Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
08 05 2026 CC Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA August 5, 2026 at 6:00 PM Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3.Pledge of Allegiance 4.Approval of the Agenda The Council, upon majority vote of its members, may make additions or deletions to the agenda. These items may be submitted after the agenda preparation deadline. 5.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 July 21, 2026, City Council Meeting b.Approve Minutes from the July 21, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes c.Approve Minutes from the July 22, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes d.Acknowledge Minutes from the May 26, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting e.Acknowledge Minutes from the May 20, 2026, Airport Relations Commission Meeting f.Authorize Signer for Solid Waste Abatement Grant from Dakota County g.Approve Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for Holy Family Maronite Catholic Church h.Approve Geotechnical Evaluation Contract for the 2027 Street Improvements Project Page 1 of 935 i.Approve Claims List 7.Presentations a.Swearing in Ceremony for Mendota Heights Firefighters 8.Public Hearings 9.New and Unfinished Business a.Resolution 2026-47 Denying a Conditional Use Permit for a 149-ft wireless monopole to be located at 739 Wentworth Avenue (Wentworth Park) [Planning Case No. 2026- 05] b.Resolution 2026-48 Approving a Variance to allow an impervious surface coverage of 39% at the property located at 1044 Brompton Place [Planning Case No. 2026-10] c.Resolution 2026-49 Approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow an 8-ft security fence at the property located at 1500 Commerce Drive [Planning Case No. 2026-11] d.Resolution 2026-50 Approving a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment/Final Development Plan for updates to freestanding signage and signage Design Guidelines within the Mendota Plaza PUD located at 750 North Plaza Drive [Planning Case No. 2026-12] e.Resolution 2026-51 Approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow two additions to the existing religious institution structure located at 1960 Lexington Avenue [Planning Case No. 2026-13] f.Resolution 2026-52 Approving a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit for construction of two accessory structures at the property located at 1175 Orchard Place [Planning Case No. 2026-14] g.Municipal Campus Building Project - Resolution 2026-46 Directing the Development of a Plan B Schematic Design for the Police Station and City Hall Municipal Campus Building Project 10.Community / City Administrator Announcements 11.City Council Comments 12.Adjourn Next Meeting August 18, 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 935 Page 3 of 935 This page is intentionally left blank This page is intentionally left blank CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA DRAFT Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, July 21, 2026 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Levine called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Councilors Lorberbaum, Paper, Mazzitello, and Maczko were also present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. MOMENT OF SILENCE IN MEMORY OF OFFICER SCOTT PATRICK, EOW JULY 30, 2014 Council, the audience, and staff observed a moment of silence in memory of Officer Scott Patrick. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Levine presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Mazzitello moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the public wished to be heard. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Levine presented the consent agenda and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Lorberbaum moved approval of the consent agenda as presented, pulling item E. a.Approval of July 7, 2026, City Council Minutes b.Approve Resolution 2026-42 Proclaiming July 2026 as “Parks and Recreation Month” c.Approve Resolution 2026-43 Accepting a Sponsorship for Music in the Park on July 8, 2026 d.Approve Resolution 2026-44 Accepting a Sponsorship for 2026 Legacy Events e.Approve Out of Metro Travel Authorization Minnesota Recreation and Park Association Conference f.Acknowledge the May Par 3 Financial Report g.Approve the 2026-2027 Seasonal Compensation Plan h.Approve Purchase Order for Concrete Apron on Mendota Heights Road Page 4 of 935 6.a July 21, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 of 9 i.Approve Resolution 2026-45 Ordering Preparation of a Feasibility Report for the 2027 Street Improvements Project j.Approval of Claims List Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS E) APPROVE OUT OF METRO TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION – MINNESOTA RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE Councilor Maczko noted the financial impact of the conference. He stated that while he supports staff going to conferences, he questioned the $220 allowance per day for meals. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence stated that staff is given $220 each for the entire week. She stated that the City uses the federal per diem level that is set for that allowance. She noted that two staff members are going from Tuesday to Friday. She stated that $50 per day is set, and if staff exceed that amount, they would pay the difference. Councilor Maczko moved to approve OUT OF METRO TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION – MINNESOTA RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE. Councilor Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PRESENTATIONS MINNESOTA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATORS NORTHERN LIGHT AWARDS Assistant City Administrator Kelly Torkelson reported that the City has received awards for communication initiatives for 2025 from the Minnesota Association of Government Communicators. The Northern Lights Awards recognize outstanding work in Minnesota’s government, education, and nonprofit communications. Councilor Lorberbaum recognized the work of staff and asked if the awards would be on display at City Hall. Assistant City Administrator Kelly Torkelson confirmed that the awards would be added to the other past awards the City has received and would be on display at City Hall. Councilor Mazzitello commented that these awards are a testament to how well the City communicates. Mayor Levine commented that videos are done collaboratively with Town Square Television and thanked them for that partnership. She also recognized the work of Assistant City Administrator Kelly Torkelson, who is an important part of communications. Page 5 of 935 July 21, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 of 9 PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) MUNICIPAL CAMPUS BUILDING PROJECT – POLICE STATION AND CITY HALL UPDATE AND PRESENTATION BY THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE NETWORK (CJN) Police Chief Kelly McCarthy provided background information on the project and project need. Mary Cerkvenik, CJN Executive Director, introduced herself and expressed thanks for the long partnership with the City. She reviewed the CJN mission and provided background information on the transition from CJIIN to CJN. She highlighted the services provided by CJN today, how the organization has slowly grown, and the benefits and efficiencies provided by CJN services. She also reviewed things that can be expected from CJN in the future and more specific information about a records management system (RMS). She provided additional information on how CJN can benefit Mendota Heights. Councilor Lorberbaum referenced the statement that, “this is a Minnesota solution rather than a national solution” and asked about the difference. Ms. Cerkvenik explained that Minnesota law and practice always adds something unique. She provided examples of things that are required in Minnesota that are not federally required. She provided examples of the different forms that CJN uses, versus the one incident report that a national vendor uses. Councilor Lorberbaum referenced the growth from two to nine employees and asked about the anticipated growth for the future. Ms. Cerkvenik commented that they are currently stable with staffing. She commented that if there was additional growth, she would anticipate one employee in the next three or four years. Councilor Lorberbaum asked about the benefit of the employees working together in the same location, versus working in different locations. Ms. Cerkvenik stated that they have done both and found that it is more efficient and effective to have all employees in one location. She stated that they have found a compromise in allowing some remote work while ensuring employees are all in the office on a set number of days as well. She also commented on the benefit of being able to pull in someone from the Police Department to gain their input on matters when needed. Councilor Lorberbaum asked if the current location in Rosemount is asking CJN to leave. Ms. Cerkvenik confirmed that Rosemount is asking them to find another location. She commented that since CJN has started, they have begged and borrowed for any space they have had. She stated that in Inver Grove Heights, CJN was in the expansion space that was then needed, which moved them to Rosemount. She stated that they are in expansion space in Rosemount and that the city is now needing that space. She commented that it is time for the organization to settle, and they hope it is with Mendota Heights. Page 6 of 935 July 21, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 of 9 Councilor Paper asked for more information about dynamic validation. He referenced the statement that “AI is not written to get the results you want” and asked for more information. Ms. Cerkvenik explained that AI can take a lot of information. She explained how AI can be helpful and other areas where AI is not equipped to properly create background links and integration. Josh Otis, Commander with the Inver Grove Heights Police Department and CJN Board Chair, stated that he was tapped in 2005 to be part of the implementation of CJN in 2005. He provided additional information on the transition of CJN to Inver Grove Heights in 2015. He stated that they did not just provide office space but received collaboration and more benefits than anticipated, and provided examples. He explained that dynamic validation is a tool used to ensure the information submitted within a report meets the State requirements before the report is submitted. Mayor Levine asked for more information on the financial model of CJN. Ms. Cerkvenik explained the original model that was used when CJN was created and how that has evolved. She stated that when they spun off as a joint powers organization, the County provided $470,000 in support. She stated that when that renews in 2027, the contribution from the County will decrease over time and the cities will pay under one formula based on patrol area and population. She commented that cities outside of the JPA pay for services under a different formula and provided an explanation. Mayor Levine asked the annual budget of the organization. Ms. Cerkvenik replied that the annual budget is $2,200,000. Mayor Levine asked about the contribution paid by Mendota Heights. Ms. Cerkvenik replied that she could follow up with that information. Mayor Levine recognized that some system is required, whether it is CJN or another vendor. She stated that Police Chief Kelly McCarthy has provided input on the value Mendota Heights receives from CJN. Councilor Maczko asked for clarification on the number of agencies mentioned, as that did not seem to match the number of participating cities. Ms. Cerkvenik provided additional clarification, noting entities that use one or two services from CJN outside of the member cities. She confirmed that those entities pay for the services used. Councilor Maczko commented that Eagan and Lakeville were not listed on the Board of Directors. Ms. Cerkvenik replied that Eagan, Lakeville, and Apple Valley use a different vendor. Councilor Lorberbaum asked if CJN would have someone in the building 24/7. Ms. Cerkvenik replied that there is a support phone that rotates between employees, and if there is a call at night, it would be answered at their home. Mayor Levine asked if CJN is still in an acquisition phase for clients. Page 7 of 935 July 21, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 of 9 Ms. Cerkvenik replied that they are being cautious and provided examples. She stated that they will not move faster than they can handle. She also provided examples of additional fees some departments pay for different systems and software that will all be handled through the RMS system. She noted that in the future they may be able to incorporate additional systems that will help to save their members money. B) AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF A REPLACEMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT WATER TENDER Fire Chief Dan Johnson provided a brief background on this item. The Council was being asked to authorize the purchase of a new 2,000-gallon single-axle water tender from OSCO Tank and Truck Sales, Inc. in the amount of $308,780, as the replacement for the Fire Department’s current Tender 10. Assistant Fire Chief Scott Goldenstein provided additional explanation on the difficulties experienced in finding a replacement tender. He explained that the difference between the used model and new model was about $20,000 and the used model had 197,000 miles on it. He also explained how a tender is used. Fire Chief Dan Johnson explained that the request before the Council would be to order the truck for 2027 delivery. He expected that the current tender would have value and the sale price of the existing tender can be used to offset the cost of the purchase, noting that the donation funds could also be used to fill the gap. He was hopeful that they would be able to fully recover the purchase price through different methods. Assistant Fire Chief Scott Goldenstein commented that emissions standards are also being tightened at the end of the year, so a new purchase would not have to meet those requirements. Councilor Mazzitello asked if there is an estimated value of the current tender. Fire Chief Dan Johnson commented that he believed they could get $30,000 to $40,000 for the current tender, but it is difficult to predict. He commented that when they sold Ladder 11, they got more than double what they expected. Councilor Mazzitello stated that he was concerned with the dent that this gap could put into the donation funds, which is listed as a source to fill that gap. Councilor Maczko referenced the specifications, providing the example of a white truck with a red stripe, which seems to be downgrades to what the department currently has, and asked for clarification. Assistant Fire Chief Scott Goldenstein commented that the truck that would be ordered is red and confirmed that the truck would meet the specifications of the department. He did not believe that this would be a downgrade. Fire Chief Dan Johnson commented that the company does not make tenders with all the options because their market is primarily the smaller, rural market with smaller budget departments. He confirmed that the information provided is indicative of the truck that they would receive, and they would work with the vendor to receive the options they need within the proposed cost. Councilor Maczko asked if approving the action tonight would lock them into the specification that was provided in the packet, or whether there would be room for the changes necessary to be made. Page 8 of 935 July 21, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 6 of 9 City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson replied that the dollar amount would be the important part and the specifications of the truck could be negotiated within that dollar amount. City Attorney Amy Schmidt confirmed that is accurate. Fire Chief Dan Johnson commented that this came along quickly as a solution to something they have been working on for the past year, which is reflected in not all options being accurate in the specification (such as color), but confirmed that the dollar amount is accurate. Councilor Paper asked how long it would take to spray 2,000 gallons at the end of a long driveway. Fire Chief Dan Johnson replied that it would be dependent on the hose line or appliance being used to spray the water and provided examples. He explained that if they show up with a 2,000-gallon tender and Engine 10, which has 750 gallons, that equates to 2,700 gallons. He stated that they can put out an amazing amount of fire and take out an amazing amount of energy of a fire with that amount of water. He stated that a lot of fires are put out with just tank water from an engine. Councilor Paper stated that one year ago they tasked the department to find a used tender with that set amount of money and recognized that the department has spent the last year trying to do that. He stated that in the end they were not able to find something that met their needs but found a solution that is a little over that price, but not anywhere as high as they anticipated it could be. He commended the Chiefs for their great work. Mayor Levine recognized the work of the on-staff mechanic, Nick, in the Public Works Department, who assists in keeping all the City vehicles in good working order. Councilor Mazzitello agreed that Nick is one of the best mechanics and the City is lucky to have him. Assistant Fire Chief Scott Goldenstein commented on the amount of time and money that Nick has saved the fire department by completing repairs. Councilor Maczko stated that he asked the City Administrator for the ISO rating completed late last year and congratulated the Fire Chief on the Class Three rating. He explained that an insurance rating of three or less ensures that a residential property would not pay anything additional for their insurance. Councilor Mazzitello moved to AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF A NEW 2,000-GALLON SINGLE- AXLE TENDER FROM OSCO TANK & TRUCK SALES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $308,780, AS THE REPLACEMENT FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT’S CURRENT TENDER 10. Councilor Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Jacobson yielded her time during community announcements time to municipal campus project consultants to provide a project update. Kyle Walter, ICS, provided an update on the timeline for the soil borings and the process to reduce the size of the proposed building. Page 9 of 935 July 21, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 7 of 9 Councilor Maczko commented that he would like to see a true schematic design of a building footprint that could save the ballfield in its current location. He agreed that they need to do something, but he does not believe there has been a solid look at a building that could accomplish those needs in the current location. He believed that they should have an honest look at the cost differences and the tradeoffs. He recognized that if they build in the same location, staff would need to be relocated during construction. He stated that he would rather invest money upfront to ensure people clearly understand what they would get, or not get, and even suggested investigating a two-story option. He stated that if they do not clearly explain things and explore these options up front, he believes the residents will find 430 signatures for a reverse referendum, which will lengthen the process. Councilor Maczko moved to DIRECT BKV AND ICS TO CREATE A FULL SCHEMATIC DESIGN ON THE SITE THAT WOULD PROTECT THE BALLFIELD IN ITS EXISTENCE, ALONG WITH THE TRADEOFFS. Councilor Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Further discussion: Councilor Lorberbaum commented that they have seen a very lovely plan, which has moved west. She stated that she would like to see what is possible without touching the field. Councilor Paper referenced the statement that ICS is going to create a block schematic and asked for more information. Mr. Walter explained what a block schematic is and explained that it would not include the inside floor plan of offices and other spaces. He stated that part of the presentation tomorrow will also discuss the associated costs, such as relocation costs for staff and efficiencies with soils. He commented that additional dollars have been shown for building on the west, which would include creating a new ballfield. He stated that the potential costs will also include the cost to complete another schematic design. He stated that they will bring that information to the work session tomorrow for the Council to make a choice. Councilor Mazzitello asked if they could also include the schedule impact for creating another schematic design. Mr. Walter confirmed that schedule impact would be included. Councilor Maczko commented that he would like to see a full schematic design that would compare to the current design, recognizing that there will be a cost for that. He stated that perhaps they can also include information on the schedule impact that would occur if there is a reverse referendum. He stated that he wants as many people as possible to feel that the Council is making the best decision on this project. He stated that he wants this to move forward as quickly as it can, but they need to make sure they are doing things correctly in a manner that could be supported. Councilor Mazzitello moved to TABLE THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR UNTIL AFTER THE PRESENTATION THE FOLLOWING NIGHT TO ENSURE A MORE INFORMED DECISION. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Further discussion: Councilor Maczko commented that if this is tabled tonight, the next time action could occur is on August 5th, which is a delay. Page 10 of 935 July 21, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 8 of 9 Councilor Mazzitello commented that the motion could also be voted down tonight. He stated that he believes that the presentation the following night will provide the information Councilor Maczko is looking for. Councilor Maczko commented that he is unsure that block drawings will be enough. Councilor Lorberbaum asked for more information on what a block diagram is. Mr. Walter explained what is included in a block diagram and related feasibility study. He stated that if the Council chose to proceed with that option, they would then proceed with another level of detail and follow a similar process to the last design. He stated that tomorrow night they will show if the option is feasible and they will present the additional information that will help the Council decide if that is an option they want to proceed further with. He noted that he will also have information on the reduced square footage for the current design. Councilor Paper stated that tomorrow they will not receive the details of the inside of the building, but they will find out if the building could be sited in a different position and the financial impact that would have, if it could be done. He stated that if it is a possibility, they can move forward to the next phase of design rather than waiting until the next meeting to decide if they should move forward. He agreed that they owe it to the community to find out if this is a possibility, and they do not need to know where offices will be located. Mr. Walter commented that two block concepts will be presented at the meeting the following night. Councilor Lorberbaum appreciated that, as that is something she had been wanting for the last few weeks. Councilor Maczko stated that he wants to leave his motion but would support tabling it. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson announced upcoming community events and activities. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Paper noted a memorial for Scott Patrick at Smith and Dodd on July 30th at 12:15 p.m., which will be 30 to 40 minutes. He commented that the public is welcome and encouraged to join. Councilor Maczko congratulated the TRAA girls’ softball teams that did great in the tournament. Councilor Lorberbaum commented that last year there was a speed camera on Marie. She stated that a new speed camera is up around Delaware and Emerson, which is collecting data for about one month, and provided a summary of that data. She commented that today is the start of the 30-day warning period. She commented that the speed camera takes a picture of the rear license plate when a vehicle is traveling over 41 mph. She stated that after those 30 days, a $40 citation can be issued. She commented that the purpose is not to issue tickets but to have vehicles slow to the legally posted speed of the road. Councilor Mazzitello commented on the asset that Officer Scott Patrick was to the community, as well as his love for Mendota Heights. He stated that the community will not forget the sacrifice that he made for Page 11 of 935 July 21, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 9 of 9 the community. He shared a historical fact from July 19, 1969, when Neil Armstrong and Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin walked on the moon. He commented that if that was possible that many years ago with less technology than exists in a cell phone today, they should be able to come to consensus on silly issues of today. He stated that 18 years ago this month, a young man walked into City Hall to ask questions about a property he was thinking of purchasing and spoke to staff to better understand the property and community. He commented on how times have changed over the past 18 years, including the need for security. He stated that the young man stopped to thank the receptionist, who then stated that people usually do not ask those types of questions and asked what the man did for work. He commented that the man replied that he was a civil engineer and the receptionist handed him an application for employment because their Public Works Director/City Engineer had just resigned. He commented on the interview process that occurred and how he was appointed to the position of Public Works Director/City Engineer, and that is how his experience in Mendota Heights started. He was pleased to see that a member of the interview panel, Ultan Duggan, was in the audience tonight. He commented that today is the 2,383rd birthday of Alexander the Great. Mayor Levine thanked TRAA, noting an earlier work session to discuss alternatives to Mertensotto Field. She noted that it was a great opportunity for them to all sit around the table and have discussion back and forth in a natural way. She expressed thanks for the services to the community provided by TRAA and the collaboration they were able to have together. ADJOURN Councilor Mazzitello moved to adjourn. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 7:47 p.m. ____________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Nancy Bauer City Clerk Page 12 of 935 This page is intentionally left blank CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA DRAFT Minutes of the City Council Work Session Tuesday, July 21, 2026 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the Mendota Heights City Council was held at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Levine called the work session to order at 4:30 p.m. Councilors Lorberbaum, Mazzitello 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, Police Captain Wayne Wegener, City Attorney Amy Schmidt, and City Clerk Nancy Bauer. Representatives from TRAA were also present. MUNICIPAL CAMPUS BUILDING PROJECT – CIVIC CENTER PARK/MERTENSOTTO FIELD REPLACEMENT Parks & Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence provided background information regarding the potential impacts to Civic Center Park/Mertensotto Field, should a new municipal campus building be constructed on site. She reported that city staff have met with representatives of the Two Rivers Athletic Association (TRAA) to discuss the potential loss of field capacity within the park system resulting from the proposed project, the condition and quality of Mertensotto field, and potential replacement options. Field renovation estimates were reviewed to evaluate the improvements needed to bring another park to the same standard as the existing ball field, with estimated costs ranging from $900,000 to $1.2 million, plus any variable site-specific costs. Suggested replacement locations for Civic Center ball field include Friendly Hills or Wentworth Park. Lawrence also noted that a master plan is being discussed for Mendakota Park to evaluate opportunities to redesign the park for more effective use of the available space. Adam Crepeau, TRAA President, thanked Parks & Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence for the statistics and stated there were three teams assigned to play at the Civic Center ball field. Tom Stevens, TRAA Vice President noted that the goal of TRAA is to make sure that there is an equivalent field that would replace the existing Civic Center ball field. Suggestions also discussed for replacement of the field were the Bourne site, St. Peter’s Church property, and the existing dog park with the dog park being moved to Friendly Hills Marsh Park. Page 13 of 935 6.b July 21, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 2 Councilor Paper asked if Ivy Hills Park was considered as a site for the replacement field. T. Stevens noted that parking was difficult at Ivy Hills Park, though practices are held there. The parking at Ivy Hills Park was discussed and it was noted the field was used primarily for softball. Councilor Paper noted that Victoria Highlands Park has a deeper area than Ivy Hills Park and may be the least expensive to irrigate. The pros and cons of using Ivy Falls Park and Victoria Highlands Park were discussed. Councilor Paper asked for the dimensions of the infield for t-ball. It was noted that the infield distance would be 60 feet with a 150-foot fence. Councilor Paper noted a t-ball field could be used as an infield and as a practice field. Councilor Maczko asked if there would be any anticipated pushback if a neighborhood park was made into a baseball field and used by TRAA. It was noted that there could be neighborhood concerns associated with such a change. Dan Sherer, TRAA, stated that the Civic Center ball field is a perfect location for baseball games. It is rarely used for other activities, has many upgrades, and is off the beaten path. Mayor Levine stated the goal of the discussion tonight was to provide staff with direction regarding potential field options if the Civic Center field is used as the site of a new campus building. T. Stevens asked if was possible to put signage on Dodd Road to give drivers directions to Ivy Hills Park. He stated that using Victoria Highlands as Civic Center field and Ivy Hills Park becomes the field similar to Victoria Highlands how does that prevent the loss of capacity of Ivy Hills Park and when would a t-ball field become available. Mayor Levine stated that a temporary t-ball field could be built. Councilor Mazzitello suggested that TRAA may be one field short for a season if the fields are shuffled. He suggested that there could be more engagement with St. Peter’s regarding leasing their property for a field. Parks & Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence suggested that one season of softball could be suspended, and a field created at Mendakota Park. The capacity of field usage was discussed. Parks & Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence summarized the discussion by noting that relocating Civic Center field to Victoria Highlands, moving the Victoria Highlands field to Ivy Hills Park, constructing a new t-ball field , and suspending the adult softball season for one year would help offset the estimated 16 hours of field availability lost during the reshuffling. Councilor Mazzitello questioned if Victoria Highlands Park was the right park to replace the Civic Center field. He suggested using Wentworth Park because it is centrally located, the surrounding neighborhood is well spaced, it would have enough space, there is a woodland buffer and would also have the least likely neighborhood pushback. Page 14 of 935 July 21, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 3 T. Stevens noted that Wentworth Park was discussed and appeared to be a more expensive project than the other park options considered. It was discussed using Mendakota Park as a replacement site for the Civic Center field. It was noted that relocating the field to Mendakota Park would reduce the park's capacity to host softball events. Mayor Levine summarized the path for staff - to look at Victoria Highlands, Wentworth and Friendly Hills Parks as potential renovation sites for a new Civic Center field. Then the displaced field would need to be replaced at Ivy Hills Park or constructed at the new municipal campus site. This would be a two-tiered solution. The use of the school district property was discussed. Parks & Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence stated she has discussed the possibility with the school district. T. Stevens stated that the field on the school district property would not be a permanent solution. Parks & Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence noted the school district is open to partnering to renovate their field. D. Sherer gave background information regarding the field usage at the school district. Mayor Levine stated that it is an option worth exploring. Councilor Maczko inquired about public input. Mayor Levine stated staff would include public engagement for any changes that would occur. A. Crepeau inquired if the dog park was considered. Councilor Mazzitello stated there is discussion to do a master plan for Mendakota Park. In the interest of economics there is a temporary solution with it possibly becoming a permanent solution. Next season there would be a field but not up to the standard of the current Civic Center ballfield. The new location would be fixed over time to become a permanent ball field. Mayor Levine gave a history of Civic Center field. Councilor Mazzitello stated that TRAA would be down a field for one season. Wentworth Park would be turned 90 degrees, and Wentworth Park would be replaced by Ivy Hills Park. Victoria Highlands would have the ease of irrigation, is closer to the street, and there is no room for parking. Friendly Hills has the space to install the field and has parking. The soccer fields would need to be moved to another park. A. Crepeau stated that he thought Wentworth Park would be a down grade. Councilor Mazzitello stated that Victoria Highlands Park would be a tight fight for a field. Page 15 of 935 July 21, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 4 Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that there was a 50-hour difference – Victoria Highlands was reserved for 448 hours to the 506 hours at Civic Center field, so there is a similar use in hours. Parks & Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence stated that the difference in use is because St. Thomas Academy also uses Civic Center field. Councilor Paper noted that the upgrades to the Civic Center field were done over eight years. Parks & Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence asked if there was a preference of fields for staff to start looking at to do public engagement and get pricing. Councilor Mazzitello suggested getting quotes on potential costs for rotating the field at Wentworth Park and a quote for converting Victoria Highlands Park to compare prices. Councilor Maczko inquired if they would become permanent fields. Councilor Mazzitello stated it would be for temporary fields and not permanent fields until the master plan was done for Mendakota Park. A. Crepeau stated that he has a concern with Wentworth Park as it would generate a lot of traffic and the cost of installing irrigation would be expensive. Parks & Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence noted that adding irrigation at Wentworth Park would be part of the cost analysis. She summarized the direction for rotating the field at Wentworth Park and a quote for converting Victoria Highlands Park to match the Civic Center field. Councilor Paper inquired whether costs associated with Ivy Hills Park would also be sought and received confirmation that those costs would also be included. MUNICIPAL CAMPUTS BUILDING PROJECT – VALUE EXERCISE Councilor Lorberbaum requested holding a discussion regarding the benefits taxpayers would receive in exchange for their tax contributions toward a new municipal campus building. Ideas were: Safe and secure building, the Mendota Heights Police Department would remain in Mendota Heights, retain staff and police officers, if project is not done it would not retain the community character of Mendota Heights, ADA compliance, and accessible to all. Councilor Maczko asked if the proposed project does not go forward, will Mendota Heights no longer have a police department. Councilor Mazzitello stated that the new proposed project would provide a safe, secure and adequate facility for the Police Department. The current building is not an option and added that the east side of the site was chosen because there would be no relocation costs associated with moving staff to a temporary location, which could cost up to $6 million under the relocation scenario. Page 16 of 935 July 21, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 5 Mayor Levine stated that a new building would provide efficient and effective public services to the community today and in the future. Councilor Maczko noted the past mold issues and stated that what is built should be supported by the residents, and that the council’s project pillars state the value to the residents. He added that the ball field should be saved and the decision has not been made to put the building on the ball field. Mayor Levine stated that the Council voted for a schematic design with the building on the ball field. She highlighted that the four pillars are fiscally responsible with transparent scope and costs, provide long-term value to residents, efficient and effective public safety and municipal services, and the facility be co-located to maximize efficiency, safety, security, and convenience to the public. Councilor Lorberbaum stated this was the start of a good discussion. ADJOURNMENT A motion to adjourn was made by Councilor Mazzitello, seconded by Councilor Paper, and unanimously carried. The meeting ended at approximately 6:54 pm. _________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 17 of 935 This page is intentionally left blank CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA DRAFT Minutes of the City Council Work Session Tuesday, July 22, 2026 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the Mendota Heights City Council was held at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Levine called the work session to order at 4:30 p.m. Councilors Lorberbaum, Mazzitello and Maczko were in attendance. Councilor Paper was absent. Others present included: City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator Kelly Torkelson, Finance Director Kristen Schabacker, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, Parks & Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence, Police Chief Kelly McCarthy, Police Captain Wayne Wegener, City Attorney Amy Schmidt, and City Clerk Nancy Bauer. Also in attendance were ICS Representatives Kyle Walter and Chris Ziemer, BKV Representatives Michael Healy and Trace Jacques, and from Ehlers Stacie Kvilvang. MUNICIPAL CAMPUS BUILDING PROJECT – BUILDING PLAN AND FINANCING K. Walter presented a PowerPoint reviewing the discussions and actions taken on the Municipal Campus Building project. He noted that on December 16, 2025, the City Council approved moving forward with the Municipal Campus Project, including the “Dig Once” Future Ready with CJN option, which included information on the loss of the baseball field. He also reviewed the project meetings and milestones completed since December 16, 2025, and Council action as the project has progressed through the schematic design phase. M. Healy stated that there was a refinement of space after feedback was received to reduce the size and footprint of the building. The current layout is at 49,993 square feet versus the twenty year need which was projected at 62,755 square feet. K. Walter added that the reduction in square feet was taken from the garage space and other common space throughout the building. He described the building layout noting that the building has the Police Department and City Hall on the first floor with an entry and exit on both sides of the garage, which is on the lower level. The design team reviewed preliminary site studies illustrating potential building locations on the property. Based on the initial analysis, the west side of the site, where the ball field is located, was identified as the preferred building location, because it would allow construction of the new facility while the existing building remains operational until the new building is ready for occupancy. Block plan images for both Option A and Option B were also presented and reviewed. Page 18 of 935 6.c July 22, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 2 K. Walter explained that constructing the new building on the existing site would require significant soil correction and excavation. An alternative concept showing the building located on the west side of the site demonstrated that excavated soils could be reused on-site after the existing building is demolished. In contrast, constructing on the existing building footprint would require most of the excavated soil to be exported off-site. K. Walter reviewed the comparative costs associated with utility extensions and building excavation for the proposed site options. The design team presented two concept plans and provided an overview of the schematic design, including building renderings, materials and floor plans. One of the renderings showed a possible t-ball field on the site rendering. It was also noted that the slides were a concept and no materials or decisions had been finalized. K. Walter noted that the number of parking spaces had been reduced to help lower project costs while increasing the amount of green space on the site. K. Walter reviewed the applicable B3 Guidelines, noting that the project is required to achieve a 90% reduction in energy use compared to the 2003 baseline standard for energy-efficient buildings. The guidelines apply to buildings constructed between 2025 and 2030 and are based on meeting a required point-based system. Compliance with the B3 Guidelines is measured using Energy Use Intensity (EUI), which is calculated by comparing the building's projected energy use from all mechanical systems to its total square footage. An example for using a boiler and chiller plant was presented to illustrate the target and reference EUI requirements. It was noted that additional photovoltaic (PV) credits may be required to meet the energy performance goals. Installing a geothermal system was identified as an effective strategy for improving the building's EUI score. Based on the current building layout, a solar photovoltaic system is anticipated to provide approximately 12 EUI credits, helping to offset the building's projected energy use. The remaining EUIs needed to be offset will need to be achieved by purchasing PV credits by adding additional solar or offset with other building materials, i.e. windows or exterior enclosures. He also discussed alternative mechanical options. The preliminary budgeting chart was presented and discussed, including cost estimates for the City Hall and Police Station (New Facilities) “Dig Once” option based on current needs, the CJN 10-Year Plan, and the CJN 20-Year Plan. Mayor Levine noted that incorporating additional space for CJN would provide flexibility and could serve as available space if CJN were to leave the facility in the future and asked about the value provided to taxpayers by incorporating the B3 guidelines. K. Walter explained that a geothermal system could reduce annual energy costs. He noted that the system is complex and would require staff training and knowledge to properly operate and maintain the equipment. Energy reduction strategies, B3 guidelines, delta savings and associated costs were discussed, and the current project schedule was reviewed. A revised project schedule was discussed if a second schematic design option is pursued. Page 19 of 935 July 22, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 3 K. Walter discussed the potential costs associated with developing a second schematic design option that would place the new building on the existing building footprint. He reviewed the estimated costs of temporarily leasing approximately 13,500 square feet to accommodate the police department and city hall operations. Based on a two-year lease, including tenant improvements, estimated costs ranged from $1,189,650 to $1,439,650. Additional costs not included in the estimate were also identified, including temporary relocation expenses, extending city fiber to the leased facility, moving costs of relocating twice, and operational impacts such as city branding, temporary storage or rental storage needs, and potential reductions in service level during the transition. City Administrator Jacobson reminded the Council that temporary space for Police Department could include the potential use of the Fire Station for patrol operations. She added that Council would need to have that conversation to consider that possibility. K. Walter noted that an additional design fee of $397,249 would be required for a second schematic design option. An alternate design could result in increased construction costs estimated to be between $250,000 and $750,000. Additional winter condition costs should also be considered, with estimated impacts ranging from $100,000 to $150,000. S. Kvilvang stated that, based on her experience with new municipal facility projects, issues arise on the first day if adequate planning is not completed. She reviewed the estimated tax impact for a home with the City’s average home of $551,000, noting that the cost would be approximately $1.00 per day. The different financing options, including General Obligation Bonds and Certificates of Participation, do not vary significantly in cost. She explained that General Obligation Bonds are secured through a tax levy supported by the City's full faith and credit, while Certificates of Participation are structured similarly to a lease with annual appropriation payments. It was further noted that Certificates of Participation typically have a slightly higher financing cost compared to General Obligation Bonds, however, the overall financing costs between the two options are relatively comparable. Councilor Maczko inquired if Certificates of Participation were subject to a reverse referendum. S. Kvilvang stated that Certificates of Participation are not subject to a reverse referendum. She added that the City Council has the authority to determine facility needs and establish an appropriate project budget. She shared that communities use Certificates of Participation because the Council has determined that a new facility is necessary and affordable for their residents. She added that delaying a decision about a new facility could result in increased project costs over time. Councilor Maczko asked how many cities have used this approach for a new facility. S. Kvilvang replied at least half a dozen in her experience. Councilor Mazzitello left the meeting. Councilor Lorberbaum asked about the difference between the General Obligation Bonds and Capital Improvement Bonds. S. Kvilvang replied that the official title is General Obligation Capital Improvement Bond. Page 20 of 935 July 22, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 4 Councilor Maczko inquired about the current bond rate. S. Kvilvang noted that the City has an AAA bond rating and that it would be under 4% for 20 years. Mayor Levine asked for clarification about the different amounts for the project. It was noted that the figures showed the amounts with or without CJN and with or without the B3 cost impacts. Mayor Levine suggested other options to help fund the project such as selling the Bourne property and/or possibly using funds in the fund balance. Mayor Levine asked how much could be spent from the fund balance and still maintain the AAA bond rating. S. Kvilvang stated the AAA bond rating is because of the amount in the fund balance. If the amount is spent below 75% the underwriters would want to know how the amount spent would be replenished. Finance Director Kristen Schabacker explained that some of the funds are already encumbered. Councilor Maczko asked if the 75% was required to be used in the fund policy for the AAA rating. S. Kvilvang stated the appropriate amount depends on the community, including its size and other factors. She noted that the rating reflects the fund balance policy, with the 75% fund balance. If the number were to change that would need to be discussed with the rating agency. The amount that could be spent from the fund balance was discussed. K. Walter said that the $1.848 million listed for Delta does buy down the $33.1 million amount and gets the number closer to $31.2 million that would be bonded and using the state funds. Councilor Lorberbaum asked for the value of the Bourne property. The response was approximately $2 million. Staff were directed to obtain an appraisal for the property and consider the zoning of the property. S. Kvilvang noted that the tax base should be considered when considering the zoning of the Bourne property. Councilor Lorberbaum noted she would like further discussion regarding the ball fields and costs of the ball fields. S. Kvilvang noted that the Council had previously decided to move forward with the project at the current ball field location, with an estimated cost of $33.1 million. The decision about retaining the ball field and making additional changes would increase project costs and expressed concern that revisiting prior decisions was moving the project backward. Councilor Lorberbaum asked if there was still mold in the building. Page 21 of 935 July 22, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 5 Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the mold resulted from construction issues associated with the original building. A small portion of the building experienced water intrusion due to the construction. Although improvements were made to the lower level, they did not resolve all the water intrusion issues. The rest of City Hall still does have a deficiency. Councilor Maczko summarized a 2021 past discussions regarding the mold issue. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek said some of the rooms on the lower level had the mold issues resolved. Councilor Lorberbaum inquired about the elevator issue. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the current elevator pit is at a lower depth, does not meet current code, needs major work, and has a sump basket. Police Chief Kelly McCarthy stated that the moisture content of the bricks can exceed 60%. Mayor Levine asked about the carpet not sticking to the floor. Police Chief Kelly McCarthy stated that moisture comes up through the floor. K. Walter stated that the concrete floor sits right on the soil and does not have a vapor barrier which can retain moisture and humidity. Councilor Maczko brought up a past discussion regarding a new building and the space needed. Police Chief Kelly McCarthy said a past study was done to add on the building. City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson noted that a study was done with a very conservative approach to add on to the building. K. Walter inquired if an alternate schematic design is prepared for the September 15 meeting, what would guide the design. Councilor Maczko stated he would like to see what could be done to save the ball field and the $33 million might still be too high of an amount and would like to see the figure in the mid $20 million figure. K. Water noted that the mid $20 million figure would result in a new building that is the same size as the current building. S. Kvilvang added that planning the project based solely on a predetermined number may not accurately reflect the actual needs of the project. K. Walter noted that adding a t-ball field to the new municipal campus project would add about $300,000. Mayor Levine stated that the original plan was to renovate and expand the existing building. However, as the project progressed, it became apparent that the building had outlived its useful life and its structural condition was inadequate. As a result, the discussion shifted toward constructing a new building. Page 22 of 935 July 22, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 6 Chris Ziemer noted that the building structure is sound; however, ongoing moisture issues continue to surface, potentially due to groundwater infiltration or the lack of a vapor barrier. It was further noted that the building configuration and existing dimensions would present challenges during a remodel. Councilor Maczko noted that the community needs to buy into the project. Mayor Levine stated that the project designers should consider a right-sized building on the current site either on the west or east side of the site, try to preserve the ball field, and get the associated costs. It was noted that Council members should engage with residents on the project to better understand their thoughts, particularly regarding the preservation of the ball field. K. Walter asked for clarification regarding a right-sized building. Mayor Levine stated it was for the current need - 49,990 square feet. K. Walter stated that constructing the building where the current building is would result in additional costs associated with relocation, project delays, and the need for an additional design. It was noted that the potential costs related to winter construction conditions have not yet been determined. Mayor Levine stated that the driving factor for this discussion was to save the ball field. City Administrator Jacobson reminded the Council that a decision has not yet been made regarding where employees would be relocated if the building were constructed where the current building sits. The Summit building was used as an example and is not adequately sized to accommodate the Police Department and City Hall staff, and if used would add to the costs. She stated that an election will take place in November, which may result in a change in Council. If the decision is to delay the project, consideration should be given to delaying it to the second quarter of 2027 in order for new council members to be onboarded. S. Kvilvang stated delaying a decision would also add to the costs of the project. Police Chief Kelly McCarthy noted that if the decision is delayed the Council may lose legitimacy as there has been a lot of discussion regarding the project. Councilor Maczko stated he thought two similar options would be presented to show to the residents. Mayor Levine stated that additional high-level discussion at the August 5 meeting is needed to determine whether to proceed with the alternate design process. Council members were encouraged to engage with the community to hear residents’ priorities and gather input on key considerations, including project costs and the potential preservation of the ball field. She also noted that the soil borings have not been completed. K. Walter noted that TRAA would support relocating the existing field to another location, provided the replacement field is equivalent to the existing field. Page 23 of 935 July 22, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 7 Police Chief Kelly McCarthy inquired if a community survey could be done. It was noted that it would be a significant community survey and would be expensive. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at approximately 6:36 pm. _________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 24 of 935 This page is intentionally left blank May 26, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 7 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 26, 2026 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 26, 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, Jeff Nath, Jason Stone, Brian Udell (arrived at 7:14 p.m.), and Steve Goldade. Those absent: None. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Election of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair for Year 2026 This item was postponed. Approval of April 28, 2026 Minutes COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 28, 2026. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Hearings New and Unfinished Business 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. Page 25 of 935 6.d May 26, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 7 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. 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 Page 26 of 935 May 26, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 7 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. 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. Page 27 of 935 May 26, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 7 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. 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 28 of 935 May 26, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 7 Election of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair for Year 2026 (Continued) Commissioner Corbett stated that he would love to have the opportunity to serve as Chair for the remainder of the year. Commissioner Udell nominated Commissioner Corbett for the position of Chair. Chair Field stated that he would like to continue to serve as Chair. Commissioner Stone nominated Chair Field. Commissioner Corbett noted that this will be his last opportunity as he will be done on the Commission at the end of this year. A roll call vote was performed: Commissioner Corbett Corbett Commissioner Nath Abstain Commissioner Udell Corbett Chair Field Field Commissioner Stone Field Commissioner Goldade Field Commissioner Johnson Field Chair Field was elected as Chair for the Year 2026. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden welcomed nominations for the Vice Chair position. Commissioner Stone commented that he would be happy to continue serving as Vice Chair. Commissioner Corbett nominated Commissioner Udell. Commissioner Stone commented that he has enjoyed serving, but would also step aside if Commissioner Udell wants an opportunity to serve. Upon a unanimous vote of the Commission, Commissioner Udell was elected as Vice Chair for Year 2026. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that there will be an upcoming Chair and Vice Chair training in June. Staff Announcements / Updates Page 29 of 935 May 26, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 7 Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided details on City Council actions on items recommended by the Planning Commission at previous meetings. She noted that the Commission previously tabled a request for a telecommunications tower at Wentworth Park and stated that the applicant agreed to the extension of the application review period, and the intention would be to bring that item back when revised plans have been submitted and reviewed. She stated that it seems that the applicant is going to revise their plans, but the City is unsure of how those plans would be updated. She stated that she will use the e-mail notification list she has been collecting to notify residents, and provide information on other platforms the City will use to inform the public about the item. She stated that the revised application would call for a public hearing, and a mailed notice would also be provided when appropriate. Chair Field recognized that the item was tabled with the intention for changes to be made to the application. He asked if a mailed notification would be required if the applicant were to resubmit the same plans. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that if no changes were made, public hearing notification would not be triggered, but the City would still use other platforms to advertise that the item is coming back before the Commission. She confirmed that any changes to the design plan would trigger a mailed notice for public hearing at a future meeting date. She reviewed the summer meeting dates for the Commission. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden then stated that the City is heading into Comprehensive Plan season, anticipating that they will kick off that project by the end of the year. Commissioner Johnson asked if the Metropolitan Council had provided guidance on the 2050 Plan. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that the Met Council website includes guidance and general data, along with submittal requirements. Chair Field stated that there was an open house tonight and asked for more information. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the City Council held a work session to review the schematic design for the Municipal Campus project. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek reviewed the next steps in the process for that project. He then provided updates on street projects for this year and other public works projects. Commissioner Johnson noted that the Master Gardeners and homeowners will be assisting the City in a rain garden installation project this weekend. Commissioner Udell asked for information on a water/sewer project on Walsh. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that it is a project being completed by St. Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS), so it is just water. He noted that it will be a day project with a detour that will be provided. Page 30 of 935 May 26, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 7 Adjournment COMMISSIONER NATH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:03 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Page 31 of 935 This page is intentionally left blank CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES May 20, 2026 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, May 20, 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, Dunn Commissioners absent: Hamiel Staff present: City Administrator Jacobson and Administrative Coordinator Desmond Public present: Rose Agnew 2.ELECTION OF OFFICERS – VICE CHAIR Election of Vice Chair was tabled to the July meeting. Motion by Arbit, Second by Dunn. Motion Carried 6-0 3.CONSENT AGENDA a.Approve Minutes from the March 18, 2026 Meeting b.Acknowledge Airport Operational Statistics Reports 1.Complaint Information 2.Runway Use Information Chair Norling approved the consent agenda. 4.PUBLIC COMMENTS Rose Agnew, 671 Woodridge Dr., asked about why there has been more airplane noise than normal. Chair Norling commented that there was a small increase in noise, but it was not much. Commissioner Dunn suggested to write a letter if there is more of an increase. 5.BUSINESS a.Noise Complaints City Administrator Jacobson presented complaint numbers. She has communicated with the MAC-NOC noise office staff, and they believe that it could be a bot driving up Mendota Heights complaint numbers. The noise office staff are working with MAC legal staff and considering sending a letter to the residents that the complaints are coming from to confirm legitimacy of the complaints and updating their software to try and fix this issue. Page 32 of 935 6.e b.Public Education and Information Initiative City Administrator Jacobson talked about and reviewed the questions that Commissioner Arbit submitted to her. Then suggested that they could move to educating the public through informative articles published in city communications including newsletters and social media. 6.INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE City Administrator Jacobson gave an update on RNAV departure procedure implementation and the FAA receipt of a waiver because of the potential obstruction issues with some departures. The waiver allows most departures to fly with current procedures that will be coded with RNAV procedures out to the 70-degree arc. ATC will manage airspace and have the ability to vector aircraft as needed. She noted the new publication date of October 29. Chair Norling asked if the FAA is keeping what was agreed upon with the RNAV Committee to include VADF leg types for greater dispersion. City Administrator Jacobson believes that they are keeping to it. City Administrator mentioned the opportunity to host the July 22 NOC Listening Session. 7.ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Rose Agnew mentioned the additional air traffic on June 19 for the Special Olympics. 8.ADJOURN Motion by Dunn, Second by Arbit to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. Chair Norling adjourned the meeting at 6:55pm. Page 33 of 935 6.f REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Authorize Signer for Solid Waste Abatement Grant from Dakota County ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Parks and Rec CONTACT: Courtney Selstad, Recycling Coordinator Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Authorize the City Administrator to be the authorized signer for the Solid Waste Abatement Grant from Dakota County, until such authorization is amended or rescinded by the City Council. BACKGROUND: With Mendota Heights being the fiscal agent on the Solid Waste Abatement Grant from Dakota County, the City is required to submit the grant document and be the authorized signer. The grant includes the following timeline for documents that will need to be signed by the City: •July: Mid-year report of the grant activities and a reimbursement request for expenses from January-June of the current year (this is currently in process for 2026) •September: Preliminary grant application for next year is due to Dakota County for review •January: Year-end reporting of grant activities and a reimbursement request for expenses from July-December of the previous year Staff recommends that the City Administrator be the authorized signer for the Solid Waste Abatement Grant documents going forward unless amended or rescinded by the City Council. The City Council would remain the designated signer for the final contract agreement between the City of Mendota Heights and Dakota County--which is a requirement of all cities participating in the grant program. Page 34 of 935 FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Environmental Sustainability & Stewardship, Inclusive and Responsive Government, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 35 of 935 6.g REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for Holy Family Maronite Catholic Church ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk ACTION REQUEST: Approve a temporary liquor license for Holy Family Maronite Catholic Church and the use of the City Hall parking lot for overflow parking during their annual fall festival. BACKGROUND: State Statutes and City Code states that no person shall sell or give away liquor without first having received a license. A temporary on-sale liquor license shall be granted only to clubs, charitable, religious, or non-profit organizations for the sale of intoxicating liquor. The licenses are subject to final approval by the Director of Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement. Holy Family Maronite Catholic Church located at 1960 Lexington Avenue is planing their annual fall festival on their property September 12, 2026. They have submitted their application for a temporary on-sale liquor license for that event and date. Holy Family Maronite Catholic Church has also requested the use of the City Hall parking lot for overflow parking on that day. A temporary on-sale liquor license has been issued in the past to Holy Family Catholic Church with no negative reports. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy Page 36 of 935 This page is intentionally left blank 6.h REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Geotechnical Evaluation Contract for the 2027 Street Improvements Project ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Engineering CONTACT: Lucas Ritchie, Assistant City Engineer ACTION REQUEST: Approve a contract for a geotechnical evaluation for the 2027 Street Improvements project. BACKGROUND: Preparation of the feasibility report for the 2027 Street Improvements project, as required under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, was authorized by the Mendota Heights City Council through adoption of Resolution 2026-45 at its July 21, 2026, meeting. The geotechnical evaluation will include ground penetrating radar (GPR), pavement cores, soil borings, and other subsurface investigations to evaluate existing pavement conditions, identify poor soils and groundwater conditions, and develop recommendations for an appropriate pavement section. The proposed streets to be rehabilitated are Bachelor Avenue, Deer Trail Court, Deer Trail Point, Evergreen Knolls, Gryc Court, Hidden Creek Trail, Lansford Lane, Nature Way, Pamela Lane, Round Hill Road, Stanwich Lane, Sutton Lane, Trail Road, and Wachtler Avenue. Minor watermain improvements are anticipated to extend the service life of the existing ductile iron pipe. In addition, stormwater sump manholes are proposed to reduce sediment accumulation within the neighborhood storm sewer system. Staff solicited quotes from three geotechnical engineering firms, with two firms submitting proposals. Upon completion of the field investigation, the selected consultant will provide a geotechnical report, including pavement design recommendations, for use during preparation of the feasibility report and subsequent project design. The following quotes were received: • Braun Intertec - $14,922.00 Page 37 of 935 •American Engineering Testing - $18,629.50 FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The 2026-2030 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifies total construction costs of $3,189,600 for the 2027 Street Improvements project. The costs will be refined during the feasibility stage and design process. The project is proposed to be funded by special assessments, municipal state aid, municipal bonds, various utility funds, and St. Paul Regional Water Services. The indirect costs for this in-house project will be adequate to provide for this service. Staff recommends that the City Council award a contract to Braun Intertec in the amount of $14,922.00 to complete the geotechnical evaluation for the 2027 Street Improvements project. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Braun Intertec Proposal CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 38 of 935 July 28, 2026 Proposal 10015662_001 Lucas Ritchie City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re: Proposal for a Pavement and Geotechnical Evaluation City of Mendota Heights 2027 Street Improvement Project Various City Streets Mendota Heights, Minnesota Dear Mr. Ritchie : Braun Intertec Corporation (Braun Intertec) submits this proposal to complete a pavement and geotechnical evaluation for the City of Mendota Heights 2027 Street Improvement Project. Project Information Pe r the RFP dated July 6, 2026, we understand the proposed project will include pavement rehabilitation, storm sewer pump manhole installation, water main sacrificial anode installation, and miscellaneous concrete curb and gutter replacement. We understand the proposed pavement rehabilitation is full-depth reclamation (FDR) for the Somerset Park and Evergreen Knoll streets, and mill-and-overlay for the Hidden Creek streets. Table 1 summarizes the streets to be tested. Table 1. Streets to be Tested Neighborhood Street Termini Approximate Length (feet) Somerset Park Bachelor Avenue Trail Road to Dodd Road 1,870 Stanwich Lane Sutton Lane to Dodd Road 1,180 Round Hill Road Lansford Lane to Dodd Road 950 Trail Road Marie Avenue to Bachelor Avenue 1,480 Sutton Lane Marie Avenue to Trail Road 1,400 Lansford Lane Round Hill Road to Bachelor Avenue 930 Evergreen Knoll Evergreen Knoll Wachtler Avenue to Dodd Road 2,230 Deer Trail Point West End to Wachtler Avenue 520 Deer Trail Court West End to Wachtler Avenue 180 Wachtler Avenue South End to Wentworth Avenue 730 Pamela Avenue Evergreen Knoll to North End 300 Page 39 of 935 City of Mendota Heights City of Mendota Heights 2027 Street Improvement Project Proposal 10015662_001 July 28, 2026 Braun Intertec Page 2 Neighborhood Street Termini Approximate Length (feet) Gryc Court Evergreen Knoll to South End 200 Hidden Creek Hidden Creek Trail Dodd Road to East End 2,000 Nature Way South End to Hidden Creek Trail 520 Par 3 Golf Course Parking Lot --- --- Total Length (feet) 11,970 As part of the replacement project, it was requested that we perform Ground Penetrating Radar, pavement cores, hand auger borings, and soil borings and provide a pavement evaluation report with rehabilitation recommendations. Purpose The purpose of our pavement and geotechnical evaluation will be to measure the in-place pavement layer thicknesses, evaluate the condition of the pavement layers and characterize subsurface geologic conditions at selected exploration locations, evaluate their impact on the project, and provide recommendations for the pavement rehabilitation and associated utility work for each street. Scope of Services We propose the following tasks to help achieve the stated purpose. If we encounter unfavorable or unforeseen conditions during the completion of our tasks that lead us to recommend an expanded scope of services, we will contact you to discuss the conditions before resuming our services. Ground Penetrating Radar To provide a continuous profile of pavement layer thicknesses along each street, we will perform GPR testing using a 2.0-gigahertz, air-coupled unit from GSSI, Inc. Testing will be performed at posted speeds in a single direction of travel. Pavement layer thickness data will be gathered at an interval of approximately four data points per foot. Our GPR measurements will be tied to GPS coordinates and interpreted thicknesses will be verified with information obtained from the pavement cores and hand auger borings. A GPR unit of this configuration can be expected to penetrate a maximum of 2 to 3 feet under ideal conditions. Unfavorable soils and ambient and electromagnetic interference may limit the useful depth of the data. Site Access It appears that the site is accessible to a truck-mounted drill rig. We assume there will be no cause for delays in accessing the exploration locations. Page 40 of 935 City of Mendota Heights City of Mendota Heights 2027 Street Improvement Project Proposal 10015662_001 July 28, 2026 Braun Intertec Page 3 Depending on access requirements, ground conditions or potential utility conflicts, our field crew may alter the exploration locations from those proposed to facilitate accessibility. Staking We will stake prospective subsurface exploration locations, as selected by the City, and obtain surface elevations at those locations using GPS (Global Positioning System) technology. In order to link the GPS data to an appropriate reference, we request that you provide CAD files indicating location/elevation references appropriate for this project, or give us contact information for the consultant that might have such information. Utility Clearance Prior to drilling, we will contact Gopher State One Call and arrange for notification of the appropriate utility vendors to mark and clear the exploration locations of public underground utilities. You, or your authorized representative, are responsible to notify us before we begin our work of the presence and location of any underground objects or private utilities that are not the responsibility of public agencies. We will not be liable for any damages resulting from unidentified or misidentified underground objects or utilities. Further, we reserve the right to stop work if underground objects or utilities are suspected or known to exist, but locations cannot be accurately determined. Permits If required, we will obtain a right-of-way permit with the city prior to beginning our fieldwork. We assume the permit fees will be waived as we will be completing the work for the city. Traffic Control Pavement coring and soil borings require our crews to work within the streets. Based on our review of the streets to be tested, the streets all appear to be low-volume, residential streets. We assume warning signs and cones will be sufficient on most of the street segments to protect our field crews and alert motorists to our work. If it is determined that traffic control is needed, we will notify you and request authorization for the additional fees through a Change Order. Pavement Coring and Hand Auger Borings As requested, we will perform a total of 17 pavement cores and hand auger borings. The purpose of the pavement cores will be to measure the thickness of the existing bituminous pavement section and to assess the condition of the underlying bituminous material. The hand auger borings will extend to the bottom of aggregate base, if present, to measure the thickness of the aggregate base layer and to note the subgrade soil type. We will include a core photo log in our final report with clear photos of each core along with a tape measure. Page 41 of 935 City of Mendota Heights City of Mendota Heights 2027 Street Improvement Project Proposal 10015662_001 July 28, 2026 Braun Intertec Page 4 Penetration Test Borings As requested, we will drill a total of eight standard penetration test (SPT) borings at the specified locations. We will perform standard penetration tests at 2 ½-foot intervals to a termination depth of about 10 feet. If the intended boring depths do not extend through unsuitable material, we will extend the borings at least 5 feet into suitable material at greater depths. If we identify a need for deeper (or additional) borings, we will contact you prior to increasing our total estimated drilled footage and submit a Change Order summarizing the anticipated additional effort and the associated cost, for your review and authorization. Groundwater Measurements If the borings encounter groundwater during or immediately after drilling of each boring, we will record the observed depth on the boring logs. MDH Notification and Sealing Record Since our planned exploration will be less than 15 feet in depth, the Minnesota Statutes will not require that we complete any notifications or sealing records. If we extend any of the borings to a depth of 15 feet or greater, the Statutes requires that we seal the boreholes and complete a Sealing Record. If 25 feet or greater, the Statutes also require us to complete a Sealing Notification Form. If the Record or Form are required, we will contact you to discuss the additional fees and sealing requirements. Borehole/Core Hole Abandonment We will backfill our exploration locations immediately after completing the drilling at each location. Minnesota Statutes require sealing temporary borings that are 15 feet deep or deeper. We currently do not anticipate having to seal any of the borings. Upon backfilling or sealing exploration locations, we will fill holes in the pavements with a temporary patch. Over time, subsidence of borehole backfill may occur, requiring releveling of surface grades or replacing temporary patches. We are not assuming responsibility for releveling or re-patching after we complete our fieldwork. Sample Review and Laboratory Testing We will return recovered samples to our laboratory, where a geotechnical engineer will visually classify and log them. To help classify the materials encountered and estimate the engineering properties necessary to our analyses, we anticipate performing gradation tests on the anticipated aggregate base where FDR is planned, along with moisture content tests, sieve analysis through #200 sieve only, and organic content test on the subgrade soils. We will adjust the actual number and type of tests based on the results of our borings. If we identify a laboratory testing program that exceeds the budget included in this proposal but provides additional value to the project, we will request authorization for the additional fees through a Change Order. Page 42 of 935 City of Mendota Heights City of Mendota Heights 2027 Street Improvement Project Proposal 10015662_001 July 28, 2026 Braun Intertec Page 5 Engineering Analyses We will use data obtained from the subsurface exploration and laboratory tests to evaluate the subsurface profile and groundwater conditions, and to perform engineering analyses related to pavement design and performance. Report We will prepare a report including: ▪ A CAD sketch showing the exploration locations. ▪ Summary of the GPR findings, including tabular and graphical results. ▪ Summary of pavement coring and hand auger boring results, including pavement layer thicknesses and a core photo log. ▪ Logs of the soil borings describing the materials encountered and presenting the results of our groundwater measurements and laboratory tests. ▪ A summary of the subsurface profile and groundwater conditions. ▪ Discussion identifying the subsurface conditions that will impact design and construction. ▪ Discussion regarding the reuse of on-site materials during construction. ▪ Recommendations for preparing pavement subgrades, and the selection, placement, and compaction of fill. ▪ Recommendations related to the planned pavement rehabilitation of each street, as well as the parking lot. Recommendations will include mill and/or reclaim depths, pavement design thicknesses and bituminous mixes. We will submit an electronic copy of our report along with two printed copies, as requested. At your request, we can also send the report to additional project team members. Schedule We anticipate performing our work according to the following schedule. ▪ GPR Testing – within about 1-2 weeks following receipt of written authorization. Testing will take about 1/2 day to complete. ▪ Drill rig mobilization – within about 4 weeks following receipt of written authorization. Field work will take 1 day to complete. ▪ Pavement coring mobilization – within about 2 to 3 weeks following receipt of written authorization. Field work will take about one day to complete. Page 43 of 935 City of Mendota Heights City of Mendota Heights 2027 Street Improvement Project Proposal 10015662_001 July 28, 2026 Braun Intertec Page 6 ▪Classification and laboratory testing – within 1 to 2 weeks after completion of field exploration ▪Draft report submittal – within about 2 to 3 weeks of completion of field exploration ▪Final report submittal – within 1 week of receiving comments on the draft report If we cannot complete our proposed scope of services according to this schedule due to circumstances beyond our control, we may need to revise this proposal prior to completing the remaining tasks. Fees We will furnish the services described in this proposal on a time and materials basis for an estimated fee of $14,922. We are attaching a tabulation showing hourly and/or unit rates associated with our proposed scope of services. Our work may extend over several invoicing periods. As such, we will submit partial progress invoices for work we perform during each invoicing period. Page 44 of 935 City of Mendota Heights City of Mendota Heights 2027 Street Improvement Project Proposal 10015662_001 July 28, 2026 Braun Intertec Page 7 General Remarks We based the proposed fee on the scope of services described and the assumption that you will authorize our services within 30 days and that others will not delay us beyond our proposed schedule. We include the Braun Intertec General Conditions, which provide additional terms and are a part of our agreement. To accept this proposal and authorize us to proceed, please sign and return it to us in its entirety. We appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal to you. We will be happy to meet with you to discuss our proposed scope of services further and clarify the various scope components. To have questions answered or schedule a time to meet and discuss our approach to this project further, please contact Heidi Olson at 612.597.6244 or holson@braunintertec.com. Sincerely, Braun Intertec Corporation Heidi C. Olson, PE Project Engineer Amy J. Grothaus, PE Senior Engineer – Senior Manager Attachments: Project Proposal General Conditions (11/04/2024) The proposal is accepted, and Braun Intertec is authorized to proceed. _____________________________________________ Authorizer’s Firm _____________________________________________ Authorizer’s Signature _____________________________________________ Authorizer’s Name (please print or type) _____________________________________________ Authorizer’s Title _____________________________________________ Date Page 45 of 935 1 Fee Estimate 10015662_001 Mendota Heights 2027 Street Rehabilitation Client: Work Site Address: City of Mendota Heights Lucas Ritchie 1101 Victoria Curv Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4167 651-255-1132 Dodd Road & Bachelor Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55118 Qty/Hours Rate Amount Task 1: Pavement and Geotechnical Evaluation Subtask 1.1: GPR Testing $956.00 GPR Technician 4.00 134.00 $536.00 FWD/GPR Mobilization, per mile 60.00 1.00 $60.00 GPR Equipment Fee, Roadway, per hour 4.00 90.00 $360.00 Subtask 1.2: Pavement Coring and Hand Auger Borings $2,490.00 Concrete/Bituminous/Masonry Coring - 2-person crew 16.00 120.00 $1,920.00 Trip Charge - from Bloomington 1.00 60.00 $60.00 Barrel Wear and Patch Material, per Core 17.00 30.00 $510.00 Subtask 1.3: Staking and Utility Locates $974.00 Staking and Utility Technician 4.00 114.00 $456.00 Project Assistant III 1.00 102.00 $102.00 GIS Specialist II 1.00 148.00 $148.00 Trip Charge - from Bloomington 1.00 60.00 $60.00 Trimble Catalyst GPS, Centimeter, per hour 4.00 52.00 $208.00 Subtask 1.4: Drilling Services $3,010.00 Truck Mounted Drilling Services, per hour 7.00 430.00 $3,010.00 Subtask 1.5: Laboratory Testing $2,206.00 Soil Sieve Analysis with 200 wash, each 8.00 196.00 $1,568.00 Soil Sieve Loss by Washing Through #200 Sieve each 3.00 102.00 $306.00 Soil Moisture Content ASTM D2216 each 10.00 23.00 $230.00 Soil Organic Content ASTM D2947 each 1.00 102.00 $102.00 Subtask 1.6: Engineering, Reporting and Project Management $5,286.00 Project Assistant III 3.00 102.00 $306.00 GIS Specialist II 1.00 148.00 $148.00 Project Engineer 22.00 192.00 $4,224.00 Senior Engineer II 2.00 224.00 $448.00 Project Control Specialist II 1.00 160.00 $160.00 Task 1 Total: $14,922.00 Project Total $14,922.00 Page 46 of 935 Rev. 2024-11-04 Page 1 of 2 BRAUN INTERTEC GENERAL CONDITIONS SECTION 1: AGREEMENT 1.1 Agreement. This agreement consists of these General Conditions and the accompanying written proposal or authorization (“Agreement”). This Agreement is the entire agreement between Consultant and Client and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. 1.2 Parties to the Agreement. The parties to this Agreement are the Braun Intertec entity (“Consultant”) and the client (“Client”) as described in the accompanying written proposal or authorization. Consultant and Client may be individually referred to as a Party or collectively as the Parties. SECTION 2: SCOPE OF SERVICES 2.1 Services. Consultant will provide services (“Services”) in connection with the project (“Project”) which are specifically described in this Agreement. Client understands and agrees that Consultant’s Services are limited to those which are expressly set forth in this Agreement. 2.2 Additional Services. Any Services not specifically set forth in the Agreement constitute “Additional Services.” Additional Services must be agreed upon in writing by the Parties prior to performance of the Additional Services and may entitle Consultant to additional compensation and schedule adjustments. Additional compensation will be based upon Consultant’s then current rates and fees. SECTION 3: PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES 3.1 Standard of Care. Consultant will perform its professional Services consistent with the degree of care and skill exercised by members of Consultant’s profession performing under similar circumstances at the same time and in the same locality in which the professional Services are performed. CONSULTANT DISCLAIMS ALL STATUTORY, ORAL, WRITTEN, EXPRESS, AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES IN A GOOD AND WORKMANLIKE MANNER. 3.2 Written Reports and Findings. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, Consultant’s findings, opinions, and recommendations will be provided to Client in writing and may be delivered via electronic format. Client agrees not to rely on oral findings, opinions, or recommendations. 3.3 Observation or Sampling Locations. Locations of field observations or sampling described in Consultant’s report or shown on Consultant’s sketches reference Project plans or information provided by others or estimates made by Consultant’s personnel. Consultant will not survey, set, or check the accuracy of those points unless Consultant accepts that duty in writing. Client agrees that such dimensions, depths, or elevations are approximations unless specifically stated otherwise in the report. Client accepts the inherent risk that samples or observations may not be representative of items not sampled or seen and further that site conditions may vary over distance or change over time. 3.4 Project Site Information. Client will provide Consultant with prior environmental, geotechnical and other reports, specifications, plans, and information to which Client has access about the Project site and which are necessary for Consultant to carry out Consultant’s Services. Client agrees to provide Consultant with all plans, changes in plans, and new information as to Project site conditions until Consultant has completed its Services. 3.5 Subsurface Objects. To the extent required to carry out Consultant’s Services, Client agrees to provide Consultant, in a timely manner, with information that Client has regarding buried objects at the Project site. Consultant will not be responsible for locating buried objects or utilities at the Project site unless expressly set forth in this Agreement, or expressly required by applicable law. Client agrees to hold Consultant harmless, defend, and indemnify Consultant from claims, damages, losses, penalties and expenses (including attorney fees) involving buried objects or utilities that were not properly marked or identified or of which Client had or should have had knowledge but did not timely notify Consultant or correctly identify on the plans Client or others furnished to Consultant. Consultant, from time to time, may hire a third party to locate underground objects or utilities and, unless otherwise expressly stated in this Agreement, such action shall be for the sole benefit of Consultant and in no way will alleviate Client of its responsibilities hereunder. 3.6 Hazardous Materials. Client will notify Consultant of any knowledge or suspicion of the presence of hazardous or dangerous materials present on any Project site or in any sample or material provided to Consultant. Client agrees to provide Consultant with information in Client’s possession or control relating to such samples or materials. If Consultant observes or suspects the presence of contaminants not anticipated in this Agreement, Consultant may terminate Services without liability to Client or to others, and Client will compensate Consultant for fees earned and expenses incurred up to the time of termination. 3.7 Supervision of Others. Consultant shall have no obligation to supervise or direct Client’s representatives, contractors, or other third parties retained by Client. Consultant has no authority over or responsibility for the means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures of construction selected or used by Client, Client’s representatives, contractors, or other third parties retained by Client. 3.8 Safety. Consultant will provide a health and safety program for its employees as well as reasonable personal protective equipment (“PPE”) typical for the performance of the Services provided by this Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all extraordinary PPE required by Client. Client will provide, at no cost to Consultant, appropriate Project site safety measures which are necessary for Consultant to perform its Services at the Project location or work areas in connection with the Project. Consultant’s employees are expressly authorized by Client to refuse to work under conditions that may, in an employee’s sole discretion, be unsafe. Consultant shall have no authority over or be responsible for the safety precautions and programs, or for security, at the Project site (except with respect to Consultant’s own Services and those of its subconsultants). 3.9 Project Site Access and Damage. Client will provide or ensure access to the site. In the performance of Services some Project site damage is normal even when due care is exercised. Consultant will use reasonable care to minimize damage to the Project site. Unless otherwise expressly stated in this Agreement, the cost of restoration for such damage has not been included in the estimated fees and will be the responsibility of the Client. 3.10 Monitoring Wells. To the extent applicable to the Services, monitoring wells are Client’s property, and Client is responsible for monitoring well permitting, maintenance, and abandonment unless otherwise expressly set forth in this Agreement. 3.11 Contaminant Disclosures Required by Law. Client agrees to make all disclosures related to the discovery or release of contaminants that are required by law. In the event Client does not own the Project site, Client acknowledges that it is Client’s duty to inform the owner of the Project site of the discovery or release of contaminants at the site. Client agrees to hold Consultant harmless, defend, and indemnify Consultant from claims, damages, penalties, or losses and expenses, including attorney fees, related to Client’s failure to make any disclosure required by law or for failing to make the necessary disclosure to the owner of the Project site. SECTION 4: SCHEDULE 4.1 Schedule. Consultant shall complete its obligations within a reasonable time and shall make decisions and carry out its responsibilities in a manner consistent with the Standard of Care. Specific periods of time for rendering Services or specific dates by which Services are to be completed are provided in this Agreement. If Consultant is delayed in the performance of the Services by actions, inactions, or neglect of Client or others for whom Client is responsible, by changes ordered in the Services, or by other causes beyond the control of Consultant, including force majeure events, then the time for Consultant’s performance of Services shall be extended and Consultant shall receive payment for all expenses attributable to the delay in accordance with Consultant’s then current rates and fees. 4.2 Scheduling On-Site Observations or Services. To the extent Consultant’s Services require observations, inspections, or testing be performed at the Project site, Client understands and agrees that Client, directly or indirectly through its authorized representative, has the sole right and responsibility to determine and communicate to Consultant the scheduling of observations, inspections, and testing performed by Consultant. Accordingly, Client also acknowledges that Consultant bears no responsibility for damages that may result because Consultant did not perform such observations, inspections, or testing that Client failed to request and schedule. Client understands that the scheduling of observations, inspections, or testing will dictate the time Consultant’s field personnel spend on the job site and agrees to pay for all services provided by Consultant due to Client’s scheduling demands in accordance with Consultant’s then current rates and fees. SECTION 5: COST AND PAYMENT OF SERVICES 5.1 Cost Estimates. Consultant’s price or fees provided for in this Agreement are an estimate and are not a fixed amount unless otherwise expressly stated in this Agreement. Consultant’s estimated fees are based upon Consultant’s experience, knowledge, and professional judgment as well as information available to Consultant at the time of this Agreement. Actual costs may vary and are not guaranteed or warrantied. 5.2 Payment. Consultant will invoice Client on a monthly basis for Services performed. Client will pay for Services as stated in this Agreement together with costs for Additional Services or costs otherwise agreed to in writing within thirty (30) days of the invoice date. Unless otherwise stated in this Agreement or agreed to in writing, Consultant’s costs for all services performed will be based upon Consultant’s then current rates, fees, and charges. No retainage shall be withheld by Client. All unpaid invoices will incur an interest charge of 1.5% per month or the maximum allowed by law. 5.3 Other Payment Conditions. Consultant will require Client credit approval and Consultant may require payment of a retainer fee. Client agrees to pay all applicable taxes. Client’s obligation to pay for Services under this Agreement is not contingent on Client’s ability to obtain financing, governmental or regulatory agency approval, permits, final adjudication of any lawsuit, Client’s successful completion of any project, receipt of payment from a third party, or any other event. 5.4 Third Party Payment. Provided Consultant has agreed in writing, Client may request Consultant to invoice and receive payment from a third party for Consultant’s Services. Consultant, in its sole discretion, may also require the third party to provide written acceptance of all terms of this Agreement. Neither payment to Consultant by a third party nor a third party’s written acceptance of all terms of this Agreement will alter Client’s rights and responsibilities under this Agreement. Client expressly agrees that Page 47 of 935 Rev. 2024-11-04 Braun Intertec General Conditions Page 2 of 2 the Agreement contains sufficient consideration notwithstanding Consultant being paid by a third party. 