Reports 1.Complaint Information 2.Runway Use Information Consent item b pulled for discussion. City Administrator Jacobson presented the operational statistics and discussed the high complaint numbers for Mendota Heights. Chair Norling approved the consent agenda. 4.PUBLIC COMMENTS No public comments 5.BUSINESS a.ARC 2026 Work Plan Chair Norling asked if any of the commissioners had any changes that they wished to make to the 2026 Work Plan. Commissioner Neuharth wished to add “with the assistance of NOC” to priority one item three. Page 34 of 116 6.d Chair Norling asked if the commission wanted to host another NOC Listening Session. Commissioners Bobbit and Sloan didn’t think we needed to host it every year. Chair Norling stated that she believed it would be good to have it again this year with the high number of complaints that it would be nice for residents to have a local place to go and be heard. Commissioner Arbit asked if there was an article to help people understand the noise and how the airport operates to educate the public. Commissioner Bobbitt and Chair Norling asked if Commissioner Arbit would like to try and put something together for the summer Heights Highlights. Commissioner Bobbitt motioned to approve the change to Priority 1 Item 3 to now say “Advocate for the equitable distribution of aircraft traffic and a more equitable runway use system with the assistance of NOC.” Motion carried 5-0. 6.INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE City Administrator Jacobson gave an update on RNAV and said that the FAA will be updating their arrival procedures tomorrow (March 19, 2026) and the departures are still delayed. It was announced that the NOC Listening Session will be held in Bloomington on April 22, 2026. 7.ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMISSIONER COMMENTS No announcements or comments 8.ADJOURN Motion by Neuharth, Second by Sloan to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Chair Norling adjourned the meeting at 6:55pm. Page 35 of 116 6.e REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 2, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Out of State Travel Authorization for Parks and Recreation Director Meredith Lawrence to attend the National Recreation and Park Association Conference ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation CONTACT: Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Authorize Parks and Recreation Director Meredith Lawrence to attend the 2026 National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) Conference in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, taking place from September 28-October 1. BACKGROUND: The City's Travel Authorization and Expense Reimbursement Policy requires that all out-of-state conferences, seminars, and other education-related expenses be approved in advance by the City Council and must include an estimate of the costs of travel, lodging and programming. The NRPA conference is recognized as the premier annual conference for Park and Recreation professionals in the United States. This national conference brings together park and recreation professionals, students, citizen advocates and industry suppliers and offers attendees the opportunity to participate in education seminars, classes, professional development/networking and one of the largest product tradeshows in the industry. Parks and Recreation Director Lawrence has been chosen to present two sessions at the conference. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Funds are available in the Recreation budget. The estimated total costs for attending are: Airfare: $707 Conference Registration: $40 Lodging: $1,410 Meals: $345 Total: $2,502 Page 36 of 116 ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 37 of 116 6.f REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 2, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Approve a Massage Enterprise License ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk ACTION REQUEST: Approve a Massage Enterprise License for Sandpiper Studio Massage, Bodywork & Wellness, LLC, at 790 South Plaza Drive. BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Mendota Heights City Code, no person shall provide massage services or engage in the business of operating a massage enterprise without first obtaining a license. A new application for a massage enterprise has been submitted by Kristen Doty, owner of Sandpiper Studio Massage Bodywork, & Wellness, LLC. The application is complete, the fees have been paid, and the background investigation has been conduced by the Mendota Heights Police Department resulting in no negative findings. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy Page 38 of 116 This page is intentionally left blank 6.g REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 2, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Approve the Hiring of Kate Dougherty as Communications Coordinator ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Kelly Torkelson, Assistant City Administrator ACTION REQUEST: Approve hiring of Kate Dougherty for the position of Communications Coordinator. BACKGROUND: The Communications Coordinator is a part-time, 24-hour-per-week, non-exempt position responsible for producing the majority of the City’s communication materials. Staff completed a competitive recruitment process and recommend Kate Dougherty for the position. Kate brings 24 years of experience working in communications, marketing and project management to the City. Her experience includes working with Saint Thomas Academy, Minnesota Bluegrass and Old-Time Music Association, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, and the Target Center. Her anticipated start date is June 22, 2026. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: This is a budgeted position within the City's annual budget. Staff recommends the City Council approve the hiring of Kate Dougherty at a wage of $48.15 per hour which is step-6 of pay grade 10 of the non-union employee compensation matrix and with one week (24 hours) of vacation banked to start her employment with the City of Mendota Heights. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 39 of 116 This page is intentionally left blank 6.h REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 2, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Adopt Resolution No. 2026-36 Approving an Administrative MRCCA Minor Development Permit to 1296 Aspen Way (Planning Case No. 2026-09) ITEM TYPE: Resolution DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager ACTION REQUEST: Adopt Resolution No. 2026-36 Approving an Administrative MRCCA Minor Development Permit for 1296 Aspen Way. BACKGROUND: The applicant, SD Custom Homes, has been contracted by the property owner to complete a remodel project of the subject property, which includes the removal of an existing deck and the installation of a new covered porch attached to the home at 1296 Aspen Way. The porch improvement is an expansion of impervious surface, and both the removal of the deck and construction of new porch expansion footings require a building permit, which necessitates the City process a site plan review consistent with the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Ordinance (MRCCA). The subject property is located in the R-2 Medium Density Residential Zoning district; and is situated within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area overlay district. The overall development of The Summit at Mendota Heights is also within the Planned Unit Development Overlay District. According to the city’s MRCCA mapping of this area, the subject property is located in the SR-Separated by River District. The MRCCA Map of the subject property shows a demarcated bluff line approximately 440-ft. (at its closest point) from the northwest corner of the structure. No part of this proposed porch will impact or affect any nearby bluff lines, steep slopes, or bluff impact zones (BIZ). The MRCCA Mapping system also identifies any Primary Conservation Areas (PCA), which include protected areas such as established Significant Existing Vegetative Stands or Native Plant Communities on properties inside the MRCCA district. The location of this property and porch does not impact any part of nearby PCA’s in this area. Pursuant to City Code Section 12-6-12, no building permit, zoning approval, or subdivision Page 40 of 116 approval shall be issued for any action or development located in an area covered by this chapter (Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area) until a plan has been prepared and approved in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Subpart D. of this section also includes an allowance for “Minor Developments”, which include minor improvements to a residential property that can be approved directly by the City Council, without Planning Commission review or recommendation, and without a public hearing, but only if the minor project and plans conform to the general standards of this section. Eligible projects for an Administrative MRCCA Permit include small building additions, decks, fences, walkways, stairs, open patios or outdoor sitting areas, etc. All administratively approved projects must meet or comply with the following conditions (with staff comments noted afterwards): 1.No part of the subject property shall have slopes of greater than eighteen percent (18%). Staff Comment: The porch is being installed along the western portion of the townhome, with access to the principal structure. According to Dakota County GIS mapping, this development is graded as a level area, with a slow slope at the rear of this row of townhomes. The change in grade is not significant or a steep slope. There are no significant changes in elevation in the area the porch is to be installed. Staff confirms this standard is being met. 2.No part of the project shall impact, disturb or be situated in a bluff line setback area as defined by this chapter, whether on the same parcel or on an abutting parcel of land. Staff Comment: Although the subject property is situated in the MRCCA overlay district, there are no bluffs; bluff impact zones (BIZ’s); or any Primary Conservation Areas (PCA) on this property. The addition of a new porch is minimal and minor enough to not pose any threat or negative impacts to the abutting or neighboring properties. Staff confirms this standard is being met. 3.The proposed project shall not expand the enclosed area of the principal or accessory structures by more than two hundred (200) square feet. Staff Comment: The new porch structure is just over 170 square feet in size, as opposed to the existing deck which is approximately 130 square feet in size. The expansion of the structure to include a covered porch does not expand the enclosed area by more than 200 square feet. Staff confirms this standard is being met. 4.The proposed project shall not increase the height of any existing structure. Staff Comment: There is no modification to structure height under this permit. The enclosed porch will be an extension of the existing roof line. Staff confirms this standard will be met. 5.The proposed project shall be in compliance with all other requirements of this Chapter, and any other applicable regulations. Page 41 of 116 Staff Comment: The proposed enclosed porch project and all related work in and around this project site shall be in compliance with all other requirements of this chapter, and any other applicable regulations, including the City’s Land Disturbance Guidelines. Staff confirms this standard is or will be met. 6.The proposed project shall not result in significant changes to the existing finished grade. Staff Comment: The proposed enclosed porch will be installed consistently with the established level grade of the site. New footings will be constructed to accommodate the expansion of the depth of the structure from 10-ft to 13-ft as part of this proposal. There are no plans by the contractor or homeowner to change these grades as part of this project. Staff confirms this standard is or will be met. 7.The proposed project areas shall include native vegetation. Staff Comments: This permit would allow the installation of a typical residential porch of reasonable scale to this development area, and there are no plans to remove any vegetation to complete the installation of the patio. Staff confirms this standard is being met. RECOMMENDATION: Based on staff's interpretation of the intent of the Minor Development provisions of Title 12-6- 1, the scope of the project does not require Planning Commission recommendation and a public hearing; and therefore, may be given full consideration and approval by the City Council. Since there are no impacts to the Mississippi River Corridor's bluff areas, bluff impact zone, or PCA's in this district, and no impacts to the surrounding properties, staff recommends the City Council approve this Administrative MRCCA Permit to SD Custom Homes at 1296 Aspen Way, with the findings-of-fact and conditions as noted in the attached Resolution 2026-36. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: n/a ATTACHMENTS: 1.Res. No. 2026-36 Resolution Approving an Administrative Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Minor Development Permit for Property Located 2.Site Location Map 3.MRCCA Map 4.1296 Aspen Way - Construction Documents CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Environmental Sustainability & Stewardship Page 42 of 116 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2026-36 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ADMINISTRATIVE MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA (MRCCA) MINOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1296 ASPEN WAY [PLANNING CASE NO. 2026-09] WHEREAS, SD Custom Homes (as “Applicant”) applied for an Administrative Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Minor Development Permit in order to remove an existing deck and replace with an expanded covered porch in the rear yard, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2026-09, and for the property located at 1296 Aspen Way, legally described in attached Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District of the City of Mendota Heights, and the proposed project qualifies as a Minor Development under Title 12-6-12, Subpart D of the City Code provisions for those properties situated in the recognized MRCCA District; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is compliant with the required conditions for exemption from Planning Commission review and a public hearing, and can be considered and acted on directly by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Administrative MRCCA Minor Development Permit for the property located at 1296 Aspen Way, and proposed under Planning Case No. 2026-09, is hereby approved and supported by the following findings-of-fact: 1.The proposed covered porch project poses no threat to the general health, safety and welfare of the public, or creates any negative impacts upon the MRCCA area, adjacent bluffs, bluff impact zones (BIZ’s), Primary Conservation Areas (PCA’s) or surrounding properties. 2.The proposed covered porch will not impact or change any grades or drainage ways on the subject property. 3.The proposed covered porch project will be done in accordance with all requirements of the City’s Land Disturbance Guidelines. 4.The proposed project meets the general purpose and intent of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District and City Code BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Administrative MRCCA Minor Development Permit as requested by SD Custom Homes. and for the property located at 1296 Aspen Way is hereby approved, with the following conditions of approval: Page 43 of 116 Mendota Heights Res. 2026-36 Page 2 of 3 1.A separate building permit must be approved by city staff prior to commencement of any work on the subject property. 2.If necessary, full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put into place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3.All disturbed areas impacted by new grading or construction work on the subject property shall be completely repaired and restored in a timely and expedited manner. 4.All construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 5.All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday through Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM weekends. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights on this 2nd day of June, 2026. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Page 44 of 116 Mendota Heights Res. 2026-36 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A Address: 1296 Aspen Way, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 PID: 27-73200-11-296 Legal Description: LOT 17, BLOCK 3, SUMMIT OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA CIC #533 THE SUMMIT OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS UNIT #1296 & INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMMON AREA KNOWN AS OUTLOTS B & C [Abstract Property] Page 45 of 116 6666666666666666666666666 6 6 6 6666666666666666666666666666666 6 66666666666666666666666666* "" * ³ * * ! * * *! " "" " ! " " "" ! " " "" * ( ! ! * "" ! ( * "" " " ! * " "" * ""* ( ! ** ** !!! ! " " ! " *! ! * ** * *666666666666666666666666666 66666666666666!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !. !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 800 871 894 1368 841 1366 1370 13821376 910 1373 1401 871 901 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYRIVERSIDE LNASPEN WAYCHERRY HILL RDBIRCH CTNearmap US Inc, Dakota County, MN Site Location/Aerial Map1296 Aspen Way Date: 5/27/2026 City ofMendotaHeights0210 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. Page 46 of 116 Page 47 of 116 DRAWING TITLE:4−28−26LOCATION:PAGEPAGE DESCRIPTION:L DLITTFINDESIGN.COMMLITTFIN@HOTMAIL.COM320−224−7844WINSTED, MNCURRENTDATE:REVISION:REV. DATE:ALL PLANS & DESIGNS SHOWNARE THE PROPERTY OF LITTFINDESIGN. USE OF THESE PLANSON ANY OTHER PROJECT/LOTOTHER THAN NOTED ON THISTITLEBLOCK WITHOUT THEWRITTEN CONSENT OF LITTFINDESIGN IS PROHIBITED.THIS PLAN PROVIDES BUILDING DETAILS FOR A PROJECT TO BE BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODES AS WELL AS ANY LOCAL CODES. CONTRACTOR, OWNER, AND/OR TRADES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY FINES, PENALTIES FOR CODE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION OR BUILDING PROCESS VIOLATIONS. LITTFIN DESIGN IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR OMISSIONS OR ERRORSMADE DURING DESIGN, BIDDING, OR CONSTRUCTION PHASES. ANY AND ALL SITE REVIEW IS TO BE PERFORMED BY OTHERS SUCH AS THE CONTRACTOR, OWNER, SURVEYOR, OR OTHER TRADES RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE CONDITIONS. LITTFIN DESIGN IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTRACTOR/TRADE ERRORS, UNKNOWN CODE ADJUSTMENTS AT THE TIME OF PLAN CREATION OR CONSTRUCTION.SHEET INDEX::::CCOVERSHEETSCALED PRINT @ 24X36C COVERA1 REAR ELEVATIONSA2 LEFT ELEVATIONSA3 RIGHT ELEVATIONSA4 ROOF PLANA5 BASEMENT AND FIRSTFLOOR PLANSD1 SECTIONSD2 DETAILSD3 DETAILSSINGLE FAMILY CONSTRUCTION TYPE IRC-1-2020 MINNESOTA STATE RESIDENTIAL CODE-2023 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE-2020 MINNESOTA STATE MECHANICAL & FUEL GAS CODE-2020 MINNESOTA STATE FIRE CODE-2020 MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODEDESIGNED WITH 2000 PSF SOILS, ALL FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION MUST FACTOR IN THIS AT AMINIMUM.DESIGNED WITH "EXPOSURE B" CLASSIFICATIONS AND WIND GUSTS OF 115 MPH PER 2020 MNRESIDENTIAL CODE REGULATIONS.-ALL FOUNDATION WALL STRUCTURAL INFORMATION USED TO CONSTRUCT THE FOUNDATIONSYSTEM IS TO BE ON SITE WHENPOURING OR BUILDING WALLS.-ALL STRUCTURAL BEAMS, POSTS & TALL WALLS ARE TO BE BUILT PER I-LEVEL SPECIFICATIONS.-ALL MANUFACTURED FLOOR & ROOF TRUSSES ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURERSSPECIFICATIONS.-ALL MANUFACTURED FLOOR & ROOF TRUSS SPECIFICATIONS ARE TO BE ON SITE DURINGINSTALLATION.1. ALL EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE 16" O.C. WITH DOUBLETOP PLATE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. (U.N.O)2. WALL FRAMING SHALL BE S.P.F. STUD GRADE ORBETTER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.3. ALL HEADERS SHALL BE PER PLAN.4. ALL EXTERIOR HEADERS SHALL HAVE (1)2X6BEARING STUD & (1) 2X6 FULL HEIGHT KING STUDON EACH SIDE U.N.O. (REVIEW PLANS)5. ALL INTERNAL HEADERS & BEAMS SHALL HAVE(1)2X6 OR (1)2X4 BEARING STUD ON EACH SIDEUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.6. EXTERIOR SHEATHING SHALL BE 7/16" MATERIALCONSISTING OF ORIENTED STRAND BOARD(OSB).-ALL FLOOR AND CEILING SYSTEMS TO BECHECKED AND DESIGNED BY THE DESIGNATEDMANUFACTURER. FLOOR PLANS TO BE ON SITE.7. HEADER SIZES ARE TO BE USED PER PLAN ANDDEVIATION FROM ANY SIZE MUST BE APPROVED BYDESIGNERS.8. PRESSURE TREATED WOOD IS TO BE USED WHEREWOOD IS IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE AND AT 2X6MUD SILL. TREATED MEMBERS TO BE S.Y.P.#2 ORBETTER.9. FOR OPENINGS IN EXTERIOR WALLS OR WALLSWITH LATERAL LOADING:a. 0'-0" - 4'-0" = 1 JACK STUDb. 4'-0" - 8'-0" = 2 JACK STUDSc. 8'-0" - 12'-0" = 3 JACK STUDSd. GREATER THAN 12' AT OPENINGS = CONSULTENGINEERING10.POSTS CALLED OUT ARE NUMBER OF TRIMMER/JACK STUDS REQUIRED PER SIDE OF OPENING.1. ALL CONCRETE FOOTINGS AND FOUNDATIONSYSTEMS ARE DESIGNED FOR A 2000 P.S.F.SOIL.2. FOUNDATION WALLS SHALL BE FULL HEIGHT ATUNBALANCED FILL GREATER THAN 3'4".3. 