5.5 Non-Payment. If Client does not pay for Services in full as agreed, Consultant may retain work not yet delivered to Client and Client agrees to return all Project Data (as defined in this Agreement) that may be in Client’s possession or under Client’s control. If Client fails to pay Consultant in accordance with this Agreement, such nonpayment shall be considered a default and breach of this Agreement for which Consultant may terminate for cause consistent with the terms of this Agreement and without liability to Client or to others. Client will compensate Consultant for fees earned and expenses incurred up to the time of termination. Client agrees to be liable to Consultant for all costs and expenses Consultant incurs in the collection of amounts invoiced but not paid, including but not limited to attorney fees and costs. SECTION 6: OWNERSHIP AND USE OF DATA 6.1 Ownership. All reports, notes, calculations, documents, and all other data prepared by Consultant in the performance of the Services (“Project Data”) are instruments of Consultant’s Services and are the property of Consultant. Consultant shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright thereto, of Project Data. 6.2 Use of Project Data. The Project Data of this Agreement is for the exclusive purpose disclosed by Client and, unless agreed to in writing, for the exclusive use of Client. Client may not use Project Data for a purpose for which the Project Data was not prepared without the express written consent of Consultant. Consultant will not be responsible for any claims, damages, or costs arising from the unauthorized use of any Project Data provided by Consultant under this Agreement. Client agrees to hold harmless, defend and indemnify Consultant from any and all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of such unauthorized use. 6.3 Samples, Field Data, and Contaminated Equipment. Samples and field data remaining after tests are conducted, as well as field and laboratory equipment that cannot be adequately cleansed of contaminants, are and continue to be the property of Client. Samples may be discarded or returned to Client, at Consultant’s discretion, unless within fifteen (15) days of the report date Client gives Consultant written direction to store or transfer the samples and materials. Samples and materials will be stored at Client’s expense. 6.4 Data Provided by Client. Electronic data, reports, photographs, samples, and other materials provided by Client or others may be discarded or returned to Client, at Consultant’s discretion, unless within 15 days of the report date Client gives Consultant written direction to store or transfer the materials at Client’s expense. SECTION 7: INSURANCE 7.1 Insurance. Consultant shall keep and maintain the following insurance coverages: a.Workers’ Compensation: Statutory b.Employer’s Liability: $1,000,000 bodily injury, each accident | $1,000,000 bodily injury by disease, each employee | $1,000,000 bodily injury/disease, aggregate c. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence | $2,000,000 aggregate d.Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit (bodily injury and property damage) e. Excess Umbrella Liability: $5,000,000 per occurrence | $5,000,000 aggregate f.Professional Liability: $2,000,000 per claim | $2,000,000 aggregate 7.2 Waiver of Subrogation. Client and Consultant waive all claims and rights of subrogation for losses arising out of causes of loss covered by the respective insurance policies. 7.3 Certificate of Insurance. Consultant shall furnish Client with a certificate of insurance upon request. SECTION 8: INDEMNIFICATION , CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, LIABILITY LIMITS 8.1 Indemnification. Consultant’s only indemnification obligation shall be to indemnify and hold harmless the Client, its officers, directors, and employees from and against those damages and costs incurred by Client or that Client is legally obligated to pay as a result of third party tort claims, including for the death or bodily injury to any person or for the destruction or damage to any property, but only to the extent proven to be directly caused by the negligent act, error, or omission of the Consultant or anyone for whom the Consultant is legally responsible. This indemnification provision is subject to the Limitation of Liability set forth in this Section 8. 8.2 Intellectual Property. Client agrees to indemnify Consultant against losses and costs arising out of claims of patent or copyright infringement as to any process or system that is specified or selected by Client or others on behalf of Client. 8.3 Mutual Waiver of Consequential Damages. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY HEREUNDER, NEITHER CONSULTANT NOR CLIENT SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE OTHER FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL OR SPECIAL DAMAGES, OR LOSS OF USE OR RENTAL, LOSS OF PROFIT, LOSS OF BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY, LOSS OF PROFIT OR REVENUE OR COST OF FINANCING, OR OTHER SUCH SIMILAR AND RELATED DAMAGE ASSERTED IN THIRD PARTY CLAIMS, OR CLAIMS BY EITHER PARTY AGAINST THE OTHER. 8.4 Limitation of Liability. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THE TOTAL LIABILITY IN THE AGGREGATE OF CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT’S OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, PARTNERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, AND SUBCONSULTANTS, TO CLIENT AND ANYONE CLAIMING BY, THROUGH OR UNDER CLIENT FOR ANY CLAIMS, LOSSES, COSTS, OR DAMAGES WHATSOEVER ARISING OUT OF, RESULTING FROM OR IN ANY WAY RELATED CONSULTANT’S PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICES OR THIS AGREEMENT, FROM ANY CAUSE OR CAUSES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO NEGLIGENCE, PROFESSIONAL ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF CONTRACT, INDEMNIFICATION OBLIGATIONS OR BREACH OF WARRANTY, SHALL NOT EXCEED THE TOTAL COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY CONSULTANT OR $50,000, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. SECTION 9: MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 9.1 Services Prior to Agreement. Directing Consultant to commence Services prior to execution of this Agreement constitutes Client’s acceptance of this unaltered Agreement in its entirety. 9.2 Confidentiality. To the extent Consultant receives Client information identified as confidential, Consultant will not disclose that information to third parties without Client consent. Additionally, any Project Data prepared in performance of the Services will remain confidential and Consultant will not release the reports to any third parties not involved in the Project. Neither of the aforesaid confidentiality obligations shall apply to any information in the public domain, information lawfully acquired from others on a nonconfidential basis, or information that Consultant is required by law to disclose. 9.3 Relationship of the Parties. Consultant will perform Services under this Agreement as an independent contractor, and its employees will at all times be under its sole discretion and control. No provision in this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to create a joint venture, partnership, agency or other such association between the Parties. 9.4 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. To the extent applicable to the Services, neither this Agreement nor the providing of Services will operate to make Consultant an owner, operator, generator, transporter, treater, storer, or a disposal facility within the meaning of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, or within the meaning of any other law governing the handling, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous substances. Client agrees to hold Consultant harmless, defend, and indemnify Consultant from any claims, damages, penalties or losses resulting from the storage, removal, hauling or disposal of such substances. 9.5 Services in Connection with Legal Proceedings. Client agrees to compensate Consultant in accordance with its then current fees, rates, or charges if Consultant is asked or required to respond to legal process arising out of a proceeding related to the Project and as to which Consultant is not a party. 9.6 Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned by Consultant or Client without the prior written consent of the other Party, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. 9.7 Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing in this Agreement, express or implied, is intended, or will be construed, to confer upon or give any person or entity other than Consultant and Client, and their respective permitted successors and assigns, any rights, remedies, or obligations under or by reason of this Agreement. 9.8 Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by either Party for cause upon seven (7) days written notice to the other Party. Should the other Party fail to cure and perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement within such seven-day period, the Agreement may terminate at the sole discretion of the Party that provided the written notice. The Client may terminate this Agreement for its convenience. If Client terminates for its convenience, then Consultant shall be compensated in accordance with the terms hereof for Services performed, reimbursable costs and expenses incurred prior to the termination, and reasonable costs incurred as a result of the termination. 9.9 Force Majeure. Neither Party shall be liable for damages or deemed in default of this Agreement to the extent that any delay or failure in the performance of its obligations (other than the payment of money) results, without its fault or negligence, from any cause beyond its reasonable control, including but not limited to acts of God, acts of civil or military authority, embargoes, pandemics, epidemics, war, riots, insurrections, fires, explosions, earthquakes, floods, adverse weather conditions, strikes or lock-outs, declared states of emergency, and changes in laws, statutes, regulations, or ordinances. 9.10 Disputes, Choice of Law, Venue. In the event of a dispute and prior to exercising rights at law or under this Agreement, Consultant and Client agree to negotiate all disputes in good faith for a period of 30 days from the date of notice of such dispute. This Agreement will be governed by the laws and regulations of the state in which the Project is located and all disputes and claims shall be heard in the state or federal courts for that state. Client and Consultant each waive trial by jury. 9.11 Individual Liability. No officer or employee of Consultant, acting within the scope of employment, shall have individual liability for any acts or omissions, and Client agrees not to make a claim against any individual officers or employees of Consultant. 9.12 Severability. Should a court of law determine that any clause or section of this Agreement is invalid, all other clauses or sections shall remain in effect. 9.13 Waiver. The failure of either Party hereto to exercise or enforce any right under this Agreement shall not constitute a release or waiver of the subsequent exercise or enforcement of such right. 9.14 Entire Agreement. The terms and conditions set forth herein constitute the entire understanding of the Parties relating to the provision of Services by Consultant to Client. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument signed by both Parties. In the event Client issues a purchase order or other documentation to authorize Consultant’s Services, any conflicting or additional terms of such documentation are expressly excluded from this Agreement. Page 48 of 935 Page 49 of 9356.i Page 50 of 935 Page 51 of 935 Page 52 of 935 Page 53 of 935 Page 54 of 935 Page 55 of 935 Page 56 of 935 Page 57 of 935 Page 58 of 935 Page 59 of 935 This page is intentionally left blank 7.a REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Swearing in Ceremony for Mendota Heights Firefighters ITEM TYPE: Presentation DEPARTMENT: Fire CONTACT: Dan Johnson, Fire Chief ACTION REQUEST: Swearing in Ceremony for Mendota Heights Firefighters Chris Jones, Joe Fitzgerald, John Samec, Nick Segl, and Rachel Miller. BACKGROUND: In June of this year, Chris Jones, Joe Fitzgerald, John Samec, Nick Segl, and Rachel Miller completed the in-house fire academy the fire department conducts, and completed all certifications required for the position. They have also now completed their 12-month probationary period and are eligible to be sworn in as regular firefighters with the Mendota Heights Fire Department. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 60 of 935 This page is intentionally left blank 9.a REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2026-47 Denying a Conditional Use Permit for a 149-ft wireless monopole to be located at 739 Wentworth Avenue (Wentworth Park) [Planning Case No. 2026-05] ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Adopt Resolution 2026-47 Denying a Conditional Use Permit for a 149-ft wireless monopole to be located at 739 Wentworth Avenue. BACKGROUND: 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 City Code permits a freestanding tower up to 150-ft in height by Conditional Use Permit in all Base Zoning Districts, with a preference for certain land use areas. One of the preferred land use areas includes municipal property or Public/Semi-Public uses. The applicant has requested a Conditional Use Permit for this wireless tower under these provisions as outlined in section 12-4A-12.7 of City Code. The proposed improvements include a 145-ft monopole tower within a 50-ft x 50-ft fenced and screened ground space. A lighting rod would be installed at the top of the tower totaling an overall height of 149-ft. The base of the tower is shown to be within a fenced-in compound area, with associated ground-mounted equipment. Verizon Wireless is a partner to The Towers LLC and the primary carrier of the tower, but with this height and design, there would be capacity for additional carriers to co-locate in the future (three total carriers). The applicant has stated that Verizon has identified a significant service capacity gap in their wireless communications network, which cannot be resolved unless a communications tower is constructed within the identified service gap area. The intent of the application is to improve wireless coverage for Mendota Heights residents and business, as well as improved service for Page 61 of 935 emergency response personnel and other City staffmembers. The subject site was selected by the applicant group due to its ability to address documented coverage and capacity needs, while also being located on a preferred land use area: municipal property and Public/Semi- Public property. The Radio Frequency Engineer for the applicant group has identified that the proposed location is optimal because it will allow the cell carrier to cover a substantial area with the single tower. The location is also ideal due to its ground elevation of 885 feet, which when combined with the proposed tower height would increase the ability to provide stronger service within the surrounding topography. Application Review Overview: The Planning Commission has held two public hearings on this application request across three separate regular meetings. The first hearing was opened on March 31st and tabled to April 28th at the request of the applicant to provide a response to public comments which were received. That hearing was then continued and closed on April 28th. The 2nd public hearing was held at the July 28th Planning Commission meeting. There have been many inquiries to the City with questions about this application, and 85 public comments and/or submission of materials for the record have been received by city staff as of the submittal of this report. The initial staff recommendation for the Conditional Use Permit had been for approval of the request, based on findings that the proposal was consistent with the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. This recommendation was provided in the written staff report for the March 31st and April 28th meetings. When the application was received by the City, staff interpreted the zoning ordinance to mean that principal building setbacks of the base zoning district were not applicable to this structure type. However, during the review period and public hearings for this application request, some residents reached out with questions about this interpretation. Staff re-evaluated the plain language of the ordinance and determined that setbacks for a non-building accessory structure may still apply for this type of a structure (a monopole). Once these additional setbacks were applied in the review of this application, the plan for the tower's location was no longer viewed as compliant with City Code and staff would no longer be recommending support of the application. During the staff presentation at the April 28th Planning Commission meeting, staff recommended to the Commission that they continue to hold the tabled public hearing, but that staff was no longer recommending approval of the CUP. Staff requested the Planning Commission to table the application to a future meeting date, noting that if there were revisions to the plan that staff would notice for an additional public hearing and bring the application back to the Commission for their review and recommendation. The motion to table passed by a 5-2 vote. During the time between the April 28th meeting and the July 28th meeting, the applicant was working with their client to determine alternative solutions for the cell tower proposal and possible locations. Staff provided feedback to the applicant when requested. As the review deadline was approaching, additional information which impacts the viability of the proposal was presented to City Staff. Due to prior MnDNR grant funding that was received for Page 62 of 935 improvements within Wentworth Park, the City has obligations to maintain the park as a principal recreational use. Initially, City staff believed that the proposed improvement would not be in conflict with the terms of the grant funding, as the proposed cell tower did not impact any of the trail amenities that were improved with the grant funding, did not involve removal of established trees, and also did not impact any of the recreational features within the park. However, based on correspondence with the MnDNR, staff have concluded that the proposed cell tower would still violate the terms of the grant funding, despite the proposed park-periphery location. This, in addition to the setback and height non-compliance of the proposed tower location, continued to reinforce the staff recommendation to deny the Conditional Use Permit request when it was brought back to the Planning Commission for review. The applicant was informed of the grant restrictions and the lack of staff support for the application as proposed. The applicant was also informed of the upcoming review deadline for the application, which requires that the City take final action on this request by August 26th. The City received revised application materials on July 16th, 2026, and published for the public hearing to be held on July 28th in accordance with the statutory review deadline. The applicant chose to modify the plans for the proposed monopole, and is interested in continuing to pursue the application process. July 16th Revised Plans: The proposed location is compliant with the setbacks for a structure in the residential base zoning district, however, it is not compliant with the requirement for a tower of 145 feet in height to be setback the corresponding height-distance from the nearest setback line. The applicant’s revisions submitted on July 16, 2026, illustrate that the proposed location of the tower and fenced compound has been moved approximately 60 feet to the east from the original proposed location, making the tower setback approximately 116 feet from the western property line. With a proposed tower height of 145 feet (149 feet with the lightning rod), the ordinance would require that the tower be setback 164 feet from the side property line (distance of the nearest setback line + the height of the tower). The proposal is not compliant with this standard. The applicant has provided elevations illustrating the proposed tower as a “monopine” design. The applicant has stated that the City’s zoning ordinance has flexibility to allow the proposed location as Section 12-4A-12.7 regarding Wireless Antennas, Towers, and Accessory Structures, subpart D.4.d. sets forth discretion for the City Council to “waive any or all of the requirements of this Section in order to approve a unique “stealth” or “camouflage” design […] if, in the opinion of the City Council, said apparatus will be sufficiently disguised as trees, light poles, church steeples, or other similar objects.” City Staff has not been supportive of pursuing a monopine design pursuant to this Code provision, as despite the design features of visible similarities to a pine tree, the scale of the tower would not be sufficiently disguised or camouflaged within the surrounding environment. However, the ordinance does call out this as a discretionary action of the City Council. Page 63 of 935 The City Council may evaluate this design option to determine if, in their opinion, the tower would be sufficiently camouflaged as proposed. If the City Council makes that determination, the City Council may exercise its discretion granted in the City Code and waive the standards of the tower ordinance, including setbacks. Utilizing this portion of the ordinance for a stealth design in this case may have the potential to resolve the setbacks-to-height ratio issue of noncompliance, but it does not resolve the additional grant restrictions which have been identified during this due-diligence period. Staff does not support the “stealth” option for the tower in this particular planning case. Recommendation: At the July 28, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented. A duly noticed public hearing was held, and 11 residents came forward to speak regarding this application. The applicant was present and available to answer questions of the Commission. The Planning Commission discussed the area coverage analysis provided by the applicant, the property value impact documentation provided by the applicant, and asked questions of the applicant about the difference in coverage at varying heights of a tower or other support structure. The applicant's representative from The Towers LLC also spoke relating to health impacts associated with cellular infrastructure. A copy of the 1996 Telecommunications Act was provided and is included as an attachment to this report. A copy of the 7/28/2026 planning report with attachments is attached to this memo. As noted in the attachment, staff had recommended denial of the application request. Following their discussion, the Planning Commission agreed with the staff recommendation and voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend to the City Council denial of this Conditional Use Permit with certain findings-of-fact as drafted by staff, which are outlined in the attached [draft] Resolution. The City Council is asked to affirm the Planning Commission's recommendation by adopting Resolution 2026-47 Denying a Conditional Use Permit for a 149-ft wireless monopole to be located at 739 Wentworth Avenue. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Not Applicable. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Resolution 2026-47 Resolution Denying A Conditional Use Permit for a 149-ft Wireless Monopole to be Located at 739 Wentworth Avenue (Wentworth Park) 2.Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes 7-28-26 3.Planning Commission Packet 7-28-26 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 64 of 935 Resolution No. 2026-47 Page | 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2026-47 RESOLUTION DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 149-FT WIRELESS MONOPOLE TO BE LOCATED AT 739 WENTWORTH AVENUE (WENTWORTH PARK) PLANNING CASE 2026-05 WHEREAS, Buell Consulting, LLC, (the “Applicant”) on behalf of The Towers, LLC made an Application for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 149-ft wireless monopole to be located at 739 Wentworth Avenue, the property commonly known as Wentworth Park, a municipal property of the City of Mendota Heights, and legally described in Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LDR-Low Density Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and zoned R-1 Low Density Residential and P/SP-O Public/Semi-Public Overlay District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Title 12-4A-12.7: Wireless Antennas, Towers, and Accessory Structures, a Conditional Use Permit is required for a freestanding wireless tower, and a freestanding wireless monopole tower use requires compliance with the performance standards, including property line setbacks and height, that are set forth in the Mendota Heights City Code; and WHEREAS, on February 4, 2026, the City Council approved an Option and Lease Agreement with The Towers, LLC which began the one year due-diligence period for this proposed use and enabled the applicant to submit a Conditional Use Permit application as set forth in the Mendota Heights City Code; and WHEREAS, on March 31, 2026, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission opened a public hearing on this Conditional Use Permit request, whereby a planning report was presented and received by the Commission, and comments from the applicant and public were allowed, and while leaving the public hearing open, the Commission recommended unanimously (5-0 vote) to table the requested application and the public hearing to the April 28, 2026 regular Planning Commission meeting; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2026, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission continued the tabled public hearing on this Conditional Use Permit request, whereby an updated planning report was presented to the Commission demonstrating that the staff interpretation of the zoning ordinance as it applies to this Planning Case No. 2026-05 had changed and staff could no longer recommend approval of the application as presented, and comments from the applicant and public were allowed, and whereupon closing the hearing, the Commission recommended (5-2 vote) to table the requested application to a future meeting date to allow the applicant to revise their plan; and Page 65 of 935 Resolution No. 2026-47 Page | 2 WHEREAS, while the application was pending, the City received correspondence from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regarding use restrictions filed of record with Dakota County on the title of the Wentworth Park property that the DNR asserted that the proposed use of a wireless monopole tower could violate the terms of existing grant agreements between the City and the DNR; and WHEREAS, on July 28, 2026, The Mendota Heights Planning Commission opened, held, and closed the second public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit application request under Planning Case No. 2026-05, and the tabled application was presented by staff with a recommendation for denial, and whereupon receiving the presented staff report and hearing testimony from residents on the application, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (5-0) to deny the request Conditional Use Permit application as presented under Planning Case No. 2026-05 based on certain findings-of-fact for denial. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation from the Planning Commission on Planning Case No. 2026-05 is hereby affirmed, and may be denied based on the following findings-of-fact: 1.The proposed freestanding wireless monopole tower use does not conform to the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance, and of the applicable performance standards set forth in City Code Section 12-3B-5B.7. a.The proposed structure is non-compliant with the required maximum height for a wireless monopole tower in its proposed location, as the proposed height is not equal to or less than the distance between the base of the structure and the nearest applicable setback line. b.The proposed stealth design of a “monopine” tower does not sufficiently camouflage the wireless tower within the subject property. 2.The subject property (Wentworth Park) is restricted for land use by the prior use of grant funding. Approving a freestanding wireless monopole tower likely violates the grant funding restrictions, which creates the risk that the City would be obligated to repay the grant funding that was received. 3.The proposed use does not meet the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit for the following reasons: The City may grant a conditional use permit provided the proposed use demonstrates the following: a.The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, b.The use will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards, Page 66 of 935 Resolution No. 2026-47 Page | 3 c.The use will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value, and d.The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code and the comprehensive plan. A.The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community The proposed use will address an established deficiency of consistent cellular coverage in Mendota Heights, particularly in the northern area of the City in the vicinity of the proposed location. The improved wireless infrastructure will support and enhance public safety and the general welfare of the community, particularly given the increasing reliance on mobile devices for emergency communications. The proposed cellular tower will allow for colocation of up to three different providers, which will further enhance network reliability and capacity without creating adverse impacts on surrounding properties. Radiofrequency emissions related to cellular towers will not be detrimental to health, because such emissions are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the applicants are required to comply with all applicable federal standards. B.The proposed use will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards The proposed use for a wireless tower and telecommunications facility is a passive use of the location, The facility would not be staffed on a regular basis, and will not increase traffic to Wentworth Park or add to the existing traffic patterns in the surrounding area. Any additional vehicles or equipment used during construction or maintenance activities will be temporary, and will be regulated by the City to ensure minimal impacts on park users and traffic in the area of Wentworth Park. C.The proposed use will not depreciate surrounding property value. There is no evidence that the proposed use would have a measurable impact on the depreciation of surrounding property values in this specific market. The Value Impact Study provided by the applicant demonstrates that the proposed cell tower development would not measurably impact the value of surrounding properties. D.The proposed use is not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of City Code Section 12-4A-12.7 or the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the “Wireless Antennas, Towers, and Accessory Structures” section of the City Code is as follows: To protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community while accommodating the communication needs of residents and businesses, the City Council finds that this Section is necessary to: Page 67 of 935 Resolution No. 2026-47 Page | 4 (1) Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties and personal injury from tower collapse through structural standards and setback requirements. (2) Protect the aesthetic qualities of the community by requiring tower and antenna equipment to be designed in a manner to blend in with the surroundings and complement existing structures. (3) Maximize the use of existing and approved freestanding antenna towers, buildings, and existing light poles for new wireless telecommunication antennas. (4) Minimize the number of freestanding antenna towers needed to serve the community by requiring co-location. (5) Facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and businesses of the City. (6) Ensure that a competitive and broad range of telecommunications services and high-quality telecommunications infrastructure are provided to serve the community, as well as serve an important and effective part of the city’s emergency response network. (7) Place telecommunication facilities in suitable locations, with residential locations being a last resort. The proposed use will be located on a municipal property, and is located within the Public/Semi-Public Overlay district, both of which are preferred land use areas under the City Code. The construction of a freestanding tower is permitted in the ordinance by Conditional Use Permit, and the approval of this proposal would accomplish items (5) and (6) above, to facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to residents and businesses within the City, and ensuring that high-quality telecommunications infrastructure is provided to serve the community. The construction of the tower would also aid in the effort to accomplish item (4), by constructing a tower with space where three total carriers could co-locate on in the future. The proposed monopole tower includes design elements to attempt to minimize the visual impact of the monopole where possible, including an option by the applicant group to construct the tower as a “monopine” design. However, this stealth design option does not sufficiently camouflage the tower to justify reduction of the setback requirements. With a total height of 149 feet, the proposed “monopine” design of the pole is approximately 80 feet higher than the overall tree canopy. With this height difference, from certain vantage points, the monopole is not effectively camouflaged to blend in with the tree canopy. Accordingly, the proposed location and tower fail to protect the aesthetic qualities of the community by requiring tower and antenna equipment to be designed in a manner to blend in with the surroundings and complement existing structures (item (2) above). Likewise, the City Council declines to waive the standards of the tower ordinance, including setbacks. Page 68 of 935 Resolution No. 2026-47 Page | 5 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Conditional Use Permit requested for a 149-ft wireless monopole on the property located at 739 Wentworth Avenue is hereby denied. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of August, 2026. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 69 of 935 Resolution No. 2026-47 Page | 6 EXHIBIT A Address: 739 Wentworth Avenue PIN: 27-03800-34-010 Legal Description: All of Lot 34, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota Page 70 of 935 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES EXCERPT FROM DRAFT/UNAPPROVED 7/28/26 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES A)TABLED - PLANNING CASE 2026-05 BUELL CONSULTING, LLC (ON BEHALF OF THE TOWERS LLC), 739 WENTWORTH AVENUE (WENTWORTH PARK) – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the subject property, located at 739 Wentworth Avenue, is owned by the City and used 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 first public hearing for this application was opened on March 31, 2026, and the request was tabled at the April 28, 2026 meeting. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 2000-ft. of the site; there have been many inquiries to the City with questions about the application, and 85 public comments have been received. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended denial of the requested CUP. Commissioner Stone asked and received confirmation that this use may be in violation of previous grant dollars received. He asked why this is proceeding until that is known, or why another location was not proposed. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the City must act on the application by August 26th. She noted that a different location would be a separate application. Commissioner Corbett asked for clarification on the Code language for height compared to setback. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided additional details on the maximum allowed height and related setback. Chair Field invited the applicant to address the Commission. Scott Buell, Buell Consulting, stated that the RF study and alternate site analysis were provided earlier today and completed by a third party. He stated that the DNR grant restrictions are a red herring and have more to do with property rights and less to do with a CUP request. Doug Barker, The Towers LLC, commented that a stealth design tower has the ability for lower and/or waived setbacks. He provided comments on property values, health and safety, and being in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan, noting that the realtors they consulted with showed no Page 71 of 935 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES degradation of property values from cell towers being nearby. He stated that if people do not have coverage in the home, they do not want to purchase that home. He stated that a letter from the assessor was also provided showing that there is no impact on property values. He cited a World Health Organization study published in 2024 that found no link between cell phone use and cancer. He commented that the City changed its ordinance to allow towers to go into parks, which is what led to this request. He stated that the City signed the lease, and commented that this road is leading towards bad faith. He stated that the ordinance changes were intended to provide flexibility to improve resident cell phone coverage throughout the community. He asked the Commission to recommend approval of the request as he believed that the provisions of the Code were met by the request. Commissioner Corbett asked and received confirmation that Mr. Barker was not at the last meeting. He stated that at the last meeting a request was made for a height study windowing coverage versus height and commented that he did not see that within the applicant’s materials. Mr. Buell replied that he was unclear on what that was meant to be and that is not a requirement of the ordinance. Commissioner Corbett commented that he believed that information was critical for this review. He noted that the intention is to have up to three antennas on the tower. Mr. Barker provided details on the spacing that would be required between antennas, noting that the lowest antenna would not receive the same coverage as the top antenna, so he did not anticipate three carriers would want to be on the tower. Commissioner Corbett asked if the tenant at 115 feet would pay less because lesser quality service would be provided than the tenant at the top. Mr. Barker replied that the lowest tenant would not be able to cover the same area but would not pay less to be on the tower. He commented that towers are typically built to 195 feet around residential areas, but in rural areas the towers are going to 250 to 300 feet to provide coverage. Commissioner Corbett stated that he was clear that he would need that data at the last meeting. He stated that the information provided was marketing data and not quantifiable data. Mr. Buell confirmed that those numbers were not provided. He explained that because of the mature trees in the area, the lowest carrier would need to be above the trees. He stated that if the trees are around 80 feet, the lowest antenna would need to be at 100 feet. He confirmed that the information Commissioner Corbett requested was not provided. Commissioner Corbett stated that he would want to see the windowing of data to show at what height service can be provided, to determine the lowest height that could be feasible. Mr. Buell stated that having a clear requirement delineated would make sense for applicants to better understand what is required/requested. Page 72 of 935 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Commissioner Corbett stated that he also does not see any change to the real estate study, which he called out as questionable at best at the last meeting. He stated that he works in real estate and with people in this neighborhood. He explained that if someone has the choice to look out their window and sees nothing, just a park, or a tower, they will choose the first option. Mr. Barker stated that an opinion was provided by the County assessor. He stated that he recently built a home near a cell tower that he developed 30 years ago. Commissioner Stone commented that Mr. Barker is probably one out of ten people who would choose that option. Commissioner Corbett stated that he does not believe that all requirements for the CUP have been met. He stated that there is a parcel adjacent to this site that could be subdivided, as well as the homes around it, that would have impacts to their property values. He commented that the data provided by the applicant did not discuss a home value before a tower and the same value after the tower is built. Mr. Buell stated that sounds like an opinion without evidence. He stated that a response was provided to that critique. Commissioner Corbett noted that the response would then just be an opinion as well. He noted that he is the President of the Board on which those individuals sit, so he is qualified to make his statements on this topic. He was disappointed that his requests from the last meeting have not been addressed. Commissioner Goldade asked for clarification on the use of “red herring” used by the applicant. Mr. Buell commented that his intention in using that term was that it is a distracting additional piece of information. Commissioner Stone asked about the largest tower that exists in Mendota Heights. Mr. Buell provided the locations of two towers that he believed to be 75 feet in height. Commissioner Stone asked if one of the 75-foot towers could be replaced with a taller tower. Mr. Buell stated that they did look into that option, but the setback requirements would not make that possible. Commissioner Stone commented that he believes that request would be better than this request. Mr. Buell noted that location is also lower in elevation, which makes a significant difference in coverage. Page 73 of 935 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Mr. Barker commented that capacity is as big of a driver as coverage. He commented that a 250- foot tower could cover the whole city, but not for the entire community. He commented that you need more towers to provide service to more people. Commissioner Stone asked the other sites that were reviewed. Mr. Buell stated that the ordinance states that community-owned property be reviewed first, which is why this request was made. He stated that other options owned by the City would be the Par 3 and Valley Park. Commissioner Stone asked if the area between 62 and Marie, off the bike path, was reviewed, as that would not be a part of a park or field. Mr. Buell stated that the transmission line easement takes up a lot of that space. Mr. Barker commented that they are open to solutions, noting that they reviewed City property first and executed an agreement, but they are open to alternatives. Chair Field continued the public hearing. Gayra Ostgaard, 757 Upper Colonial Drive, provided information on the “red herring,” noting that it is a copy of the DNR recreation grant. She thanked the Commission for its work and for reading the written comments, noting the written comments submitted by herself and her neighbors, which are in the form of a legal brief. She recommended that the Commission read that entire section. She highlighted a pattern about this process, where the City states that it has done its due diligence but did not believe that has occurred throughout this process. She stated that a resident discovered that the proposed tower exceeded the height restriction in the ordinance. She commented that a resident discovered the DNR recreation grant deed restriction. She commented that there was another grant, the shade tree bonding grant, which also states that the land cannot be leased. She noted that this was also discovered by a resident. She commented that it was residents, not City staff, who have uncovered these issues. She stated that residents should be able to trust that City staff is doing its job and not spending their own time and money to discover these things. She raised serious questions about the process and asked the Commission to honor its grant obligations and deny the request. George Eliou, 757 Upper Colonial Drive, asked the value of the grant if it had to be paid back and who would be responsible for paying that back. He noted that the cost to repay the loan would equal about 20 years of lease payments. He asked if the application had addressed ordinance 595, the urban forest preservation ordinance, and provided more information on the ordinance requirements for the applicant to develop a forest management plan. Jane Todd, 689 Wentworth, commented that she represents the 24 homeowners at the property. She stated that she previously owned a large resort in Wisconsin and had a monolith pole, noting that there were no complaints, impacts on health, or impacts on wildlife. She commented on the screening the trees provide to the height of the tower. She commented that their buildings are 55 years old with elevators and outdated fire panels. She stated that companies that monitor fire Page 74 of 935 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES alarms no longer do that through landlines, so they have placed cell phone boosters outside the building because there is no cell service where the panels are located. She stated that most people who visit her have to walk to the window or go outside to use their cell phone. She expressed concern for those without landlines and who only use cell phones because of the lack of service in that area. She understands that it is popular for people to hate these things because they are an eyesore but disagreed. She commented that their development has significant property to the north of them and Somerset 19 is very willing to entertain a tower on their property. She believed that a variance may still be required, but noted that they would be interested in being a host for the tower. Joan Brandis, 1465 Cherryhill Road, stated that she is sad to see that after all these months, there has not been one alternative to the park. She stated that they have also worked with residents who do not have service to find equipment that could help them. She noted that one option was equipment with a cost of $200, but the resident was not interested. She stated that moving the tower 60 feet would put it on top of the kids going over there every day and expressed concerns with potential health impacts. She commented that it is difficult to provide an exact number, but stated that there will be a negative impact on home values and asked the Commission to deny the request. Robin Ehrlich, 1656 Gyrc Court, stated that he came to the meeting with a neutral opinion but agrees with the staff presentation recommending denial. He commented that he is most bothered by the height of the tower relative to the three carriers who may use it, noting that this would provide the best coverage to Verizon and, as an AT&T customer, he would likely not benefit from this. Tom Swain, 735 Evergreen Knolls, stated that this is a robust process, driven in many ways by the citizens. He stated that clearly this new pole is not camouflaged and the leaves will come off the trees in the winter. He stated that perhaps this will improve coverage, or maybe it would not. He stated that if this is not going to solve the problem, they should look for a way to solve the problem and believed that smart people can find other locations. He stated that clearly this is not a good location and there are several other factors that have come forward showing this is not the right place. He urged them to move on and find a better solution. Cammie Evans, 796 Lower Colonial Drive, stated that the proposal has made the community less safe, noting that her friend was verbally assaulted while placing signs in the park and her husband received death threats after appearing on TV opposing the tower. She asked people to understand that this is a divisive issue and asked the Commission to keep that in mind. Paula Anderson, 790 Lower Colonial, commented on her position at Children's Hospital and referenced a CDC article on cell tower exposure and that it should not be located near an area where children play. Ric Giese, 729 Evergreen Knolls, commented that he would see this pole from his back porch and spoke in opposition to the request. He was also concerned about the safety of those who do not have cell phone service, but did not believe this was the right solution. He believed that smart people of the community can work together to find a better solution. He stated that perhaps the Page 75 of 935 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES pole could be located at City Hall with the municipal campus project. He did not believe cell service would be tower-based in the next five years and would instead be satellite-based, so this would be shortsighted. He stated that the City should look to maximize service through satellite service and be a leader in that direction. John Trojack, 786 Upper Colonial Drive, commented that in hindsight the WHO report had a lot of problems because of COVID. He noted another report speaking of the dangers of radiation and asked the Commission to read that declaration of federal court, which mentions many studies and the effects of radiation. He asked the Commission to consider those whose health would be impacted. Jack Evans, 796 Lower Colonial Drive, thanked the Commission for being engaged in this topic and discussion and believed that the residents should be proud of the work they have done. Mr. Barker commented that Verizon was the first carrier to come to them and they have interest from another carrier. He explained that The Towers LLC is the applicant and actively markets the towers to multiple tenants. He stated that they followed the process specified in the ordinance, to first look at public property, and the City signed the agreement. He explained that they have to see this through the process before they can look at another property. He stated that satellites are not an option for service. He stated that because the lease was signed for this location, it tied their hands in looking at alternate options, or they would not be following the City’s ordinance. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER GOLDADE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Goldade thanked City staff for their work on this over the last several months. He also thanked Buell Consulting, who has been professional and open to hearing many different opinions. He also thanked the residents, Commission, and City Council for the amount of time that has been spent on this topic. He hoped that residents can find a way to come together, as they enter election season, to have reasonable discussions on what is best for the City. He stated that there are residents who want cell phone coverage, or improved coverage, and was empathetic to those concerns. He believed they need to work together to ensure everyone can feel safe and have cell phone coverage in the city. He spoke about the issue of cell phone towers in the parks, noting that he lives near Marie Park and wondered what he would think about a tower in that park. He struggled to feel comfortable with a tower in the parks. Commissioner Johnson stated that it was her understanding that parks were the last resort for cell phone towers. She agreed that there are challenges and they need to find solutions for people who need coverage. She referenced the DNR letter stating that the tower would not be allowed on this property. She noted the other items listed in the findings of fact by City staff. Page 76 of 935 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Commissioner Stone stated that the information about the grant was great to hear, acknowledging that it would have been nice to have that information at the last meeting. He stated that he loves the community and was disappointed with the comments he has seen online. He believed that there is a large group of residents who are not receiving empathy. He commented on his experience driving to the school and not being able to make a call, noting that he has friends who live near the school who do not have service. He stated that there has to be a better location for a tower than the park. He wished that people would work together to find a solution rather than to just shoot down an idea. He stated that he has been volunteering for the past 15 years to help others and urged the residents in this room to step up and volunteer in the community. He stated that he voted against this last time and will vote against it this time, but believes that there are better locations that can provide a solution. COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) BY THE TOWERS LLC FOR THE PROPERTY AT 739 WENTWORTH AVENUE, BASED ON THE “FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIAL”. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 5, 2026 meeting. Page 77 of 935 Planning Commission Meeting Date: July 28, 2026 Agenda Item: Tabled - CASE No. 2026-05 Conditional Use Permit Application of Buell Consulting, LLC (on behalf of The Towers LLC) for a Conditional Use Permit for a 149-ft wireless monopole to be located at 739 Wentworth Avenue (Wentworth Park) [Tabled from April 28, 2026] Department: Community Development Contact: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Action Request: The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit request. The role of the Planning Commission is to consider this application for consistency with the City's Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Action Deadline: 8/26/2026 Introduction: 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 first public hearing for this application was opened on March 31, 2026 at the Planning Commission’s regular meeting. In advance of the public hearing, formal notice for this item was published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 1,250feet of the subject property, which is 900 feet greater than the minimum distance required by the City Code. At the public hearing, 14 residents spoke relating to the application. The applicant requested the Planning Commission table the item to their next available meeting in order to provide supplemental information as a response to questions submitted through public comments. The Planning Commission agreed with the applicant’s request and unanimously moved to table the application and public hearing to the April 28, 2026 regular Planning Commission meeting. As a courtesy to the larger neighboring area, additional mailed notices were sent out to property owners within 2,000feet of the park boundary for the continued public hearing on April 28, 2026. The City also published a second formal notice in the Pioneer Press, published a meeting announcement in three instances of the Friday News e-mail newsletter, and the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Facebook page posted an announcement about the meeting on April 23, 2026. At the continued public hearing, 28 residents spoke relating to the application. Staff recommended an additional tabling of the application to a future meeting date to address a different City Code interpretation that had been presented, which would Page 78 of 935 apply additional setbacks to the application request. The applicant spoke to the Commission noting that they could conduct revisions based on the zoning interpretation, but that they also believed that a stealth design was an option to move forward, as provisions were written in the ordinance for a waiver from design requirements as a City Council decision. The application was tabled by a 5-2 vote of the Planning Commission. The meeting minutes from both the March 31, 2026 and April 28, 2026 public hearings are included as an attachment to this report. The applicant signed an extension waiver on May 13, 2026, granting the City further review time to take action on this application request. The current application review deadline is August 26, 2026. The City must take an action on this application by that date under the state statute. If the City does not take a formal action, via a vote of the City Council to approve or deny, then the application is automatically granted approval as presented. An additional public hearing has been scheduled for July 28, 2026. Public hearing notices were sent out again to property owners within 2,000ft of the park’s boundaries, and a formal public hearing notice was published in the Pioneer Press on July 17, 2026. The City also sent out an update in the Friday News e-mail newsletter, posted a social media post to coincide with this packet publishing, and staff sent a notification email to the email addresses on file of those who had previously requested updates on this application request. Additionally, the West St. Paul Reader reached out to the City for information about this application and published an article summarizing the application materials on July 17, 2026. There have been many inquiries to the City with questions about this application, and 72 public comments have been received as of the submittal of this report. Those comments have been included as an attachment to this report. Any additional public comments received after the publication of this report will be provided to the Commissioners at the meeting. Background: The Towers, LLC is requesting CUP approval to allow construction of a new wireless monopole tower at 739 Wentworth Avenue. The proposed improvements include a 145-ft monopole tower within a 50-ft x 50-ft fenced and screened ground space. A lighting rod will be installed at the top of the tower totaling an overall height of 149-ft. The subject property is zoned R-1 Low Density Residential, and is within the Public/Semi- Public Overlay District. Wireless towers are allowed within this zoning district by Conditional Use Permit and subject to applicable zoning standards. The site is home to Wentworth Park and is municipal property of the City of Mendota Heights. Site and Ordinance History: The subject site had a previous planning application for a wireless telecommunication tower in 2006, identified as Planning Case No. 2006-10. At that time, the City Code did not permit a freestanding tower in the R-1 Zoning District. Instead, the ordinance required the infrastructure to be collocated on existing utility towers. That prior application included the Conditional Use Permit for the tower itself, as well as a request from the applicant to amend the City Code on “Freestanding Antennas and Towers” to allow a freestanding tower in a Residential Zoning District by CUP when accessory to an institutional principal use, as well as a revision to increase the maximum height of a tower. The application moved forward to the public hearing stage at the Planning Commission and received significant feedback from the public on the land use request. During the same time Page 79 of 935 period, the City Council had been reviewing the terms of the lease for space at Wentworth Park for the tower infrastructure. Ultimately, the prior planning application was withdrawn by the applicant after the City Council voted unanimously to terminate lease negotiations with T- Mobile for space at Wentworth Park. The applicant at the time stated that this decision to withdraw from lease negotiations with T-Mobile led to their decision to withdraw their zoning application. Since the withdrawal of that application, the City Code has been updated regarding wireless towers, antennas, and accessory structures. Specifically, the Zoning Code Update project included revisions to these regulatory standards which went into effect on January 1, 2025. The City Code currently permits a freestanding tower up to 150-ft in height by Conditional Use Permit in all Base Zoning Districts, with a preference for certain land use areas. One of the preferred land use areas includes municipal property or Public/Semi-Public uses. The applicant has requested a Conditional Use Permit for this wireless tower under these provisions as outlined in section 12-4A-12.7 of City Code. The City Council approved an Option and Lease Agreement with The Towers, LLC at their regular City Council meeting on February 4, 2026. This agreement authorized the applicant to apply for the Conditional Use Permit which would be required prior to commencement with the project. Application Changes: During the review period and public hearings for this application request, some residents reached out with questions about the City’s interpretation of setback requirements for the proposed tower. City Staff re-evaluated the interpretation of setback requirements for the base zoning district, and determined that setbacks for a non-building accessory structure may still apply rather than the prior interpretation that R-1 principal building setbacks were not applicable to the proposal. Staff consulted with the City Attorney’s office who agreed that additional setbacks should be taken into account. Because these additional setbacks were now applied to the proposal, the plan for the tower’s location was no longer viewed as compliant with City Code. The ordinance required that monopole towers should have a relationship between their height and their distance form the nearest setback line. The original proposal for this application showed the monopole a distance of 59.5ft from the west property line, while being 145-ft in height (149-ft with the attached lightning rod). The ordinance requires that the tower’s height be no greater than the distance to the nearest setback line. This meant that the tower should be relocated or reduced in height, or a combination of those two options. This led to staff amending their recommendation on April 28, 2026 to table the application so that the City could work with the applicant to identify an appropriate revision to the plan. During the time between the April 28th meeting and the present, the applicant was working with their client to determine alternative solutions for the cell tower proposal and possible locations. Staff provided feedback to the applicant when requested. As the review deadline was approaching, additional information which impacts the viability of the proposal came to light. In 2020, the City received grant funding from the Minnesota, and the funding was used as part of a 2022 trail rehabilitation project at Wentworth Park. As a condition of the MnDNR grant, the property is now subject to restrictions that prohibit the lease of any part of the property without the consent of the Minnesota Commissioner of Management and Budget. Accordingly, the City is not able to lease the proposed area for the use proposed by this application. Initially, City Staff believed that the proposed improvement would not be in conflict with the terms of Page 80 of 935 the grant funding, as the proposed cell tower did not impact any of the trail amenities that were improved with the grant funding, and also did not impact any of the recreational features within the park. However, based on correspondence with the MnDNR, Staff have concluded that the proposed cell tower would still violate the terms of the grant funding, despite the proposed park-periphery location . It is possible that the City could pursue a process to receive state approvals to modify these grant restrictions, however given the statutory review deadline for this application and the fact that the applicant had not submitted revised plans at the time that this issue came under discussion, the City reached out to the applicant. The City informed the applicant that due to these restrictions, there would not be a recommendation for support of the application as proposed, and that the City was ready to schedule the application for public hearing and take final action. The City received revised application materials on July 16th, 2026 and published for public hearing to be held on July 28th in accordance with the statutory review deadline. The applicant has chosen to modify the plans for the proposed monopole, and is interested in continuing to pursue the application. The proposal is discussed in greater detail in the Analysis section of this report, below. Analysis: Proposed Use: The proposed facility consists of a galvanized steel monopole tower with a structural height of 145 feet, with a lightning rod increasing the overall height to 149 feet (see figure below). The base of the tower is shown to be within a fenced-in compound area, with associated ground- mounted equipment. Verizon Wireless is a partner to The Towers LLC and the primary carrier of the tower, but with this height and design, there would be capacity for additional carriers to co-locate in the future (three total carriers). The applicant has stated that Verizon has identified a significant service capacity gap in their wireless communications network, which cannot be resolved unless a communications tower is constructed within the identified service gap area. The intent of the application is to improve wireless coverage for Mendota Heights residents and business, as well as improved service Page 81 of 935 for emergency response personnel and other City staffmembers. The subject site was selected by the applicant group due to its ability to address documented coverage and capacity needs, while also being located on a preferred land use area: municipal property and Public/Semi-Public property. The Radio Frequency Engineer for the applicant group has identified that the proposed location is optimal because it will allow the cell carrier to cover a substantial area with the single tower. The location is also ideal due to its ground elevation of 885 feet, which when combined with the proposed tower height would increase the ability to provide stronger service within the surrounding topography. The City Code classifies this use as a freestanding wireless tower and it is a listed Conditional Use in all Base Zoning Districts, and is subject to applicable zoning standards. The proposed location is compliant with the setbacks for a structure in the base zoning district, however, it is not compliant with the requirement for a tower of 145 feet in height to be setback the corresponding height-distance from the nearest setback line. The applicant’s revisions submitted on July 16, 2026 illustrate that the proposed location of the tower and fenced compound has been moved approximately 60 feet to the east from the original proposed location, making the tower setback 166 feet from the western property line. The underlying R- 1 district setbacks for a non-building accessory structure are 30 feet for front yard, 10 feet for side yard, and 30 feet for rear yard. The location of the 50-ft x 50-ft site area will exceed each of those setback requirements, located approximately 260 feet from the front property line (facing Wentworth Avenue), 84 feet from the side property line to the west, and 225 feet to the north (rear) lot line. Additionally, the compound area would be over setback over 350 feet from the nearest three residential principal structures to the south, west, and north, exceeding the ordinance requirement of 200 feet. With a proposed tower height of 145 feet (149 feet with the lightning rod), the ordinance would require that the tower be setback 164 feet from the side property line (distance of the nearest setback line + the height of the tower). The proposal is not compliant with this standard. The below excerpt from the site plan shows the location of the 50-ft x 50-ft compound area in comparison to the drive aisle entrance to Wentworth Park. The applicant has provided elevations illustrating the proposed towner as a “monopine” design. The applicant has stated that the City’s zoning ordinance has flexibility to allow the proposed location as Section 12-4A-12.7 regarding Wireless Antennas, Towers, and Accessory Structures, subpart D.4.d. sets forth discretion for the City Council to “waive any or all of the requirements of this Section in order to approve a unique “stealth” or “camouflage” design […] if, in the opinion of the City Council, said apparatus will be sufficiently disguised as trees, light poles, church steeples, or other similar objects.” City Staff has not been supportive of pursuing a monopine design pursuant to this Code provision, as despite the design features of visible similarities to a pine tree, the scale of the tower would not be sufficiently disguised or camouflaged within the surrounding environment. However, the ordinance does call out this as a discretionary action of the City Council. Utilizing this portion of the ordinance for a stealth design in this case may have the potential to resolve the setbacks-to-height ratio issue of non- compliance, but it does not resolve the additional grant restrictions which have been identified during this due-diligence period. Staff does not support the “stealth” option for the tower in this particular planning case. Page 82 of 935 City Code Section 12-4A-12.7 has performance and regulatory standards for freestanding antennas and towers including provisions for aesthetics, safety, accessory equipment and/or structures, and architecture. The applicant’s Narrative Letter has been included as an attachment to this report and indicates the applicants’ acknowledgement of and response to the performance standards required for wireless towers. In addition to the site and construction plans required for all Conditional Use Permit applications, the applicant was also required to submit supplemental information to the City including coverage capacity analysis and visual impact demonstrations which have been included as an attachment to this report. Following a request for additional information at the Planning Commission meeting on March 31, 2026, the applicant has also provided documentation related to their site search to emphasize the benefit of the proposed location. This document, entitled “Site Search and Zoning Walk Through” illustrates the location of existing towers with the City and surrounding municipalities, as well as existing Verizon sites. The applicant has indicated that although there are existing towers in the general area outside of the search radius, there were none available that would have resulted in increased coverage at the level needed for Verizon to remedy the service gap. The applicant has also stated that no existing buildings within the search area would have been suitable from an engineering standpoint to fulfill the network need for the service gap area. Aesthetics requirements for the proposed monopole include a standard of color, requiring that all portions of a freestanding tower be painted eggshell. With the original application materials reviewed on March 31st and April 28th, the applicant has indicated that their first preference is for a galvanized finish on the structure, but had stated if any painting is required they will comply. With the current application materials provided in July, the applicant has illustrated the option for a “stealth” tower design, as discussed previously in this report. Other aesthetic standards required for the monopole include requirements for the accessory building for the tower to be screened from public view by a landscape plan. This information has been submitted to the City showing that the compound for the tower and associated ground equipment will be within a fenced area surrounded by evergreen plantings (Black Hills Spruce) for immediate screening. The tower itself as well as the ground-based components are not architecturally significant structures. The compound area is designed for function and would include accessory equipment within outdoor cabinets surrounded by fencing; then, the fencing would be surrounded by landscaping to soften the visual impact at the street and ground level. The layout of the fenced compound with carrier equipment is illustrated on the enlarged site plan, sheet “A-2” attached to this report. The applicant’s construction documents also include an illustration of the elevation of carrier ground equipment on Sheet “VZW A-3”. The surrounding evergreen trees will increase the screening of the carrier equipment and Page 83 of 935 generator’s height. From other areas of the park the tower would be partially screened by existing mature trees, dependent on location. The tower itself would be most visible from the south drive aisle and parking lot entrance to Wentworth Park. The applicant’s revisions illustrate that some tree removals would be necessary for the proposed new location. They have noted that, if approved, new evergreen trees would be installed to screen the lease area as a replacement. Staff has concerns with removals of established trees within the park, as certain tree plantings were conducted through funds received by MnDNR grants. The City must retain trees which were planted as part of the funding received through the Shade Tree Bonding Grant or risk being non-compliant with the terms of the grant funding. City Code includes a prohibition of advertising on the tower or accessory structure, and for artificial lighting to be prohibited excluding the minimum required by state or federal regulatory bodies. The applicant has confirmed that there would be no advertising of any kind at the facility. The only signage on the structure would be safety and identification signage, which are illustrated on sheet “A-6” in the construction documents. There would be no artificial lighting except for that which is required by the FCC/FAA. The applicant has submitted a letter from the FAA confirming that no lighting would be required for this proposal. Conditional Use Permit: Pursuant to Title 12-5B-5, the city recognizes that the development and execution of Zoning Code is based upon the division of the City into districts within which regulations are specified. The City further recognizes that there are special or conditional uses which, because of their unique characteristics, cannot be properly classified in any district or districts without consideration, in each case, of the impact of those uses on neighboring land or the public need for the particular location. To provide for these needs, the city may approve a conditional use permit for those uses and purposes, and may impose conditions and safeguards in such permits to ensure that the purpose and intent of this chapter is effectively carried out. The City may grant a conditional use permit provided the proposed use demonstrates the following: a. Use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, b. Use will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards, c. Use will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value, and d. Use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan. A-C) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards; nor depreciate surrounding property value. Staff Analysis: Over the last several years, the City has heard complaints and reports from residents about a lack of consistent cellular coverage in Mendota Heights, particularly in the northern area of the City’s boundaries. The proposal would allow for improvements on this issue to residents, and the wireless tower would be available for co-location by other carriers in the future if approved. The location of a wireless tower and telecommunications facility would not be staffed, so the proposed use would not increase traffic to Wentworth Park or add to the existing traffic patterns in the surrounding area. This application has prompted Page 84 of 935 discussion on the potential impact to surrounding property values. There is no evidence that the proposed use would have a measurable impact on the depreciation of surrounding property value in this specific market. The applicant has provided a Value Impact Study (attached) as supplemental information to the application to demonstrate that the proposed cell tower development would not measurably impact the value of surrounding properties. The applicant notes that improved wireless infrastructure supports public safety, particularly given the increasing reliance on mobile devices for emergency communications. The proposed tower is designed to enhance network reliability and capacity without creating adverse impacts on surrounding properties. Radiofrequency emissions are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and applicants are required to comply with all applicable federal standards. D) The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Analysis: The purpose of the “Wireless Antennas, Towers, and Accessory Structures” section of the City Code is to: To protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community while accommodating the communication needs of residents and businesses, the City Council finds that this Section is necessary to: 1. Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties and personal injury from tower collapse through structural standards and setback requirements. 2. Protect the aesthetic qualities of the community by requiring tower and antenna equipment to be designed in a manner to blend in with the surroundings and complement existing structures. 3. Maximize the use of existing and approved freestanding antenna towers, buildings, and existing light poles for new wireless telecommunication antennas. 4. Minimize the number of freestanding antenna towers needed to serve the community by requiring co-location. 5. Facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and businesses of the City. 6. Ensure that a competitive and broad range of telecommunications services and high- quality telecommunications infrastructure are provided to serve the community, as well as serve an important and effective part of the city’s emergency response network. 7. Place telecommunication facilities in suitable locations, with residential locations being a last resort. The proposed use will be located on a municipal property, and is located within the Public/Semi-Public Overlay district, both of which are preferred land use areas under this section of City Code. The construction of a freestanding tower is permitted in the ordinance by Conditional Use Permit, and the approval of this proposal would accomplish items (5) and (6) above, to facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to residents and businesses within the City, and ensuring that high-quality telecommunications infrastructure is provided to serve the community. The construction of the tower would also aid in the effort to accomplish item (4), by constructing a tower with space where three total carriers could co- locate on in the future. The proposed monopole tower includes design elements to attempt to minimize the visual impact of the monopole where possible, including an option by the applicant group to construct the tower as a “monopine” design. However, the staff recommendation is not Page 85 of 935 supportive of this stealth design option as staff does not believe the tower to be sufficiently camouflaged for this area to the extent that the setback requirements should be reduced. With a total height of 149 feet, the proposed “monopine” design the pole is approximately 80 feet higher than the overall tree canopy. With this height difference, from certain vantage points, the monopole is not effectively camouflaged to blend in with the tree canopy. The City Council may evaluate this design option to determine if, in their opinion, the tower would be sufficiently camouflaged as proposed. If the City Council makes that determination, the City Council may exercise its discretion granted in the City Code and waive the standards of the tower ordinance, including setbacks. Staff affirms that the proposed wireless monopole is not compliant with height requirements in this proposed location, as the tower’s height must correspond to the distance between the base of the tower and the nearest setback line. With this height at the location proposed and the ineffectiveness of camouflaging as a “monopine” pole, the proposed use set forth in the Conditional Use Permit application is not consistent with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. Alternatives: 1.Approve the CUP request for a new wireless monopole tower based on findings-of-fact that the proposed project is compliant with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, and with certain conditions; or 2.Deny the CUP request for a new wireless monopole tower, based on the updated findings-of- fact that the application does not meet certain policies and standards of City Code as determined by City Staff and the Planning Commission, and is not permissible based on underlying factors for the subject site; or Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the requested Conditional Use Permit (CUP) by The Towers LLC for the property at 739 Wentworth Avenue, based on the enclosed “Findings of Fact for Denial”. Attachments: 1.Findings of Fact for Denial 2.Site Location Map 3.Cover Letter and Zoning Narrative 4.Map of Adjacent Buildings within 350' of Subject Parcel 5.The Towers LLC Construction Plans, dated 2/26/26 6.Cover Letter and Supplemental Letter, dated 4/23/26 7.Statement of Need and Service Maps, dated 4/14/26 8.Photo Simulation/Graphics, dated 4/3/26 9.FAA Letter, dated 3/6/26 10.Fall Certification Letter, dated 4/9/26 11.Value Impact Study, dated 4/21/26 12.Site Search and Zoning Walk Through, dated 4/23/26 13.Wireless Towers Ordinance 14.Staff Report, 4/28/26 Planning Commission Meeting 15.Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, 3/31/26 16.Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, 4/28/26 Page 86 of 935 17. Grant Restriction e-mail, dated 6/22/26 18. Grant Restriction e-mail, dated 6/29/26 19. Additional Application Materials, submitted 7/16/26 20. Public Comments received as of 7/28/26, Condensed 21. Supplemental Information, submitted 7/28/26 22. Documents submitted by The Towers LLC, 7/28/26 Page 87 of 935 Planning Case 2026-05 (CUP for The Towers LLC) Page 1 of 3 FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR DENIAL CUP – Conditional Use Permit for The Towers LLC at 739 Wentworth Avenue (Wentworth Park) A freestanding wireless monopole tower use requires compliance with the performance standards, including property line setbacks, that are set forth in the Mendota Heights City Code. A freestanding wireless monopole tower use further requires a Conditional Use Permit. The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights makes the following Findings of Fact in support of denial of the proposed requests: 1.The proposed freestanding wireless monopole tower use does not conform to the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance, and of the applicable performance standards set forth in City Code Section 12-3B-5B.7. a.The proposed structure is non-compliant with the required maximum height for a wireless monopole tower in its proposed location, as the proposed height is not equal to or less than the distance between the base of the structure and the nearest applicable setback line. b.The proposed stealth design of a “monopine” tower does not sufficiently camouflage the wireless tower within the subject property. 2.The subject property (Wentworth Park) is restricted for land use by the prior use of grant funding. Approving a freestanding wireless monopole tower likely violates the grant funding restrictions, which creates the risk that the City would be obligated to repay the grant funding that was received. 3.The proposed use does not meet the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit for the following reasons: The City may grant a conditional use permit provided the proposed use demonstrates the following: a.The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, b.The use will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards, c.The use will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value, and d.The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code and the comprehensive plan. A.The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community The proposed use will address an established deficiency of consistent cellular coverage in Mendota Heights, particularly in the northern area of the City in the vicinity of the proposed location. The improved wireless infrastructure will support and enhance public safety and the general welfare of the community, particularly given the increasing reliance on mobile devices for emergency communications. The proposed cellular tower will allow for colocation of up to three different providers, which will further enhance network reliability and capacity without creating adverse impacts on surrounding properties. Radiofrequency emissions related to cellular towers will not be detrimental to health, because such emissions are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the applicants are required to comply with all applicable federal standards. Page 88 of 935 Planning Case 2026-05 (CUP for The Towers LLC) Page 2 of 3 B.The proposed use will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards The proposed use for a wireless tower and telecommunications facility is a passive use of the location, The facility would not be staffed on a regular basis, and will not increase traffic to Wentworth Park or add to the existing traffic patterns in the surrounding area. Any additional vehicles or equipment used during construction or maintenance activities will be temporary, and will be regulated by the City to ensure minimal impacts on park users and traffic in the area of Wentworth Park. C.The proposed use will not depreciate surrounding property value. There is no evidence that the proposed use would have a measurable impact on the depreciation of surrounding property values in this specific market. The Value Impact Study provided by the applicant demonstrates that the proposed cell tower development would not measurably impact the value of surrounding properties. D.The proposed use is not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of City Code Section 12-4A-12.7 or the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the “Wireless Antennas, Towers, and Accessory Structures” section of the City Code is as follows: To protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community while accommodating the communication needs of residents and businesses, the City Council finds that this Section is necessary to: (1)Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties and personal injury from tower collapse through structural standards and setback requirements. (2)Protect the aesthetic qualities of the community by requiring tower and antenna equipment to be designed in a manner to blend in with the surroundings and complement existing structures. (3)Maximize the use of existing and approved freestanding antenna towers, buildings, and existing light poles for new wireless telecommunication antennas. (4)Minimize the number of freestanding antenna towers needed to serve the community by requiring co-location. (5)Facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and businesses of the City. (6)Ensure that a competitive and broad range of telecommunications services and high- quality telecommunications infrastructure are provided to serve the community, as well as serve an important and effective part of the city’s emergency response network. (7)Place telecommunication facilities in suitable locations, with residential locations being a last resort. The proposed use will be located on a municipal property, and is located within the Public/Semi- Public Overlay district, both of which are preferred land use areas under the City Code. The construction of a freestanding tower is permitted in the ordinance by Conditional Use Permit, and the approval of this proposal would accomplish items (5) and (6) above, to facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to residents and businesses within the City, and ensuring that high-quality telecommunications infrastructure is provided to serve the community. The construction of the tower would also aid in the effort to accomplish item (4), by constructing a tower with space where three total carriers could co-locate on in the future. Page 89 of 935 Planning Case 2026-05 (CUP for The Towers LLC) Page 3 of 3 The proposed monopole tower includes design elements to attempt to minimize the visual impact of the monopole where possible, including an option by the applicant group to construct the tower as a “monopine” design. However, this stealth design option does not sufficiently camouflage the tower to justify reduction of the setback requirements. With a total height of 149 feet, the proposed “monopine” design of the pole is approximately 80 feet higher than the overall tree canopy. With this height difference, from certain vantage points, the monopole is not effectively camouflaged to blend in with the tree canopy. Accordingly, the proposed location and tower fail to protect the aesthetic qualities of the community by requiring tower and antenna equipment to be designed in a manner to blend in with the surroundings and complement existing structures (item (2) above). Likewise, the City Council declines to waive the standards of the tower ordinance, including setbacks. Page 90 of 935 6666666666* * * ³ ³ *666 66666666666666666666666!!2!!2!!2!!2!!2!!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 755 739 723 740 694724728734720716702710768 750 766 760 751 754 730 770 769 768 760 757763 762 1472 713 1480 1627 1623 709 1635 774 1465 1527 1521 1515 688 716 1501 773 774 741 723 721 72916287351631 717 1464 747 721 WENTWORTH AVE UPPER COLONIA L D RCHERRY H ILL RD Nearmap US Inc, Dakota County, MN Site Location/Aerial Map739 Wentworth Avenue Date: 3/27/2026 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 91 of 935 BUELL CONSULTING, INC. 9973 Valley View Rd Eden Prairie, MN 55118 (651)361-8110 www.buellconsulting.com Friday, February 27, 2026 City of Mendota Heights Attn: Sarah Madden 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: CUP Application for New Tower Site – The Towers LLC Reference: US-MN-5418 BLOWFISH Property Address: 739 Wentworth Ave Dakota County PID: 27-03800-34-010 Dear Ms. Madden, Planning Commission Members, and City Council Members, On behalf of The Towers, LLC, Buell Consulting, Inc. hereby submits a Conditional Use Application for a new Wireless Tower site on Wentworth Park property owned by the City of Mendota Heights. Enclosed with this letter are the following items: •Two fee checks in the amounts of $500 (CUP Commercial Fee), and $500 (Escrow) •Zoning Narrative (see immediately-following pages) explaining how our proposed project complies with the City of Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance •Planning Application form completed and signed by me on behalf of the applicant, The Towers LLC •Conditional Use Permit Application Checklist - Completed •RF Statement and Map from Verizon Wireless •Photo simulations including three views •Site Plans by Design 1 of Eden Prairie and Herzog Engineering dated 2/27/2026 Please do not hesitate to call for any clarifications or additional questions related to any of the CUP application materials. So that we can monitor various internal and external deadlines, please confirm that this application is complete or, if it is not complete, please provide a detailed description of the required information that is incomplete. Sincerely, Scott Buell Site Development Agent on behalf of The Towers, LLC Phone: 651-225-0793 Email: sbuell@buellconsulting.com Encl. Page 92 of 935 Zoning Narrative | Page 1 of 7 Zoning Narrative Conditional Use Permit Application for a New Communication Tower Dakota County PID 27-03800-34-010 Property address: 739 Wentworth Ave This zoning narrative is included to state how our application complies with the City of Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance (cited ordinance language is in blue italics, our responses are in normal font). Communication Tower Use: Our proposed use is located on a parcel zoned as R-1 Low Density Residential, and within the Public/Semi-Public (PSP) overlay district. The proposed Wireless Telecommunications Facility is comprised of a 145’ monopole tower within a 50’x50’ fenced and screened ground space. According to Section 12-3B-1 Table of Uses in the City’s ordinance, our proposed use is allowed with a CUP provided we comply with Section 12-3B-5 B.7, which is the section for wireless antennas and towers. Section 12-3B-5 B.7 states that towers are a conditional use in any district. We are therefore requesting that the City approve a Conditional Use Permit for our proposed facility. Performance Standards for the Proposed Tower Use: Per Section 12-3B-5 B.7 Wireless Antennas, Towers, and Accessory Structures: d.Freestanding Antennas and Towers. (1) Location limitations. The location of any antenna support structure on a particular parcel of land shall be located to have the least impact possible on adjoining properties, and so that any negative impacts of the antenna support structure shall be confined as much as possible to the property on which the antenna support structure is located. We’ve tried to locate this site so it’s not directly in line of sight of any neighbors as much as we can, without impacting the flow of park visitors on the parcel. We believe the proposed location will have the lease negative impact possible for park goers and the surrounding neighborhood. (2)Height. The maximum height of a freestanding antenna tower is 150-feet, as measured from the ground to the highest point of any portion of the tower, antenna, or any other component attached thereto, or the distance between the base of the antenna tower and the nearest setback line, whichever is least. The proposed height of the tower is 145’, and with a lightning rod at the top, the total overall height will be 149’, just below the 150’ height limit, so we comply with this requirement. (3) Setbacks. All freestanding antenna towers and accessory structures must adhere to all appropriate setbacks for the Base Zoning District of the property on which the structure is located. (A)Antenna support structures between 75-feet and 150-feet tall shall not be constructed within 200 feet of any residential principal structure. (B)Notwithstanding (A), if an antenna support structure is located on the same parcel of land as a residential structure, the setback to that residential structure may be equal to the height of the antenna support structure plus 15 feet. The underlying district setbacks are 30’ for front yard, 10’ for side yard, and 30’ for rear yard. We exceed each of these setbacks with our location as shown on the site plans included with this application. The edges of our 50’x50’ site area is about 270’ back from the front property line (southern line), and about 34’ from the side property line (west line). Page 93 of 935 Zoning Narrative | Page 2 of 7 Additionally, we are about 400’ from the nearest three residential principal structures to the south, west, and north. There is not a residential structure on the subject parcel. e.Preferences for antenna and support structure locations. When selecting sites for the construction of new antenna support structures and/or for the placement of new antennas, the following preferences shall be followed: (1)Preferred Land Use Areas. (A) Property in the B-1, B-2 or Industrial Zoning District. (B)Athletic complexes, municipal property or Public/Semi-Public uses. (C)Parking lots, if the monopole replicates, incorporates or substantially blends in with the overall lighting standards of the lot. (D) Within the easement of a high-power overhead transmission line, or within 50 feet of the transmission line easement on the same side of the road. (2)Alternate land use areas. (A)Public parks or open spaces. (B) Golf courses. (C)Residential area. (3)Preferred Support Structures. (A)Water towers (B) Co-location on existing antenna support structures. (C) Church steeples. (D) Sides of buildings over two stories high. (E)Existing power, lighting or phone poles. (4)Prohibitions. (A)No new support structures shall be approved at any location other than a Preferred Land Use Area, unless the applicant shows to the reasonable satisfaction of the city that such locations are not feasible from an engineering standpoint. (B)No new support structures shall be approved for construction, unless the applicant shows to the reasonable satisfaction of the city that a preferred support structure is not feasibly available for use from an engineering standpoint. Our proposed project is located in the second-most preferred land use area, which is on a municipal property which also categorized as a Public/Semi-Public use property as well as a public park. There were no business or industrial districts anywhere near the area where we need the network improved. There are no existing support structures we could use to provide the network coverage needed in this area. f.Aesthetics. (1) Design. All freestanding antenna towers shall be of a monopole type design. The use of guyed towers is prohibited. Our proposed facility will include a monopole tower. (2)Color. (A)Those portions of all freestanding antenna towers and all antennas which protrude into the air shall be painted eggshell. (B)Those portions of all antennas that are flush mounted to the sides of buildings shall be painted to match the exterior of the building. We propose that a galvanized finish on the steel structures and the manufacturer’s gray color on the radio and antenna equipment be left unpainted. We’ve found that galvanized steel does the best job of Page 94 of 935 Zoning Narrative | Page 3 of 7 reflecting the sky and surroundings, whereas painted surfaces stand out more than necessary. Furthermore, unpainted surfaces weather the best, whereas painted surfaces need to be repainted. If painting of any of our proposed structure is required, please provide paint color code so we can comply. (3) Screening. All accessory buildings to all freestanding towers shall be screened from public view by a landscape plan according to the landscape standards of the applicable Base Zoning District and as described in [Section 12- 4A-5 ] of this article subject to City Council review. We’ve proposed plantings in the landscape plan included with our site plans made part of this application. Those plantings will screen the fenced compound and it’s equipment on the ground. The tower will be partially screened by existing mature trees as shown on the photo simulations. (4)Advertising. Advertising of any kind is not permitted on any freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure. There will be no advertising of any kind at this facility. There will only be safety and identification signage. (5) Lighting. Artificial lighting of any kind is not permitted on any freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure unless such lighting is required by the FCC, the FAA, or another federal or state regulatory body. If such a requirement exists, only the minimum amount of lighting required is allowed. There will be no artificial lighting except that which might be required by the FCC/FAA. (6) Prohibitions. Structures, functions, uses or activities that are not found by the City to be specifically necessary for the proper functioning of the antennas are prohibited on any antenna or tower without express permission from the City and the City grants a waiver to this requirement. We will comply with the City with respect to this subsection as needed. g.Safety. (1)Report of Compliance. For a freestanding antenna tower, the applicant must provide a report from a licensed qualified professional structural engineer certifying that the tower will meet or exceed current EIA/TIA-222-E standards including, but not limited to, standards for withstanding meteorological conditions such as high winds and radial ice. We do not yet have the tower drawings from the tower manufacturer, but will provide them prior to construction. We ask that the City approve our CUP and add this requirement as a condition of approval. (2)Compliance with Building and Electrical Codes. All antennas, freestanding antenna towers, and accessory structures shall conform to all building and electrical codes. We will comply with all building and electrical codes. (3)Fencing. The applicant may be required by the City Council to erect a security fence around any freestanding antenna. See the enclosed site plans submitted with this application. We will install a 6’-tall black-vinyl-costed chain link fence (at the request of Public Works to minimize the visual effect of the fence) and without barbed wire. Page 95 of 935 Zoning Narrative | Page 4 of 7 h. Accessory Structures for Antennas. (1) Location and General Requirements. Accessory buildings to antennas or freestanding antenna towers must comply with all applicable setbacks from all property lines and must otherwise conform to all requirements for accessory buildings within the description of the Base Zoning District on which the structure is located. The entirety of our proposed project will be outside of the required underlying district setbacks. i.Architecture. (1)Accessory structures and equipment buildings shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with any principal structures on the site or, in the absence of such structures, with their immediate surroundings in an aesthetically pleasing manner. (2)Accessory structures must be finished on all sides. (3) The Planning Commission must review, and the City Council shall approve, the design of any accessory structures and equipment buildings. A tower, its components, attachments, and ground-based equipment do not have much architectural merit, so we used placement and landscaping to soften the visual impact. And, monopole’s are the cleanest design. The accessory equipment will be in the form of outdoor cabinets within a fenced area at the base of the tower, and the entire fenced area will be screened by new plantings around the base. D.Additional Requirements. 