1/2" ANCHOR BOLTS EMBEDDED 7" MINIMUM @ 6'O.C. MAX. 12" MIN FROM EACH END. MINIMUM OF 2BOLTS IN EACH SILL PLATE (REFER TOSTRUCTURAL PAGES).4. PAD FOOTING REINFORCEMENT IS TO BE LOCATED(3") FROM BOTTOM OF FOOTING TYP. (WHENREQUIRED)REFER TO STRUCTURAL PAGES FORADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDINGRE-BAR/ETC.5.1. CEILINGS ARE TO HAVE 5/8" NON-SAG GYPSUMBOARD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.2. ALL WALLS ARE TO HAVE 1/2" GYPSUM BOARDUNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.3. GARAGE CEILING AND WALLS THAT ADJOIN HOUSEWALLS ARE TO BE 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD PER CODE.1. ALL ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TOBE VERIFIED AND INSTALLED PER CODE BYAPPROVED TRADES AND INSTALLERS.2. HVAC CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LAYOUT FORDUCT-RUNS BEFORE INSTALLATION, IFMODIFICATION IS REQUIRED, REPORT INFO./CHANGES TO CONTRACTOR & LITTFIN DESIGN.1. ALL EXTERIOR WALLS TO HAVE A MINIMUMRATING OF R-20.2. ALL ATTIC SPACES ARE TO HAVE A MINIMUMRATING OF R-49. ALL FLOOR SPACES OVER3. UNCONDITIONED SPACE OR CANTILEVEREDARE TO BE INSULATED TO MIN. R-30.4. BASEMENT WALL EXCEPTION, R-5 MAY BEOMITTED IF R-10 CONTINUOUS INSULATION ONTHE EXTERIOR OF EACH FOUNDATION WALLSHALL BE PERMITTED TO COMPLY WITH THISCODE IF THE TESTED AIR LEAKAGE RATEREQUIRED IN SECTION 402.4.1.2 DOES NOTEXCEED 2.6 AIR CHANGES PER HOUR AND THETOTAL SQUARE FEET BETWEEN THE FINISHEDGRADE & THE TOP OF EACH FOUNDATIONWALL DOES NOT EXCEED 1.5 MULTIPLIED BYTHE TOTAL LINEAL FEET OF EACHFOUNDATION WALL THAT ENCLOSEDCONDITION SPACE. INTERIOR INSULATION,OTHER THAN CLOSED CELL SPRAY FOAM,SHALL NOT EXCEED R-11.1. ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS TO BE DOUBLEPANE GLASS PANELS WITH LOW-E RATINGS.2. WINDOWS WITHIN 24" OF A DOOR SWING MUSTBE TEMPERED PER CODE.3. ANY WINDOW ABOVE A TUB/WET AREA MUSTBE TEMPERED PER CODE.4. ANY WINDOW WITHIN A STAIRWAY MUST BETEMPERED PER CODE.5. WINDOW GLAZING MUST BE AT LEAST 18" A.F.F.WHEN WINDOW IS ABOVE 6' FROM GRADE. IFWITHIN 18", WINDOW MUST BE TEMPERED.6. ALL BEDROOMS TO HAVE AT LEAST ONEWINDOW THAT HAS A CLEAR EGRESS OPENINGOF 5.7 SQ. FT. WITH MIN. DIMENSIONS OF 24" INHEIGHT & 20" IN WIDTH, SILL HEIGHT NOT TOBE GREATER THAN 44" A.F.F.7. WINDOWS WITH SILLS WITHIN 2' OF THEFLOOR THEY SERVE AND ARE 72" ABOVEGRADE MUST EITHER HAVE A FALLPREVENTION OR OPENING LIMITER DEVICEPER CODE.Page 48 of 116 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING REAR ELEVATION1-MATERIAL: SMART-PANEL,VERIFY W/ SPEC.-MATERIAL: SMART-SIDING,VERIFY W/ SPEC.B.) 6" FASCIA PER SPEC.D.) EXTERIOR CLADDING PER PLANF.) 10" TRIM PER SPEC.A.) 2" SHADOW BOARD PER SPEC.C.) 6" FRIEZE PER SPEC.E.) 6" CORNER TRIM PER SPEC.3/4" = 1'-0" 12"X12" COLUMN DETAIL3CEILING/DROPPEDBEAM PER PLAN6" TRIM BOARDMETAL CONNECTOR@ TOP12" COLUMN FINISHMATERIAL PER SPEC.CENTER POST, VERIFYWITH PLAN.CENTER POST, VERIFYWITH PLAN.SECTIONTOPBASECENTER POST, VERIFYWITH PLAN.12" COLUMN FINISHMATERIAL PER SPEC.METAL CONNECTOR@ BASE8" TRIM BOARD12" COLUMN FINISHMATERIAL PER SPEC.@ ALL SIDES.2X FRAMING AT MIDDLETO SUPPORT FINISHES.1'-0"5 1/2"7 1/4"SECTIONTOP3/4" = 1'-0" 8"X8" COLUMN DETAIL4CEILING/DROPPEDBEAM PER PLANMETAL CONNECTOR@ TOP8" COLUMN FINISHMATERIAL PER SPEC.CENTER POST, VERIFYWITH PLAN.CENTER POST, VERIFYWITH PLAN.CENTER POST, VERIFYWITH PLAN.8" COLUMN FINISHMATERIAL PER SPEC.METAL CONNECTOR@ BASE8" TRIM BOARD8" COLUMN FINISHMATERIAL PER SPEC.@ ALL SIDES.2X FRAMING AT MIDDLETO SUPPORT FINISHES.8"SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" REAR ELEVATION212"X12" BUILT-UPCOLUMN PER DETAIL36" CODE RAILING36" CODE RAILINGINTERIOR 8:12 VAULT LINEHELICAL PIERS INSTALLED ASSHOWN, HELICAL DEPTH/SIZEPER HELICAL COMPANY9'-0"10'-7 1/8"8'-8 7/8"6 5/8"3'-4"6"6'-8"1. ICE AND WATER BARRIER @ BOTTOM 6' OF ALL ROOF LINES, EXTEND BARRIER MIN. 3' ON EACHSIDE OF VALLEY, COVER ENTIRE FACE OF ROOF SADDLES. VERIFY ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS OF ICEAND WATER BARRIER AS NEEDED IN FIELD.2. PROVIDE ROOF AND SOFFIT VENTS PER IRC CODE REGULATIONS.3. ALL FURNACE FLUES, PLUMBING VENTS, FIREPLACE VENTS, AND OTHER PENETRATIONS THROUGHROOF OR WALLS TO EXTEND THROUGH REAR OF HOME WHENEVER POSSIBLE.4. ALL PENETRATIONS THROUGH EXTERIOR WALLS OR ROOFING MUST BE SEALED AND FLASHED PERMANUFACTURE. SPECIFICATIONS AND IRC CODE REGULATIONS.5. SUPPLY AT LEAST 6" OF SPACE BETWEEN BOTTOMS OF WINDOWS AND ROOFS.6. ALL BEAMS HOLDING UP PORCH ROOFS ARE TO BE DROPPED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.7. SUPPLY DRIPCAPS ON ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS.8. ALL EXTERIOR TRIM TO BE FLASHED PER CODE.9. SUPPLY SEPARATION BETWEEN WOOD, COMPOSITE WOOD, AND ANY OTHER WOOD MATERIAL PERSPECIFICATIONS.10. HOLD STONE OFF GRADE MINIMUM OF 3" OR PER TRADE SPECIFICATIONS.11. REFER TO MANUFACTURE SPECIFICATIONS FOR STONE.12. GARAGE BUCK BOARD MATERIAL IS TO BE COMPOSITE WOOD AND SIZED TO COVER THE EDGE OFSTONE.13. GRADE CONDITIONS MAY VARY ON SITE.DRAWING TITLE:4−28−26LOCATION:PAGEPAGE DESCRIPTION:L DLITTFINDESIGN.COMMLITTFIN@HOTMAIL.COM320−224−7844WINSTED, MNCURRENTDATE:REVISION:REV. DATE:ALL PLANS & DESIGNS SHOWNARE THE PROPERTY OF LITTFINDESIGN. USE OF THESE PLANSON ANY OTHER PROJECT/LOTOTHER THAN NOTED ON THISTITLEBLOCK WITHOUT THEWRITTEN CONSENT OF LITTFINDESIGN IS PROHIBITED.THIS PLAN PROVIDES BUILDING DETAILS FOR A PROJECT TO BE BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODES AS WELL AS ANY LOCAL CODES. CONTRACTOR, OWNER, AND/OR TRADES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY FINES, PENALTIES FOR CODE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION OR BUILDING PROCESS VIOLATIONS. LITTFIN DESIGN IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR OMISSIONS OR ERRORSMADE DURING DESIGN, BIDDING, OR CONSTRUCTION PHASES. ANY AND ALL SITE REVIEW IS TO BE PERFORMED BY OTHERS SUCH AS THE CONTRACTOR, OWNER, SURVEYOR, OR OTHER TRADES RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE CONDITIONS. LITTFIN DESIGN IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTRACTOR/TRADE ERRORS, UNKNOWN CODE ADJUSTMENTS AT THE TIME OF PLAN CREATION OR CONSTRUCTION.A1REARELEVATIONSSCALED PRINT @ 24X36Page 49 of 116 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING LEFT ELEVATION1-MATERIAL: SMART-PANEL,VERIFY W/ SPEC.-MATERIAL: SMART-SIDING,VERIFY W/ SPEC.3/4" = 1'-0" 12"X12" COLUMN DETAIL3CEILING/DROPPEDBEAM PER PLAN6" TRIM BOARDMETAL CONNECTOR@ TOP12" COLUMN FINISHMATERIAL PER SPEC.CENTER POST, VERIFYWITH PLAN.CENTER POST, VERIFYWITH PLAN.SECTIONTOPBASECENTER POST, VERIFYWITH PLAN.12" COLUMN FINISHMATERIAL PER SPEC.METAL CONNECTOR@ BASE8" TRIM BOARD12" COLUMN FINISHMATERIAL PER SPEC.@ ALL SIDES.2X FRAMING AT MIDDLETO SUPPORT FINISHES.1'-0"5 1/2"7 1/4"SECTIONTOP3/4" = 1'-0" 8"X8" COLUMN DETAIL4CEILING/DROPPEDBEAM PER PLANMETAL CONNECTOR@ TOP8" COLUMN FINISHMATERIAL PER SPEC.CENTER POST, VERIFYWITH PLAN.CENTER POST, VERIFYWITH PLAN.CENTER POST, VERIFYWITH PLAN.8" COLUMN FINISHMATERIAL PER SPEC.METAL CONNECTOR@ BASE8" TRIM BOARD8" COLUMN FINISHMATERIAL PER SPEC.@ ALL SIDES.2X FRAMING AT MIDDLETO SUPPORT FINISHES.8"SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" LEFT ELEVATION236" CODE RAILING8"X8" BUILT-UPSTRAIGHT COLUMNPER DETAIL9'-0"10'-7 1/8"8'-8 7/8"6 5/8"3'-4"6"6'-8"1. ICE AND WATER BARRIER @ BOTTOM 6' OF ALL ROOF LINES, EXTEND BARRIER MIN. 3' ON EACHSIDE OF VALLEY, COVER ENTIRE FACE OF ROOF SADDLES. VERIFY ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS OF ICEAND WATER BARRIER AS NEEDED IN FIELD.2. PROVIDE ROOF AND SOFFIT VENTS PER IRC CODE REGULATIONS.3. ALL FURNACE FLUES, PLUMBING VENTS, FIREPLACE VENTS, AND OTHER PENETRATIONS THROUGHROOF OR WALLS TO EXTEND THROUGH REAR OF HOME WHENEVER POSSIBLE.4. ALL PENETRATIONS THROUGH EXTERIOR WALLS OR ROOFING MUST BE SEALED AND FLASHED PERMANUFACTURE. SPECIFICATIONS AND IRC CODE REGULATIONS.5. SUPPLY AT LEAST 6" OF SPACE BETWEEN BOTTOMS OF WINDOWS AND ROOFS.6. ALL BEAMS HOLDING UP PORCH ROOFS ARE TO BE DROPPED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.7. SUPPLY DRIPCAPS ON ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS.8. ALL EXTERIOR TRIM TO BE FLASHED PER CODE.9. SUPPLY SEPARATION BETWEEN WOOD, COMPOSITE WOOD, AND ANY OTHER WOOD MATERIAL PERSPECIFICATIONS.10. HOLD STONE OFF GRADE MINIMUM OF 3" OR PER TRADE SPECIFICATIONS.11. REFER TO MANUFACTURE SPECIFICATIONS FOR STONE.12. GARAGE BUCK BOARD MATERIAL IS TO BE COMPOSITE WOOD AND SIZED TO COVER THE EDGE OFSTONE.13. GRADE CONDITIONS MAY VARY ON SITE.B.) 6" FASCIA PER SPEC.D.) EXTERIOR CLADDING PER PLANF.) 10" TRIM PER SPEC.A.) 2" SHADOW BOARD PER SPEC.C.) 6" FRIEZE PER SPEC.E.) 6" CORNER TRIM PER SPEC.DRAWING TITLE:4−28−26LOCATION:PAGEPAGE DESCRIPTION:L DLITTFINDESIGN.COMMLITTFIN@HOTMAIL.COM320−224−7844WINSTED, MNCURRENTDATE:REVISION:REV. DATE:ALL PLANS & DESIGNS SHOWNARE THE PROPERTY OF LITTFINDESIGN. USE OF THESE PLANSON ANY OTHER PROJECT/LOTOTHER THAN NOTED ON THISTITLEBLOCK WITHOUT THEWRITTEN CONSENT OF LITTFINDESIGN IS PROHIBITED.THIS PLAN PROVIDES BUILDING DETAILS FOR A PROJECT TO BE BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODES AS WELL AS ANY LOCAL CODES. CONTRACTOR, OWNER, AND/OR TRADES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY FINES, PENALTIES FOR CODE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION OR BUILDING PROCESS VIOLATIONS. LITTFIN DESIGN IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR OMISSIONS OR ERRORSMADE DURING DESIGN, BIDDING, OR CONSTRUCTION PHASES. ANY AND ALL SITE REVIEW IS TO BE PERFORMED BY OTHERS SUCH AS THE CONTRACTOR, OWNER, SURVEYOR, OR OTHER TRADES RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE CONDITIONS. LITTFIN DESIGN IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTRACTOR/TRADE ERRORS, UNKNOWN CODE ADJUSTMENTS AT THE TIME OF PLAN CREATION OR CONSTRUCTION.A2LEFTELEVATIONSSCALED PRINT @ 24X36Page 50 of 116 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING RIGHT ELEVATION1-MATERIAL: SMART-PANEL,VERIFY W/ SPEC.-MATERIAL: SMART-SIDING,VERIFY W/ SPEC.B.) 6" FASCIA PER SPEC.D.) EXTERIOR CLADDING PER PLANF.) 10" TRIM PER SPEC.A.) 2" SHADOW BOARD PER SPEC.C.) 6" FRIEZE PER SPEC.E.) 6" CORNER TRIM PER SPEC.3/4" = 1'-0" 12"X12" COLUMN DETAIL3CEILING/DROPPEDBEAM PER PLAN6" TRIM BOARDMETAL CONNECTOR@ TOP12" COLUMN FINISHMATERIAL PER SPEC.CENTER POST, VERIFYWITH PLAN.CENTER POST, VERIFYWITH PLAN.SECTIONTOPBASECENTER POST, VERIFYWITH PLAN.12" COLUMN FINISHMATERIAL PER SPEC.METAL CONNECTOR@ BASE8" TRIM BOARD12" COLUMN FINISHMATERIAL PER SPEC.@ ALL SIDES.2X FRAMING AT MIDDLETO SUPPORT FINISHES.1'-0"5 1/2"7 1/4"SECTIONTOP3/4" = 1'-0" 8"X8" COLUMN DETAIL4CEILING/DROPPEDBEAM PER PLANMETAL CONNECTOR@ TOP8" COLUMN FINISHMATERIAL PER SPEC.CENTER POST, VERIFYWITH PLAN.CENTER POST, VERIFYWITH PLAN.CENTER POST, VERIFYWITH PLAN.8" COLUMN FINISHMATERIAL PER SPEC.METAL CONNECTOR@ BASE8" TRIM BOARD8" COLUMN FINISHMATERIAL PER SPEC.@ ALL SIDES.2X FRAMING AT MIDDLETO SUPPORT FINISHES.8"SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" RIGHT ELEVATION236" CODE RAILING12"X12" BUILT-UPCOLUMN PER DETAILHELICAL PIERS INSTALLED ASSHOWN, HELICAL DEPTH/SIZEPER HELICAL COMPANY9'-0"10'-7 1/8"8'-8 7/8"6 5/8"3'-4"6"6'-8"1. ICE AND WATER BARRIER @ BOTTOM 6' OF ALL ROOF LINES, EXTEND BARRIER MIN. 3' ON EACHSIDE OF VALLEY, COVER ENTIRE FACE OF ROOF SADDLES. VERIFY ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS OF ICEAND WATER BARRIER AS NEEDED IN FIELD.2. PROVIDE ROOF AND SOFFIT VENTS PER IRC CODE REGULATIONS.3. ALL FURNACE FLUES, PLUMBING VENTS, FIREPLACE VENTS, AND OTHER PENETRATIONS THROUGHROOF OR WALLS TO EXTEND THROUGH REAR OF HOME WHENEVER POSSIBLE.4. ALL PENETRATIONS THROUGH EXTERIOR WALLS OR ROOFING MUST BE SEALED AND FLASHED PERMANUFACTURE. SPECIFICATIONS AND IRC CODE REGULATIONS.5. SUPPLY AT LEAST 6" OF SPACE BETWEEN BOTTOMS OF WINDOWS AND ROOFS.6. ALL BEAMS HOLDING UP PORCH ROOFS ARE TO BE DROPPED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.7. SUPPLY DRIPCAPS ON ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS.8. ALL EXTERIOR TRIM TO BE FLASHED PER CODE.9. SUPPLY SEPARATION BETWEEN WOOD, COMPOSITE WOOD, AND ANY OTHER WOOD MATERIAL PERSPECIFICATIONS.10. HOLD STONE OFF GRADE MINIMUM OF 3" OR PER TRADE SPECIFICATIONS.11. REFER TO MANUFACTURE SPECIFICATIONS FOR STONE.12. GARAGE BUCK BOARD MATERIAL IS TO BE COMPOSITE WOOD AND SIZED TO COVER THE EDGE OFSTONE.13. GRADE CONDITIONS MAY VARY ON SITE.DRAWING TITLE:4−28−26LOCATION:PAGEPAGE DESCRIPTION:L DLITTFINDESIGN.COMMLITTFIN@HOTMAIL.COM320−224−7844WINSTED, MNCURRENTDATE:REVISION:REV. DATE:ALL PLANS & DESIGNS SHOWNARE THE PROPERTY OF LITTFINDESIGN. USE OF THESE PLANSON ANY OTHER PROJECT/LOTOTHER THAN NOTED ON THISTITLEBLOCK WITHOUT THEWRITTEN CONSENT OF LITTFINDESIGN IS PROHIBITED.THIS PLAN PROVIDES BUILDING DETAILS FOR A PROJECT TO BE BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODES AS WELL AS ANY LOCAL CODES. CONTRACTOR, OWNER, AND/OR TRADES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY FINES, PENALTIES FOR CODE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION OR BUILDING PROCESS VIOLATIONS. LITTFIN DESIGN IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR OMISSIONS OR ERRORSMADE DURING DESIGN, BIDDING, OR CONSTRUCTION PHASES. ANY AND ALL SITE REVIEW IS TO BE PERFORMED BY OTHERS SUCH AS THE CONTRACTOR, OWNER, SURVEYOR, OR OTHER TRADES RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE CONDITIONS. LITTFIN DESIGN IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTRACTOR/TRADE ERRORS, UNKNOWN CODE ADJUSTMENTS AT THE TIME OF PLAN CREATION OR CONSTRUCTION.A3RIGHTELEVATIONSSCALED PRINT @ 24X36Page 51 of 116 1:300 CALCULATION FOR ROOFVENTING. ROOF AREA AT ADDITION IS172 SQFT., INSTALL CORRECT # OFVENTS PER SQ. FT. STATED ABOVE INTHESE APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS.SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" ROOF PLAN1EXISTING AREATO REMAIN AS IS-NO CHANGESEXISTING AREATO REMAIN AS IS-NO CHANGESRIDGE VENT1'-0" TYP10:12SLOPE10:12SLOPE1'-0" TYP1'-0" TYP1'-0" TYP1'-0" TYP1'-0" TYP7:12SLOPE7:12SLOPE7:12SLOPE10:12SLOPE10:12SLOPEHATCHED AREAS ARE EXISTING,VERIFY CONDITIONS ON SITE.VALLEYV A L L E Y VALLEYRIDGER ID G E 1. ICE AND WATER BARRIER @ BOTTOM 6' OF ALL ROOF LINES,EXTEND BARRIER MIN. 3' ON EACH SIDE OF VALLEY, COVERENTIRE FACE OF ROOF SADDLES. VERIFY ADDITIONALLOCATIONS OF ICE AND WATER BARRIER AS NEEDED INFIELD.2. PROVIDE ROOF AND SOFFIT VENTS PER IRC CODEREGULATIONS.3. ALL FURNACE FLUES, PLUMBING VENTS, FIREPLACE VENTS,AND OTHER PENETRATIONS THROUGH ROOF OR WALLS TOEXTEND THROUGH REAR OF HOME WHENEVER POSSIBLE.4. ALL PENETRATIONS THROUGH EXTERIOR WALLS ORROOFING MUST BE SEALED AND FLASHED PERMANUFACTURE. SPECIFICATIONS AND IRC CODEREGULATIONS.5. SUPPLY AT LEAST 6" OF SPACE BETWEEN BOTTOMS OFWINDOWS AND ROOFS.6. ALL BEAMS HOLDING UP PORCH ROOFS ARE TO BEDROPPED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.7. SUPPLY DRIPCAPS ON ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS.8. ALL EXTERIOR TRIM TO BE FLASHED PER CODE9. SUPPLY SEPARATION BETWEEN WOOD, COMPOSITE WOOD,AND ANY OTHER WOOD MATERIAL PER SPECIFICATIONS.10. HOLD STONE OFF GRADE MINIMUM OF 3" OR PER TRADESPECIFICATIONS.11. REFER TO MANUFACTURE SPECIFICATIONS FOR STONE.12. GARAGE BUCK BOARD MATERIAL IS TO BE COMPOSITEWOOD AND SIZED TO COVER THE EDGE OF STONE.13. GRADE CONDITIONS MAY VARY ON SITE.DRAWING TITLE:4−28−26LOCATION:PAGEPAGE DESCRIPTION:L DLITTFINDESIGN.COMMLITTFIN@HOTMAIL.COM320−224−7844WINSTED, MNCURRENTDATE:REVISION:REV. DATE:ALL PLANS & DESIGNS SHOWNARE THE PROPERTY OF LITTFINDESIGN. USE OF THESE PLANSON ANY OTHER PROJECT/LOTOTHER THAN NOTED ON THISTITLEBLOCK WITHOUT THEWRITTEN CONSENT OF LITTFINDESIGN IS PROHIBITED.THIS PLAN PROVIDES BUILDING DETAILS FOR A PROJECT TO BE BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODES AS WELL AS ANY LOCAL CODES. CONTRACTOR, OWNER, AND/OR TRADES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY FINES, PENALTIES FOR CODE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION OR BUILDING PROCESS VIOLATIONS. LITTFIN DESIGN IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR OMISSIONS OR ERRORSMADE DURING DESIGN, BIDDING, OR CONSTRUCTION PHASES. ANY AND ALL SITE REVIEW IS TO BE PERFORMED BY OTHERS SUCH AS THE CONTRACTOR, OWNER, SURVEYOR, OR OTHER TRADES RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE CONDITIONS. LITTFIN DESIGN IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTRACTOR/TRADE ERRORS, UNKNOWN CODE ADJUSTMENTS AT THE TIME OF PLAN CREATION OR CONSTRUCTION.A4ROOFPLANSCALED PRINT @ 24X36Page 52 of 116 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN11. ALL HEADERS TO BE SUPPORTED BY A MINIMUM OF (1)TRIMMER. (UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE)2. ALL HEADERS TO HAVE AT LEAST (1) KING STUD (UNLESSNOTED).3. ALL STUD CALLOUTS @ SIDES OF WINDOWS/DOORS ARETRIMMERS, MINIMUM (1) KING STUDS @ SAID LOCATIONSTO BE INCLUDED AS WELL.4. BLOCKING @ ROOF & FLOOR PLAN PER TRUSSMANUFACTURER.5. POINT LOADS TO BE CARRIED THROUGH FLOOR AREASAND DOWN TO FOUNDATION FOR SUPPORT. USE SAMEMATERIAL AS COLUMN SUPPORTING MEMBER ABOVE,BLOCKING MAY BE "BROKEN" BETWEEN LEVELS U.N.O.6. ALL HANGERS & CONNECTORS PER TRUSSMANUFACTURER, SUPPLIERS & CONTRACTOR.7. ALL EXTERIOR SHEATHING TO BE 7/16" OSB OR PLYWOODSHEATHING & NAILED PER CODE (MAY BE REFERRED TOAS 1/2" NOMINAL THICKNESS).8. ROOF DECKING TO BE 12" NOMINAL (OR 1532") OSB DECKINGW/ CLIPS, NAILED TO ROOF FRAMING W/ MIN. 8d COMMONNAILS, 6" O.C. @ EDGES/12"O.C. @ FIELD. ATL: 16 GA 1-34",3" @ EDGES/ 6" AT FIELD.9. FLOOR DECKING TO BE 34" PLYWOOD DECKING, NAILED ORSCREWED TO FLOOR SYSTEM PER CODE W/ ADHESIVEPER SPEC. (OR) MIN. 6d COMMON NAILS 6" O.C. @EDGES/12" O.C. @ FIELD (CODE MINIMUM).10.REFER TO WALL BRACING PLANS FOR ADDITIONALFRAMING INFORMATION.1. FOUNDATIONS TO BE BUILT PER SITE SOIL CONDITION-VERIFY ON SITE.2. ALL REINFORCING IS TO BE INSTALLED PER IRCREGULATED STRUCTURAL DESIGN BY CONCRETETRADES.3. PROVIDE 12" ANCHOR BOLTS EMBEDDED 7" MIN., SPACEDPER CODE AND 12" MAX FROM EACH END OF SILL PLATE,MIN 2 PER SILL. REFER TO COVER SHEET.4. PROVIDE CONTROL JOINTS PER PLAN, JOINTS TOCONSIST OF HIDDEN ZIP STRIP EMBEDDED INTO THESLABS.5. ALL ANGLED WALLS ARE TO BE 45 DEGREES UNLESSNOTED OTHERWISE.6. SLOPE CONCRETE TO FLOOR DRAINS WITHIN 5' OFDRAINS.7. ALL WOOD MATERIAL CONTACTING DIRECTLY TOCONCRETE MUST BE TREATED.8. PROVIDE DRAIN TILE AROUND PERIMETER AS SHOWN.LATERAL SOIL PRESSURE ASSUMED TO BE 30 PSF/FT.9.-SH3'X5' =SINGLE HUNG 3'0" BY 5'0"-FX2'6"X2'6" = FIXED 2'6" BY 4'6"-CASE3'X5' = CASEMENT 3'0" BY 5'0"-2'8"X6'8" @ DOOR =2'8" WIDE BY 6'8" TALL-2'8"X8'0" @ DOOR =2'8" WIDE BY 8'0" TALL 110V, INTERCONNECTED SMOKE DETECTOR 110V, INTERCONNECTED SMOKE DETECTOR / CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR COMBO EXHAUST FAN1. FOR EASE OF UNDERSTANDING, GRADE AT FRONT ORFRONT OF GARAGE DOORS IS CONSIDERED 0'0" ON THISFOUNDATION PLAN2. ALL STAIRWAYS (INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR) ARE TO BEILLUMINATED AT EACH LANDING PER CODE3. SUPPLY CONTINUOUS HANDRAIL PER CODE AT ALL STAIRLOCATIONS, CODE HANDRAIL IS TO CONTINUE TOLANDINGS/ TOP & BOTTOM OF STAIRS. CONTRACTOR &INSTALLER TO VERIFY IF ADDITIONAL GRASPABLEHANDRAIL IS INSTALLED OR IF DECORATIVE HANDRAIL TOCONTINUE.4. 1/2" GYPSUM BOARD TO BE APPLIED TO UNDERSIDE OFSTAIRS PER CODE.5. INDICATES INTERIOR BEARING WALL, 16"O.C. STUDS6. PERMANENTLYATTACHED LADDER PER CODE & MINIMUM 3'X3' EGRESSAREA BUILT PER IRC7. FILL EGRESS WELL W/GRAVEL BACKFILL & INSTALL DRAIN TILE CONNECTIONTO DRAIN EGRESS PROPERLY.8. INSTALL DRAFT STOPPING WITHIN FLOOR SYSTEM PERIRC CODE SECTION 302.12, MIN. 12" GYPSUM BOARD (OR) 38"STRUCTURAL BOARD ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BY 2X4MIN. MATERIAL, PARALLEL WITH FLOOR FRAMING,SEPARATING AREAS WITH MAXIMUM SPACE OF 1000SQ.FT.-SEPARATE INTO EQUAL SPACES.SDSD13'-0"HELICAL PIERS INSTALLED AS SHOWN,HELICAL DEPTH/SIZE PER HELICAL COMPANY13'-2"4'-0"18'-0"14'-4"7'-2"7'-2"6'-7"6'-7"9'-9"8'-3"EXISTING AREATO REMAIN AS IS-NO CHANGESSCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN31D15500 LBS.TO SUPPORT5500 LBS.TO SUPPORTEXIST. HEADER, VERIFY ONSITE. REPLACE IF EXISTINGHEADER IS NOT SUFFICIENT.2X12 P.T. LEDGER BOARDSECURED INTO TRUSS. VERIFY THATLEDGER BOARD IS ATTACHED TO HOMEW/ 12" DIAMETER LAG TYPE BOLTS SECUREDINTO SOLID FRAMING OR EQUAL PER CODE.1D336" CODE RAILING36" CODE RAILINGVAULT PEAK LINE ABV.8:12SLOPE8:12SLOPE36" CODE RAILING36" CODE RAILINGSTONE TO MANTLE @ F.P.INDICATES NEW OR MODIFIED WALLAREAS TO BE VERIFIED ON SITE.INDICATES EXISTING WALLAREAS TO BE VERIFIED ON SITE.13'-2"3'-7"6'-0"3'-7"8"2'-0"8"8"3'-8"8"3'-8"8"3'-8"13'-0"2'-11"2'-11"8"3'-8"8"3'-8"8"3'-8"13'-0"EXISTING AREATO REMAIN AS IS-NO CHANGESSCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" FIRST FLOOR PLAN418'-0"14'-4"8'-3"9'-9"7'-2"7'-2"4'-0"6'-0"36" CODE RAILING36" CODE RAILING36" CODE RAILING36" CODE RAILING17'-0"19'-0"1D13 1/2"3 1/2"3 1/2"2D1EXISTING RAILINGEXISTING RAILINGEXISTING RAILING12'-9"9'-9"SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN2DRAWING TITLE:4−28−26LOCATION:PAGEPAGE DESCRIPTION:L DLITTFINDESIGN.COMMLITTFIN@HOTMAIL.COM320−224−7844WINSTED, MNCURRENTDATE:REVISION:REV. DATE:ALL PLANS & DESIGNS SHOWNARE THE PROPERTY OF LITTFINDESIGN. USE OF THESE PLANSON ANY OTHER PROJECT/LOTOTHER THAN NOTED ON THISTITLEBLOCK WITHOUT THEWRITTEN CONSENT OF LITTFINDESIGN IS PROHIBITED.THIS PLAN PROVIDES BUILDING DETAILS FOR A PROJECT TO BE BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODES AS WELL AS ANY LOCAL CODES. CONTRACTOR, OWNER, AND/OR TRADES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY FINES, PENALTIES FOR CODE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION OR BUILDING PROCESS VIOLATIONS. LITTFIN DESIGN IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR OMISSIONS OR ERRORSMADE DURING DESIGN, BIDDING, OR CONSTRUCTION PHASES. ANY AND ALL SITE REVIEW IS TO BE PERFORMED BY OTHERS SUCH AS THE CONTRACTOR, OWNER, SURVEYOR, OR OTHER TRADES RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE CONDITIONS. LITTFIN DESIGN IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTRACTOR/TRADE ERRORS, UNKNOWN CODE ADJUSTMENTS AT THE TIME OF PLAN CREATION OR CONSTRUCTION.A5BASEMENT ANDFIRST FLOORPLANSSCALED PRINT @ 24X36Page 53 of 116 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" CROSS SECTION THROUGH PORCH136" CODERAILING36" CODERAILING6 1/4"14'-6 1/4" VAULT PEAK HEIGHTEXISTING AREATO REMAIN AS IS-NO CHANGESHEEL HEIGHTNEW ROOF TRUSSESPER MANUF.