1.Abandoned Structures. a.Removal Required. Unused or obsolete freestanding antenna towers, antennas, structures or apparatus must be removed within six (6) months of when the operation ceases. b.Bond. A successful applicant shall provide an abandonment bond to the City equal to one and a half (1 1/2) times the current cost of removal and disposal of all antennas and accompanying apparatus as estimated by a consultant selected by the City and paid for by the applicant, which bond shall be used by the City to remove the antennas and apparatus should they become unused or obsolete and the applicant or its successors or assigns become disbarred or otherwise fail to remove said antennas and apparatus. The agreement between The Towers LLC and the City of Mendota Heights already has removal requirements in it, so there exists a contractual obligation by The Towers LLC to remove the tower. If the City still required a bond to be in place, too, we ask that such requirement be included as a condition of approval, and we will provide said bond before construction starts. 2.No new antenna support structures shall be constructed if it is feasible to locate the proposed new antenna on existing support structures. Feasibility shall be determined according to generally accepted engineering principles. If a new antenna support structure is to be constructed, it shall be designed structurally to accommodate both the applicant’s antennas and comparable antennas for at least two additional users if the antenna support structure is 75-feet or more. Any antenna support structure must also be designed to allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower and to accept antennas mounted at different heights. Other users shall include, but not be limited to, other cellular communication companies, personal communication systems companies, local police, fire and ambulance companies. As stated earlier in this narrative, there are no existing structures in the area, so this is a new support structure. It is designed to hold three total users as required, and as shown on the site plans enclosed with this application. Page 96 of 935 Zoning Narrative | Page 5 of 7 3.Other Required Licenses. The applicant must submit proof of any applicable federal, state, or local licenses to the City prior to receiving a building permit. We will adhere to this requirement, however, please specify which such licenses the City wants us to share. 4.Interference with Public Safety Systems Prohibited. The applicant must agree in writing to support, participate in and refrain from interfering with public warning systems and public safety communications and other radio frequencies as may be regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The Towers, LLC hereby agrees to support, participate in and refrain from interfering with public warning systems and public safety communications and other radio frequencies as may be regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 5.Compliance with FCC Regulations; Noninterference Required. All new or existing telecommunications service and equipment shall meet or exceed all Federal Communications Commission (FCC) standards and regulations and shall not interfere with any other communications, computers, laboratory equipment or manufacturing equipment, including television and other home electronics. The applicant shall provide to the City a report from a qualified professional engineer guaranteeing noninterference and a copy of the FCC approval of the antenna in regard to noninterference. The Towers, LLC hereby asserts that the telecommunications service and equipment at this proposed site will meet or exceed all Federal Communications Commission (FCC) standards and regulations. Please advise whether this statement suffices or if a more formal letter or report is required to fulfill this section/requirement. a.Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In the event that the FCC or other agency or other governmental body having jurisdiction requires the applicant to submit an Environmental Impact Statement or similar document, a copy of this document shall be submitted to the City. We will share any such report if one becomes required by the FCC or other agency. Zoning and CUP Application Requirements: Per Section 12-3B-5 B.7 Wireless Antennas, Towers, and Accessory Structures C.Submission Requirements. 1.Initial Application Requirements. In addition to the information required for a Conditional Use Permit or Administrative Permit, the following additional information must be supplied by the Applicant and a qualified, licensed registered professional engineer: a.Description of the tower height and design, including a cross-section, elevation and site elevation. Included on the enclosed site plans. b.Documentation of the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co-located antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas. Included on the enclosed site plans. c.Description of the tower’s capacity, including the number and type of antennas that it can accommodate. Page 97 of 935 Zoning Narrative | Page 6 of 7 Included on the enclosed site plans. The tower and ground space will have space for three tenants. d.Coverage Capacity Analysis. Coverage map and or analysis that demonstrates that no other support structures, or if applicable Preferred Land Use Areas, are available to meet coverage demand. The applicant shall demonstrate, by providing a coverage/interference analysis and capacity analysis, that the location and height of any freestanding antenna tower or antenna as proposed is necessary to meet the communication, frequency reuse and spacing needs of the communication services system, and to provide adequate coverage and capacity to areas that cannot be adequately served by locating the towers in a less restrictive district or on an existing structure, freestanding antenna tower or antenna including such in neighboring municipalities. See enclosed RF statement and map. e.Area Map. All applications for either a freestanding antenna, a freestanding antenna tower, or a building mounted antenna shall be accompanied by a map of all existing towers and antennas of the same provider within a two (2) mile radius of the proposed site and all future planned antennas of the same provider for the next five (5) years within a two (2) mile radius of the proposed site. See enclosed RF statement and map. f.Inclusion of the engineer’s stamp and registration number. See enclosed RF statement and map. This is a Verizon employee with RF expertise. g.The city, at its reasonable discretion, may require visual impact demonstrations including mock-ups and/or photo simulations that provide an accurate visual depiction of the tower. See enclosed photo simulations showing views from three areas near the subject parcel. h.A written description of the type of technology each company/carrier will provide to its customers. See enclosed RF statement and map. i.A listing of all existing, existing to be upgraded or replaced, and proposed communication sites within the city and within five miles of the city for these services. See enclosed RF statement and map. j.An electronic, to-scale copy of a map of the city showing the five-year plan for communication sites, or if individual properties are not known, the geographic service areas of the communication sites. Any existing tower locations must be clearly identified. See enclosed RF statement and map. Note Verizon’s and The Towers LLC’s strategic growth plans are proprietary and confidential, so what we’ve provided is what we are comfortable sharing. Page 98 of 935 Zoning Narrative | Page 7 of 7 Conditional Use Permit Application Criteria for Approval: Per Section 12-5B-5 E.1 and the CUP Checklist: a)The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community. Rather, this proposed use will enable an improved network that will allow for more reliable general and emergency communications in the surrounding neighborhoods, which is something that’s been seriously lacking for years. b)the proposed use will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards; The proposed use consists of an unmanned facility that will not be a source of traffic or other hazards. During construction, there will be congestion at the site, but once built, this will be a quiet facility with very few visits except during equipment modification or installation activities which do not happen often. c)the proposed use will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and The proposed use will not depreciate surrounding property value. Rather, tower sites have been shown to have no effect, or a slight positive effect on property values. Most home buyers want to know that wireless network reliability is present in the area. This site will enable that. d) the proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. The proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. Indeed, wireless network improvement and reliability is part of the City’s strategic plan and goals, and with the revised ordinance, has enabled this project to successfully come to fruition. Thank you for considering our proposed Conditional Use Permit Application and Submittal Package for The Towers LLC’s proposed tower facility. We believe we satisfy the requirements for a CUP to be approved for our proposed facility, and we welcome any questions and comments as you review this application. Please feel free to call me with any questions. Sincerely, Scott Buell, Site Development Agent on Behalf of The Towers, LLC Buell Consulting, Inc. sbuell@buellconsulting.com Direct: 651-225-0793 Page 99 of 935 Map of Buildings within 350’ of Subject Parcel Yellow Outline = Approximate 350’ Distance from Subject Parcel Purple Stars = Buildings IdenƟfied as Being within 350’ of Subject Parcel List of house numbers shown on above map: 750 Upper Colonial Drive 754 Upper Colonial Drive 760 Upper Colonial Drive 766 Upper Colonial Drive 755 Wentworth Ave 760 Wentworth Ave 755 Wentworth Ave 1623 Pamela Ln 740 Wentworth Ave 734 Wentworth Ave 730 Wentworth Ave 728 Wentworth Ave 724 Wentworth Ave 720 Wentworth Ave 716 Wentworth Ave 710 Wentworth Ave 713 Wentworth Ave Page 100 of 935 SHEET CONTENTS:NORTHVICINITY MAPPROJECT INFORMATIONPROJECT DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:US-MN-5418BLOWFISH739 WENTWORTH AVEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118US-MN-5418FUZE ID: 17425846T-19973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGNWWW.DESIGN1EP.COMNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FOR:THE TOWERS, LLC 22 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 310 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444TLSSJDREV. A02-27-26CONTACTSCONTACTSDRAWING APPROVALSJOB TITLENAMEDATEVERTICAL BRIDGERF ENGINEERCONSTRUCTION ENGINEERTRANSPORT ENGINEEREQUIPMENT ENGINEERREAL ESTATE SPECIALISTISSUE SUMMARYREV DESCRIPTIONSHEET/DETAILA ISSUED FOR REVIEWALLMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118739 WENTWORTH AVE145' MONOPOLEUS-MN-5418CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS1101 VICTORIA CURVEMEDNOTA HEIGHTS 55118RYAN RUZEK (651) 255-1152BLOWFISHSHEET INDEXPROJECT DESCRIPTIONSCODE COMPLIANCEVICINITY MAPPROJECT INFORMATIONDRAWING APPROVALSCONTACTSISSUE SUMMARYPROPERTY OWNER:XCEL ENERGY(800) 628-2121POWER UTILITYCOMPANY CONTACT:COMPANY CONTACT:TELCO UTILITYDESIGNER:LESSOR / LICENSOR:LESSEE:THE TOWERS, LLC22 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 310DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444(404) 862-4089BUELL CONSULTING, INC.720 MAIN ST, SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55118SITEACQUISITION:(TOWER):STRUCTURAL ENGINEERTBDDESIGN 1 OF EDEN PRARIE9973 VALLEY VIEW ROADEDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299VERTICAL BRIDGE SITE NUMBER:VERTICAL BRIDGE SITE NAME:VERIZON SITE NAME:VERIZON MDG:VERIZON FUZE PROJECT ID:SITE ADDRESS:COUNTY:LATITUDE (DECIMAL):LONGITUDE (DECIMAL):LATITUDE (DMS):LONGITUDE (DMS):GROUND ELEVATION:STRUCTURE TYPE:STRUCTURE HEIGHT:OVERALL HEIGHT:RFDS FORM DATED:US-MN-5418BLOWFISHMIN BLOWFISH500096932717425846739 WENTWORTH AVEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118DAKOTAN 44.898911°W 93.122304°N 44° 53' 56.08"W 93° 07' 20.30"885.4' AMSLMONOPOLE145' AGL149' AGL02-09-26THE TOWERS LLCSHEET INDEXSHEET SHEET DESCRIPTIONT-1:T-2 PROJECT TITLE SHEET & GENERAL NOTES- SURVEYA-1:A-1.1OVERALL SITE PLAN, TOWER ELEVATION & LANDSCAPINGPLANA-2 ENLARGED SITE PLANA-3 SITE PREP & GRADING NOTES AND DETAILSA-4:A-5 FENCE DETAILSA-6 SIGN DETAILSA-7 MISC. DETAILSA-8 SITE PHOTOSG-1:G-3GROUNDING NOTES, PLAN, DETAILS AND UTILITY NOTESU-1:U-2SITE UTILITY PLANS, DETAILS AND NOTESVZW A-1 VERIZON SITE PLANVZW A-2RFDS INFO, MOUNTING DETAIL AND ONE-LINE DIAGRAMVZW A-3CABINET AND BASE EQUIPMENT DETAILSVZW A-4CABLE ICE BRIDGE, GPS AND MISC. DETAILSVZW A-5GENERATOR DETAILSVZW G-1 VERIZON GROUNDING PLANVZW G-2 VERIZON GROUNDING DETAILS AND NOTESVZW U-1VERIZON UTILITY PLAN, DETAILS AND NOTESVZW U-2CONDUIT ROUTING PLAN AND ONE-LINE ELECTRIC DIAGRAMVERTICAL BRIDGEVERIZON 10801 BUSH LAKE ROADBLOOMINGTON, MN 55438CONSTRUCTION DEPT. (952) 946-4700SITE NAME: MIN BLOWFISHMDG: 5000969327FUZE PROJECT ID: 17425846VERIZON WIRELESS10801 BUSH LAKE ROADBLOOMINGTON, MN 55438CONSTRUCTION DEPT. (952) 946-4700T.B.D.ENGINEER:GEOTECHNICALT.B.D.1334 81ST AVE NESPRING LAKE PARK, MN 55432612-844-1234WWW.HERZOGENGINEERING.COMI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTWAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LICENSE NUMBER:Joshua Herzog4239202/27/2026HE #: 261101Page 101 of 935 PROJECT DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:US-MN-5418BLOWFISH739 WENTWORTH AVEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118US-MN-5418FUZE ID: 17425846T-29973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGNWWW.DESIGN1EP.COMNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FOR:THE TOWERS, LLC 22 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 310 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444TLSSJDREV. A02-27-26SHEET CONTENTS:GENERAL NOTES1334 81ST AVE NESPRING LAKE PARK, MN 55432612-844-1234WWW.HERZOGENGINEERING.COMI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTWAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LICENSE NUMBER:Joshua Herzog4239202/27/2026HE #: 261101Page 102 of 935 SITE SURVEY FOR THE TOWERS, LLC SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS DESIGN No. FIELD WORK: 1/14/26CHECKED BY: SMK DRAWN BY: JMM DATE REVISION BY CHK APP'D SHAWN M. KUPCHO L.S.LIC. NO.: 49021DATE: 2/17/2026 I HEREBY CERTIFY TO: VERTICAL BRIDGE REIT, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ITS SUBSIDIARIES, AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS; ITS LENDERS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE AGENTS AND EACH OF THEIR RESPECTIVE SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS, AND TOWER TITLE, LLC. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FULL SCALE ON 22"X34" HALF SCALE ON 11"X17" PROPERTY OWNER: 27-03800-34-010 PARCEL NO: R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONED: TITLE COMMITMENT NO. VTB-222161-C DEED REFERENCED: VERTICAL BRIDGE SITE NAME: BLOWFISH VERTICAL BRIDGE SITE NUMBER: US-MN-5418 SITE ADDRESS: 739 WENTWORTH AVENUE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA 55118 I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 2026-10299 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: (per Warranty Deed Instrument No. 348426) Lot 34, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: (per Tower Title, LLC, Reference No. VTB-222192-C, dated October 7, 2025) 1.) Not related to survey. 2.) Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public record. No known rights or claims of parties in possession. 3.) Easements or claims of easements not shown by the public record. No known easements or claims of easements have been provided that are not shown by public record. 4.) Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, encroachments, overlaps, variations or shortage in area or content, party walls and any other manners that would be disclosed by a correct survey and/or physical inspection of the land. A complete survey, inspecting all of the boundary lines and examining adjacent property descriptions was not performed for the purposes of this survey. Encroachments located for the purposes of this site survey are as shown on the survey. 5-9.) Not related to survey. 10.) Any and all matters disclosed on the map entitled “Plat Map” dated April 18, 1906 and recorded April 18, 1906 in, (instrument) 51282 in Dakota County, Minnesota. The plat of AUDITOR’S SUBDIVISION NO. 3 is as shown on the survey. The subject property is Lot 34, AUDITOR’S SUBDIVISION NO. 3. 11.) Declaration of Restrictions dated January 6, 2021 and recorded January 6, 2021 in (instrument) 3428019, in Dakota County, Minnesota. This document describes a funding restriction and this document is not related to the survey. 12.) Notice of Funding Restrictions for Went Worth Park Property dated January 6, 2021 and recorded January 6, 2021 in (instrument) 3428019, in Dakota County, Minnesota. This funding restriction for Wentworth Park is not related to the survey. 1 2/23/26 REVISED LEASE AND EASEMENT AREA AND REVISE DESCRIPTIONSSMKNTG SMK LEASE AREA DESCRIPTION: That part of Lot 34, AUDITOR’S SUBDIVISION NO. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 28, Range 23, said Dakota County; thence North 89 degrees 43 minutes 15 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the South line of said Northwest Quarter, 1088.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 16 minutes 45 seconds West, 300.00 feet to the Point of Beginning of the lease area to be described; thence South 89 degrees 43 minutes 15 seconds West, 50.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 16 minutes 45 seconds West, 50.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 43 minutes 15 seconds East; 50.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 16 minutes 45 seconds East, 50.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said lease area contains 2,500 Sq. Ft. or 0.07 Acres. ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT DESCRIPTION: A 30.00 foot wide easement for ingress, egress and utility purposes over, under and across Lot 34, AUDITOR’S SUBDIVISION NO. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota, the centerline of said easement described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 28, Range 23, said Dakota County; thence North 89 degrees 43 minutes 15 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the South line of said Northwest Quarter, 1088.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 16 minutes 45 seconds West, 300.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 43 minutes 15 seconds West, 25.00 feet to the Point of Beginning of the centerline to be described; thence South 00 degrees 16 minutes 45 seconds East, 112.00 feet; thence South 35 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West; 8.14 feet; thence southwesterly, 138.54 feet along a tangential curve concave to the southeast, having a radius of 225.00 feet and a central angle of 35 degrees 16 minutes 45 seconds; thence South 00 degrees 16 minutes 45 seconds East, tangent to the last described curve, 21.41 feet to the north right of way line of Wentworth Avenue and said centerline there terminating. The sidelines of said easement shall be lengthened or shortened to terminate at said north right of way line of Wentworth Avenue. Said access and utility easement contains 8,404 Sq. Ft. ± or 0.19 Acres. Page 103 of 935 WENTWORTH AVENUE DODD ROADSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 149DELAWARE AVENUEMARIE AVENUEWACHTLER AVENUECOUNTY ROAD NO. 8COUNTY ROAD NO. 8 GAS GAS GAS GAS OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS UGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGT FOCFOCFOCFOCFOCFOCFOCFOCFOCFOCFOC WENTWORTH AVENUE COUNTY ROAD NO. 8 (PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY) S WOODS EDGE OF ICE OUTLET STRUCTURE PICKLE BALL COURT PARK SIGNPARK ENTRANCET LOT 34879880881882883884886 887 887 884884885885886886887885 886 887 888 8898858 8 6 8 8 7 8 8 7 888 889 889 889 879 880 881 882883883881886 887 886886 885885885886887884885882880879879878877878880880879DAVID WILLIAMS PID NO. 270380033010 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PID NO. 271715000023 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PID NO. 278130000011 JOHN AND LINDA WIRT PID NO. 278130000043 1" OAK (PLANTED) 1" ASH (PLANTED) 9" CHERRY 5" MAPLE 18" TRIPLE BIRCH 20" TRIPLE BIRCH 14" ELM 1" LUCUST (PLANTED) 4" ASH23" M A PLE 38" DOUBLE ASH 1" ASH (PLANTED) 22" OAK 20" COTTONWOOD 16" ASH 9" SPRUCE12" SPRUCE1" BIRCH (PLANTED) 20" ASH 1" ASH (PLANTED) 40" MAPLE 1" BIRCH (PLANTED) 36" ASH 19" MAPLE13" DOUBLE PINE48" COTTONWOOD (X3) PARK SHELTER PARK SHELTER 8 8 6 NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF WENTWORTH AVENUE 3030303027" POPLAR 35" POPLAR 30" POPLAR 19" POPLAR N89°43'15"E 50.00 8 8 3 882881 879 S00°16'45"E50.00N00°16'45"W50.00S89°43'15"W 50.00 15 15 1 5 15 S35°00'00"W8.14S00°16'45"E21.41S00°16'45"E 112.0025.00 N00°16'45"W 300.004233.69N89°43'15"E 1088.00 --N89°43'15"E 5321.69--884883LEASE AREA Contains 2,500 Sq. Ft. or 0.06 Acres 30' WIDE ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT CONTAINS 8,404 SQ. FT OR 0.19 ACRES882 884 885 PROPOSED TOWER CENTER: GROUND ELEVATION = 885.4NAVD88 LATITUDE = N44°53'56.08"NAVD83 LONGITUDE = W93°07'20.30"NAVD83 30' WIDE ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT CONTAINS 8,404 SQ. FT OR 0.19 ACRES POINT OF BEGINNING OF LEASE AREA POINT OF BEGINNING OF 30' WIDE ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT SOUTH LINE OF THE NW 1/4Δ=35°16'45"L=138.54R=225.0034.02 34.87 EAST QUARTER CORNER OFSEC. 24, TWP. 28, RNG. 23SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THENORTHWEST QUARTER OFSEC. 24, TWP. 28, RNG. 23N SITE SITE SURVEY FOR THE TOWERS, LLC 1"=1000' VICINITY MAP 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 N SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS DESIGN No. FIELD WORK: 1/14/26CHECKED BY: SMK DRAWN BY: JMM DATE REVISION BY CHK APP'D SHAWN M. KUPCHO L.S.LIC. NO.: 49021DATE: 2/17/2026 I HEREBY CERTIFY TO: VERTICAL BRIDGE REIT, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ITS SUBSIDIARIES, AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS; ITS LENDERS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE AGENTS AND EACH OF THEIR RESPECTIVE SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS, AND TOWER TITLE, LLC. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FULL SCALE ON 22"X34" HALF SCALE ON 11"X17" PROPERTY OWNER: 27-03800-34-010 PARCEL NO: R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONED: TITLE COMMITMENT NO. VTB-222161-C DEED REFERENCED: VERTICAL BRIDGE SITE NAME: BLOWFISH VERTICAL BRIDGE SITE NUMBER: US-MN-5418 SITE ADDRESS: 739 WENTWORTH AVENUE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA 55118 I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 2026-10299 A DAKOTA COUNTY SECTION MONUMENT SIGN - SINGLE EDGE OF WOODS TREE - DECIDUOUS TREE - CONIFEROUS TELECOM PEDESTAL UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC LINEFOC UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE LINEUGT T MAJOR CONTOURS MINOR CONTOURS1234 BITUMINOUS SURFACE CONCRETE SURFACE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINEOHE STORM SEWER CATCH BASIN STORM SEWER INLET STRUCTURE STORM SEWER GRAVITY MAIN WATER MAIN LINE NATURAL GAS LINEGAS LEGEND SURVEYOR NOTES: 1.)THE UTILITIES SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY ARE ACCORDING TO VISIBLE EVIDENCE ALONG WITH MARKINGS FROM GOPHER STATE ONE CALL LOCATE REQUEST TICKET NO. 260330926, DATED FEBRUARY 2, 2026. WIDSETH ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE COMPLETENESS AND ACCURACY OF THESE LOCATIONS AND A PRIVATE LOCATED DONE BY HANCE LOCATING AND SERVICES, LLC. 2.)THE TOWER SITE LIES WITHIN ZONE "X" (AREAS DETERMINED TO HAVE MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD) AS DEPICTED BY FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP NO. 27037C0040E, DATED 12/02/2011. 3.)THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY WiDSETH. 5368 266TH STREET, WYOMING, MN 55092 PHONE NUMBER: 651-464-3130 4.)THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED FOR DESIGN 1, INC. 5.)DUE TO SNOW AND ICE DURING THE TIME OF THE SURVEY, SOME UTILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN LOCATED. ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM IS BASED ON THE DAKOTA COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM; NAD83 (1996) 1 2/23/26 REVISED LEASE AND EASEMENT AREA AND REVISE DESCRIPTIONSSMKNTG SMK Page 104 of 935 ST881882883883884884882883884885886887887 884 884 885 885 886886 887885886887888889885886887887888889889889 8 8 3 88 3 881 886887886886885885 885886887884885 883 882886 PROJECT DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:US-MN-5418BLOWFISH739 WENTWORTH AVEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118US-MN-5418FUZE ID: 17425846A-19973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGNWWW.DESIGN1EP.COMNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FOR:THE TOWERS, LLC 22 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 310 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444TLSSJDREV. A02-27-26SHEET CONTENTS:OVERALL SITE PLANSCALE:1OVERALL SITE PLAN1" = 50'-0"TOWER ELEVATIONSCALE:2TOWER ELEVATION1" = 30'-0"NOTES:1. THESE DRAWINGS DO NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, OF THE ACCURACY OF THE STRUCTURALANALYSES AND THE PERFORMANCE OF THE COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION AS SHOWN ON THESE DOCUMENTS AND THESTRUCTURAL ANALYSES.2. NO STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS FOR THE TOWER OR FOUNDATION HAVE BEEN PERFORMED AS PART OF THESE DRAWINGS.THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS FOR THE TOWER AND FOUNDATION ARE BY THE TOWER SUPPLIER AND SHALL BE DESIGNED BYA PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSED IN THE STATE OF THE PROJECT.3. PLEASE COORDINATE ANY STRUCTURAL CONCERNS/MATTERS OR ANY LOADING MODIFICATIONS TO THE CONSULTANTWHO AUTHORED THE ANALYSIS AND NOTIFY DESIGN 1 IMMEDIATELY OF THE ISSUE.4. TOWER FOUNDATION AND THE ACCESS DRIVE TO BE EXCAVATED AND CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITHRECOMMENDATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS PACKAGE.DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE REPORT AND THE OTHER DOCUMENTS TO BE IMMEDIATELY REPORTED TO THE DESIGNER.5. TOWER TO BE ERECTED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TOWER MANUFACTURER'S DRAWINGS NOT INCLUDED WITHTHIS PACKAGE. DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN TOWER DRAWINGS AND DESIGNER DRAWINGS TO BE REPORTED THE DESIGNERIMMEDIATELY.6. CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE TIP OF ANTENNAS DO NOT EXCEED TOWER HEIGHT.7. ELEVATION IS SHOWN FOR GENERAL DIAGRAMMATIC PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT SCALE.NORTHNORTH1334 81ST AVE NESPRING LAKE PARK, MN 55432612-844-1234WWW.HERZOGENGINEERING.COMI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTWAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LICENSE NUMBER:Joshua Herzog4239202/27/2026HE #: 261101Page 105 of 935 881882 883883884884 8828838848858868878878 8 3 88 3 881 886887885 885 88688 7 884 885883 882 PROJECT DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:US-MN-5418BLOWFISH739 WENTWORTH AVEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118US-MN-5418FUZE ID: 17425846A-1.19973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGNWWW.DESIGN1EP.COMNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FOR:THE TOWERS, LLC 22 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 310 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444TLSSJDREV. A02-27-26SHEET CONTENTS:LANDSCAPING PLANSCALE:1LANDSCAPING PLAN1" = 20'-0"NORTHNORTH1334 81ST AVE NESPRING LAKE PARK, MN 55432612-844-1234WWW.HERZOGENGINEERING.COMI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTWAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LICENSE NUMBER:Joshua Herzog4239202/27/2026HE #: 261101Page 106 of 935 SHEET CONTENTS:ENLARGED SITE PLANSEE SHEET G-1 FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES.SCALE:1ENLARGED SITE PLAN1" = 10'-0"NORTHPROJECT DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:US-MN-5418BLOWFISH739 WENTWORTH AVEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118US-MN-5418FUZE ID: 17425846A-29973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGNWWW.DESIGN1EP.COMNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FOR:THE TOWERS, LLC 22 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 310 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444TLSSJDREV. A02-27-261334 81ST AVE NESPRING LAKE PARK, MN 55432612-844-1234WWW.HERZOGENGINEERING.COMI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTWAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LICENSE NUMBER:Joshua Herzog4239202/27/2026HE #: 261101Page 107 of 935 SHEET CONTENTS:PROJECT DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:US-MN-5418BLOWFISH739 WENTWORTH AVEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118US-MN-5418FUZE ID: 17425846A-39973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGNWWW.DESIGN1EP.COMNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FOR:THE TOWERS, LLC 22 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 310 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444TLSSJDREV. A02-27-262SILT FENCE DETIAL1CONSTRUCTION EXIT DETAILDRAINAGE,GRADING & EROSIONCONTROL NOTES & DETAILS1334 81ST AVE NESPRING LAKE PARK, MN 55432612-844-1234WWW.HERZOGENGINEERING.COMI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTWAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LICENSE NUMBER:Joshua Herzog4239202/27/2026HE #: 261101Page 108 of 935 NOTE:FENCE TO BE BLACK COATEDPROJECT DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:US-MN-5418BLOWFISH739 WENTWORTH AVEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118US-MN-5418FUZE ID: 17425846A-49973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGNWWW.DESIGN1EP.COMNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FOR:THE TOWERS, LLC 22 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 310 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444TLSSJDREV. A02-27-26SHEET CONTENTS:FENCE DETAILS2MUSHROOM STOP DETAILSCALE:1FENCE DETAIL1/4" = 1'-0"1334 81ST AVE NESPRING LAKE PARK, MN 55432612-844-1234WWW.HERZOGENGINEERING.COMI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTWAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LICENSE NUMBER:Joshua Herzog4239202/27/2026HE #: 261101Page 109 of 935 PROJECT DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:US-MN-5418BLOWFISH739 WENTWORTH AVEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118US-MN-5418FUZE ID: 17425846A-59973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGNWWW.DESIGN1EP.COMNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FOR:THE TOWERS, LLC 22 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 310 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444TLSSJDREV. A02-27-26SHEET CONTENTS:FENCE NOTESFENCE DETAILS1POST FOOTINGS2FABRIC/BAR CONNECTIONS1334 81ST AVE NESPRING LAKE PARK, MN 55432612-844-1234WWW.HERZOGENGINEERING.COMI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTWAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LICENSE NUMBER:Joshua Herzog4239202/27/2026HE #: 261101Page 110 of 935 PROJECT DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:US-MN-5418BLOWFISH739 WENTWORTH AVEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118US-MN-5418FUZE ID: 17425846A-69973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGNWWW.DESIGN1EP.COMNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FOR:THE TOWERS, LLC 22 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 310 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444TLSSJDREV. A02-27-26SHEET CONTENTS:SITE SIGNAGE DETAILSABEFDCDFAECCCCCEADF1SITE SIGNAGEBB1334 81ST AVE NESPRING LAKE PARK, MN 55432612-844-1234WWW.HERZOGENGINEERING.COMI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTWAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LICENSE NUMBER:Joshua Herzog4239202/27/2026HE #: 261101Page 111 of 935 PROJECT DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:US-MN-5418BLOWFISH739 WENTWORTH AVEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118US-MN-5418FUZE ID: 17425846A-79973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGNWWW.DESIGN1EP.COMNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FOR:THE TOWERS, LLC 22 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 310 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444TLSSJDREV. A02-27-26SHEET CONTENTS:GRAVEL DRIVE SECTIONSCALE:3BOLLARD DETAIL1/2" = 1'-0"SURFACING DETAIL 4UTILITY TRENCH DETAILSCALE:1GRAVEL DRIVE SECTION3/8" = 1'-0"2COMPOUND SURFACING DETAILBOLLARD DETAILUTILITY TRENCH DETAIL1334 81ST AVE NESPRING LAKE PARK, MN 55432612-844-1234WWW.HERZOGENGINEERING.COMI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTWAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LICENSE NUMBER:Joshua Herzog4239202/27/2026HE #: 261101Page 112 of 935 PROJECT DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:US-MN-5418BLOWFISH739 WENTWORTH AVEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118US-MN-5418FUZE ID: 17425846A-89973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGNWWW.DESIGN1EP.COMNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FOR:THE TOWERS, LLC 22 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 310 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444TLSSJDREV. A02-27-26SHEET CONTENTS:PHOTOSVIEW: LOOKING NORTH1SITE PHOTOVIEW: LOOKING EAST2DRAINAGE POND PHOTOVIEW: LOOKING SOUTH3SITE PHOTOVIEW: LOOKING NORTH4ACCESS PHOTO1334 81ST AVE NESPRING LAKE PARK, MN 55432612-844-1234WWW.HERZOGENGINEERING.COMI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTWAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LICENSE NUMBER:Joshua Herzog4239202/27/2026HE #: 261101Page 113 of 935 GENERAL GROUNDING NOTES:·················SYMBOL AND NOTE LEGENDPROJECT DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:US-MN-5418BLOWFISH739 WENTWORTH AVEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118US-MN-5418FUZE ID: 17425846G-19973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGNWWW.DESIGN1EP.COMNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FOR:THE TOWERS, LLC 22 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 310 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444TLSSJDREV. A02-27-26SHEET CONTENTS:GROUNDING NOTESSCALE:1EXOTHERMIC WELD DETAILSNTSSCALE:2COMPRESSION CONNECTOR DETAILSNTSUTILITY NOTES1334 81ST AVE NESPRING LAKE PARK, MN 55432612-844-1234WWW.HERZOGENGINEERING.COMI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTWAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LICENSE NUMBER:Joshua Herzog4239202/27/2026HE #: 261101Page 114 of 935 PROJECT DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:US-MN-5418BLOWFISH739 WENTWORTH AVEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118US-MN-5418FUZE ID: 17425846G-29973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGNWWW.DESIGN1EP.COMNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FOR:THE TOWERS, LLC 22 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 310 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444TLSSJDREV. A02-27-26SHEET CONTENTS:NORTHGROUNDING PLANSCALE:1GROUNDING PLANNTS1334 81ST AVE NESPRING LAKE PARK, MN 55432612-844-1234WWW.HERZOGENGINEERING.COMI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTWAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LICENSE NUMBER:Joshua Herzog4239202/27/2026HE #: 261101Page 115 of 935 PROJECT DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:US-MN-5418BLOWFISH739 WENTWORTH AVEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118US-MN-5418FUZE ID: 17425846G-39973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGNWWW.DESIGN1EP.COMNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FOR:THE TOWERS, LLC 22 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 310 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444TLSSJDREV. A02-27-26SHEET CONTENTS:GROUNDING DETAILSSCALE:4GROUND RING & ROD DETAILNONESCALE:2REBAR GROUNDING DETAILNONESCALE:1CONDUIT DETAILNONESCALE:3TOWER GROUND BAR DETAILNONE1334 81ST AVE NESPRING LAKE PARK, MN 55432612-844-1234WWW.HERZOGENGINEERING.COMI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTWAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LICENSE NUMBER:Joshua Herzog4239202/27/2026HE #: 261101Page 116 of 935 STSHEET CONTENTS:SCALE:1SITE UTILITY PLAN1" = 50'-0"SITE UTILITY PLANENLARGED SITE UTILITY PLANSCALE:2HANDHOLE LOCATION PLAN1/8" = 1'-0"NORTHSCALE:3ENLARGED SITE UTILITY PLAN1/16" = 1'-0"NORTH2U-1PULLBOX LOCATION PLAN3U-1NORTHPROJECT DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:US-MN-5418BLOWFISH739 WENTWORTH AVEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118US-MN-5418FUZE ID: 17425846U-19973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGNWWW.DESIGN1EP.COMNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FOR:THE TOWERS, LLC 22 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 310 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444TLSSJDREV. A02-27-261334 81ST AVE NESPRING LAKE PARK, MN 55432612-844-1234WWW.HERZOGENGINEERING.COMI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTWAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LICENSE NUMBER:Joshua Herzog4239202/27/2026HE #: 261101Page 117 of 935 PROJECT DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:US-MN-5418BLOWFISH739 WENTWORTH AVEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118US-MN-5418FUZE ID: 17425846U-29973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGNWWW.DESIGN1EP.COMNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FOR:THE TOWERS, LLC 22 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 310 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444TLSSJDREV. A02-27-26SHEET CONTENTS:METER UTILITY FRAME DETAILSCALE:1METER UTILITY FRAME DETAILNONE1334 81ST AVE NESPRING LAKE PARK, MN 55432612-844-1234WWW.HERZOGENGINEERING.COMI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTWAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LICENSE NUMBER:Joshua Herzog4239202/27/2026HE #: 261101Page 118 of 935 PROJECT DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:US-MN-5418BLOWFISH739 WENTWORTH AVEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118US-MN-5418FUZE ID: 17425846VZW A-19973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGNWWW.DESIGN1EP.COMNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FOR:THE TOWERS, LLC 22 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 310 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444TLSSJDREV. A02-27-26SHEET CONTENTS:NORTHVERIZON SITE PLANSCALE:1VERIZON SITE PLAN1" = 10'-0"NORTHTOWER ELEVATIONSCALE:2TOWER ELEVATION1" = 30'-0"NOTES:1. THESE DRAWINGS DO NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, OF THE ACCURACYOF THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSES AND THE PERFORMANCE OF THE COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION ASSHOWN ON THESE DOCUMENTS AND THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSES.2. NO STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS FOR THE MOUNT HAS BEEN PERFORMED AS PART OF THESE DRAWINGS.3. PLEASE COORDINATE ANY STRUCTURAL CONCERNS/MATTERS OR ANY LOADING MODIFICATIONS TOTHE CONSULTANT WHO AUTHORED THE ANALYSIS AND NOTIFY DESIGN 1 IMMEDIATELY OF THE ISSUE.4. EQUIPMENT SLAB AND GENERATOR FOUNDATION TO BE EXCAVATED AND CONSTRUCTED INACCORDANCE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORTWHICH IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS PACKAGE. DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE REPORT AND THE OTHERDOCUMENTS TO BE IMMEDIATELY REPORTED TO VERIZON WIRELESS AND THE DESIGNER.5. CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE TIP OF ANTENNAS DO NOT EXCEED TOWER HEIGHT.6. ELEVATION IS SHOWN FOR GENERAL DIAGRAMMATIC PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT SCALE.7. THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS FOR THE MOUNTS (BY OTHERS) SHALL BE PER THE VERIZON NETWORKSTANDARD NSTD-445. ALL LOADING AND DESIGN SHALL BE PER THE TIA-222-H STANDARD.1334 81ST AVE NESPRING LAKE PARK, MN 55432612-844-1234WWW.HERZOGENGINEERING.COMI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTWAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LICENSE NUMBER:Joshua Herzog4239202/27/2026HE #: 261101Page 119 of 935 SHEET CONTENTS:1ANTENNA KEY2EQUIPMENT KEY4RFDS PLUMBING DIAGRAMSCALE:3ANTENNA MOUNTING DETAIL3/16" = 1'-0"NORTHRFDS INFORMATIONRFDS PLUMBING DIAGRAMANTENNA MOUNTING DETAILPROJECT DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:US-MN-5418BLOWFISH739 WENTWORTH AVEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118US-MN-5418FUZE ID: 17425846VZW A-29973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGNWWW.DESIGN1EP.COMNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FOR:THE TOWERS, LLC 22 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 310 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444TLSSJDREV. A02-27-261334 81ST AVE NESPRING LAKE PARK, MN 55432612-844-1234WWW.HERZOGENGINEERING.COMI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTWAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LICENSE NUMBER:Joshua Herzog4239202/27/2026HE #: 261101Page 120 of 935 74PROJECT DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:US-MN-5418BLOWFISH739 WENTWORTH AVEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118US-MN-5418FUZE ID: 17425846VZW A-39973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGNWWW.DESIGN1EP.COMNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FOR:THE TOWERS, LLC 22 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 310 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444TLSSJDREV. A02-27-26SHEET CONTENTS:FOUNDATION PLAN & DETAILSLAYOUT PLANELEVATIONSSCALE:1SLAB LAYOUT PLAN1/4" = 1'-0"SCALE:5FRONT ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"SCALE:6SIDE ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"SCALE:2CANOPY PLAN1/4" = 1'-0"SCALE:3SLAB PLAN3/8" = 1'-0"7SCALE:4SLAB SECTION3/8" = 1'-0"SCALE:7DETAIL1-1/2" = 1'-0"1334 81ST AVE NESPRING LAKE PARK, MN 55432612-844-1234WWW.HERZOGENGINEERING.COMI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTWAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LICENSE NUMBER:Joshua Herzog4239202/27/2026HE #: 261101Page 121 of 935 PROJECT DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:US-MN-5418BLOWFISH739 WENTWORTH AVEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118US-MN-5418FUZE ID: 17425846VZW A-49973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGNWWW.DESIGN1EP.COMNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FOR:THE TOWERS, LLC 22 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 310 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444TLSSJDREV. A02-27-26SHEET CONTENTS:CABLE BRIDGE DETAILSSCALE:1CABLE BRIDGE SECTION1/2" = 1'-0"NORTHSCALE:2CABLE BRIDGE PLAN1/4" = 1'-0"GPS DETAILSSCALE: N.T.S3GPS ANTENNA MOUNTING1334 81ST AVE NESPRING LAKE PARK, MN 55432612-844-1234WWW.HERZOGENGINEERING.COMI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTWAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LICENSE NUMBER:Joshua Herzog4239202/27/2026HE #: 261101Page 122 of 935 PROJECT DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:US-MN-5418BLOWFISH739 WENTWORTH AVEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118US-MN-5418FUZE ID: 17425846VZW A-59973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGNWWW.DESIGN1EP.COMNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FOR:THE TOWERS, LLC 22 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 310 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444TLSSJDREV. A02-27-26SHEET CONTENTS:GENERATOR DETAILS,STANDARD TANKSCALE:1GENERATOR ASSEMBLY ELEVATIONS1/4" = 1'-0"SCALE:4CONCRETE PAD SECTION3/8" = 1'-0"SCALE:3CONCRETE PAD PLAN3/8" = 1'-0"SCALE:2GENERATOR ASSEMBLY PLAN3/8" = 1'-0"● ● ● ● ● ●●1334 81ST AVE NESPRING LAKE PARK, MN 55432612-844-1234WWW.HERZOGENGINEERING.COMI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTWAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LICENSE NUMBER:Joshua Herzog4239202/27/2026HE #: 261101Page 123 of 935 PROJECT DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:US-MN-5418BLOWFISH739 WENTWORTH AVEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118US-MN-5418FUZE ID: 17425846VZW G-19973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGNWWW.DESIGN1EP.COMNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FOR:THE TOWERS, LLC 22 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 310 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444TLSSJDREV. A02-27-26SHEET CONTENTS:NORTHGROUNDING PLANSCALE:1GROUNDING PLANNTS1334 81ST AVE NESPRING LAKE PARK, MN 55432612-844-1234WWW.HERZOGENGINEERING.COMI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTWAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LICENSE NUMBER:Joshua Herzog4239202/27/2026HE #: 261101Page 124 of 935 PROJECT DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:US-MN-5418BLOWFISH739 WENTWORTH AVEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118US-MN-5418FUZE ID: 17425846VZW G-29973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGNWWW.DESIGN1EP.COMNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FOR:THE TOWERS, LLC 22 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 310 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444TLSSJDREV. A02-27-26SHEET CONTENTS:GROUNDING DETAILSSCALE:5GROUND RING & ROD DETAILNONESCALE:3REBAR GROUNDING DETAILNONESCALE:4CONDUIT DETAILNONESCALE:1TYPICAL CABLE BRIDGE GROUNDING DETAILNONESCALE:2TOWER GROUND BAR DETAILNONESCALE:6TYPICAL ICE SHIELD GROUNDING DETAILSNONE1334 81ST AVE NESPRING LAKE PARK, MN 55432612-844-1234WWW.HERZOGENGINEERING.COMI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTWAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LICENSE NUMBER:Joshua Herzog4239202/27/2026HE #: 261101Page 125 of 935 PROJECT DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:US-MN-5418BLOWFISH739 WENTWORTH AVEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118US-MN-5418FUZE ID: 17425846VZW U-19973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGNWWW.DESIGN1EP.COMNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FOR:THE TOWERS, LLC 22 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 310 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444TLSSJDREV. A02-27-26SHEET CONTENTS:SCALE:1SITE UTILITY PLAN1/8" = 1'-0"NORTHVZW UTILITY PLAN1334 81ST AVE NESPRING LAKE PARK, MN 55432612-844-1234WWW.HERZOGENGINEERING.COMI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTWAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LICENSE NUMBER:Joshua Herzog4239202/27/2026HE #: 261101Page 126 of 935 ·········PROJECT DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:US-MN-5418BLOWFISH739 WENTWORTH AVEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118US-MN-5418FUZE ID: 17425846VZW U-29973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGNWWW.DESIGN1EP.COMNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FOR:THE TOWERS, LLC 22 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 310 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444TLSSJDREV. A02-27-26SHEET CONTENTS:CONDUIT ROUTING PLANSCALE:2ONE-LINE ELECTRIC DIAGRAMNONEONE-LINE ELECTRIC DIAGRAMSCALE:1CONDUIT ROUTING PLAN1/4" = 1'-0"1334 81ST AVE NESPRING LAKE PARK, MN 55432612-844-1234WWW.HERZOGENGINEERING.COMI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTWAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LICENSE NUMBER:Joshua Herzog4239202/27/2026HE #: 261101Page 127 of 935 BUELL CONSULTING, INC. 9973 Valley View Rd Eden Prairie, MN 55118 (651)361-8110 www.buellconsulting.com Thursday, April 23, 2026 City of Mendota Heights Attn: Sarah Madden 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: CUP Application for New Tower Site – The Towers LLC Reference: US-MN-5418 BLOWFISH Property Address: 739 Wentworth Ave Dakota County PID: 27-03800-34-010 Dear Ms. Madden, Planning Commission Members, and City Council Members, On behalf of The Towers, LLC, Buell Consulting, Inc. hereby submits a Conditional Use Application for a new Wireless Tower site on Wentworth Park property owned by the City of Mendota Heights. Enclosed with this letter are the following items: •Written response to public comments (immediately following pages) •Updated RF Statement and Map from Verizon Wireless to correct County, clarify need for height/elevation •Updated photo simulations, revised the first view •Property Value Impact Study concluding the tower will have no measurable impact to property values •Site Search and Zoning Walk-Through explaining the process that led to this location Please consider these additional materials as part of our zoning application file. Sincerely, Scott Buell Site Development Agent on behalf of The Towers, LLC Phone: 651-225-0793 Email: sbuell@buellconsulting.com Encl. Page 128 of 935 Response to Public Comments | Page 1 of 2 Applicant Response to Public Comments from Community Conditional Use Permit Application for a New Communication Tower Dakota County PID 27-03800-34-010 Property address: 739 Wentworth Ave This project has received comments from the public, and those comments fall into a handful of major categories/themes outlined below. This document provides the applicant’s responses to those general collective themes, with the goal of encouraging understanding amongst community members. Most comments from the community that relate to the project elements fall into the following four groups/topics: 1. Health and Radiofrequency Radiation 2. Property Values 3. Incompatibility with Park Character 4. Failure to Exhaust Alternatives Responses to these four topics are in the following sections. Health and Radiation Risks Health and radiation-related concerns was the most frequently cited concern from the public in relation to this application for a new tower site. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, specifically Section 704, establishes the FCC as the federal authority regulating radiofrequency (RF) emissions from wireless facilities. The FCC maintains that wireless facilities, when operating within FCC guidelines, are safe and do not pose any known health risks. This Section also prohibits local governments from regulating the placement of towers based on environmental effects (including health impacts) of RF emissions as long as the licensed user of those RF frequencies complies with FCC regulations. Any antenna equipment installed on this proposed tower site will operate within FCC guidelines and regulations. The operable excerpt from Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is as follows: (iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions. Federal agencies are the scientific experts on RF safety standards, and Section 704(a) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act expressly prohibits local authorities from considering these issues as part of the permitting process. Property Values Another widely shared fear amongst community members is perceived negative property value impact due to the proximity of this proposed tower site. Community members provided studies that seemed to show property value declines for homes near cell sites. None of these studies were based on the local real estate market; some were even outside of the United States. Included with this letter, as part of the supplemental materials for The Towers LLC’s zoning application, is a value impact study from a third-party appraiser referencing several recent local real estate transactions in close proximity to a wireless tower (or antenna equipment installed on a structure) which demonstrates that this proposed site will have no measurable impact on home prices in the surrounding area. Again, that report is enclosed with this letter. Page 129 of 935 Response to Public Comments | Page 2 of 2 Incompatibility with Park Character There was strong sentiment that placing the proposed 149-foot tower in Wentworth Park is incompatible with the park’s character. As City Staff wrote in the report for this project ahead of the March 31 Planning Commission meeting, this proposed project “is consistent with the general purpose and intent of City Code and the Comprehensive Plan,” essentially because this project meets the zoning ordinance requirements for the siting of a new tower. A tower site is a critical piece of infrastructure, and the zoning ordinance provides guidance about placement and design. By meeting the requirements in the City’s zoning ordinance, the proposed use is compatible with the subject property. Failure to Exhaust Alternatives Amongst the public comments were repeated questions of whether co-location on existing structures, rooftop antennas, small-cell technology, or alternative municipal sites (water tower, public works garage, commercial corridors) were genuinely evaluated before selecting a neighborhood park. A detailed report is enclosed along with the other supplemental materials and which describes the step-wise process and analysis which was undertaken to arrive at this location at Wentworth, which is the best location to fulfill the RF need while remaining compliant with the zoning ordinance. Thank you for considering these additional written statements and materials as part of The Towers LLC’s conditional use permit and zoning application package for the proposed tower facility. This project continues to satisfy the requirements for a CUP to be approved by the City, and we welcome any questions and comments as you review this additional information. Sincerely, Scott Buell, Site Development Agent on Behalf of The Towers, LLC Buell Consulting, Inc. sbuell@buellconsulting.com Direct: 651-225-0793 Page 130 of 935 1 STATEMENT OF NETWORK NEED New Communications Tower in Dakota County, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota Christopher Humes, Radio Frequency Engineer Verizon ID: MIN BLOWFISH 1.My name is Christopher Humes and I am a radio frequency (RF) engineer for Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”). I have been employed by Verizon since 2025 and have been the RF Engineer for the Minneapolis/Northern Minnesota Market since 2025. 2.The primary duties of an RF engineer include the design and management of Verizon’s wireless communications network in its Great Plains Market, which includes the area in and around Dakota County, Minnesota. RF Engineers are also responsible for identifying and addressing substantial service and capacity gaps that present themselves in Verizon’s wireless network. These service gaps can be caused by lack of coverage or insufficient system capacity, or both. Service gaps are identified through the use of internal Verizon network monitoring tools and analysis showing the capacity and/or coverage needs in a particular area. 3.There is a significant service capacity gap in Verizon’s wireless communications network in and around Dakota County (the “Gap Area”). As a result of this significant service capacity gap, Verizon customers using their devices in and around the Gap Area are likely to experience diminished call quality, slow data transmission speeds, and blocked calls. Verizon’s service gap in the Gap Area has been amplified by the sharp increase in data usage by Verizon’s customers. 4.This significant service capacity gap will remain and cannot be resolved unless a communications tower is constructed within the Gap Area. Verizon must remedy this service capacity gap in order to provide high-speed wireless broadband access to the communities in and around the Gap Area, to fill in indoor coverage gaps where wireless services are not reliable, and to provide enhanced E911 services. 5.Verizon identified a search area within a one-mile radius, centered on 44.897900°N 93.126200°W which a tower would need to be located in order to resolve the service gap. Before proposing a new communications tower, Verizon first considered whether any existing towers in the search area could be used to resolve the coverage gap in the Gap Area. There were no other structures in the search area on which Verizon could collocate to resolve the service gap in the Gap Area. Although there are existing towers in the general area outside the search ring, none of these towers will allow Verizon to remedy the service gap. 6.Verizon and Vertical Bridge have worked together to identify a property in the area that could accommodate a communications tower to correct the significant service capacity gap in Verizon’s wireless communications network. Vertical Bridge has proposed to build a new 150’ tower at 739 Wentworth Avenue, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 (“Proposed Tower”). The tower height of 150’ at the location’s ground elevation of 885’ AMSL is necessary because of the surrounding topography and the Page 131 of 935 2 size of the area. This particular location is optimal because it will allow Verizon to cover substantially all of the area with a single tower. 7. By co-locating its communications equipment on the Proposed Tower, Verizon will resolve the current significant service capacity gap and will be able to provide improved service to residents, businesses, and emergency service providers in and around the Gap Area. If Vertical Bridge is unable to construct the new telecommunications tower, and Verizon is therefore unable to collocate its equipment on the proposed tower, the significant service capacity gap in Verizon’s wireless communications network will remain, and Verizon will be prohibited from providing reliable wireless service to its customers in the Gap Area. Dated this 14th day of April, 2026 ___________ ______________________ Christopher Humes Engr III Cslt – Radio Frequency Verizon Great Plains – Minneapolis/Northern Minnesota Page 132 of 935 3 CURRENT SERVICE LEVEL MIN Blowfish Page 133 of 935 4 PROPOSED SERVICE LEVEL MIN Blowfish Page 134 of 935 5 Page 135 of 935 This page is intentionally left blank DESIGN 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 WWW.DESIGN1EP.COM PROJECT:DRAWN BY:VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (952) 946-4700 739 WENTWORTH AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 17425846 MIN BLOWFISH US-MN-5418 TRDV.1 02-25-26V.2 02-26-26V.3 04-03-26PS-1VIEW 3VIEW 1MAP DATA ©2026 BINGNORTHUPPER COLONIAL DRWENTWORTH AVE WVIEW 48WENTWORTH PARKVIEW 2Page 136 of 935 DESIGN 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 WWW.DESIGN1EP.COM PROJECT:DRAWN BY:VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (952) 946-4700 739 WENTWORTH AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 17425846 MIN BLOWFISH US-MN-5418 TRDV.102-25-26V.202-26-26V.304-03-26PS-2Page 137 of 935 DESIGN 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 WWW.DESIGN1EP.COM PROJECT:DRAWN BY:VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (952) 946-4700 739 WENTWORTH AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 17425846 MIN BLOWFISH US-MN-5418 TRDV.102-25-26V.202-26-26V.304-03-26PS-3Page 138 of 935 DESIGN 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 WWW.DESIGN1EP.COM PROJECT:DRAWN BY:VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (952) 946-4700 739 WENTWORTH AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 17425846 MIN BLOWFISH US-MN-5418 TRDV.102-25-26V.202-26-26V.304-03-26PS-4Page 139 of 935 DESIGN 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 WWW.DESIGN1EP.COM PROJECT:DRAWN BY:VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (952) 946-4700 739 WENTWORTH AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 17425846 MIN BLOWFISH US-MN-5418 TRDV.102-25-26V.202-26-26V.304-03-26PS-5Page 140 of 935 DESIGN 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 WWW.DESIGN1EP.COM PROJECT:DRAWN BY:VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (952) 946-4700 739 WENTWORTH AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 17425846 MIN BLOWFISH US-MN-5418 TRDV.1 02-25-26V.2 02-26-26V.3 04-03-26PS-6Page 141 of 935 DESIGN 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 WWW.DESIGN1EP.COM PROJECT:DRAWN BY:VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (952) 946-4700 739 WENTWORTH AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 17425846 MIN BLOWFISH US-MN-5418 TRDV.102-25-26V.202-26-26V.304-03-26PS-7Page 142 of 935 DESIGN 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 WWW.DESIGN1EP.COM PROJECT:DRAWN BY:VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (952) 946-4700 739 WENTWORTH AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 17425846 MIN BLOWFISH US-MN-5418 TRDV.102-25-26V.202-26-26V.304-03-26PS-8Page 143 of 935 DESIGN 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 WWW.DESIGN1EP.COM PROJECT:DRAWN BY:VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (952) 946-4700 739 WENTWORTH AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 17425846 MIN BLOWFISH US-MN-5418 TRDV.102-25-26V.202-26-26V.304-03-26PS-9Page 144 of 935 Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Aeronautical Study No. 2026-AGL-3933-OE Page 1 of 7 Issued Date: 03/06/2026 THE TOWERS, LLC RICHARD HICKEY 22 West Atlantic Avenue Suite 310 Delray Beach, FL 33444 ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure:Antenna Tower US-MN-5418 - BLOWFISH County, State:Dakota, Minnesota Collected Point(s): Label Latitude Longitude SE DET AGL AMSL pt-1 44-53-56.08N 93-7-20.30W 885 Ft 155 Ft 1040 Ft This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s), if any, is(are) met: Emissions from this site must be in compliance with the parameters set by collaboration between the FAA and telecommunications companies and reflected in the FAA 5G C band compatibility evaluation process (such as power, frequencies, and tilt angle). Operational use of this frequency band is not objectionable provided the Wireless Providers (WP) obtain and adhere to the parameters established by the FAA 5G C band compatibility evaluation process. Failure to comply with this condition will void this determination of no hazard. It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e-filed any time the project is abandoned or: _____ At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) __X__ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) See attachment for additional condition(s) or information. Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking/ lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 M Change 1. This determination expires on 09/06/2027 unless: Page 145 of 935 Page 2 of 7 (a)the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b)extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c)the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E-FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power, except those frequencies specified in the Colo Void Clause Coalition; Antenna System Co-Location; Voluntary Best Practices, will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.This determination includes all previously filed frequencies and power for this structure. If construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed, you must submit notice to the FAA within 5 days after the construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. A copy of this determination will be forwarded to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) because the structure is subject to their licensing authority. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at 1-817-222-5323, or Marla.Duchatellier@faa.gov. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2026- AGL-3933-OE. Signature Control No: 694867820-695864739 ( DNE ) Marla Duchatellier Technician Attachment(s) Additional Information Frequency Data Page 146 of 935 Page 3 of 7 Map(s) cc: FCC Page 147 of 935 Page 4 of 7 Additional information for ASN 2026-AGL-3933-OE BASIS FOR DECISION Part 77 authorizes the FAA to evaluate a structure or object's potential electromagnetic effects on air navigation, communication facilities, and other surveillance systems. It also authorizes study of impact on arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under visual or instrument flight rules, as well as the impact on airport traffic capacity at existing public use airports. Broadcast in the 3.7 to 3.98 GHz frequency (5G C band) currently causes errors in certain aircraft radio altimeters and the FAA has determined they cannot be relied upon to perform their intended function when experiencing interference from wireless broadband operations in the 5G C band. The FAA has adopted Airworthiness Directives for all transport and commuter category aircraft equipped with radio altimeters that prohibit certain operations when in the presence of 5G C band. This determination of no hazard is based upon those mitigations implemented by the FAA and operators of transport and commuter category aircraft, and helicopters operating in the vicinity of your proposed location. It is also based on telecommunication industry and FAA collaboration on acceptable power levels and other parameters as reflected in the FAA 5G C band evaluation process. The FAA 5G C band compatibility evaluation is a data analytics system used by FAA to evaluate operational hazards related to aircraft design. The FAA 5G C band compatibility evaluation process refers to the process in which the telecommunication companies and the FAA have set parameters, such as power output, locations, frequencies, and tilt angles for antenna that mitigate the hazard to aviation. As the telecommunication companies and FAA refine the tools and methodology, the allowable frequencies and power levels may change in the FAA 5G C band compatibility evaluation process. Therefore, your proposal will not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace by aircraft provided the equipment and emissions are in compliance with the parameters established through the FAA 5G C band compatibility evaluation process. Any future changes that are not consistent with the parameters listed in the FAA 5G C band compatibility evaluation process will void this determination of no hazard. Page 148 of 935 Page 5 of 7 Frequency Data for ASN 2026-AGL-3933-OE LOW FREQUENCY HIGH FREQUENCY FREQUENCY UNIT ERP ERP UNIT 6 7 GHz 42 dBW 6 7 GHz 55 dBW 10 11.7 GHz 42 dBW 10 11.7 GHz 55 dBW 17.7 19.7 GHz 42 dBW 17.7 19.7 GHz 55 dBW 21.2 23.6 GHz 42 dBW 21.2 23.6 GHz 55 dBW 614 698 MHz 1000 W 614 698 MHz 2000 W 698 806 MHz 1000 W 806 824 MHz 500 W 806 901 MHz 500 W 824 849 MHz 500 W 851 866 MHz 500 W 869 894 MHz 500 W 896 901 MHz 500 W 901 902 MHz 7 W 929 932 MHz 3500 W 930 931 MHz 3500 W 931 932 MHz 3500 W 932 932.5 MHz 17 dBW 935 940 MHz 1000 W 940 941 MHz 3500 W 1670 1675 MHz 500 W 1710 1755 MHz 500 W 1850 1910 MHz 1640 W 1850 1990 MHz 1640 W 1930 1990 MHz 1640 W 1990 2025 MHz 500 W 2110 2200 MHz 500 W 2305 2360 MHz 2000 W 2305 2310 MHz 2000 W 2345 2360 MHz 2000 W 2496 2690 MHz 500 W 3700 3980 MHz 3280 W Page 149 of 935 Page 6 of 7 Verified Map for ASN 2026-AGL-3933-OE Page 150 of 935 Page 7 of 7 TOPO Map for ASN 2026-AGL-3933-OE Page 151 of 935 April 9, 2026 Chris Starke B+T Group The Towers, LLC 1717 S. Boulder, Suite 300 750 Park Of Commerce Drive, Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74119 Boca Raton, Florida 33487 (918) 587-4630 btwo@btgrp.com Subject: Fall Certification Letter Arcosa Designation: Arcosa Project Number: C359 Arcosa Site Name: Blowfish (US-MN-5418) Engineering Firm Designation: B+T Group Project Number: 26-002334 Site Data: Blowfish (US-MN-5418) 145’ Monopole To Whom it May Concern: As Requested by Arcosa Telecom Structures on behalf of The Towers, LLC, B+T Group is pleased to submit this “Fall Certification Letter” for the 145’ Monopole to be constructed at the Blowfish (US-MN- 5418) site. This pole will be designed in accordance with the TIA 222-H standard for Dakota County, MN. The pole will be designed to support antennas and transmission lines for three wireless carriers. The design criteria are more particularly described as follows: Design Wind Speed: 109mph 3-sec gust (no ice), 50mph 3-sec gust (1.5” ice) Structure Class: II Exposure Category: C Topographic Category: 1 140’—Wireless Carrier 1 (CaAa= 42,000 sq in w/ (18) 1 5/8” transmission lines 129’—Wireless Carrier 2 (CaAa= 30,000 sq in w/ (12) 1 5/8” transmission lines 119’—Wireless Carrier 3 (CaAa= 30,000 sq in w/ (12) 1 5/8” transmission lines It is our understanding that this Monopole structure will be designed such that, if a failure were to occur due to a significant storm or other event, the pole would fall within a radius of 50’ from the base of the structure. Although the pole would not be designed to fail, stronger sections that required by analysis would be provided in the lower sections of the pole, resulting in an increased safety factor in the lower sections. In the highly unlikely event that this pole were to experience operational failure due to catastrophic wind loading, the design would enable the pole to fail through compression buckling. Failure in this manner would result in the upper portion of the pole buckling and folding over the lower portion, resulting in a fall radius of 50’ from the base of the pole. This opinion does not consider unpredictable extreme catastrophic events for which the structure is not designed. However, any damage to surrounding property caused by the pole failing during such an event would be relatively insignificant when compared to the damage caused to the surrounding property by the event itself. Please contact us should you have any questions concerning the safety and design of the monopole. Letter prepared by: Clint Coody Respectfully submitted by: B+T Group, Inc. Chad E. Tuttle, P.E. 4/9/2026 Page 152 of 935 Appraisal Report – Impact Study Cell Tower Impact Study 739 Wentworth Ave Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Report Date: April 21, 2026 FOR: Scott Buell Buell Consulting, Inc. 9973 Valley View Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Valbridge Property Advisors Minneapolis | St. Paul 1515 Central Parkway, Suite 120 Eagan, MN 55121 (651) 370-1475 Phone Valbridge Job No: 2026-9876 valbridge.com Page 153 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page i 1515 Central Parkway, Suite 120 Eagan, MN 55121 (651) 370-1475 valbridge.com April 21, 2026 Scott Buell Buell Consulting, Inc. 9973 Valley View Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Appraisal Report Cell Tower Impact Study 739 Wentworth Ave. Mendota Heights, MN Dear Scott Buell: In accordance with your request, we have prepared a Value Impact Study of the proposed cell tower located at 739 Wentworth Ave, Mendota Heights MN. This report sets forth the pertinent data gathered, the techniques employed, and the reasoning leading to our opinions. The purpose of this report is to examine the potential impact the proposed project could have on property values of adjacent properties. We developed the analyses, opinions, and conclusions and prepared this report in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) of the Appraisal Foundation. The client and intended user in this assignment is Buell Consulting, Inc. We understand the client may share the report with local public officials as a part of the zoning process. The proposed cell tower will be located in Wentworth Park at 739 Wentworth Avenue and is surrounded by residential uses and a public park. The client is proposing to construct a monopole tower on the site which will have a 145-foot elevation. The intended use is for zoning approval and to determine the effect the project will have on surrounding property values. The value opinions reported herein are subject to the definitions, assumptions limiting conditions, and certification contained in this report. Based upon the analysis, the report demonstrates the following: The proposed cell tower development will not measurably impact the value of surrounding properties. Page 154 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page ii This letter of transmittal is not considered valid if separated from this report, and must be accompanied by all sections of this report as outlined in the Table of Contents, in order for the value opinions set forth above to be valid. Respectfully submitted, Valbridge Property Advisors | Minneapolis | St.-Paul Andrew Baker, MAI Director Valbridge Property Advisors | Minneapolis | St.-Paul Josh Folland, MAI, AI-GRS, CCIM Senior Managing Director Minnesota License No. 20352348 Page 155 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page iii Table of Contents Cover Page Letter of Transmittal Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................................................ iii Aerial and Front Views ....................................................................................................................................................................... iv Location Map ......................................................................................................................................................................................... v Paired Sales Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................... vi Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Scope of Work ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 City & Neighborhood Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Description of the Project ................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Paired Sales Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................ 15 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 41 General Assumptions & Limiting Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 49 Certification – Andrew Baker, MAI .............................................................................................................................................. 54 Certification – Josh Folland, MAI, CCIM ................................................................................................................................... 55 Addenda ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 56 Page 156 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY AERIAL AND FRONT VIEWS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page iv Aerial and Front Views SITE VIEW FRONT VIEW (PROPOSED) Page 157 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY LOCATION MAP 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page v Location Map Page 158 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES CONCLUSION 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page vi Paired Sales Conclusion Paired Sales Conclusion Ref. Location Description Sale Date List Price Sale Price Sale/List Price Ratio Days on Market (DOM) Paired Sales Conclusion Broker Survey 1 8507 Campbell Ave Inver Grove Heights MN Single-Family Home Sep-24 $475,000 $475,000 100% 2 In-line with comparable sales No impact on sale price 2 340 18th Ave S. South Saint Paul, MN Single-Family Home Jan-25 $319,000 $307,500 96% 20 In-line with comparable sales No impact on sale price 3 6715 131st St W Apple Valley, MN Single-Family Home Mar-23 $439,900 $424,900 97% 15 In-line with comparable sales No impact on sale price 4 8450 Bechtel Ave Inver Grove Heights, MN Single-Family Home Sep-21 $449,900 $460,000 102% 16 In-line with comparable sales No impact on sale price 5 1196 105th St E. Inver Grove Heights, MN Single-Family Home Mar-25 $1,050,000 $1,050,000 100% 2 In-line with comparable sales No impact on sale price Page 159 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY INTRODUCTION 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 1 Introduction Client and Other Intended Users of the Appraisal The client and intended user in this assignment is Buell Consulting, Inc. We understand the client may choose to share this report with public officials as part of the zoning approval process. Intended Use of the Appraisal The intended use of this report is for zoning approval use. Location of the Proposed Tower Location: 739 Wentworth Ave. Mendota Heights, MN Latitude/Longitude: 44.898911, -93.112304 (Based on survey provided by the owner) Identification of Parcel Location: Wentworth Park Owner: City of Mendota Heights Identification of the Project Our identification of the project is based on our on-site inspection, public records, as well as information provided to us by the client. The purpose of this report is to analyze the potential impact the project could potentially have on the value of adjacent properties. Type and Definition of Value The purpose of this appraisal is to develop an opinion as to the potential impact the proposed project could potentially have on surrounding property values. According to the Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Sixth Edition, “Market Value,” as used in this appraisal, is defined as “the most probable price that a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus.” Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: Buyer and seller are typically motivated. Both parties are well informed or well advised, each acting in what they consider their own best interests; A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sale concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.” Page 160 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY INTRODUCTION 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 2 The as is value is the value of the property in its present condition under market conditions prevalent on the effective date of value. Please refer to the Glossary in the Addenda section for further definitions of value type(s) employed in this report. Valuation Scenarios and Effective Dates of Value Per the scope of the assignment we developed opinions of value for the subject property under the following scenarios for the identified property right interests as of the corresponding effective dates of value: Value Perspective Value Premise Effective Date of Value Current As Is April 16, 2026 Date of Report The date of this report is April 20, 2026, which is the same as the date of the letter of transmittal. Competency No steps were necessary to meet the competency provisions established by USPAP. We have familiarity and adequate experience with communication towers and impact studies. In addition, we are familiar with the market, geographic area, and applicable laws, regulations, and guidelines. Assumptions and Conditions of the Appraisal If there are extraordinary assumptions and/or hypothetical conditions used in this report, the use of these extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions might have affected the assignment results. Extraordinary Assumptions An extraordinary assumption is defined as “An assumption, directly related to a specific assignment, as of the effective date of the assignment results, which, if found to be false, could alter the appraiser’s opinions or conclusions.” There are no extraordinary assumptions assumed in this appraisal. Hypothetical Conditions A hypothetical condition is defined as “A condition, directly related to a specific assignment, which is contrary to what is known by the appraisers to exist on the effective date of the assignment results, but is used for the purposes of analysis.” The report is based on the hypothetical condition the planned communication tower has been approved by the city and completed to determine any potential diminution in value to the surrounding properties. Page 161 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY SCOPE OF WORK 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 3 Scope of Work The scope of work includes all steps taken in the development of the appraisal. These include 1) the extent to which the subject property is identified, 2) the extent to which the subject property is inspected, 3) the type and extent of data researched, 4) the type and extent of analysis applied, and the type of appraisal report prepared. These items are discussed as follows: Extent to Which the Impacted Properties Was Identified The components of property identification are summarized as follows: Economic Characteristics Economic characteristics of the project were identified via a review of market surveys, interviews with market participants, as well as a comparison to properties with similar locational and physical characteristics. Physical Characteristics The subject area was physically identified via our on-site inspection. We have also analyzed information sent to us by the client, including maps and pictures of the proposed project. Extent to Which the Property Was Inspected Josh Folland, MAI, AI-GRS, CCIM inspected the subject location and surrounding neighborhood on April 16, 2026. Type and Extent of Data Researched We researched the project based upon information provided to us by the client. Based upon these factors, we analyzed the externalities of the project and its potential impact on the surrounding single-family homes. As part of the process, we conducted the following analysis: 1)A paired sales analysis of comparable agricultural properties and single-family homes located adjacent to a communication tower in similar markets in the local area. 2)Analysis of the listing history, including the sales price to list price ratio and the number of days on the market. 