-FIBERGLASS SHINGLES-15# (NOT#15) TAR PAPER/ICE-WATER BARRIER-15/32" OSB ROOF DECKING-MANUFACTURED ROOF TRUSSES-R49 INSULATION-POLY BARRIER-T&G WOOD CEILINGMIN. R-499'-0"10'-7 1/8"8'-8 7/8"6 5/8"3'-4"6"6'-8"SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" SECTION THROUGH PORCH236" CODE RAILING-FINISH MATERIAL PER ELEV.-HOUSE WRAP-7/16" OSB SHEATHING-2X4 FRAMING, 16" O.C.-R20 INSULATION-VAPOR BARRIER-1/2" GYPSUM WALL BOARD-LATEX BASED PRIMER/ PAINT-FIBERGLASS SHINGLES-15# (NOT#15) TAR PAPER/ ICE-WATER BARRIER-15/32" OSB ROOF DECKING-MANUFACTURED ROOF TRUSSES-R49 INSULATION-POLY BARRIER-T&G WOOD CEILINGNEW ROOF TRUSSESPER MANUF.EXISTING ROOFSYSTEMEXISTING AREATO REMAIN AS IS-NO CHANGESEXISTING AREATO REMAIN AS IS-NO CHANGESANGLED WALL/ CEILING LINE BEYOND3/4" DECKING MATERIALWATERPROOFED AND SEALEDPER BUILDER SPEC WITHWEATHER TOLERANT FINISHFLOORING ON TOPFLASHING PER BUILDER SPECMETAL OR SOLID SOFFITMATERIAL PER BUILDER SPECCLOSED CELL SPRAYFOAM R-30 INSULATION3/4" DECKING MATERIAL WATERPROOFED ANDSEALED PER BUILDER SPEC WITH WEATHERTOLERANT FINISH FLOORING ON TOPFLASHING PER BUILDER SPECMETAL OR SOLID SOFFITMATERIAL PER BUILDER SPECCLOSED CELL SPRAYFOAM INSULATION12"X12" BUILT-UPCOLUMN PER DETAILEXISTING FRAMED WALLMIN. R-49MIN. R-20DRAWING TITLE:4−28−26LOCATION:PAGEPAGE DESCRIPTION:L DLITTFINDESIGN.COMMLITTFIN@HOTMAIL.COM320−224−7844WINSTED, MNCURRENTDATE:REVISION:REV. DATE:ALL PLANS & DESIGNS SHOWNARE THE PROPERTY OF LITTFINDESIGN. USE OF THESE PLANSON ANY OTHER PROJECT/LOTOTHER THAN NOTED ON THISTITLEBLOCK WITHOUT THEWRITTEN CONSENT OF LITTFINDESIGN IS PROHIBITED.THIS PLAN PROVIDES BUILDING DETAILS FOR A PROJECT TO BE BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODES AS WELL AS ANY LOCAL CODES. CONTRACTOR, OWNER, AND/OR TRADES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY FINES, PENALTIES FOR CODE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION OR BUILDING PROCESS VIOLATIONS. LITTFIN DESIGN IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR OMISSIONS OR ERRORSMADE DURING DESIGN, BIDDING, OR CONSTRUCTION PHASES. ANY AND ALL SITE REVIEW IS TO BE PERFORMED BY OTHERS SUCH AS THE CONTRACTOR, OWNER, SURVEYOR, OR OTHER TRADES RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE CONDITIONS. LITTFIN DESIGN IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTRACTOR/TRADE ERRORS, UNKNOWN CODE ADJUSTMENTS AT THE TIME OF PLAN CREATION OR CONSTRUCTION.D1BUILDINGSECTIONSSCALED PRINT @ 24X36Page 54 of 116 3/4" = 1'-0"LOOKOUT WALL SECTION83/4" = 1'-0"TYP. WALL SECT. @ 1ST FLOOR23/4" = 1'-0"EGRESS WELL SECTION53/4" = 1'-0"FLOOR CANTILEVER DETAIL73/4" = 1'-0"TYP. WALL SECTION @ EAVE13/4" = 1'-0"TYP. WALL SECT. @ FOOTING33/4" = 1'-0"STONE VENEER93/4" = 1'-0"SIDE GARAGE WALL DETAIL63/4" = 1'-0"SILL @ GARAGE DR.43/4" = 1'-0"STONE TO MASONRY CAULK DETAIL103/4" = 1'-0"WALKOUT WALL SECTION11DRAWING TITLE:4−28−26LOCATION:PAGEPAGE DESCRIPTION:L DLITTFINDESIGN.COMMLITTFIN@HOTMAIL.COM320−224−7844WINSTED, MNCURRENTDATE:REVISION:REV. DATE:ALL PLANS & DESIGNS SHOWNARE THE PROPERTY OF LITTFINDESIGN. USE OF THESE PLANSON ANY OTHER PROJECT/LOTOTHER THAN NOTED ON THISTITLEBLOCK WITHOUT THEWRITTEN CONSENT OF LITTFINDESIGN IS PROHIBITED.THIS PLAN PROVIDES BUILDING DETAILS FOR A PROJECT TO BE BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODES AS WELL AS ANY LOCAL CODES. CONTRACTOR, OWNER, AND/OR TRADES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY FINES, PENALTIES FOR CODE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION OR BUILDING PROCESS VIOLATIONS. LITTFIN DESIGN IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR OMISSIONS OR ERRORSMADE DURING DESIGN, BIDDING, OR CONSTRUCTION PHASES. ANY AND ALL SITE REVIEW IS TO BE PERFORMED BY OTHERS SUCH AS THE CONTRACTOR, OWNER, SURVEYOR, OR OTHER TRADES RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE CONDITIONS. LITTFIN DESIGN IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTRACTOR/TRADE ERRORS, UNKNOWN CODE ADJUSTMENTS AT THE TIME OF PLAN CREATION OR CONSTRUCTION.D2DETAILSSCALED PRINT @ 24X36Page 55 of 116 NONEROOF TRUSS CONNECTION DETAIL4NONEOUTSIDE CORNER DETAIL53/4" = 1'-0" TUB/SHOWER 1/2 WALL OR BENCH23/4" = 1'-0"FIREPLACE CANTILEVER (AS REQ.)33/4" = 1'-0"DRAFTSTOP @ TUB/SHOWER11-1/2" = 1'-0"ENERGY CODE RIM DETAIL61-1/2" = 1'-0"STOOP RIM DETAIL71-1/2" = 1'-0"STOOP STEP DETAIL8DRAWING TITLE:4−28−26LOCATION:PAGEPAGE DESCRIPTION:L DLITTFINDESIGN.COMMLITTFIN@HOTMAIL.COM320−224−7844WINSTED, MNCURRENTDATE:REVISION:REV. DATE:ALL PLANS & DESIGNS SHOWNARE THE PROPERTY OF LITTFINDESIGN. USE OF THESE PLANSON ANY OTHER PROJECT/LOTOTHER THAN NOTED ON THISTITLEBLOCK WITHOUT THEWRITTEN CONSENT OF LITTFINDESIGN IS PROHIBITED.THIS PLAN PROVIDES BUILDING DETAILS FOR A PROJECT TO BE BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODES AS WELL AS ANY LOCAL CODES. CONTRACTOR, OWNER, AND/OR TRADES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY FINES, PENALTIES FOR CODE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION OR BUILDING PROCESS VIOLATIONS. LITTFIN DESIGN IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR OMISSIONS OR ERRORSMADE DURING DESIGN, BIDDING, OR CONSTRUCTION PHASES. ANY AND ALL SITE REVIEW IS TO BE PERFORMED BY OTHERS SUCH AS THE CONTRACTOR, OWNER, SURVEYOR, OR OTHER TRADES RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE CONDITIONS. LITTFIN DESIGN IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTRACTOR/TRADE ERRORS, UNKNOWN CODE ADJUSTMENTS AT THE TIME OF PLAN CREATION OR CONSTRUCTION.D3DETAILSSCALED PRINT @ 24X36Page 56 of 116 This page is intentionally left blank 6.i REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 2, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Acknowledge the April Par 3 Financial Report ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation CONTACT: Trey Carlson, Recreation Facilities Coordinator Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Acknowledge the April Par 3 Financial Report. BACKGROUND: The Monthly Par 3 Dashboard is attached for Council review. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Monthly Expenditure-April is attached. ATTACHMENTS: 1.April 2026 Par 3 Expenditures 2.April Financial Dashboard Par 3 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 57 of 116 Page 58 of 116 Mendota Heights Par 3 Community Golf Course April 2026—Financial Summary April—Tee Time Reservation Breakdown: Online Tee Times=952 (58% of Total Tee Times) Phone/Walk in Tee Times= 694 (42% of Total Tee Times) Year to Date Budget Overview—April: Current Operating Surplus as of April, 2026: $6,223 Operating Surplus as of April, 2025: $14,014 Monthly Revenues vs. Expenditures Month Revenues Expenditures Net March 2026 $10,283 $13,102 $2,819 April 2026 $36,936 $20,023 $16,913 Golf Round Totals: 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 March 748 0 0 261 308 225 April 1678 896 1181 1923 2078 2087 Total 2,426 896 1181 2,184 2,386 2,312 Golf Rounds by Category: 2026 Regular Senior Junior Veteran Second Round Senior Pass Footgolf Punch Card March 77 12 8 0 4 2 2 120 April 924 145 87 1 41 25 24 840 Total 1001 157 95 1 45 27 26 960 Monthly Notes: o In comparing expenses for 2025 to 2026, the year 2026 includes a full year's salary for the Recreation Facilities Coordinator. In 2025, the Recreation Facilities Coordinator did not start with the City until March. o The first payment for the standby generator at the maintenance building is also reflected as the Capital Purchase line item, recognizing the additional fund expenditure in 2026 that was not included in the 2025 Financial Summary. Category 2026 Budget 2026 YTD Actual % of Budget 2025 YTD Revenues $362,000 $74,728 20.64% $75,228 Expenditures $379,029 $68,505 18.07% $61,214 Net Position - $6,223 - $14,014 Page 59 of 116 o When accounting for total monthly rounds, staff track punch card sales as (10) rounds of golf. For March the course sold 12 punch cards and in April the course sold 84 punch cards, which are then multiplied by 10 to get the total rounds tracked for that month--120 and 840 respectively. o If someone buys a punch card in April, they may only use it four times. They also could use the punch card one time for a call-in tee time and three times for separate online tee times Page 60 of 116 Page 61 of 1166.j This page is intentionally left blank Page 62 of 1166.k Page 63 of 116 Page 64 of 116 Page 65 of 116 Page 66 of 116 Page 67 of 116 Page 68 of 116 Page 69 of 116 Page 70 of 116 This page is intentionally left blank 7.a REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 2, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Gun Violence Awareness Month-2020 Project ITEM TYPE: Presentation DEPARTMENT: Police CONTACT: Kelly McCarthy, Police Chief ACTION REQUEST: Informational. BACKGROUND: In the United States in 2020, firearm-related injuries surpassed motor vehicle crashes to become the leading cause of death among people ages 1 to 19 years old (National Institutes of Health). Year over year, the majority of those deaths are firearm suicides. In 2025, the City Council signed a resolution establishing June as Gun Violence Awareness Month. As part of Gun Violence Awareness Month, officers may choose to wear specially issued patches and residents are encouraged to wear orange on the first Friday of the month (June 5th). FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: 1.Res. 2025-29 Establishing Gun Violence Awareness Month CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 71 of 116 2020 Project A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUNE AS GUN VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH WHEREAS, every day, more than 100 Americans are killed by gun violence, with many more wounded, resulting in a public health crisis that impacts communities across the United States, including Mendota Heights; and WHEREAS, gun violence impacts people of all ages and backgrounds and contributes to a significant loss of human potential and security; and WHEREAS, June is chosen as Gun Violence Awareness Month in honor of those who have lost their lives and those who have been impacted by gun violence, and to recognize the efforts of all those working to reduce gun violence; and WHEREAS, Wear Orange is observed on the first Friday in June to honor the life of Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old Chicago student who was tragically killed in 2013, and to promote awareness around the issue of gun violence; and WHEREAS, the color orange symbolizes the value of human life and is worn by millions across the country who advocate for a future free from gun violence; and WHEREAS, Mendota Heights residents and organizations have consistently demonstrated a commitment to the safety and wellbeing of their community by supporting sensible policies that aim to reduce gun violence; and WHEREAS, by observing June as Gun Violence Awareness Month, the City of Mendota Heights seeks to honor and remember all victims and survivors of gun violence and to bring heightened awareness to its prevention; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Mendota Heights does hereby declare June as Gun Violence Awareness Month in the City of Mendota Heights, and encourages residents to promote community awareness and engagement in efforts to prevent gun violence. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Mendota Heights will encourage its residents to Wear Orange on the first Friday in June in support of a future free from gun violence, and to honor those whose lives have been affected by it. Passed and adopted by the City Council of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, this 20th day of May 2025. MENDOTA HEIGHTS POLICE DEPARTMENT 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 NON-EMERGENCY (651) 452.1366 FAX (651) 452.2995 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2025-29 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 129 of 143Page 72 of 116 9.a REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 2, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Planned Unit Development Concept Plan Review - Application of Indigo Signs for a Planned Unit Development Amendment Concept Plan Review for the property located at 750 North Plaza Drive (Planning Case No. 2025-08) ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager ACTION REQUEST: Review the Concept Plan for this Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment request, and provide advisory comments and recommendations to the applicant. This Concept Plan Review is not a formal decision or vote of the City Council, and is intended only to inform the applicant's decision-making and plan-preparation for a future Planned Unit Development Amendment application. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Indigo Signs, on behalf of Mendota Plaza/Paster Properties, is seeking a Planned Unit Development - Concept Plan Review for an amendment to the Design Guidelines and signage size restrictions for the Mendota Plaza property's Area Identification Signs. The subject site is currently zoned MU-Mixed Use within the Planned Unit Development Overlay District. The site was established as a Planned Unit Development in 2009, and signage is regulated through approved Design Guidelines associated with the original 2009 Planned Unit Development Agreement. The first step in the review of an amendment to an existing PUD which alters structures or modifies the original development plan and agreement is a Concept Plan review, which is submitted to the City as a Planning Application to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Planning Commission reviewed the plans at their regular meeting on May 26, 2026. The Commission provided comments to the applicant complimenting the overall aesthetic design while expressing concern for some elements of white underlighting, and concerns with the inclusion of a changeable copy electronic message center. The Commission also discussed the type of lighting included within the proposed sign design. The Commission generally agreed Page 73 of 116 that the City should be specific in its regulation of the message center and tie any potential approvals back to our existing zoning regulations for animated signs when considering this PUD Amendment application. An excerpt from the draft minutes from the Planning Commission meeting is attached. The City Council is asked to continue providing development review comments to the applicant in an advisory manner. There is no formal action or vote required by the City Council. The City Council should consider the proposed request as it relates to the City's Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: n/a ATTACHMENTS: 1. Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes 5-26-26 2. Planning Commission Staff Report 5-26-26 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy Page 74 of 116 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES EXCERPT FROM DRAFT/UNAPPROVED 5/26/26 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES A)PLANNING CASE 2025-08 INDIGO SIGNS, 750 N. PLAZA DRIVE – CONCEPT PUD Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that Inigo Signs is seeking a Planned Unit Development (PUD) – Concept Plan Review for a modification to site signage within the Mendota Heights Plaza Planned Unit Development located at 750 N. Plaza Drive. 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). Commissioner Stone asked where the electronic portion of the sign would be located. Brian O’Loughlin, Indigo Signs, noted that it would be located on the lower panel of the sign and provided more information. Commissioner Goldade asked if the current proposal fits within the City rules for signage. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that there are no specific signage requirements for the mixed-use zoning district because design guidelines for those properties are found within the PUDs. She stated that this sign would exceed what is allowed for commercial zoning, but noted that the existing sign already exceeds the commercial zoning allowances. Chair Field recalled a contentious discussion with a property owner related to a sign at a gas station property. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that there are specific Code requirements for fuel station signage. She stated that if this application moves forward, they would include more specific regulations for the electronic message center sign and provide examples. Commissioner Udell arrived. Commissioner Corbett recognized that this is a PUD, but they should still use the typical City standards for comparison when considering regulations. He asked why a bigger sign would be allowed, as the sign is already larger than typically allowed. He thought there was room to work, but also believed that they should keep the existing Code in consideration. Commissioner Stone stated that there are not a lot of businesses in Mendota Heights, and it would be great for the property to have signage that advertises and helps these small businesses. Chair Field invited the applicant to provide input. Page 75 of 116 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Mike Sturdivant, Paster Properties, commented that the signs need updating, and this proposal would capture the electronic reader board while giving identity to the Mendota Plaza. Commissioner Corbett asked if there was any intent to conform to the existing size. Mr. Sturdivant commented that they designed and then realized that the sign was over the allotment within the PUD. Commissioner Johnson noted that pylon three would have no changes proposed. She referenced the top beam and asked if there was lighting under the Mendota Plaza portion of the sign. Mr. O’Loughlin stated that the undercarriage of the top canopy was a design decision to paint it white and illuminate it, but noted that it could be changed to black. He stated that one problem with the existing signage is that there is no delineation between the destination of the Plaza and the tenants who occupy the building. He stated that moving the Mendota Plaza up above the canopy provides that separation. He commented that they will be reusing the columns below the sign. He stated that the challenge with pylon two is that the sign is 12 feet below grade; therefore, they need to make up that grade to make the sign visible. Mr. Sturdivant commented that pylon three has Mendota Plaza at the bottom, which does not provide great identity. Mr. O’Loughlin noted the intent to make Mendota Plaza and its businesses more visible, which will help the economics of the center as well. He noted that while there have been some updates, the signs were installed in the 1980s and are in need of repair/improvement. Commissioner Johnson asked if Mendota Plaza would be moved to the top of pylon three. Mr. O’Loughlin replied that it was not included in the scope for this project. Commissioner Corbett asked and received confirmation that there would be directional lighting under that top cabinet to illuminate Mendota Plaza. He asked for additional information on lighting. Mr. O’Loughlin stated that the signs would be LED backlit and provided more information on the proposed lighting. He noted that the electronic message center would only be added to pylon one and explained that they decided against that for pylon two, as it is nearest to residential property. He provided additional information on the electronic message center portion of the sign and the rules they would abide by. Commissioner Corbett asked if the messaging would be monocolor. Mr. O’Loughlin replied that it would be a decision of the property owner, but believed they intended to keep it monochromatic most of the time. Mr. Sturdivant commented that they want it to be tasteful. Page 76 of 116 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Commissioner Johnson stated that she likes the concept of having the Mendota Plaza at the top of the header, but did not believe the white underneath would be high-end. She liked the monochromatic look and agreed that animation should not be allowed. She stated that pylons one and two are inset from the columns and liked that appearance. Mr. O’Loughlin commented that it was intentional as they tried to use the existing footprint as a baseline. Commissioner Johnson asked if there are timers on the signs that shut the lighting off at certain times of the night/early morning. Mr. O’Loughlin stated that there are different mechanisms that regulate signs, lighting, and the brightness of electronic message center components. He commented that often, the signs are not turned off at night. Mr. Sturdivant commented that they would dim the illumination during the evening hours. Commissioner Johnson commented that the signs are near natural areas, such as the pond, and lights are not good for the circadian rhythms of plants and pollinators. Mr. O’Loughlin replied that they want to fit the natural aesthetic of the areas and could dim as necessary. Commissioner Johnson stated that removing the undercarriage lighting would help as well. Commissioner Corbett agreed, as the Mendota Plaza panel would be backlit as well. He stated that the sign increase is six to 12 inches per sign and believed that the sign looks stronger and more fitting to be closer to the edge of the pylons. Commissioner Johnson also believed