3)Interviews with brokers who have experienced selling single-family homes that are located adjacent to similar properties. Appraisal Conformity We developed the analyses, opinions, and conclusions and prepared this report in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) of the Appraisal Foundation; the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute; and the requirements of the client as we understand them. Page 162 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY CITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 4 City & Neighborhood Analysis REGIONAL MAP Overview The subject is located an in Mendota, Heights, MN. The area is suburban in nature. For the purposes of this report, the neighborhood boundaries are considered to be the City of Mendota Heights, which is outlined on the following page. Page 163 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY CITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 5 NEIGHBORHOOD MAP Demographic Analysis The following demographic information was obtained from the 2000 U.S. Census, 2010 U.S. Census, and Site to do Business (STDB) forecasts for 2025 and 2030. Neighborhood Demographics The following table shows demographics in the local area. Overall, the population is growing at a steady rate. Page 164 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY CITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 6 Housing Information The following table shows housing information in the local area. The majority of homes within a one-mile radius are owner occupied and the median home price of $610,906, according to ESRI. Neighborhood Demographics Radius (Miles)1 Mile 3 Mile 5 Mile Trade Area (Sq. Mi.)3.14 28.27 78.54 Trade Density (Pop/Sq. Mi.)1,846 3,400 3,668 Population Census Population (2010)4,831 81,366 238,639 Census Population (2020)5,212 86,749 257,026 Current Population (2025)5,216 88,327 264,837 Projected Population (2030)5,329 89,474 270,348 Compound Annual Growth 2010 - 2020 0.8%0.6%0.7% 2020 - 2025 0.0%0.4%0.6% 2025 - 2030 0.4%0.3%0.4% Households Census Households (2010)1,850 35,478 99,807 Census Households (2020)2,100 38,322 108,857 Current Households (2025)2,133 39,384 112,562 Projected Households (2030)2,217 40,015 114,999 Compound Annual Growth 2010 - 2020 1.3%0.8%0.9% 2020 - 2025 0.3%0.5%0.7% 2025 - 2030 0.8%0.3%0.4% Average Household Size (2025)2.43 2.21 2.26 Source: ESRI (ArcGIS)(Lat: 44.899173, Lon: -93.121636) Page 165 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY CITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 7 Conclusions The local area is suburban in nature, with residential uses in the immediate area. The local area is growing at a steady rate, and we anticipate continued growth for the foreseeable future. Neighborhood Demographics (cont.) Radius (Miles)1 Mile 3 Mile 5 Mile Trade Area (Sq. Mi.)3.14 28.27 78.54 Trade Density (Pop/Sq. Mi.)1,846 3,400 3,668 2025 Housing Units Median Home Value $610,906 $412,381 $392,068 Median Year Built 1976 1962 1956 Total Housing Units 2,282 41,868 119,937 Owner-Occupied Housing %79.1%51.8%47.1% Renter-Occupied Housing %14.4%42.3%46.7% Vacant Housing %6.5%5.9%6.1% 2025 Employment Total Establishments 159 2,841 10,611 Total Employees 1,629 40,426 191,729 Average Commute Time n/a n/a n/a % College Graduates 76.2%54.0%51.1% 2025 Income Summary Median Household Income $141,432 $84,975 $81,334 Average Household Income $177,558 $120,101 $113,068 Avg Spending/Household $48,185 $32,995 $31,031 Per Capita Income $72,956 $53,727 $48,080 Source: ESRI (ArcGIS)(Lat: 44.899173, Lon: -93.121636) Page 166 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 8 Description of the Project The following description is based on our property inspection, assessor records, and information provided by the client and owner. General Data Location: 739 Wentworth Ave. Mendota Heights, MN Latitude/Longitude:44.898911, -93.112304 Tower Height: 145 Style: Monopole Tower Design Street Frontage / Access Access to the site will be provided by Wentworth Avenue, which is located to the south. Tower Design The subject design will be a monopole Tower Design. This type of design as a single tubular steel pole and is designed to carry antennas, mounts, and cabling. The area dedicated to the tower will have approximately 2,500 square feet, or 0.06 acres. Surrounding Uses The uses surrounding the site are primarily single-family in nature. Based on the survey conducted by Vertical Bridge, and included in the addenda of the report, the tower will be at a height of 145 feet. The tower will have a setback of 59.5 feet to the property to the west and 300 feet to the property to the south Based on our aerial measurements in Google Earth, the proposed tower will be approximately 400 feet to the homes to the north, south and west. The tower will have Verizon Wireless as a carrier, with space to add two additional carriers in the future if needed. Page 167 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 9 Zoning Designation Zoning Jurisdiction: Mendota Heights, Minnesota Zoning Classification: R-1 Permitted Uses: Low Density Residential Page 168 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 10 ELEVATION PLAN Page 169 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 11 PHOTOSIMS (PROVIDED BY CLIENT) VIEW FROM WENTWORTH AVE. Page 170 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 12 PHOTOSIMS (PROVIDED BY CLIENT) VIEW FROM WENTWORTH AVE. Page 171 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 13 VIEW FROM UPPER COLONIAL DR. Page 172 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 14 Site area Site area Site Area Wentworth Ave. Page 173 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 15 Paired Sales Analysis Real estate markets are influenced by attitudes, interactions and the motivations of buyers and sellers in a particular market. Real estate values are affected by risk and future expectations. The proposed project will represent an externality to the surrounding residential properties, which is defined as: The principle that economies outside a property have a positive effect on value while diseconomies outside a property have a negative effect on value. In appraisal, off-site conditions that affect a property’s value. Exposure to street noise or proximity to blighted property may exemplify negative externality, whereas proximity to attractive or well- maintained properties or easy access to mass transit may exemplify positive externalities. In order to determine the impact of the externality, we have conducted paired sales analysis. According to The Appraisal of Real Estate, 14th Edition, published by the Appraisal Institute, paired data analysis is defined as follows: A quantitative technique used to identify and measure adjustments to the sale prices or rents of comparable properties; to apply this technique, sales or rental data on nearly identical properties except for one characteristic is analyzed to isolate the single characteristic’s effect on value or rent.1 The text also cautions that paired data analysis should be made with extreme care to ensure that the properties are truly comparable and that other differences do not exist.2 In order to determine the impact that the proposed project could potentially have on the value of surrounding residential properties, we have analyzed sales of homes and vacant lots that are located adjacent to communication towers with similar single-family homes that are not located adjacent to a communication tower. We have used the mapping feature on the North Star MLS and analyzed over 20 sites in the local area with cell towers and analyzed sales data going back to 2021. The majority of these sites did not have any properties that had recently sold near the cell tower site. In total, we have analyzed five sales at four different sites that are relevant to the subject. We have also attempted to interview the listing broker of each sale to determine if the tower impacted on the sale price or was a concern of market participants. For each sale, we contacted the listing broker via email and phone, leaving a voice message if necessary. We have asked open ended questions in a neutral way to determine what, if any, impact the communication tower had on the marketing of the property. Paired Sales Methodology The sales comparison approach is based on the premise that a buyer would pay no more for a specific property than the cost of obtaining a property with the same quality, utility, and perceived benefits of ownership. It is based on the principles of supply and demand, balance, substitution and externalities. In 1 The Appraisal of Real Estate, 14th Edition, Appraisal Institute, page 399 2 Ibid, page 398 Page 174 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 16 the sales comparison approach, an indication of market value is developed by analyzing closed sales of similar properties, using the most relevant units of comparison. The comparative analysis focuses on the difference between the comparable sales and the subject property using all appropriate elements of comparison. Transactional Adjustments These items are applied prior to the application of property adjustments. Transaction adjustments include: 1.Real Property Rights Conveyed 2.Financing Terms 3.Conditions of Sale 4.Expenditures Made Immediately After Purchase 5.Market Conditions Real Property Rights Conveyed Before a comparable sale property can be used in the sales comparison approach, we must first ensure that the sale price of the comparable property applies to property rights that are similar to those being appraised. All of the sales should reflect a similar interest, and no adjustment is required for this element of comparison. Financing Terms The transaction price of one property may differ from that of an identical property due to different financial arrangements. Sales involving financing terms that are not at or near market terms require adjustments for cash equivalency to reflect typical market terms. A cash equivalency procedure discounts the atypical mortgage terms to provide an indication of value at cash equivalent terms. The sales sold as cash or cash equivalent and no adjustment for financing was required. Conditions of Sale When the conditions of sale are atypical, the result may be a price that is higher or lower than that of a normal transaction. Adjustments for conditions of sale usually reflect the motivations of either a buyer or a seller who is under duress to complete the transaction. The sales sold at market terms and no adjustment for conditions of sale was required. Expenditures Made Immediately After Purchase A knowledgeable buyer considers expenditures that will have to be made upon purchase of a property because these costs affect the price the buyer agrees to pay. Such expenditures may include: (1) costs to cure deferred maintenance, (2) costs to demolish and remove any portion of the improvements, (3) costs to petition for a zoning change, (4) costs to remediate environmental contamination and/or (5) costs to occupy or lease-up the property to a stabilized occupancy The relevant figure is not the actual cost incurred but the cost that was anticipated by both the buyer and seller. Unless the sales involved expenditures anticipated upon the purchase date, no adjustments to the comparable sales are required for this element of comparison. Market Conditions Adjustment Market conditions may change between the time of sale of a comparable property and the date of the appraisal of the subject property. Changes in market conditions may be caused by inflation, deflation, Page 175 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 17 fluctuations in supply and demand, or other factors. Market conditions that change over time create the need for an adjustment. If market conditions have changed, an adjustment would be required for this element of comparison. Physical Adjustments Physical adjustments are usually expressed quantitatively as percentages that reflect the increase or decrease in value attributable to the various characteristics of the property. In some instances, however, qualitative adjustments are used. These adjustments are based on locational and physical characteristics and are applied after the application of transaction adjustments. The adjustments include: 1. Location 2. Physical Characteristics Location Location adjustments may be required when the locational characteristics of a comparable are different from those of the subject. These characteristics can include general neighborhood characteristics, freeway accessibility, street exposure, corner versus interior lot location, neighboring properties, view amenities, and other factors. Physical Characteristics Physical characteristics adjustment identifies variances in the physical features of the comparables and the subject improvements. These characteristics can include the size of single-family homes, number of bedrooms, number of bathrooms, year built, condition of the interior, quality of materials in the interior, garage space, and other factors. Paired Sale 1 – 8507 Campbell Ave., Inver Grove Heights, MN The following table summarizes the sales that will be analyzed in Paired Sale 1. The subject is the September 2024 sale of a single-family home located at 8507 Campbell Ave, Inver Grove Heights MN for a price of $475,000. The property had been listed for sale for $475,000 and sold after two days on the market. This home is located approximately 400-feet from a cell tower located to the northwest. This cell tower is about 150 feet in height, based on information from Celltowermaps.com The following shows an aerial map and a view of the sale. Page 176 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 18 Photo from Google Street View Front View-2024 Page 177 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 19 Aerial View We have compared this sale to three sales in the neighborhood that occurred near the same time. These sales were further removed from a cell tower and not considered to be impacted. The following table summarizes the salient data of the comparable sales. Page 178 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 20 Front View - Sale 1 Front View - Sale 2 Front View - Sale 3 Improved Sales Summary SUBJECT Sale 1 Sale 2 Sale 3 Location 8507 Campbell Ave. Inver Grove Heights, MN 8496 Brewster Ave Inver Grove Heights, MN 3500 E. 78th St E. Inver Grove Heights, MN 8541 College Trail Inver Grove Heights, MN Tax ID Sales Data Date of Sale September-24 August-25 March-24 April-24 Property Rights Conveyed Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Financing Cash to Seller Cash to Seller Cash to Seller Cash to Seller Conditions of Sale Typical Typical Typical Typical Above Grade Finished Area:2,390 1,828 2,024 2,180 Total Finished Area 2,390 2,474 2,892 3,010 Year Built 1994 1993 1998 2001 No. of Bedrooms 4 3 5 4 No. of Bathrooms 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 No. of Garage Spaces 3223 Land Size (Ac.)0.481 acres 0.220 acres 0.360 acres 0.377 acres Unadjusted Units of Comparison Sales Price $475,000 $434,000 $495,000 $505,000 Price Per SF:$198.74 $175.42 $171.16 $167.77 Page 179 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 21 Improved Sales Comparison Approach Adjustment Grid Subject Sale # 1 Sale 2 Sale 3 Date of Value & Sale N/A Property Name 8507 Campbell Ave. Inver Grove 8496 Brewster Ave Inver Grove 3500 E. 78th St E. Inver Grove Heights, MN 8541 College Trail Inver Grove Heights, MN GLA (Above Grade)2,390 1,828 2,024 2,180 Number of Units 1 units 1 1 1 Unadjusted Sales Price $475,000 $434,000 $495,000 $505,000 Unadjusted Sales Price per Unit $434,000 $495,000 $505,000FALSEFALSE Transactional Adjustments Property Rights Conveyed Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee simple Fee simple Adjusted Sales Price $434,000 $495,000 $505,000 FALSE FALSEFinancing Terms Cash to Seller Cash to Seller Cash to Seller Cash to Seller Adjusted Sales Price $434,000 $495,000 $505,000 FALSE FALSEConditions of Sale Typical Typical Typical Typical Adjusted Sales Price $434,000 $495,000 $505,000 FALSE FALSEExpenditures after Sale Adjustment -- - Adjusted Sales Price $434,000 $495,000 $505,000 Market Conditions Adjustments Elapsed Time from Date of V September-24 August-25 March-24 April-24 Market Trend Through N/A -- Analyzed Sales Price $434,000 $495,000 $505,000 00%00%Property Adjustments Location 8507 Campbell Ave. Inver Grove Heights, MN 8496 Brewster Ave Inver Grove Heights, MN 3500 E. 78th St E. Inver Grove Heights, MN 8541 College Trail Inver Grove Heights, MN , Adjustment Similar Similar Similar Similar 00%00%Size 2,390 1,828 2,024 2,180 Adjustment Similar Inferior Inferior Similar 00%00%Age/Condition Year Built 1994 1993 1998 2001 Condition Average Average Average Average Adjustment Similar Superior Similar 00%00%Bedrooms/Bethrooms 4/3 3/2 5/3 4/4 Adjustment Similar Inferior Superior Superior 00%r 00%Finished Basement Adjustment Superior Similar Similar 00%00%Land Area 0.481 .22 .36 .377 Adjustment Similar Similar Similar Net Physical Adjustment Inferior Superior Superior Adjusted Sales Price per Unit $434,000 $495,000 $505,000 Page 180 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 22 Property Adjustments - Paired Sale 1 The subject property sold for a price of $475,000, or $181.45 per square foot. The comparable sales sold for a range of $434,000 to $505,000. . Sale 1 is somewhat inferior to the subject as this property only had three bedrooms and two bathrooms. Sales 2 and 3 are considered to be superior to the subject as they each had finished basements. Overall, there were not any nearly identical sales as the subject did not have a finished basement, which was not typical in the neighborhood and is considered inferior to other homes.. Sales History The subject property was listed for sale for a price of $475,000. The property sold for a price of $475,000, which was in-line with the listing price, after only two days on the market. Broker Survey We e-mailed the listing broker, Cari Linn with the Walker Linn Team,, to determine how cell tower had impacted the marketing and sale price. Ms. Linn was acting as the seller’s broker. Here is her response: “The cell towers around this property were not taken into consideration for pricing and it did not play into the negotiation of the sale. To my knowledge, there were no comments from any potential buyers regarding the cell towers, however, this home sold in two days.” Conclusion The sale price was in-line with the list price and occurred after a brief period on the market (two days). The price was in-line other similar homes in the neighborhood. The listing broker said that the sale was not impacted by the presence of the cell tower in this instance. Based upon the evidence, we conclude that cell tower did not impact the sale price. Page 181 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 23 Paired Sale 2 – 340 18th Ave S., South Saint Paul MN The subject is the January 2025 sale of a single-family home located at 340 18th Ave S. that sold for a price of $307,500. The property had been listed for sale for $319,900 and sold after 20 days on the market. This home is located 320 feet from a water tower with cell equipment. The following shows an aerial map and front view of the sale. Front View Page 182 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 24 Aerial We have compared this sale to other similar properties in the neighborhood that occurred near the time of the sale. Page 183 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 25 Front View - Sale 1 Front View - Sale 2 Improved Sales Summary SUBJECT Sale 1 Sale 2 Sale # 3 Location 340 18th Ave. S. South Saint Paul, MN 315 18th Ave. S. South Saint Paul MN 217 22nd Ave South Saint Paul,, MN 208 22nd Ave. S. south Saint Paul MN Sales Data Date of Sale January-25 September-24 April-24 November-24 Property Rights Conveyed Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Financing Cash to Seller Cash to Seller Cash to Seller Cash to Seller Conditions of Sale Typical Typical Typical Typical Property Type Ranch Ranch Split Level Split Level Above Grade Finished Area 1,131 1,228 1,196 1,125 Total Finished Area 1,761 1,984 1,638 1,700 Year Built 1955 1965 1961 1960 No. of Bedrooms 3334 No. of Bathrooms 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 No. of Garage Spaces 1111 Basement:Yes, partially finished Yes, Partially Finished Yes, partially finihsed Yes, Partially Finished Land Size (Ac.)0.231 acres 0.186 acres 0.190 acres 0.182 acres Unadjusted Units of Comparison Sales Price $307,500 $280,000 $300,000 $315,000 Price Per SF:$271.88 $228.01 $250.84 $280.00 Page 184 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 26 Front View - Sale 3 We have compared the subject to similar homes in terms of above grade finished space, year built, number of bathrooms and bedrooms, basement space, and land area. Page 185 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 27 Property Adjustments - Paired Sale 2 Analysis of sale of other properties within this neighborhood report a price ranging from $280,000 to $315,000. Overall, the sale price of the subject is in-line with the other sales. Sales 1 and 2 are deemed be the most similar to the subject. Sale 3 contains an extra bedroom, and is somewhat superior. . Sales History The subject property was listed for sale for a price of $319,000. The property sold for a price of $307,500, Improved Sales Comparison Approach Adjustment Grid Subject Sale # 1 Sale # 2 Sale # 3 Sale ID 340 18th Ave. S. South Saint Paul, MN 315 18th Ave. S. South Saint Paul MN 217 22nd Ave South Saint Paul,, MN 208 22nd Ave. S. South Saint Paul MN Date of Value & Sale N/A Property Name 340 18th Ave. S. South Saint Paul, MN 315 18th Ave. S. South Saint Paul MN 217 22nd Ave South Saint Paul,, MN 208 22nd Ave. S. south Saint Paul MN GLA 1,131 1,228 1,196 1,125 Unadjusted Sales Price $307,500 $280,000 $300,000 $315,000 Unadjusted Sales Price per Unit $280,000 $300,000 $315,000 Market Trend Through N/A -- - Analyzed Sales Price $280,000 $300,000 $315,000 00%00%00%Property Adjustments Location , Relative Comparison Similar Similar Similar 00%00%00%Size 1,131 units 1,228 units 1,196 units 1,125 units Relative Comparison Similar Similar Similar 00%00%00%Age/Condition Year Built 1955 1965 1961 1960 Condition 0 Relative Comparison Similar Similar Similar 00%00%00%Bedrooms/Bathrooms 3/2 3/2 3/2 4/2 Relative Comparison Similar Similar Superior 00%00%00%Finished Basement Relative Comparison Similar Similar Similar 00%00%00%Land Area Relative Comparison Similar Similar Similar Overall Net Relative Comparison Similar Similar Slightly Superior Page 186 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 28 with was 96% of the listing price, after 20 days on the market. Broker Survey We spoke with the listing broker, Kimberly Wong with the Graham Smith Team, over the phone. Here are our notes from the call: I do remember that house and sale. I do not remember any comments from anyone about the tower. Conclusion Overall, the sale price is considered to be in-line with the similar homes in the neighborhood.. According to the MLS Listing, the property sold after a short time on the market. The listing broker informed us that there were no comments from potential buyers about the water tower with cell equipment. Therefore, we conclude that the water tower with cell equipment did not impact the sale or the subject. Page 187 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 29 Paired Sale 3 – 6715 131st St W, Apple Valley MN The subject is the March 2023 sale of a single-family home located at 6715 131st St W, Apple Valley MN. that sold for a price of $424,900. The property had been listed for sale for $439,900 and sold after 15 days on the market. This home is located 320 feet from a water tower with cell equipment. The following shows an aerial map and front view of the sale. Front View Page 188 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 30 Aerial We have compared this sale to other similar properties in the neighborhood that occurred near the time of the sale. Page 189 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 31 Front View - Sale 1 Front View - Sale 2 Improved Sales Summary SUBJECT Sale 1 Sale 2 Sale # 3 Location 6715 131st St W, Apple Valley MN 13770 Fordham Ave Apple Valley MN 13952 Galway Court Apple Valley MN 6161 Fernando Court Apple Valley, MN Sales Data Date of Sale April-23 December-23 September-22 June-23 Property Rights Conveyed Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Financing Cash to Seller Cash to Seller Cash to Seller Cash to Seller Conditions of Sale Typical Typical Typical Typical Property Type Two Story One Story One Story Split Level Above Grade Finished Area 1,932 1,889 1,744 1,528 Total Finished Area 2,706 2,576 2,646 2,475 Year Built 1989 1970 1969 1973 No. of Bedrooms 3434 No. of Bathrooms 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 No. of Garage Spaces 2222 Basement: Yes, Finished Yes, Finished Yes, finished Yes, finished Land Size (Ac.) 0.231 acres 0.590 acres 0.574 acres 0.380 acres Unadjusted Units of Comparison Sales Price $424,900 $420,000 $424,900 $425,000 Price Per SF: $219.93 $222.34 $243.64 $278.14 Page 190 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 32 Front View - Sale 3 We have compared the subject to similar homes in the neighborhood. Page 191 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 33 Improved Sales Comparison Approach Adjustment Grid Subject Sale # 1 Sale # 2 Sale # 3 Sale ID 6715 131st St W, Apple Valley MN 13770 Fordham Ave Apple Valley MN 13952 Galway Court Apple Valley MN 6161 Fernando Court Apple Valley, MN Date of Value & Sale N/A Property Name 6715 131st St W, Apple Valley MN 13770 Fordham Ave Apple Valley MN 13952 Galway Court Apple Valley MN 6161 Fernando Court Apple Valley, MN GLA 1,932 1,889 1,744 1,528 Unadjusted Sales Price $424,900 $420,000 $424,900 $425,000 Unadjusted Sales Price per Unit $420,000 $424,900 $425,000000 Transactional Adjustments Property Rights Conveyed Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple 00Seller Inventive Financing Terms Cash to Seller Cash to Seller Cash to Seller -$2,000.00 0 0 0Conditions of Sale Typical Typical Typical Typical 0 0 0Expenditures after Sale Adjustment -- - Market Conditions Adjustments Elapsed Time from Date of Value 0.00 years 0.00 years 0.00 years Market Trend Through N/A -- - Analyzed Sales Price $420,000 $424,900 $423,000 00%00%00%Property Adjustments Location , Relative Comparison Similar Similar Similar 00%00%00%Size 1,932 1,889 1,744 1,528 Relative Comparison Similar Similar Inferior 00%00%00%Age/Condition Year Built 1989 1970 1969 1973 Relative Comparison Similar Similar Similar 00%00%00%Bedrooms/Bathrooms 3/4 4/3 3/3 4/4 Relative Comparison Similar Inferior Superior 00%00%00%Finished Basement Relative Comparison Similar Similar Similar 00%00%00%Land Area Relative Comparison Similar Similar Similar Overall Net Relative Comparison Similar Slightly inferior Similar Page 192 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 34 Property Adjustments - Paired Sale 3 Analysis of sale of other properties within this neighborhood report a price ranging from $420,000 to $425,000. Overall, the sale price of the subject is in-line with the other sales. Sale 1 and 2 is deemed be the most similar to the subject. Sale 1 and 3 has one more bedroom.. Sale 3 contains less above grade finished space, but a similar level of overall finished space and one more bedroom. Sales History The subject property was listed for sale for a price of $439,900. The property sold for a price of $424,900 with was 97% of the listing price, after 15 days on the market. Broker Survey We spoke with the listing broker, Scott Lindquist with Imagine Realty, over the phone. Here are our notes from the call: With cell towers, you are losing some potential buyers. However, at the end of the day sellers set the price and get the price that they want. Conclusion Overall, the sale price is considered to be in-line with the similar homes in the neighborhood.. According to the MLS Listing, the property sold after a short time on the market. The listing broker informed us that there was no impact on price from the tower. Therefore, we conclude that the water tower with cell equipment did not impact the sale of the subject. Page 193 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 35 Paired Sale 4 – 8450 Bechtel Ave, Inver Grove Heights MN The subject is the September 2021 sale of a single-family home located 8450 Bechtel Ave., Inver Grove Heights MN that sold for a price of $460,000. The property had been listed for sale for $449,900 and sold after 16 days on the market. This home is located about 200 feet from a cell tower that is 150 feet in height. The following shows an aerial map and front view of the sale. Front View Page 194 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 36 Aerial We have compared this sale to other similar properties in the neighborhood that occurred near the time of the sale. Page 195 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 37 Front View - Sale 1 Front View - Sale 2 Improved Sales Summary SUBJECT Sale 1 Sale 2 Sale 3 Location 8450 Bechtel Ave. Inver Grove Heights, MN 9237 Cheny Trail Inver Grove Heights, MN 8462 Bryce Court, Inver Grove Heights MN 8444 Brewster Ave. Inver Grove Heights MN Tax ID Sales Data Date of Sale September-21 February-21 March-21 August-21 Property Rights Conveyed Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Financing Cash to Seller Cash to Seller Cash to Seller Cash to Seller Conditions of Sale Typical Typical Typical Typical Above Grade Finished Area:2,180 1,871 2,200 2,140 Total Finished Area 3,060 2,757 3,098 2,952 Year Built 1994 2001 1995 1996 No. of Bedrooms 6455 No. of Bathrooms 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 No. of Garage Spaces 2333 Land Size (Ac.)0.190 acres 0.231 acres 0.270 acres 0.181 acres Unadjusted Units of Comparison Sales Price $460,000 $447,000 $457,000 $470,000 Price Per SF:$211.01 $238.91 $207.73 $219.63 Page 196 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 38 Front View - Sale 3 We have compared the subject to similar homes in terms of above grade finished space, year built, number of bathrooms and bedrooms, basement space, and land area. Page 197 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 39 Improved Sales Comparison Approach Adjustment Grid Subject Sale # 1 Sale 2 Sale 3 Date of Value & Sale N/A Property Name 8450 Bechtel Ave. Inver Grove Heights, MN 9237 Cheny Trail Inver Grove Heights, MN 8462 Bryce Court, Inver Grove Heights MN 8444 Brewster Ave. Inver Grove GLA (Above Grade) 2,390 1,828 2,024 2,180 Number of Units 1 units 1 1 1 Unadjusted Sales Price $460,000 $447,000 $457,000 $470,000 Unadjusted Sales Price per Unit $447,000 $457,000 $470,000FALSEFALSE Transactional Adjustments Property Rights Conveyed Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee simple Fee simple Adjusted Sales Price $447,000 $457,000 $470,000 FALSE FALSEFinancing Terms Cash to Seller Cash to Seller Cash to Seller Cash to Seller Adjusted Sales Price $447,000 $457,000 $470,000 FALSE FALSEConditions of Sale Typical Typical Typical Typical Adjusted Sales Price $447,000 $457,000 $470,000 FALSE FALSEExpenditures after Sale Adjustment -- - Adjusted Sales Price $447,000 $457,000 $470,000 Market Conditions Adjustments Elapsed Time from Date of V September-21 February-21 March-21 August-21 Market Trend Through N/A -- Analyzed Sales Price $447,000 $457,000 $470,000 00%00%Property Adjustments Location 8450 Bechtel Ave. Inver Grove Heights, MN 9237 Cheny Trail Inver Grove Heights, MN 8462 Bryce Court, Inver Grove Heights MN 31577 Kalla Lake Road Avon Mn , Adjustment Similar Similar Similar Similar 00%00%Size 2,180 1,871 2,200 2,140 Adjustment Similar Inferior Similar Similar 00%00%Age/Condition Year Built 1994 2001 1995 1996 Condition Average Average Average Average Adjustment Similar Superior Similar 00%00%Bedrooms/Bethrooms 6/5 4/4 5/4 5/3 Adjustment Similar Inferior Similar Inferior 00%r 00%Finished Basement Adjustment Similar Similar Similar 00%00%Land Area 0.19 .231 .27 .181 Adjustment Similar Similar Similar Net Physical Adjustment Inferior Similar Similar Adjusted Sales Price per Unit $447,000 $457,000 $470,000 Page 198 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 40 Property Adjustments - Paired Sale 4 Analysis of sale of other properties within this neighborhood report a price ranging from $447,000 to $470,000. Overall, the sale price of the subject is in-line with the other sales. Sale 1 is deemed be inferior to the subject due to its smaller size. Sale 2 is considered to be the most similar. Sale 3 is also considered to be similar, although this property has two fewer bathrooms. Sales History The subject property was listed for sale for a price of $449,900. The property sold for a price of $460,000 with was 102% of the listing price, after 16 days on the market. Broker Survey We spoke with the listing broker, Connie Wolke with Cardinal Realty Corp, over the phone. Here are our notes from the call: Broker had previously acted as the buyer’s broker when the current seller had purchased the property. The towers were behind the house and had trees. Nobody ever said anything during the sales process about the tower. Conclusion Overall, the sale price is considered to be in-line with the similar homes in the neighborhood.. According to the MLS Listing, the property sold after a short time on the market at a price that has higher than the list price. The listing broker informed us that there was no comments on the property from potential buyers. Therefore, we conclude that the cell tower did not impact the sale of the subject. Page 199 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 41 Paired Sale 5 – 1196 105th St E., Inver Grove Heights MN The subject is the March 2025 sale of a single-family home located 1196 105th Street, Inver Grove Heights MN that sold for a price of $1,050,000. The property had been listed for sale for $1,050,000 and sold after four days on the market. This home is located about 300 feet from a cell tower that is 250 feet in height. The following shows an aerial map and front view of the sale. Front View Page 200 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 42 Aerial We have compared this sale to other similar properties in the neighborhood that occurred near the time of the sale. Page 201 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 43 Front View - Sale 1 Front View - Sale 2 Improved Sales Summary SUBJECT Sale 1 Sale 2 Sale # 3 Location 1196 105th St E Inver Grove Heights, MN 11569 Amameda Ave. Inver Grove Heights, 2324 99h St E Inver Grove Heights, MN 8915 Alverno Ave. Inver Grove Heights, MN Sales Data Date of Sale May-25 June-24 November-25 September-24 Property Rights Conveyed Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Financing Cash to Seller Cash to Seller Cash to Seller Cash to Seller Conditions of Sale Typical Typical Typical Typical Property Type Two Story Two Story Two Story Two Story Above Grade Finished Area 3,124 2,598 2,697 2,708 Total Finished Area 4,323 4,670 4,271 4,410 Year Built 2006 2001 2001 2014 No. of Bedrooms 4544 No. of Bathrooms 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 No. of Garage Spaces 6344 Basement:Yes, Finished Yes, Finished Yes, finished Yes, finished Land Size (Ac.)2.510 acres 2.570 acres 2.620 acres 2.910 acres Unadjusted Units of Comparison Sales Price $1,050,000 $920,000 $950,000 $1,070,000 Price Per SF:$336.11 $354.12 $352.24 $395.13 Page 202 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 44 Front View - Sale 3 We have compared the subject to similar homes in terms of above grade finished space, year built, number of bathrooms and bedrooms, basement space, and land area. Page 203 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 45 Property Adjustments - Paired Sale 5 Analysis of sale of other properties within this neighborhood report a price ranging from $920,000 to $1,070,000. Overall, the sale price of the subject is in-line with the other sales. Sale 1 has a smaller size Page 204 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 46 but more bedrooms and bathrooms and is considered to be similar. Sale 2 is deemed be inferior to the subject due to its smaller size. Sale 3 has a smaller size, but more recent construction and it considered to be similar. Sales History The subject property was listed for sale for a price of $1,050,000. The property sold for a price of $1,050,000 with was in-line with the listing price, after two days on the market. Broker Survey We e-mailed the listing broker, Jay Ettinger with Edina Realty, to determine how cell tower had impacted the marketing and sale price. Mr. Ettinger was acting as the seller’s broker. Here is his response: “I don’t remember a cell tower being a consideration positive or negative with the sale of this property.” Conclusion Overall, the sale price is considered to be in-line with the similar homes in the neighborhood. According to the MLS Listing, the property sold after a short time on the market at a price that was in-line with the list price. Therefore, we conclude that the cell tower did not impact the sale or the subject. Page 205 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 47 Conclusions In determining the potential diminution in value due to the proximity of a cell tower, we analyzed sales data and interviewed knowledgeable market participants. We conducted a paired sales analysis of single-family homes located near cell towers in the local area. We analyzed a total of five paired sales, at different neighborhoods, time periods and price points within the local area. Of the paired sales analyzed, each of them was in-line with the paired sales. In addition, we spoke with four local brokers who reported that the cell tower did not impact on the marketing or sale price. Finally, we note that each of the sales sold after a brief time on the market and at a price that was generally in-line with the list price, which is consistent with the market. In summary, real estate markets are influenced by attitudes, interactions and the motivations of buyers and sellers in a particular market. Based upon our interviews with market participants, a review of impacted sales in the local market, we conclude the following: The proposed cell tower will not measurably impact the value of surrounding properties. Paired Sales Conclusion Ref. Location Description Sale Date List Price Sale Price Sale/List Price Ratio Days on Market (DOM) Paired Sales Conclusion Broker Survey 1 8507 Campbell Ave Inver Grove Heights MN Single-Family Home Sep-24 $475,000 $475,000 100% 2 In-line with comparable sales No impact on sale price 2 340 18th Ave S. South Saint Paul, MN Single-Family Home Jan-25 $319,000 $307,500 96% 20 In-line with comparable sales No impact on sale price 3 6715 131st St W Apple Valley, MN Single-Family Home Mar-23 $439,900 $424,900 97% 15 In-line with comparable sales No impact on sale price 4 8450 Bechtel Ave Inver Grove Heights, MN Single-Family Home Sep-21 $449,900 $460,000 102% 16 In-line with comparable sales No impact on sale price 5 1196 105th St E. Inver Grove Heights, MN Single-Family Home Mar-25 $1,050,000 $1,050,000 100% 2 In-line with comparable sales No impact on sale price Page 206 of 935 VALUE IMPACT STUDY PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 48 Respectfully submitted, Valbridge Property Advisors | Minneapolis | St. Paul Andrew Baker, MAI Director Valbridge Property Advisors | Minneapolis | St. Paul Josh Folland, MAI, AI-GRS, CCIM Senior Managing Director Minnesota License No. 20352348 Page 207 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITING CONDITIONS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 49 General Assumptions & Limiting Conditions This appraisal is subject to the following limiting conditions: 1. The legal description – if furnished to us – is assumed to be correct. 2. No responsibility is assumed for legal matters, questions of survey or title, soil or subsoil conditions, engineering, availability or capacity of utilities, or other similar technical matters. The appraisal does not constitute a survey of the property appraised. All existing liens and encumbrances have been disregarded and the property is appraised as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management unless otherwise noted. 3. Unless otherwise noted, the appraisal will value the property as though free of contamination. Valbridge Property Advisors | Minneapolis | St. Paul will conduct no hazardous materials or contamination inspection of any kind. It is recommended that the client hire an expert if the presence of hazardous materials or contamination poses any concern. 4. The stamps and/or consideration placed on deeds used to indicate sales are in correct relationship to the actual dollar amount of the transaction. 5. Unless otherwise noted, it is assumed there are no encroachments, zoning violations or restrictions existing in the subject property. 6. The appraiser is not required to give testimony or attendance in court by reason of this appraisal, unless previous arrangements have been made. 7. Unless expressly specified in the engagement letter, the fee for this appraisal does not include the attendance or giving of testimony by Appraiser at any court, regulatory, or other proceedings, or any conferences or other work in preparation for such proceeding. If any partner or employee of Valbridge Property Advisors | Minneapolis | St. Paul is asked or required to appear and/or testify at any deposition, trial, or other proceeding about the preparation, conclusions or any other aspect of this assignment, client shall compensate Appraiser for the time spent by the partner or employee in appearing and/or testifying and in preparing to testify according to the Appraiser’s then current hourly rate plus reimbursement of expenses. 8. The values for land and/or improvements, as contained in this report, are constituent parts of the total value reported and neither is (or are) to be used in making a summation appraisal of a combination of values created by another appraiser. Either is invalidated if so used. 9. The dates of value to which the opinions expressed in this report apply are set forth in this report. We assume no responsibility for economic or physical factors occurring at some point at a later date, which may affect the opinions stated herein. The forecasts, projections, or operating estimates contained herein are based on current market conditions and anticipated short-term supply and demand factors and are subject to change with future conditions. 10. The sketches, maps, plats and exhibits in this report are included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. The appraiser has made no survey of the property and assumed no responsibility in Page 208 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITING CONDITIONS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 50 connection with such matters. 11. The information, estimates and opinions, which were obtained from sources outside of this office, are considered reliable. However, no liability for them can be assumed by the appraiser. 12. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. Neither all, nor any part of the content of the report, or copy thereof (including conclusions as to property value, the identity of the appraisers, professional designations, reference to any professional appraisal organization or the firm with which the appraisers are connected), shall be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media without prior written consent and approval. 13. No claim is intended to be expressed for matters of expertise that would require specialized investigation or knowledge beyond that ordinarily employed by real estate appraisers. We claim no expertise in areas such as, but not limited to, legal, survey, structural, environmental, pest control, mechanical, etc. 14. This appraisal was prepared for the sole and exclusive use of the client for the function outlined herein. Any party who is not the client or intended user identified in the appraisal or engagement letter is not entitled to rely upon the contents of the appraisal without express written consent of Valbridge Property Advisors | Minneapolis | St. Paul and Client. The Client shall not include partners, affiliates, or relatives of the party addressed herein. The appraiser assumes no obligation, liability or accountability to any third party. 15. Distribution of this report is at the sole discretion of the client, but no third-parties not listed as an intended user on the face of the appraisal or the engagement letter may rely upon the contents of the appraisal. In no event shall client give a third-party a partial copy of the appraisal report. We will make no distribution of the report without the specific direction of the client. 16. This appraisal shall be used only for the function outlined herein, unless expressly authorized by Valbridge Property Advisors | Minneapolis | St. Paul. 17. This appraisal shall be considered in its entirety. No part thereof shall be used separately or out of context. 18. Unless otherwise noted in the body of this report, this appraisal assumes that the subject property does not fall within the areas where mandatory flood insurance is effective. Unless otherwise noted, we have not completed nor have we contracted to have completed an investigation to identify and/or quantify the presence of non-tidal wetland conditions on the subject property. Because the appraiser is not a surveyor, he or she makes no guarantees, express or implied, regarding this determination. 19. If the appraisal is for mortgage loan purposes 1) we assume satisfactory completion of improvements if construction is not complete, 2) no consideration has been given for rent loss during rent-up unless noted in the body of this report, and 3) occupancy at levels consistent with our “Income & Expense Projection” are anticipated. Page 209 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITING CONDITIONS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 51 20. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures which would render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for engineering which may be required to discover them. 21. Our inspection included an observation of the land and improvements thereon only. It was not possible to observe conditions beneath the soil or hidden structural components within the improvements. We inspected the buildings involved, and reported damage (if any) by termites, dry rot, wet rot, or other infestations as a matter of information, and no guarantee of the amount or degree of damage (if any) is implied. Condition of heating, cooling, ventilation, electrical and plumbing equipment is considered to be commensurate with the condition of the balance of the improvements unless otherwise stated. 22. This appraisal does not guarantee compliance with building code and life safety code requirements of the local jurisdiction. It is assumed that all required licenses, consents, certificates of occupancy or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state or national governmental or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value conclusion contained in this report is based unless specifically stated to the contrary. 23. When possible, we have relied upon building measurements provided by the client, owner, or associated agents of these parties. In the absence of a detailed rent roll, reliable public records, or “as-built” plans provided to us, we have relied upon our own measurements of the subject improvements. We follow typical appraisal industry methods; however, we recognize that some factors may limit our ability to obtain accurate measurements including, but not limited to, property access on the day of inspection, basements, fenced/gated areas, grade elevations, greenery/shrubbery, uneven surfaces, multiple story structures, obtuse or acute wall angles, immobile obstructions, etc. Professional building area measurements of the quality, level of detail, or accuracy of professional measurement services are beyond the scope of this appraisal assignment. 24. We have attempted to reconcile sources of data discovered or provided during the appraisal process, including assessment department data. Ultimately, the measurements that are deemed by us to be the most accurate and/or reliable are used within this report. While the measurements and any accompanying sketches are considered to be reasonably accurate and reliable, we cannot guarantee their accuracy. Should the client desire a greater level of measuring detail, they are urged to retain the measurement services of a qualified professional (space planner, architect or building engineer). We reserve the right to use an alternative source of building size and amend the analysis, narrative and concluded values (at additional cost) should this alternative measurement source reflect or reveal substantial differences with the measurements used within the report. 25. In the absence of being provided with a detailed land survey, we have used assessment department data to ascertain the physical dimensions and acreage of the property. Should a survey prove this information to be inaccurate, we reserve the right to amend this appraisal (at additional cost) if substantial differences are discovered. 26. If only preliminary plans and specifications were available for use in the preparation of this appraisal, then this appraisal is subject to a review of the final plans and specifications when available (at additional cost) and we reserve the right to amend this appraisal if substantial differences are discovered. Page 210 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITING CONDITIONS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 52 27.Unless otherwise stated in this report, the value conclusion is predicated on the assumption that the property is free of contamination, environmental impairment or hazardous materials. Unless otherwise stated, the existence of hazardous material was not observed by the appraiser and the appraiser has no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the property. The appraiser, however, is not qualified to detect such substances. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation, or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required for discovery. The client is urged to retain an expert in this field, if desired. 28.The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) became effective January 26, 1992. We have not made a specific compliance survey of the property to determine if it is in conformity with the various requirements of the ADA. It is possible that a compliance survey of the property, together with an analysis of the requirements of the ADA, could reveal that the property is not in compliance with one or more of the requirements of the Act. If so, this could have a negative effect on the value of the property. Since we have no direct evidence relating to this issue, we did not consider possible noncompliance with the requirements of ADA in developing an opinion of value. 29.This appraisal applies to the land and building improvements only. The value of trade fixtures, furnishings, and other equipment, or subsurface rights (minerals, gas, and oil) were not considered in this appraisal unless specifically stated to the contrary. 30.No changes in any federal, state or local laws, regulations or codes (including, without limitation, the Internal Revenue Code) are anticipated, unless specifically stated to the contrary. 31.Any income and expense estimates contained in the appraisal report are used only for the purpose of estimating value and do not constitute prediction of future operating results. Furthermore, it is inevitable that some assumptions will not materialize and that unanticipated events may occur that will likely affect actual performance. 32.Any estimate of insurable value, if included within the scope of work and presented herein, is based upon figures developed consistent with industry practices. However, actual local and regional construction costs may vary significantly from our estimate and individual insurance policies and underwriters have varied specifications, exclusions, and non-insurable items. As such, we strongly recommend that the Client obtain estimates from professionals experienced in establishing insurance coverage. This analysis should not be relied upon to determine insurance coverage and we make no warranties regarding the accuracy of this estimate. 33.The data gathered in the course of this assignment (except data furnished by the Client) shall remain the property of the Appraiser. The appraiser will not violate the confidential nature of the appraiser- client relationship by improperly disclosing any confidential information furnished to the appraiser. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Appraiser is authorized by the client to disclose all or any portion of the appraisal and related appraisal data to appropriate representatives of the Appraisal Institute if such disclosure is required to enable the appraiser to comply with the Bylaws and Regulations of such Institute now or hereafter in effect. 34.You and Valbridge Property Advisors | Minneapolis | St. Paul both agree that any dispute over matters in excess of $5,000 will be submitted for resolution by arbitration. This includes fee disputes Page 211 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITING CONDITIONS 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 53 and any claim of malpractice. The arbitrator shall be mutually selected. If Valbridge Property Advisors | Minneapolis | St. Paul and the client cannot agree on the arbitrator, the presiding head of the Local County Mediation & Arbitration panel shall select the arbitrator. Such arbitration shall be binding and final. In agreeing to arbitration, we both acknowledge that, by agreeing to binding arbitration, each of us is giving up the right to have the dispute decided in a court of law before a judge or jury. In the event that the client, or any other party, makes a claim against Valbridge Property Advisors | Minneapolis | St. Paul or any of its employees in connections with or in any way relating to this assignment, the maximum damages recoverable by Valbridge Property Advisors | Minneapolis | St. Paul for this assignment, and under no circumstances shall any claim for consequential damages be made. 35. Valbridge Property Advisors | Minneapolis | St. Paul shall have no obligation, liability, or accountability to any third party. Any party who is not the “client” or intended user identified on the face of the appraisal or in the engagement letter is not entitled to rely upon the contents of the appraisal without the express written consent of Valbridge Property Advisors | Minneapolis | St. Paul. “Client” shall not include partners, affiliates, or relatives of the party named in the engagement letter. Client shall hold Valbridge Property Advisors | Minneapolis | St. Paul and its employees harmless in the event of any lawsuit brought by any third party, lender, partner, or part-owner in any form of ownership or any other party as a result of this assignment. The client also agrees that in case of lawsuit arising from or in any way involving these appraisal services, client will hold Valbridge Property Advisors | Minneapolis | St. Paul harmless from and against any liability, loss, cost, or expense incurred or suffered by Valbridge Property Advisors | Minneapolis | St. Paul in such action, regardless of its outcome. 36. The Valbridge Property Advisors office responsible for the preparation of this report is independently owned and operated by Valbridge Property Advisors | Minneapolis | St. Paul. Neither Valbridge Property Advisors, Inc., nor any of its affiliates has been engaged to provide this report. Valbridge Property Advisors, Inc. does not provide valuation services, and has taken no part in the preparation of this report. 37. If any claim is filed against any of Valbridge Property Advisors, Inc., a Florida Corporation, its affiliates, officers or employees, or the firm providing this report, in connection with, or in any way arising out of, or relating to, this report, or the engagement of the firm providing this report, then (1) under no circumstances shall such claimant be entitled to consequential, special or other damages, except only for direct compensatory damages, and (2) the maximum amount of such compensatory damages recoverable by such claimant shall be the amount actually received by the firm engaged to provide this report. 38. This report and any associated work files may be subject to evaluation by Valbridge Property Advisors, Inc., or its affiliates, for quality control purposes. 39. Acceptance and/or use of this appraisal report constitutes acceptance of the foregoing general assumptions and limiting conditions. Page 212 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY CERTIFICATION 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 54 Certification – Andrew Baker, MAI I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: 1.The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. 2.The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. 3.I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. 4.The undersigned has not performed services regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment. 5.I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. 6.My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. 7.My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. 8.My analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 9.Andrew Baker has not personally inspected the subject property. 10.Nobody provided significant appraisal assistance to anyone signing this report. 11.The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. 12.The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. 13.As of the date of this report, the undersigned has completed the continuing education requirements for designated members of the Appraisal Institute. Andrew Baker, MAI Director Page 213 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY CERTIFICATION 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 55 Certification – Josh Folland, MAI, CCIM I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: 1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. 2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. 3. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. 4. The undersigned has not performed services regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment. 5. I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. 6. My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. 7. My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. 8. My analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 9. Josh Folland has personally inspected the subject. 10. Nobody provided significant appraisal assistance to anyone signing this report. 11. The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. 12. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. 13. As of the date of this report, the undersigned has completed the continuing education requirements for designated members of the Appraisal Institute. Valbridge Property Advisors | Minneapolis | St. Paul Josh Folland, MAI, AI-GRS, CCIM Senior Managing Director Minnesota License No. 20352348 Page 214 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY ADDENDA 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 56 Addenda Glossary Qualifications Andrew Baker, MAI - Director Josh Folland, MAI, AI-GRS, CCIM Information on Valbridge Property Advisors Additional Property Information Page 215 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY ADDENDA 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 57 Glossary Definitions are taken from the Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 5th Edition (Dictionary), the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) and Building Owners and Managers Association International (BOMA). Absolute Net Lease A lease in which the tenant pays all expenses including structural maintenance, building reserves, and management; often a long-term lease to a credit tenant. (Dictionary) Additional Rent Any amounts due under a lease that is in addition to base rent. Most common form is operating expense increases. (Dictionary) Amortization The process of retiring a debt or recovering a capital investment, typically though scheduled, systematic repayment of the principal; a program of periodic contributions to a sinking fund or debt retirement fund. (Dictionary) As Is Market Value The estimate of the market value of real property in its current physical condition, use, and zoning as of the appraisal date. (Dictionary) Base (Shell) Building The existing shell condition of a building prior to the installation of tenant improvements. This condition varies from building to building, landlord to landlord, and generally involves the level of finish above the ceiling grid. (Dictionary) Base Rent The minimum rent stipulated in a lease. (Dictionary) Base Year The year on which escalation clauses in a lease are based. (Dictionary) Building Common Area The areas of the building that provide services to building tenants but which are not included in the rentable area of any specific tenant. These areas may include, but shall not be limited to, main and auxiliary lobbies, atrium spaces at the level of the finished floor, concierge areas or security desks, conference rooms, lounges or vending areas food service facilities, health or fitness centers, daycare facilities, locker or shower facilities, mail rooms, fire control rooms, fully enclosed courtyards outside the exterior walls, and building core and service areas such as fully enclosed mechanical or equipment rooms. Specifically excluded from building common areas are; floor common areas, parking spaces, portions of loading docks outside the building line, and major vertical penetrations. (BOMA) Building Rentable Area The sum of all floor rentable areas. Floor rentable area is the result of subtracting from the gross measured area of a floor the major vertical penetrations on that same floor. It is generally fixed for the life of the building and is rarely affected by changes in corridor size or configuration. (BOMA) Certificate of Occupancy (COO) A statement issued by a local government verifying that a newly constructed building is in compliance with all codes and may be occupied. Common Area (Public) Factor In a lease, the common area (public) factor is the multiplier to a tenant’s useable space that accounts for the tenant’s proportionate share of the common area (restrooms, elevator lobby, mechanical rooms, etc.). The public factor is usually expressed as a percentage and ranges from a low of 5 percent for a full tenant to as high as 15 percent or more for a multi-tenant floor. Subtracting one (1) from the quotient of the rentable area divided by the useable area yields the load (public) factor. At times confused with the “loss factor” which is the total rentable area of the full floor less the useable area divided by the rentable area. (BOMA) Common Area Maintenance (CAM) The expense of operating and maintaining common areas; may or may not include management charges and usually does not include capital expenditures on tenant improvements or other improvements to the property. CAM can be a line-item expense for a group of items that can include maintenance of the parking lot and landscaped areas and sometimes the exterior walls of the buildings. CAM can refer to all operating expenses. CAM can refer to the reimbursement by the tenant to the landlord for all expenses reimbursable under the lease. Sometimes reimbursements have what is called an administrative load. An example would be a 15 percent addition to total operating expenses, which are then prorated among tenants. The administrative load, also called an administrative and marketing fee, can be a substitute for or an addition to a management fee. (Dictionary) Page 216 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY ADDENDA 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 58 Condominium A form of ownership in which each owner possesses the exclusive right to use and occupy an allotted unit plus an undivided interest in common areas. A multiunit structure, or a unit within such a structure, with a condominium form of ownership. (Dictionary) Conservation Easement An interest in real property restricting future land use to preservation, conservation, wildlife habitat, or some combination of those uses. A conservation easement may permit farming, timber harvesting, or other uses of a rural nature to continue, subject to the easement. In some locations, a conservation easement may be referred to as a conservation restriction. (Dictionary) Contributory Value The change in the value of a property as a whole, whether positive or negative, resulting from the addition or deletion of a property component. Also called deprival value in some countries. (Dictionary) Debt Coverage Ratio (DCR) The ratio of net operating income to annual debt service (DCR = NOI/I’m), which measures the relative ability to a property to meet its debt service out of net operating income. Also called Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR). A larger DCR indicates a greater ability for a property to withstand a downturn in revenue, providing an improved safety margin for a lender. (Dictionary) Deed Restriction A provision written into a deed that limits the use of land. Deed restrictions usually remain in effect when title passes to subsequent owners. (Dictionary) Depreciation 1) In appraising, the loss in a property value from any cause; the difference between the cost of an improvement on the effective date of the appraisal and the market value of the improvement on the same date. 2) In accounting, an allowance made against the loss in value of an asset for a defined purpose and computed using a specified method. (Dictionary) Disposition Value The most probable price that a specified interest in real property is likely to bring under the following conditions: Consummation of a sale within a exposure time specified by the client; The property is subjected to market conditions prevailing as of the date of valuation; Both the buyer and seller are acting prudently and knowledgeably; The seller is under compulsion to sell; The buyer is typically motivated; Both parties are acting in what they consider to be their best interests; An adequate marketing effort will be made during the exposure time specified by the client; Payment will be made in cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold, unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. (Dictionary) Easement The right to use another’s land for a stated purpose. (Dictionary) EIFS Exterior Insulation Finishing System. This is a type of exterior wall cladding system. Sometimes referred to as dry-vit. Effective Date 1) The date at which the analyses, opinions, and advice in an appraisal, review, or consulting service apply. 2) In a lease document, the date upon which the lease goes into effect. (Dictionary) Effective Rent The rental rate net of financial concessions such as periods of no rent during the lease term and above- or below-market tenant improvements (TIs). (Dictionary) EPDM Ethylene Diene Monomer Rubber. A type of synthetic rubber typically used for roof coverings. (Dictionary) Escalation Clause A clause in an agreement that provides for the adjustment of a price or rent based on some event or index. e.g., a provision to increase rent if operating expenses increase; also called an expense recovery clause or stop clause. (Dictionary) Estoppel Certificate A statement of material factors or conditions of which another person can rely because it cannot be denied at a later date. In real estate, a buyer of rental property typically requests estoppel certificates from existing tenants. Sometimes referred to as an estoppel letter. (Dictionary) Page 217 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY ADDENDA 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 59 Excess Land Land that is not needed to serve or support the existing improvement. The highest and best use of the excess land may or may not be the same as the highest and best use of the improved parcel. Excess land may have the potential to be sold separately and is valued separately. (Dictionary) Expense Stop A clause in a lease that limits the landlord’s expense obligation, which results in the lessee paying any operating expenses above a stated level or amount. (Dictionary) Exposure Time 1) The time a property remains on the market. 2) The estimated length of time the property interest being appraised would have been offered on the market prior to the hypothetical consummation of a sale at market value on the effective date of the appraisal; a retrospective estimate based on an analysis of past events assuming a competitive and open market. (Dictionary) Extraordinary Assumption An assumption, directly related to a specific assignment, which, if found to be false, could alter the appraiser’s opinions or conclusions. Extraordinary assumptions presume as fact otherwise uncertain information about physical, legal, or economic characteristics of the subject property; or about conditions external to the property such as market conditions or trends; or about the integrity of data used in an analysis. (Dictionary) Fair Market Value The price at which the property should change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts. [Treas. Reg. 20.2031-1(b); Rev. Rul. 59-60. 1959-1 C.B. 237] Fee Simple Estate Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat. (Dictionary) Floor Common Area Areas on a floor such as washrooms, janitorial closets, electrical rooms, telephone rooms, mechanical rooms, elevator lobbies, and public corridors which are available primarily for the use of tenants on that floor. (BOMA) Full Service (Gross) Lease A lease in which the landlord receives stipulated rent and is obligated to pay all of the property’s operating and fixed expenses; also called a full service lease. (Dictionary) Going Concern Value The market value of all the tangible and intangible assets of an established and operating business with an indefinite life, as if sold in aggregate; more accurately termed the market value of the going concern. The value of an operating business enterprise. Goodwill may be separately measured but is an integral component of going-concern value when it exists and is recognizable. (Dictionary) Gross Building Area The total constructed area of a building. It is generally not used for leasing purposes (BOMA) Gross Measured Area The total area of a building enclosed by the dominant portion (the portion of the inside finished surface of the permanent outer building wall which is 50 percent or more of the vertical floor-to-ceiling dimension, at the given point being measured as one moves horizontally along the wall), excluding parking areas and loading docks (or portions of the same) outside the building line. It is generally not used for leasing purposes and is calculated on a floor by floor basis. (BOMA) Gross Up Method A method of calculating variable operating expense in income-producing properties when less than 100 percent occupancy is assumed. The gross up method approximates the actual expense of providing services to the rentable area of a building given a specified rate of occupancy. (Dictionary) Ground Lease A lease that grants the right to use and occupy land. Improvements made by the ground lessee typically revert to the ground lessor at the end of the lease term. (Dictionary) Ground Rent The rent paid for the right to use and occupy land according to the terms of a ground lease; the portion of the total rent allocated to the underlying land. (Dictionary) HVAC Heating, ventilation, air conditioning. A general term encompassing any system designed to heat and cool a building in its entirety. Page 218 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY ADDENDA 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 60 Highest & Best Use The reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property that is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest value. The four criteria the highest and best use must meet are 1) legal permissibility, 2) physical possibility, 3) financial feasibility, and 4) maximally profitability. Alternatively, the probable use of land or improved –specific with respect to the user and timing of the use–that is adequately supported and results in the highest present value. (Dictionary) Hypothetical Condition That which is contrary to what exists but is supposed for the purpose of analysis. Hypothetical conditions assume conditions contrary to known facts about physical, legal, or economic characteristics of the subject property; or about conditions external to the property, such as market conditions or trends; or about the integrity of data used in an analysis. (Dictionary) Industrial Gross Lease A lease of industrial property in which the landlord and tenant share expenses. The landlord receives stipulated rent and is obligated to pay certain operating expenses, often structural maintenance, insurance and real estate taxes as specified in the lease. There are significant regional and local differences in the use of this term. (Dictionary) Insurable Value A type of value for insurance purposes. (Dictionary) (Typically this includes replacement cost less basement excavation, foundation, underground piping and architect’s fees). Investment Value The value of a property interest to a particular investor or class of investors based on the investor’s specific requirements. Investment value may be different from market value because it depends on a set of investment criteria that are not necessarily typical of the market. (Dictionary) Just Compensation In condemnation, the amount of loss for which a property owner is compensated when his or her property is taken. Just compensation should put the owner in as good a position as he or she would be if the property had not been taken. (Dictionary) Leased Fee Interest A freehold (ownership interest) where the possessory interest has been granted to another party by creation of a contractual landlord-tenant relationship (i.e., a lease). (Dictionary) Leasehold Interest The tenant’s possessory interest created by a lease. (Dictionary) Lessee (Tenant) One who has the right to occupancy and use of the property of another for a period of time according to a lease agreement. (Dictionary) Lessor (Landlord) One who conveys the rights of occupancy and use to others under a lease agreement. (Dictionary) Liquidation Value The most probable price that a specified interest in real property should bring under the following conditions: Consummation of a sale within a short period. The property is subjected to market conditions prevailing as of the date of valuation. Both the buyer and seller are acting prudently and knowledgeably. The seller is under extreme compulsion to sell. The buyer is typically motivated. Both parties are acting in what they consider to be their best interests. A normal marketing effort is not possible due to the brief exposure time. Payment will be made in cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto. The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold, unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. (Dictionary) Loan to Value Ratio (LTV) The amount of money borrowed in relation to the total market value of a property. Expressed as a percentage of the loan amount divided by the property value. (Dictionary) Major Vertical Penetrations Stairs, elevator shafts, flues, pipe shafts, vertical ducts, and the like, and their enclosing walls. Atria, lightwells and similar penetrations above the finished floor are included in this definition. Not included, however, are vertical penetrations built for the private use of a tenant occupying office areas on more than one floor. Structural columns, openings for vertical electric cable or telephone distribution, and openings for plumbing lines are not considered to be major vertical penetrations. (BOMA) Page 219 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY ADDENDA 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 61 Market Rent The most probable rent that a property should bring in a competitive and open market reflecting all conditions and restrictions of the lease agreement including permitted uses, use restrictions, expense obligations; term, concessions, renewal and purchase options and tenant improvements (TIs). (Dictionary) Market Value The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: a. Buyer and seller are typically motivated; b. Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their own best interests; c. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; d. Payment is made in terms of cash in United States dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and e. The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. Market Value As If Complete Market value as if complete means the market value of the property with all proposed construction, conversion or rehabilitation hypothetically completed or under other specified hypothetical conditions as of the date of the appraisal. With regard to properties wherein anticipated market conditions indicate that stabilized occupancy is not likely as of the date of completion, this estimate of value shall reflect the market value of the property as if complete and prepared for occupancy by tenants. Market Value As If Stabilized Market value as if stabilized means the market value of the property at a current point and time when all improvements have been physically constructed and the property has been leased to its optimum level of long term occupancy. Marketing Time An opinion of the amount of time it might take to sell a real or personal property interest at the concluded market value level during the period immediately after the effective date of the appraisal. Marketing time differs from exposure time, which is always presumed to precede the effective date of an appraisal. (Advisory Opinion 7 of the Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation and Statement on Appraisal Standards No. 6, “Reasonable Exposure Time in Real Property and Personal Property Market Value Opinions” address the determination of reasonable exposure and marketing time). (Dictionary) Master Lease A lease in which the fee owner leases a part or the entire property to a single entity (the master lease) in return for a stipulated rent. The master lessee then leases the property to multiple tenants. (Dictionary) Modified Gross Lease A lease in which the landlord receives stipulated rent and is obligated to pay some, but not all, of the property’s operating and fixed expenses. Since assignment of expenses varies among modified gross leases, expense responsibility must always be specified. In some markets, a modified gross lease may be called a double net lease, net net lease, partial net lease, or semi-gross lease. (Dictionary) Option A legal contract, typically purchased for a stated consideration, that permits but does not require the holder of the option (known as the optionee) to buy, sell, or lease real property for a stipulated period of time in accordance with specified terms; a unilateral right to exercise a privilege. (Dictionary) Partial Interest Divided or undivided rights in real estate that represent less than the whole (a fractional interest). (Dictionary) Pass Through A tenant’s portion of operating expenses that may be composed of common area maintenance (CAM), real estate taxes, property insurance, and any other expenses determined in the lease agreement to be paid by the tenant. (Dictionary) Prospective Future Value Upon Completion Market value “upon completion” is a prospective future value estimate of a property at a point in time when all of its improvements are fully completed. It assumes all proposed construction, conversion, or rehabilitation is hypothetically complete as of a future date when such effort is projected to occur. The projected completion date and the value estimate must reflect the market value of the property in its projected condition, i.e., completely vacant or partially occupied. The cash flow must reflect lease-up costs, required tenant improvements and leasing commissions on all areas not leased and occupied. Page 220 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY ADDENDA 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 62 Prospective Future Value Upon Stabilization Market value “upon stabilization” is a prospective future value estimate of a property at a point in time when stabilized occupancy has been achieved. The projected stabilization date and the value estimate must reflect the absorption period required to achieve stabilization. In addition, the cash flows must reflect lease-up costs, required tenant improvements and leasing commissions on all unleased areas. Replacement Cost The estimated cost to construct, at current prices as of the effective appraisal date, a substitute for the building being appraised, using modern materials and current standards, design, and layout. (Dictionary) Reproduction Cost The estimated cost to construct, at current prices as of the effective date of the appraisal, an exact duplicate or replica of the building being appraised, using the same materials, construction standards, design, layout, and quality of workmanship and embodying all of the deficiencies, super-adequacies, and obsolescence of the subject building. (Dictionary) Retrospective Value Opinion A value opinion effective as of a specified historical date. The term does not define a type of value. Instead, it identifies a value opinion as being effective at some specific prior date. Value as of a historical date is frequently sought in connection with property tax appeals, damage models, lease renegotiation, deficiency judgments, estate tax, and condemnation. Inclusion of the type of value with this term is appropriate, e.g., “retrospective market value opinion.” (Dictionary) Sandwich Leasehold Estate The interest held by the original lessee when the property is subleased to another party; a type of leasehold estate. (Dictionary) Sublease An agreement in which the lessee (i.e., the tenant) leases part or all of the property to another party and thereby becomes a lessor. (Dictionary) Subordination A contractual arrangement in which a party with a claim to certain assets agrees to make his or her claim junior, or subordinate, to the claims of another party. (Dictionary) Substantial Completion Generally used in reference to the construction of tenant improvements (TIs). The tenant’s premises are typically deemed to be substantially completed when all of the TIs for the premises have been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications previously approved by the tenant. Sometimes used to define the commencement date of a lease. Surplus Land Land that is not currently needed to support the existing improvement but cannot be separated from the property and sold off. Surplus land does not have an independent highest and best use and may or may not contribute value to the improved parcel. (Dictionary) Triple Net (Net Net Net) Lease A lease in which the tenant assumes all expenses (fixed and variable) of operating a property except that the landlord is responsible for structural maintenance, building reserves, and management. Also called NNN, triple net leases, or fully net lease. (Dictionary) (The market definition of a triple net leases varies; in some cases tenants pay for items such as roof repairs, parking lot repairs, and other similar items.) Usable Area The measured area of an office area, store area or building common area on a floor. The total of all the usable areas or a floor shall equal floor usable area of that same floor. The amount of floor usable area can vary over the life of a building as corridors expand and contract and as floors are remodeled. (BOMA) Value-in-Use The value of a property assuming a specific use, which may or may not be the property’s highest and best use on the effective date of the appraisal. Value in use may or may not be equal to market value but is different conceptually. (Dictionary) Page 221 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY ADDENDA 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 63 Qualifications Page 222 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY ADDENDA 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 67 Valbridge Property Advisors Information / Office Locations Page 223 of 935 CELL TOWER IMPACT STUDY ADDENDA 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 68 Page 224 of 935 Qualifications of Josh Folland, MAI, CCIM Page 225 of 935 Page 226 of 935 OFFICE WAREHOUSE ADDENDA © 2025 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | KANSAS CITY PAGE 63 Qualifications Qualifications of Andrew Baker, MAI Page 227 of 935 Site Search Walk-Through | Page 1 of 5 Site Search and Zoning Walk-Through Supporting the Conditional Use Permit Application for a New Communication Tower Dakota County PID 27-03800-34-010 Property address: 739 Wentworth Ave Public commentary on the proposed project has suggested a lack of evaluation of all alternatives prior to proposing this new tower site. Section 12-4A-12.7 of the Mendota Heights zoning ordinance requires the applicant to submit a coverage capacity analysis demonstrating no support structures area available, and an area map showing the proposed site, existing sites within a two-mile radius, and any future planned antenna sites. A Statement of Network Need, including a coverage map, was provided from the Verizon Radio Frequency Engineer, and that document fulfills both of these items. The City’s ordinance does not require the applicant to exhaust all other alternatives; instead, the ordinance only requires that Preferred Support Structures and Preferred Land Use Areas are exhausted if an Alternate Land Use Area is selected. The selected site is located in a Preferred Land Use Area, therefore an exhaustion of all other locations is not required as part of the application. The following pages illustrate the site selection process which ultimately resulted in locating this proposed project at Wentworth Park because that is the best zoning-viable location for a tower site in this part of the City, and the location fulfills the network need for the gap area described by the Verizon Radio Frequency Engineer in the Statement of Network Need. Step 1: Assess RF Need The Statement of Network Need from Verizon RF, which included a coverage map, and which was provided in the original application materials, has been updated and included with the other supplemental materials. This document clearly articulates what elevation and height are needed for a new antenna installation to able to cover a significant “gap area” where coverage is poor. The next page includes a zoomed-in view of the central portion of the map included on that document, plus additional information to provide scale and distance for reference. The green area within and extending northeast of the white circle is the “gap area”. This RF map shows clearly that surrounding existing sites are not providing adequate coverage to the gap area, which is a large area that extends from near City Hall, east to Dodd Rd, and then northeast all the way to near the intersection of Annapolis and Delaware. There are several neighborhoods affected by this poor coverage. The “gap area” is best fulfilled by locating a site closest to the center of the search ring, which is the white circle on the map. The more central a single site is placed, the more of the “gap area” will be covered by that single site. This is supported by the Verizon RF Statement which states at the end of paragraph 6: “This particular location is optimal because it will allow Verizon to cover substantially all of the area with a single tower.” This section clarified Verizon’s network need. The next section builds from that information, and uses the zoning ordinance as a guide for development options. Page 228 of 935 Site Search Walk-Through | Page 2 of 5 Above: RF Coverage Map with Additional Reference Information Search Ring Center Proposed Tower Location Existing Tower Existing Verizon Site 1-mi radius Page 229 of 935 Site Search Walk-Through | Page 3 of 5 Step 2: Use the Zoning Ordinance as the Guide for Development The City of Mendota Heights has a specific section for Wireless Towers, Section 12-4A-12.7, in its ordinance, that sets forth performance standards to guide site design, and siting preferences as a guide to certain types of properties. Existing Structures: Before the City will consider a new tower site, the ordinance requires the applicant to reasonably demonstrate that an existing “Preferred Support Structure” will not work from an engineering standpoint. As part of the zoning application, a Statement of Network Need was provided from Verizon’s RF Engineer, and paragraph 5 of that document states: Before proposing a new communications tower, Verizon first considered whether any existing towers in the search area could be used to resolve the coverage gap in the Gap Area. There were no other structures in the search area on which Verizon could collocate to resolve the service gap in the Gap Area. Although there are existing towers in the general area outside the search ring, none of these towers will allow Verizon to remedy the service gap. The existing towers referenced by RF are shown on the prior page’s coverage map as red triangles. Existing structures include water towers, existing towers, church steeples, side of buildings over two stories high, or existing utility poles. Because Verizon concluded from an engineering standpoint that they could not utilize any existing buildings, towers, or other structures to fulfill the network need for the “gap area” described by Verizon RF, the next step is to proceed toward a new tower site solution. New Tower Site Options: The ordinance requires that if a new tower site is proposed, the applicant must look first at Preferred Land Use Areas, and failing that, look at Alternative Land Use Areas, both as defined in the ordinance (ordinance excerpt screen shot below). The Preferred Land Use Area list appears to require that certain types of properties are explored in the order presented in the ordinance, starting with B-1, B-2, and Industrial zoning districts. There are no B-2 or Industrial zoning districts in or near the search ring. There is one B-1 zoning district area down near Hwy 13 and Lilydale Rd. The underlying B-1 district dimensional standards require that any structure be setback a distance equal to the height of the structure. Based on that setback requirement, none of the B-1 zoned parcels can meet the setbacks to allow a tower with the height Verizon would need according to the Statement of Network Need included in the zoning application for this project. The next group of properties in the Preferred Land Use Area list is “athletic complexes, municipal property or Public/Semi-Public uses.” Starting near the center of the search ring to best fulfill Verizon’s network need, there are just a few options which fall into this category. Based on the ownership information from Dakota County and the City’s zoning map (see map image on later page), some properties near the search ring center were identified as both municipal properties and within the Public/Semi-Public Overlay zoning district. The closest of these properties to the Page 230 of 935 Site Search Walk-Through | Page 4 of 5 search ring center and the one with the best elevation (both elements necessary to meet Verizon’s network need) is Wentworth Park. Because Wentworth Park is municipal property and within the Public/Semi-Public Use Overlay, it qualifies as a Preferred Land Use Area, and no further analysis is required to explore other options according to the City’s zoning ordinance. One concern that was brought up at the March 31 Planning Commission hearing was that the subject property is also defined as a public park, which is an Alternate Land Use Area. The intent of this portion of the ordinance, which seems to have created multiple instances of properties which fall into both Preferred Land Use Areas and Alternate Land Use Areas, is somewhat unclear. Upon review of the entirety of the above-described search effort, and the properties in the search ring, please note that every property in the Public/Semi-Public Overlay district within the search ring is also a public park / open space, a golf course, or both. There are no other properties which are more zoning-viable than the proposed tower location. To meet the needs of the Verizon network, and to meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance, the Wentworth Park location is the best location for this project. Page 231 of 935 Site Search Walk-Through | Page 5 of 5 Above: City Zoning Map Overlaid on Google Earth Image with Search Ring (red circle) and 2-Mile Radius (teal circle) Thank you for considering additional report as part of our zoning application package for a CUP for The Towers LLC’s proposed tower facility. Sincerely, Scott Buell, Site Development Agent on Behalf of The Towers, LLC Buell Consulting, Inc. / sbuell@buellconsulting.com / Direct: 651-225-0793 Page 232 of 935 Wireless Towers Ordinance INDUSTRIAL, TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITY USE SPECIFIC REGULATIONS: 7. Wireless Antennas, Towers, and Accessory Structures. Wireless telecommunication towers, antennas, and accessory structures, including, but not limited to, cellular, Personal Communications Service (PCS) technology, and wireless internet, are a Conditional Use in all Base Zoning Districts, subject to the requirements and exceptions of this Section. a. Purpose. To protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community while accommodating the communication needs of residents and businesses, the City Council finds that this Section is necessary to: (1) Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties and personal injury from tower collapse through structural standards and setback requirements. (2) Protect the aesthetic qualities of the community by requiring tower and antenna equipment to be designed in a manner to blend in with the surroundings and complement existing structures. (3) Maximize the use of existing and approved freestanding antenna towers, buildings, and existing light poles for new wireless telecommunication antennas. (4) Minimize the number of freestanding antenna towers needed to serve the community by requiring co-location. (5) Facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and businesses of the City. (6) Ensure that a competitive and broad range of telecommunications services and high-quality telecommunications infrastructure are provided to serve the community, as well as serve an important and effective part of the city’s emergency response network. (7) Place telecommunication facilities in suitable locations, with residential locations being a last resort. b. Definitions. The defined terms identified in this subsection are provided in Chapter [8] of this Zoning Ordinance. c. Building Mounted Antennas. (1) Permitted Buildings. Antennas may be mounted on institutional buildings (churches, schools, businesses, etc.) or multiple-family dwellings two (2) stories or higher. Page 233 of 935 Wireless Towers Ordinance Wireless telecommunications antennas are not permitted on attached or detached single- family homes or attached single-family (townhome) homes. (2) Flush Mounting; Color. (A) Building mounted antennas must be flush mounted to the sides of the building and painted the color of the building exterior unless the applicant can demonstrate to the City Council that protrusion above the roofline is necessary for communication effectiveness. (B) In no case shall building mounted antennas or any attachment thereto be allowed to protrude more than 15-feet above the roofline of the building. (C) Agreement to Mount on City Property. If both the applicant and the City consent to mounting the antennas on the City’s water tower or other municipal building, a developer’s agreement may be necessary at the discretion of the City in addition to a Conditional Use Permit. d. Freestanding Antennas and Towers. (1) Location limitations. The location of any antenna support structure on a particular parcel of land shall be located to have the least impact possible on adjoining properties, and so that any negative impacts of the antenna support structure shall be confined as much as possible to the property on which the antenna support structure is located. (2) Height. The maximum height of a freestanding antenna tower is 150-feet, as measured from the ground to the highest point of any portion of the tower, antenna, or any other component attached thereto, or the distance between the base of the antenna tower and the nearest setback line, whichever is least. (3) Setbacks. All freestanding antenna towers and accessory structures must adhere to all appropriate setbacks for the Base Zoning District of the property on which the structure is located. (A) Antenna support structures between 75-feet and 150-feet tall shall not be constructed within 200 feet of any residential principal structure. (B) Notwithstanding (A), if an antenna support structure is located on the same parcel of land as a residential structure, the setback to that residential structure may be equal to the height of the antenna support structure plus 15 feet. Page 234 of 935 Wireless Towers Ordinance e. Preferences for antenna and support structure locations. When selecting sites for the construction of new antenna support structures and/or for the placement of new antennas, the following preferences shall be followed: (1) Preferred Land Use Areas. (A) Property in the B-1, B-2 or Industrial Zoning District. (B) Athletic complexes, municipal property or Public/Semi-Public uses. (C) Parking lots, if the monopole replicates, incorporates or substantially blends in with the overall lighting standards of the lot. (D) Within the easement of a high-power overhead transmission line, or within 50 feet of the transmission line easement on the same side of the road. (2) Alternate land use areas. (A) Public parks or open spaces. (B) Golf courses. (C) Residential area. (3) Preferred Support Structures. (A) Water towers (B) Co-location on existing antenna support structures. (C) Church steeples. (D) Sides of buildings over two stories high. (E) Existing power, lighting or phone poles. (4) Prohibitions. (A) No new support structures shall be approved at any location other than a Preferred Land Use Area, unless the applicant shows to the reasonable satisfaction of the city that such locations are not feasible from an engineering standpoint. (B) No new support structures shall be approved for construction, unless the applicant shows to the reasonable satisfaction of the city that a preferred support structure is not feasibly available for use from an engineering standpoint. f. Aesthetics. Page 235 of 935 Wireless Towers Ordinance (1) Design. All freestanding antenna towers shall be of a monopole type design. The use of guyed towers is prohibited. (2) Color. (A) Those portions of all freestanding antenna towers and all antennas which protrude into the air shall be painted eggshell. (B) Those portions of all antennas that are flush mounted to the sides of buildings shall be painted to match the exterior of the building. (3) Screening. All accessory buildings to all freestanding towers shall be screened from public view by a landscape plan according to the landscape standards of the applicable Base Zoning District and as described in [Section 12-4A-5 ] of this article subject to City Council review. (4) Advertising. Advertising of any kind is not permitted on any freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure. (5) Lighting. Artificial lighting of any kind is not permitted on any freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure unless such lighting is required by the FCC, the FAA, or another federal or state regulatory body. If such a requirement exists, only the minimum amount of lighting required is allowed. (6) Prohibitions. Structures, functions, uses or activities that are not found by the City to be specifically necessary for the proper functioning of the antennas are prohibited on any antenna or tower without express permission from the City and the City grants a waiver to this requirement. g. Safety. (1) Report of Compliance. For a freestanding antenna tower, the applicant must provide a report from a licensed qualified professional structural engineer certifying that the tower will meet or exceed current EIA/TIA-222-E standards including, but not limited to, standards for withstanding meteorological conditions such as high winds and radial ice. (2) Compliance with Building and Electrical Codes. All antennas, freestanding antenna towers, and accessory structures shall conform to all building and electrical codes. (3) Fencing. The applicant may be required by the City Council to erect a security fence around any freestanding antenna. h. Accessory Structures for Antennas. Page 236 of 935 Wireless Towers Ordinance (1) Location and General Requirements. Accessory buildings to antennas or freestanding antenna towers must comply with all applicable setbacks from all property lines and must otherwise conform to all requirements for accessory buildings within the description of the Base Zoning District on which the structure is located. i. Architecture. (1) Accessory structures and equipment buildings shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with any principal structures on the site or, in the absence of such structures, with their immediate surroundings in an aesthetically pleasing manner. (2) Accessory structures must be finished on all sides. (3) The Planning Commission must review, and the City Council shall approve, the design of any accessory structures and equipment buildings. C. Submission Requirements. 1. Initial Application Requirements. In addition to the information required for a Conditional Use Permit or Administrative Permit, the following additional information must be supplied by the Applicant and a qualified, licensed registered professional engineer: a. Description of the tower height and design, including a cross-section, elevation and site elevation. b. Documentation of the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co-located antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas. c. Description of the tower’s capacity, including the number and type of antennas that it can accommodate. d. Coverage Capacity Analysis. Coverage map and or analysis that demonstrates that no other support structures, or if applicable Preferred Land Use Areas, are available to meet coverage demand. The applicant shall demonstrate, by providing a coverage/interference analysis and capacity analysis, that the location and height of any freestanding antenna tower or antenna as proposed is necessary to meet the communication, frequency reuse and spacing needs of the communication services system, and to provide adequate coverage and capacity to areas that cannot be adequately served by locating the towers in a less restrictive district or on an existing structure, freestanding antenna tower or antenna including such in neighboring municipalities. e. Area Map. All applications for either a freestanding antenna, a freestanding antenna tower, or a building mounted antenna shall be accompanied by a map of all Page 237 of 935 Wireless Towers Ordinance existing towers and antennas of the same provider within a two (2) mile radius of the proposed site and all future planned antennas of the same provider for the next five (5) years within a two (2) mile radius of the proposed site. f. Inclusion of the engineer’s stamp and registration number. g. The city, at its reasonable discretion, may require visual impact demonstrations including mock-ups and/or phot simulations that provide an accurate visual depiction of the tower. h. A written description of the type of technology each company/carrier will provide to its customers. i. A listing of all existing, existing to be upgraded or replaced, and proposed communication sites within the city and within five miles of the city for these services. j. An electronic, to-scale copy of a map of the city showing the five-year plan for communication sites, or if individual properties are not known, the geographic service areas of the communication sites. Any existing tower locations must be clearly identified. D. Additional Requirements. 1. Abandoned Structures. a. Removal Required. Unused or obsolete freestanding antenna towers, antennas, structures or apparatus must be removed within six (6) months of when the operation ceases. b. Bond. A successful applicant shall provide an abandonment bond to the City equal to one and a half (1 1/2) times the current cost of removal and disposal of all antennas and accompanying apparatus as estimated by a consultant selected by the City and paid for by the applicant, which bond shall be used by the City to remove the antennas and apparatus should they become unused or obsolete and the applicant or its successors or assigns become disbarred or otherwise fail to remove said antennas and apparatus. 2. No new antenna support structures shall be constructed if it is feasible to locate the proposed new antenna on existing support structures. Feasibility shall be determined according to generally accepted engineering principles. If a new antenna support structure is to be constructed, it shall be designed structurally to accommodate both the applicant’s antennas and comparable antennas for at least two additional users if the antenna support structure is 75-feet or more. Any antenna support structure must also be designed to allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower and to accept antennas mounted at different heights. Other users shall include, but not be limited to, other cellular Page 238 of 935 Wireless Towers Ordinance communication companies, personal communication systems companies, local police, fire and ambulance companies. 3. Other Required Licenses. The applicant must submit proof of any applicable federal, state, or local licenses to the City prior to receiving a building permit. 1. Interference with Public Safety Systems Prohibited. The applicant must agree in writing to support, participate in and refrain from interfering with public warning systems and public safety communications and other radio frequencies as may be regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 4. Compliance with FCC Regulations; Noninterference Required. All new or existing telecommunications service and equipment shall meet or exceed all Federal Communications Commission (FCC) standards and regulations and shall not interfere with any other communications, computers, laboratory equipment or manufacturing equipment, including television and other home electronics. The applicant shall provide to the City a report from a qualified professional engineer guaranteeing noninterference and a copy of the FCC approval of the antenna in regard to noninterference. a. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In the event that the FCC or other agency or other governmental body having jurisdiction requires the applicant to submit an Environmental Impact Statement or similar document, a copy of this document shall be submitted to the City. b. Nonconformances. Existing nonconforming freestanding antenna towers, antennas, or accessory structures shall be allowed to continue operation unless use of the freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure for its intended purpose ceases for a continuous period of six (6) months, in which case, resumption of use shall require a reapplication for a Conditional Use Permit. c. Costs to Applicant. All costs of an application, including, but not limited to, those incurred by City staff time and resources, engineering studies by consultants, and other data as may be required by the City staff, the planning commission or the City council shall be borne in full by the applicant. d. Variances. The City Council may at its discretion waive any or all of the requirements of this Section in order to approve a unique “stealth” or “camouflage” design of freestanding antennas or poles or building mounted antennas if, in the opinion of the City Council, said apparatus will be sufficiently disguised as trees, light poles, church steeples, or other similar objects. Page 239 of 935 Wireless Towers Ordinance e. Prohibitions. Use of mobile cell/PCS sites or COWs (cell sites on wheels), or any other temporary antenna apparatus is strictly prohibited except in the case of emergency equipment used for public safety purposes for a limited time during or in the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster or other emergency. f. Administrative Procedures and Exemptions. The Zoning Administrator will review Conditional Use Permit requests for improvements to existing wireless antenna facilities and follow the process as established in Chapter [5] of this Zoning Ordinance. The City may impose such conditions and require such guarantees deemed reasonable and necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the standards and purposes of this code. g. Exceptions for Administrative Permit. An Administrative Permit may replace the need for Conditional Use Permit when all of the following conditions exist: (1) Requirements in of this Section [D] are met and submitted for review. (2) Request seeks to adjust, maintain, repair, or replace existing antennas and accessory structures or the elements of an antenna array, including remote radio units (RRU), affixed to a tower or antenna. (3) No increase in the total number of the existing antennas. (4) No increase in the total height of the existing antenna structure. Height of individual building mounted antennas may be increased in compliance with [Section 12- 4A-12 B.7.c.