the size increase is reasonable and noted that the PUD provides flexibility. Mr. O’Loughlin recognized that while there are no set standards for some items for PUD properties, they did review the standards within other zoning districts for comparison. He stated that they also wanted to bring this forward in concept to obtain feedback from the Commission and Council. Commissioner Johnson commented that she would not want the messaging to be distracting. Mr. Sturdivant agreed that they would not want the change in messaging to be distracting to drivers. Mr. O’Loughlin provided examples of regulations for message duration in other communities, which range from seconds to minutes. Page 77 of 116 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Mr. Sturdivant commented that they would also be open to including community event messaging from the City. Commissioner Goldade stated that the update to the signs looks great. He recognized that other businesses also have an interest in electronic message signs, but are not allowed to. He believed that the decision on this would be watched closely. Mr. O’Loughlin stated that electronic message signs are allowed in Mendota Heights, but recognized that there are regulations on which properties can have them. Mr. Sturdivant commented that they do have some new businesses coming into the center, noting that they are also doing touch-ups on the façade of the building, along with the signage. Chair Field appreciated that the applicant had reviewed the Code language for other areas not encumbered by the PUD process. Page 78 of 116 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 79 of 116 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 80 of 116 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 81 of 116 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 82 of 116 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 83 of 116 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 84 of 116 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 85 of 116 156.0”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 86 of 116 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 87 of 116 Page 88 of 116 Page 89 of 116 Page 90 of 116 Page 91 of 116 Page 92 of 116 Page 93 of 116 Page 94 of 116 Page 95 of 116 Page 96 of 116 Page 97 of 116 Page 98 of 116 Page 99 of 116 Page 100 of 116 Page 101 of 116 Page 102 of 116 Page 103 of 116 Page 104 of 116 Page 105 of 116 Page 106 of 116 9.b REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 2, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Municipal Campus Building Project Resolution 2026-37 Approving Schematic Design for the Police Station and City Hall Municipal Campus Building Project and Authorizing Proceeding with the Design Development Phase of the project. ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator Kelly McCarthy, Police Chief ACTION REQUEST: Resolution 2026-37 Approving Schematic Design Plans for the Police/City Hall Municipal Campus Building Project and Authorizing Proceeding with the Design Development Phase of the project. BACKGROUND: The Municipal Campus Building Project is the proposed construction of a new Police Station and City Hall. The new building will replace the existing facility located at 1101 Victoria Curve, which was built in the late 1980s. Project History In September 2020, the City Council approved a contract with CNH Architects to complete a facility needs analysis. The goal was to provide evidence-based recommendations that addressed the physical building needs, as well as the operational needs of the Police Department, City Administration/City Hall and the citizens of Mendota Heights. Analysis results were presented during an April 2021 city council work session. While the next phase of planning was initially delayed due to the pandemic's impact on the construction market, including rising costs of materials and labor, the project remained a priority. As part of the City Council's 2021-2022 strategic initiatives, funding was allocated to develop shelf-ready plans for the building's expansion and renovation. In March 2025, the City Council identified addressing the police department and city hall needs as a top strategic priority and approved a contract with ICS Consulting to complete a facility condition assessment and space utilization study. ICS presented preliminary findings in Page 107 of 116 August, noting that the existing facility did not meet current operational needs, that renovation costs would exceed industry standards relative to new construction, and that the building has safety and security concerns for both the public and staff. They also noted that while the existing City Hall/Police Department facility has served the city well for decades, the current facility faces challenges including health and safety issues, infrastructure limitations such as aging systems and insufficient space which hinders efficient operations and public service delivery, security vulnerabilities and accessibility barriers. Following these findings, the City Council reviewed several options, including renovating the existing facility, expanding the facility, contracting police services to another agency, and constructing a new building. The evaluation of facility needs, operational requirements, and long-term service delivery options were presented to the City Council in October 2025. Findings included: Renovating the existing building:The existing facility was constructed with the idea that it could be expanded and renovated over time to meet changing needs. However, limitations of the current facility, combined with significant costs associated with renovating and expanding it, made it clear that this option would not be the most cost-effective approach. Analysis conducted by the ICS showed that renovation costs are estimated to be between 60 and 72 percent of the cost of constructing a new facility. Relocating the building: The existing building is geographically well positioned in the community to respond to public safety emergencies and provide services to the community of nearly 12,000 residents. While vacant office space exists, primarily in the business/industrial park, the current location at Lexington Avenue and Highway 62, is central in the city and ideal for the police department for providing emergency services throughout the city. Building a new police station and renovating city hall: Early community feedback included interest in separating the police department from city hall, either by constructing a new building at the existing site or locating it elsewhere in the city. As part of this discussion, the City Council also evaluated the option of contracting police public safety services to another agency. After reviewing the needs of the community, the City Council reaffirmed its commitment to supporting the Mendota Heights Police Department and the vital public safety services provided by the department. The City Council also emphasized the operational benefits of keeping the police department and city hall under one roof, including coordination across departments, enhanced staff and building security and efficiencies in day-to-day facility management and operations. In addition, renovating the existing building to modern standards would still require a substantial financial investment. In December 2025, the City Council unanimously agreed that the most responsible path forward would be to build a new, combined police station/city hall. The City Council directed the project team to develop a proposal that would include anticipated space and operational needs to avoid future renovation and expansion costs. The "dig-once, future ready" approach was selected to minimize construction costs and maximize flexibility of the space. Page 108 of 116 Schematic Design Schematic Design is the preliminary phase of a building project during which the City and project team, including architects and consultants, develop conceptual plans illustrating the potential layout, scale, and organization of a future facility without finalizing design details or authorizing construction. This phase is intended to evaluate key project considerations, including space needs, building configuration, site circulation, public access, and preliminary project costs. The City Council authorized the schematic design phase to further evaluate operational needs, security requirements, departmental adjacencies, parking and site considerations, long-term flexibility, sustainability, and the continued suitability of the existing municipal campus location. Looking 20 years out, the Schematic Design for the Police Station/City Hall Municipal Campus Building Project provides space planning for a total of 51,024 square feet, with the following breakdown: Police Department: 22,347 square feet City Hall: 12,237 square feet Community/Shared Space: 5,856 square feet Garage Space: 10,584 square feet The building design is proposed as a one-story office building, with underground garage space that includes parking, storage, and police department processing and training areas. Design Development Approval to proceed to design development will allow the project team to further refine the preferred schematic design and advance the project to a more detailed level of analysis. The design development phase generally includes refined floor plans and building layouts, structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing system development, site and civil engineering refinement, exterior building materials and architectural detailing, and updated project cost estimates. Advancing to design development does not authorize construction. Rather, it allows the City to continue refining the project scope, costs, and operational details necessary for future City Council consideration. As with previous phases, throughout the design development phase, the City Council will continue reviewing project information, evaluating operational and financial considerations and receiving updates from the project team. Residents will continue to have opportunities to review project materials, attend public meetings, provide feedback, and participate in public discussion as the project progresses. As the design development phase progresses, the project team will continue providing the City Council with updated plans, refined cost estimates, and additional project details for review, discussion, and future direction regarding the project, including any potential decisions Page 109 of 116 related to construction and financing. [ City of Mendota Heights Municipal Campus Building Project Website Link: https://mendotaheightsmn.gov/550/Municipal-Campus-Project] FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The preliminary scope and budget is estimated at $33.1 million. Based on schematic design, the revised budget estimate is $33.5 million. Ehlers, the City's financial advisor, has modeled potential tax impacts based on a range of possible project costs and financing terms; however, the actual resident tax impact cannot be determined until a final project scope and costs are established. The city will continue to refine project details and evaluate financial impacts as planning progresses. The city has expended $793,567 of project funds for work performed under the contract with ICS Consulting. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Res. 2026-37 Approving Schematic Design Plans 2.Mendota Heights PD-CH_Space Program Summary 3.Police Station/City Hall SD Plan 05262026 4.Mendota Heights - Overall Budget Summary 05262026 5.Res 2025-93 Ordering Plans & Specs for New Police Departement and City Hall Building CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 110 of 116 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS RESOLUTION NO. 2026-37 APPROVING THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN FOR THE POLICE STATION AND CITY HALL MUNICIPAL CAMPUS BUILDING PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING PROCEEDING WITH DESIGN DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights City Council has identified the evaluation of long-term facility needs for the Police Department and City Hall as a municipal priority and has authorized the development of preliminary plans and conceptual designs; and WHEREAS, the City has been working with ICS Consulting, LLC to evaluate facility needs and prepare preliminary schematic designs for a Police Station and City Hall facility; and WHEREAS, the Project Oversight Committee has met regularly with the project team to review project information, operational needs, and schematic design concepts; and WHEREAS, the project team, including Police Department and City staff, has determined that the schematic design phase generally reflects the operational objectives and direction provided by the City Council and supports further evaluation through the design development phase; and WHEREAS, ICS Consulting, LLC, has presented the Schematic Design plans to the City Council for review and consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the schematic design plans for the proposed Police Station and City Hall Municipal Campus Building Project are hereby approved, and the City Council authorizes proceeding with the Design Development phase of the project. Adopted by the Mendota Heights City Council, this 2nd day of June, 2026. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ______________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 111 of 116 Mendota Heights Space Program PROJECT NO. 2780-01 2026 CURRENT STAFFING 10-YEAR PROPOSED NEED 20-YEAR PROPOSED NEED 2026 CURRENT NEEED 10-YEAR PROPOSED NEED 20-YEAR PROPOSED NEED ADMINISTRATION 6 8 8 1,123 1,248 1,248 FINANCE 4 4 4 686 686 686 PUBLIC WORKS 12 15 16 2,330 2,517 2,642 CITY HALL COMMON AREAS 2,924 3,021 3,021 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 2,588 2,588 2,588 BUILDING SERVICES 742 742 742 Area split between categories. 22 27 28 10,392 10,802 10,926 Net SF 1,247 1,296 1,311 11,639 12,098 12,237 ADMINISTRATION 2 2 2 551 551 551 RECORDS 2 3 3 723 660 660 PATROL 17 20 22 2,582 2,675 2,769 INVESTIGATIONS 2 3 4 1,035 1,191 1,409 EVIDENCE 0 0 0 2,008 2,008 2,008 HARD INTERVIEW 2,781 2,781 2,781 POLICE TRAINING 2,465 2,465 2,465 CRIMINAL JUSTICE NETWORK 1,550 1,777 2,068 POLICE PUBLIC AREAS 1,455 1,455 1,455 POLICE COMMON AREAS 2,889 2,982 3,045 BUILDING SERVICES 742 742 742 Area split between categories. 23 28 31 18,779 19,287 19,953 Net SF 2,253 2,314 2,394 21,033 21,601 22,347 BUILDING SHARED AREAS 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 Net SF 627 627 627 5,856 5,856 5,856 FLEET 9,450 9,450 9,450 9,450 9,450 9,450 Net SF 1,134 1,134 1,134 10,584 10,584 10,584 49,112 50,139 51,024 Building Envelope Factor 12% Total Proposed Gross Square Feet: Subtotal, Personnel & Space: SUMMARY OF NEEDS PERSONNEL SPACE NEEDS COMMENTS Subtotal, Personnel & Space: SUMMARY Police Department City Hall TOTAL PROPOSED BUILDING GROSS SQUARE FEET Subtotal, Personnel & Space: Building Envelope Factor 12% Total Proposed Gross Square Feet: Community / Shared Areas Subtotal, Personnel & Space: Building Envelope Factor 12% Total Proposed Gross Square Feet: Garage Areas Building Envelope Factor 12% Total Proposed Gross Square Feet: 4/6/2026 Page 112 of 116 FLEET 001 EVIDENCE GARAGE 003 LG PROPERTY STG 004 TACTICAL TRAINING 023 STAIR 'A' XXX MAINTENANCE 006 BIKE PATROL 005 CORRIDOR 010 STAIR 'B' XXX STORAGE 028 DECON RR / SHOWER 022 LAUNDRY / JAN. 027 CORRIDOR 026 DRONE STORAGE 035 FIELD EQUIPMENT STORAGE 034 MOBILE FIELD FORCE STORAGE 033 QUARTERMASTER STORAGE 030 WEAPONS CLEANING 031 ARMORY 032 EVIDENCE PROCESSING 037 EVIDENCE LOGGING / INTAKE 038 EVIDENCE STORAGE 039 EVIDENCE LONGTERM STORAGE 040 DRUG VAULT 041 WASH BAY 002 ELEV XXX ELEV SUMP 214 VEHICLE SALLYPORT 014 SALLYPORT 015INTERVIEW 017 HOLDING 018 PROCESSING 220 HOLDING 019 DETAINEE RR / SHOWER 020 SALLYPORT 021 JAN 016 FAC STG 011 P&R STG 009 MECHANICAL 012 MUDROOM 008 TRAINING STG 024 DATA CLOSET 029 ELEC 013 HALL 025 DUTY BAGS 036 Department Legend CIRCULATION CITY HALL POLICE SHARED Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture Engineering 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2026 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T FO R C O N S TR U C TIO N CERTIFICATION PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH Autodesk Docs://2780.01 Mendota Heights CH & PS/2780.01 Mendota Heights CH & PS_AI_2025.rvt5/22/2026 12:16:40 PMAuthor Checker 2780.01 I400 LOWER LEVEL - FURNITURE PLAN MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY HALL & POLICE DEPARTMENT FURNITURE PLAN GENERAL NOTES 1.Type Notes Starting Here I400 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 LOWER LEVEL -FURITURE PLAN KEYNOTES - FURNITURE PLAN ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION Page 113 of 116 STAIR 'A' XXX STAIR 'B' XXX ELEV XXX LOBBY 101 VESTIBULE 100 FITNESS 196 CITY COUNCIL 197 CONFERENCE 198 CONFERENCE 199 COMMUNITY ROOM 200 POLICE LOBBY 201 INTERVIEW 202 CONFERENCE 203 INTERVIEW 204 RR 205 INTERVIEW WAITING 206 CHIEF OF POLICE 208 POLICE CAPTAIN 209 SHARED SARGENT OFFICE 211 SHARED SARGENT OFFICE 212 SOCIAL WORKER 213 OUTREACH STORAGE 235 WORK ROOM / MAIL 236 SUPPLIES STORAGE 237 RECORDS 238 ROOF DECK 239 ROLL CALL ROOM 240 CHANGING 241 OFFICE 242 OFFICE 243 OFFICE 244 OFFICE 245CONFERENCE 246 WORK ROOM 247 VESTIBULE 248 OPEN OFFICE AREA 249 KITCHENETTE 251 STORAGE / DATA 252 PATROL OPEN OFFICE AREA 253 RR 254 RR 255 JAN 256 WELLNESS 257 WRITING 258 INVESTIGATION CONFERENCE 259 CRIME ANALYST 260 INVESTIGATOR 261 INVESTIGATOR 262 INVESTIGATOR 263 BREAKROOM 264 DATA 266 IT WORKROOM 268 DATA 269 LOCKERS 270 CHANGING 273 CHANGING 275 CHANGING 276 INVESTIGATOR STORAGE / FORENSIC LAB 277 RECEPTION 281 STORAGE 288 CORRIDOR 291 DATA 292 HUB 294 ASSIST. PW DIRECTOR 295 PW - DIRECTOR 296 PW - CD MANAGER 297 FINANCE DIRECTOR 298 PW - NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGER 299 PW - ASSIST. CITY ENG. 300 CONFERENCE 301 ADMIN - CITY ADMINISTRATOR OFFICE 302 ADMIN - ASSIST. CITY ADMIN. OFFICE 303 ADMIN - CITY CLERK 304 BREAK ROOM 305 WELLNESS 306 ARCHIVE STORAGE 309 WORK ROOM 311 ROOF DECK 318 STG 319 ELEC 320 WORK ROOM 153 OPEN OFFICE AREA 174 PHONE 175 PHONE 177 RR 179 RR 180 JAN 183 ROOF DECK 184 OPEN OFFICE AREA 185 HALLWAY 186 STG 188 JAN 190 STG 192 FAMILY RR 194 RR 195 RR 215 STORAGE 216 STORAGE 218 ELECTION STG / WORK ROOM 219 STG 221 COLLABORATION 222 CHANGING 230 CHANGING 231 CHANGING 283 VISITING INVESTIGATOR 279 STG 285 STG 284 STORAGE 286 HALL 223 STORAGE 321 Department Legend CIRCULATION CITY HALL CJIN POLICE PUBLIC SHARED Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture Engineering 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2026 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T FO R C O N S TR U C TIO N CERTIFICATION PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH Autodesk Docs://2780.01 Mendota Heights CH & PS/2780.01 Mendota Heights CH & PS_AI_2025.rvt5/22/2026 12:17:24 PMAuthor Checker 2780.01 I401 LEVEL 1 - FURNITURE PLAN MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY HALL & POLICE DEPARTMENT FURNITURE PLAN GENERAL NOTES 1.Type Notes Starting Here I401 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 LEVEL 1 -FURITURE PLAN KEYNOTES - FURNITURE PLAN ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION Page 114 of 116 Date Printed 5/26/2026 FUNDING: ORIGINAL BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS REVISED BUDGET WITH ADJUSTMENTS COST TO DATE PENDING COSTS / ADJUSTMENTS BUDGETED COST TO COMPLETE 1 FUNDING SOURCE(S) 1.01 Levy 33,100,000$ -$ 33,100,000$ -$ -$ 33,100,000$ TOTAL REVENUE:33,100,000$ -$ 33,100,000$ -$ -$ 33,100,000$ COSTS: 2 PERMITS / OWNER COSTS / OFF SITE COSTS 2.01 Building Plan Review 0$ -$ 0$ -$ -$ 0$ 2.02 Building Permit 0$ -$ 0$ -$ -$ 0$ 2.03 Plumbing Plan Review 25,000$ -$ 25,000$ -$ -$ 25,000$ 2.04 Watershed Review Fees 25,000$ -$ 25,000$ -$ -$ 25,000$ SUBTOTAL:50,000$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$ 3 FEES / SERVICES / BUDGETS 3.01 Program Management 3,453,388$ -$ 3,453,388$ -$ -$ 3,453,388$ 3.02 Program Management - Reimbursables 10,000$ -$ 10,000$ -$ -$ 10,000$ 3.03 Site Services 1,238,900$ -$ 1,238,900$ -$ -$ 1,238,900$ 3.04 General Conditions 201,900$ -$ 201,900$ -$ -$ 201,900$ 3.05 Insurance - Builders Risk 25,000$ -$ 25,000$ -$ -$ 25,000$ 3.06 Site Survey 25,000$ -$ 25,000$ -$ -$ 25,000$ 3.07 Soil Investigation 35,000$ -$ 35,000$ -$ -$ 35,000$ 3.08 Construction Testing 383,710$ -$ 383,710$ -$ -$ 383,710$ 3.09 Storm Shelter 3rd Party Review 35,000$ -$ 35,000$ -$ -$ 35,000$ 3.10 Photos / Monitoring 5,000$ -$ 5,000$ -$ -$ 5,000$ 3.11 Legal, Etc.25,000$ -$ 25,000$ -$ -$ 25,000$ 3.12 Relocation / Transportation Costs 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$ 3.13 Printing / Distribution 5,000$ -$ 5,000$ -$ -$ 5,000$ 3.14 Staff Expenses 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$ SUBTOTAL:5,542,898$ -$ 5,542,898$ -$ -$ 5,542,898$ 4 FURNITURE / EQUIPMENT / TECHNOLOGY 4.01 FF&E 765,000$ -$ 765,000$ -$ -$ 765,000$ 4.02 Technology 225,000$ -$ 225,000$ -$ -$ 225,000$ 4.03 Secuirty 150,000$ -$ 150,000$ -$ -$ 150,000$ SUBTOTAL:1,140,000$ -$ 1,140,000$ -$ -$ 1,140,000$ 5 CONSTRUCTION COSTS 5.01 Municipal Campus 24,320,650$ 436,251$ 24,756,901$ -$ -$ 24,756,901$ SUBTOTAL:24,320,650$ 436,251$ 24,756,901$ -$ -$ 24,756,901$ 6 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY 6.01 Municipal Campus 2,046,452$ -$ 2,046,452$ -$ -$ 2,046,452$ SUBTOTAL:2,046,452$ -$ 2,046,452$ -$ -$ 2,046,452$ TOTAL COSTS:33,100,000$ 436,251$ 33,536,251$ -$ -$ 33,536,251$ OVERALL PROJECT BALANCE:(436,251)$ OVERALL PROJECT SUMMARY City of Mendota Heights Municipal Campus ICS Project # S25018 Page 115 of 116 Page 116 of 116