(2)(B)] of this Section. (5) No external modification or expansion of the existing accessory structure. (6) Existing wireless antenna facility, including the wireless antenna structure and accessory structure, is compliant with all conditions contained in the original Conditional Use Permit. (Ord. 592, 9-17-2024; amd. Ord. 603, 10-7-2025) Page 240 of 935 Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 28, 2026 Agenda Item: Tabled - CASE No. 2026-05 Conditional Use Permit Application of Buell Consulting, Inc. on behalf of The Towers LLC, requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a new freestanding wireless monopole tower at 739 Wentworth Avenue (Wentworth Park) Department: Community Development Contact: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Introduction: 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-ft wireless telecommunications monopole tower. The Towers LLC is a partner of Verizon Wireless. The public hearing for this application was opened on March 31, 2026 at the Planning Commission’s regular meeting. In advance of the public hearing, formal notice for this item was published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 1,250-feet of the subject property. At the public hearing, 14 residents spoke relating to the application. The applicant requested the Planning Commission table the item to their next available meeting in order to provide supplemental information as a response to questions submitted through public comments. The Planning Commission agreed with the applicant’s request and unanimously moved to table the application and public hearing to the April 28, 2026 regular Planning Commission meeting. As a courtesy, additional mailed notices were sent out to property owners within 2,000-feet of the park boundary for the continued public hearing on April 28th. The City also published a 2nd formal notice in the Pioneer Press, published a meeting announcement in three instances of the Friday News e-mail newsletter, and the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Facebook page posted an announcement about the meeting on April 23rd. There have been many inquiries to the City with questions about this application, and 56 public comments have been received as of the submittal of this report. Those comments have been included as an attachment to this report. Any additional public comments received after the publication of this report will be provided to the Commissioners at the meeting. Background: The Towers, LLC is requesting CUP approval in order to allow construction of a new wireless monopole tower at 739 Wentworth Avenue. The proposed improvements include a 145-ft monopole tower within a 50-ft x 50-ft fenced and screened ground space. A lighting rod will be installed at the top of the tower totaling an overall height of 149-ft. Page 241 of 935 The subject property is zoned R-1 Low Density Residential, and is within the Public/Semi- Public Overlay District. Wireless towers are allowed within this zoning district by Conditional Use Permit and subject to applicable zoning standards. The site is home to Wentworth Park and is municipal property of the City of Mendota Heights. Site and Ordinance History The subject site had a previous planning application for a wireless telecommunication tower in 2006, identified as Planning Case No. 2006-10. At that time, the City Code did not permit a freestanding tower in the R-1 Zoning District. Instead, the ordinance required the infrastructure to be collocated on existing utility towers. That prior application included the Conditional Use Permit for the tower itself, as well as a request from the applicant to amend the City Code on “Freestanding Antennas and Towers” to allow a freestanding tower in a Residential Zoning District by CUP when accessory to an institutional principal use, as well as a revision to increase the maximum height of a tower. The application moved forward to the public hearing stage at the Planning Commission and received significant feedback from the public on the land use request. During the same time period, the City Council had been reviewing the terms of the lease for space at Wentworth Park for the tower infrastructure. Ultimately, the prior planning application was withdrawn by the applicant after the City Council voted unanimously to terminate lease negotiations with T- Mobile for space at Wentworth Park. The applicant at the time stated that this decision to withdraw from lease negotiations with T-Mobile led to their decision to withdraw their zoning application. In the years since this prior application was discussed at the City, updates have been made to the City Code regarding wireless towers, antennas, and accessory structures. Specifically, the Zoning Code Update project included revisions to these regulatory standards which went into effect on January 1, 2025. At this time, the City Code permits a freestanding tower up to 150-ft in height by Conditional Use Permit in all Base Zoning Districts, with a preference for certain land use areas. One of the preferred land use areas includes municipal property or Public/Semi-Public uses. The applicant has requested a Conditional Use Permit for this wireless tower under these provisions as outlined in the "Wireless Antennas, Towers, and Accessory Structures" section of City Code, which has been pulled as an excerpt and attached to this report. The City Council approved an Option and Lease Agreement with The Towes, LLC at their regular City Council meeting on February 4, 2026. This agreement authorized the applicant to apply for the Conditional Use Permit which would be required prior to commencement with the project. Analysis: Proposed Use The proposed facility consists of a galvanized steel monopole tower with a structural height of 145-ft, with a lightning rod increasing the overall height to 149-ft. The base of the tower will be within a fenced in compound area, with associated ground-mounted equipment. Verizon Wireless is a partner to The Towers LLC and the primary carrier of the tower, but there would be capacity for additional carriers to co-locate in the future (three total carriers). The applicant has stated that Verizon has identified a significant service capacity gap in their wireless communications network, which cannot be resolved unless a communications tower is constructed within the identified service gap area. The intent of the application is to improve wireless coverage for Mendota Heights residents and business, as well as improved service Page 242 of 935 for emergency response personnel and other City staffmembers. The subject site was selected due to its ability to address documented coverage and capacity needs, while also being located on a preferred land use area: municipal property and Public/Semi-Public property. The Radio Frequency Engineer for the applicant group has identified that the proposed location is optimal because it will allow the cell carrier to cover a substantial area with the single tower. The location is also ideal due to its ground elevation of 885-ft, which when combined with the proposed tower height would increase the ability to provide stronger service within the surrounding topography. The City Code classifies this use as a freestanding wireless tower and it is a listed Conditional Use in all Base Zoning Districts, subject to applicable zoning standards. The proposed location is compliant with the setbacks for a structure in the base zoning district. The underlying R-1 district setbacks are 30-ft for front yard, 10-ft for side yard, and 30-ft for rear yard. The location of the 50-ft x 50-ft site area will exceed each of those setback requirements, located approximately 270-ft from the front property line (facing Wentworth Avenue), 34-ft from the side property line to the west, and 236-ft to the north (rear) lot line. Additionally, the compound area would be over 350-ft setback from the nearest three residential principal structures to the south, west, and north, exceeding the ordinance requirement of 200-ft. The excerpt from the site plan shown on the next page illustrates the location of the 50-ft x 50-ft compound area in comparison to the drive aisle entrance to Wentworth Park. City Code maintains performance and regulatory standards for freestanding antennas and towers including provisions for aesthetics, safety, accessory equipment and/or structures, and architecture. The applicant’s Narrative Letter has been included as an attachment to this report and indicates the applicants’ acknowledgement of and response to the performance Page 243 of 935 standards required for wireless towers. In addition to the site and construction plans required for all Conditional Use Permit applications, the applicant was also required to submit supplemental information to the City including coverage capacity analysis and visual impact demonstrations which have been included as an attachment to this report. Following a request for additional information at the March 31st meeting, the applicant has also provided documentation related to their site search to emphasize the benefit of the proposed location. This document, entitled “Site Search and Zoning Walk Through” illustrates the location of existing towers with the City and surrounding municipalities, as well as existing Verizon sites. The applicant has indicated that although there are existing towers in the general area outside of the search radius, there were none available that would have resulted in increased coverage at the level needed for Verizon to remedy the service gap. The applicant has also stated that no existing buildings within the search area would have been suitable from an engineering standpoint to fulfill the network need for the service gap area. Aesthetics requirements for the proposed monopole include a standard of color, requiring that all portions of a freestanding tower be painted eggshell. The applicant has indicated that their first preference is for a galvanized finish on the structure, but had stated if any painting is required they will comply. There is a condition included in the recommendations section of this report that the tower be painted eggshell in accordance with this standard. Other aesthetic standards required for the monopole include requirements for the accessory building for the tower to be screened from public view by a landscape plan. This information has been submitted to the City. The compound for the tower and associated ground equipment will be within a fenced area surrounded by evergreen plantings (Black Hills Spruce) for immediate screening. The tower itself as well as the ground-based components are not architecturally significant structures. The compound area is designed for function and will include accessory equipment within outdoor cabinets surrounded by fencing; then, the fencing will be surrounded by landscaping to soften the visual impact at the street and ground level. The layout of the fenced compound with carrier equipment is illustrated on the enlarged site plan, sheet “A-2” attached to this report. Also in the applicant’s construction documents, is an illustration of the elevation of carrier ground equipment on Sheet “VZW A-3”. The surrounding evergreen trees will increase the screening of the carrier equipment and generator’s height. From other areas of the park the tower will be partially screened by existing mature trees, dependent on location. The tower itself will be most visible from the south drive aisle and parking lot entrance to Wentworth Park. City Code includes a prohibition of advertising on the tower or accessory structure, and for artificial lighting to be prohibited excluding the minimum required by state or federal regulatory bodies. The applicant has confirmed that there will be no advertising of any kind at the facility. The only signage on the structure would be safety and identification signage, which are illustrated on sheet “A-6” in the construction documents. There would be no artificial lighting except for that which is required by the FCC/FAA. The applicant has submitted a letter from the FAA confirming that no lighting would be required for this proposal. Below is a graphic illustrating the elevation of the tower height of 145-ft, with the total height of 149-ft when including the lightning rod. The graphic shows how Verizon will be the primary carrier at the top slot of the monopole, and there will be available space for two additional carriers to come forward in the future. Page 244 of 935 Conditional Use Permit Pursuant to Title 12-5B-5, the city recognizes that the development and execution of the Zoning Code is based upon the division of the city into districts within which regulations are specified. It is further recognized that there are special or conditional uses which, because of their unique characteristics, cannot be properly classified in any district or districts without consideration, in each case, of the impact of those uses on neighboring land or the public need for the particular location. To provide for these needs, the city may approve a conditional use for those uses and purposes, and may impose conditions and safeguards in such permits to ensure that the purpose and intent of this chapter is effectively carried out. The City may grant a conditional use provided the proposed use demonstrates the following: a.Use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, b.Use will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, c.Use will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value, and d.Use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the Page 245 of 935 comprehensive plan. A-C) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards; nor depreciate surrounding property value. Staff Response: The City has received numerous reports of a lack of consistent cellular coverage in Mendota Heights, particularly in the northern area of the City’s boundaries. The proposal would allow for improvements on this issue to residents, and the wireless tower would be available for co-location by other carriers in the future if approved. The location of a wireless tower and telecommunications facility would not be staffed, so the proposed use would not increase traffic to Wentworth Park or add to the existing traffic patterns in the surrounding area. There is no evidence that the proposed use would have an impact on the depreciation of surrounding property value in the surrounding market. The applicant has provided a Value Impact Study (attached) as supplemental information to the application to demonstrate that the proposed cell tower development would not measurably impact the value of surrounding properties. The applicant notes that improved wireless infrastructure supports public safety, particularly given the increasing reliance on mobile devices for emergency communications. The proposed tower is designed to enhance network reliability and capacity without creating adverse impacts on surrounding properties. Radiofrequency emissions are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and applicants are required to comply with all applicable federal standards. D) The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Response: The purpose of the “Wireless Antennas, Towers, and Accessory Structures” section of the City Code is to: To protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community while accommodating the communication needs of residents and businesses, the City Council finds that this Section is necessary to: 1.Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties and personal injury from tower collapse through structural standards and setback requirements. 2.Protect the aesthetic qualities of the community by requiring tower and antenna equipment to be designed in a manner to blend in with the surroundings and complement existing structures. 3.Maximize the use of existing and approved freestanding antenna towers, buildings, and existing light poles for new wireless telecommunication antennas. 4.Minimize the number of freestanding antenna towers needed to serve the community by requiring co-location. 5.Facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and businesses of the City. 6.Ensure that a competitive and broad range of telecommunications services and high- quality telecommunications infrastructure are provided to serve the community, as well as serve an important and effective part of the city’s emergency response network. 7.Place telecommunication facilities in suitable locations, with residential locations being a last resort. The proposed use will be located on a municipal property, and is located within the Public/Semi-Public Overlay district, which are both preferred land use areas under this section of City Code. The construction of a freestanding tower is permitted in the ordinance by Page 246 of 935 Conditional Use Permit, and the approval of this proposal would accomplish items (5) and (6) above, to facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to residents and businesses within the City, and ensuring that high-quality telecommunications infrastructure is provided to serve the community. The construction of the tower would also aid in the effort to accomplish item (4), by constructing a tower with space for three total carriers to co-locate on in the future. The proposed wireless monopole is compliant with setback requirements and includes screening measures to minimize the visual impact where possible. The application, with the inclusion of the suggested conditions of approval, is consistent with the general purpose and intent of City Code and the Comprehensive Plan. Alternatives: 1.Approve the CUP request for a new wireless monopole tower based on the findings-of- fact that the proposed project is compliant with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, with certain conditions; or 2.Deny the CUP request for a new wireless monopole tower, based on revised or amended findings-of- fact that the application does not meet certain policies and standards of City Code as determined by the Planning Commission; or 3.Table the request and request additional information from staff and/or the applicant; The City's 120-day review deadline for this application is June 27, 2026. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit (CUP) by The Towers LLC for the property at 739 Wentworth Avenue, with the following conditions: 1.A building permit, including all new site grading, utility, and drainage work, must be approved by the City prior to any construction beginning on site. 2.The Developer/Applicant shall submit final grading, utility, and site plans, and architectural construction drawings for permitting, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department and Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 3.All new construction and grading activities throughout this development site and on each new buildable lot shall be in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 4.The maximum tower height shall not exceed 149-ft unless otherwise approved. 5.Landscaping and screening shall be installed as illustrated on the provided plans, dated 2/26/26. 6.All antennas, freestanding antenna towers, and accessory structures shall conform to all building and electrical codes. 7.The proposed freestanding monopole tower shall be painted eggshell in accordance with the design guidelines of the “Wireless Antennas, Towers, and Accessory Structures” ordinance. 8.Advertising of any kind is not permitted on any freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure. 9.Artificial lighting of any kind is not permitted on any freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure unless such lighting is required by the FCC, the FAA, or another federal or state regulatory body. 10.Structures, functions, uses or activities that are not found by the City to be specifically necessary for the proper functioning of the antennas are prohibited on any antenna or Page 247 of 935 tower without express permission from the City and the City grants a waiver to this requirement. Page 248 of 935 Planning Case 2026-05 (CUP for The Towers LLC) Page 1 of 1 FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL CUP – Conditional Use Permit for The Towers LLC at 739 Wentworth Avenue (Wentworth Park) The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed freestanding wireless monopole tower use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor depreciate surrounding property values. 2. The proposed freestanding wireless monopole tower use conforms to the general purpose and intent of this code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards laid out in 12- 3B-5B.7, provided all conditions are met and upheld by the property owner and applicant. 3. With the approval of the freestanding wireless monopole tower and associated conditions of approval, the site will provide needed cellular infrastructure into the community and will benefit the City by addressing documented service needs, allowing for future colocation of carriers, incorporating design and screening measures to minimize visual impacts to surrounding properties, and providing additional coverage to residents and emergency services personnel within the City of Mendota Heights. Page 249 of 935 March 31, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 16 COMMISSIONER NATH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UDELL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Nath noted that the request is related to the peak in the middle of the home, which should alleviate the issue of shade mentioned by the neighbor. He supported the request. Commissioner Johnson stated that while she does have concerns for the neighbors, she was happy to hear that the builder was willing to work with them. She noted that this request falls within the requirements of the City Code. COMMISSIONER UDELL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GOLDADE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY M&M HOME CONTRACTORS FOR THE PROPERTY AT 655 CALLAHAN PLACE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE APPROVED AND ISSUED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. ALL APPLICABLE ZONING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. 2. THE BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL NOT EXCEED 20 FEET, AS MEASURED PER THE DEFINITION OF BUILDING HEIGHT IN CITY CODE. 3. THE BUILDING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE PLANS SUBMITTED AND DATED JANUARY 29, 2026. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Community Development Manager Sarah Madden advised the City Council would consider this application at its April 7, 2026, meeting. C) PLANNING CASE 2026-05 BUELL CONSULTING, INC. ON BEHALF OF THE TOWERS LLC, 739 WENTWORTH AVENUE (WENTWORTH PARK) – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that Buell Consulting, on behalf of The Towers LLC, requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a 149-foot wireless telecommunications monopole tower. The Towers LLC is a partner of Verizon Wireless. The subject property, located at 739 Wentworth Avenue, is owned by the City and utilized as Wentworth Park. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 1,250 feet of the site; several inquiries have been made, and 29 public comments have been received. Page 250 of 935 March 31, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 16 Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. She stated that the applicant, in response to the comments received, has requested that the application be tabled until the April meeting, as that would allow the applicant to provide written responses to the comments received. She stated that the public hearing should still be opened tonight, and the item should be tabled with the public hearing remaining open. Commissioner Johnson asked if there was a map identifying freestanding antennas, as well as future planned antennas, within a two-mile radius of the proposed site, as required by City Code. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that information was provided within the packet on the coverage map. Commissioner Johnson stated that the narrative mentioned that this would help with coverage in Ramsey County and asked for more information, as she did not notice that change on the map. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that, from the information provided to staff, the proposed service level would impact the area surrounding the park. She stated that she was unsure if this tower would impact service in Ramsey County. She stated that the service area would improve in this area, noting that staff have received complaints about the current service levels in this area. Commissioner Johnson asked how wide the area is that would improve, as she did not believe that the area of improvement was very large for such a large tower. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that she did not have the dimension for the radius, but noted that the height tends to provide coverage to a larger area. Commissioner Udell recognized that there are many residents present tonight. He understood that the public hearing would remain open and asked if someone speaking tonight would prevent them from speaking at the April meeting. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that if someone speaks today and wants to speak at the next meeting, they could speak if they wanted to say something new, but the intention is that they would not be repeating the same comments. Commissioner Goldade asked if the Commission had considered a telecommunications tower in the past, or whether this is unique in that it would be located in a park. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that there was a similar application in 2006 in a park, which was withdrawn. She stated that there have been some building-mounted towers in the past six years. Page 251 of 935 March 31, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 16 Commissioner Johnson stated that the City Code identifies preferred land uses and alternate land uses. She stated that when the Code language was amended, it may have created confusion. She noted that public spaces and parks were to be considered as alternate land uses, not preferred. She asked if the applicant had shown reasonable satisfaction that the applicant could not find a preferred location. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden referenced a memorandum from the applicant describing that sites nearby were not adequate to address the coverage gap. Commissioner Johnson noted that there is a school nearby, and perhaps the tower could be located on the school. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the nearby buildings are limited to a 15-foot height, which would not provide the needed coverage. Commissioner Johnson asked that the applicant identify which locations on the map are current towers and which are proposed for the future. Commissioner Corbett opened the public hearing. Sarah Buell spoke in representation of the applicant and asked that this item be tabled until the next meeting. She thanked the public for their feedback, which will help ensure accountability, strengthen the planning process, and provide a higher level of diligence. She stated that they are requesting additional time to process and respond to the feedback and make any necessary changes to their plan. Joan Brandes, 1465 Cherry Hill Road, stated that she has had a cell phone for the last 30 years with service. She commented that sometimes service is not perfect. She stated that she travels a lot in the southern suburbs, and they are lucky to have hills, valleys, and trees. She recognized that there are many places where conversations will drop, and service has continued to get better over the years. She suspected that the service would continue to improve, noting that there is no 5G service near this area. She believed there should have been a longer notification period for residents. She commented on recent activity in the park and stated that it would be a shame that the area where children were playing would be taken up by this equipment. She stated that this is the last clean place in the park and believed that there are other amenities that would better benefit the community. She commented on another tower that is an eyesore, along with the construction equipment that she also believes to be an eyesore. She asked how the rent for the tower was figured out and believed that the lease better served Verizon than the City. She did not believe that $15,000 a year would be enough. She referenced comments recently made by the Mayor, who stated that it is the obligation of the City to ensure proper infrastructure and cell phone service, and that the $15,000 could be used in the park. She did not agree with the comments of the Mayor. She stated that there has been no information on the alternatives, noting that a ten-mile radius would service many other areas outside Mendota Heights. Amelia Vandarious, 1312 Wachtler Avenue, stated that their coverage is delightful and asked if a survey could be completed to determine if there are people without service and whether there are Page 252 of 935 March 31, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 16 alternatives that could be considered for those with poor service. She stated that if there is a need for the improved service, perhaps a study could be done to ensure the benefit would outweigh the cost. Jack Evans, 796 Lower Colonial Drive, stated that he supports the request to table this as he agreed that more information is needed on this application. He commented that much more information is needed, including the alternatives. He stated that when the City Council requested the coverage maps in August, the consultant objected, stating that it was proprietary information and asked how modeling could then be done without that information. He stated that the park is the last option to be considered. He commented that there is no information on the impact of the tower, and there are vague renderings within the application. He referenced the before and after views and wanted to better understand what that impact would be for homeowners. He stated that the residents were notified less than one week ago. He asked that the notification for the next meeting be provided earlier to ensure that residents have enough time to respond. He recognized that the prior notice would stand if this were tabled, but asked that another notification be provided prior to the next meeting. Benjamin Paterson, Evergreen Knolls, stated that Mendota Heights prides itself on being the best- kept secret with a small-town feel, and this tower would go against that vision. He stated that studies have shown that a view of a cellular tower can decrease property values by 9.78 percent. He stated that the park is a place for gathering and believed that the tower could be damaging to the feel of the park. He asked if other alternatives had been explored and encouraged the community to continue to pursue alternatives. He asked for an accurate representation of the tower, noting differences in the application information and the pictures shown by the City. He provided additional information on the ownership of Vertical Bridge and asked how Middle Eastern backers based in Tokyo would encourage local businesses to thrive. He provided information on health impacts from 5G towers. He also questioned the timing of the notification, as many people were away on spring break when the notification was received. Ken Noack, 677 4th Avenue, stated that he lives in the cellular dead zone and has experimented with three different carriers. He experienced dropped calls with all three carriers, but noted that he was able to obtain a booster through Verizon, which helped a bit. He stated that he has petitioned the Council to improve the cellular coverage. He stated that there was a storm that came through a few years ago that knocked out the power, which meant that his landline and booster did not work. He stated that the same night, a home was hit by lightning, but luckily, they still had power and could call for help. He stated that if that were to happen to him, he would not have been able to call for help. He stated that his sister was visiting and was trying to rebook her flight home, and it took three hours because of the poor coverage at his home. He recognized that now people often work from home and was unsure how they could do that without coverage. He stated that in this day and age, you would think they would have coverage and service. He understood that people do not want to look at a tower, but the towers are in every community, and it should not be a problem for Mendota Heights. He commented that when Cherryhill was developed, there was an ugly water tower that sat near the park and obstructed the views of others, but they understood that it was necessary infrastructure that was needed to help people in the community. He stated that this is also an important infrastructure that is needed in the city. Page 253 of 935 March 31, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 16 Kevin Byrnes, 740 Wentworth Avenue, stated that he submitted questions prior to the meeting. He asked for a quick summary of the entities involved in this, noting more than four entities. He stated that a lease was already negotiated and approved before the public hearing, which seems out of order. He was unsure if Verizon was pushing this or the tower company that convinced Verizon to sign on. George Eliou, 757 Upper Colonial Drive, stated that he is in a unique situation as he has lived in three homes in this area and has never had a problem with cellular phone coverage. He stated that he would like to see more information on the benefits of coverage and stated that perhaps unique things could be considered for the homes experiencing issues. He questioned what they would be gaining out of this in comparison with changing the character of Mendota Heights. Peter Gagnon, 751 Upper Colonial Drive, stated that fiber optics has been put through the neighborhoods, and all cell phones now have Wi-Fi calling. He stated that you do not need as much coverage for phone service as you do for the data side, and believed that this tower would be more for Verizon to provide more data services. He commented that Comcast and CenturyLink already provide internet service. He stated that the City should receive more coverage information and believed that there are other solutions available. He understood that there are dead zones, but believed there are solutions to address those situations. John Huber, 1359 Cherryhill Road, stated that he was the Mayor for eight years and served another eight years on the City Council in the past. He stated that from his experience over the last 65 years, there was a time when there were dead spots in coverage around the community. He stated that the coverage has improved in the community. He hoped that the Commission would look around at the people in attendance tonight, as the public input helps the discussion and guides the decisions made. He stated that he was not in favor of this in 2006 and is not in favor of it now because he did not see the need, although he respected the position of the resident who expressed coverage issues. He did not believe the City needed the $15,000. Sandy McGowan, 774 West Wentworth, stated that she has been trying to review the technical information over the past seven days and did not believe that was enough time to review the information. She stated that she goes through the park twice a day, and she loves the green space, which is the only green space left in the park. She stated that to the north of the pond, there is a little green area, but it is always saturated by the pond. She commented that a monopole is huge and intimidating and believed that it would destroy the ambiance of the park. She sympathized with those who are having service issues, but believed there are alternate areas where a tower could be located. Randy Pentel, 815 Deer Trail Court, provided a number of scientific medical reports related to the risks and dangers, which state that any tower should be at least 500 meters from any residences. He noted that his home is within that area. He noted the area where weak spots were identified on the coverage map, noting that his home is also within that area, and he has excellent in-home coverage. He noted a 4G amplifier near his home. He stated that Highway 35E is also lined with 5G towers. He stated that the $15,000 for the lease breaks down to $1,250 a month and did not believe that was worth the potential health risks. Page 254 of 935 March 31, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 16 Commissioner Corbett asked why the towers should not be within 500 meters of homes. Mr. Pentel replied that the reasoning is for health risks and offered to provide the reports to the Commission. He provided some specific information from the reports. David Williams, 755 Wentworth, stated that he is 34 feet from the setback and received this information during spring break. He stated that he could not fathom that a tower of this height could be placed 34 feet from a lot line. He stated that he has an eight-acre parcel and believed that if he submitted a request to place something of this height, 34 feet from the lot line, it would be rejected. He recognized that he does not currently have a structure near the lot line, but he could subdivide and build homes like his neighbor did. He asked that more work be done to determine the impact on property values and the health risks. He stated that this is being done under the premise that it is needed, when only a small portion of the population has service issues. He suggested that the tower instead be placed on the site owned by AT&T nearby, where there is currently a 50-foot tower. He commented that $15,000 is nothing, and the impact on property values will be more than that. He noted that only three to five percent of the population have gaps in coverage and believed that there should be true information should be provided on the actual coverage. He commented that there are antennas from multiple carriers throughout the community, and as a Verizon customer, he has never had issues with coverage. He did not believe that parkland should be given up based on the information provided. John Vaupel, 1299 Laura Street, stated that this could be a precedent-setting vote as they do not currently have towers in the parks. He stated that this is not just an issue for the Wentworth area but throughout the community, as this decision could open up the door for towers in other parks. Dean Simmons, 780 Upper Colonial Drive, stated that he was dismissed by the lack of notification and communication from the City on this issue. He stated that all taxpayers pay for parks in the community, and therefore, this is an issue that affects all residents of Mendota Heights. He believed that the next notification should be sent to all residents in Mendota Heights. Ms. Buell thanked the residents for their feedback tonight and welcomed any additional comments that may come. She noted a question related to the entities involved and explained that Verizon Wireless initiates any proposal like this where there is a clear need. She stated that Verizon initiated the action, but is not in the business of owning towers, and Vertical Bridge (which is also known as The Towers LLC) is in the business of build to suit towers. She stated that Verizon then leases space on the tower. She stated that Buell Consulting was hired by Verizon and Vertical Bridge to assist with zoning, site acquisition, and to assist with the development process. She stated that the lease would be between the property owner and the tower company, and Verizon or any other carrier would lease space from the tower company. She explained that they would not be proposing this if there were not a need, noting the cost for this type of project. COMMISSIONER NATH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GOLDADE, TO TABLE THE APPLICATION TO THE APRIL 28, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Page 255 of 935 March 31, 2026 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 16 Further discussion: Commissioner Corbett stated that he also has concerns with the park, but as a Verizon customer, he does not have coverage in his home. He stated that he would like to see more information on site selection, alternative selections, and why they were deemed non-usable, coverage data, the radius of coverage that would be provided, and the need for the tower. He stated that the mapping would go a long way to show the need. He stated that he personally knows there is a need, but that mapping could show others who do not have a need. Commissioner Johnson stated that she would also want to see the alternative locations within the preferred land use areas. She also wanted to see the current and future tower/antenna placement mapping. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that they will use the same radius of mailed notices for the next meeting. She noted that the radius of 1,250 feet exceeds the requirement of 350 feet. She stated that they would also post this in Friday News, but would not be sending a mailer to every address. She commented that there was also a sign-up sheet in the lobby, which allowed residents to sign up for emailed notices. She stated that agenda reports are released on the Friday before the meeting. Commissioner Corbett recognized the timing of agenda packets before meetings and noted that while it would be nicer to receive that information sooner, it is already a task for staff to have the information prepared by that deadline. The Planning Commission took a brief recess at 9:03 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:06 p.m. D)PLANNING CASE 2025-04 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS – ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that at the City Council’s goal and priority setting work session early in 2025, the Council identified Title 11: Subdivision Regulations as a priority for future evaluation and revision. Staff began the process of revising the ordinance to improve clarity, update terminology, and reflect the goals and strategic priorities of the City Council. Hearing notices were published in the City’s official newspaper; no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Page 256 of 935 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 257 of 935 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 258 of 935 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 259 of 935 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 260 of 935 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 261 of 935 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 262 of 935 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 263 of 935 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 264 of 935 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 265 of 935 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 266 of 935 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 267 of 935 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 268 of 935 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 269 of 935 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 270 of 935 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 271 of 935 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 272 of 935 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 273 of 935 From:Ryan Ruzek To:Scott Buell; snbuell@buellconsulting.com Cc:Sarah Madden Subject:FW: Wentworth Park non-conforming use Date:Tuesday, June 23, 2026 10:42:33 AM Attachments:Outlook-Title_ Min.png Outlook-Facebook l.png Outlook-Twitter lo.png Outlook-Email Subs.png Notice of Funding Restriction.pdf Closeout Letter.pdf Wentworth Park_ Recreational Site Plan_2022 Improvements_2022-09-30.pdf Hi Sarah and Scott, Another issue with a Wentworth Park has been identified. With a previous grant the city received, there would be a process required with the DNR to remove and reallocate space that would no longer be considered park space. Please let me know if you need more information. Thank you, Ryan Website | Connect Ryan E. Ruzek, P.E.Public Works DirectorCity of Mendota HeightsD: 651-255-1152 Ryan, thanks very much for the update. I recommend the funding restrictions be shared with any lease applicant, regardless of the intended use. The city is ultimately responsible for ensuring all lease agreements comply with federal restrictions. And yes, please reach out if the application progresses toward a cell tower or anything else that might adversely the public outdoor recreation capacity of the park; early coordination will be in everyone's best interests. Take care, Sarah Page 274 of 935 You don't often get email from sarah.wennerberg@state.mn.us. Learn why this is important From: Ryan Ruzek Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 12:56 PM To: Sarah.Wennerberg@state.mn.us Cc: Sarah Madden <SMadden@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Subject: FW: Wentworth Park non-conforming use Hi Sarah, The applicant has not informed the city of its intentions for revisions to a potential cell tower at Wentworth Park. If the applicant requests the application to proceed, the city will include the recorded restrictions as part of the decision-making process. I will reach out to schedule a call if more information is needed. Thank you, Have a great day Ryan Website | Connect Ryan E. Ruzek, P.E.Public Works DirectorCity of Mendota HeightsD: 651-255-1152 From: Wennerberg, Sarah (DNR) <Sarah.Wennerberg@state.mn.us> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 10:58 AM To: Ryan Ruzek <RRuzek@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Subject: Wentworth Park non-conforming use Hi Ryan, I hope you are doing well. I wanted to reach out because it appears the city of Mendota Heights is considering the placement of a cell tower within Wentworth Park, which received federal funding through our Outdoor Recreation grant program a few years ago. If the location of the cell tower Page 275 of 935 falls within the boundary of the attached recreational site plan, it will make that portion of the park non-compliant with the federal funding restrictions that were placed upon it when the grant closed. I have attached the NOFR and closeout letter stating the restrictions into perpetuity for your reference. I am hoping we can meet to discuss the implications of this action with the city, before it commits to the project. The city should be made aware that converting property from its restricted use is time consuming and requires the purchase of replacement property; and must be completed prior the cell tower work. Please let me know your availability and I will arrange a Teams meeting. If you feel others, from the city or the cell company, should be on the call to hear the same information, please send me common availability for everyone. I'm happy to meet with all parties to ensure the funding restrictions are understood. Thank you, Sarah (I replaced Audrey Mularie after her retirement in October, 2023) Sarah Wennerberg Grant Specialist Coordinator | Division of Parks and Trails Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155-4039 Phone: 651-259-5579 Email: Sarah.Wennerberg@state.mn.us mndnr.gov Page 276 of 935 Page 277 of 935 Page 278 of 935 Page 279 of 935 September 26, 2022 Ryan Ruzek Public Works Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re: Grant LW27-01432, Wentworth Park Dear Mr. Ruzek: Congratulations on the successful completion of the above referenced project. Please consider this correspondence official notice that all documentation requested from you has been received and found acceptable. Expenditures are subject to verification by an independent state audit. For that reason, you must retain all project records for at least six years after the date of this letter. Several of the terms of the grant agreement do not expire and continue into perpetuity, including the requirement to retain and manage all funded property solely for outdoor recreation. A copy of the grant agreement should therefore be retained permanently in your records. Sincerely, Audrey Mularie, Grants Coordinator Local Grants Program 651-259-5549 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources • Division of Parks and Trails 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155-4039 Page 280 of 935 Page 281 of 935 From:Krista Spreiter To:Ryan Ruzek; Sarah Madden Subject:FW: Potential Grant Non-Compliance Date:Monday, June 29, 2026 9:05:30 AM Attachments:image001.png _Marked Map, Exhibit E.pdf _MH 2026 Declaration - filed.pdf _Option to Lease, Exhibit B, pgs 1-2.pdf image002.png FYI. I’m not sure what the implications are for a violation. I didn’t realize that even if the trees were not moved/damaged, that this would count as non-compliance. Website | Connect Krista Spreiter Natural Resources Manager City of Mendota Heights D: 651-255-1123 Pronouns: she/her From: MN_UCF (DNR) <ucf.dnr@state.mn.us> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2026 8:59 AM To: Krista Spreiter <KSpreiter@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Cc: McClannahan, Valerie (DNR) <valerie.mcclannahan@state.mn.us> Subject: Potential Grant Non-Compliance Good morning, We were recently notified by a resident that there may be a utility lease for accessing the property, not to build (access to measure, etc.) but to determine if the site is appropriate for building communications equipment (e.g. cell tower). It appears that the utility lease agreement overlays with your bond financed property for the 2023 Shade Tree Bonding Grant, see attached. Any lease would need to be run through Minnesota Management and Budget’s (MMB) checklist for use agreements at the third bullet point on this link: https://mn.gov/mmb/debt-management/capital- projects/grant-agreements/checklists.jsp. Our contact at MMB stated that the lease would need to have a short-term (no more than 50% of the useful life of the project) and rent collected could be no more than the costs to maintain the park. More importantly, however, a cell tower would serve a private use, which is not allowable on bond financed property. Even if the lease complied with our checklist, the fact that the cell tower is serving a private enterprise disqualifies it from being allowed on bond financed property. If you have further questions, we will work to put you in touch with an appropriate contact at MMB. Page 282 of 935 Best, ~Rachael Rachael Dvoracek (she/her/hers) Community Forestry Project Specialist Department of Natural Resources | Division of Forestry 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155 Email: Rachael.Dvoracek@state.mn.us Phone: 651-396-0031 Page 283 of 935 Page 284 of 935 Page 285 of 935 Page 286 of 935 Page 287 of 935 Page 288 of 935 Page 289 of 935 Page 290 of 935 Page 291 of 935 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE:February 4, 2026 AGENDA ITEM:Resolution 2026-09 Approving Option and Lease Agreement Between The Tower, LLC and the City of Mendota Heights at Wentworth Park ITEM TYPE:New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT:Engineering CONTACT:Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Approve an option and lease agreement for a new proposed cellular facility at Wentworth Park. BACKGROUND: City staff have been discussing a proposal to install a cellular tower with representatives from Buell Consulting. The consultant represents Vertical Bridge which is a partner of Verizon Wireless but would also work with additional providers for future collocating on the proposed cell tower. If Council approves of the option and lease, the applicant will develop construction plans and apply for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The CUP is anticipated for review and a public hearing at the planning commission in either March or April. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The City will receive a payment of $5,000 for the first year option on the site. If the applicant requires to extend the option period for one year, an additional payment of $3,500 will be required. The monthly lease rate will be $1,250 with an annual two percent (2%) increase. The lease may be renewed for up to 40 years. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Res 2026-09 Resolution Approving Option and Lease Agreement Between the Towers, LLC and the City of Mendota Heights at Wentworth Park 2. Option and Lease Agreement Ground Lease_US-MN-5418_P-065976_Verizon Midwest BTS (1) CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Page 171 of 202Page 292 of 935 Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 172 of 202Page 293 of 935 BUELL CONSULTING, INC. 9973 Valley View Rd Eden Prairie, MN 55118 (651)361-8110 www.buellconsulting.com Thursday, July 16, 2026 City of Mendota Heights Attn: Sarah Madden 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: CUP Application for New Tower Site – The Towers LLC Reference: US-MN-5418 BLOWFISH Property Address: 739 Wentworth Ave Dakota County PID: 27-03800-34-010 Dear Ms. Madden, Planning Commission Members, and City Council Members, On behalf of The Towers, LLC, Buell Consulting, Inc. hereby submits the enclosed supplemental materials for a Conditional Use Application for a new Wireless Tower site on Wentworth Park property owned by the City of Mendota Heights. Enclosed with this letter are the following items: •Revised Design Details and Zoning Analysis (immediately following pages) •LE v6 showing original location with revised access and screening details •LE v5 showing revised location 60’ east with access and screening details •LE v9 elevation sheet showing monopine design •Photo Simulations v3 with original monopine design •Photo Simulations v5 showing monopine design •Valuation Impact Study Response to Simmons Letter Please consider these additional materials as part of our zoning application file, to be discussed at July Planning Commission meeting and August City Council meeting, during which this CUP application is expected to receive a final decision from the City. Sincerely, Scott Buell Site Development Agent on behalf of The Towers, LLC Phone: 651-225-0793 Email: sbuell@buellconsulting.com Encl. Page 294 of 935 Revised Design Description | Page 1 of 1 Revised Design Description and Zoning Analysis Location Options for Tower There are two proposed locations suggested with our revised materials, as follows: • Original location with adjusted access and screening design. The original location has the proposed tower located 59’-5” from the western property line. We’ve proposed that the access shift east so the gate to the fenced lease area is on the east side of the compound, and to allow the fenced lease area to be fully screened with evergreens, thus vastly improving the visual impact compared to the previous design. • Revised location shifted east about 60’. The revised location places the proposed tower 116’ from the western property line, has the access on the east side of the lease area (with gate on east side), and requires removal of some mature trees, but replaces them with over a dozen new evergreens to screen the south and west sides of the lease area. This location is presented to help mitigate the issues brought up about the original location related to the proximity to the western property line, while also employing the improved screening and design elements. This design greatly improves both the western property line setback issues, and the screening and visual impact compared with the original design. Monopine Design Either of the revised locations described above would benefit from a monopine design to better blend the tower with character of the wooded area within this park. This design requires that the monopole structure instead be a monopine structure that exhibits visual characteristics similar to a pine tree. The trunk would mimic the color of tree bark, and the branches would help hide the antenna array from view. The photo simulations enclosed help illustrate the general appearance and visual effect of this design. This design greatly improves the visual impact of the proposed tower site. Zoning Analysis for Revised Design The primary issue with our proposed locations are that neither meet the setback requirements as most recently interpreted by the City, and which interpretation was changed to be far more restrictive after our original application materials were accepted by the City. There is flexibility in the City’s zoning ordinance to allow this, however. Section 12- 4A-12.7 regarding Wireless Antennas, Towers, and Accessory Structures, subpart D.4.d. sets forth clear discretion for the City Council to “waive any or all of the requirements of this Section in order to approve a unique “stealth” or “camouflage” design […] if, in the opinion of the City Council, said apparatus will be sufficiently disguised as trees, light poles, church steeples, or other similar objects.” The photo simulations provide clear depiction that a monopine will sufficiently disguise the proposed tower as a tree. Therefore, the City Council may support this project on the condition that the design will utilize the monopine tower structure. Thank you for considering these additional written statements and materials as part of The Towers LLC’s conditional use permit and zoning application package for the proposed tower facility. This project can be deemed by the City Council to satisfy the requirements for a CUP to be approved by the City, and if approved, would solve a long-standing coverage gap issue that the City and its residents have known about for years. Sincerely, Scott Buell, Site Development Agent on Behalf of The Towers, LLC Buell Consulting, Inc. sbuell@buellconsulting.com Direct: 651-225-0793 Page 295 of 935 879 880 881881 88288 2 883883 8848 8 4 882883884885886887887885 8868808818 8 2 8 8 3 88 3 881 886887886886885885 88 5 88688 7 884 885882 88 3SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:FRONT - NONE LISTEDSIDE - NONE LISTEDREAR - NONE LISTEDOTHER - TOWER 200' FROM ROAD C/LZONING & PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS:C.U.P. REQUIRED.NORTHUS-MN-5418BLOWFISHPage 296 of 935 SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:FRONT - NONE LISTEDSIDE - NONE LISTEDREAR - NONE LISTEDOTHER - TOWER 200' FROM ROAD C/LZONING & PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS:C.U.P. REQUIRED.NORTHUS-MN-5418BLOWFISHPage 297 of 935 US-MN-5418 BLOWFISH Page 298 of 935 879 880 881881 88288 2 883883 8848 8 4 882883884885886887887885 8868808818 8 2 8 8 3 88 3 881 886887886886885885 88 5 88688 7 884 88588 3 882SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:FRONT - NONE LISTEDSIDE - NONE LISTEDREAR - NONE LISTEDOTHER - TOWER 200' FROM ROAD C/LZONING & PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS:C.U.P. REQUIRED.NORTHUS-MN-5418BLOWFISHPage 299 of 935 SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:FRONT - NONE LISTEDSIDE - NONE LISTEDREAR - NONE LISTEDOTHER - TOWER 200' FROM ROAD C/LZONING & PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS:C.U.P. REQUIRED.NORTHUS-MN-5418BLOWFISHPage 300 of 935 US-MN-5418 BLOWFISH Page 301 of 935 US-MN-5418 BLOWFISH Page 302 of 935 DESIGN 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 WWW.DESIGN1EP.COM PROJECT:DRAWN BY:VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (952) 946-4700 739 WENTWORTH AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 17425846 MIN BLOWFISH US-MN-5418 TRDV.102-25-26V.202-26-26V.304-03-26PS-1VIEW 3VIEW 1MAP DATA ©2026 BINGNORTHUPPER COLONIAL DRWENTWORTH AVE WVIEW 48WENTWORTH PARKVIEW 2Page 303 of 935 DESIGN 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 WWW.DESIGN1EP.COM PROJECT:DRAWN BY:VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (952) 946-4700 739 WENTWORTH AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 17425846 MIN BLOWFISH US-MN-5418 TRDV.102-25-26V.202-26-26V.304-03-26PS-2Page 304 of 935 DESIGN 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 WWW.DESIGN1EP.COM PROJECT:DRAWN BY:VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (952) 946-4700 739 WENTWORTH AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 17425846 MIN BLOWFISH US-MN-5418 TRDV.102-25-26V.202-26-26V.304-03-26PS-3Page 305 of 935 DESIGN 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 WWW.DESIGN1EP.COM PROJECT:DRAWN BY:VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (952) 946-4700 739 WENTWORTH AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 17425846 MIN BLOWFISH US-MN-5418 TRDV.102-25-26V.202-26-26V.304-03-26PS-4Page 306 of 935 DESIGN 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 WWW.DESIGN1EP.COM PROJECT:DRAWN BY:VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (952) 946-4700 739 WENTWORTH AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 17425846 MIN BLOWFISH US-MN-5418 TRDV.1 02-25-26V.2 02-26-26V.3 04-03-26PS-5Page 307 of 935 DESIGN 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 WWW.DESIGN1EP.COM PROJECT:DRAWN BY:VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (952) 946-4700 739 WENTWORTH AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 17425846 MIN BLOWFISH US-MN-5418 TRDV.102-25-26V.202-26-26V.304-03-26PS-6Page 308 of 935 DESIGN 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 WWW.DESIGN1EP.COM PROJECT:DRAWN BY:VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (952) 946-4700 739 WENTWORTH AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 17425846 MIN BLOWFISH US-MN-5418 TRDV.102-25-26V.202-26-26V.304-03-26PS-7Page 309 of 935 DESIGN 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 WWW.DESIGN1EP.COM PROJECT:DRAWN BY:VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (952) 946-4700 739 WENTWORTH AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 17425846 MIN BLOWFISH US-MN-5418 TRDV.102-25-26V.202-26-26V.304-03-26PS-8Page 310 of 935 DESIGN 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 WWW.DESIGN1EP.COM PROJECT:DRAWN BY:VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (952) 946-4700 739 WENTWORTH AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 17425846 MIN BLOWFISH US-MN-5418 TRDV.102-25-26V.202-26-26V.304-03-26PS-9Page 311 of 935 DESIGN 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 WWW.DESIGN1EP.COM PROJECT:DRAWN BY:VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (952) 946-4700 739 WENTWORTH AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 17425846 MIN BLOWFISH US-MN-5418PS-1TRDV.102-25-26V.202-26-26V.304-03-26V.406-29-26V.507-15-26VIEW 3VIEW 1MAP DATA ©2026 BINGNORTHUPPER COLONIAL DRWENTWORTH AVE WVIEW 48WENTWORTH PARKVIEW 2Page 312 of 935 DESIGN 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 WWW.DESIGN1EP.COM PROJECT:DRAWN BY:VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (952) 946-4700 739 WENTWORTH AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 17425846 MIN BLOWFISH US-MN-5418PS-2TRDV.102-25-26V.202-26-26V.304-03-26V.406-29-26V.507-15-26Page 313 of 935 DESIGN 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 WWW.DESIGN1EP.COM PROJECT:DRAWN BY:VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (952) 946-4700 739 WENTWORTH AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 17425846 MIN BLOWFISH US-MN-5418PS-3TRDV.102-25-26V.202-26-26V.304-03-26V.406-29-26V.507-15-26Page 314 of 935 DESIGN 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 WWW.DESIGN1EP.COM PROJECT:DRAWN BY:VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (952) 946-4700 739 WENTWORTH AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 17425846 MIN BLOWFISH US-MN-5418PS-4TRDV.102-25-26V.202-26-26V.304-03-26V.406-29-26V.507-15-26Page 315 of 935 DESIGN 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 WWW.DESIGN1EP.COM PROJECT:DRAWN BY:VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (952) 946-4700 739 WENTWORTH AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 17425846 MIN BLOWFISH US-MN-5418PS-5TRDV.102-25-26V.202-26-26V.304-03-26V.406-29-26V.507-15-26Page 316 of 935 DESIGN 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 WWW.DESIGN1EP.COM PROJECT:DRAWN BY:VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (952) 946-4700 739 WENTWORTH AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 17425846 MIN BLOWFISH US-MN-5418PS-6TRDV.102-25-26V.202-26-26V.304-03-26V.406-29-26V.507-15-26Page 317 of 935 DESIGN 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 WWW.DESIGN1EP.COM PROJECT:DRAWN BY:VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (952) 946-4700 739 WENTWORTH AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 17425846 MIN BLOWFISH US-MN-5418PS-7TRDV.102-25-26V.202-26-26V.304-03-26V.406-29-26V.507-15-26Page 318 of 935 DESIGN 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 WWW.DESIGN1EP.COM PROJECT:DRAWN BY:VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (952) 946-4700 739 WENTWORTH AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 17425846 MIN BLOWFISH US-MN-5418PS-8TRDV.102-25-26V.202-26-26V.304-03-26V.406-29-26V.507-15-26Page 319 of 935 DESIGN 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 WWW.DESIGN1EP.COM PROJECT:DRAWN BY:VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (952) 946-4700 739 WENTWORTH AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 17425846 MIN BLOWFISH US-MN-5418PS-9TRDV.102-25-26V.202-26-26V.304-03-26V.406-29-26V.507-15-26Page 320 of 935 RE: SIMMONS LETTER 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 1 May 26, 2026 Scott Buell Buell Consulting 9973 Valley View Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Simmons Letter Dear Mr. Buell Valbridge Property Advisors completed a Cell Tower Value Impact Study for Buell Consulting dated April 21, 2026, that had an “As Is” effective date of value of April 16, 2026. The client is attempting to obtain zoning approval for a 145-foot cell tower located at 739 Wentworth Ave, Mendota Heights MN. The report analyzed five residential sales located near existing communication towers and compared those transactions to similar neighborhood sales occurring during the same general timeframes. Based upon the analysis, the report demonstrated the following: The market evidence analyzed did not demonstrate a measurable impact on the value of surrounding properties. After the issuance of the report, the client received a letter from a Mr. Dean Simmons (Simmons Letter), which was dated April 26, 2026. Per our discussion, the purpose of this letter is to provide a response to “Methodological Concerns” #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, and #7, as well as a concern about geographic competency (#8). A copy of the letter is included as an addenda to this letter. 1. The assignment relied on a paired-sales methodology using the most relevant available market evidence identified within the local MLS. While the number of transactions located adjacent to communication towers was limited, this is not unusual given the relatively infrequent turnover of single-family homes in established residential neighborhoods. The analysis focused on sales judged to be most comparable in terms of proximity, residential setting, and overall market context. Our study analyzed five sales located in different neighborhoods, price ranges, and timeframes from 2021–2025. In our opinion, this strengthens rather than detracts from the conclusions of the report because it reflects consistent market behavior across multiple residential settings rather than a single neighborhood or point in time. Buyers across different price ranges generally share a common concern regarding residential property values and marketability. The second part of the criticism concerns potential survivorship bias regarding unsold homes or prolonged listing periods. Our analysis did look at sales that may have been taken off of Page 321 of 935 RE: SIMMONS LETTER 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 2 the market. The NorthStar MLS does have a search function to view “expired” or ”cancelled” listings. During the course of our research, we did not identify listings suggesting prolonged market resistance attributable to tower proximity. 2. For this study, we conducted a qualitative rather than quantitative analysis of the comparable sales. We analyzed the subject sale and then conducted a paired sales analysis of similar competing properties within the same market areas. In the real world, no two homes are completely identical, which is why we analyzed three paired sales, to see if they were overall superior to, inferior to, or similar to the subject sale. The market data analyzed did not demonstrate a measurable difference in sale price, marketing time, or sale-to-list-price ratio relative to competing neighborhood properties. 3. The paired sales methodology is a well-established analytical tool because it prioritizes quality of data over quantity of data. Instead of aggregating large volumes of loosely related transactions and attempting to statistically control for their differences, paired sales attempt to isolate a single variable by matching properties that are as nearly identical as possible in all other respects. We researched approximately 20 sites across the area. Many of those sites had homes located near communication towers, but those homes had not sold within the past five years. This is not unusual, as there may be many years between sales of homes. Ultimately, we focused our analysis on homes located adjacent to communication towers because those sales provided the most directly comparable market evidence regarding buyer attitudes and market behavior. Including additional sales located further away from towers would have introduced less directly comparable data and reduced the reliability of the paired-sales analysis. The report did not attempt to perform a regional statistical regression analysis; rather, it employed a traditional appraisal-based paired sales methodology focused on directly comparable local transactions. Another comment was that the appraisers should trend the retroactive sale to 2026 price levels. It also is not necessary to trend all sales to 2026 prices since the sales are being compared to the subject at the same time period, and are within the same neighborhood and thus have similar proximity to amenities, school quality, etc. 4. We spoke to a total of five listing agents, all of whom told us the same thing: The cell towers had no measurable impact on negotiations or pricing. Listing agents do not have an incentive to downplay negative aspects of the property after the sale has occurred. We have found listing agents to be forthcoming regarding negative feedback they receive from buyers, such as cabinet layout, paint colors, neighboring properties, etc. If tower proximity had materially affected buyer perceptions during marketing, listing brokers would reasonably be expected to receive related feedback from prospective purchasers. 5. Each of the five comparable sales is located within a low-density residential neighborhood, which is similar to the area surrounding the proposed tower site in Mendota Heights. We also analyzed sales located adjacent to park and recreational land uses. Sale 3 is located near Nordic Park in Apple Valley, MN, while Sales 1 and 4 are located adjacent to a walking trail and Page 322 of 935 RE: SIMMONS LETTER 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 3 playground area near Arbor Pointe Park in Inver Grove Heights, MN. The surrounding land uses and neighborhood characteristics were considered reasonably similar to the subject area, which is why these sales were included in the study. 6. Intentionally Omitted. It is our understanding that Buell Consulting will address any conflicts of interest issue. 7. We did attempt to research sales located near recently constructed cell towers. As is typical in established residential areas, most of the cell towers in the local area were constructed 20-30+ years ago and we were not able to identify sufficient “before and after” sales during the timeframe we reviewed (2021-2026). This type of analysis is another form of paired-sales analysis in which two sales of the same property are analyzed, with adjustments made for changes in market conditions and property characteristics between the sales. While before-and-after analysis can be a useful analytical technique when sufficient data exists, the availability of such data is often limited in established residential areas where communication towers have existed for extended periods. In this assignment, the available market evidence did not include sufficient recent pre- and post-construction paired transactions to support that methodology. Accordingly, the analysis relied on contemporaneous neighborhood paired-sales comparisons, which is also a recognized appraisal technique. 8. The criticism regarding geographic competency is misplaced and does not accurately reflect USPAP requirements or standard appraisal practice. The assignment was completed and signed by both Andrew Baker, MAI and Josh Folland, MAI, AI-GRS, CCIM. Mr. Folland is based in the Minneapolis–St. Paul metropolitan area, and his office has been located within approximately 10 miles of the subject property for more than 10 years. USPAP does not require an appraiser to reside in the same city or state as the subject property. Rather, the Competency Rule requires that the appraiser possess or acquire competency related to the assignment, including geographic competency. In this assignment, the appraisers inspected the subject area, analyzed local NorthStar MLS sales and listings data, researched comparable properties near existing communication towers within the Minneapolis–St. Paul market, and interviewed local listing brokers with direct market experience. The report’s conclusions were based on observed local market data and analysis within the competitive market area surrounding the subject property. Accordingly, we believe the assignment fully satisfied the geographic competency requirements of USPAP. Page 323 of 935 RE: SIMMONS LETTER 2021 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | MINNEAPOLIS | ST. PAUL Page 4 The report did not conclude that all communication towers universally have no impact on residential values under all circumstances. Rather, the report concluded that the specific market evidence analyzed in this assignment did not demonstrate a measurable diminution in value attributable to tower proximity for the transactions studied. Minor typographical and formatting issues identified after issuance do not affect the report’s analytical conclusions. We hope that this response letter addresses the concerns outlined in the Simmons Letter. If you have any other questions about our report, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, Valbridge Property Advisors | Minneapolis | St.-Paul Andrew Baker, MAI Director Valbridge Property Advisors | Minneapolis | St.-Paul Josh Folland, MAI, AI-GRS, CCIM Senior Managing Director Minnesota License No. 20352348 Page 324 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (1) Page 325 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (2) Page 326 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (3) Page 327 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (4) (5) Page 328 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (6) Page 329 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (6 cont.) Page 330 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (7) (8) Page 331 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (9) Page 332 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (10) Page 333 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (10 cont.) Page 334 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (11) Page 335 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (11 cont.) Page 336 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (12) Page 337 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (13) (14) Page 338 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (15) Page 339 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (16) (17) Page 340 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (18) Page 341 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (19) (20) Page 342 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (21) (21 cont.) Page 343 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (21 cont.) Page 344 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (22) (23) Page 345 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole REPLACE WITH ATTACHMENTS Page 346 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (24) Page 347 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (25) Page 348 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (25 cont.) Page 349 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (26) Page 350 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (27) (28) Page 351 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole Kevin byrne attachments Page 352 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (29) Page 353 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (29 cont.) Page 354 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (30) Page 355 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (31) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting) Page 356 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 357 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 358 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 359 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 360 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 361 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 362 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 363 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 364 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 365 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 366 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 367 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 368 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 369 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 370 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 371 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 372 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 373 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 374 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 375 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 376 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 377 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 378 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 379 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 380 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 381 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 382 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 383 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 384 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 385 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 386 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 387 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 388 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 389 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 390 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 391 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 392 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 393 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 394 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 395 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 396 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 397 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 398 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 399 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 400 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 401 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 402 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 403 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 404 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 405 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 406 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 407 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 408 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 409 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 410 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 411 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 412 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 413 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 414 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 415 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 416 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 417 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 418 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 419 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 420 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 421 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 422 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 423 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 424 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 425 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 426 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 427 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 428 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 429 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 430 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 431 of 935 (31 cont.) (Materials submitted by Randy Pentel at 3-31-26 Planning Commission meeting)Page 432 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (32) (33) (34) Page 433 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (34 cont.) Page 434 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (34 cont.) Page 435 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (34 cont.) Page 436 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (35) (36) Page 437 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (37) (38) Page 438 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (38 cont.) Page 439 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (38 cont.) Page 440 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (38 cont.) (39) Page 441 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (40) Page 442 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (41) Page 443 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (42) Page 444 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (43) (44) Page 445 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (45) (46) Page 446 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (47) Page 447 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (48) Page 448 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (48 cont.) (49) Page 449 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (49 cont.) Page 450 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (49 cont.) Page 451 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (50) (51) Page 452 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (51 cont.) Page 453 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (51 cont.) Page 454 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (51 cont.) Page 455 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (51 cont.) Page 456 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (51 cont.) Page 457 of 935 Alternatives to Traditional Monopole Cell Towers for Improving Neighborhood Coverage Alternatives to traditional monopole cell towers for improving neighborhood coverage focus on network densification—placing smaller, less obtrusive equipment closer to users. Key options include small cells on existing infrastructure, distributed antenna systems (DAS), stealth "concealed" towers, and in-building signal boosters.1,2 Top Alternatives to Monopoles Small Cells: These are low-power, compact radio nodes that provide coverage over small areas (up to 2 miles, but often much less).2 They are typically installed on existing street furniture like utility poles, streetlight poles, or even on top of traffic lights.1 They are less visually disruptive than large towers and can handle high data traffic.3 Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS): DAS uses a network of multiple, low-power antennas (nodes) connected by fiber-optic cable to a central hub. This allows the system to disperse coverage evenly across a neighborhood rather than relying on one high-power source. These antennas can be mounted on existing utility poles and are often used when zoning laws prevent new, large towers.2 Stealth/Concealed Towers: These are designed to blend into their surroundings to mitigate visual impact. Examples include: Monopoles disguised as trees (pines, palm trees) Flagpoles or church steeples2 Light poles or billboards3 Rooftop Sites: Instead of new ground-level structures, carriers can install equipment on the roofs of existing, tall commercial or residential buildings.2 Water Tower Collocation: Placing antenna arrays on existing water towers.3,4 In-Building Solutions for Neighborhoods If the issue is primarily indoor coverage rather than outdoor, several personal or building-level solutions can act as alternatives: Cell Phone Signal Boosters (Passive DAS): These systems use an antenna on the roof to catch weak signals, an amplifier to strengthen them, and an indoor antenna to rebroadcast it, supporting multiple carriers. 5 Femtocells/Microcells (Network Extenders): These connect to a home’s broadband internet to generate a localized cell signal.5 They are ideal for areas with no outside signal but require a strong, stable internet connection. 6 Wi-Fi Calling: A software feature on modern smartphones that routes calls over the home’s Wi- Fi network rather than the cellular network.5 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (51 cont.) Page 458 of 935 References: 1CTC Technology & Energy (2016, December 1)How Localities Can Improve Wireless Service for the Public While Addressing Citizen Concerns - ctc technology & energy. 2Delaney, B. (2018, March 7) Types of Cell Towers and Cell Sites You Need to Know. 3Foresight Group (accessed 4/22/2026) TYPES OF CELL TOWERS. 4Cellnet (accessed 4/22/2026) Overcoming the Challenge of Poor Mobile Signal in New Buildings - Cellnet. 5SureCall (accessed 4/22/2026) A Guide to Cell Phone Signal Boosters. 6Jasso, A. (2025, March 5). Femtocell or Cell Signal Booster: Which One Do You Need? Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (51 cont.) Page 459 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (52) Page 460 of 935 2855 Anthony Ln S, Suite#110, Minneapolis, MN 55418 612-200-8740 info@lachenmayerappraisals.com Lachenmayer Appraisals, Inc 04/20/2026 To whom it may concern, From direct communication with Randy Pentel, who resides near Wentworth Park, I have learned that the city of Mendota Heights is considering plans for a cell phone tower construction in Wentworth Park. Randy, along with fellow neighbors, are concerned with adverse effects a cell phone tower will present to the neighborhood. As a full-time certified residential real estate appraiser, license d since 2002, I can speak to the adverse physical effects the tower presents. Living near a neighborhood park, or more notably, having unobstructed park views, is universally considered a beneficial characteristic. Meaning, potential buyers will generally pay a premium for park proximity, especially if the home has direct views of the park. In its as-is state, Wentworth Park positively impacts the area due to its features such as a playground, ballfield, ice rink, outdoor courts, as well as an abundance of green space and marshland. The erection of a cell phone tower, the required surrounding infrastructure, and the ensuing adverse views it would create would have direct negative impacts on the park’s appeal, and for those homes who currently possess beneficial views of the park. These properties would essentially be having a current beneficial characteristic flipped to an adverse view characteristic, thus diminishing the ir market appeal. It is my professional opinion, from a physical aspect alone, the construction of this cell phone tower will negatively impact views, diminish neighborhood home demand and value, and reduce Wentworth Park’s desirability due to the surrounding infrastructure required thus reducing usable green space. I also highly suggest that the city of Mendota Heights does their due diligence in researching the adverse health concerns cell phone towers are said to create. I am not a scientist or health care professional, therefore, cannot factually speak to the potential health concerns cell phone towers create. However, a quick Google search provides the reader an abundance of articles and studies completed by health organizations outlining documented cases of the negative health impacts cell phone towers create, most notably in adolescence. Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (52 cont.) Page 461 of 935 From my understanding, the purpose of the cell phone tower is to create a revenue source for the city of Mendota Heights. At what negative cost to the neighborhood is the city willing to invest in for a minimal revenue source? Sincerely, James Lachenmayer Lachenmayer Appraisals, Inc Chief Appraiser, CRRPA License# 20372570 Cell: 651-260-4807 Work: 612-200-8470 jim@lachenmayerappraisals.com Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (52 cont.) Page 462 of 935 To client: Randy Pentel, 815 Deer Trail Ct, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 I have been made aware of the proposed cell phone tower to be located at Wentworth Park in Mendota Heights Minnesota. Property value impacts: In my opinion (as a real estate appraiser), all residential properties within a visual proximity would be adversely affected by the impact of a (proposed) cell phone tower as related to the diminished views from windows, yards, decks, etc. It is reasonable to assume that this would have a negative impact on not only property values of homes within sight of the proposed cell tower but also to potential buyers of said properties (overall “marketability” adversely impacted). Health concern impacts: As a real estate appraiser, I am not qualified to expertly address the possible health concerns related to proximity to cell towers; however, I can attest to my experience as an appraiser with property owners expressing said health (and view) concerns over the past 30+ years as it relates to their concerns over negative value impacts and soliciting my opinion as an appraiser. Furthermore, I can attest to my experience as a Minnesota citizen who has seen local and national news stories and articles related to this topic. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the proposed cell tower would raise serious health related concerns to not only nearby property owners but to residents who frequent the affected park with small children. In my opinion, many would likely choose a different (cell tower free) park to visit . Lastly, in my years as Minnesota resident, I cannot recall seeing a cell tower built in a public city park. Qualifications: I, Richard Forsythe have over 40 years of residential appraisal experience (see attached license) and over 20 years of eminent domain appraisal experience involving partial and total acquisitions to residential properties in greater Twin cities metro area of Minnesota. Note, although this is not an actual appraisal with a valuation conclusion, I have lent opinions as an appraiser; therefore, a copy of my appraiser license is attached. Sincerely, Richard J Forsythe/Appraiser Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (52 cont.) Page 463 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (52 cont.) Page 464 of 935 Superimposed view of proposed Cell Tower in park Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (52 cont.) Page 465 of 935 Superimposed (before & after) view of proposed Cell Tower from residence Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (52 cont.) Page 466 of 935 Circled location of proposed Cell Tower in park Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (52 cont.) Page 467 of 935 Radius showing location of proposed Cell Tower in park Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (52 cont.) Page 468 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (52 cont.) Page 469 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (53) Page 470 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (53 cont.) Page 471 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (53 cont.) Page 472 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (54) Page 473 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (54 cont.) Page 474 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (54 cont.) Page 475 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (55) (56) Page 476 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (57) Page 477 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (57 cont.) Page 478 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (57 cont.) Page 479 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (57 cont.) Page 480 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (58) Page 481 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (59) Page 482 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (59 cont.) Page 483 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (59 cont.) Page 484 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (59 cont.) Page 485 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (59 cont.) Page 486 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (59 cont.) Page 487 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (59 cont.) Page 488 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (59 cont.) Page 489 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (59 cont.) Page 490 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (59 cont.) Page 491 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (60) Page 492 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (60 cont.) (61) Page 493 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (61 cont.) Page 494 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (61 cont.) Page 495 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (61 cont.) Page 496 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (61 cont.) Page 497 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (61 cont.) Page 498 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (61 cont.) Page 499 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (62) Page 500 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (62 cont.) (63) Page 501 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (63 cont.) (64) Page 502 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (65) Page 503 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (65 cont.) Page 504 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (65 cont.) Page 505 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (66) Page 506 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (67) (68) Page 507 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (68 cont.) Page 508 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (68 cont.) Page 509 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (68 cont.) Page 510 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (68 cont.) Page 511 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (68 cont.) Page 512 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (68 cont.) Page 513 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (68 cont.) Page 514 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (68 cont.) Page 515 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (69) Page 516 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (69 cont.) Page 517 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (70) Page 518 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (70 cont.) Page 519 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 520 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 521 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 522 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 523 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 524 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 525 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 526 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 527 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 528 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 529 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 530 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 531 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 532 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 533 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 534 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 535 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 536 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 537 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 538 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 539 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 540 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 541 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 542 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 543 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 544 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 545 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 546 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 547 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 548 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 549 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 550 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 551 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 552 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 553 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 554 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 555 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole(71)Page 556 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (71)Page 557 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (71)Page 558 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (71)Page 559 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (71)Page 560 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (71)Page 561 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (71)Page 562 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (71)Page 563 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (71)Page 564 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (71)Page 565 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (71)Page 566 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (71)Page 567 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (71)Page 568 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (71)Page 569 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (71)Page 570 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (71)Page 571 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (71)Page 572 of 935 Public Comments on Planning Case No. 2026-05 – Application for a CUP for wireless monopole (71)Page 573 of 935 From:Molly Doyle To:Sarah Madden Subject:Wentworth park cell tower - public comment. Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2026 11:52:36 AM You don't often get email from doylemollyj@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Please add this to the public comment, “In our family, Wentworth Park has always been called “The Stick Park” They called it this for a reason and it’s because of the wooded area. For years, they go here to build forts, haul sticks, clear away debris, use their imagination, gather others from the park to come play with them. We could not imagine “The Stick Park” without access to the woods. A cell tower doesn’t belong in back drop of a child’s play space!! Molly Doyle - Mendota Heights mom of 3 sons Have a healthy day, Molly Doyle (72) Page 574 of 935 (73) Page 575 of 935 (73 cont.) Page 576 of 935 (74) Page 577 of 935 (75) (76) Page 578 of 935 (77) (78) Page 579 of 935 (78 cont.) Page 580 of 935 (79) (80) Page 581 of 935 (80 cont.) Page 582 of 935 (80 cont.) Page 583 of 935 (80 cont.) (81) Page 584 of 935 (81 cont.) (82) Page 585 of 935 (83) Page 586 of 935 Page 587 of 935 Page 588 of 935 Page 589 of 935 Page 590 of 935 Page 591 of 935 Page 592 of 935 Page 593 of 935 Page 594 of 935 Page 595 of 935 Page 596 of 935 Page 597 of 935 Page 598 of 935 Page 599 of 935 Page 600 of 935 Page 601 of 935 Page 602 of 935 Page 603 of 935 Page 604 of 935 Page 605 of 935 Page 606 of 935 Page 607 of 935 Page 608 of 935 Page 609 of 935 Page 610 of 935 Page 611 of 935 Page 612 of 935 Page 613 of 935 Page 614 of 935 Page 615 of 935 Page 616 of 935 Page 617 of 935 Page 618 of 935 Page 619 of 935 Page 620 of 935 Page 621 of 935 Page 622 of 935 Page 623 of 935 Page 624 of 935 Page 625 of 935 (85) Page 626 of 935 Page 627 of 935 WIRELESS NETWORK CONSULTING ALTERNATE SITE ANALYSIS Vertical Bridge MN-5418 Blowfish Verizon MIN-BLOWFISH Site Coverage Site 2026Page 628 of 935 2026 Alternate Sites Requested to review alternative existing structures over 2 stories tall in area Primary objective is to provide coverage to wireless customers along Wentworth Ave W and Dodd Road intersection Coverage analysis will be done in both low band (700MHz) and (2100MHz) Page 629 of 935 2026 Existing Verizon Sites and proposed Proposed Site 1.80 miles 1.55 miles 1.01 miles 1.88 miles 2.02 miles 2.00 miles 1.46 miles 2.10 miles Page 630 of 935 2026 Existing Sites – all carriers Proposed Site Page 631 of 935 2026 Verizon Coverage Crowdsource data (https://map.coveragemap.com/) Proposed Site Data source is mobile customers phones reporting coverage directly to servers on the internet Page 632 of 935 2026 Existing Verizon Sites Proposed & Alternates Proposed Site Page 633 of 935 2026 Alternate Sites #Building Address Latitude Longitude Building Height (feet) 1 Somerset Elementary School 1355 Dodd Rd, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 44.905464 -93.114326 30 2 Somerset Country Club Clubhouse 1416 Dodd Rd, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 44.902347 -93.111673 20 3 Somerset 19 Condo Building #1 695 Wentworth Ave W, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 44.898421 -93.118494 30 4 Somerset 19 Condo Building #2 1595 Dodd Rd, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 44.898552 -93.117329 30 5 Linden Street Lofts - 701 Linden 701 Linden Street, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 44.886921 -93.120011 20 6 Linden Street Lofts - 715 Linden 715 Linden Street, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 44.886849 -93.120823 20 7 Mendota Village - 720 Main Street 720 Main Street, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 44.884959 -93.120695 20 8 Mendota Village - 750 Main Street 750 Main Street, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 44.884856 -93.121865 20 9 Village Commons 720 Linden Street, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 44.885479 -93.120945 30 10 The Linden 725 Linden Street, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 44.886227 -93.121786 30 11 St. Paul's United Methodist Church 700 Wesley Ln, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 44.887647 -93.120340 20 12 Mendakota Animal Hospital 1938 Dodd Rd, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 44.885463 -93.122655 18 13 Ridge South Condos 1050-1860 Eagle Ridge Drive, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 44.887584 -93.134419 27 14 Eagle Point Condos 1830-1840 Eagle Ridge Drive, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 44.888949 -93.132955 30 15 Overlook Condominiums 1700 Lexington Ave S, St Paul, MN 55118 44.895423 -93.144817 30 16 Lexington-Riverside Condominiums 1101 Sibley Memorial Hwy, St Paul, MN 55118 44.897360 -93.145324 35 17 Riverain 1021 State Hwy 13, Lilydale, MN 55118 44.898726 -93.144171 35 18 The Riverwood 1015 Sibley Memorial Hwy, St Paul, MN 55118 44.899128 -93.142430 30 19 Stonebridge 991 Sibley Memorial Hwy, St Paul, MN 55118 44.899914 -93.139689 25 20 Office Building 971 Sibley Memorial Hwy, St Paul, MN 55118 44.900561 -93.138955 30 21 Villas of Lilydale Senior Apartments 945 Sibley Memorial Hwy, St Paul, MN 55118 44.903433 -93.136733 40 22 Lilydale Garden Center 941 Sibley Memorial Hwy, St Paul, MN 55118 44.903293 -93.135445 15 23 Lilia 855 Sibley Memorial Hwy, St Paul, MN 55118 44.905219 -93.132163 50 24 Pool and Yacht Club 1600 Lilydale Rd, St Paul, MN 55118 44.905314 -93.135670 20 Page 634 of 935 2026 Alternate Sites – initial review Coverage goal is area surrounding intersection of Wentworth Ave W and Dodd Road intersection Of the alternates provided there were (4) valid alternates that were either in proximity to the proposed or not too close to the neighbor sites (3) additional sites will be propagatedfrom the list Page 635 of 935 2026 Area 1 Proposed Site Alternate site propagated, other sites in area are farther away from primary coverage objective and will provide less coverage in the primary coverage than the propagated alternate, notice proximity to Verizon site to the NW Page 636 of 935 2026 Area 2 Proposed Site Alternate site propagated, other sites in area are farther away from primary coverage objective and will provide less coverage in the primary coverage than the propagated alternate, notice proximity to Verizon site to the NW Page 637 of 935 2026 Area 3 Proposed Site Alternate site propagated, other sites in area are farther away from primary coverage objective and will provide less coverage in the primary coverage than the propagated alternate, notice proximity to Verizon site to the SW Page 638 of 935 2026 Preliminary Analysis #Building Address Latitude Longitude Building Height (feet)Analysis 1 Somerset Elementary School 1355 Dodd Rd, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 44.905464 -93.114326 30 propagation analysis will be completed 2 Somerset Country Club Clubhouse 1416 Dodd Rd, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 44.902347 -93.111673 20 propagation analysis will be completed 3 Somerset 19 Condo Building #1 695 Wentworth Ave W, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 44.898421 -93.118494 30 propagation analysis will be completed 4 Somerset 19 Condo Building #2 1595 Dodd Rd, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 44.898552 -93.117329 30 propagation analysis will be completed 5 Linden Street Lofts - 701 Linden 701 Linden Street, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 44.886921 -93.120011 20 Too close to existing Verizon site at Two Rivers High School 6 Linden Street Lofts - 715 Linden 715 Linden Street, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 44.886849 -93.120823 20 Too close to existing Verizon site at Two Rivers High School 7 Mendota Village - 720 Main Street 720 Main Street, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 44.884959 -93.120695 20 Too close to existing Verizon site at Two Rivers High School 8 Mendota Village - 750 Main Street 750 Main Street, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 44.884856 -93.121865 20 Too close to existing Verizon site at Two Rivers High School propagation analysis will be completed 9 Village Commons 720 Linden Street, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 44.885479 -93.120945 30 Too close to existing Verizon site at Two Rivers High School 10 The Linden 725 Linden Street, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 44.886227 -93.121786 30 Too close to existing Verizon site at Two Rivers High School 11 St. Paul's United Methodist Church 700 Wesley Ln, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 44.887647 -93.120340 20 Too close to existing Verizon site at Two Rivers High School 12 Mendakota Animal Hospital 1938 Dodd Rd, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 44.885463 -93.122655 18 Too close to existing Verizon site at Two Rivers High School 13 Ridge South Condos 1050-1860 Eagle Ridge Drive, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 44.887584 -93.134419 27 Too close to existing Verizon site around intersection of Hwy 62 and I-35E 14 Eagle Point Condos 1830-1840 Eagle Ridge Drive, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 44.888949 -93.132955 30 Too close to existing Verizon site around intersection of Hwy 62 and I-35E propagation analysis will be completed 15 Overlook Condominiums 1700 Lexington Ave S, St Paul, MN 55118 44.895423 -93.144817 30 Too close to existing Verizon site around intersection of Shepard Rd and I-35E 16 Lexington-Riverside Condominiums 1101 Sibley Memorial Hwy, St Paul, MN 55118 44.897360 -93.145324 35 Too close to existing Verizon site around intersection of Shepard Rd and I-35E 17 Riverain 1021 State Hwy 13, Lilydale, MN 55118 44.898726 -93.144171 35 Too close to existing Verizon site around intersection of Shepard Rd and I-35E 18 The Riverwood 1015 Sibley Memorial Hwy, St Paul, MN 55118 44.899128 -93.142430 30 Too close to existing Verizon site around intersection of Shepard Rd and I-35E 19 Stonebridge 991 Sibley Memorial Hwy, St Paul, MN 55118 44.899914 -93.139689 25 Too close to existing Verizon site around intersection of Shepard Rd and I-35E 20 Office Building 971 Sibley Memorial Hwy, St Paul, MN 55118 44.900561 -93.138955 30 Too close to existing Verizon site around intersection of Shepard Rd and I-35E 21 Villas of Lilydale Senior Apartments 945 Sibley Memorial Hwy, St Paul, MN 55118 44.903433 -93.136733 40 Too close to existing Verizon site around intersection of Shepard Rd and I-35E 22 Lilydale Garden Center 941 Sibley Memorial Hwy, St Paul, MN 55118 44.903293 -93.135445 15 Too close to existing Verizon site around intersection of Shepard Rd and I-35E 23 Lilia 855 Sibley Memorial Hwy, St Paul, MN 55118 44.905219 -93.132163 50 Too close to existing Verizon site around intersection of Shepard Rd and I-35E propagation analysis will be completed 24 Pool and Yacht Club 1600 Lilydale Rd, St Paul, MN 55118 44.905314 -93.135670 20 Too close to existing Verizon site around intersection of Shepard Rd and I-35E (7) sites will be propagated from the list and are highlighted in yellow Page 639 of 935 2026 Focus Zone Green square shows area of calculations for coverage levels Page 640 of 935 LOW BAND (750MHZ) 10% OF LICENSED SPECTRUM IS IN THIS FREQUENCY BAND Page 641 of 935 2026 RSRP Coverage – low band Proposed vs Existing Coverage Indoor >= -85 dbm In-Vehicle >= -95 dbm On-Street >= -106 dbm LEGEND Left Picture and upper table Proposed data showing 5.22 square kilometers are covered with indoor service vs lower picture, lower left table showing data showing 2.96 square kilometers covered with indoor service a 44% reduction in coverage compared to proposed. Page 642 of 935 2026 RSRP Coverage – low band Proposed vs Alternate #1 Indoor >= -85 dbm In-Vehicle >= -95 dbm On-Street >= -106 dbm LEGEND Left Picture and upper table Proposed data showing 5.22 square kilometers are covered with indoor service vs lower picture, lower left table showing data showing 3.25 square kilometers covered with indoor service a 38% reduction in coverage compared to proposed. Page 643 of 935 2026 RSRP Coverage – low band Proposed vs Alternate #2 Indoor >= -85 dbm In-Vehicle >= -95 dbm On-Street >= -106 dbm LEGEND Left Picture and upper table Proposed data showing 6.99 square kilometers are covered with indoor service vs lower picture, lower left table showing data showing 3.20 square kilometers covered with indoor service a 55% reduction in coverage compared to proposed. Page 644 of 935 2026 RSRP Coverage – low band Proposed vs Alternate #3 Indoor >= -85 dbm In-Vehicle >= -95 dbm On-Street >= -106 dbm LEGEND Left Picture and upper table Proposed data showing 6.99 square kilometers are covered with indoor service vs lower picture, lower left table showing data showing 3.58 square kilometers covered with indoor service a 49% reduction in coverage compared to proposed. Page 645 of 935 2026 RSRP Coverage – low band Proposed vs Alternate #4 Indoor >= -85 dbm In-Vehicle >= -95 dbm On-Street >= -106 dbm LEGEND Left Picture and upper table Proposed data showing 6.99 square kilometers are covered with indoor service vs lower picture, lower left table showing data showing 3.50 square kilometers covered with indoor service a 50% reduction in coverage compared to proposed. Page 646 of 935 2026 RSRP Coverage – low band Proposed vs Alternate #8 Indoor >= -85 dbm In-Vehicle >= -95 dbm On-Street >= -106 dbm LEGEND Left Picture and upper table Proposed data showing 6.99 square kilometers are covered with indoor service vs lower picture, lower left table showing data showing 3.46 square kilometers covered with indoor service a 51% reduction in coverage compared to proposed. Page 647 of 935 2026 RSRP Coverage – low band Proposed vs Alternate #14 Indoor >= -85 dbm In-Vehicle >= -95 dbm On-Street >= -106 dbm LEGEND Left Picture and upper table Proposed data showing 6.99 square kilometers are covered with indoor service vs lower picture, lower left table showing data showing 3.28 square kilometers covered with indoor service a 54% reduction in coverage compared to proposed. Page 648 of 935 2026 RSRP Coverage – low band Proposed vs Alternate #23 Indoor >= -85 dbm In-Vehicle >= -95 dbm On-Street >= -106 dbm LEGEND Left Picture and upper table Proposed data showing 6.99 square kilometers are covered with indoor service vs lower picture, lower left table showing data showing 3.50 square kilometers covered with indoor service a 50% reduction in coverage compared to proposed. Page 649 of 935 MID BAND – (2100MHZ) 90% OF LICENSED SPECTRUM IS IN THIS FREQUENCY BAND OR ABOVE Page 650 of 935 2026 RSRP Coverage – mid band Proposed vs Existing Coverage Indoor >= -85 dbm In-Vehicle >= -95 dbm On-Street >= -106 dbm LEGEND Left Picture and upper table Proposed data showing 2.99 square kilometers are covered with indoor service vs lower picture, lower left table showing data showing .18 square kilometers covered with indoor service a 94% reduction in coverage compared to proposed. Page 651 of 935 2026 RSRP Coverage – mid band Proposed vs Alternate #1 Indoor >= -85 dbm In-Vehicle >= -95 dbm On-Street >= -106 dbm LEGEND Left Picture and upper table Proposed data showing 2.99 square kilometers are covered with indoor service vs lower picture, lower left table showing data showing .25 square kilometers covered with indoor service a 92% reduction in coverage compared to proposed. Page 652 of 935 2026 RSRP Coverage – mid band Proposed vs Alternate #2 Indoor >= -85 dbm In-Vehicle >= -95 dbm On-Street >= -106 dbm LEGEND Left Picture and upper table Proposed data showing 2.99 square kilometers are covered with indoor service vs lower picture, lower left table showing data showing .22 square kilometers covered with indoor service a 93% reduction in coverage compared to proposed. Page 653 of 935 2026 RSRP Coverage – mid band Proposed vs Alternate #3 Indoor >= -85 dbm In-Vehicle >= -95 dbm On-Street >= -106 dbm LEGEND Left Picture and upper table Proposed data showing 2.99 square kilometers are covered with indoor service vs lower picture, lower left table showing data showing .46 square kilometers covered with indoor service an 85% reduction in coverage compared to proposed. Page 654 of 935 2026 RSRP Coverage – mid band Proposed vs Alternate #4 Indoor >= -85 dbm In-Vehicle >= -95 dbm On-Street >= -106 dbm LEGEND Left Picture and upper table Proposed data showing 2.99 square kilometers are covered with indoor service vs lower picture, lower left table showing data showing .38 square kilometers covered with indoor service an 88% reduction in coverage compared to proposed. Page 655 of 935 2026 RSRP Coverage – mid band Proposed vs Alternate #8 Indoor >= -85 dbm In-Vehicle >= -95 dbm On-Street >= -106 dbm LEGEND Left Picture and upper table Proposed data showing 2.99 square kilometers are covered with indoor service vs lower picture, lower left table showing data showing .51 square kilometers covered with indoor service an 83% reduction in coverage compared to proposed. Page 656 of 935 2026 RSRP Coverage – mid band Proposed vs Alternate #14 Indoor >= -85 dbm In-Vehicle >= -95 dbm On-Street >= -106 dbm LEGEND Left Picture and upper table Proposed data showing 2.99 square kilometers are covered with indoor service vs lower picture, lower left table showing data showing .19 square kilometers covered with indoor service a 94% reduction in coverage compared to proposed. Page 657 of 935 2026 RSRP Coverage – mid band Proposed vs Alternate #23 Indoor >= -85 dbm In-Vehicle >= -95 dbm On-Street >= -106 dbm LEGEND Left Picture and upper table Proposed data showing 2.99 square kilometers are covered with indoor service vs lower picture, lower left table showing data showing 2.33 square kilometers covered with indoor service a 23% reduction in coverage compared to proposed. Page 658 of 935 2026 Primary Coverage Objective Coverage Analysis #Building Building Height (feet)Analysis Low Band Coverage Reduction Mid Band Coverage Reduction 1 Somerset Elementary School 30 propagation analysis will be completed 38%92% 2 Somerset Country Club Clubhouse 20 propagation analysis will be completed 55%93% 3 Somerset 19 Condo Building #1 30 propagation analysis will be completed 49%85% 4 Somerset 19 Condo Building #2 30 propagation analysis will be completed 50%88% 5 Linden Street Lofts - 701 Linden 20 Too close to existing Verizon site at Two Rivers High School 6 Linden Street Lofts - 715 Linden 20 Too close to existing Verizon site at Two Rivers High School 7 Mendota Village - 720 Main Street 20 Too close to existing Verizon site at Two Rivers High School 8 Mendota Village - 750 Main Street 20 Too close to existing Verizon site at Two Rivers High School propagation analysis will be completed 51%83% 9 Village Commons 30 Too close to existing Verizon site at Two Rivers High School 10 The Linden 30 Too close to existing Verizon site at Two Rivers High School 11 St. Paul's United Methodist Church 20 Too close to existing Verizon site at Two Rivers High School 12 Mendakota Animal Hospital 18 Too close to existing Verizon site at Two Rivers High School 13 Ridge South Condos 27 Too close to existing Verizon site around intersection of Hwy 62 and I-35E 14 Eagle Point Condos 30 Too close to existing Verizon site around intersection of Hwy 62 and I-35E propagation analysis will be completed 54%94% 15 Overlook Condominiums 30 Too close to existing Verizon site around intersection of Shepard Rd and I-35E 16 Lexington-Riverside Condominiums 35 Too close to existing Verizon site around intersection of Shepard Rd and I-35E 17 Riverain 35 Too close to existing Verizon site around intersection of Shepard Rd and I-35E 18 The Riverwood 30 Too close to existing Verizon site around intersection of Shepard Rd and I-35E 19 Stonebridge 25 Too close to existing Verizon site around intersection of Shepard Rd and I-35E 20 Office Building 30 Too close to existing Verizon site around intersection of Shepard Rd and I-35E 21 Villas of Lilydale Senior Apartments 40 Too close to existing Verizon site around intersection of Shepard Rd and I-35E 22 Lilydale Garden Center 15 Too close to existing Verizon site around intersection of Shepard Rd and I-35E 23 Lilia 50 Too close to existing Verizon site around intersection of Shepard Rd and I-35E propagation analysis will be completed 50%23% 24 Pool and Yacht Club 20 Too close to existing Verizon site around intersection of Shepard Rd and I-35E Page 659 of 935 2026 Results / Recommendation Alternate candidates (#1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 14, 23) do not provide the same level of service as the proposed. Candidates farther away from the coverage objective would provide worse service in the coverage objective than the alternates analyzed Recommend approval of proposed as it provides better coverage than the alternates All (3) wireless carriers are showing a lack of quality coverage in the area around the proposed and tower is designed for multiple tenants Page 660 of 935 Page 661 of 935 Page 662 of 935 Page 663 of 935 Page 664 of 935 Page 665 of 935 Page 666 of 935 Page 667 of 935 Page 668 of 935 Page 669 of 935 Page 670 of 935 Page 671 of 935 Page 672 of 935 Page 673 of 935 Page 674 of 935 Page 675 of 935 Page 676 of 935 Page 677 of 935 Page 678 of 935 Page 679 of 935 Page 680 of 935 Page 681 of 935 Page 682 of 935 Page 683 of 935 Page 684 of 935 Page 685 of 935 Page 686 of 935 Page 687 of 935 Page 688 of 935 Page 689 of 935 Page 690 of 935 Page 691 of 935 Page 692 of 935 Page 693 of 935 Page 694 of 935 Page 695 of 935 Page 696 of 935 Page 697 of 935 Page 698 of 935 Page 699 of 935 Page 700 of 935 Page 701 of 935 Page 702 of 935 Page 703 of 935 Page 704 of 935 Page 705 of 935 Page 706 of 935 Page 707 of 935 Page 708 of 935 Page 709 of 935 Page 710 of 935 Page 711 of 935 Page 712 of 935 Page 713 of 935 Page 714 of 935 Page 715 of 935 Page 716 of 935 Page 717 of 935 Page 718 of 935 Page 719 of 935 Page 720 of 935 Page 721 of 935 Page 722 of 935 Page 723 of 935 Page 724 of 935 Page 725 of 935 Page 726 of 935 Page 727 of 935 Page 728 of 935 Page 729 of 935 Page 730 of 935 Page 731 of 935 Page 732 of 935 Page 733 of 935 Page 734 of 935 Page 735 of 935 Page 736 of 935 Page 737 of 935 Page 738 of 935 Page 739 of 935 Page 740 of 935 Page 741 of 935 Page 742 of 935 Page 743 of 935 Page 744 of 935 Page 745 of 935 Page 746 of 935 Page 747 of 935 Page 748 of 935 Page 749 of 935 Page 750 of 935 Page 751 of 935 Page 752 of 935 Page 753 of 935 Page 754 of 935 Page 755 of 935 Page 756 of 935 Page 757 of 935 Page 758 of 935 Page 759 of 935 Page 760 of 935 Page 761 of 935 Page 762 of 935 Page 763 of 935 Page 764 of 935 Page 765 of 935 Page 766 of 935 Page 767 of 935 Page 768 of 935 Page 769 of 935 Page 770 of 935 9.b REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2026-48 Approving a Variance to allow an impervious surface coverage of 39% at the property located at 1044 Brompton Place [Planning Case No. 2026-10] ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager ACTION REQUEST: Adopt Resolution 2026-48 Approving a Variance to allow an impervious surface coverage of 39% at the property located at 1044 Brompton Place. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Joe Fitzgerald, is seeking to construct a new rear deck onto his existing single- family home located at 1044 Brompton Place. The proposed deck would be a replacement and expansion of the existing deck, increasing from 82-sq.ft. to 320-sq.ft. With this design, the request adds additional impervious surface to the property, and the increase requires a Variance from the maximum impervious surface standards for the R-1 Zoning District. The subject parcel is approximately half an acre (22,622-sq.ft.) in size and contains an existing single-family dwelling constructed in 1985. The property is zoned R-1 Low Density Residential and guided for low density residential development. The property is part of the Brompton Courts subdivision, and on a cul-de-sac which extends south from Sibley Memorial Highway. This site is located at the end of the cul-de-sac and is directly north of the tennis courts at Ivy Hills Park. The applicant/owner’s contractor submitted a building permit request to the City in June with plans to construct a new deck on the subject property. The proposed deck would be located in the exact same location as the existing deck, but of a larger size. Based on staff’s review of the property and the applicant’s plans and materials, the property’s existing impervious surface is approximately 38%. The increase in size of the deck would lead to approximately a 1% increase in impervious surface coverage on the property. This exceeds the maximum coverage requirement of 35% in the R1 Zoning District and requires approval of a Variance by the City. To offset the impervious surface increase, the applicant has prepared a plan to install a 5-ft x Page 771 of 935 5-ft rain garden to the west of the home. The rain garden would be subject to a Stormwater Management Best Practices Agreement with the City, and the owner has committed to following the City’s detail specifications for residential rain gardens. The City Council should consider if the property has demonstrated a practical difficulty in complying with the ordinance, due to the change in City ordinances beginning in 2025, the lack of City Code flexibility for offset of impervious surface via a rain garden or similar, and the reasonableness of the use of the property with a larger rear deck. The Planning Commission met at their regular meeting on July 28th to hold a duly noticed public hearing on the Variance application. Following the public hearing the Commission discussed the setbacks of the proposed deck from the side property line, the intent of the impervious surface standards, the stormwater management goals that would be accomplished with the installation of the rain garden, and the plant materials for the rain garden. A copy of the 7/28/2026 planning report with attachments is enclosed with this memo. As noted in the attachment, staff had recommended approval of the application request. Following their discussion, the Planning Commission affirmed the staff recommendation and voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend to the City Council approval of this Variance with findings- of-fact and certain conditions of approval as outlined in the attached [draft] Resolution 2026- 48. The City Council is asked to affirm the Planning Commission's recommendation and adopt Resolution 2026-48 Approving a Variance to allow an impervious surface coverage of 39% at the property located at 1044 Brompton Place. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Resolution 2026-48 Approving a Variance to Allow an Impervious Surface Coverage of 39% (Thirty-Nine Percent) at 1044 Brompton Place 2.Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes 7-28-26 3.Planning Commission Staff Report 7-28-26 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Environmental Sustainability & Stewardship Page 772 of 935 Resolution No. 2026-48 Page | 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2026-48 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OF 39% (THIRTY-NINE PERCENT) AT 1044 BROMPTON PLACE PLANNING CASE 2026-10 WHEREAS, Joe Fitzgerald, (the “Applicant” and “Owner”) made an Application for a Variance to the maximum impervious surface coverage requirement of 35% (thirty-five percent), for the property located at 1044 Brompton Place, and legally described in Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LDR-Low Density Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, zoned R-1 Low Density Residential; and WHEREAS, Title 12-4A-6: Impervious Surface Requirements: C.2 requires that the total square footage of impervious surface coverage may not exceed the maximum impervious surface coverage established in the base zoning district. Table 12-2B-3.1 establishes the maximum impervious surface coverage as 35% in the R-1 Zoning District, and the Variance requested is for a total impervious surface coverage of 39%, as proposed and presented under Planning Case No. 2026-10; and WHEREAS, Title 12-5B-7 of the City Code (Variances) allows for the Council to grant variances or certain modifications from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code, and impose conditions and safeguards with variances if so needed or granted; and WHEREAS, on July 28, 2026, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Variance request, whereby a planning report was presented and received by the Commission, and comments from the applicant and public were allowed, and whereupon closing the hearing, the Commission recommended unanimously (5-0 vote) to approve the request from Joe Fitzgerald for the Variance, which would allow an impervious surface coverage of 39%, as proposed and presented under Planning Case No. 2026-10, with certain conditions and findings- of-fact to support said approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation from the Planning Commission on Planning Case No. 2026-10 is hereby affirmed, and may be approved based on the following findings-of-fact: 1.Under Title 12-5B-7 of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Page 773 of 935 Resolution No. 2026-48 Page | 2 Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” a. Construction of a 320-sq.ft. rear deck from the patio door access is a reasonable use of the residential property, is consistent with single-family homes within the community, and would not negatively impact the essential character of the neighborhood. b. The City Code was amended in 2025 to require a maximum impervious surface coverage of 35%. There are no listed exceptions for decks with gaps or spacing; therefore a practical difficulty is demonstrated in order to increase the impervious surface on the subject property to 39% by constructing a larger replacement deck. c. A Practical Difficulty is demonstrated in that the property owner cannot reasonable comply with the strictest application of the ordinance because the home is designed for an upper rear deck, as opposed to a rear patio where permeable pavers would be an option for administrative approval. d. The granting of this proposed variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the Applicant/Owner. The granting of the proposed Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate the Practical Difficulty. 2. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area, nor will it in any other way impair health, safety, comfort, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The proposed request includes a commitment from the applicant to install a rain garden in the front side yard of the property in order to offset the increase in impervious surface. With the conditions included herein, the proposed Variance request for 39% impervious surface coverage on the subject property would be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 4. Approval of this Variance is for 1044 Brompton Place only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. Page 774 of 935 Resolution No. 2026-48 Page | 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Variance requested for the property located at 1044 Brompton Place is hereby approved, with the following conditions: 1.The impervious surface is limited to 39%. Any additional increase in impervious surface cannot be installed without prior application, review, and approval of a new Variance specific to that future proposal. 2.The Applicant shall not deviate from the deck 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 deck construction until a building permit has been issued by the City. 4.The applicant shall install a rain garden to offset the increase in impervious surface. Plans for the raingarden are subject to review and approval by the Public Works Director. The rain garden will be subject to a Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Agreement with the City. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of August 2026. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 775 of 935 Resolution No. 2026-48 Page | 4 EXHIBIT A Address: 1044 Brompton Place PIN: 27-15200-01-030 Legal Description: Lot 3, Block 1, BROMPTON COURTS, Dakota County, Minnesota Page 776 of 935 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES EXCERPT FROM DRAFT/UNAPPROVED 7/28/26 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES B) PLANNING CASE 2026-10 JOE FITZGERALD, 1044 BROMPTON PLACE – VARIANCE Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that Joe Fitzgerald is seeking to construct a new rear deck onto the existing single-family home located at 1044 Brompton Place. The proposed deck would be a replacement and expansion of the existing deck and stairs at the rear of the home. The request adds additional impervious surface to the property, and the increase requires a variance from the maximum impervious surface standards for the R-1 Zoning District. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development 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 Johnson asked how a 25 square foot rain garden size was determined, noting that is small in comparison to the size of the deck. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that is what is proposed by the applicant. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the rain garden is required to retain 1.1 inches times the increase in impervious surface, which is around 24 cubic feet, noting that a 25 square foot rain garden would meet that requirement. Commissioner Goldade asked for the dimensions of the existing deck. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that the existing deck is 82 square feet and the proposed deck is 320 square feet. Commissioner Goldade asked if the proximity to the park is considered in the recommendation. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that the park does not have any specific requirements and confirmed that the deck would meet the required ten-foot setback. Commissioner Corbett asked if there is a requirement for the BMP in the ordinance. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that originally the R-1 district was going to have an administrative option to increase impervious surface with a BMP, but that was not included in the final Zoning Code revision, which is why the variance process is required. Page 777 of 935 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Commissioner Corbett asked why decking is considered to be impervious, as water can flow through the space between deck boards. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that decking was included as an impervious surface. She explained that expanded patios have an ability for flexibility, but a decking expansion does not. She stated that staff supports the expansion with the addition of a BMP. She noted that if they continue to receive requests of this nature, they could review the ordinance language if desired. Chair Field invited the applicant to speak. Joe Fitzgerald, applicant, stated that he is present to address any questions. Commissioner Johnson asked and received confirmation that Mr. Fitzgerald is not the original property owner. She asked for information on how a plant species proposed within the rain garden was chosen. Mr. Fitzgerald replied that was a recommendation from their landscaping architect. 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 STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GOLDADE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED VARIANCE FOR AN INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE TO 39% AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS-OF-FACT, AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IS LIMITED TO 39 PERCENT. ANY ADDITIONAL INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CANNOT BE INSTALLED WITHOUT PRIOR APPLICATION, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL OF A NEW VARIANCE SPECIFIC TO THAT FUTURE PROPOSAL. 2.THE APPLICANT SHALL NOT DEVIATE FROM THE DECK 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 DECK CONSTRUCTION UNTIL A BUILDING PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE CITY. Page 778 of 935 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES 4.THE APPLICANT SHALL INSTALL A RAIN GARDEN TO OFFSET THE INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. PLANS FOR THE RAINGARDEN ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. THE RAIN GARDEN WILL BE SUBJECT TO A STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY. Further discussion: Commissioner Johnson stated that she would like to discuss the impervious surface ordinance and has some concerns that they are over the maximum allowance. She stated that she can see how rainwater can come through the decking boards to go onto the property, so she is not as concerned. She noted that this would be a one percent increase from the original. She stated that because this is not the original property owner, this is not a situation created by the property owner, and the situation is unique to the property. She recommended that the plant she mentioned should be placed in the rain garden and suggested that the applicant consult with the Natural Resources Coordinator to gain additional information on the plantings. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 5, 2026 meeting. Page 779 of 935 Planning Commission Meeting Date: July 28, 2026 Agenda Item: CASE No. 2026-10 Variance Application of Joe Fitzgerald for a Variance to increase beyond the maximum impervious surface coverage requirement at the property located at 1044 Brompton Place Department: Community Development Contact: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Action Request: The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing on the Variance request. The role of the Planning Commission is to consider this application for consistency with the City's Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Action Deadline: 8/30/2026 Introduction: The applicant, Joe Fitzgerald, is seeking to construct a new rear deck onto the existing single- family home located at 1044 Brompton Place. The proposed deck would be a replacement and expansion of the existing deck and stairs at the rear of the home. The request adds additional impervious surface to the property, and the increase requires a Variance from the maximum impervious surface standards for the R-1 Zoning District. A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to all properties within 350-feet of the subject property. The city has not received any comments or objections to this land use request as of the submittal of this report, but there has been one general inquiry with questions about the proposal. Background: The subject parcel is approximately half an acre (22,622-sq.ft.) in size and contains an existing single-family dwelling constructed in 1985. The property is zoned R-1 Low Density Residential and guided for low density residential development. The property is part of the Brompton Courts subdivision, and on a cul-de-sac which extends from Sibley Memorial Highway. This site is located at the south end of the cul-de-sac and is directly north of the tennis courts at Ivy Hills Park. The applicant intends to construct a new deck in the rear yard, generally in place of the existing rear deck structure, but of a larger size. The applicant/owner’s contractor submitted a building permit request to the City in June with plans to construct a new deck on the subject property. According to existing permit records for the home, it is anticipated that the existing deck was constructed along with the home in 1985. The homeowner has confirmed this to be their assumption as well. The existing deck is accessed by a rear patio door and contains stairs to exit into the backyard of the home. The Page 780 of 935 building permit illustrated a new deck that was approximately 22-ft x 15.6-ft in size, but without stair access (see deck plan below). Staff reviewed the building permit and calculated the existing impervious surface of the property, finding the property to already be in excess of 35% impervious surface coverage. The applicant inquired about the opportunities to apply for a Variance and has submitted this planning application request. The proposal is to increase the size of the rear deck from 82-sq.ft. to 320-sq.ft. As proposed, the increase in deck size would bring the property’s impervious surface coverage from approximately 38% to 39%, in excess of the maximum coverage requirement of 35% in the R- 1 Zoning District and requiring approval of a Variance by the City. Analysis: The proposed deck would be located in the exact same location as the existing deck, but of a larger size, and with continued access to the home via a back patio door. The deck would be in the side/rear yard and as proposed is compatible with setback requirements. The property line to the south which is shared with Ivy Hills Park is considered a side yard line based on the unique shape of the property. Staff has no concerns with the proposed deck’s ability to meet the base zoning district requirements for a residential deck. Impervious Surface Requirements: As part of the Zoning Code Update project, which went into effect on January 1, 2025, the City established new impervious surface standards for all zoning districts. The Zoning Ordinance requires a maximum impervious surface coverage of 35% in the R-1 Low Density Residential Zoning district. Based on staff’s review of the property and the applicant’s plans and materials, the property’s existing impervious surface is approximately 38%, when calculating the existing driveway, home, fire pit, existing deck, and walkways. The increase in size of the deck would amount to approximately a 1% increase in impervious surface coverage. The City Code does not permit administrative flexibility for impervious surface coverage for the installation of decks. Per City Code Section 12-4A-6: Impervious Surface Requirements, impervious surface coverage calculations must include any ground surface material or structure that retards water from being absorbed into the ground, including but not limited to: buildings and structures, gazebos and decks, asphalt, concrete, class 5, pavers or similar. The ordinance does allow flexibility for the installation of pervious pavers or pavement, which can Page 781 of 935 be excluded from impervious surface calculations – however product specifications must be reviewed and approved by staff to confirm this. No such flexibility for products/materials exists for the installation of decking. To offset the impervious surface increase, the applicant has indicated that they are able to install a 5-ft x 5-ft rain garden to the west of the home. The applicant has provided a graphic (below) illustrating the location of the potential rain garden, which would be 25-sq.ft. in size and be 1-ft in depth. The intent would be to install Blue Flag Iris in the rain garden. The applicant/owner has committed to following the City’s detail specifications for residential rain gardens (attached). If this Variance request is approved, a condition is included that requires the rain garden to be installed to the City’s specifications, and reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director. The rain garden would also be subject to a stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) agreement with the City. Variance: City Code Section 12-5B-7 governs variance requests. The city must consider a number of variables when recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i) practical difficulties; and (ii) impact to the community. The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality or neighborhood. It is also noted that economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. In addition, variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Section 12-5B-7(E)(1) further provides other issues the city may consider when granting or denying a variance, noted as follows: a.Practical Difficulties exist that apply to the structure or land in question that are unique to such property or immediately adjoining property; and b.Such Practical Difficulties do not apply generally to other land or structures in the Zoning District in which said land is located; and Page 782 of 935 c. That the granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the Applicant; and d. That granting the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area; or e. That granting the proposed Variance will not in any other way impair health, safety, comfort, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this Zoning Ordinance; and f. That the granting of such Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the Applicant but is necessary to alleviate a Practical Difficulty. g. If all the conditions are met, then the City Council may grant such Variance and impose conditions and safeguards therein. When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have been met in granting a variance, and provide findings of facts to support such a recommendation to the City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to meet these standards, or has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings of fact supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined. As part of any variance request, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and findings, which for this case, are noted in the application materials (included in the attachments and noted below in italic text). 1. Are there any practical difficulties that support the granting of the Variance? Applicant’s Response: We are attempting to replace the current deck to allow for a deck with space for a table and chairs. Strict enforcement of the impervious surface code would create a "peculiar and practical difficulty" by prohibiting us from utilizing our backyard in a manner typical and reasonable for similar properties in Mendota Heights. Staff’s Response: The applicant’s desire to construct a larger deck onto the existing single-family dwelling in place of the existing deck is a common permit request granted to single-family homes within the City. In general, a rear deck is a reasonable use of the property. The increase in size of the deck necessitates a Variance request as the existing property is already exceeding the maximum impervious surface permitted in the R-1 Zoning District (35%). The increase in size of the deck from 82-sq.ft. to 320-sq.ft. is reasonable and of a similar scale to other properties in the area. Alternatively, the City Code would allow the reconstruction of the deck of like size and as a replacement of the existing structure without the need for a Variance. The property owner could also reduce impervious surface elsewhere on the property, such as the circle driveway, in order to construct a deck of this size in the rear yard which would not require a Variance. The Planning Commission and City Council should consider if the property has demonstrated a practical difficulty in complying with the ordinance, due to the change in City ordinances beginning in 2025, the lack of City Code flexibility for offset of impervious surface via rain garden or similar, and the reasonableness of the use of the property with a larger rear deck. Page 783 of 935 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. Applicant’s Response: The current deck is original to the home, and has been in place since we purchased the home. Due to the existing footprint of our home, driveway, and walkways, the property is currently at or slightly over the maximum allowed impervious surface ratio. Although the proposed new deck with open spacing between the boards will allow moisture to reach the ground, city code requires us to classify the structure as an impervious surface, pushing the property over the permitted limit. Staff’s Response: The subject site is developed with an existing single-family home, driveway, walkways, and the original deck structure. The applicant is correct that the City’s zoning ordinance for maximum impervious surface coverage does include decks as impervious. This language is intended to encompass hard surface materials that impede or slow the infiltration of stormwater with the intent of reducing hard surfaces across the City. This change in City Code was implemented in 2025, and there is not an administrative option for increasing beyond 35% when a property owner in the R-1 District is adding impervious surface. However, City Code does permit the use of permeable pavers without counting towards a property’s impervious surface calculations, when specifications on the materials are provided to the City and reviewed by the Public Works Director. This same flexibility on the type of construction materials is not offered for the construction of a deck. When the City adopted the ordinance amendment to begin requiring a maximum impervious surface coverage on residential lots, the original staff recommendation was to include an opportunity for an administrative increase when a rain garden or other stormwater Best Management Practice (BMP) was in place to offset the increase in impervious surface, as this targeted the intent of the performance/design standard. This option was removed and not adopted into Code. Other zoning districts in the City are allowed this option for an increase without the need for a Variance. Other residential properties may also be exempt from calculations when permeable pavers are used. The Planning Commission and City Council should consider if the request for a Variance has uniqueness related to property characteristics, such as the existence of a rear deck on the upper level as opposed to a ground-level patio where pavers would be a possibility, and should also consider if the need for a Variance is self-created by the property owner. 3. The Variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Applicant’s Response: Our current home has only a small deck, which severely limits our functional outdoor living space. We are proposing removing the current deck and constructing a 22x12 elevated deck to safely access and enjoy our backyard. This new deck is replacing our current deck, and is at the rear of the house. Granting this variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, as decks are a standard residential feature. Staff’s Response: The proposed deck will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. There is an existing deck in the same location as this proposed improvement, and similar sized structures exist on other homes within the immediate vicinity. The increase in size is a reasonable upgrade and addition to the home. There are no issues with setbacks from the side yard shared with Ivy Hills Park as part of this Variance request. Page 784 of 935 Restrictions on Granting Variances: The following restrictions should be considered when reviewing a Variance: a) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The applicant has not indicated any financial considerations related to this Variance request. The applicant has stated that there is a practical difficulty in complying with the strict application of the ordinance exists, as the proposed deck would not be constructed of an entirely impermeable material. They have also stated that the strict application of the impervious surface coverage regulation does not permit reasonable use of their property. The applicant has demonstrated reasonable justifications of the typical residential use of a rear deck as the basis for requesting this Variance. b) Variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Planning Commission and City Council should consider if the requested Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance, and the impervious surface requirements. The use of a rear deck is typical of a single-family home within Mendota Heights. The proposed deck is also able to comply with setback requirements for the base zoning district, and the continued use of the rear door is necessary based on the design of the home. Residential properties that upgrade their patios have built-in flexibility to demonstrate permeable specifications for certain pavers, but the same opportunity is not offered to those constructing rear decks with spacing. The request to reconstruct the deck in a larger size and increase impervious surface coverage by approximately 1% on the property is not inconsistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s intent for continued re- investment in residential properties. Alternatives: 1. Recommend Approval of the variance request for a 1% increase in impervious surface coverage, based on the attached findings of fact and specific conditions of approval as included herein; or 2. Recommend Denial of the Variance request, based on the findings of fact that confirm the Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-5B-7 of the City Code, the City may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The City hereby determines the Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a variance for an increase in impervious surface coverage to 39%, in excess of the maximum 35% impervious surface coverage requirement for the R-1 Zoning District. The existing property already exceeds the maximum coverage, and an increase is not reasonable. The existing deck may also be replaced in its location and of the same size and scope without the need for a Variance, and the proposed larger deck is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; if other areas of existing impervious surface were reduced in Page 785 of 935 size, then there is an alternative for replacement of the structure without the need for a Variance, and the upgraded replacement structure is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property. C.Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). 3.Table the request and request additional information from the applicant or staff. Staff will extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN Statute. 15.99. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval (Alternative #1) of the proposed variance for an increase in impervious surface coverage to 39% as proposed by the applicant, based on the findings-of- fact as included herein, along with the following conditions: 1.The impervious surface is limited to 39%. Any additional increase in impervious surface cannot be installed without prior application, review, and approval of a new Variance specific to that future proposal. 2.The Applicant shall not deviate from the deck 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 deck construction until a building permit has been issued by the City. 4.The applicant shall install a rain garden to offset the increase in impervious surface. Plans for the raingarden are subject to review and approval by the Public Works Director. The rain garden will be subject to a Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Agreement with the City. Attachments: 1.Findings of Fact for Approval 2.Site Location Map 3.Letter of Intent 4.Variance Response Form 5.Deck Location 6.Deck Plans 7.Rain Garden Location - Utility Map 8.Rain Garden Location - Aerial Photo 9.Rain Garden Plan 10.City of Mendota Heights - Residential Rain Garden Detail Sheet Page 786 of 935 Planning Case 2026-10 (Variance for 1044 Brompton Place) Page 1 of 1 FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL Impervious Surface Variance Request – Option 1 1044 Brompton Place The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the request, referred to as “Option 1” in the staff report: 1.Construction of a 320-sq.ft. rear deck from the patio door access is a reasonable use of the residential property, is consistent with ingle-family homes within the community, and would not negatively impact the essential character of the neighborhood. 2.The City Code was amended in 2025 to require a maximum impervious surface coverage of 35%. There are no listed exceptions for decks with gaps or spacing; therefore a practical difficulty is demonstrated in order to increase the impervious surface on the subject property to 39% by constructing a larger replacement deck. 3.A Practical Difficulty is demonstrated in that the property owner cannot reasonable comply with the strictest application of the ordinance because the home is designed for an upper rear deck, as opposed to a rear patio where permeable pavers would be an option for administrative approval. 4.The granting of this proposed variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the Applicant/Owner. The granting of the proposed Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate the Practical Difficulty. 5.The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area, nor will it in any other way impair health, safety, comfort, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 6.The proposed request includes a commitment from the applicant to install a rain garden in the front side yard of the property in order to offset the increase in impervious surface. With the conditions included herein, the proposed Variance request for 39% impervious surface coverage on the subject property would be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Page 787 of 935 666666666 66666 6666666666666666666 6 6 6 66666666666 666 6666666666666666666666666 6666666666666 66666666666666! ! ! ! * ! ! " " " " ³ !³ ³ ³ ! "" !" "" ! ! "! ! ! "" * ! " ³ ! """ " " !! ! ! * * ³ ³ ³* * * "" " ! ³" " ! "³³ " !³³ * ** **66666 6666666666666 66666666 66666666666666666!!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 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 645 649 655 603 662 1043 647 665 668 1056 665 671 676 656 1022 1044 1114 11001101 1025 614 6116191066 1086 623 1018 623 619 615 613 1043 1034 1040 671 1028 1046 10141007 1039 10351033 10231022 610 1012 1027 1036 1020 1040 610 1017 1020 1013 1024 606 1015 605 1007 10061010 682 1126 645 600 1083108910851087 1105 1095 1103 110110971099 1001 1109 1004 679 1104 1090 1127 11001102 10961092 1098 1094 596 1113677 993 BUTLER AVE LO N D O N R D IV Y H I L L D R S Y L V AND A L E RDSIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYBROMPTON PLDOWNING STWOODRIDGE DRKIRCHNER AVEARCADIA DRDakota County, MN Site Location Map1044 Brompton Place Date: 7/15/2026 City ofMendotaHeights0200 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 788 of 935 City of Mendota Heights - 6/17/2026 Community Development Department / Planning Commission 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Subject: Letter of Intent - Variance Request for 1044 Brompton Place Dear Members of the Planning Commission and City Council, Please accept this letter as formal intent to request a variance for the property located at 1044 Brompton Place. We are seeking relief from the city’s impervious surface limits in order to construct a new deck on the rear of our home. 1.Project Overview Our current home has only a small deck, which severely limits our functional outdoor living space. We are proposing removing the current deck and constructing a 22x12 elevated deck to safely access and enjoy our backyard. 2.Reason for Variance Request Due to the existing footprint of our home, driveway, and walkways, the property is currently at or slightly over the maximum allowed impervious surface ratio. Although the proposed new deck with open spacing between the boards will allow moisture to reach the ground, city code requires us to classify the structure as an impervious surface, pushing the property over the permitted limit. 3. Proposed Mitigation To offset this coverage and ensure there is no negative environmental or stormwater impact on the neighborhood, we are committed to installing a rain garden on the property. This 5’x5’x1’ deep rain garden will be strategically placed to capture roof and deck runoff, filtering it back into the ground and ensuring zero net increase in stormwater runoff. This aligns perfectly with the city’s water resources and conservation guidelines. 4.Justification for Variance Granting this variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, as decks are a standard residential feature. Strict enforcement of the impervious surface code would create a "peculiar and practical difficulty" by prohibiting us from utilizing our backyard in a manner typical and reasonable for similar properties in Mendota Heights. Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to the city of Mendota Heights. We look forward to discussing this project with you. Sincerely, Joe Fitzgerald 612-590-3490 jjfitzgerald@hotmail.com Page 789 of 935 Page 790 of 935 Fitzgerald GIS Street Address 1044 BROMPTON PL Unit Comments Bulk move to Building Centroid Postal City MENDOTA HEIGHTS Municipality MENDOTA HEIGHTS Zip Code 55118 Street BROMPTON Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. Map Scale 1 inch = 19 feet 6/3/2026 6/3/26, 11:22 AM Dakota County GIS https://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/dcgis/1/1Page 791 of 935 Page 792 of 935 Page 793 of 935 (G!.6666666666³66!!2 931930929928927 93 29339 3 4 9 3 5936 926 9259379249389239399409229 4 1 9 4 2 921 933934926932926 1044 1040 1043 1039 1043 201 148 137997 6 6810069 15088 1 4 0 220 2281BROMPTON PL2024 City Base MapUtilities Date: 6/23/2026 City of Mendota Heights040 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 794 of 935 Rain Garden Location Street Address 1044 BROMPTON PL Unit Comments Bulk move to Building Centroid Postal City MENDOTA HEIGHTS Municipality MENDOTA HEIGHTS Zip Code 55118 Street BROMPTON 6/24/26, 11:04 AM Dakota County GIS https://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/dcgis/1/2Page 795 of 935 932.25932.25931.25TOP OF RAIN GARDENBOTTON OF RAIN GARDENDOWN SPOUT ROUTED TORAIN GARDEN5'-0"5'-0"IV#1 Cont.9SYMBOLCODEBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMESIZEQTYPERENNIALSIVIris versicolor / Blue Flag#1 Cont.9PLANT SCHEDULEPage 796 of 935 TRAFFIC SIGNPLATE #511 TRAFFIC SIGN SPECIFICATIONSSTOP SIGN SHALL BE R1-1, 30" X 30"OR AS DIRECTED BE ENGINEER.STOP SIGN AND STREET SIGNS SHALLBE INSTALLED ON THE SAME POST (WHERE APPLICABLE), MATERIAL:ALUMINUM SHALL BE 5052-H38 OR 6061-T6 ALLOY.GAUGE SHALL BE: .080 ON THE LONGEST SIDE UP TO 30" .100 ON THE LONGEST SIDE OVER 30"REFLECTIVE SHEETING SHALL BE HIGH INTENSITY.ALL SIGNS SHALL CONFORM TO SECTION 3352, SIGNSAND MARKERS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGHWAYCONSTRUCTION.STREET NAME SIGN CROSSPIECE TO BE "SUPER LOCK" SIGN CROSSES,PART #BA8A12 OR APPROVED EQUAL. STREET NAME SIGN U-CHANNELCONNECTOR TO BE "SUPER LOCK" U-CHANNEL POST CAPS, PART#BA180F12/#BA90F12 OR APPROVED EQUAL. CHANNEL POST SPECIFICATIONSFLANGED CHANNEL SIGN POSTS SHALL CONFORM TOSECTION 3401(U CHANNELS 2#/FT GALVANIZED) OF THESTANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION. POSTSSHALL BE 7 FEET IN LENGTH.2#/FT.GALVANIZEDGALVANIZED3#/FT.City ofMendotaHeights3.0' MINIMUM7.0' MINIMUMK:\g-m\MendotaHeights-City\16948000\04_Production\01_CAD\MARIE 2020\02_Sheets\15 DETAILS (5).dwg Apr 01, 2020 - 5:17pm444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500Saint Paul, MN 55101651.292.4400tkda.comDESCRIPTION OF REVISIONSNO. DATE BYDESIGNEDDRAWNCHECKEDCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTASHEET NO. OF 84 SHEETSMARIE AVENUE STREETIMPROVEMENTSS.A.P. 140-101-012FILENAME:PLOT DATE:NAME:SIGNATURE:LIC. NO.:DATE:13LPPSPBLPPLARRY POPPLER410054/1/2020--- --- --- ------ --- --- ------ --- --- ------ --- --- ------ --- --- ---I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MN.DETAILS (3)0"ALOCATION, SIZE AND SHAPE TOBE APPROVED BY ENGINEERMINIMUM TWO ROWS OF SODLIMITS OF DISTURBANCE/SODSUBSOILTYPESUBSOIL TYPESAND/GRAVELSAND WITH CLAY OR SILTCLAY OR SILT WITH SANDCLAYS OR SILTSDCBA3" DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH BY OTHERSRECOM.DEPTH6"6"-9"9"-12"12"-18"0"A6"DETAIL #RGEXISTING /SURROUNDING TURFLIMITS OF BOTTOMENGINEERED SOIL (SEE ABOVE)2:1 MAXPLAN VIEWNOTES:1.FINAL GRADE SHALL BE DONE BY HAND.2.FINAL MULCHING SHALL BE DONE BY OTHERS.3.NO EQUIPMENT SHALL BE ALLOWED ON THE RAIN GARDEN AFTER EXCAVATION BEGINS.4.PERIMETER EROSION CONTROL SHALL BE INSTALLED AND REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL TURF IS ESTABLISHED AROUND RAIN GARDEN.5.FOLLOW CURRENT DAKOTA COUNTY SWCD LID STANDARD.6.ALL MATERIAL, LABOR AND EQUIPMENT IS INCIDENTAL. PLANTS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN CONTRACT.7.PAY AREA (SY) BASED ON LIMITS OF BOTTOM.8.LOCATE ALL UTILITIES BEFORE DIGGING.CROSS SECTION A-AMINIMUM TWO ROWS OF SOD6" - 18" FROM 0' ELEVATION (SEE TABLE ABOVE)24" DEPTH MINENGINEERED SOIL MIX:80% COURSE WASHED SAND (MNDOT 3126)20% LEAF-LITTER COMPOST ORGANIC GRADE 2 (MNDOT 3890)NO TOPSOIL OR ON-SITE SOILS MAY BE USED IN ENGINEERED SOIL MIXUNLESS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER3 RING INFILTROMETER TESTING AND INFILTRATION TESTS ON THEENGINEERED SOILS MAY BE REQUIRED AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEERRESIDENTIAL RAIN GARDENMULCH / PLANTED AREAFLOWFLOW6"2' 3' 2'(PAY AREA SY)DEEP-RIP TO 24" DEPTH ON GRANULAR SURFACE: USE SUB-SOILRIPPER ATTACHMENT AT 24" SPACING TO LOOSEN SUB SOIL ANDENTRAIN SAND INTO SUB GRADE MATERIAL. DO NOT RIP WITHIN3' HORIZONTALLY OF PRIVATE UTILITIESMATCH EXISTING GRADEGRANULAR BORROW12"12"EXAMPLE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING:1. ENGINEER WILL MARK APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LOCATIONS.2. CONTRACTOR TO AVOID COMPACTION OF SOILS BY HEAVY MACHINERY IN THEDELINEATED AREA.3.CONTRACTOR TO EXCAVATE AND ROUGH GRADE.4.CONTRACTOR TO RIP SUB-SOIL.5.CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL CURB CUT AT RAIN GARDEN LOCATION.6.CONTRACTOR TO BLOCK CURB CUT WITH SANDBAGS OR ROCKBAGS.7.ENGINEER WILL MARK GARDEN EDGE AND DEPTH.8.CONTRACTOR TO PROTECT GARDEN FROM EROSION WITH SILT FENCE OR BIO-LOG.9.CONTRACTOR TO FINE GRADE RAIN GARDEN DEPRESSION WITH 12” HOLD DOWN FORENGINEERED SOIL MIX.10.CONTRACTOR TO MIX AND INSTALL ENGINEERED SOIL MIX.11.CONTRACTOR TO PREPARE SOILS FOR SOD.12.CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL ALL NEARBY SOD.CURB BREAK GRADE LINE0' ELEVATION LINEDETAIL #SCSUBGRADE CORRECTION1 : 1 C U TNOTES:1. CORRECT SUBGRADE AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.2. STOCKPILE ALL RECLAIM AND CRUSHED ROCK MIX BEFORE EXCAVATION (STOCKPILEAGGREGATE, SALVAGE AGGREGATE FROM STOCKPILE)3. LOCATE ALL UTILITIES BEFORE DIGGING.4. PLACE DRAIN TILE AT LOW POINT CATCH BASINS INDICATED ON THE PLANS AND AS DIRECTEDBY THE ENGINEER.SUBGRADE EXCAVATION SELECT GRANULAR BORROW 7" MILL10.5" RECLAMATION10" AGG. BASE6" PAVEMENT SECTION1.5" CRUSHED ROCKSUBGRADE EXCAVATION6" INCREMENTS ASDIRECTEDBY THE ENGINEER6"6"6"6"4" PERF TP PIPE DRAIN ASDIRECTED BY THE ENGINEERAPPROVED SUBGRADEMNDOT TYPE 1 NON-WOVEN24" SEAM OVERLAPSTOCKPILEAGGREGATEFULL WRAP GEOTEXTILEMNDOT TYPE 1 NON-WOVEN 12" SEAM OVERLAPSALVAGE AGGREGATE FROMSTOCKPILECRUSHED ROCK (1.5" CLEAR)EXISTING = PROPOSED FINISHED GRADEPage 797 of 935 This page is intentionally left blank 9.c REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2026-49 Approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow an 8-ft security fence at the property located at 1500 Commerce Drive [Planning Case No. 2026-11] ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager ACTION REQUEST: Adopt Resolution 2026-49 Approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow an 8-ft security fence at the property located at 1500 Commerce Drive. BACKGROUND: Equity Transwestern, the property manager of Commerce Logistics Center, has submitted an application for Conditional Use Permit on behalf of an incoming tenant, Chadwell Supply, for a new 8-ft security fence which would enclose a portion of the rear loading and parking area at 1500 Commerce Drive. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for fences greater than 6-ft in height in the Business and Industrial zoning districts. The subject property is zoned I-Industrial and guided as Industrial in the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The site is located near the intersection of Pilot Knob Road and Highway 13, east of Sibley Memorial Highway and west of Commerce Drive. The property contains a newly constructed industrial building, completed in 2023. Surrounding properties are also zoned and guided for Industrial development. The proposal is to install a new 8-ft security fence to serve the incoming tenant, Chadwell Supply, for security of business vehicles used in the tenant’s daily operations. The fence will be installed just outside the boundaries of the parking/loading area, entirely on the subject property. The fence company has provided elevations of the proposed materials, indicating that the fence materials will be black vinyl-coated chain link. Two options for gated access will also be installed. There are no requests for outdoor storage as part of this CUP application. At the July 28, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented. A duly noticed public hearing was held, and no residents came forward to speak regarding this application. The applicant was present and available to answer questions of the Commission. Page 798 of 935 A copy of the 7/28/2026 planning report with attachments is attached to this memo. As noted in the attachment, staff had recommended approval of the application request. Following their discussion, the Planning Commission agreed with the staff recommendation and voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend to the City Council approval of this Conditional Use Permit with findings-of-fact and certain conditions, as outlined in the attached [draft] Resolution. The City Council is asked to affirm the Planning Commission's recommendation by adopting Resolution 2026-49 Approving this Conditional Use Permit for 1500 Commerce Drive. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Resolution 2026-49 Approving a Conditional Use Permit to Allow an 8-ft Security Fence at the Property Located at 1500 Commerce Drive 2.Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes 7-28-26 3.Planning Commission Agenda Packet 7-28-26 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy Page 799 of 935 Res. No. 2026-49 Page | 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2026-49 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN 8-FT SECURITY FENCE AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1500 COMMERCE DRIVE PLANNING CASE 2026-11 WHEREAS, Equity Transwestern LLC, (the Applicant and Owners’ representative of ST PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE CO), requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) under Planning Case No. 2026-11, which would allow a fence greater than 6-ft in height to be constructed at the property located at 1500 Commerce Drive, and legally described on Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the subject property is guided Industrial in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and situated in the I-Industrial Zoning District, and WHEREAS, Title 12-4A-10 of the City Code allows fences within Business and Industrial zones to exceed 6-ft in height by Conditional Use Permit, and the proposed 8-ft vinyl coated chain link fence requires these approvals; and WHEREAS, on July 28, 2026, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this planning case item, whereby planning reports were presented and received by the commission, and comments from the applicant and public were allowed, and whereupon closing the hearing, recommended unanimously (5-0 vote) to approve the request from Equity Transwestern for the CUP, which would allow the proposed 8-ft fence to be constructed and installed, located at 1500 Commerce Drive, as proposed and presented under Planning Case No. 2026-11, with certain conditions identified herein and specific findings-of-fact to support said approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation from the Planning Commission on Planning Case No. 2026-11 is hereby affirmed, and the Conditional Use Permit requested for the property located at 1500 Commerce Drive is approved based on the following findings-of-fact. 1.The construction of a fence greater than 6-ft in height is allowed by Conditional Use Permit in the I-Industrial zoning district. 2.The existing industrial business use is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance for property in the I-Industrial district. 3.The proposed fence is an accessory use to the principal industrial business use of the property and the approval of this Conditional Use Permit does not grant approval for any accessory outdoor storage operations. 4.The proposed improvements will not impact the availability of parking for the existing multi-tenant building and there will not be negative impacts to traffic flow on the surrounding road network. Page 800 of 935 Res. No. 2026-49 Page | 2 5.The proposed fence and gate improvements will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor cause any serious traffic congestion or hazards, nor depreciate surrounding property values. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Conditional Use Permit requested for the property located at 1500 Commerce Drive is hereby approved, with the following conditions: 1.This Conditional Use Permit grants approval to allow the construction of an 8-ft tall security fence with two access gates to enclose a portion of the parking and loading area at the subject property. The approval of this Conditional Use Permit does not grant approval for any accessory outdoor storage operations. 2.The Applicant/Owner must obtain all required City permits, including but not limited to a Fence Permit and a Building Permit. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of August 2026. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST ________________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 801 of 935 Res. No. 2026-49 Page | 3 EXHIBIT A Address: 1500 Commerce Drive PIN: 27-48273-01-010 Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1, MENDOTA HEIGHTS BUSINESS PARK 4TH ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota Page 802 of 935 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES EXCERPT FROM DRAFT/UNAPPROVED 7/28/26 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES C)PLANNING CASE 2026-11 EQUITY TRANSWESTERN LLC (ON BEHALF OF CHADWELL SUPPLY), 1500 COMMERCE DRIVE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that Equity Transwestern, the property manager of Commerce Logistics Center, has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) on behalf of an incoming tenant, Chadwell Supply, for a new eight-foot security fence which would enclose a portion of the rear loading and parking area at 1500 Commerce Drive. The fence would be vinyl-coated chain link with two access gates. The construction of a fence greater than six feet in height requires a CUP in the I-Industrial zoning district. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350 ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development 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. Chair Field invited the applicant to come forward. Christian Hanson, Equity Transwestern, stated that they are the managing agent for the building and commented that Chadwell Supply is new to Minnesota and has chosen this location to expand their business in this area. 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 JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EQUITY TRANSWESTERN (o/b/o CHADWELL SUPPLY) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1500 COMMERCE DRIVE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EIGHT-FOOT- TALL CHAIN LINK FENCE, BASED ON THE FINDINGS-OF-FACT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Page 803 of 935 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES 1.THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GRANTS APPROVAL TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EIGHT-FOOT-TALL SECURITY FENCE WITH TWO ACCESS GATES TO ENCLOSE A PORTION OF THE PARKING AND LOADING AREA AT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE APPROVAL OF THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DOES NOT GRANT APPROVAL FOR ANY ACCESSORY OUTDOOR STORAGE OPERATIONS. 2.THE APPLICANT/OWNER MUST OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED CITY PERMITS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO A FENCE PERMIT AND A BUILDING PERMIT. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 5, 2026 meeting. Page 804 of 935 Planning Commission Meeting Date: July 28, 2026 Agenda Item: CASE No. 2026-11 Conditional Use Permit Application of Equity Transwestern LLC (on behalf of Chadwell Supply) for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an 8-ft security fence at the property located at 1500 Commerce Drive Department: Community Development Contact: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Action Request: The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit request. The role of the Planning Commission is to consider this application for consistency with the City's Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Action Deadline: 8/28/2026 Introduction: Equity Transwestern, the property manager of Commerce Logistics Center, has submitted an application for Conditional Use Permit on behalf of an incoming tenant, Chadwell Supply, for a new 8-ft security fence which would enclose a portion of the rear loading and parking area at 1500 Commerce Drive. The fence would be vinyl-coated chain link with two access gates. The construction of a fence greater than 6-ft in height requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the I-Industrial zoning district. A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to all properties within 350-feet of the subject property. The city has not received any comments or objections to this land use request as of the submittal of this report. Background: The subject property is located near the intersection of Pilot Knob Road and Highway 13, east of Sibley Memorial Highway and west of and fronting on Commerce Drive. The site contains two access points off of Commerce Drive and was newly constructed in 2023. The subject site and the surrounding properties to the north, south, and east are zoned and guided for Industrial development. To the west of this property across Sibley Memorial Highway is Big Rivers Regional Trail, Gun Club Lake and land guided State Park (part of Fort Snelling State Park). The proposed fence is intended to serve the incoming tenant, Chadwell Supply, for security of business vehicles used in the tenant’s daily operations. The use of an 8-ft security fence to enclose a portion of the rear loading and parking area is permitted by CUP under Section 12- 44A-10: Fences of the City Code, which specifically notes that certain fences require a CUP, Page 805 of 935 including fences over 6-ft in height or fences with a security arm in Business and Industrial zoning districts. Proposed Improvements: The south area of the rear loading and parking area is illustrated to be enclosed by a new 8-ft black chain link fence on the provided Site Plan (attached to this report). The north entrance to this area will be accessible by a 24-ft wide rolling black chain link gate, and the southeast exit will be accessible by a new 18-ft wide cantilevered black chain link gate. The fence company has provided elevations of the proposed materials, indicating that the posts will be set in concrete the fence materials will be black vinyl-coated chain link. The fence will be installed just outside the boundaries of the parking/loading area, entirely on the subject property. There are no proposed changes to the existing parking lot lighting or the existing perimeter landscaping surrounding the parking lot area. There will be no increase in the amount of impervious surface on the property. The area of connection for the fence and north entrance gate will cross one commercial truck parking stall. Despite this impact, there are no issues with minimum parking counts for the facility, and the property manager has affirmed that the fenced-in area is not proposed for the use of outdoor storage of equipment or materials for the incoming tenant. Analysis: Per Title 12-Zoning, Section 12-4A10: Fences, any fences over 6-ft in height in Business and Industrial Districts require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The City may grant a conditional use provided the proposed use demonstrates the following: a.Use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, b.Use will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, c.Use will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value, and Page 806 of 935 d.Use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan. a-c) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards; nor depreciate surrounding property value. Staff Response: Staff affirms that the use will not have any negative impacts or effect upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants (of the Commerce Logistics Center) or surrounding land uses; nor will the use be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community. Moreover, the fence and access gates will provide an amenity of security for business vehicles associated with the incoming tenant’s general use of the property. The City’s Fire Marshall has been made aware of the proposed gate access and will incorporate this information into the Fire Department’s pre-plans for any fire access needs. There are no issues anticipated with Fire Code requirements. d) The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in conflict on an on-going basis. Staff Response: The subject property is guided I-Industrial in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 2: Land Use and Growth of the Plan provides the following goal statement: •Goal 3: Encourage and support industrial and commercial development in designated areas. Additionally, Chapter 6: Economic Development of the Plan provides the following goal and policy statements: •Goal 1: Promote Economic Development in Mendota Heights through a comprehensive approach to meeting business needs. o Policy 2. Retain the present industrial and commercial base and encourage companies with their expansion needs where appropriate. o Policy 3. Attract quality businesses consistent with the city’s target market to areas available for development. o Policy 7: Foster private investment and economic activity without compromising community objectives to maintain and enhance Mendota Heights’ environment. •Goal 2: Promote business attraction, retention, and expansion In Mendota Heights. Policies •Goal 5: Continue to develop business and industrial park areas that provide jobs and serve the local and regional economy. o Policy 3: Continue to provide and enforce standards for industrial developments Page 807 of 935 that improve the appearance and character of industrial properties. Staff believes the proposed project is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan that encourages investment within the industrial areas. The proposed fence and security access gates will provide a benefit to the incoming tenant, Chadwell Supply. The leasing of space within this newly constructed industrial facility within the City is a positive impact to the community at large. This 8-ft fence height is permitted by Conditional Use Permit in the I-Industrial zoning district, and security fences are a common component of professional business/industrial environments. This improvement is compatible with the spirit and intent of the Industrial Zoning District and provides an investment at the new industrial site. Alternatives: 1.Recommend Approval of the Conditional Use Permit for 1500 Commerce Drive based on certain findings-of-fact, along with specific conditions of approval; or 2.Recommend Denial of the Conditional Use Permit for 1500 Commerce Drive based on revised findings-of-fact supporting such a recommendation as determined by the Planning Commission; or 3.Table the request and request more information from staff and/or the applicant. Staff will extend the application review period an additional 60-days, pursuant to MN State Statute 15.99. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit to Equity Transwestern (o/b/o Chadwell Supply) and for the property located at 1500 Commerce Drive, which would allow the construction of an 8-ft tall chain link fence, based on the attached findings-of-fact and subject to the following conditions: 1.This Conditional Use Permit grants approval to allow the construction of an 8-ft tall security fence with two access gates to enclose a portion of the parking and loading area at the subject property. The approval of this Conditional Use Permit does not grant approval for any accessory outdoor storage operations. 2.The Applicant/Owner must obtain all required City permits, including but not limited to a Fence Permit and a Building Permit. Attachments: 1.Findings of Fact 2.Site Location Map 3.Letter of Intent 4.Site Plan - A1.1 5.Fence Elevations Page 808 of 935 Planning Case 2026-11 (1500 Commerce Drive – Equity Transwestern/Chadwell Supply) FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit for 1500 Commerce Drive Planning Case No. 2026-11 1.The construction of a fence greater than 6-ft in height is allowed by Conditional Use Permit in the I-Industrial zoning district. 2.The existing industrial business use is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance for property in the I-Industrial district. 3.The proposed fence is an accessory use to the principal industrial business use of the property and the approval of this Conditional Use Permit does not grant approval for any accessory outdoor storage operations. 4.The proposed improvements will not impact the availability of parking for the existing multi-tenant building and there will not be negative impacts to traffic flow on the surrounding road network. 5.The proposed fence and gate improvements will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor cause any serious traffic congestion or hazards, nor depreciate surrounding property values. Page 809 of 935 66666666666666666666 66 6666666666666 6 6 6 6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 666 666666666 6666 666 66666 66666 66666 6666 6 6 666 666 666 666666666 6 6 6 ³ " ³!!! " ! ³ ³ * * ³ ! !* "³ ³ ³!! * ! ! ! * * ! ! ! * " " "" "" ³³³ !"" " !" ! * " " " ³ * ³ " * * * * * * * * * * * "³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³³ ³³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ " """"* ³ ³ "** ³³" " ! ³* * ³ * !* ³ " ³ ³ ³ " " " " " " " " ³³ ³" " ³ " ³ " ³66 6 66666666666666666!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !. !!2 !. !. 1500 1520 1475 1395 1460 1400 2229 2359 2351 2359HIGHWAY 13SIB LEY MEMOR IA L HWY C O M M E R C E D R LEMAY AVE PILOT KNOB RDHIGHWAY 13Dakota County, MN Site Location/Aerial Map1500 Commerce Drive Date: 7/15/2026 City ofMendotaHeights0250 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 810 of 935 Page 811 of 935 PROJECT NOTES ARCHITECnJRAL 1.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PROJECT NOTES: •CONTRACTOR• SHALL MEAN; GENERAL CONTRACTOR, CONTRACTOR, AND SUBCONTRACTOR. 2.THE CONTRACT DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS REPRESENT THE FINISHED PROJECT. UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, THEY DO NOT INDICATE THE MEANS OR METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION. 3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL WORK AND MATERIALS AS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND IN FULL ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND ORDINANCES. 4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING DIMENSIONS AND FIELD CONDITIONS PRIOR TO ANY DEMOLITION, FABRICATION, CONSTRUCTION OR INSTALLATION AND NOTIFY ARCHITECT IF CONDITIONS, MATERIALS, SIZES AND DIMENSIONS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE SHOWN. 5.CROSS REFERENCE ALL DIMENSIONS AND DETAILS WITH STRUCTURAL, CIVIL, MECHANICAL, AND ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS BEFORE COMMENCING ANY FABRICATION AND/OR CONSTRUCTION. DEFER TO SPECIFIC STRUCTURAL, CIVIL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL PLANS AND DETAILS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. 6.CONTRACTORS SHALL INSTALL ALL MANUFACTURED ITEMS, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATIONS, EXCEPT WHERE THE SPECIFICATIONS HEREIN, ARE MORE STRINGENT, AND SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH. 7.MATERIALS WHICH ARE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND WHICH MAY NOT BE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS OR DRAWINGS, SHALL BE FURNISHED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE SUITABLE FOR THE INTENDED USE. MATERIALS SHALL BE IN HARMONY WITH ADJACENT MATERIALS, AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE INTENT OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. WHERE INSTALLATION TECHNIQUES ARE NOT SPECIFIED, THEY SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S CURRENT INSTRUCTION AND INDUSTRY STANDARDS. 8.SHOP DRAWINGS PREPARED BY SUPPLIERS, CONTRACTORS, ETC. SHALL BE REVIEWED. COORDINATED AND SIGNED AND STAMPED BY CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO SUBMITTING TO THE ARCHITECT/ENGINEER. DIGITAL SUBMITTALS ARE REQUIRED (PDF). 9.ALL WORK PROCEDURES AND MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND CODES. CONTRACTORS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS REQUIRED. 10.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SECURE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS, LICENSES AND CERTIFICATES AND PAY ALL FEES CONNECTED THEREWITH THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT. 11.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO PREPARE ALL SURFACES FOR PROPER INSTALLATION OF FINISHES. THIS IS TO INCLUDE, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO: PATCHING, SANDING, FLOOR LEVELING, PRIMING, SEALING, SKIM COATING, ETC. 12.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL AT ALL TIMES KEEP THE PREMISES FREE FROM WASTE MATERIAL OR RUBBISH CAUSED BY THE WORK. 13.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE AND VERIFY WITH THE RESPECTIVE TRADES THE SIZES AND LOCATIONS OF MECHANICAL AND/OR ELECTRICAL PENETRATIONS, LOCATIONS OF FIRE TREATED BACKING/BLOCKING REQUIRED FOR MOUNTING ELECTRICAL AND/OR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, AS WELL AS CUTTING AND PATCHING FOR WORK REQUIRED BY MECHANICAUELECTRICAL. 14.WHEN WORK IS COMPLETED IN AN AREA, THOROUGHLY CLEAN THE SPACES, ITEMS & SURFACES OF SOIL, WASTE MATERIAL, SMUDGES, SPATTERS, MISAPPLIED MATERIAL, SPOTS, STAINS, AND THE LIKE, WITHOUT DAMAGING THE MATERIALS AND SURFACES INVOLVED. 15.PROVIDE SEMI RECESSED FIRE EXTINGUISHERS AS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE CODES AND ORDINANCES UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 16.COORDINATE LOCATION OF BLOCKING AS MAY BE REQUIRED FOR ITEMS INDICATED TO BE PROVIDED UNDER TH IS CONTRACT AS WELL AS FOR OWNER PROVIDED ITEMS. 17.ALL INTERIOR GLASS MUST COMPLY WITH 2020 MSBC CHAPTER 24 FOR DESIGN LOADS AND SAFETY GLAZING. 18.THESE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE A COMPLETE SET OF INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO CONSTRUCT THE BUILDING. CONSTRUCTION MEANS, METHODS, TECHNIQUES, SEQUENCING, PROCEDURES, AND SITE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS ARE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CONTRACTORS. 19.THE CONTRACTORS SHALL ACCEPT THE PROJECT SITE AS IT EXISTS. ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS WHETHER OR NOT SPECIFICALLY NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS SHALL BE VERIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT PROCEED WITH ANY ITEM(S) OF WORK WHICH IS REASONABLY QUESTIONABLE WITHOUT CONSUL TING THE OWNER OR ARCHITECT. 20.STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS: DO NOT CUT ANY STRUCTURAL ELEMENT WITHOUT OBTAINING WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE ARCHITECT/ENGINEER. FINISHES 1. THE SUBCONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING LEAD TIMES OF ALL MATERIALS SUCH THAT MATERIALS ARE ON SITE WHEN REQUIRED FOR INSTALLATION. 2.ALL PREPARATION, STORING, INSTALLATION AND CLEANUP OF FINISHES TO CONFORM TO MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. MECHANICAL 1.THE MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR IS TO DESIGN ALL MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AND OBTAIN NECESSARY PERMITS. MECHANICAL DOCUMENTS ARE TO BE PROVIDED BY THE MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR AND SIGNED BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AS REQUIRED BY CODE. THE MECHANICAL DESIGN IS TO BE COORDINATED WITH THE ATTACHED ARCHITECTURAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. THE DESIGN IS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE ARCHITECT AND OWNER PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION. 2. THE MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND CONTROLS TO COMPLETE THE JOB. THE MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR IS TO COORDINATE WITH THE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR ALL THE NECESSARY WIRING TO COMPLETE THE JOB. THE WIRING IS TO BE COMPLETED BY THE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR. 3.THE HVAC CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR BALANCING AND ENSURING AN EFFICIENT SYSTEM. 4.THE FIRE PROTECTION CONTRACTOR SHALL DESIGN, SUPPLY AND INSTALL THE AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSlEM TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEW WORK AND AS REQUIRED BY CURRENT CODES AND STANDARDS. 5.MATCH EXISTING SPRINKLER HEADS AND TRIM RING AT ALL CEILING AREAS AS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE CODES AND ORDINANCES. 6.VERIFY LOCATION AND SIZES OF ALL OPENINGS WITH CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO CUT AND PATCH OR ADD STRUCTURAL REINFORCING AS REQUIRED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF MECHANICAL ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT. ELECTRICAL 1. THE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR IS TO DESIGN ALL ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS AND OBTAIN NECESSARY PERMITS. THE ELECTRICAL DESIGN IS TO BE COORDINATED WITH THE ATTACHED ARCHITECTURAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. THE ELECTRICAL DESIGN IS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE ARCHITECT AND OWNER PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION. 2. THE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR IS TO COORDINATE THE ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION OF ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND TO PROVIDE DISCONNECT AND POWER WIRING FOR ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. 3.THE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE EXIT AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS AS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE CODES AND ORDINANCES. 4.THE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE SMOKE DETECTION, ALARM DEVICES, FIRE ALARM SYSTEM AND WIRING OF THE SPACE AS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE CODES AND ORDINANCES FOR THE INTERIOR BUILD-OUT SPACE. 5.THE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL JUNCTION BOXES WITH PULL STRING FOR ALL VOICE / DATA AND PHONE LOCATIONS. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL LOW VOLTAGE CABLING AND COVER PLATES AS REQUIRED. COORDINATE WITH OWNER. 6.THE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN (WHEN PROVIDED) IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY REGARDING LOCATION, QUANTITIES, AND/OR TYPES OF LIGHT FIXTURES. THE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN REFERENCES LIGHT FIXTURES, HOWEVER THE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY THE FIXTURE TYPE, APPROPRIATE FOOT-CANDLES AND VOLTAGE REQUIREMENTS OF ALL SPECIFIED LIGHT FIXnJRES IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE SPECIFIC SITE CONDITIONS AND PROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ORDERING OR INSTALLATION OF ANY FIXTURES. SITE REMODELIN G KEY NOTES @ NEW 8'-0" HIGH, BLACK CHAIN LINK FENCE.@) NEW 24'-0" WIDE ROLLING BLACK CHAIN LINK GATE.@) NEW 20'-0" WIDE CANTILEVERED BL.ACK CHAIN LINK GATE. -- \ � \ \ ---- RETENTION POND I I I I \ \\ I I I I I I I I \ I I . \ C I C \• I I -- I " " I SIBLEY MEMOR IAL HIGHWAY BITUMINOUS P.O.TI-! -------------------------------- ' I C ) ��======'------------=--/....._. _l__L_L_L_LJ_L_l_J_l_l____l_LLl__l_LL_L_LLil_L_l__l_l_l____l_LLl__l_LL_L__L_L_�-.. ----< --, ,.,,,�� ... �.' ... ,--------,,,,,, ·--" ,,,,, (§ "--�c--t-t-t-t-11111---t-t-t-t-l I I I c--t-t-t-t-11111---t-t-t-t---11111 [-� EXBl1N8 aJUJIN8 I -...... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I/ --� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r \ I 1_1 [S31'26"4S"E] COMMERCE DRIVE SITE PLAN N.T.S. )I I I -- ------ / / I I I I I Wolfs Drafting & Design 8214 Aberdeen Trail Northfield, MN 55057 (612)363-2204 nwolf803@wisn.com Michael Monn Architects 7933 GRINNELL WAY LAKEVILLE, MN 55044-9060 P (612) 247-5406 E mike®michaelmonnarchitects.corn PROPERTY MANAGER lilTRANSWESTERN° The Pemxmsnce Mw,m,,ge In Real £al:Gte 3775 NORTH DUNLAP ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112 (651)481-8070(651)481-0830 FAX lcoMMERCIAL REAL EST ATE I REVISIONS £, 01/15126 � 01/16/26 � 01/28/26 & 02/19/26-02120/26 � 03/10/26 ©2025 Wolfs Drafting & DesignAll rights reserved. THIS DOCUMENT IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND IS THE PROPERTY OF WOLFS DRAFTING & DESIGN AND MAY NOT BE USED OR REPRODUCED z 0 5 U: I;;; w(.) 0::: 0 LL z <( ...J a.. 0::: 0 0 ...J LL 0 UJ Cl) 0 a.. 0 0:::a.. WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. •E! '--0 e 'i i£ 0 ! " •' £0 ' 0' 0 :� !' 0 • 0 •., , • • - 0 0 "• • -� " ' " ' ' � ii ti., " w • • c " I -' ' , �I " -0 f ; " E 'I t ' � �" 0 ! ! � w' , z • 0 ! " z I ,0 ' ).. ..... -ii J! ti ADA DET AILS/ "'"' 1! N �� N C C 0 "'••·" "' z � -- Cl Q) I Cll -0 "C C Q) � - Q) >·c::0 Q) t) ... Q) E E 0 (.) 0 0 .... CODE AN ALYSIS/ PROJECT LOCATION DATE 04/12/26 A1 .1 PROJECT NO. 25090 18ft Rolling Gate 18'-0" 24ft Rolling Gate Page 812 of 935 Page 813 of 935 Page 814 of 935 Page 815 of 935 9.d REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2026-50 Approving a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment/Final Development Plan for updates to freestanding signage and signage Design Guidelines within the Mendota Plaza PUD located at 750 North Plaza Drive [Planning Case No. 2026-12] ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager ACTION REQUEST: Adopt Resolution 2026-50 Approving a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment/Final Development Plan for updates to freestanding signage and signage Design Guidelines within the Mendota Plaza PUD located at 750 North Plaza Drive. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Indigo Signs, is seeking a Planned Unit Development Amendment 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. The proposed amendment may be considered minor in nature, however the full amendment process includes a Concept Review, a Preliminary Development Plan, and a Final Development Plan. The ordinance does permit the filing of a Final Development Plan in lieu of a Preliminary Development Plan if all required submission materials are included. Because this amendment request does not include civil drawings or exterior site work, staff has suggested to the applicant that the Preliminary Development Plan and Final Development Plan be combined as one step. The submitted amendment is consistent with the requirements of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance. The Applicant would like to modify the Planned Unit Development to allow for an increase in signage allowances for the Area Identification Signs for the subject property. The request is to Page 816 of 935 add language into the Planned Unit Development to increase the maximum height of a 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 owned by Mendota Mall Associates/Paster Properties 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. The applicant has also submitted specific language requests to be included in the Development Agreement for the tenth amendment to his PUD, if approved. The applicant is proposing general standards for dynamic display signs relating to the image contents, requiring messages displayed to be static and maintained for 15 minutes at a time, for transitions to be instantaneous and not animated, and providing size guidelines for this type of sign component for visibility depending on the speeds of adjacent roadways. The applicant has also included proposed language for brightness standards with a provision noting a City non-compliance notice process and the opportunity for appeal. The Planning Commission met during their regular meeting on July 28, 2026, to hold a public hearing on this application request. A planning report was presented, and no residents came forward to speak regarding this application. The applicant and a representative from the property owner were available to answer questions of the Commission. The Planning Commission discussed the proposed language for the Design Guidelines within the PUD, and had concerns with the language relating to enforcement of the standards for the digital display signs. Staff addressed those comments and has suggested an amendment to the clause (g) under the general standards in order to alleviate those concerns and provide standard language that does not put an unreasonable enforcement burden on the City if there are electronic sign malfunctions in the future. The applicant noted that these general standards for themselves to follow and commit to, and the intention was not to add enforcement duties to the City for the regulation of their signage. The red-lined language is included as an attachment to this report. A copy of the 7/28/2026 planning report with attachments is attached to this memo. As noted in the attachment, staff had recommended approval of this application request. Following their discussion, the Planning Commission agreed with the staff recommendation and voted 4-1 (Goldade opposed) to recommend to the City Council approval of this Planned Unit Development Amendment with findings-of-fact and certain conditions, as outlined in the attached [draft] Resolution. The City Council is asked to affirm the Planning Commission's recommendation by adopting Resolution 2026-50 Approving this Planned Unit Development Amendment Final Development Plan for updates to signage within the Mendota Plaza PUD at 750 North Plaza Drive. If approved by the City Council, staff will work with the applicant to draft and execute the Development Agreement/Tenth Amendment to the Mendota Plaza PUD in mid-August to September. This Agreement would be scheduled on a City Council Consent Agenda at a future Page 817 of 935 meeting. Once recorded, the applicant would be able to begin work with an issued building permit by the City. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Resolution 2026-50 Resolution Approving a Final Development Plan - Amendment to the Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development for the Property Located N 2.Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes 7-28-26 3.Planning Commission Staff Report 7-28-26 4.Mendota Heights PUD Proposed Electronic Changeable Code Language - Staff redline CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy Page 818 of 935 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2026-50 RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - AMENDMENT TO THE MENDOTA PLAZA PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 750 NORTH PLAZA DRIVE [PLANNING CASE NO. 2026-12] WHEREAS Indigo Signs (or “Applicant”) in cooperation with Mendota Mall Associates LLP (Mendota Plaza/Paster Properties and as “Owner”) has applied for a Planned Unit Development - Final Development Plan to amend the 2009 Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development (PUD), as proposed under Planning Case 2026-12 for Area Identification Sign Improvements (“Project”) for the property located at 750 North Plaza Drive and legally described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Final Development Plan to amend the PUD as presented herein would authorize an increase in signage allowances for the Area Identification Signs and add language to the PUD Design Guidelines to regulate electronic message centers and digital display signs within the development; and WHEREAS, the subject property is guided MU-Mixed Use in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and is situated in the MU-Mixed Use Zoning District and PUD-Planned Unit Development Overlay District; and WHEREAS, on April 21, 2009, the City Council approved the Planned Unit Development for Mendota Plaza; and WHEREAS, Title 12-5B-8: Planned Unit Development outlines procedural steps for the amendment of a Planned Unit Development and the Applicant has submitted the request for a Final Development Plan in lieu of a Preliminary Development Plan, and requested a Planned Unit Development Amendment in accordance with the zoning ordinance; and WHEREAS, on July 28, 2026, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment and Final Development Plan application, whereby a planning report was presented and received by the Commission, and comments from the applicant and public were allowed, and whereupon closing the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended by a 4-1 vote to approve the Planned Unit Development Amendment with certain conditions and findings-of-fact to support said approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Planned Unit Development - Final Development Plan to amend the Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development as proposed under Planning Case 2026-12, is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: Page 819 of 935 Res. No. 2026-50 Page 2 of 4 1.The Applicant has submitted the Final Development Plan in-lieu of the Preliminary Development Plan within six months of the Planning Commission and City Council’s review of the Concept Plan for this Planned Unit Development Amendment. 2.The proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment is consistent with the requirements of the Planned Unit Development section of the City’s zoning ordinance and is compatible with the existing Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development. 3.The proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment – Final Development Plan is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and applicable City Code requirements for a planned development in the MU-Mixed Use Zoning District and MU-Mixed Use Land Use category. 4.The deviations of the Planned Unit Development Amendment include: a.To allow an increase in signage area for Pylon 1 (southeast corner of Dodd Road and North Plaza Drive; Lot 2, Block 1, Mendota Plaza Expansion) from 180- square feet to 207-square feet. b.To allow the inclusion of 55-square feet of a digital display unit within Pylon 1. c.To allow an increase in height for Pylon 2 (south of MN Highway 62 and north of North Plaza Drive; Outlot A, Mendota Plaza Expansion) from 41-feet in height to 45-ft in height. d.To allow an increase in signage area for Pylon 2 from 350-square feet to 375- square feet. 5.The application request utilizes the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning flexibility to enhance development of the property without negatively impacting surrounding land uses and natural resources. 6.The increase in freestanding pylon signage height and area, and inclusion of an electronic sign component, does not pose any threat to the general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding properties nor does it diminish the usefulness of the planned development of this property. 7.The updated language proposed for the signage provisions of the Design Guidelines for this PUD as part of this PUD Amendment request are reasonable for the implementation and enforcement of said guidelines within Mendota Plaza. 8.The proposed updates to the freestanding pylon signage will enhance the Area Identification Signage within the PUD and will provide consistency with other freestanding signage within the development. 9.With the conditions included herein, the signage improvements will provide a continued investment into the valued retail and commercial area of the City and will Page 820 of 935 Res. No. 2026-50 Page 3 of 4 assist with the attraction and retention of high-value tenants to the shopping center at Mendota Plaza. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Planned Unit Development - Final Development Plan to amend the Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development as proposed under Planning Case 2026-12, is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1.The Applicant/Owner shall enter into an amended Development Agreement known as the Tenth Amendment to the Planned Unit Development Agreement with the City of Mendota Heights. 2.The Applicant/Owner must obtain all required City permits, including but not limited to a Sign Permit and a Building Permit. 3.The Applicant shall submit final architectural construction drawings and engineered drawings for the height of the proposed signage improvements for permitting, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department and Building Official as part of any building permit application. 4.No Building Permits will be issued until the Applicant provides evidence to the City of the recording of the Tenth Amendment to the Planned Unit Development Agreement. 5.Following any disturbance associated with the signage improvements, all landscaped areas surrounding the existing freestanding signs shall be returned to prior landscaped conditions consistent with the Master Site Plan for the Planned Unit Development, and the Planned Unit Development Design Guidelines. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of August, 2026. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST ________________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 821 of 935 Res. No. 2026-50 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT A Legal Description PID No. 27-48401-01-020; 27-48401-00-010 Lot 2, Block 1, MENDOTA PLAZA EXPANSION; and Outlot A, MENDOTA PLAZA EXPANSION All in Dakota County, Minnesota Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Page 822 of 935 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES EXCERPT FROM DRAFT/UNAPPROVED 7/28/26 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES D)PLANNING CASE 2026-12 INDIGO SIGNS (ON BEHALF OF PASTER PROPERTIES/MENDOTA PLAZA ASSOCIATES), 750 NORTH PLAZA DRIVE – PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the applicant, Indigo Signs, is seeking a Planned Unit Development Amendment 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. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350 ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development 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 Johnson asked if staff feels comfortable that this covers the things that may be amended in the future with the signage guidelines. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that she believes that this is comprehensive in terms of the electronic message sign regulations when the City is to draft its own standards. She confirmed that this also addresses the concerns discussed at the last meeting. Commissioner Corbett asked who was involved in drafting those regulations. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that this was drafted by the applicant and staff did not make any changes because they believed it to be sufficient. Commissioner Corbett stated that there are a few things that may be setting the City up, as they would be items that the City could not control. He noted that there are “must” options without recourse defined. He understood the intent in having urgency to respond but was unsure how the City could employ that process. He suggested that those items be removed as the City would not have the ability to enforce (Item G in general standards, and D under brightness standards). He stated that he appreciates the intention but was unsure there was any penalty that could be imposed. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden referenced Item G and explained that is something the applicant has volunteered to do. She stated that the City does have enforcement Page 823 of 935 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES efforts, but agreed that a one-hour response time is not something the City would have in a Code enforcement letter. Commissioner Johnson stated that she reads that as a statement from the applicant that they would manage and operate their equipment properly and promptly. She stated that it would be up to the City as to how that could be enforced. Commissioner Corbett agreed that it is a great intention from the applicant, but the City would not have the ability to enforce that. Commissioner Johnson stated that if that issue were realized, staff could make a call to the applicant and ask them to address it. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden asked if Commissioner Corbett would be more comfortable if language were included that mentions it in relation to the Code enforcement process rather than a period of one hour. Commissioner Goldade stated that overall the update to the signs is a great idea. He commented that he previously had concerns with the electronic message center sign, but it was explained that those panels would be used to advertise businesses and would be easily changeable as tenants change. He stated that when the message is shown stating “happy holidays”, that changes the intent of the electronic sign and then seems inconsistent with requests from other businesses for signs of that nature that have been denied. He believed that the electronic message center should only be used to advertise the businesses that are there. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that the applicant mentioned that the intention of showing the graphics as options was to show what the product can do, but the City cannot control the content of a sign. She stated that the City can regulate the timing, brightness, and lack of animation. She referenced item “d” of the brightness standards and stated that the City does have the ability to borrow equipment to measure brightness. She stated that although lighting violations are rare, the timeline is immediate and therefore that is an accurate standard. She understood the concerns with item “g” of the general standards. Commissioner Corbett stated that he understands the intent but does not want to put the City in a position to fail in terms of enforcement. He asked how enforcement of that item would be handled if there were a violation. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden described the City’s general enforcement process. Commissioner Corbett believed that there were options to modify that language to better fit with the actual enforcement process. Chair Field asked for input from staff on potential language modification. Page 824 of 935 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that they could state that the sign owner must stop the dynamic display until repaired following notification of noncompliance by the City. She noted that the exact language does not need to be determined tonight, as that is language that would be found within the Development Agreement. Commissioner Corbett asked and received confirmation that the only modifications being proposed as this tenth amendment are related to signage. Chair Field invited the applicant to address the Commission. Brian O’Loughlin, Indigo Signs, and Mike Sturdivant, Paster Properties, introduced themselves. Mr. Sturdivant commented that he feels that they could work with staff to develop language that would fit the request of the Commission for G. Mr. O’Loughlin stated that one of the conversations they had with City staff was to help develop this language. He commented that language of this nature is used by multiple municipalities and they attempted to tailor it to fit the needs of Mendota Heights. He agreed that the language could be amended as discussed. Commissioner Johnson stated that they are trying to avoid the use of “best efforts” or “good faith” and suggested following the recommendation of City staff. Mr. O’Loughlin commented that the electronic portions of the sign can be turned off remotely and if for some reason that could not happen, a technician would be dispatched to turn the sign off manually. He agreed that one hour could be problematic and agreed to work with staff to develop better language for that item. Commissioner Corbett thanked the applicants for taking the step to draft this language and address the concerns specified at the concept review. 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 STONE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Stone stated that he hopes that the happy holidays could be included, as he likes seeing that type of messaging. COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO Page 825 of 935 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES THE MENDOTA PLAZA PUD AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR UPDATES TO FREESTANDING SIGNAGE AND SIGNAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES, BASED ON THE FINDINGS-OF-FACT, AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.THE APPLICANT/OWNER SHALL ENTER INTO AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT KNOWN AS THE TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS. 2.THE APPLICANT/OWNER MUST OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED CITY PERMITS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO A SIGN PERMIT AND A BUILDING PERMIT. 3.THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT FINAL ARCHITECTURAL CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND ENGINEERED DRAWINGS FOR THE HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR PERMITTING, SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND BUILDING OFFICIAL AS PART OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. 4.NO BUILDING PERMITS WILL BE ISSUED UNTIL THE APPLICANT PROVIDES EVIDENCE TO THE CITY OF THE RECORDING OF THE TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. 5.FOLLOWING ANY DISTURBANCE ASSOCIATED WITH THE SIGNAGE IMPROVEMENTS, ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS SURROUNDING THE EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGNS SHALL BE RETURNED TO PRIOR LANDSCAPED CONDITIONS CONSISTENT WITH THE MASTER SITE PLAN FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DESIGN GUIDELINES. Further discussion: Commissioner Stone asked if a condition would need to be added to address the concerns of the electronic message standards. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that a condition is not required and noted that she could draft alternate language to be considered by the City Council. Chair Field asked if there should be something stating that the Commission requested staff to work with the applicant on G and D. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that she feels the direction will be clear within the minutes. AYES: 4 NAYS: 1 (Goldade) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 5, 2026 meeting. Page 826 of 935 Planning Commission Meeting Date: July 28, 2026 Agenda Item: CASE No. 2026-12 Planned Unit Development Amendment Application of Indigo Signs (on behalf of Paster Properties/Mendota Plaza Associates) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to the Mendota Plaza PUD and Final Development Plan for updates to freestanding signage and signage Design Guidelines located at 750 North Plaza Drive Department: Community Development Contact: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Action Request: The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing on the Planned Unit Development Amendment request. The role of the Planning Commission is to consider this application for consistency with the City's Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, as well as compatibility with the existing Planned Unit Development. Action Deadline: 8/31/2026 Introduction: The applicant, Indigo Signs, is seeking a Planned Unit Development Amendment 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 started with a Concept Plan Review, which was submitted to the City and reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 26th and the City Council on June 2nd earlier this year. A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to all properties within 350-feet of the subject property. The city has not received any comments or objections to this land use request as of the submittal of this report. Background: The subject site is known as Mendota Plaza and is located at 750 North Plaza Drive. The shopping center was originally constructed in 1970, and Mendota Mall Associates has had ownership and control over the property since 1986. Beginning as early as 2003, the property owner approached the City with plans for remodeling the shopping center and expanding the Page 827 of 935 development with new buildings and a mix of land uses. These early concept plans transformed into the Planned Unit Development zoning request which was submitted in 2008 and executed by the first Development Contract/Planned Unit Development Agreement in 2009. Throughout the continued development of the shopping center and surrounding out- parcels, the Planned Unit Development has been amended nine times since its inception in 2009. 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/land use 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 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 Page 828 of 935 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. 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 pylon 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 physical changes to the Planned Unit Development. Updates from Concept Plan Submittal: Following the Concept Plan Review discussion at the Planning Commission on May 26th, and at the City Council on June 2nd, the applicant discussed their proposal with staff and made some aesthetic changs to the freestanding sign proposal. Some of the comments received at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings included a request to paint the underside of the top panel black as opposed to white, to be more compatible with the pylon sign adjacent to Highway 62. The applicant has updated their sign elevation graphics to address this comment. Page 829 of 935 The Planning Commission and City Council also requested additional information on the specific operational details of the electronic messaging center which is proposed to be included on the pylon at the intersection of North Plaza Drive and Dodd Road. The applicant has stated in their narrative letter their commitment to certain operational conditions on the sign, including: •Static messages only, with no animation, scrolling, flashing, video, or rapid transitions. •A slow message rotation cadence, with messages changing infrequently rather than on a rapid cycle. •Brightness controls and automatic dimming technology to ensure the sign responds appropriately to ambient light conditions. •Reasonable evening brightness standards and, if appropriate, limitations on hours or message intensity. •Content limited to on-site tenant identification, shopping center announcements, and occasional community-oriented messaging. •No off-premise advertising. •A commitment to maintain the sign in a clean, safe, attractive, and fully operational condition. •Coordination with City staff on final design, dimensions, brightness, message duration, and technical specifications. The applicant has also submitted specific language requests to be included in the Development Agreement for the tenth amendment to his PUD, if approved. The applicant is proposing general standards for dynamic display signs relating to the image contents, requiring messages displayed to be static and maintained for 15 minutes at a time, for transitions to be instantaneous and not animated, and providing size guidelines for this type of sign component for visibility depending on the speeds of adjacent roadways. The applicant has also included proposed language for brightness standards with a provision noting a City non-compliance notice process and the opportunity for appeal. The proposed language has been included as an attachment to this report, “Mendota Heights PUD Electronic Changeable Code Language”. Staff does not have concerns with the language as proposed. It was a request of the Planning Commission and City Council for the electronic messaging center design standards to be consistent with other types of uses in the City Code. The zoning ordinance does reference electronic messaging components for certain uses and districts, such as fuel stations, and P/SP-O uses. The sign ordinance which applies to all base zoning districts does not provide specific regulations for electronic signs, except for the prohibition on animated signage and flashing images. It is the intent of City Staff to make revisions to the sign ordinance within the next calendar year, as this section was omitted from the Zoning Code Update to allow for a future, more specific, study of best practices. The language which is proposed under this PUD Amendment provides a good foundation for potential language as the City begins that work. Staff finds that the proposed PUD Amendment for the updates to freestanding pylons on the subject property is reasonable for the continued successful operation of Mendota Plaza. With the inclusion of certain conditions of approval, and the incorporation of the proposed language for the PUD’s Design Standards and PUD Development Agreement, staff is supportive of this land use request. Page 830 of 935 Planned Unit Development Standards: The purpose of a Planned Unit Development is to encourage flexibility in the design and development of land while limiting development to a scale that is appropriate to the physical characteristics of the land and surrounding land uses. The flexibility is intended to provide a public or land use benefit, such as the following objectives: 1.Preserve the natural and scenic quality of open areas; or, 2.To facilitate adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; or 3.To encourage a diversity of housing types within a given development; or 4.To permit a mixture of several Zoning District uses within a development project or 5.To permit modification and flexibility from of the strict Zoning District requirements so that a more efficient use of land or design may be employed. When the Preliminary Planned Unit Development was initially approved in 2009, the City Council made Findings of Fact that affirmed that this PUD was consistent with the comprehensive plan of the community, and that this PUD would function as an effective and unified treatment of the development possibilities of the shopping center site. While the Planned Unit Development ordinance language has been amended since that time, the Planned Unit Development creation was found to be consistent with the purpose and intent of City Code and the Comprehensive Plan. As it sits today, the Planned Unit Development as a whole has preserved the scenic quality of adjacent open areas, is served by adequate provision of streets and utilities, continues to provide a variety of housing product types, and functions as a true mixed use site with a diversity of commercial, residential, and office uses, as well as dining opportunities and some employment and business centers. The continued zoning of a Planned Unit Development offers the property owner flexibility from the strict application of the zoning ordinance, with this sign-related amendment proposed in order to allow for an efficient and cohesive design style throughout the development site. Mendota Plaza is guided MU-Mixed Use in the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The intent of this land use category is to allow for mixed-use developments that combine residential, retail, and commercial uses into a coordinated planned development. Chapter 6: Economic Development of the City’s Plan provides the following goal and policy statements which can support approval of this Planned Unit Development Amendment request: •Goal 1: Promote Economic Development in Mendota Heights through a comprehensive approach to meeting business needs. o Policy 2. Retain the present industrial and commercial base and encourage companies with their expansion needs where appropriate. o Policy 7: Foster private investment and economic activity without compromising community objectives to maintain and enhance Mendota Heights’ environment. •Goal 4: Continue to develop and redevelop community commercial areas that serve the whole community. o Policy 1. Provide and support commercial areas to supply convenience goods and services for residents of Mendota Heights. Page 831 of 935 Staff affirms that the proposed project is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan that encourages continued partnership and reinvestment into commercial areas that serve and benefit the community. The flexibility requested by the applicant in their proposal to update the freestanding signs on the subject property would not result in negative impacts on neighboring properties or land uses. The proposed plan is an aesthetic improvement to the Area Identification Signs within the Mendota Plaza and will facilitate continued promotion of the businesses within the center, to attract and retain high- quality tenants that residents and visitors to Mendota Heights enjoy. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance. Staff finds that the signage design standards as requested are reasonable and fitting for the function of the shopping center and will be an attractive update to Mendota Plaza. Next Steps: The applicant completed the Concept Plan review step as required by City Code section 12- 5B-8: Planned Unit Development. For an amendment to the Planned Unit Development, the applicant must submit a Preliminary Development Plan to the City within six months following the concept plan review discussion. The applicant has met this deadline. The ordinance does permit the filing of a Final Development Plan in lieu of a Preliminary Development Plan if all required submission materials are included. Because this amendment request is generally minor and does not include civil drawings or exterior site work, staff has suggested to the applicant that the Preliminary Development Plan and Final Development Plan be combined as one step. Many of the submission requirements for a Preliminary Development Plan refer to aspects of the site planning process that are not applicable to this amendment, because there are no changes to the site except for modifications to signage and modifications to the Development/PUD Agreement. The applicant has submitted information detailing the requested language for the Amendment, and has provided elevations detailing the size and design of the updated freestanding pylon signs. If this request for a PUD Amendment is approved, the applicant has stated a planned development schedule of fabrication and installation within six months of approval of the Planned Unit Development Agreement. The anticipated meeting timeline is to conduct the public hearing at the July 28, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, and upon receiving a recommendation from the Planning Commission, be reviewed by the City Council for final decision at their regular meeting on Wednesday, August 5th. If approved by the City Council, staff will work with the applicant to draft and execute the Development Agreement/Tenth Amendment to the Mendota Plaza PUD in mid- August to September. This Agreement would be scheduled on a City Council Consent Agenda at a future meeting. Once recorded, the applicant would be able to begin work with an issued building permit by the City. Alternatives: 1.Recommend Approval of the Planned Unit Development Amendment and Final Development Plan for Mendota Plaza based on certain findings-of-fact, along with specific conditions of approval; or 2.Recommend Denial of the Planned Unit Development Amendment and Final Development Plan for Mendota Plaza based on revised findings-of-fact supporting such a recommendation as determined by the Planning Commission; or 3.Table the request and request more information from staff and/or the applicant. Staff will extend the application review period an additional 60-days, pursuant to MN State Page 832 of 935 Statute 15.99. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Planned Unit Development Amendment to the Mendota Plaza PUD and Final Development Plan for updates to freestanding signage and signage Design Guidelines, based on the attached findings-of-fact and subject to the following conditions: 1.The Applicant/Owner shall enter into an amended Development Agreement known as the Tenth Amendment to the Planned Unit Development Agreement with the City of Mendota Heights. 2.The Applicant/Owner must obtain all required City permits, including but not limited to a Sign Permit and a Building Permit. 3.The Applicant shall submit final architectural construction drawings and engineered drawings for the height of the proposed signage improvements for permitting, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department and Building Official as part of any building permit application. 4.No Building Permits will be issued until the Applicant provides evidence to the City of the recording of the Tenth Amendment to the Planned Unit Development Agreement. 5.Following any disturbance associated with the signage improvements, all landscaped areas surrounding the existing freestanding signs shall be returned to prior landscaped conditions consistent with the Master Site Plan for the Planned Unit Development, and the Planned Unit Development Design Guidelines. Attachments: 1.Findings of Fact 2.Site Location Map 3.Project Narrative 4.Certificate of Survey 5.Site Aerial - Area Identification Signs 6.Proposed Signage Elevations 7.PUD Agreement - Exhibit H Design Standards 8.Mendota Heights PUD Proposed Electronic Changeable Code Language 9.Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes 5-26-26 10.City Council Minutes - 6-2-26 Page 833 of 935 Planning Case 2026-12 (750 N. Plaza Dr. – Mendota Plaza) FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL Planned Unit Development Amendment/Final Development Plan for Mendota Plaza (750 North Plaza Drive) Planning Case No. 2026-12 1.The Applicant has submitted the Final Development Plan in-lieu of the Preliminary Development Plan within six months of the Planning Commission and City Council’s review of the Concept Plan for this Planned Unit Development Amendment. 2.The proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment is consistent with the requirements of the Planned Unit Development section of the City’s zoning ordinance and is compatible with the existing Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development. 3.The proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment – Final Development Plan is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and applicable City Code requirements for a planned development in the MU-Mixed Use Zoning District and MU-Mixed Use Land Use category. 4.The deviations of the Planned Unit Development Amendment include: a.To allow an increase in signage area for Pylon 1 (southeast corner of Dodd Road and North Plaza Drive; Lot 2, Block 1, Mendota Plaza Expansion) from 180-square feet to 207-square feet. b.To allow the inclusion of 55-square feet of a digital display unit within Pylon 1. c.To allow an increase in height for Pylon 2 (south of MN Highway 62 and north of North Plaza Drive; Outlot A, Mendota Plaza Expansion) from 41-feet in height to 45-ft in height. d.To allow an increase in signage area for Pylon 2 from 350-square feet to 375- square feet. 5.The application request utilizes the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning flexibility to enhance development of the property without negatively impacting surrounding land uses and natural resources. 6.The increase in freestanding pylon signage height and area, and inclusion of an electronic sign component, does not pose any threat to the general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding properties nor does it diminish the usefulness of the planned development of this property. 7.The updated language proposed for the signage provisions of the Design Guidelines for this PUD as part of this PUD Amendment request are reasonable for the implementation and enforcement of said guidelines within Mendota Plaza. Page 834 of 935 Planning Case 2026-12 (750 N. Plaza Dr. – Mendota Plaza) Page 2 of 2 8.The proposed updates to the freestanding pylon signage will enhance the Area Identification Signage within the PUD and will provide consistency with other freestanding signage within the development. 9.With the conditions included herein, the signage improvements will provide a continued investment into the valued retail and commercial area of the City and will assist with the attraction and retention of high-value tenants to the shopping center at Mendota Plaza. Page 835 of 935 66 666666 666666666666 6666 66666666666 666 666666666666666666666 6 6666666666666 6 6 6 666 6 66 66 66 66666666 666666666666666 66666 66666666666666666666 6 6 6 6 66 6666666666666666666 6 66!!! !** " "" " " " ³ * * * * " " " ! * "! ³³!!" ³*! "" "" " ³ ! """"!³ ³ ³ " """! ³ ! !* ³ ! ! * * ** " "" " ! ³³ ³ ³ * " " " ³ ³ ³ ³ "³ * * * * *! ! " * * * *! ! "³ ³³" " ³³ ³³³³³ ³ " ³* ! " ³! ³ "! ³" "³ *** " * * ³³³³ ³ ³ ³ ³** ³ *³ ³ ³ ³ *³ ! " "³"! !! "" "" "" * * * ** ³³ ³ ³³ !!* * * ""³ " " ³ "666666 66666666 6 666666666666666 6 !!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 !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !.!. !. !. !. 2069 752 730 804 720 725 7452060 2020 790 750750 790 656 780 750 790800 2121 800 730 2030 759 740 795 765771775779785791 2191 2069 2075 21062121 745 720 DODD RDHIGHWAY 62 MARKET ST SOUTH PLAZA DR NORT H P L A Z A D R MAIN STSOUTH PLAZA WAYHIGHWAY 62 Dakota County, MN Site Location Map750 North Plaza Drive Date: 7/15/2026 City ofMendotaHeights0250 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 836 of 935 To: Sarah Madden, City Planner, City of Mendota Heights From: Mike Sturdivant, Paster Properties Re: Mendota Plaza Shopping Center – Proposed Pylon Sign Renovation and Electronic Message Center (EMC) Panel Date: June 22, 2026 Dear Sarah, As part of our continued reinvestment in Mendota Plaza Shopping Center, we are advancing improvements to the existing pylon signs within the center. The current pylon signs are outdated and no longer reflect the quality, character, or long-term direction of the shopping center. Our goal is to modernize the signage in a tasteful, attractive, and coordinated manner that improves the appearance of the property while also better supporting the businesses that operate within the center. We appreciate the constructive feedback we have received from City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council throughout this process. That feedback has been helpful in refining our approach, and we have worked to integrate those comments into the updated pylon sign designs. Our intent is to deliver signage that is not only more functional for the shopping center, but also more consistent with the City’s expectations for design quality, community character, and traffic safety. A key component of the proposed sign renovation is the potential addition of a modest Electronic Message Center (“EMC”) panel within the overall pylon sign design. We understand that EMC signage can raise reasonable questions regarding aesthetics, traffic distraction, brightness, frequency of message changes, and compatibility with the surrounding area. Our intent is to approach this thoughtfully and collaboratively with City staff so that any EMC component is subordinate to the overall sign design, carefully regulated, and consistent with applicable City standards. Purpose of the Proposed EMC Panel Mendota Plaza Shopping Center includes a mix of anchor tenants, small shop tenants, restaurants, service businesses, and local operators. While larger tenants often have greater visibility through storefront exposure, brand recognition, and dedicated signage opportunities, smaller shop tenants and locally owned businesses typically have fewer ways to communicate their presence to passing traffic. One of the primary purposes of the EMC panel would be to provide these smaller tenants with a fair and practical opportunity to have a presence on the pylon sign without substantially expanding the physical size, number, or clutter of individual tenant panels. This would allow the shopping center to better support local businesses, promote tenant vitality, and help customers understand the full mix of services, restaurants, and retailers located within Mendota Plaza. The intent is not to create a bright, fast-changing, animated, or visually distracting sign. Rather, the EMC would function more like a refined, changeable tenant-identification panel that is incorporated into a professionally designed pylon structure. Page 837 of 935 Reinvestment in Mendota Plaza We are excited about the broader reinvestment occurring at Mendota Plaza. The shopping center continues to serve an important neighborhood and community commercial role in Mendota Heights, and we believe thoughtful investment in the property will help strengthen its long-term vitality. A meaningful part of that momentum is our recent long-term lease with Bricksworth Beer for its third location. Bricksworth is a high-quality local operator, and its commitment to Mendota Plaza reflects the continued strength and potential of the shopping center. This new lease is an important example of the type of tenant investment we are working to attract and support through broader property improvements, including upgraded signage, refreshed exterior presentation, and a stronger overall sense of place. The proposed pylon sign renovation is part of that larger effort. We want the property’s signage to reflect the quality of the tenants in the center, support long-term tenant success, and create a more polished and cohesive first impression for residents, visitors, and customers traveling along Dodd Road. Design Intent and Visual Compatibility Our goal is for the EMC panel to blend into the overall pylon sign design rather than stand out as a separate or overly prominent digital element. We would expect the renovated sign to use high-quality materials, thoughtful proportions, attractive tenant identification, and a cohesive design language that improves the appearance of the existing signage along Dodd Road. The EMC would be sized and located so that it is secondary to the overall sign architecture. The panel would be integrated into the sign face in a way that appears intentional and orderly, rather than as an add-on. Our objective is that everyday traffic would perceive the sign as a tasteful, modernized shopping center sign, not as a billboard or a visually dominant digital display. We have taken seriously the comments received through the public review process and have sought to refine the design so that the EMC component is appropriately scaled, integrated, and compatible with the overall pylon sign concept. Operational Commitments We would be willing to work with City staff on reasonable operational conditions to ensure the EMC is compatible with the area and does not create unnecessary distraction. These could include, but would not be limited to: •Static messages only, with no animation, scrolling, flashing, video, or rapid transitions. •A slow message rotation cadence, with messages changing infrequently rather than on a rapid cycle. •Brightness controls and automatic dimming technology to ensure the sign responds appropriately to ambient light conditions. •Reasonable evening brightness standards and, if appropriate, limitations on hours or message intensity. •Content limited to on-site tenant identification, shopping center announcements, and occasional community-oriented messaging. •No off-premise advertising. •A commitment to maintain the sign in a clean, safe, attractive, and fully operational condition. •Coordination with City staff on final design, dimensions, brightness, message duration, and technical specifications. Page 838 of 935 We believe these types of commitments can address the most common concerns associated with EMC signage while still allowing the shopping center to provide meaningful visibility to its smaller tenants. Public Benefit and Tenant Support Mendota Plaza functions as a neighborhood-serving shopping center, and its long-term success depends on a healthy mix of tenants. The ability to communicate the presence of small businesses is particularly important in a multi-tenant retail environment where not every tenant has equal visibility from Dodd Road. A well-regulated EMC panel would help: • Support small businesses and local tenants. • Improve customer awareness of the tenant mix. • Reduce pressure to add temporary banners, window signs, or other less coordinated signage. • Modernize outdated pylon signage in a more orderly and attractive manner. • Allow the center to occasionally share community-oriented messages in coordination with the City. • Strengthen the long-term vitality of an existing neighborhood commercial property. We believe this approach is consistent with the broader goal of reinvesting in existing commercial properties, supporting local businesses, and keeping neighborhood retail centers attractive, relevant, and economically healthy. Conclusion Paster Properties is committed to improving Mendota Plaza Shopping Center in a manner that is attractive, durable, and respectful of Mendota Heights. The proposed EMC panel is intended to be a modest and tasteful tool to support small shop tenants, improve tenant visibility, and modernize outdated pylon signage — not to create a distracting or overly commercialized sign condition. We appreciate the thoughtful and constructive feedback received from City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council, and we believe the updated design reflects a good-faith effort to respond to that input. We appreciate the City’s continued consideration. Sincerely, Mike Sturdivant Paster Properties Page 839 of 935 101011121417172832343536404141414242STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 110ADODD ROADSOUTH PLAZA DR1540NO BUILDINGSNO BUILDINGS40272710404040161612CONTACT:PASTER PROPERTIESJohn KohlerDirector of Development2227 University Ave. WSt. Paul, MN 55114VICINITY MAPPAS16003SURVPAS03CERTIFICATE OFSURVEYCOUNTY/CITY:REVISIONS:PROJECT LOCATION:Suite #16750 Stillwater Blvd. N.Stillwater, MN 55082Phone 651.275.8969Fax 651.275.8976dan@cssurvey.netDATEREVISIONPROJECT NO.FILE NAMENORTH(NOT TO SCALE)3-17-16 PRELIMINARY ISSUE0NORTH80 1604-04-16 WETLANDS4-18-16 ALTA ISSUE5-31-16 30' ACCESSTHERE ARE 0 VISIBLE PARKING STALLS DESIGNATED ON THIS PARCEL.EXISTING PARKING:THIS PROPERTY LIES WITHIN THE UNPRINTED FEMA FLOOD INSURANCERATE MAP NUMBER 27037C0040E.FLOOD INFORMATION:LEGAL DESCRIPTION:CERTIFICATION:To: At Home Apartments, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company; Mendota Mall Associates -Outlots, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company; Commercial Partners Title, LLC; and OldRepublic National Title Insurance Company: This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey onwhich it is based were made in accordance with the 2016 Minimum Standard Detail Requirementsfor ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and includesItems 1, 2, 3, 4, 7(a), 7(b)(1), 7(c), 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of Table A thereof. The field work wascompleted on March 11, 2016, and APRIL 01, 2016.CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC.Dated: 4-18-16Revised:By :____________________________Daniel L. ThurmesMinnesota License No. 25718The Commercial Partners Title, LLC, as agent for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company,commitment having a file number of 51089 and an effective date of March 8, 2016 as listed on thissurvey was relied upon for matters of record. Other easements may exist that were not shown inthis commitment and are not shown on this survey.TABLE A NOTES:8. SUBSTANTIAL FEATURES OBSERVED IN THE PROCESS OF CONDUCTING THEFIELDWORK ARE SHOWN ON THE SURVEY.16. NO RECENT EARTH MOVING WORK, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, ORBUILDING ADDITIONS WERE OBSERVED IN THE PROCESS OF CONDUCTINGTHE FIELDWORK FOR THIS SURVEY.17. SURVEYOR IS UNAWARE OF ANY PROPOSED CHANGES TO STREET RIGHT OFWAY LINES.18. WETLAND MARKERS PLACED BY A QUALIFIED SPECIALIST WERE OBSERVED INTHE PROCESS OF CONDUCTING THE FIELDWORK AND ARE SHOWN ON THESURVEY.19. PLOTTABLE OFFSITE EASEMENTS OR SERVITUDES DISCLOSED INDOCUMENTS PROVIDED OR OBTAINED BY THE SURVEYOR ARE SHOWN ONSHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS.AREA:(SUBJECT PROPERTY)LOT 3 = 59,249 SQ. FT.LOT 4 = 79,733 SQ. FT.LOT 5 = 56,013 SQ. FT.OUTLOT C = 21,075 SQ. FT.TOTAL AREA = 216,070 SQ.FT./ 4.96 ACRES, MORE OR LESS(OTHER PROPERTY LISTED IN TITLE COMMITMENT)OUTLOT B = 22,334 SQ. FT.OUTLOT D = 15,907 SQ. FT.OUTLOT B AND D AREA = 38,241 SQ.FT./ 0.88 ACRES, MORE OR LESSEASEMENT NOTES:The following survey related exceptions appear on the Commercial Partners Title, LLC, as agent for Old Republic National Title InsuranceCompany, commitment having a file number of 51089 and an effective date of March 8, 2016:10. Easement for drainage ditch and/or storm sewer conduit or culvert, in favor of Village of Mendota Heights, as created in documentdated December 19, 1963, filed February 10, 1964, as Document No. 305366, in Book 76 of Misc., Page 71. (SHOWN ON SURVEY)(AFFECTS SUBJECT PROPERTY)11. Easement for passage of surface water lands for the benefit of lands to the West of premises, as created in document dated April 30,1958, filed June 25, 1958, as Document No. 259733, in Book 265 of Deeds, Page 408. (SHOWN ON SURVEY)12. Restricted access to Highway 110 as shown by Final Certificate dated October 13, 1959, filed November 16, 1959 in Book 72 of Misc.,Page 233 and Quit Claim Deed dated July 19, 2005, filed August 1, 2005, as Document No. 2346152. (SHOWN ON SURVEY)13. Easement for highway purposes, in favor of the State of Minnesota, as created in document dated January 15, 1953, filed March 16,1953, in Book 61 of Misc., Page 504. (DOCUMENT NOT LEGIBLE) (R/W LINE AS SHOWN ON MENDOTA PLAZA EXPANSION SHOWN)14. Restricted access to Highway 110 as shown by Quit Claim Deed dated July 25, 2005, filed September 16, 2005, as Document No.2361485, and Quit Claim Deed dated August 4, 2005, filed September 16, 2005, as Document No. 2361486. (SHOWN ON SURVEY)15. Obtain and record a certified copy of the resolution of the city council of the City of Mendota Heights authorizing the sale of thefollowing property: The Southerly 90 feet of that part of the East-Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 25,Township 28 North, Range 23 West, described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 25; thence North alongthe West line of said Section 25, a distance of 2634.9 feet to the West Quarter corner of said Section 25; thence East with an insideangle of 89 degrees 57 minutes along the East-West Quarter line of said Section 25, a distance of 1021.1 feet; thence South on aninside angle of 90 degrees 03 minutes, a distance of 54.50 feet to the point of beginning, said point begin on the South right-of-wayline, of Minnesota State Highway No. 110; thence Eat along the Highway right-of-way line, a distance of 100 feet; thence South with aninside angle 89 degrees 58 minutes, a distance of 100 feet; thence West with an inside angle of 90 degrees 02 minutes, a distance of100 feet; thence North with an inside angle of 89 degrees 58 minutes, a distance of 100 feet to the point of beginning.(AREA DESCRIBED HEREIN SHOWN ON SURVEY.)16. Subject to drainage ditch and ponding areas as shown by survey of RLK Incorporated dated March 26, 2010.(NO RLK SURVEY PROVIDED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THIS SURVEY) (EXISTING PONDING AREAS OUTSIDE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY)17. Easements for utilities and drainage as shown on the recorded plat of Mendota Plaza. (DOES NOT AFFECT SUBJECT PROPERTY)18-24. (DOES NOT AFFECT SUBJECT PROPERTY)25. Easement for drainage ditch dated September 6, 1973, filed November 29, 1973, as Document No. 426796. (TEMPORARY EASEMENTEXPIRED DECEMBER 31, 1974)26. Terms and conditions of and easements contained in Agreement dated September 21, 1970, filed December 4, 1970, as Document No.378820. (AGREEMENT AND EASEMENT VACATED AND RELEASED AS DESCRIBED IN DOC. NO. 2731043 (SEE ITEM #41)27. Easement for sewer and water, in favor of Village of Mendota Heights, as created in document dated December 31, 1973, filed May 3,1974, as Document No. 432907. (DOES NOT AFFECT SUBJECT PROPERTY)28. Terms and conditions of Conditional Use Permit filed November 12, 1976, as Document No. 478668. (SHOWN ON SURVEY) (AFFECTS APORTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY)29-31 EXPIRED CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS32. Terms and conditions of City Council Resolution No. 04-30, a Resolution Approving a Minor PUD Amendment for Mendota Plaza datedMay 18, 2008, filed June 29, 2006, as Document No. 2441626. (SHOWN ON SURVEY) (AFFECTS SUBJECT PROPERTY)33. Drainage and utility easements as shown on the plat of Mendota Heights Senior Housing Addition.(DOES NOT AFFECT SUBJECT PROPERTY)34. Terms and conditions of Resolution No. 09-09 approving a conditional use permit dated January 20, 2009, filed August 25, 2009, asDocument No. 2680354. (SHOWN ON SURVEY) (AFFECT SUBJECT PROPERTY)35. Terms and conditions of Resolution No. 09-08 approving a wetlands permit dated January 20, 2009, filed August 25, 2009, asDocument No. 2680355. (SHOWN ON SURVEY) (AFFECTS SUBJECT PROPERTY)36. Terms and conditions of Resolution No. 09-07 approving a rezoning request dated January 20, 2009, filed August 25, 2009, asDocument No. 2680356. (SHOWN ON SURVEY) (AFFECTS SUBJECT PROPERTY)37. Easement for utilities and drainage and locations of wetlands as shown on the plat of Mendota Plaza Expansion.(SHOWN ON SHEET 2 OF 2) (AFFECTS SUBJECT PROPERTY)38. Subject to the following matters as shown on the survey prepared by RLK, Incorporated dated March 26, 2010:a. Wetlands affect subject property. These wetlands are subject to federal, state and local regulation. (NO RLK SURVEY PROVIDED FORTHE BENEFIT OF THIS SURVEY) (WETLANDS ARE OUTSIDE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY)39. Drainage and utility easements as shown on the recorded plat of Mendota Plaza Addition.(NO PLAT WITH THIS NAME RECORDED IN DAKOTA COUNTY, MN, SEE ITEM 37.)40. Terms and conditions of and easements contained in Declaration of Easements, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions datedDecember 16, 2009, filed March 22, 2010, as Document No. 2720496. As amended by First Amendment to Declaration of Easements,Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions dated May 7, 2012, filed May 25, 2012, as Document No. 2870428.(SHOWN ON SURVEY. AFFECTS ALL OF LOTS 1-5, AND LOTS 7-8, BLOCK 1 AND OUTLOTS A-E, MENDOTA PLAZA EXPANSION) (SUBJECTTO AND TOGETHER WITH CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, EASEMENTS FOR INGRESS, EGRESS, PARKING, PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, UTILITIES,DRAINAGE, SIGNS OVER COMMON AREAS AS SHOWN ON SITE PLAN IN SAID DOCUMENT.)(SITE PLAN IN DOCUMENT PROVIDED IS NOTLEGIBLE)41. Subject to Terms and conditions of Private Water Main Agreement dated September 8, 2009, filed May 19, 2010, as Document No.2731043, by and between Mendota Mall Associates, LLP, a Minnesota corporation, the City of Mendota Heights, a Minnesota municipalcorporation, and the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Saint Paul, a Minnesota municipal corporation. (APPROX. LOCATIONSHOWN ON SURVEY. EASEMENT DESCRIPTION NOT LEGIBLE IN DOCUMENT. AFFECTS SUBJECT PROPERTY.)42. Subject to Terms and conditions of Planned Unit Development Agreement by and between the City of Mendota Heights and MendotaMall Associates, LLP, a Minnesota limited liability partnership, dated April 30, 2009, filed August 19, 2010, as Document No. 2747291.Said Development Agreement was required by Resolution 09-29 filed March 22, 2010, as Document No. 2720495.As amended by First Amendment to Planned Unit Development Agreement dated January 16, 2010, filed August 19, 2010, as DocumentNo. 2747292.As further amended by Second Amendment to Planned Unit Development Agreement dated June 9, 2010, filed August 19, 2010, asDocument No. 2747293. (DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE DELAYED DUE TO THE DISCOVERY AND REMEDIATION OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCESON THE PROPERTY.)As further amended by Third Amendment to Planned Unit Development Agreement dated October 22, 2010, filed December 8, 2010, asDocument No. 2771092.As further amended by Fourth Amendment to Planned Unit Development Agreement dated November 28, 2011, filed April 10, 2012, asDocument No. 2860812.(SHOWN ON SURVEY) (AFFECTS SUBJECT PROPERTY)43. Resolution 2011-106, issued by the City of Mendota Heights adopted November 22, 2011, filed December 13, 2011, as Document No.2836289. (DOES NOT AFFECT SUBJECT PROPERTY.)44. Terms and conditions of Resolution No. 2011-83, issued by the City of Mendota Heights adopted September 20, 2011, filed October 5,2011, as Document No. 2822887. (DOES NOT AFFECT SUBJECT PROPERTY.)101112152832343536SHEET 1 OF 237404142A40LEGEND:SEE SHEET 2 OF 2 FOR SYMBOL LEGENDSURVEY NOTES:SEE SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS FOR SURVEY RELATED NOTES.SEE SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITY RELATED NOTES.UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES:The following Legal Description is as shown on Commercial Partners Title, LLC, as agent for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, commitmenthaving a file number of 51089 and an effective date of March 8, 2016:Parcel 1:(subject property) Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 1 and Outlot C, Mendota Plaza Expansion, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota.Abstract Property(not included, but shown in title commitment) Outlots B and D, Mendota Plaza Expansion, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County,MinnesotaAbstract PropertyParcel 2:Together with the benefits of easements contained in Declaration of Easements, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions dated December 16, 2009, filedMarch 22, 2010, as Document No. 2720496, as amended by First Amendment to Declaration of Easements, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions datedMay 7, 2012, filed May 25, 2012, as Document No. 2870428.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SURVEY, THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE SHOWN TO ENCOMPASS LOTS 3, 4, AND 5, BLOCK 1, ANDOUTLOT C, MENDOTA PLAZA EXPANSION. EASEMENTS AFFECTING OUTLOTS B AND D ARE SHOWN ON SURVEY.142716page 63Page 840 of 935 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 841 of 935 The ideas and designs contained in this original and unpublished drawing are the property of Indigo Signs and may not be used or reproduced in whole or part without written permission from Indigo Signs. Due to the limitation of the printing process, the colors shown may not reflect actual colors. File location: Sharepoint:\ P \ Paster Properties \ Working Files \ MendotaHeights_Pylons_1_and_2_16945.ai Quote # 16945-A Paster Properties Mendota Heights, MN Drawn by: TS Project Manager: Brian O’Loughlin D: 952-908-9134 • C: 612-719-9927 Client Project Specialist: NA Drawing Date: 05/22/2025 REV1 Date: 06/18/2025 - Requested Changes REV2 Date: 08/22/2025 - Pylon #2 Design REV3 Date: 08/28/2025 - Added Night View REV4 Date: 10/16/2025 - Requested Changes REV5 Date: 10/21/2025 - Requested Changes REV6 Date: 10/29/2025 - Requested Changes REV7 Date: 11/05/2025 - Revised Option B. REV8 Date: 12/05/2025 - N/A REV9 Date: 02/11/2026 - N/A REV10 Date: 02/19/2026 - All new design REV11 Date: 02/25/2026 - Updated Notes REV12 Date: 06/17/2026 - Requested Changes Minneapolis • Fargo • Alexandria • BismarckGrand Forks • Minot • St. Cloud fargo@indigosigns.com • 701-297-9696 Page Scale: 3/16”=1’ 1:64 SCALE Page Size: 11 x 17 MENDOTA PLAZA PYLON 2 - Quantity: 1- Overall Size: 531"H x 296"W- Cabinet Size with Canopy: 250"H x 296"W- Cabinet Size: 194"H x 250"W- Cabinet Color: Dark Bronze- Single or Double Sided: Double- Face Material: Polycarbonate- Background Color of sign face(s): Dark Bronzewith Duranodic VinylLettering: Reverse and Face lit Channel - Letter Copy: MENDOTA PLAZA- Letters Size: 24"- Letter Depth: 5"- Letter Face & Return Color: White- Letters LED Color: White- Backer Panel Size: 31"H x 280"W - Backer Panel Color: Dark Bronze- Rear LED Color: White- Quantity of Tenants (including blank spaces): 4- Single or Double Sided: Double- Face Material: Polycarbonate- Background Color of sign face(s): Dark Bronze/Duranodic- Tenant Panel Sign Copy Color: White - Illumination Type: LED- Internal Illumination Color: White- Voltage 120V or 277V: 120v- Cladding/Base: Existing, intent is to install new cabinet over existing column.Site survey confirmed pylon 2 has (2x) 15" round poles 179" in between polesand a 17" pole sleeve. Total Signage Square Footage: 364 Sq. Ft. - Channel Letters: 24" x 286" = 48 Sq. Feet- Tenant Panels: 182" x 250" = 316 Sq. Feet 56.00 in 11.00 in 14.00 in 31.00 in 6.00 in 6.00 in 138.00 in 56.00 in281.00 in250.00 in 262.00 in 280.00 in 296.00 in 56.00 in 68.00 in 101.00 in 531.00 in24.00 in43.00 in43.00 in43.00 in43.00 in182.00 inPage 842 of 935 Page 843 of 935 22’-0”40’-6”24’-8”44’-3”Page 844 of 935 The ideas and designs contained in this original and unpublished drawing are the property of Indigo Signs and may not be used or reproduced in whole or part without written permission from Indigo Signs. Due to the limitation of the printing process, the colors shown may not reflect actual colors. File location: Sharepoint:\ P \ Paster Properties \ Working Files \ MendotaHeights_Pylons_1_and_2_16945.ai Quote # 16945-A Paster Properties Mendota Heights, MN Drawn by: TS Project Manager: Brian O’Loughlin D: 952-908-9134 • C: 612-719-9927 Client Project Specialist: MT Drawing Date: 05/22/2025 REV1 Date: 06/18/2025 - Requested Changes REV2 Date: 08/22/2025 - Pylon #2 Design REV3 Date: 08/28/2025 - N/A REV4 Date: 10/16/2025 - Requested Changes REV5 Date: 10/21/2025 - Requested Changes REV6 Date: 10/29/2025 - Requested Changes REV7 Date: 11/05/2025 - Revised Option B. REV8 Date: 12/05/2025 - All new design REV9 Date: 02/11/2026 - Added Option REV10 Date: 02/19/2026 - N/A REV11 Date: 02/25/2026 - Updated Notes Minneapolis • Fargo • Alexandria • BismarckGrand Forks • Minot • St. Cloud fargo@indigosigns.com • 701-297-9696 Page Scale: 1/4”=1’ - 1:48 SCALE Page Size: 11 x 17 ST. CROIX CLEANERS KING AND I THAI LIQUOR BARREL TERESA’S MEXICAN MENDOTA PLAZA PYLON 1 - Quantity: 1 - Overall Size: 355" x 212" - Overall Size without columns: 200"H x 212"W - Canopy Size with Channel Letter Name above: 31.375"H x 212"W - Cabinet Size: 160"H x 188"W - Cabinet Color: Dark Bronze - Single or Double Sided: Double - Face Material: Polycarbonate - Background Color of sign face(s): Dark Bronze/ Duranodic Vinyl Lettering: Reverse and Face lit Channel - Letter Copy: MENDOTA PLAZA - Letter Font: - Letters Size: 16.75"H - Letter Depth: 5" - Letter Face & Return Color: White - Letters LED Color: White - Backer Panel Size: 22"H x188"W - Backer Panel Color: - Rear LED Color: White - Tenant Panel Sign Copy Color: White - Illumination Type: LED - Internal Illumination Color: White - Voltage 120V or 277V: 120v - Cladding/Base: Existing, intent is to install new cabinet over existing column. Site survey confirmed Pylon 1 has (2x) 10" round poles w/ 121 1/2" in between poles. EMC - Supplier: Dakronics - Quantity: 1 - Double or Single Sided: Double - Model #:GT6x 10mm - Overall Cabinet Size: 50"H x 176"W - Active Viewing Size: 44"H x 173"W - Matrix (screen) Size: 108x432 - Resolution: 10mm - Operational Software: Venus Control Suite - Communication Type: Cellular Total Signage Square Footage: 207 Sq. Ft. - Channel Letters: 16.75" x 206" = 24 Sq. Feet - Tenant Panels: 102" x 180" = 128 Sq. Feet - Dynamic Display: 44" x 180" = 55 Sq. Feet ALTERNATE EMC VISUAL SAMPLE #1 ALTERNATE EMC VISUAL SAMPLE #2 4.00 in 156.00 in23.00 in23.00 in23.00 in23.00 in188.00 in 200.00 in 356.00 in8.00 in 4.00 in 4.00 in 48.00 in 48.00 in 84.00 in 176.00 in 173.00 in 48.00 in 56.00 in 80.00 in 16.75 in22.00 in212.00 in 180.00 in 10.00 in 102.00 in50.00 in44.00 inPage 845 of 935 SIMULATED NIGHT APPEARANCEOPTION A SIGN CABINET SHOWN ON EXISTING POSTS Page 846 of 935 ST. CROIX CLEANERS KING AND I THAI LIQUOR BARREL TERESA’S MEXICAN 15’-0”27’-0”17’-8”29’-8”Page 847 of 935 Page 848 of 935 Page 849 of 935 Page 850 of 935 Page 851 of 935 Page 852 of 935 Page 853 of 935 Page 854 of 935 Page 855 of 935 Page 856 of 935 Page 857 of 935 Page 858 of 935 Page 859 of 935 Page 860 of 935 Page 861 of 935 Proposed Language Amendments to Exhibit H: Design Standards (Planned Unit Development Agreement/Tenth Amendment) General Standards. All dynamic display signs shall meet the following standards: a.The images and messages displayed shall be static. Unless otherwise specified, each display shall be maintained for a minimum of 15 minutes. b.The transition from one display to another shall be instantaneous without any special effects. Motion, animation and video images are prohibited on dynamic LED sign displays. No portion of the images may flash, scroll, twirl, change color, or in any manner imitate movement. c.The images and messages displayed shall be complete in themselves, without continuation in content to the next image or message or to any other sign. d.Only one, contiguous dynamic display area is allowed on a sign face. e.Audio speakers or any audio component is prohibited. The sign shall not emit any sound. f.Every line of copy and graphics in a dynamic display shall be at least seven inches in height on a road with a speed limit of 25 to 34 miles per hour, nine inches on a road with a speed limit of 35 to 44 miles per hour, 12 inches on a road with a speed limit of 45 to 54 miles per hour, and 15 inches on a road with a speed limit of 55 miles per hour or more. g.Dynamic display signs must be designed and equipped to freeze the device in one position if a malfunction occurs. The displays must also be equipped with a means to immediately discontinue the display if it malfunctions, and the sign owner must stop the dynamic display within one hour of being notified by the city that it is not meeting the standards of this article. Brightness Standards - All signs and dynamic displays must meet the following brightness standards in addition to any other requirements of this Code. a.No sign may be brighter than is necessary for clear and adequate visibility; b.No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance as to impair the vision of a motor vehicle driver with average eyesight or to otherwise interfere with the driver's operation of a motor vehicle; c.No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal. d.The person owning or controlling the sign must adjust the sign to meet the brightness standards in accordance with the City's instructions. The adjustment must be made immediately upon notice of noncompliance from the City. The person owning or controlling the sign may appeal the City's determination through the appeal procedure. Page 862 of 935 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 863 of 935 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 864 of 935 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 865 of 935 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 866 of 935 Councilor Maczko moved to approve OUT OF STATE TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION FOR PARKSAND RECREATION DIRECTOR MEREDITH LAWRENCE TO ATTEND THE NATIONALRECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE.Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion.Ayes: 5Nays: 0PRESENTATIONSA) GUN VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH - 2020 PROJECTPolice Chief Kelly McCarthy provided background information, noting that in the United States in 2020,firearm-related injuries surpassed motor vehicle crashes to become the leading cause of death amongpeople ages one to 19 years old. Year over year, the majority of those deaths are firearm suicides. In2025, the City Council signed a resolution establishing June as Gun Violence Awareness Month. As partof Gun Violence Awareness Month, officers may choose to wear specially issued patches, and residentsare encouraged to wear orange on the first Friday of the month (June 5th).Councilor Lorberbaum asked if the Department would be selling patches again this year.Police Chief Kelly McCarthy replied that they sold patches at the Par 3 last year, but this year would beselling them at the Police Department for $5.PUBLIC HEARINGNo items scheduled.NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESSA) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW - APPLICATION OF INDIGOSIGNS FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW FORTHE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 750 NORTH PLAZA DRIVE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2025-08)Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the Council was being asked to reviewthe Concept Plan for this Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment request and provide advisorycomments and recommendations to the applicant.Councilor Maczko asked if there is an electronic message sign ordinance.Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that there are regulations for electronicmessage signs within different districts, but no such standards exist within the PUD district. She notedthat a formal review would allow the Council to place regulations and conditions upon the operation ofthe sign.Councilor Maczko commented that he believes they should attempt to be consistent across the board,regardless of the district. He asked for clarification on whether there would be one or two electroniccomponents.Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that pylon sign one, near Dodd Road, wouldhave the electronic message component.June 2, 2026 Mendota Heights City CouncilPage 3 of 17Page 867 of 935 Councilor Maczko asked and received confirmation that the bottom panel would include informationabout the four businesses, or could be changed to advertise something else.Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that the bottom panel would reflect thebusiness tenant information or other information chosen to be advertised by the Plaza.Councilor Mazzitello stated that there is a business on the sign proposal that he does not recognize andasked for more information.Mike Sturdivant, property owner, replied that the current signs are outdated and need to be upgraded. Hestated that they also recently signed a lease with a brewpub that will be joining the center.Councilor Mazzitello commented that he is excited to welcome a new business into the community.Councilor Paper asked if the upper sign panels have the ability to change as tenants may come and go.Mr. Sturdivant commented that those panels would not be electronic but could be changed if a tenant wereto leave. He stated that the intention of the electronic message sign is that it would look like a static signand would not draw attention if/when changes were made.Councilor Lorberbaum thanked Councilor Maczko for addressing her concerns, noting that she also wantsto see consistency between districts. She stated that she would not want to see animation and would wantto ensure that all standards of other districts are followed in a formal request. She asked about themaximum lighting allowance for signs and would not want to see this exceed that standard.Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided information on sign lighting regulations.Councilor Lorberbaum commented that she would guess that the brewpub would be open late and notedthat most lit signs are required to turn off by 10 p.m.Mr. Sturdivant stated that typically, the pylon signs are lit throughout the evening.Councilor Lorberbaum thanked the applicant for investing in the property.Mayor Levine thanked the Planning Commission for its thorough review and asked the applicant to takethe guidance that was provided by that group when making a formal application.Councilor Maczko stated that he would support dimming the sign at night to ensure the light does nottravel and impact adjacent properties.Mayor Levine asked if the lighting/signage would have the ability to be adjusted after the fact if issuespresent themselves, as they want to be respectful of people who live in that area.Councilor Lorberbaum asked about the anticipated opening date for the new tenant.Mr. Sturdivant anticipated a late summer/early fall opening.B) MUNICIPAL CAMPUS BUILDING PROJECT - RESOLUTION 2026-37 APPROVINGSCHEMATIC DESIGN FOR THE POLICE STATION AND CITY HALL MUNICIPAL CAMPUSJune 2, 2026 Mendota Heights City CouncilPage 4 of 17Page 868 of 935 Proposed Language Amendments to Exhibit H: Design Standards (Planned Unit Development Agreement/Tenth Amendment) General Standards. All dynamic display signs shall meet the following standards: a.The images and messages displayed shall be static. Unless otherwise specified, each display shall be maintained for a minimum of 15 minutes. b.The transition from one display to another shall be instantaneous without any special effects. Motion, animation and video images are prohibited on dynamic LED sign displays. No portion of the images may flash, scroll, twirl, change color, or in any manner imitate movement. c.The images and messages displayed shall be complete in themselves, without continuation in content to the next image or message or to any other sign. d.Only one, contiguous dynamic display area is allowed on a sign face. e.Audio speakers or any audio component is prohibited. The sign shall not emit any sound. f.Every line of copy and graphics in a dynamic display shall be at least seven inches in height on a road with a speed limit of 25 to 34 miles per hour, nine inches on a road with a speed limit of 35 to 44 miles per hour, 12 inches on a road with a speed limit of 45 to 54 miles per hour, and 15 inches on a road with a speed limit of 55 miles per hour or more. g.Dynamic display signs must be designed and equipped to freeze the device in one position if a malfunction occurs. The displays must also be equipped with a means to immediately discontinue the display if it malfunctions, and the sign owner must stop the dynamic display when a malfunction is identified and discontinue the display until repaired. within one hour of being notified by the city that it is not meeting the standards of this article. Brightness Standards - All signs and dynamic displays must meet the following brightness standards in addition to any other requirements of this Code. a.No sign may be brighter than is necessary for clear and adequate visibility; b.No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance as to impair the vision of a motor vehicle driver with average eyesight or to otherwise interfere with the driver's operation of a motor vehicle; c.No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal. d.The person owning or controlling the sign must adjust the sign to meet the brightness standards in accordance with the City's instructions. The adjustment must be made immediately upon notice of noncompliance from the City. The person owning or controlling the sign may appeal the City's determination through the appeal procedure. Page 869 of 935 9.e REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2026-51 Approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow two additions to the existing religious institution structure located at 1960 Lexington Avenue [Planning Case No. 2026-13] ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager ACTION REQUEST: Adopt Resolution 2026-51 Approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow two additions to the existing religious institution structure located at 1960 Lexington Avenue BACKGROUND: The subject property located at 1960 Lexington Avenue South is an active religious institution, Holy Family Marionite Catholic Church, and the church use has been active on the property for several decades. The applicant, Thielen & Green P.A. has been contracted by the church to complete two small additions to the existing structure. The property is guided for Low Density Residential land use in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and currently zoned R-1 Low Density Residential, but within the P/SP-O Public/Semi-Public Overlay District. Properties that are zoned P/SP-O are designated areas in the community that are developed and used for public and semi-public uses that are non-residential but are within residential base zoning districts. P/SP uses in base zoning districts must be within this overlay district, and require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). By submitting this planning application request for the CUP, it will bring the existing structure and the new requested additions into compliance as a legally conforming Conditional Use within the P/SP-O for all parts of the church’s operations. The applicant is proposing to construct two new small additions to the existing structure, and will include a 745-sq.ft. addition of a sacristy to the southwest of the sanctuary space, and a 1,660-sq.ft. addition to the south of the existing fellowship hall. The two additions are for an expansion of the church’s existing operations and are for the continued success of the religious institution. The addition is proposed to maintain the current architectural style of the building. New asphalt shingles will be installed on the addition roof to match what is existing, and a combination of shake and LP siding, with stone veneer base, will be applied to the exterior walls. The applicant has indicated that some existing siding will be replaced with this project to transition the older materials to the new addition. Page 870 of 935 The proposed additions increase the square footage of the Holy Family Marionite Church by approximately 2,400 square feet. The additions will provide an upgrade to the site, with new enhanced landscaping materials and updated accessible parking spaces. There are no anticipated changes to regular occupancy for religious services, as the additions are based on the church’s current facility needs, and no changes are proposed to the primary assembly spaces for services. The proposed additions are compatible with the existing structure and with the spirit and intent of the Public/Semi-Public Overlay District. Staff affirms that with the conditions outlined in the recommendation, that the development will not be in conflict with the performance standards of the City’s ordinances. At the July 28, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented. A duly noticed public hearing was held, and no residents came forward to speak regarding this application. One public comment letter was received prior to the meeting in support of the application, which is was included as an addendum to the Planning Commission packet. The applicant was present and available to answer questions of the Commission. The Planning Commission discussed the exterior materials of the additions, and asked about the tree removals and landscaping on the property. One significant tree is proposed to be removed, a 16" crabapple, and a condition has been included that a Forest Alteration Permit is submitted to the City and a plan for replacement provided. Commissioner Johnson inquired about three additional trees illustrated on the demolition plan, and staff noted that the language of the condition would not need to change based on those removals. Staff reviewed the plan again following the Planning Commission meeting and can confirm that the three trees to the southeast of the existing building that are shown as removed on the Demolition Plan are arborvitae that were not considered significant. The applicant is proposing to plant three additional arborvitae on their landscaping plan, so there are no conflicts with the Urban Forest Preservation Ordinance or the language of the condition requiring a Forest Alteration Permit. A copy of the 7/28/2026 planning report with attachments is attached to this memo. As noted in the attachment, staff had recommended approval of the application request. Following their discussion, the Planning Commission agreed with the staff recommendation and voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend to the City Council approval of this Conditional Use Permit with findings-of-fact and certain conditions, as outlined in the attached [draft] Resolution. The City Council is asked to affirm the Planning Commission's recommendation by adopting Resolution 2026-51 Approving this Conditional Use Permit at 1960 Lexington Avenue. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Resolution 2026-51 Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Two Additions to the Existing Structure at 1960 Lexington Avenue 2.Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes 7-28-26 3.Planning Commission Staff Report 7-28-26 Page 871 of 935 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy Page 872 of 935 Res. No. 2026-51 Page | 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2026-51 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW TWO ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AT 1960 LEXINGTON AVENUE PLANNING CASE 2026-13 WHEREAS, Thielen & Green P.A, (the “Applicant”), in coordination with Holy Family Marionite Catholic Church, requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) under Planning Case No. 2026-13, which would allow two additions to the existing religious institution structure on the property at 1960 Lexington Avenue, and legally described on Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the subject property is guided LDR – Low Density Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and situated in the R-1 Low Density Residential Zoning District and P/SP-O Public/Semi-Public Overlay District, and WHEREAS, Table 12-3B-1.1: Table of Uses of the City Code classifies the proposed use as a “religious institution and place of worship” and designates that use as a Conditional Use in the R-1 Zoning District, when the property is within the P/SP-O Public/Semi-Public Overlay District; and WHEREAS, on July 28, 2026, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this planning case item, whereby planning reports were presented and received by the commission, and comments from the applicant and public were allowed, and whereupon closing the hearing, recommended unanimously (5-0 vote) to approve the request from Thielen & Green P.A for the CUP, which would allow the proposed additions to the structure at 1960 Lexington Avenue, as proposed and presented under Planning Case No. 2026-13, with certain conditions identified herein and specific findings-of-fact to support said approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation from the Planning Commission on Planning Case No. 2026-13 is hereby affirmed, and the Conditional Use Permit requested for the property located at 1960 Lexington Avenue is approved based on the following findings-of-fact. 1.The proposed additions to the religious institution use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values. 2.The proposed additions to the religious institution use conform to the general purpose and intent of this code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, provided all conditions are met and upheld by the property owner and applicant. 3.With the conditions included herein, the site will provide a significant investment into the existing structure and will benefit the City with an efficient use of land and increased development activity. Page 873 of 935 Res. No. 2026-51 Page | 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Conditional Use Permit requested for the property located at 1960 Lexington Avenue is hereby approved, with the following conditions: 1.A building permit, including all new site grading, utility, and drainage work, must be approved by the City prior to any construction beginning on site. 2.The Developer/Applicant shall submit final grading, utility, landscape and site plans, and architectural construction drawings for permitting, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department, Engineering Department, and Building Official as part of any building permit application. 3.All new construction and grading activities associated with this proposal shall be in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 4.All erosion control requirements must be put in place prior to the commencement of any grading and site work activities and must remain in place for the duration of the construction activities until site restoration plans are completed. 5.The Applicant/Owner must provide a Best Management Practices (Stormwater Management) Agreement to the City as part of the building permit submittal and review process for improvements to this site. 6.A separate Forest Alteration Permit application is required to be submitted to the City prior to building permit issuance, for review and approval by the Natural Resources Manager and Community Development Manager. The applicant shall replace removed trees at a one-to-one ratio. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of August 2026. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST ________________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 874 of 935 Res. No. 2026-51 Page | 3 EXHIBIT A Address: 1960 Lexington Avenue PIN: 27-02600-30-021 Legal Description: Section 26 Township 28 Range 23 N 275.58 FT OF S 693 FT OF W 378 FT OF SW 1/4 OF NW 1/4 & W 417.42 FT OF S 417.42 FT OF SW 1/4 OF NW 1/4 EX HWY Page 875 of 935 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES EXCERPT FROM DRAFT/UNAPPROVED 7/28/26 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES E)PLANNING CASE 2026-13 THIELEN & GREEN P.A. (ON BEHALF OF HOLY FAMILY MARIONITE CATHOLIC CHURCH), 1960 LEXINGTON AVENUE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the subject property located at 1960 Lexington Avenue South is an active religious institution, Holy Family Marionite Catholic, and the church use has been active on the property for several decades. The applicant, Thielen & Green P.A., has been contracted by the church to complete two small additions to the existing structure. The applicant group requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow two small additions to the existing structure. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350 ft. of the site; one written comment was received in support of the request. 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 Johnson noted that the staff report states that only one tree is proposed for removal but there is a requirement for a forest management plan. She stated that when looking at the site plan, four trees are proposed for removal. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that four trees are being removed. She stated that the level of removal would still require one-to-one removal, so the condition does not need to be modified. Chair Field invited the applicant to address the Commission. Chris Theilen, Theilen & Green, commented that he was present to address any questions. He commented that the congregation is excited to add some of these needed facilities. Commissioner Johnson thanked Mr. Theilen for his detailed plans. She also noted the five native cultivars that have been incorporated into the landscaping and was appreciative of that. Commissioner Goldade asked about the exterior of the proposed additions and whether it would match the existing. Mr. Theilen replied that they plan to use lap siding to match the existing, noting that there will be transitions that will be replaced on the existing exterior as well. He commented that cultured stone will also be used to match the stone on the existing facility. Page 876 of 935 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES 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 STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO THIELEN & GREEN, P.A. FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1960 LEXINGTON AVENUE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING HOLY FAMILY MARIONITE CATHOLIC CHURCH STRUCTURE, BASED ON THE FINDINGS- OF-FACT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.A BUILDING PERMIT, INCLUDING ALL NEW SITE GRADING, UTILITY, AND DRAINAGE WORK, MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION BEGINNING ON SITE. 2.THE DEVELOPER/APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT FINAL GRADING, UTILITY, LANDSCAPE AND SITE PLANS, AND ARCHITECTURAL CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS FOR PERMITTING, SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, AND BUILDING OFFICIAL AS PART OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. 3.ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION AND GRADING ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPOSAL SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES, AS WELL AS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. 4.ALL EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE PUT IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY GRADING AND SITE WORK ACTIVITIES AND MUST REMAIN IN PLACE FOR THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES UNTIL PROPER SITE RESTORATION PLANS ARE COMPLETED. 5.THE APPLICANT/OWNER MUST PROVIDE A BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (STORMWATER MANAGEMENT) AGREEMENT TO THE CITY AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL AND REVIEW PROCESS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THIS SITE. 6.A SEPARATE FOREST ALTERATION PERMIT APPLICATION IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE, FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGER AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER. THE APPLICANT SHALL REPLACE REMOVED TREES AT A ONE-TO-ONE RATIO. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Page 877 of 935 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 5, 2026 meeting. Page 878 of 935 Planning Commission Meeting Date: July 28, 2026 Agenda Item: CASE No. 2026-13 Conditional Use Permit Application of Thielen & Green P.A. (on behalf of Holy Family Marionite Catholic Church) for a Conditional Use Permit to allow two additions to the existing religious institution's structure located at 1960 Lexington Avenue Department: Community Development Contact: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Action Request: The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit request. The role of the Planning Commission is to consider this application for consistency with the City's Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Action Deadline: 8/22/2026 Introduction: The subject property located at 1960 Lexington Avenue South is an active religious institution, Holy Family Marionite Catholic Church, and the church use has been active on the property for several decades. The applicant, Thielen & Green P.A. has been contracted by the church to complete two small additions to the existing structure. The applicant group requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow two small additions to the existing structure. A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to all properties within 350-feet of the subject property. The city has not received any comments or objections to this land use request as of the submittal of this report. Background: The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Lexington Avenue and Victoria Road South. The existing structure was constructed prior to the incorporation of Mendota Heights as a City, and the structure has been in use as a church for all of its history. The property is currently zoned R-1 Low Density Residential and is within the P/SP-O Public/Semi-Public Overlay District. The property is guided Low Density Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Surrounding properties to the east, north, and west share similar base zoning and land guidance, and the area to the south across Victoria Road is Right-of-Way adjacent to MN Highway 62. The property is 2.66 acres in size, and contains an existing church structure of 8,869-sq.ft, a 26-ft x 38-ft storage building/garage, a trash enclosure, walkways, a freestanding sign, and established parking lot and landscaping. Page 879 of 935 Site History: The subject property has been home to a religious institution use for several decades. The City has not been able to find the first record of construction on the property, however Dakota County has recorded documents by Royal Redeemer Lutheran Church beginning in 1968, and the change in operation to Holy Family Marionite Catholic Church transitioned beginning in 2007. The Planning Department has records for at least six planning case applications in the site’s history. The property has been issued two Variances: one in 1992 for construction of a fence, and one in 1997 for sign setbacks and size. These Variances were granted to the property when the church site was known as Royal Redeemer Lutheran Church. That church pursued a Conditional Use Permit in 1998 for a daycare use, as well as a 2002 amendment to that CUP. An additional Special Use Permit was granted in 2002 for fence height on the property, relating to the daycare use. Finally, a separate CUP was granted in 2009 for an outbuilding on the property. In addition to planning case files, the City has historical permit records for a 1979 Addition to the principal structure, a 1989 remodel, and a 1999 remodel for the daycare use. The most recent permit on the property was in 2009 for new siding and roofing on the structure, and for the construction of the outbuilding on the property. Public/Semi-Public Overlay District (P/SP-O): As part of the Zoning Code Update project, the City adopted a new overlay zoning district: the Public/Semi-Public Overlay District (P/SP-O). The district designates areas in the community that are developed and used for public and semi-public uses that are non-residential but are within residential base zoning districts. Examples of uses within the P/SP-O include schools, golf courses, cemeteries, parks, municipal buildings, and religious institutions. Properties that are zoned P/SP-O are often adjacent to existing neighborhoods and serve the residents of the community. P/SP uses in base zoning districts must be within this overlay district, and require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The subject site is an existing religious institution use, but prior to the adoption of the Zoning Code Update project, no CUP was required for the principal use as a religious institution. There were land use approvals through Variances and CUPs for accessory uses of fences, signs, and a prior daycare use, but no CUP for the general use and purpose of the property, as a religious institution was considered a permitted use. The religious institution may continue in its current state because it is legally non-conforming to the ordinance. However, because an addition is proposed to the structure, it is considered an expansion of the legally non-conforming use. By submitting this planning application request for the CUP, it will bring the existing structure and the new requested additions into compliance as a legally conforming Conditional Use for all parts of the church’s operations. Proposed Use: The applicant is proposing to construct two new small additions to the existing structure. The City Code classifies this proposed use under the terms of “Religious institutions and places of worship” which is a listed Conditional Use in the R-1 Low Density Residential district, when the property is within the P/SP-O Public/Semi-Public Overlay district. The existing structure contains a 1-story vaulted church with brick siding, and a later southern addition of a 1-story church with lap and stone siding. The existing structure is 8,869 sq-ft. in size, and the parcel is just over 2.5 acres. The two additions are for an expansion of the church’s existing operations and is for the continued success of the religious institution. Page 880 of 935 The proposal will include removal of a portion of the sidewalk to the west of the building, as well as all of the concrete sidewalk adjacent to the southeast entrance. Some bituminous is proposed to be removed in that same entrance area, as well as mill & overlay of the accessible parking nearest the building’s entrance in order to meet ADA slope requirements. The parking lot signage is planned to be salvaged and relocated upon completion of the project. There is no additional proposed demolition associated with the property. The construction of the two new proposed additions are both consistent with the existing setbacks of the principal structure from Lexington Avenue and Victoria Road. The P/SP-O District requires a minimum 50-ft setback from property lines abutting a Residential Base Zoning District. The structure will not extend any closer to the north property line than the existing exterior wall of the sanctuary, and while the structure will extend to the east, the 50-ft setback requirement is met. The P/SP-O District also permits flexibility within the Conditional Use Permit for deviations from base zoning district setback requirements, however the proposal is compliant with the minimum 30-ft front yard setback of the R-1 District. Floor Plan and Exterior Design: The proposed additions are identified on Sheet A001 – Code Plan and Sheet C201 – Site Plan, attached to this report. The additions will include a 745-sq.ft. addition of a sacristy to the southwest of the sanctuary space, and a 1,660-sq.ft. addition to the south of the existing fellowship hall. The 1st Addition for the sacristy will have direct access to the sanctuary as well as the lobby space. This addition will also include a confessional, a technology room, a private restroom, and a cry room with access out of the back of the sanctuary. The 2nd addition will have an exterior access through a vestibule to the east, and will be accessed by the existing hallway south of the fellowship hall. This addition will include administrative offices, two classrooms, and new restroom facilities, all with an internal hallway to connect to the rest of the church and to the vestibule entrance. The two additions are highlighted in blue on the architectural site plan excerpt below. The addition is proposed to maintain the current architectural style of the building. New asphalt shingles will be installed on the addition roof to match what is existing, and a combination of shake and LP siding will be applied to the exterior walls. On the exterior wall of Page 881 of 935 the fellowship hall, new LP siding will also be installed to coordinate with the new addition. To the east facing the parking area and primary entrance to the building, a base of stone veneer is proposed on the new addition. The addition will not exceed the height of the existing structure. Parking and Access: The architect has identified through their code and occupancy analysis that the assembly space will have an occupant load of 192 persons. The Zoning Ordinance requires minimum parking of 1 parking stall for every 3.5 seats within religious institution assembly spaces. With this calculation, a minimum of 55 parking stalls are required. Currently, there are 94 parking stalls on site. Four stalls are proposed to be removed as part of this project, relating to the ADA striping of four spaces near the entrance to the building. Staff does not anticipate parking conflicts, given that the proposal does not expand the primary assembly space for the religious institution. The existing parking lot is not proposed to be modified as part of this work. The addition of office and classroom space is to accommodate the extra room needed for the church as part of their current facility needs for their operation. The plan for these two additions is not anticipated to increase the overall regular occupancy of the building during services. Access to the property will remain as is, with one entrance to the west on Lexington Avenue, and a shared drive aisle access to Victoria Road through the Dakota Communities property. Stormwater and Erosion Control: Sheet C401 – Utility Plan illustrates that a 24” domed grate will be installed near the northeast corner of the southern addition, with a 10” PVC pipe directing stormwater south and then west to connect with the existing manhole at the corner of Victoria Road and Lexington Avenue. A condition has been added that the applicant/property owner enter into a Stormwater Management best Management Practices (BMP) Agreement with the City. The Grading Plan on Sheet C301 indicates the installation of a silt fence surrounding the west and southern edge of the development activity. This erosion control must be maintained throughout the duration of the project, until groundcover is established. Landscaping: The applicant’s landscape plans on Sheets L101 and L102 illustrate the location of new plant materials and a planting schedule. The disturbed areas of the site will be landscaped following completion of the project with turf sod. The property itself conforms to the minimum 25% landscaped area requirements. The planting schedule indicates that 1 overstory tree, 27 deciduous shrubs, 9 coniferous shrubs, and 27 perennials and ornamental grasses will be planted as perimeter landscaping around the new additions. The one new tree is proposed to be planted just west of the sacristy exterior door adjacent to Lexington Avenue, in replacement of a 16” crabapple tree slated for removal to make way for the addition. The grading plan on Sheet C301 also shows tree protection details for the existing three trees on the west side of the property. Although only one tree is proposed to be removed, this tree removal is associated with a planning application, and the Urban Forest Preservation ordinance will require a Forest Alteration Permit to be submitted and reviewed by the City. Because less than seven trees are proposed to be removed, the ordinance will require a one-to-one replacement. This requirement is satisfied with this plan. Page 882 of 935 Analysis: Pursuant to Title 12-5B-5, the city recognizes that the development and execution of Zoning Code is based upon the division of the city into districts within which regulations are specified. It is further recognized that there are special or conditional uses which, because of their unique characteristics, cannot be properly classified in any district or districts without consideration, in each case, of the impact of those uses on neighboring land or the public need for the particular location. To provide for these needs, the city may approve a conditional use for those uses and purposes, and may impose conditions and safeguards in such permits to ensure that the purpose and intent of this chapter is effectively carried out. The City may grant a conditional use provided the proposed use demonstrates the following: a.Use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, b.Use will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, c.Use will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value, and d.Use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan. a-c)The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards; nor depreciate surrounding property value. Staff Response: The proposed addition increases the square footage of the Holy Family Marionite Church by approximately 2,400 square feet. The additions will provide an upgrade to the site, with new enhanced landscaping materials and updated accessible parking spaces. There are not any anticipated changes to regular occupancy for religious services, as the additions are based on the church’s current facility needs, and no changes are proposed to the primary assembly spaces for services.. The proposed use will not negatively affect property values, and the proposal is designed to maintain and even advance the view of the property from public right- of-way with new landscaping materials. Access to and from the property will not change, and no additional traffic is anticipated to be generated to the site than its current use. There is no evidence that the approval of this CUP would depreciate surrounding property value. d) The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in conflict on an on-going basis. Staff Response: The site is zoned R-1 Low Density Residential and is within the Public/Semi-Public Overlay District. The proposed use supports the City Council’s strategic priorities for vitality and community vibrancy, and the project conforms to all applicable zoning standards, including building setbacks, height, and landscaping. The approval of this CUP will bring the existing property into compliance with the City’s new Public/Semi-Public Overlay District standards (the new requirement for a CUP for this use) and will formalize the continued use of the site as a religious institution. Page 883 of 935 Chapter 2: Land Use and Growth of the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan provides the following goal and policy statement: • Goal 2: Preserve, protect, and enrich the mature, fully developed residential neighborhoods and character of the community. o Policy 2. The city will emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and general focus on aesthetics throughout the community, including within existing developments and buildings. Staff affirms that the proposed project is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan that encourages reinvestment in existing buildings and quality aesthetic design. The proposed additions are compatible with the existing structure and with the spirit and intent of the Public/Semi-Public Overlay District. Staff affirms that with the conditions outlined herein the development will not be in conflict with the performance standards of the City’s ordinances. Alternatives: 1. Recommend Approval of the Conditional Use Permit for 1960 Lexington Avenue based on certain findings-of-fact, along with specific conditions of approval; or 2. Recommend Denial of the Conditional Use Permit for 1960 Lexington Avenue based on revised findings-of-fact supporting such a recommendation as determined by the Planning Commission; or 3. Table the request and request more information from staff and/or the applicant. Staff will extend the application review period an additional 60-days, pursuant to MN State Statute 15.99. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit to Thielen & Green, P.A. and for the property located at 1960 Lexington Avenue, which would allow the construction of two additions to the existing Holy Family Marionite Catholic Church structure, based on the attached findings-of-fact and subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit, including all new site grading, utility, and drainage work, must be approved by the City prior to any construction beginning on site. 2. The Developer/Applicant shall submit final grading, utility, landscape and site plans, and architectural construction drawings for permitting, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department, Engineering Department, and Building Official as part of any building permit application. 3. All new construction and grading activities associated with this proposal shall be in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 4. All erosion control requirements must be put in place prior to the commencement of any grading and site work activities and must remain in place for the duration of the construction activities until proper site restoration plans are completed 5. The Applicant/Owner must provide a Best Management Practices (Stormwater Management) Agreement to the City as part of the building permit submittal and review process for improvements to this site. 6. A separate Forest Alteration Permit application is required to be submitted to the City prior to building permit issuance, for review and approval by the Natural Resources Manager and Community Development Manager. The applicant shall replace removed Page 884 of 935 trees at a one-to-one ratio. Attachments: 1. Findings of Fact for Approval 2. Site Location Map 3. Letter of Intent 4. A000 - Planset Cover Sheet 5. A001 - Code Plan 6. A050 - Architectural Site Plan 7. A110 - Enlarged Plans 8. A580 - Exterior Elevations 9. A901 - Exterior Renderings 10. C101 - Existing Conditions 11. C102 - Site Demolition Plan 12. C201 - Site Plan 13. C301 - Grading Plan 14. C401 - Utility Plan 15. C801 - Civil Details 16. L101 - Landscape Plan 17. L102 - Landscape Details 18. Public Comment - 7/28/26 Page 885 of 935 Planning Case 2026-13 (CUP for 1960 Lexington Avenue) Page 1 of 1 FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL CUP – Conditional Use Permit for 1960 Lexington Avenue The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1.The proposed additions to the religious institution use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor depreciate surrounding property values. 2.The proposed additions to the religious institution use conform to the general purpose and intent of this code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, provided all conditions are met and upheld by the property owner and applicant. 3.With the conditions included herein, the site will provide a significant investment into the existing structure and will benefit the City with an efficient use of land and increased development activity. Page 886 of 935 66666666666666666666666666666666666666666 666 6666666666666666666 6 66666666! ! ³ * " "!! ! " ""! ! " !³!*!* ! ³ """ !! * * "" !! "" * ³³ ³ ³ ³³³ " "³ ³ ³ "" * " * * " "" ³* * * ** ** ³³666666 6666666666666666 6 6 6 66666!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 1101 1979 1101 1960 2015 2031 2021 1101 1905 1080 1084 1060 1092 1044 1903 1088 1901 1074 1095 1082 1915 1940 1926 1934 1085 1083 1927 1939 1910 1918 1090 2009 1026 1027 1092 1040 18991085 1960 1025 19001901 1024 HIGHWAY 62LEXINGTON AVEVICTORIA RD S VAIL DR DAKOTA DRVICTORIA CURVTWIN CIRCLE DRWEST CIRCLE CT CENTR E P O I N T E C U R V HIGHWAY 62 Dakota County, MN Site Location Map1960 Lexington Ave S Date: 7/15/2026 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 887 of 935 THIELEN & GREEN 7455 Village Drive, Suite #110 Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 W | www.tandgarch.com P | 763.553.7927 Page | 1 Date: 06/22/2026 TO: City of Mendota Heights c/o Sarah Madden 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 FROM: Kris Thielen Thielen & Green P.A. 7455 Village Drive, Suite #110 Lino Lakes, MN 55014 RE: Holy Family Maronite Church Additions – CUP Application Narrative Dear Sarah, Please see below for our narrative responses to items “a” through “d” regarding our CUP Application a.The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health , safety, or general welfare to the community a.The proposed addition(s) will provide additional support tor the facility; as these services currently occur there is not expected change in use and would not negatively impact community. b.The proposed use will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards a.The existing site will be maintained and improved with new accessible parking as the existing was not compliant. In addition, new landscaping will be provided and existing grading addressed near the new additions. All other site elements will remain the same including access and circulation. c.The proposed use will not serious depreciate surrounding property value a.The current use will not change as currently worship and there will not be a depreciation to surrounding property value. d.The proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the city code and the comprehensive plan a.The current use will not change as currently worship, with the new additions provided they will complement the building with use of like materials including lap siding, cultured stone veneer, and aluminum glazing windows that will be harmonious with the existing structure. Thank you Sarah! Regards, Kris Thielen Partner | Architect of Record, License No: 59237 E | Kmt@tandgarch.com P | 763-553-7927 C | 320-266-2755 W | www.tandgarch.com Page 888 of 935 SYMBOLS DOOR TAG BUILDING SECTION ENLARGED PLAN NEW DOOR (90 DEG) EXISTING DOOR (45 DEG) 1 REVISION REVISION DELTA 0 GRID LINE EXTERIOR ELEVATION INTERIOR ELEVATION 1 A101 Name Elevation LEVEL W1 WINDOW / STOREFRONT / CURTAINWALL TYPE WALL TYPE KEY NOTE Room Name 101 150 SF ROOM # 1 A101 SIM 0 1 A101 SIM WALL SECTION DETAIL SECTION 1 A101 SIM 1 A101 SIM 1 A101 SIM 1 A101 SIM A_ 1 A1 101 PROJECT NAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION HOLY FAMILY MARONITE CHURCH ADDITION PROJECT DESCRIPTION:THIS PROJECT INCLUDES TWO ADDITIONS FOR CLASSROOMS AND A SACRISTY, WITH A LIMITED INTERIOR REMODEL. THIS PROJECT IS BEING DELIVERED AS A DESIGN-BUILD WITH DEFERRED SUBMITTALS BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. SEE DEFERRED SUBMITTALS SECTION FOR THE FULL LIST. ADDRESS:1960 LEXINGTON AVE S MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 PID:DAKOTA COUNTY - 270260030021 CURRENT USE:"A-3" (WORSHIP) PROPOSED USE:"A-3" (WORSHIP); NO CHANGE OF USE BUILDING HEIGHT:1 STORIES; NO CHANGE IN HEIGHT BUILDING AREA:EXISTING: 8,933 GFA; NEW ADDITIONS: 2,345 GFA TOTAL: 11,368.31 GFA CHANGE IN SF FIRE PROTECTION:FULL BUILDING SPRINKLER *REFER TO SHEET A001 FOR MORE EXTENSIVE CODE REVIEW PROJECT AREA:3,915.60 GSF CLIENT PROJECT TEAM HOLY FAMILY MARONITE CATHOLIC CHURCH 1960 LEXINGTON AVE S MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 CONTACT: EMAIL: PHONE: 651-291-1116 ARCHITECT MECHANICAL/ELECTRICAL/PLUMBING THIS PROJECT IS BEING DELIVERED AS DESIGN BUILD MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, AND FIRE SUPRESSION BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR UNDER A SEPARATE SUBMTITTAL(S) THIELEN & GREEN 7455 VILLAGE DRIVE, SUITE #110 LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA 55038 CONTACT: KRIS THIELEN - ARCHITECT (MN #59237) EMAIL: KMT@TANDGARCH.COM PHONE: 763-553-7927 STRUCTURAL HERZOG ENGINEERING 1334 81ST AVE NE SPRING LAKE PARK, MN 55432 CONTACT: JEREMY CLARKE EMAIL: JEREMY@HERZOGENGINEERING.COM PHONE: 612-200-9507 CIVIL LOUCKS ENGINEERING 12755 HIGHWAY 55, SUITE R100 PLYMOUTH, MN 55441 CONTACT: TREVOR GRUYS EMAIL: TGRUYS@LOUCKSINC.COM PHONE: 952-334-7593 GENERAL FIRE DEPT NOTES 1. ALL LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS SHALL BE DESIGNED PER APPLICABLE FIRE PREVENTION CODE - SEE LIFE SAFETY PLAN 2. FIE EXTINGUISHER REQUIREMENTS SHELL BE AS DETERMINED BY FIELD INSPECTION AND NFPA 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY ALL FIRE EXTINGUISHERS AND CABINETS AS REQUIRED - SEE LIFE SAFETY PLAN FOR SUGGESTED LOCATION(S) 3. BUILDING ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND SHALL BE VISIBLE / LEGIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, SAID NUMBERS SHALL CONTRAST VISUALLY WITH THEIR BACKGROUND. ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR 4. COMMERCIAL DUMPSTERS OR CONTAINERS WITH A CAPACITY OF ONE-AND-ONE-HALF CUBIC YARDS OR GREATER SHALL NOT BE STORED OR PLACED WITHIN FIVE FEET OF COMBUSTIBLE WALLS, OPENINGS, OR ROOF EAVE LINES UNLESS THESE AREAS ARE PROTECTED BY AN APPROVED AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM 5. POST "NO PARKING -FIRE LANE" SIGNS ALONG VEHICULAR ACCESS ROADS NOTES TO BIDDERS AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 1341.0030 IEBC SECTION 305, ACCESSIBILITY FOR EXISITING BUILDINGS, SECTION 305.7 ALTERATIONS AFFECTING AN AREA CONTAINING A PRIMARY FUNCTION, PROVIDE SEPARATE LINE ITEMS FOR THE SCOPE OF WORK PERTAINING TO THE FOLLOWING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE: 1. PARKING FACILITIES 2. ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCES 3. ACCESSIBLE ROUTE TO THE PRIMARY FUNCTION AREA 4. TOILET FACILITIES 5. DRINKING FOUNTAINS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE TO BE LISTED IN THE BID AS SEPARATE LINE ITEM, ADD OR DEDUCT ALTERNATES. REFER TO THE FOLLOWING PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL AND/OR COMPLETE INFORMATION 1. N/A DEFERRED SUBMITTALS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL BE SUBMITTED AS DEFERRED SUBMITTALS BY THE APPROPRIATE INSTALLING SUBCONTRACTOR OR VENDOR. FOR EACH DEFERRED SUBMITTAL ITEM, THE SUBCONTRACTOR OR VENDOR SHALL FIRST SUBMIT SIGNED AND SEALED ENGINEERED DRAWINGS AND CALCULATIONS TO THE ARCHITECT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OR FIRE MARSHAL. ARCHITECT’S REVIEW WILL BE FOR GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE BUILDING DESIGN ONLY. SUBCONTRACTOR OR VENDOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND PAYMENT OF ALL FEES FOR SUBMITTALS. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING THE TIMING OF SUBMITTALS SO AS TO NOT INTERFERE WITH OVERALL CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE, ALLOWING TIME FOR APPROPRIATE REVIEWS FOR ARCHITECT AND BUILDING OFFICIAL OR FIRE MARSHAL. NO DELAYS OR TIME EXTENSIONS WILL BE ALLOWED FOR FAILURE TO ALLOW APPROPRIATE TIME FOR REVIEW. 1. FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS 2. FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS (IF REQUIRED) 3. MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING ENGINEERING 4. IT, LOW-VOLTAGE, AV, DATA, SECURITY 5. SIGNAGE (INTERIOR AND/OR EXTERIOR) GENERAL NOTES 1. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND THEIR SUB-CONTRACTORS, MATERIAL SUPPLIERS, AND/OR THEIR CONSULTANTS TO REVIEW THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS IN ITS ENTIRETY. 2. ITEMS SHOWN IN ONE LOCATION IN THE DRAWINGS AND/OR INCLUDED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE WORK AND SHALL APPLY AT SIMILAR LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT. IN THE EVENT OF INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE DRAWINGS PROVIDED THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL SEEK CLARIFICATION FROM THE ARCHITECT OF RECORD. 3. NO DEVIATIONS FROM THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING SPECIFICATIONS, SHALL BE MADE WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE OWNER AND/OR ARCHITECT. 4. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. 5. GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUB-CONTRACTORS ARE REQUIRED TO VERIFY ALL CONDITIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK. 6. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO CONFIRM WITH THE OWNER AND/OR LANDLORD ANY PROJECT REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO BIDDING WORK INCLUDING: PRE-APPROVED SUBCONTRACTORS, MATERIALS, CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS, ETC. 7. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ARCHITECT IN WRITING ANY DISCREPANCIES, ERRORS AND/OR OMISSIONS PRIOR TO STARTING THAT PORTION OF WORK IN A TIMELY MATTER TO ALLOW REVIEW BY AOR AND OWNER FOR RESPONSE. NO WORK IS TO OCCUR IN AREA OF CONFLICT UNTIL WRITTEN RESPONSE AND APPROVAL IS ACHIEVED BY ALL PARTIES (OWNER, ARCHITECT, GENERAL CONTRACTOR). 8. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS TO NOTIFY ARCHITECT AND OWNER IMMEDIATELY ANY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ENCOUNTERED IN THE FIELD. 9. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED BY APPROPRIATE SKILLED PERSONALE AND MATERIALS USED SHALL BE OF FIRST QUALITY. 10. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO PROTECT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, FINISHES, LANDSCAPING, MEP SYSTEMS UNLESS REQUIRED TO REMOVE OR REPLACE AS SPECIFIED IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 11. WATER RESISTANT GYP. BD. SHALL BE USED AT ALL WET LOCATIONS 12. ALL EXISTING WALLS AND/OR FENESTRATION ARE TO REMAIN U.N.O. 13. IF REQUIRED, THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE FIRE SPRINKLER DESIGN DRAWINGS, SUBMIT AND RECEIVE APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION AS REQUIRED WITH THE LOCAL AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION ON THIS PROJECT. THE AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM MUST BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODES LISTED BELOW AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS. A SEPARATE PERMIT BY DESIGN BUILD ENGINEERING COORDINATED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION FOR APPROVAL. 14. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE BLOCKING AS DIRECTED BY THE MANUFACTURER FOR ALL WALL MOUNTED EQUIPMENT OR DEVICES, AND SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR ALL ITEMS NOTED AS "BY OWNER" OR "BY OTHERS". 15. DRAWINGS WERE PREPARED USING PRODUCT SPECIFIC CONFIGURATION INFORMATION, ACTUAL DIMENSIONS AND DETAILS OF SELECTED MATERIALS MAY CHANGE BEFORE INCORPORATION INTO THE WORK. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ACCOMMODATING ANY CHANGES TO OTHER MATERIALS THAT ARE NECESSARY BECAUSE OF THESE DIFFERENCES. 16. TYPICAL AND PROJECT SPECIFIC DETAILS ARE INCLUDED IN THE DRAWINGS, WHERE DETAILS OR DESIGN INTENT CANNOT BE DETERMINED SEEK CLARIFICATION PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK 17. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO LAWS, REGULATIONS, CODES AND ORDINANCES OF FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, CITY OR ANY OTHER JURISDICTION AS EACH MAY APPLY. IN THE EVENT OF ANY CONFLICT BETWEEN ANY OF THE PROJECT REQUIREMENTS, THE MOST STRINGENT REQUIREMENT SHALL GOVERN 18. EXITS, EXIT SIGNS, FIRE ALARM PANELS, HOSE CABINETS, FIRE EXTINGUISHERS LOCATIONS AND STANDPIPE CONNECTIONS, AS APPLICABLE, SHALL NOT BE CONCEALED BY CURTAINS, MIRRORS, OR OTHER DECORATIVE MATERIAL 19. ALL EXIT DOORS SHALL BE READILY OPENABLE FROM THE EGRESS SIDE WITHOUT THE USE OF A KEY OR SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE OR EFFORT 20. REFER TO INDIVIDUAL SHEETS FOR OTHER GENERAL NOTES SPECIFIC TO THAT SECTION TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH PROJECT LOCATION LOCATION MAP TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH PROJECT LOCATION KEY PLAN ACT ACOUSTIC CEILING TILE ADJ ADJACENT BD BOARD BO BOTTOM OF BM BEAM CL CENTER LENE CLG CEILING CMU CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT COL COLUMN CONC CONCRETE DIM DIMENSION EQ EQ EXIST EXISTING FLR FLOOR FO FACE OF FP FILLER PANEL GYP BD GYPSUM BOARD HT HEIGHT INSUL INSULATION MAX MAXIMUM MIN MINIMUM NIC NOT IN CONTRACT NTS NOT TO SCALE OC ON CENTER PLY WD PLYWOOD PT PRESSURE TREATED PTD PAINTED RO ROUGH OPENING TBD TO BE DETERMINED TYP TYPICAL UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE VIF VERIFY IN FIELD W/WITH WD WOOD ABBREVIATIONS OWNER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THIELEN & GREEN REQUIRES APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING PERMIT DOCUMENTS PRIOR TO SUBMITTING FOR CITY PLAN REVIEW. PLEASE REVIEW THE PERMIT DOCUMENTS IN FULL AND MAKE NOTE OF ANY ADDITIONAL CHANGES THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED. AN AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE BELOW INDICATES THE APPROVAL OF THIS DESIGN AND AUTHORIZES THIELEN & GREEN TO PROCEED WITH THE PERMITTING PROCESS AS OUTLINE IN THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT. X CLIENT NAME DATE Scale Date Drawn By Checked By Project Number ISSUE DATE 7455 VILLAGE DRIVE, SUITE #110 LINO LAKES, MN 55014 763-553-7927 WWW.TANDGARCH.COM CITY STAMP AREA 1960 LEXINGTON AVE S MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 (651) 291-1116 HOLYFAMILYMARONITECHURCH.ORG PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 6/23/2026 8:41:51 AMAs indicated A000 COVER SHEET KMT CAD 06.02.2026 398_20241960 LEXINGTON AVE SMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118REVISED LAYOUT #7 D.D. SET #01 CUP SUBMITTAL 05.13.2026 06.02.2026 06.22.2026HOLY FAMILYMARONITE CHURCHADDITIONSSHEET INDEX NUMBER SHEET NAME REVISION ARCHITECTURAL A000 COVER SHEET A001 CODE PLAN A050 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN A110 ENLARGED PLANS A580 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A901 EXTERIOR RENDERINGS CIVIL C101 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN C102 SITE DEMOLITION PLAN C201 SITE PLAN C301 SITE PLAN C401 UTILITY PLAN C801 CIVIL DETAILS L101 LANDSCAPE PLAN L102 LANDSCAPE PLAN REVISION SCHEDULE NO. DESCRIPTION DATE Page 889 of 935 F F APPLICABLE CODES BUILDING CODE: 2020 MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE ENERGY CODE: 2024 MINNESOTA COMMERCIAL ENERGY CODE ACCESSIBILITY: 2020 MINNESOTA ACCESSIBILITY CODE MECHANICAL: 2020 MECHANICAL AND FUEL GAS CODE PLUMBING: 2020 MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE FIRE: 2020 MINNESOTA FIRE CODE ELECTRICAL: MINNESOTA ELECTRICAL CODE CHAPTER 3: USE AND OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION EXISTING OCCUPANCY: "A-3" (CHURCH) PROPOSED OCCUPANCY: "A-3" (CHURCH); NO CHANGE OF USE CHAPTER 5: BUILDING HEIGHTS AND AREAS EXISTING BUILDING AREA: 8,917 SF PROPOSED ADDITION AREA 1,916 SF (A: 597, B: 1,319) TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 10,833 SF PROJECT AREA: 3,003 SF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TYPE: V-B EXISTING BUILDING SPRINKLED: YES 504.3 ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: 60'-0" 504.4 ALLOWABLE STORIES: 2 STORIES 506.2 ALLOWABLE AREA: 24,000 SF ALLOWABLE CHAPTER 6: TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION EXISTING BUILDING CONSTRUCTION TYPE: V-B PRIMARY STRUCTURAL FRAME:0 EXTERIOR BEARING WALLS:0 INTERIOR BEARING WALLS:0 NONBEARING EXTERIOR WALLS AND PARTITIONS:0 (10 < X < 30) NONBEARING INTERIOR WALLS AND PARTITIONS:0 FLOOR CONSTRUCTION:0 ROOF CONSTRUCTION :0 CHAPTER 8: INTERIOR FINISHES OCCUPANCY GROUP: "A-3" (CHURCH) SPRINKLED: YES 803.13 INTERIOR EXIT STAIRWAYS AND RAMPS AND EXIT PASSAGEWAYS: B CORRIDORS AND EXIT ENCLOSURE FOR EXIT ACCESS STAIRWAYS: B ROOMS AND ENCLOSED SPACES: C CHAPTER 10: MEANS OF EGRESS 1004 FUNCTION OF SPACE: INDOOR 1006.2 NUMBER OF EXITS: 2 REQUIRED; 2 PROVIDED 1020.1 CORRIDORS CONSTRUCTION: 0-HOUR RATED WITH EXISTING SPRINKLER SYSTEM CHAPTER 29: PLUMBING SYSTEMS 2902.01 MINIMUM NUMBER OF FIXTURES • GROUP "A-3" (WORSHIP): • REQUIRED: 2.46 WC, 1.24 LAV • WC: 1 PER 150 MALE, 1 PER 75 WOMEN • LAV: 1 PER 200 PER SEX • SERVICE SINK: 1 • WATER FOUNTAIN : 1 HIGH-LOW (2 FIXTURES) • PROVIDED: 6.00 WC, 6.00 LAV, 1 SERVICE SINK • 377.00 / 2 = 189.00 MALE/ FEMALE 1. 189.00 / 150 = 2.00 WC MALE (2 MEN FIXTURES + 1 UNISEX RR) 2. 189.00 / 075 = 3.00 WC FEMALE (2 WOMEN FIXTURES + 1 UNISEX) 3. 189.00 / 200 = 1.00 LAV EACH (2 FIXTURES EA RR + 2 UNISEX) OCCUPANTS 00"0.0" 00 EXIT WIDTH REQ. EXIT WIDTH PROV. FIRE EXTINGUISHER LOCATION - FINAL LOCATION BY G.C., SEE LIFE SAFETY NOTE #5 FOR ADD INFO EGRESS ROUTE EXISTING AREA WITHIN LEASE SPACE TO REMAIN (NOT IN SCOPE) CEILING MOUNTED EXIT LIGHT - REFER TO REFLECTED CEILING PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CODE INFORMATION LIFE SAFETY PLAN NOTES 1. REFER TO DOOR SCHEDULE FOR ADDITIONAL ACCESSIBILITY AND/ OR EGRESS REQUIREMENTS 2. CONTINUATION OF ACCESSIBLE AND EGRESS ROUTE OF TRAVEL BEYOND THE AREA OF WORK BY OTHERS 3. EXITS, EXIT SIGNS, FIRE ALARM PANELS, HOSE CABINETS, FIRE EXTINGUISHER LOCATIONS, AND STANDPIPE CONNECTIONS (AS APPLICABLE) SHALL NOT BE CONCEALED BY CURTAINS, MIRRORS, OR OTHER DECORATIVE MATERAIL(S) 4. ALL EXIT DOORS SHALL BE READILY OPENABLE FROM THE EGRESS SIDE WITHOUT THE USE OF A KEY OR SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE OR EFFORT 5. FIRE EXTINGUISHER ARE TO BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED BY THE MINNESOTA FIRE CODE. MULTI-PURPOSE EXTINGUISHERS REQUIRE A MINIMUM RATING OF 4A:2BC (10 LB) AND SPACED WITH MAXIMUM TRAVEL DISTANCE OF 75'-0 FROM ANY POINT TO A FIRE EXTINGUISHER. K- CLASS PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS ARE REQUIRED IN COMMERCIAL KITCHENS, D-CLASS PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN MACHINE SHOPS CODE PLAN LEGEND F 548 SF KITCHEN 165 SF WAREWASH 278 SF SERVING 71 SF MECH 66 SF UNISEX 69 SF UNISEX 104 SF HALL 167 SF HALL 2148 SF FELLOWSHIP 136 SF VESTIBULE 218 SF MECH 653 SF LOBBY 2681 SF SANCTUARY 93 SF CRY ROOM 394 SF SACRISTY 197 SF KITCH STORE 120 SF MEN 285 SF CLASSROOM 239 SF CLERGY 176 SF ADMIN ELECGAS 249 SF HALL 264 SF CLASSROOM 43 SF VESTIBULE 66 SF STORAGE 119 SF WOMEN 26 SF TECH41 SF HALL 45 SF CONFESSIONAL 34"7" 35 68"27.6" 138 405 SF ALTER 156 SF CORRIDOR 360 LN FT PEWS / 24" = 180 OCC 405 / 15 NET = 8 OCC 93 / 7 = 7 OCC 218 / 300 = 1 OCC 1 OCC 394 / 300 = 2 OCC 2148 / 15 = 144 OCC 34"13" 65 34"13" 65 66 OCC 36 OCC36 OCC 72 OCC 34"0.4" 2 68"14.4" 72 ACCESSORY ACCESSORY ACCESSORY ACCESSORY ACCESSORY 264 / 20 = 13 OCC 264 / 20 = 13 OCC 239 / 150 = 2 OCC 176 / 150 = 2 OCC 548 / 200 = 3 OCC 165 / 200 = 1 OCC 197 / 300 = 1 OCC Scale Date Drawn By Checked By Project Number ISSUE DATE 7455 VILLAGE DRIVE, SUITE #110 LINO LAKES, MN 55014 763-553-7927 WWW.TANDGARCH.COM CITY STAMP AREA 1960 LEXINGTON AVE S MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 (651) 291-1116 HOLYFAMILYMARONITECHURCH.ORG PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 6/23/2026 8:41:51 AMAs indicated A001 CODE PLAN KMT KMT, TKB 06.02.2026 398_20241960 LEXINGTON AVE SMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118REVISED LAYOUT #7 D.D. SET #01 CUP SUBMITTAL 05.13.2026 06.02.2026 06.22.2026HOLY FAMILYMARONITE CHURCHADDITIONSAREA AND OCCUPANT LOAD SCHEDULE Function of Space OLF Area Occ Load Accessory Storage Areas, Mechanical Equipment Room 300 SF 263 SF 0.00 Assembly w/o Fixed Seats - Concentrated (Chairs Only) 7 SF 93 SF 0.00 Assembly with Fixed Seats 2,810 SF 206.00 Business Areas 150 SF 921 SF 0.00 Educational - Classroom 20 SF 553 SF 28.00 Kitchens, Commercial 200 SF 1,001 SF 6.00 Stages and Platforms 317 SF 6.00 5,958 SF 246.00 REVISION SCHEDULE NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1/8" = 1'-0"1 ARCH CODE PLAN 377.00 Page 890 of 935 1 2 4 5 4 2 8 6 7 7 4 4 7 9 9 8 8 10 Scale Date Drawn By Checked By Project Number ISSUE DATE 7455 VILLAGE DRIVE, SUITE #110 LINO LAKES, MN 55014 763-553-7927 WWW.TANDGARCH.COM CITY STAMP AREA 1960 LEXINGTON AVE S MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 (651) 291-1116 HOLYFAMILYMARONITECHURCH.ORG PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 6/23/2026 8:41:53 AM1" = 20'-0" A050 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN KMT CAD 06.02.2026 398_20241960 LEXINGTON AVE SMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118REVISED LAYOUT #7 D.D. SET #01 CUP SUBMITTAL 05.13.2026 06.02.2026 06.22.2026HOLY FAMILYMARONITE CHURCHADDITIONSGENERAL SITE PLAN NOTES 1. ARCHTIECTURAL SITE PLAN IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY -CIVIL ENGINEERING IS A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL PROVIDED BY THE OWNER AS NEEDED; NOT IN CONTRACT 2. ALL GROUND MOUNTED EQUIPMENT SHALL BE SCREENED FROM PUBLIC VIEW -TYPICAL 3. ALL SIGNAGE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY - PROVIDED BY OTHERS UNDER A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL 4. ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY - REFER TO DESIGN-BUILD ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR ADD. INFO. - REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR BUILDING MOUNTED FIXTURES - COORDINATE FINAL LOCATIONS WITH OWNER IN FIELD PRIOR TO INSTALLATION 5. GC TO VERIFY THAT ALL ENTRANCE LANDINGS ARE FLUSH WITH FINISHED FLOOR AND PATCH/ REPAIR AS REQUIRED 6. GC TO VERIFY THAT ALL PAVED SURFACES ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING SLOPE AWAY TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE 1" = 20'-0"1 ARCH SITE PLAN SITE PLAN KEYNOTES 1 BUILDING ENTRY/ EXIT STOOP LOCATION - REFER TO STRUCT TYPICAL STOOP DETAIL FOR ADD. INFO. - SLOPE AWAY FROM BUILDING AT MAX 2% - MAINTAIN ADA REQUIREMENTS PER 2020 MAC 2 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN - PATCH & REPAIR AS REQUIRED FOR NEW PENETRATIONS 4 GC TO PROVIDE NEW GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT - COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING 5 NEW SACRISTY ADDITION, SEE PLAN SET FOR ADD INFO 6 NEW CLASSROOM ADDITION, SEE PLAN SET FOR ADD INFO 7 NEW ACCESSIBLE PARKING, REFER TO CIVIL FOR ADD INFO 8 REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR ADD INFO 9 NEW SIDEWALK SEE CIVIL 10 SEE CIVIL FOR ADDITIONAL SITEWORK INFO FOR STORMWATER REVISION SCHEDULE NO. DESCRIPTION DATE Page 891 of 935 GENERAL FLOOR PLAN NOTES 1. DIMENSIONS ARE TO THE FACE OF SHEATHING OR MASONRY UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE 2. WALL TYPES WITH FIRE RATINGS SHALL CONTINUE FROM FLOOR TO FLOOR OR ROOF ABOVE, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE 3. THE HINGE SIDE OF ALL INTERIOR DOOR FRAMES SHALL BE PLACED 4" FROM THE ADJACENT INTERIOR WALL AS MEASURED TO THE JAMB, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, INTERIOR DOORS PLACED IN MASONRY WALLS SHALL BE PLACED A MINIMUM OF 4" AND MAXIMUM OF 8" AWAY FROM WALLS TO COORDINATE WITH MASONRY COURSING, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE 4. FIRE DAMPERS SHALL BE PROVIDED WHERE DUCTS PENETRATE FIRE-RATED WALLS, FLOORS, OR CEILING ASSEMBLIES 5. ALL INTERIOR PARTITIONS IN EXCESS OF 30'-0" OF LENGTH SHALL HAVE FULL HEIGHT CONTROL JOINTS INSTALLED WITH 30'-0" MAXIMUM SPACING, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, WHERE POSSIBLE, ALIGN CONTROL JOINTS TO DOORS AND WINDOWS 6. FIXTURES, FURNITURE, VENDING, AND EQUIPMENT SUPPLIED BY OWNER, SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY, REFER TO EQUIPMENT PLANS 7. FLOOR FINISH TRANSITIONS OCCUR AT CENTERLINE OF DOOR FRAME UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE 8. USE VINYL REDUCER STRIPS IN THICKNESS TO MATCH ADJACENT FLOOR MATERIALS - PROVIDE AT EDGES OF RESILIENT FLOOR WHEREVER EDGE IS EXPOSED - SUBMIT SAMPLES FOR PROFILE AND COLOR SELECTION 9. ALL MISC PANELS, FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINETS, EXPOSED DUCTING PARTS, LOUVERS, VENTILATION COVERS AND ANY EQUIPMENT NOT FACTORY FINISHED SHALL BE PAINTED TO MATCH THE ADJACENT SURFACE ON WHICH IT OCCURS 10. REFER TO FINISH SCHEDULES, CEILING PLANS, AND ELEVATIONS FOR FURTHER FINISH INFORMATION 11. ANY EXPOSED SINK PIPES TO BE WRAPPED TO MEET ADA REQUIREMENTS 1 1 A720 1 A720 2 A720 2 A72033' - 1 3/8"10' - 0"19' - 0"33' - 4 3/4"7' - 4"394 SF SACRISTY 112 45 SF CONFESSIONAL 117 1 1 1 1 197 SF KITCH STORE 111 66 SF STORAGE 110 285 SF CLASSROOM 106 264 SF CLASSROOM 107 167 SF HALL 109 104 SF HALL 108 249 SF HALL 101 176 SF ADMIN 104 239 SF CLERGY 105 120 SF MEN 102 15' - 8 3/4"5' - 0" A580 1 A580 3 A580 4 A580 2 10' - 4"6' - 0"32' - 4"+/- 23' - 10 5/8"37' - 8" A110 1 48' - 8"13' - 4"17' - 9 1/2"43 SF VESTIBULE 100 41 SF HALL 116 26 SF TECH 115 93 SF CRY ROOM 114 53 SF UNISEX 113 119 SF WOMEN 103 A110 2 7 Scale Date Drawn By Checked By Project Number ISSUE DATE 7455 VILLAGE DRIVE, SUITE #110 LINO LAKES, MN 55014 763-553-7927 WWW.TANDGARCH.COM CITY STAMP AREA 1960 LEXINGTON AVE S MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 (651) 291-1116 HOLYFAMILYMARONITECHURCH.ORG PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 6/23/2026 8:41:53 AMAs indicated A100 ARCHITECTURAL FLOOR PLAN KMT, TKB CAD 06.02.2026 398_20241960 LEXINGTON AVE SMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118REVISED LAYOUT #7 D.D. SET #01 CUP SUBMITTAL 05.13.2026 06.02.2026 06.22.2026HOLY FAMILYMARONITE CHURCHADDITIONS1/8" = 1'-0"1 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN FLOOR PLAN KEYNOTES 1 HATCHED REGION INDICATES AREA TO REMAIN - NIC 2 NEW HI-LOW DRINKING FOUNTAIN 3 ALIGN NEW WALL AT EXISTING - PATCH AND REPAIR ADJACENT AS NEEDED 4 OWNER PROVIDED TV - GC TO PROVIDE POWER AND DATA 5 INFILL WALL TO MATCH ADJACENT CONSTRUCTION 6 COLUMN - REFER TO STRUCTURAL DWGS FOR ADD INFO 7 PATCH AND REPAIR FLOORING FROM DEMO'D SLAB - MATCH ADJACENT FINISHES REVISION SCHEDULE NO. DESCRIPTION DATE Page 892 of 935 FINISH FLOOR 100' -0" T.O. SANCTUARY WALL 114' -5 3/4" T.O. PARAPET B 110' -11" T.O. PARAPET A 109' -3" NEW ADDITION EXISTING BUILDING18' - 2 1/8"123 4 5 6 6 A A H100 7 SID-2 SID-1 STN-1 PRC-1 ASP-1 NEW ADDITIONEXISTING BUILDING 12 ASP-1 SID-1 ALUM-1 NEW ADDITION EXISTING NEW ADDITION 2 EXTERIOR LAP SIDING SID-1 MANUF: JAMES HARDIE OR SIM SIZE: 6" REVEAL COLOR: CUSTOM PAINT ARCHITECTURAL SHINGLE ASP-1 MANUF TBD COLOR: TAN PRECAST SILL ACCENT PRC-1 MANUF: CUSTOM COLOR: ACCENT CULTURED STONE VENEER STN -1 MANUF: CORONADO STONE MODEL: TUSCAN VILLAGE COLOR: FLORENTINE COPING/FLASHING MTL-1 MANUF: TBD COLOR: MATTE BLACK GUTTERS/FLASHING MTL-2 MANUF: TBD COLOR: LIGHT GRAY ALUM-1 / GLZ-1 PREFINISHED ALUM STOREFRONT WITH GLAZING KAWNEER OR EQUIV COLOR: DARK BRONZE EXTERIOR SHINGLE SIDING SID-2 MANUF: JAMES HARDIE OR SIM COLOR: CUSTOM PAINT Scale Date Drawn By Checked By Project Number ISSUE DATE 7455 VILLAGE DRIVE, SUITE #110 LINO LAKES, MN 55014 763-553-7927 WWW.TANDGARCH.COM CITY STAMP AREA 1960 LEXINGTON AVE S MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 (651) 291-1116 HOLYFAMILYMARONITECHURCH.ORG PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 6/23/2026 8:41:54 AMAs indicated A580 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS KMT, TKB CAD 06.02.2026 398_20241960 LEXINGTON AVE SMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118REVISED LAYOUT #7 D.D. SET #01 CUP SUBMITTAL 05.13.2026 06.02.2026 06.22.2026HOLY FAMILYMARONITE CHURCHADDITIONS1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXTERIOR ELEVATION - EAST 1/8" = 1'-0"2 EXTERIOR ELEVATION - NORTH 1/8" = 1'-0"3 EXTERIOR ELEVATION - SOUTH 1/8" = 1'-0"4 EXTERIOR ELEVATION - WEST REVISION SCHEDULE NO. DESCRIPTION DATE EXT ELEVATION KEYNOTES 1 NEW ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING TO MATCH EXISTING 2 NEW SHAKE SIDING 3 NEW LP SIDING 4 NEW STONE VENEER TO MATCH EXISTING 5 NEW ARCHITECTURAL FENCE - SEE SITE PLAN FOR ADD INFO 6 NEW LP SIDING AT EXISTING WALL 7 NEW GUTTERS WITH DOWNSPOUT AT EXISTING ENTRY 12" = 1'-0" EXTERIOR MATERIALS Page 893 of 935 Scale Date Drawn By Checked By Project Number ISSUE DATE 7455 VILLAGE DRIVE, SUITE #110 LINO LAKES, MN 55014 763-553-7927 WWW.TANDGARCH.COM CITY STAMP AREA 1960 LEXINGTON AVE S MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 (651) 291-1116 HOLYFAMILYMARONITECHURCH.ORG PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 6/23/2026 8:41:54 AMA901 EXTERIOR RENDERINGS KMT CAD 06.02.2026 398_20241960 LEXINGTON AVE SMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118REVISED LAYOUT #7 D.D. SET #01 CUP SUBMITTAL 05.13.2026 06.02.2026 06.22.2026HOLY FAMILYMARONITE CHURCHADDITIONSREVISION SCHEDULE NO. DESCRIPTION DATE Page 894 of 935 Scale Date Drawn By Checked By Project Number ISSUE DATE CITY STAMP AREA 1960 LEXINGTON AVE S MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 (651) 291-1116 HOLYFAMILYMARONITECHURCH.ORG PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 6/9/2026 11:31:21 AMAs indicated TDG TDG/MDC 06.22.2026 17001B1960 LEXINGTON AVE SMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118CITY SUBMITTAL 06.22.2026HOLY FAMILYMARONITE CHURCHREVISION SCHEDULE NO.DESCRIPTION DATE License No. Date I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Trevor D. Gruys - PE 53706 Minnesota. 06/22/2026 LOUCKS 12755 HIGHWAY 55, SUITE R100 PLYMOUTH 55441 763.424.5505 WWW.LOUCKSINC.COM N SCALE IN FEET 0 30 60 TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-1166 TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002 Gopher State One Call CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. 1. THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN WAS PREPARED FROM A BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREPARED BY LOUCKS. UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS PLAN, SUCH AS SANITARY SEWER, WATERMAIN, STORM SEWER, FORCEMAIN, ETC. IS PER RECORD PLANS PROVIDED BY THE CITY. EXISTING CONDITIONS GENERAL NOTES C101 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN PARKING STALL COUNT DISABLED PARKING STALL MAPLE TREE (GEN) ASH 2 LEGEND CATCH BASIN STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN STORM MANHOLE SANITARY MANHOLE HYDRANT GATE VALVE SPOT ELEVATION SIGN LIGHT POLE POWER POLE CONTOUR CONCRETE CURB UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC CONCRETE TELEPHONE PEDESTAL UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND GAS OVERHEAD UTILITY CHAIN LINK FENCE EXISTING BUILDING RETAINING WALL NO PARKING UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC SANITARY SEWER SERVICE WATER SERVICE ELECTRIC METER GAS METER CONIFEROUS TREE TREE LINE / DRIP LINE PINE DECIDUOUS TREE 1 SCHEDULE B II ITEM GUY WIRE ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER HAND HOLE ROOF DRAIN FOUND 1/2 INCH OPEN IRON MONUMENT UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE SET 1/2 INCH X 14 INCH IRON MONUMENT, MARKED "LS 48988" "LS 62268" "LS 54100" Page 895 of 935 REMOVE TREE REMOVE CONCRETE SIDEWALK-TYP. REMOVE TREE REMOVE TREE REMOVE CONCRETE SIDEWALK-TYP. REMOVE, SALVAGE & RELOCATE FLAG POLE (COORDINATE W/ OWNER) REMOVE ADA SIGNS SALVAGE & RELOCATE IF SIGNS MEET CURRENT ADA STANDARDS REMOVE ADA SIGNS SALVAGE & RELOCATE IF SIGNS MEET CURRENT ADA STANDARDS REMOVE, SALVAGE & RELOCATE MAILBOX (COORDINATE W/ OWNER) MILL & OVERLAY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT TO MEET ADA SLOPE REQUIREMENTS REMOVE, SALVAGE & RELOCATE NO PARKING SIGN REMOVE, SALVAGE & RELOCATE NO PARKING SIGN REMOVE PARKING LOT STRIPING-TYP. REMOVE PARKING LOT STRIPING-TYP. REMOVE EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT-TYP Scale Date Drawn By Checked By Project Number ISSUE DATE CITY STAMP AREA 1960 LEXINGTON AVE S MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 (651) 291-1116 HOLYFAMILYMARONITECHURCH.ORG PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 6/9/2026 11:31:21 AMAs indicated TDG TDG/MDC 06.22.2026 17001B1960 LEXINGTON AVE SMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118CITY SUBMITTAL 06.22.2026HOLY FAMILYMARONITE CHURCHREVISION SCHEDULE NO. DESCRIPTION DATE License No. Date I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Trevor D. Gruys - PE 53706 Minnesota. 06/22/2026 LOUCKS 12755 HIGHWAY 55, SUITE R100 PLYMOUTH 55441 763.424.5505 WWW.LOUCKSINC.COM N SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE AND/OR RELOCATE EXISTING PRIVATE UTILITIES AS NECESSARY. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE ACTIVITIES WITH UTILITY COMPANIES & OWNER. 2. CLEAR AND GRUB AND REMOVE ALL TREES NOTED FOR REMOVAL, VEGETATION AND SITE DEBRIS WITHIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS PRIOR TO GRADING. STRIP TOP SOIL AND STOCKPILE ON-SITE. ALL REMOVED MATERIAL SHALL BE HAULED FROM THE SITE DAILY. ALL CLEARING AND GRUBBING AND REMOVALS SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY ESTABLISHED UPON REMOVAL. SEE THE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) / GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE FEATURES NOT NOTED FOR REMOVAL. CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY ENGINEER WITH ANY CONFLICTS OR PLAN DISCREPANCIES. 4. CONTRACTOR TO SCHEDULE PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING(S) WITH UTILITY OWNER(S) TO DISCUSS DISCONNECTIONS AND/OR RELOCATIONS. 5. REFER TO TREE INVENTORY, TREE PRESERVATION, AND TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN FOR REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF ON SITE TREES. 6. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATION OF SEPTIC FIELD(S) & WELL(S) ON SITE. COORDINATE REMOVALS AND/OR ABANDONMENT WITH THE APPLICABLE GOVERNING AGENCIES. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING APPLICABLE PERMITS. WELLS ON THE PROPERTY SHALL BE SEALED BY A MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (MDH) LICENSED CONTRACTOR. 7. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT REMOVALS ARE TO BE MADE TO A VERTICAL SAW CUT OR TO A NEAT MILLED EDGE. 8. CONCRETE PAVEMENT, SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER AND OTHER POURED CONCRETE ITEMS ARE TO BE REMOVED TO AN EXISTING EXPANSION OR CONTRACTION JOINT. SAW CUT AS NECESSARY FOR A NEAT EDGE OF REMOVAL. 9. ANY DAMAGE TO ITEMS NOT NOTED TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED TO ORIGINAL CONDITION WITH NO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WITH THE APPLICABLE GOVERNING AGENCIES. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICABLE GOVERNING AGENCIES. 11. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE ALL WORK WITHIN THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES WITH THE OWNER AND ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER. 12. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE DEMOLITION PHASING WITH ALL DISCIPLINES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ARCHITECTURAL, STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, & OWNER. 13. REFER TO THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY XXX, DATED XX, XXXX FOR INFORMATION INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXCAVATION DEWATERING. 14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE OWNER FOR ANY REPAIRS TO THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM THAT IS AFFECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION. SITE DEMOLITION NOTES MILL AND OVERLAY EXISTING PARKING LOT REMOVE EXISTING CURB & GUTTER, RETAINING WALLS, FENCE, ETC. REMOVE EXISTING MANHOLES, POWER POLES, LIGHT POLES, BOLLARDS, PARKING METERS, SIGNS, ETC. REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE PAVING, SIDEWALKS, ETC. REMOVE EXISTING TREES REMOVE EXISTING UTILITIES REMOVE EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVING DEMOLITION LEGEND TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-1166 TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002 Gopher State One Call CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. C102 SITE DEMOLITION PLAN PARKING STALL COUNT DISABLED PARKING STALL MAPLE TREE (GEN) ASH 2 LEGEND CATCH BASIN STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN STORM MANHOLE SANITARY MANHOLE HYDRANT GATE VALVE SPOT ELEVATION SIGN LIGHT POLE POWER POLE CONTOUR CONCRETE CURB UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC CONCRETE TELEPHONE PEDESTAL UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND GAS OVERHEAD UTILITY CHAIN LINK FENCE EXISTING BUILDING RETAINING WALL NO PARKING UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC SANITARY SEWER SERVICE WATER SERVICE ELECTRIC METER GAS METER CONIFEROUS TREE TREE LINE / DRIP LINE PINE DECIDUOUS TREE 1 SCHEDULE B II ITEM GUY WIRE ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER HAND HOLE ROOF DRAIN FOUND 1/2 INCH OPEN IRON MONUMENT UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE SET 1/2 INCH X 14 INCH IRON MONUMENT, MARKED "LS 48988" "LS 62268" "LS 54100" NOTE: EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION SHOWN IS FROM A BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREPARED BY LOUCKS, DATED 01/20/2017. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN NOTES TREE REMOVAL INVENTORY: -ONE (1) SIGNIFICANT TREE IS PLANNED TO BE REMOVED. (16" CRABAPPLE) REQUIREMENT: (15-3-6 SECTION G 1.) -IF LESS THAN SEVEN (7) TOTAL SIGNIFICANT OR HERITAGE TREES ON THE PROPERTY ARE REMOVED, THE APPLICANT SHALL REPLACE ONE TREE PER SIGNIFICANT OR HERITAGE TREE REMOVED. REPLACEMENT TREES SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF ONE CALIPER INCH IN SIZE. PROPOSED TREE REPLACEMENT: -ONE (1) NORWAY MAPLE AT 2.5" CAPLIPER Page 896 of 935 NOPARKINGPROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION FFE=916.20 PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION FFE=916.20 NOPARKINGMILL & OVERLAY EXISTING PAVEMENT TO MEET ADA SLOPE REQUIREMENTS. 20.0'8.0'8.0'8.0'24.9'34.2'5.0'6.0' 20'R ADA PARKING SIGN-TYP. (SEE DETAIL 3/C801) INSTALL SIGN 2' FROM EDGE OF PAVEMENT CONCRETE STOOP (SEE ARCHITECTURAL & STRUCTURAL) CONCRETE STOOP (SEE ARCHITECTURAL & STRUCTURAL) MATCH EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK CONCRETE SIDEWALK-TYP. (SEE DETAIL 2/C801) CONCRETE SIDEWALK-TYP. (SEE DETAIL 2/C801) MATCH EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK 30.0'30.0'10.0'30.0'30.1'14.5'20.0' 30.0' 25.0'8.0'8.0'8.0'8.0'20.0' REINSTALL SALVAGED NO PARKING SIGN (SEE DETAIL 4/C801) REINSTALL SALVAGED NO PARKING SIGN (SEE DETAIL 4/C801) ADA PARKING STALL STRIPING-TYP. (SEE DETAIL 3/C801) ADA ACCESS AISLE STRIPING TYP. (SEE DETAIL 3/C801) ADA ACCESS AISLE SIGN-TYP. (SEE DETAIL 3/C801) INSTALL SIGN 2' FROM EDGE OF PAVEMENT 5.0'5.0'Scale Date Drawn By Checked By Project Number ISSUE DATE CITY STAMP AREA 1960 LEXINGTON AVE S MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 (651) 291-1116 HOLYFAMILYMARONITECHURCH.ORG PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 6/9/2026 11:31:21 AMAs indicated TDG TDG/MDC 06.22.2026 17001B1960 LEXINGTON AVE SMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118CITY SUBMITTAL 06.22.2026HOLY FAMILYMARONITE CHURCHREVISION SCHEDULE NO. DESCRIPTION DATE License No. Date I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Trevor D. Gruys - PE 53706 Minnesota. 06/22/2026 LOUCKS 12755 HIGHWAY 55, SUITE R100 PLYMOUTH 55441 763.424.5505 WWW.LOUCKSINC.COM N SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 PARKING STALL COUNT ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL 2 LEGEND CATCH BASIN STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN STORM MANHOLE SANITARY MANHOLE HYDRANT GATE VALVE SPOT ELEVATION SIGN LIGHT POLE POWER POLE WATER MANHOLE / WELL CONTOUR CONCRETE CURB UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC CONCRETE TELEPHONE PEDESTAL UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND GAS OVERHEAD UTILITY CHAIN LINK FENCE BUILDING RETAINING WALL NO PARKING UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC SANITARY SEWER SERVICE WATER SERVICE ELECTRIC METER GAS METER TREE LINE EXISTING PROPOSED 972 DRAINTILE FORCEMAIN 373PARKING SETBACK LINE BUILDING SETBACK LINE 2 FENCE FLARED END SECTION POST INDICATOR VALVE BENCHMARK SOIL BORING 3DIRECTION OF FLOW 1.0% 972.5 TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-1166 TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002 Gopher State One Call CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. 1. ALL PAVING, CONCRETE CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DETAILS SHOWN PER THE DETAIL SHEET(S) AND APPLICABLE GOVERNING AGENCY REQUIREMENTS. 2. ACCESSIBLE PARKING AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES SHALL BE PROVIDED PER CURRENT ADA STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE GOVERNING AGENCY REQUIREMENTS. 3. ALL CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 4. ALL BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO THE OUTSIDE FACE OF WALL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. BITUMINOUS IMPREGNATED FIBER BOARD TO BE PLACED AT FULL DEPTH OF CONCRETE ADJACENT TO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND BEHIND CURB ADJACENT TO DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS. SITE NOTES 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL SITE SIGNAGE AND STRIPING AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL PAINT ALL ACCESSIBLE STALLS, LOGOS AND CROSS HATCH LOADING AISLES WITH WHITE OR YELLOW PAVEMENT MARKING PAINT, 4" IN WIDTH. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL PAINT ANY/ALL DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC ARROWS, AS SHOWN, IN WHITE OR YELLOW PAINT. 4. ALL SIGNAGE SHALL INCLUDE POST, CONCRETE FOOTING AND STEEL CASING WHERE REQUIRED. 5. ALL SIGNAGE NOT PROTECTED BY CURB, LOCATED IN PARKING LOT OR OTHER PAVED AREAS TO BE PLACED IN STEEL CASING, FILLED WITH CONCRETE AND PAINTED YELLOW. REFER TO DETAIL(S). 6. ANY/ALL STOP SIGNS TO INCLUDE A 24" WIDE PAINTED STOP BAR IN WHITE PAINT, PLACED AT THE STOP SIGN LOCATION, A MINIMUM OF 4' FROM CROSSWALK IF APPLICABLE. ALL STOP BARS SHALL EXTEND FROM DIRECTIONAL TRANSITION BETWEEN LANES TO CURB. 7. ALL SIGNS TO BE PLACED 18" BEHIND BACK OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SIGNAGE AND STRIPING NOTES C201 SITE PLAN NOTE: EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION SHOWN IS FROM A BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREPARED BY LOUCKS, DATED 01/20/2017. NOTE: SEE PAVEMENT SECTIONS ON SHEET C801 FOR TYPE AND DEPTH INFORMATION. CONCRETE SIDEWALK PAVEMENT TYPES CURRENT ZONING: R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED ZONING: R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AREA (GROSS):2.87 ± AC RIGHT OF WAY AREA:0.31 ± AC PROPERTY AREA (NET):2.56 UNITS/AC. DISTURBED AREA:0.24 ± AC EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA: 1.28 ± AC (50%)* PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA: 1.33 ± AC (52%)* *IMPERVIOUS AREAS BASED ON NET PROPERTY AREA ONLY SITE DATA YARD (BUILDING) SETBACKS: FRONT 30 FT MINIMUM SIDE 10 FT MINIMUM (INTERIOR) SIDE 30 FT MINIMUM (ABUTTING STREET) REAR 30 FT MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING SETBACKS: FRONT 30 FT MINIMUM SIDE 5 FT MINIMUM (INTERIOR) SIDE 30 FT MINMUM (ABUTTING STREET) REAR 5 FT MINIMUM MINIMUM PARKING LAYOUT DIMENSIONS (90 DEGREE PATTERN): PARKING SPACE WIDTH = 9 FT PARKING SPACE LENGTH = 18 FT DRIVE LANE WIDTH = 24 FT PROPOSED SERVICE USE (CHURCH) 1 STALL PER EVERY 3.5 SEATS BASED ON THE DESIGN CAPACITY OF THE ASSEMBLY HALL ASSEMBLY HALL OCCUPANT LOAD 192 OCCUPANTS REQUIRED PARKING 192 / 3.5 = 55 PARKING STALLS REQUIRED EXISTING PARKING = 94 STALLS PARKING REMOVED = -4 STALLS PROPOSED PARKING = 0 STALLS TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED = 90 STALLS (INCLUDING ADA STALLS) EXISTING ACCESSIBLE PARKING = 4 STALLS REMOVED ACCESSIBLE PARKING = -4 STALLS PROPOSED ACCESSIBLE PARKING = 4 STALLS TOTAL ACCESSIBLE PARKING PROVIDED = 4 STALLS REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE PARKING: 4 STALLS** **REQUIRED MINIMUM NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE SPACES FOR 76 TO 100 STALLS DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS OFF-STREET PARKING CALCULATIONS ACCESSIBLE PARKING MILL & OVERLAY EXISTING PARKING LOT Page 897 of 935 NOPARKING15.13 14.80 ±EX 14.88 ±EX 15.00 ±EX 15.12 ±EX 15.29 ±EX 15.25 15.01 14.89 15.08 15.50 15.65 ±EX 14.91 ±EX 15.36 ±EX 15.30 ±EX2.0% PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION FFE=916.20 PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION FFE=916.20 15.63 ±EX 15.90 ±EX 16.09 ±EX 16.33 ±EX 16.79 ±EX 15.44 ±EX 15.40 ±EX 15.77 ±EX 16.54 ±EX 15.97 16.10 16.22 15.90 15.60 15.75 16.05 16.71 ±EX2.0%15.84 15.83 ±EX 888888888883.7 % 5.5% 4.6% 6.6 % 15.87 16.20 16.20 15.87 15.95 ±EX 15.87 15.68 ±EX 15.80 ±EX 16.15 16.15 16.09 16.09 15.71 ±EX 15.59 ±EX 15.61 ±EX 15.66 ±EX 15.71 ±EX 15.78 ±EX 15.92 ±EX 15.88 ±EX 16.09 ±EX 16.14 ±EX 16.55 ±EX 16.05 ±EX 16.05 ±EX 15.53 15.54 15.62 15.72 15.78 15.87 15.83 16.02 16.01 15.43 15.71 15.4315.5115.75 15.17 15.8515.6215.59 15.81 15.94 15.95 15.81 15.55 15.58 15.81 15.95 15.55 2.0%16.20 16.20 16.15 16.15 15.88 ±EX 15.80 ±EX 3.7% 15.99 ±EX 15.92 ±EX 3.0%15.10 15.87 15.87 15.83 ±EX NOPARKINGINLET PROTECTION-TYP (SEE DETAIL 9/C801) SILT FENCE-TYP (SEE DETAIL 6/C801)BIOROLL-TYP (SEE DETAIL 7/C801) TREE PROTECTION-TYP (SEE DETAIL 8/C801) INLET PROTECTION-TYP (SEE DETAIL 9/C801) SILT FENCE-TYP (SEE DETAIL 6/C801) Scale Date Drawn By Checked By Project Number ISSUE DATE CITY STAMP AREA 1960 LEXINGTON AVE S MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 (651) 291-1116 HOLYFAMILYMARONITECHURCH.ORG PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 6/9/2026 11:31:21 AMAs indicated TDG TDG/MDC 06.22.2026 17001B1960 LEXINGTON AVE SMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118CITY SUBMITTAL 06.22.2026HOLY FAMILYMARONITE CHURCHREVISION SCHEDULE NO. DESCRIPTION DATE License No. Date I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Trevor D. Gruys - PE 53706 Minnesota. 06/22/2026 LOUCKS 12755 HIGHWAY 55, SUITE R100 PLYMOUTH 55441 763.424.5505 WWW.LOUCKSINC.COM N SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 1. SPOT ELEVATIONS REPRESENT FINISHED SURFACE GRADES, GUTTER/FLOW LINE, FACE OF BUILDING, OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. ALL ACCESSIBLE ROUTES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH A CROSS SLOPE NOT EXCEEDING 2% AND A RUNNING SLOPE NOT EXCEEDING 5%. 3. AT TURNING POINTS ALONG THE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE THE PAVEMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED 2% IN ANY DIRECTION FOR AN AREA 60" IN DIAMETER. 4. ALL PUBLIC SIDEWALKS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH A CROSS SLOPE NOT EXCEEDING 2% AND A RUNNING SLOPE NOT EXCEEDING 5%. 5. CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES IN PAVED AREAS SHALL BE SUMPED 0.04 FEET. ALL CATCH BASINS IN GUTTERS SHALL BE SUMPED 0.16 FEET. RIM ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON PLANS DO NOT REFLECT SUMPED ELEVATIONS. 6. EXISTING SOILS ARE ASSUMED TO BE COARSE-GRAINED SOILS (GW, GP, GM, GC, SW, SP, SM, SC) PER THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION. CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY ENGINEER IF EXISTING CONDITIONS DIFFER FROM ASSUMED SOIL CONDITIONS. 7. ALL DISTURBED UNPAVED AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES OF TOP SOIL AND SEED/MULCH OR SOD. THESE AREAS SHALL BE WATERED/MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR UNTIL VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED. REFER TO THE LANDSCAPE PLANS, DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR FINAL SITE STABILIZATION. 8. STREETS MUST BE CLEANED AND SWEPT WHENEVER TRACKING OF SEDIMENTS OCCURS AND BEFORE SITES ARE LEFT IDLE FOR WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAYS. A REGULAR SWEEPING SCHEDULE MUST BE ESTABLISHED. 9. DUST MUST BE ADEQUATELY CONTROLLED. 10. SEE UTILITY PLAN FOR WATERMAIN, STORM SEWER, AND SANITARY SEWER INFORMATION. 11. SEE SITE PLAN FOR CURB AND BITUMINOUS TAPER LOCATIONS. 12. REFERENCE ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING ELEVATIONS. 13. THE CONTRACTOR ALONG WITH THE OWNER SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS AND APPROVALS FROM GOVERNING AUTHORITIES, INCLUDING ANY CITY PERMITS AND THE NPDES PERMIT. 14. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL AND TREE PROTECTION MEASURES BEFORE BEGINNING SITE GRADING ACTIVITIES. SOME EROSION CONTROLS SUCH AS BALE CHECKS AND TEMPORARY SILT PONDS MAY BE INSTALLED AS GRADING OCCURS IN SPECIFIC AREAS. MAINTAIN EROSION CONTROLS THROUGHOUT THE GRADING PROCESS AND REMOVE WHEN TURF HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. 15. PER NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM/STATE DISPOSAL SYSTEM (NPDES/SDS) REQUIREMENTS, THE WASHOUT AND CLEANOUT OF STUCCO, PAINT, CONCRETE, FORM RELEASE OILS, CURING COMPOUNDS, AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS SHALL BE PROPERLY CONTAINED AND DISPOSED OF. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND USING APPROVED METHODS OF CONTAINMENT SUCH AS PRE-FABRICATED WASHOUT CONTAINERS, CONCRETE WASHOUT TOTE, READY MIX TRUCKS WITH SELF-CONTAINED CHUTE CLEANOUT, ETC. 16. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AS-BUILT INFORMATION OF GRADING ACTIVITIES AS NEEDED PER APPLICABLE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND/OR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS. GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL NOTES TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-1166 TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002 Gopher State One Call CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. LOUCKS IS PLEASED TO OFFER CONSTRUCTION STAKING SERVICES. PLEASE CONTACT BRIAN PECHACEK FOR INQUIRIES. EMAIL: BPECHACEK@LOUCKSINC.COM PHONE: 763.424.5505 CONSTRUCTION STAKING PARKING STALL COUNT ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL 2 LEGEND CATCH BASIN STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN STORM MANHOLE SANITARY MANHOLE HYDRANT GATE VALVE SPOT ELEVATION SIGN LIGHT POLE POWER POLE WATER MANHOLE / WELL CONTOUR CONCRETE CURB UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC CONCRETE TELEPHONE PEDESTAL UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND GAS OVERHEAD UTILITY CHAIN LINK FENCE BUILDING RETAINING WALL NO PARKING UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC SANITARY SEWER SERVICE WATER SERVICE ELECTRIC METER GAS METER TREE LINE EXISTING PROPOSED 972 DRAINTILE FORCEMAIN 373PARKING SETBACK LINE BUILDING SETBACK LINE 2 FENCE FLARED END SECTION POST INDICATOR VALVE BENCHMARK SOIL BORING 3DIRECTION OF FLOW 1.0% 972.5 C301 GRADING PLAN NOTE: EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION SHOWN IS FROM A BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREPARED BY LOUCKS, DATED 01/20/2017. INLET PROTECTION SILT FENCE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERN PROPOSED DRAINAGE PATTERN BIO ROLLS EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SWPPP LEGEND TREE PROTECTION FENCE DESCRIPTION UNIT TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EA PREFABRICATED CONCRETE WASHOUT EA SILT FENCE (STANDARD)LF EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SY INLET PROTECTION EA QUANTITY 0 1 ±17,990 ±0 3 BIOROLLS LF 31 ESTIMATED QUANTITIES Page 898 of 935 NOPARKINGPROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION FFE=916.20 PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION FFE=916.20 88888888888NOPARKINGCORE DRILL & CONNECT TO EXISITING CBMH @ INV=911.47 (FIELD VERIFY LOCATION, SIZE & INVERT) 107 LF-10" PVC @ 0.5% CBMH-1 (24" NYLOPLAST) RIM=915.17 INV=912.01 SEE DETAIL 10/C801 42 LF-10" PVC @ 0.5% CBMH-2 (24" NYLOPLAST) RIM=915.43 INV=912.22 SEE DETAIL 10/C801 29 LF-10" PVC @ 0.5% CBMH-3 (24" NYLOPLAST) RIM=915.43 INV=912.37 SEE DETAIL 10/C801 29 LF-10" PVC @ 0.5% CBMH-4 (24" NYLOPLAST) RIM=915.10 INV=912.51 SEE DETAIL 10/C801 Scale Date Drawn By Checked By Project Number ISSUE DATE CITY STAMP AREA 1960 LEXINGTON AVE S MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 (651) 291-1116 HOLYFAMILYMARONITECHURCH.ORG PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 6/9/2026 11:31:21 AMAs indicated TDG TDG/MDC 06.22.2026 17001B1960 LEXINGTON AVE SMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118CITY SUBMITTAL 06.22.2026HOLY FAMILYMARONITE CHURCHREVISION SCHEDULE NO. DESCRIPTION DATE License No. Date I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Trevor D. Gruys - PE 53706 Minnesota. 06/22/2026 LOUCKS 12755 HIGHWAY 55, SUITE R100 PLYMOUTH 55441 763.424.5505 WWW.LOUCKSINC.COM N SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 1. ALL STORM SEWER, SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN UTILITIES SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS,THE MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE, THE LOCAL GOVERNING UNIT, AND THE STANDARD UTILITIES SPECIFICATION OF THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA (CEAM), CURRENT EDITION. 2. ALL UTILITY PIPE BEDDING SHALL BE COMPACTED SAND OR FINE GRANULAR MATERIAL. ALL COMPACTION SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CEAM SPECIFICATION. 3. ALL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS. THE CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT AND THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER MUST BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, OR WORK IMPACTING PUBLIC UTILITIES. 4. CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE THAT MECHANICAL JOINTS COMPLY WITH ASTM C1173 OR ASTM C1461 AND THE MECHANICAL JOINT TYPE IS INTENDED FOR THE SPECIFIC TRANSITION PER MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE (SECTION 705.10 JOINTS BETWEEN VARIOUS MATERIALS). 5. ALL SITE UTILITY SERVICES SHALL TERMINATE 5' FROM THE EXTERIOR BUILDING WALL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. THE SITE UTILITY CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR, MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR AND MECHANICAL ENGINEER TO DETERMINE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF BRINGING THE SERVICE(S) INTO THE BUILDING, INSPECTIONS AND TESTING PER APPLICABLE GOVERNING AGENCIES. 6. ALL NEW WATERMAIN AND SERVICES MUST HAVE A MINIMUM OF 8.0 FEET OF COVER. EXTRA DEPTH MAY BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION TO SANITARY OR STORM SEWER LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD ADJUST WATERMAIN TO AVOID CONFLICTS WITH SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER, AND SERVICES AS REQUIRED. INSULATION OF WATERMAIN AND SANITARY SEWER LINES SHALL BE PROVIDED WHERE 8.0 FEET MINIMUM DEPTH CAN NOT BE ATTAINED. 7. PER MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY REQUIREMENTS, A MINIMUM OF 18 INCHES OF VERTICAL SEPARATION AND 10 FEET OF HORIZONTAL SEPARATION IS REQUIRED FROM WATERMAIN TO ANY MANHOLE, SEPTIC SYSTEM, CATCH BASIN, SEWER PIPE, OR OTHER SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION, MEASURED FROM THE OUTER EDGE OF THE PIPE TO THE OUTER EDGE OF THE CONTAMINATION SOURCE UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN. 8. ALL STORM SEWER DOWNSPOUT COLLECTION PIPES AND WYES SHALL BE PVC (SCHEDULE 40). 9. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OF SANITARY & STORM STRUCTURE(S) AND UNDERGROUND SYSTEM(S) FOR ENGINEER'S REVIEW. 10. ALL PORTIONS OF THE SANITARY & STORM SEWER SYSTEMS, INCLUDING CATCH BASINS, LOCATED WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE BUILDING OR WATER SERVICE LINE MUST BE TESTED ACCORDANCE WITH MINNESOTA RULES, PART 4714. 11. ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE LOCATED 5 FEET BEHIND BACK OF CURB OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 12. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AS-BUILT INFORMATION OF CONSTRUCTED UTILITIES (RECOMMENDED PRIOR TO BACKFILLING) PER APPLICABLE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND/OR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS. 13. ALL UNUSED UTILITY SERVICES SHALL BE ABANDONED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICABLE GOVERNING AGENCIES. 14. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED UTILITY PERMITS FROM THE APPLICABLE GOVERNING AGENCIES. UTILITY PLAN NOTES TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-1166 TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002 Gopher State One Call CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. UTILITY TYPE MATERIAL SIZE REFERENCE STORM SEWER PVC SCH 40 10" DIAMETER ASTM D1785, D2665, F891, F1488, F1760 PIPE MATERIALS STRUCTURE NUMBER STRUCTURE TYPE NEENAH CASTING TYPE (OR EQUAL) CBMH-1 24" DOMED GRATE24" DIA. NYLOPLAST CBMH-2 CBMH-3 CBMH-4 STORM SEWER STRUCTURE SCHEDULE 24" DIA. NYLOPLAST 24" DIA. NYLOPLAST 24" DIA. NYLOPLAST 24" DOMED GRATE 24" DOMED GRATE 24" DOMED GRATE LOUCKS IS PLEASED TO OFFER CONSTRUCTION STAKING SERVICES. PLEASE CONTACT BRIAN PECHACEK FOR INQUIRIES. EMAIL: BPECHACEK@LOUCKSINC.COM PHONE: 763.424.5505 CONSTRUCTION STAKING PARKING STALL COUNT ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL 2 LEGEND CATCH BASIN STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN STORM MANHOLE SANITARY MANHOLE HYDRANT GATE VALVE SPOT ELEVATION SIGN LIGHT POLE POWER POLE WATER MANHOLE / WELL CONTOUR CONCRETE CURB UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC CONCRETE TELEPHONE PEDESTAL UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND GAS OVERHEAD UTILITY CHAIN LINK FENCE BUILDING RETAINING WALL NO PARKING UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC SANITARY SEWER SERVICE WATER SERVICE ELECTRIC METER GAS METER TREE LINE EXISTING PROPOSED 972 DRAINTILE FORCEMAIN 373PARKING SETBACK LINE BUILDING SETBACK LINE 2 FENCE FLARED END SECTION POST INDICATOR VALVE BENCHMARK SOIL BORING 3DIRECTION OF FLOW 1.0% 972.5 C401 UTILITY PLAN NOTE: EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION SHOWN IS FROM A BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREPARED BY LOUCKS, DATED 01/20/2017. Page 899 of 935 Scale Date Drawn By Checked By Project Number ISSUE DATE CITY STAMP AREA 1960 LEXINGTON AVE S MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 (651) 291-1116 HOLYFAMILYMARONITECHURCH.ORG PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 6/9/2026 11:31:21 AMAs indicated TDG TDG/MDC 06.22.2026 17001B1960 LEXINGTON AVE SMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118CITY SUBMITTAL 06.22.2026HOLY FAMILYMARONITE CHURCHREVISION SCHEDULE NO.DESCRIPTION DATE License No. Date I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Trevor D. Gruys - PE 53706 Minnesota. 06/22/2026 LOUCKS 12755 HIGHWAY 55, SUITE R100 PLYMOUTH 55441 763.424.5505 WWW.LOUCKSINC.COM C801 CIVIL DETAILS TYPICAL ADA PARKING STALL STRIPING DRAWN 03/2017 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2037LOUCKS LCC 4" WIDE PAINTED LINES, TRAFFIC WHITE 4" WIDE PAINTED LINES, 18" O.C., @ 45 DEG. TRAFFIC WHITE (AISLE TO CONTAIN THE DESIGNATION "NO PARKING" COMPLYING WITH MSBC 1341.0502 IF ACCESS AISLE SIGNS ARE NOT SHOWN REFER TO SITE PLAN FOR ADA PARKING SIGN LOCATION. NO SIGNS TO BE LOCATED WITHIN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE. REFER TO SITE PLAN FOR ACCESS AISLE SIGN LOCATION (AISLE TO CONTAIN THE DESIGNATION "NO PARKING" COMPLYING WITH MSBC 134.0502 IF ACCESS AISLE SIGNS ARE NOT SHOWN). NO SIGNS TO BE LOCATED WITHIN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE REFER TO SITE PLAN FOR STALL DIMENSIONS 40"PROVIDE PAINTED INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY AT EACH DESIGNATED HANDICAP PARKING STALL. CENTER SYMBOL IN STALL. HC SIGNAGE PER MINNESOTA RULES 1341.0502 ALL LINES 4" WIDE 8" DIAMETER NOT TO SCALE 67.5° 5° 36" 1 CONCRETE SIDEWALK SECTION 4" CONCRETE WALK MN/DOT 2521 4" GRANULAR MATERIAL MN/DOT 3149 DRAWN 12/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2034LOUCKS2 3 TRAFFIC SIGN 3#/FT. 3#/FT. TRAFFIC SIGN SPECIFICATIONS STOP SIGN SHALL BE R1-1, 30"X30" OR AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER. MATERIAL ALUMINUM SHALL BE 5052-H38 OR 6061-T6 ALLOY. GAUGE SHALL BE 0.080 ON THE LONGEST SIDE UP TO 30", 0.100 ON THE LONGEST SIDE OVER 30". REFLECTIVE SHEETING SHALL BE DIAMOND GRADE VIP. ALL SIGNS SHALL CONFORM TO MN/DOT 3352, SIGNS, DELINEATORS AND MARKERS - STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION. CHANNEL POST SPECIFICATIONS STEEL CHANNEL POSTS SHALL WEIGH 3LB. /FT. POSTS SHALL BE OF THE 4-RIB DESIGN, GALVANIZED AND PUNCHED ON 1" CENTERS.3'-0"7'-0"IF INSTALLED IN PAVEMENT, INSTALL V-LOC ANCHOR OR APPROVED EQUAL. DRAWN 12/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2041LOUCKS MILL & OVERLAY DRAWN 12/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2045LOUCKS MILL 1 1/2" DEPTH FOR A WIDTH OF 2' BASE COURSE WEAR COURSE AGGREGATE BASE OVERLAY 1 1/2" DEPTH FOR A WIDTH OF 2' BASE COURSE WEAR COURSE AGGREGATE BASE MILL SECTION OVERLAY SECTION EXISTING PAVEMENT SECTION EXTENDED PAVEMENT SECTION 4 5 SILT FENCE FLOW 6" 6" NOTES: 1.PLACE BOTTOM EDGE OF FENCE INTO 6 IN DEEP TRENCH AND BACKFILL IMMEDIATELY. 2.POSTS SHALL BE: ·6 FT MAX. SPACING. ·2 IN X 2IN HARDWOOD, OR STANDARD STEEL T-TYPE FENCE POSTS. ·5' MIN. LENGTH POSTS, DRIVEN 2 FT INTO THE GROUND. 3.ATTACH FABRIC TO WOOD POST WITH A MIN. OF 5, 1 INCH LONG STAPLES. 4.ATTACH FABRIC TO STEEL POST WITH A MIN. OF 3 ZIP TIES IN TOP 8 INCHES OF FABRIC. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC PER MNDOT 3886 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC PER MNDOT 3886 DRAWN 2/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 3000LOUCKS BIO-ROLL OR ROCK LOG NOTES: 1.PLACE BOTTOM EDGE OF WIRE FENCE INTO 6 IN DEEP TRENCH. 2.POSTS SHALL BE: ·6 FT MAX. SPACING. ·STANDARD STEEL T-TYPE POSTS. ·5' MIN. LENGTH POSTS, DRIVEN 2 FT INTO THE GROUND. 3.ATTACH WIRE FENCE TO STEEL POSTS WITH NO. 9 GA. ALUMINUM WIRE OR NO. 9 GALVANIZED STEEL PRE-FORMED CLIPS. 4.ATTACH FABRIC TO WIRE FENCING WITH WIRE OR ZIP TIES. A MIN. OF 3 ZIP TIES PER POST. EXTEND BOTTOM OF FABRIC INTO TRENCH. 5.BACKFILL TRENCH & COMPACT. 6.STRAW, WOOD CHIP, COMPOST OR ROCK LOGS PER MNDOT SPECS 3890, 3897. DRAWN 11/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 3002LOUCKS 2'' X 2'' X 18'' LONG WOODEN STAKES AT 2'-0'' SPACING. DRIVE THROUGH NETTING, NOT PENETRATING FIBER LOG. STRAW OR WOOD FIBER 9" OR 12'' DIA. SEDIMENT LOG ROLL ENCLOSED IN POLYPROPYLENE NETTING FL O W TRENCH IF LOOSE SOILS FLOW ENDS SECURELY CLOSED TO PREVENT LOSS OF OPEN GRADED AGGREGATE FILL. SECURED WITH 50 PSI. ZIP TIE 1 NOTES: SEE SPECS. 2573, 3137, 3890 & 3897. MANUFACTURED ALTERNATIVES LISTED ON Mn/DOT'S APPROVED PRODUCTS LIST MAY BE SUBSTITUTED. 1.GEOTEXTILE SOCK BETWEEN 4-10 FEET LONG AND 4-6 INCH DIAMETER. SEAM TO BE JOINED BY TWO ROWS OF STITCHING WITH A PLASTIC MESH BACKING OR PROVIDE A HEAT BONDED SEAM (OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT). FILL ROCK LOG WITH OPEN GRADED AGGREGATE CONSISTING OF SOUND DURABLE PARTICLES OF COARSE AGGREGATE CONFORMING TO SPEC. 3137 TABLE 3137-1; CA-3 GRADATION.4'-0"TREE PROTECTION NOTE: INSTALL FENCE AROUND EACH TREE TO BE PROTECTED PRIOR TO GRADING. FENCE SHALL BE PLACED AT THE DRIP EDGE OR CRITICAL ROOT ZONES OF THE TREES. FENCING SHALL BE NO CLOSER THAN 6' TO THE TRUNK OF ANY TREE TO BE PROTECTED. THE PERIMETERS FOR TREES BEING PROTECTED SHALL BE DESIGNATED AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND SIGNAGE SHALL BE INSTALLED AT ALL TREE PROTECTION AREAS THAT INSTRUCTS WORKERS TO STAY OUT. CONTRACTOR SHALL AVOID ALL AREAS WITHIN TREE PROTECTION FENCE. SOIL SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM EROSION AND CHANGES IN CHEMISTRY FROM CONCRETE OR TOXIC MATERIALS SUCH AS FUELS AND PAINTS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE "TREE PAINT" ON SITE AT ALL TIMES. IF AN OAK IS WOUNDED DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR MUST IMMEDIATELY APPLY PAINT TO THE WOUND IN ORDER TO PREVENT OAK WILT. ALL DAMAGE TO TREES TO BE PROTECTED SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE OWNER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN DRIP EDGE OF TREE 2" X 4" WOOD STAKE, POSITIONED AS NOTED. STRING 4' HIGH, ORANGE POLYETHYLENE LAMINAR SAFETY NETTING BETWEEN WOOD STAKES PLACED 5' ON CENTER AND PLACED BETWEEN TREE PROTECTION AND DISTURBED AREAS. EXISTING GRADE TREE PROTECTION DRAWN 2/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 3008LOUCKS INLET PROTECTION - EXISTING STORM STRUCTURES HIGH-FLOW FABRIC CURB DEFLECTOR PLATE OVERFLOW 1-CENTER OF FILTER ASSEMBLY OVERFLOW 2 - TOP OF CURB BOX POLYESTER SLEEVE MANHOLE COVER ASSEMBLY FILTER ASSEMBLY 27" 27" SEDIMENT CONTROL BARRIER 2'X3' SEDIMENT CONTROL BARRIER ROAD DRAIN HIGH-FLOW INLET PROTECTION CURB AND GUTTER MODEL WIMCO ROAD DRAIN, OR APPROVED EQUAL DRAWN 2/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 3011LOUCKS6789 NOTE: GRANULAR MATERIALS FURNISHED FOR USE IN FOUNDATION, BEDDING, ENCASEMENT, OR BACKFILL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: ·FOUNDATION MATERIALS SHALL HAVE 100% PASSING THE 1 1/2" SIEVE AND A MAXIMUM OF 10% PASSING THE No. 4 SIEVE. NOT LESS THAN 50% OF THE MATERIAL RETAINED BY THE No. 4 SIEVE SHALL HAVE ONE (1) OR MORE CRUSHED FACES. HARD, DURABLE CRUSHED CARBONATE QUARRY ROCK MAY BE USED FOR FOUNDATION MATERIALS. ·BEDDING AND ENCASEMENT MATERIALS FOR FLEXIBLE PIPE SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF MNDOT SPECIFICATION 3149.2B1, GRANULAR BORROW, EXCEPT THAT 100% SHALL PASS THE ONE INCH (1") SIEVE. ·BACKFILL MATERIALS SHALL CONSIST OF SUITABLE EXISTING TRENCH MATERIALS, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. SUITABLE MATERIAL SHALL BE DEFINED AS A MINERAL SOIL FREE OF FOREIGN MATERIALS (RUBBISH, ORGANICS & DEBRIS), FROZEN CLUMPS, OVERSIZE STONE, ROCK, CONCRETE OR BITUMINOUS CHUNKS, AND OTHER UNSUITABLE MATERIALS THAT MAY DAMAGE PIPE, PREVENT THOROUGH COMPACTION, OR INCREASE THE RISKS OF SETTLEMENT. PLASTIC PIPE BEDDING PLASTIC PIPE 18"18"PIPE WIDTH ENCASEMENT BEDDING FOUNDATION (MAY NOT BE REQUIRED) 12" 6" BACKFILL COMPACTED AS SPECIFIED EXCAVATED TRENCH WIDTH DRAWN 2/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 4008LOUCKS 10 Page 900 of 935 NOPARKINGPROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION FFE=916.20 PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION FFE=916.20 88888888888NOPARKING3 HY-S 1 TH-D 2 HY-S 5 HE-D 2 TA-T 1 TH-D 2 JU-G 3 HY-S 2 HY-S 3 SP-L 2 TA-T 1 TH-D 1 AC-N 6 HE-D 1 CO-F 5 HE-D 3 CA-K 3 CO-F 3 CA-K 9 RI-G 2 CA-K 3 CA-K 1 VI-T EDGER SOD ALL DISTRUBED AREAS DUE TO CONSTRUCTION MATCH TO EXISTING EDGER SOD SOD ALL DISTRUBED AREAS DUE TO CONSTRUCTION ROCK MULCH-TYP (MATCH EXISTING) SOD ALL DISTRUBED AREAS DUE TO CONSTRUCTION ROCK MULCH-TYP (MATCH EXISTING) EDGER PRECAST CONCRETE SPLASH BLOCK PRECAST CONCRETE SPLASH BLOCK EDGER PRECAST CONCRETE SPLASH BLOCK SYMBOL CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT SIZE DECIDUOUS TREES AC-N 1 ACER RUBRUM `NORTHWOOD`NORTHWOOD MAPLE B&B 2.5" CAL SHRUBS CO-F 4 CORNUS SERICEA `ARTIC FIRE`ARCTIC FIRE DOGWOOD CONT #5 HY-S 10 HYDRANGEA ARBORESCENS `INVINCIBELLE SPIRIT` TM INVINCIBLE SPIRIT HYDRANGEA CONT #5 RI-G 9 RIBES ALPINUM `GREEN MOUND`GREEN MOUND ALPINE CURRANT CONT #5 SP-L 3 SPIREA JAPONICA `LITTLE PRINCESS`LITTLE PRINCESS SPIREA CONT #5 VI-T 1 VIBURNUM TRILOBUM `BAILEY COMPACT`COMPACT AMERICAN VIBURNUM CONT #5 CONIFEROUS SHRUBS JU-G 2 JUNIPERUS CHINENSIS `SEA GREEN`SEA GREEN JUNIPER CONT #5 TA-T 4 TAXUS X MEDIA `TAUNTON`TAUNTON YEW CONT #5 TH-D 3 THUJA OCCIDENTALIS `DEGROOTS SPIRE`DEGROOTS SPIRE ARBORVITAE CONT 4' HGT PERENNIALS HE-D 16 HEMEROCALLIS X `STELLA DE ORO`STELLA D` ORO DAYLILY CONT #2 GRASSES CA-K 11 CALAMAGROSTIS X ACUTIFLORA `KARL FOERSTER`FEATHER REED GRASS CONT #2 SYMBOL CODE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME GROUND COVERS RM-1 ROCK MULCH 1.5"-2.5" DIA.RIVER ROCK TS-1 TURF SOD PLANT SCHEDULE Scale Date Drawn By Checked By Project Number ISSUE DATE CITY STAMP AREA 1960 LEXINGTON AVE S MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 (651) 291-1116 HOLYFAMILYMARONITECHURCH.ORG PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 6/9/2026 11:31:21 AMAs indicated 06.22.2026 17001B1960 LEXINGTON AVE SMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118CITY SUBMITTAL 06.22.2026HOLY FAMILYMARONITE CHURCHREVISION SCHEDULE NO.DESCRIPTION DATE Douglas D. Loken - LA License No. Date I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 45591 06/22/2026 XXX XXX LOUCKS 12755 HIGHWAY 55, SUITE R100 PLYMOUTH 55441 763.424.5505 WWW.LOUCKSINC.COM L101 LANDSCAPE PLAN N SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-1166 TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002 Gopher State One Call CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. NOTE: EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION SHOWN IS FROM A BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREPARED BY LOUCKS, DATED 01/20/2017. VERIFY EXISTING / PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEM LAYOUT AND CONFIRM COMPLETE LIMITS OF IRRIGATION PRIOR TO SUPPLYING SHOP DRAWINGS. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AN IRRIGATION LAYOUT PLAN AND SPECIFICATION AS A PART OF THE SCOPE OF WORK WHEN BIDDING. THESE SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO ORDER AND / OR INSTALLATION. IT SHALL BE THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO INSURE THAT ALL SODDED / SEEDED AND PLANTED AREAS ARE IRRIGATED PROPERLY, INCLUDING THOSE AREAS DIRECTLY AROUND AND ABUTTING BUILDING FOUNDATION. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH AN IRRIGATION SCHEDULE APPROPRIATE TO THE PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS AND TO PLANT MATERIAL GROWTH REQUIREMENTS. IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS NOT TO SPRINKLE ACROSS PAVEMENT NOR SHALL THE SYSTEM SPRINKLE THE BUILDING. THE SYSTEM SHALL INCORPORATE A RAIN SENSOR INTO IRRIGATION SYSTEM. PLANTINGS OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF IRRIGATION ARE TO BE WATERED REGULARLY UNTIL PLANTING / SOD / SEED HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. IRRIGATION NOTES 1.AT LEAST 25% OF THE LAND AREA MUST BE LANDSCAPED WITH GRASS, GROUNDCOVER, SHRUBBERY AND TREES. -TOTAL SITE AREA = 2.56 ACRES -REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREA (25% MINIMUM) = 0.64 ACRES -PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREA = 1.24 ACRES 2.AT LEAST 10 % OF ANY SURFACE PARKING LOT OR AREA MUST CONTAIN LANDSCAPE MEDIANS, TREE TRENCHES, OR OTHER PERVIOUS LANDSCAPE AREA. (THIS CODE DOES NOT APPLY) 3.THE MINIMUM TREE AND VEGETATION PLANTING SIZE REQUIREMENTS ARE ESTABLISH IN TABLE 12-4A-5.1. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT SITE PRIOR TO SUBMITTING BID. HE SHALL INSPECT SITE AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF WORK. VERIFY LAYOUT AND ANY DIMENSIONS SHOWN AND BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ANY DISCREPANCIES WHICH MAY COMPROMISE THE DESIGN AND / OR INTENT OF THE PROJECT'S LAYOUT. ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE WORK OR MATERIALS SUPPLIED. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTING ROADS, CURBS / GUTTERS, TRAILS, TREES, LAWNS AND SITE ELEMENTS DURING PLANTING OPERATIONS. ANY DAMAGE TO SAME SHALL BE REPAIRED AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALIGNMENT AND LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND AND ABOVE GRADE UTILITIES. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY PROTECTION FOR THE UTILITIES BEFORE CONSTRUCTION / MATERIAL INSTALLATION BEGINS. CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY GENERAL CONTRACTOR OF ANY CONCERNS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF PLANTINGS. EXISTING CONTOURS, TRAILS, VEGETATION, CURB / GUTTER AND OTHER EXISTING ELEMENTS BASED UPON INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY OTHERS. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ANY AND ALL DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF SAME. THE ALIGNMENT AND GRADES OF THE PROPOSED WALKS, TRAILS AND / OR ROADWAYS ARE SUBJECT TO FIELD ADJUSTMENT REQUIRED TO CONFORM TO LOCALIZED TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS AND TO MINIMIZE TREE REMOVAL AND GRADING. ANY CHANGE IN ALIGNMENT MUST BE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. GENERAL NOTES Page 901 of 935 Scale Date Drawn By Checked By Project Number ISSUE DATE CITY STAMP AREA 1960 LEXINGTON AVE S MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 (651) 291-1116 HOLYFAMILYMARONITECHURCH.ORG PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 6/9/2026 11:31:21 AMAs indicated 06.22.2026 17001B1960 LEXINGTON AVE SMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN55118CITY SUBMITTAL 06.22.2026HOLY FAMILYMARONITE CHURCHREVISION SCHEDULE NO.DESCRIPTION DATE Douglas D. Loken - LA License No. Date I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 45591 06/22/2026 XXX XXX LOUCKS 12755 HIGHWAY 55, SUITE R100 PLYMOUTH 55441 763.424.5505 WWW.LOUCKSINC.COM L102 LANDSCAPE DETAILS 2x ROOT BALL WIDTH SET PLANT ON UNDISTRUBED NATIVE SOIL SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING EDGE CONDITION VARIES WOOD STAKE BACKFILL WITH IN SITU TOPSOIL MULCH - 4" DEEP. NO MULCH IN CONTACT WITH TRUNK - SEE NOTES OR SPECS. ROOT FLARE EVEN WITH OR JUST ABOVE GRADE SAFETY FLAGGING - ONE PER WIRE TREE WRAP TO FIRST BRANCH 16"X2" POLYPROPYLENE OR POLYETHYLENE STRAP NOTES: 1.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING ALL TREES IN A PLUMB POSITION THROUGH THE WARRANTY PERIOD. STAKING IS SUGGESTED, BUT NOT REQUIRED. ANY STAKING MUST CONFORM WITH PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN A.N.A. GUIDELINES FOR STANDARD PRACTICES. 2.PRUNE DAMAGED AND CROSSING BRANCHES AFTER PLANTING IS COMPLETE. 3.CUT BACK WIRE BASKET. 4.WATER TREE THOROUGHLY DURING PLANTING OPERATIONS. PLACE BACKFILL IN 8-12" LIFTS AND SATURATE SOIL WITH WATER. DO NOT COMPACT MORE THAN NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN PLUMB. 5.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR TESTING PERCOLATION RATES PRIOR TO PLANTING. NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY IF POOR DRAINAGE EXISTS. DETAIL - DECIDUOUS TREE 3/4" 1 -0" CUT ROPES AND EXPOSE TOP 1/3 OF BURLAP BALL. REMOVE NON-BIODEGRADABLE MATERIAL. PLANT-TREE-01 1 NOTES: LOOSEN ROOTS OF ALL CONTAINERIZED PLANTS. SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTINGBUILDING WALL (TYP)EDGE VARIES - REFER TO PLAN EDGING MATERIAL - SEE NOTES OR SPEC. LANDSCAPE FABRIC - SEE NOTES OR SPEC. MULCH - 3" DEPTH - SEE NOTES OR SPEC. PLANTING SOIL - SEE NOTES OR SPEC. SHRUBS TO BE PLACED SO THAT TOP OF CONTAINER SITS FLUSH WITH PROPOSED GRADE DETAIL - SHRUB PLANTING 1" 1 -0" REFER TO SCHEDULE 18" MIN. PREPARE BED A MIN. 4" DEEPER THAN ROOT BALL PLANT-SHRB-01 2 VARIES SEE SCHEDULE FOR SPACING NOTE: LOOSEN ROOTS OF PLANT MATERIAL PRIOR TO PLANTINGBUILDING WALL (TYP)PLANTING SOIL - SEE NOTES EDGE VARIES - REFER TO PLAN EDGING MATERIAL - SEE NOTES MULCH - 3" MIN. DEPTH - SEE NOTES PLANTING - PERENNIAL 1" 1 -0"PLANT-PER-01 3 GENERAL NOTES COORDINATE THE PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING INSTALLATION WITH OTHER CONTRACTORS WORKING ON SITE. NO PLANTING WILL BE INSTALLED UNTIL ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. ALL PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED AS PER PLANTING DETAILS. REMOVE ALL FLAGGING AND LABELS FROM PLANTS. IF THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS CONCERNED OR PERCEIVES ANY DEFICIENCIES IN THE PLANT SELECTIONS, SOIL CONDITIONS OR ANY OTHER SITE CONDITION WHICH MIGHT NEGATIVELY AFFECT PLANT ESTABLISHMENT, SURVIVAL OR GUARANTEE, THE CONTRACTOR MUST BRING THESE DEFICIENCIES TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO PROCUREMENT AND / OR INSTALLATION. PROTECT ALL EXISTING TREES ON SITE SCHEDULED TO REMAIN. IF EXISTING TREES ARE DAMAGED IN ANY MANNER, ABOVE OR BELOW GROUND IN THE ROOT SYSTEM, AN ASPHALTIC TREE PRUNING PAINT SHOULD BE APPLIED IMMEDIATELY AFTER WOUNDING. SOIL & GROUNDCOVER ALL PLANTING AREAS RECEIVING PLANTED GROUND COVER, PERENNIALS, ANNUALS, AND/OR VINES SHALL RECEIVE A MINIMUM OF 24" DEPTH OF PLANTING SOIL (MNDOT 3877 - 2B OR EQUAL). WHERE SOD / SEED ABUTS PAVED SURFACES, FINISHED GRADE OF SOD / SEED SHALL BE HELD 1" BELOW SURFACE ELEVATION OF TRAIL, SLAB, CURB, ETC. SOD SHALL BE LAID PARALLEL TO THE CONTOURS AND SHALL HAVE STAGGERED JOINTS. ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 OR IN DRAINAGE SWALES, THE SOD SHALL BE STAKED TO THE GROUND. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THAT SOIL AND COMPACTION CONDITIONS ARE ADEQUATE TO ALLOW FOR PROPER DRAINAGE AT AND AROUND THE BUILDING SITE. PLANTINGS INFO ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF THE AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL SHRUBS SHALL HAVE AT LEAST 5 CANES AT THE SPECIFIED MINIMUM SHRUB HEIGHT OR WIDTH. ORNAMENTAL TREES SHALL HAVE NO V CROTCHES AND SHALL BEGIN BRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 3' ABOVE ROOT BALL. STREET AND BOULEVARD TREES SHALL BEGIN BRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 5' ABOVE FINISHED GRADE. ANY CONIFEROUS TREE PREVIOUSLY PRUNED FOR CHRISTMAS TREE SALES SHALL NOT BE USED. ALL CONIFEROUS TREES SHALL BE FULL FORM, NATURAL TO THE SPECIES, WITHOUT PRUNING. PRIOR TO PLANTING, FIELD VERIFY THAT THE ROOT COLLAR / ROOT FLAIR IS LOCATED AT THE TOP OF THE BALLED & BURLAP TREE. IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE, SOIL SHALL BE REMOVED DOWN TO THE ROOT COLLAR / ROOT FLAIR. WHEN THE BALLED & BURLAP TREE IS PLANTED, THE ROOT COLLAR / ROOT FLAIR SHALL BE EVEN OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE FINISHED GRADE. ALL PROPOSED PLANTS SHALL BE LOCATED AND STAKED AS SHOWN ON PLAN. ADJUSTMENTS IN LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLANT MATERIALS MAY BE NEEDED IN FIELD. SHOULD AN ADJUSTMENT BE ADVISED, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST BE NOTIFIED. PLAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER PLANT SCHEDULE IF DISCREPANCIES IN QUANTITIES EXIST. SPECIFICATIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER NOTES. NO PLANT MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS APPROVAL IS REQUESTED OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF A BID AND / OR QUOTATION. WRAPPING MATERIAL SHALL BE CORRUGATED PVC PIPING 1" GREATER IN CALIPER THAN THE TREE BEING PROTECTED OR QUALITY, HEAVY, WATERPROOF CREPE PAPER MANUFACTURED FOR THIS PURPOSE. WRAP ALL DECIDUOUS TREES PLANTED IN THE FALL PRIOR TO 12-1 AND REMOVE ALL WRAPPING AFTER 5-1. FERTILIZER ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE FERTILIZED UPON INSTALLATION WITH A 27-3-3 SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZER MIXED IN WITH THE PLANTING SOIL PER THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. PLANTS MAY BE TREATED FOR SUMMER AND FALL INSTALLATION WITH AN APPLICATION OF GRANULAR 27-3-3 AT 6 OZ PER 2.5" CALIPER PER TREE AND 3 OZ PER SHRUB WITH AN ADDITIONAL APPLICATION OF 27-3-3 THE FOLLOWING SPRING IN THE TREE SAUCER. EDGING FOR PLANTING BEDS BLACK METAL EDGER TO BE USED TO CONTAIN SHRUBS, PERENNIALS, AND ANNUALS WHERE BED MEETS SOD / SEED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. PLANTING BED PREPARATION ALL ANNUAL AND PERENNIAL PLANTING BEDS TO RECEIVE 3" DEEP ROCK MULCH WITH LANDSCAPE FABRIC CUT TO ALLOW FOR GROWTH. ALL SHRUB BED MASSINGS TO RECEIVE 3" DEEP ROCK MULCH AND FIBER MAT WEED BARRIER. ALL TREES NOT IN PLANTING BEDS TO RECEIVE 4" DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH RING WITH NO MULCH IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK. SPREAD GRANULAR PRE EMERGENT HERBICIDE (PREEN OR EQUAL) PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS UNDER ALL MULCHED AREAS. MAINTENANCE STRIPS TO HAVE EDGER AND MULCH AS SPECIFIED / INDICATED ON DRAWING OR IN SPECIFICATION. INSPECTION AND WARRANTY CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR THE OWNER ACCEPTANCE INSPECTION OF ALL LANDSCAPE AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ON-GOING MAINTENANCE OF ALL NEWLY INSTALLED MATERIALS UNTIL TIME OF OWNER ACCEPTANCE. ANY ACTS OF VANDALISM OR DAMAGE WHICH MAY OCCUR PRIOR TO OWNER ACCEPTANCE SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH A MAINTENANCE PROGRAM INCLUDING, BUT NOT NECESSARILY LIMITED TO, PRUNING, FERTILIZATION AND DISEASE / PEST CONTROL. CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE NEW PLANT MATERIAL THROUGH ONE (1) CALENDAR YEAR FROM THE DATE OF OWNER ACCEPTANCE. WARRANTY (ONE (1) FULL GROWING SEASON) FOR LANDSCAPE MATERIALS SHALL BEGIN ON THE DATE OF ACCEPTANCE BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AFTER THE COMPLETION OF PLANTING OF ALL LANDSCAPE MATERIALS. NO PARTIAL ACCEPTANCE WILL BE CONSIDERED. TIMING OF INSTALLATION UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE THE APPROPRIATE DATES FOR SPRING PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION AND SEED / SOD PLACEMENT IS FROM THE TIME GROUND HAS THAWED TO JUNE 15. FALL SODDING IS GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE FROM AUGUST 15 - NOVEMBER 1. FALL SEEDING FROM AUGUST 15 - SEPTEMBER 15; DORMANT SEEDING IN THE FALL SHALL NOT OCCUR PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 1. FALL CONIFEROUS PLANTING MAY OCCUR FROM AUGUST 15 - OCTOBER 1 AND DECIDUOUS PLANTING FROM THE FIRST FROST UNTIL NOVEMBER 15. PLANTING OUTSIDE THESE DATES IS NOT RECOMMENDED. ANY ADJUSTMENT MUST BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. TREES ARE NOT TO BE PRUNED, REMOVED OR TRANSPLANTED BETWEEN APRIL 15 AND JULY 1. NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IF THESE DATES ARE UNAVOIDABLE. LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION: Page 902 of 935 From:ROBERT To:Sarah Madden Subject:Addition to Holy Family Maronite Church Date:Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:44:17 AM [You don't often get email from bklepperich@msn.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Good Morning Ms. Madden— I am Bob Klepperich. I have lived at 1092 Vail Drive for 38 years. I am one of the closest neighbors to Holy Family Church. I would have made an in-person appearance at tonight’s Planning Commission meeting, but after seeing the agenda I thought it better to write to you. (I partially wanted to avoid the anti-cell tower community, which I believe will be out in force tonight.). My message is a simple one. My wife Judi and I wholeheartedly support the planned church addition. The pastor has shared the plans with me, and I have assured him that we support the church’s efforts to improve their property. The church has been a great neighbor for a number of years, and their members are certainly worthy of our full support. For the record, we are also in full support of a new and vastly-improved City Hall and Police Station. City Staff and the Police Department certainly deserve this new facility, and we are willing to help pay for it. Thank you for your efforts in beheld of our City. With kindest regards, Bob Klepperich Page 903 of 935 9.f REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2026-52 Approving a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit for construction of two accessory structures at the property located at 1175 Orchard Place [Planning Case No. 2026-14] ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager ACTION REQUEST: Adopt Resolution 2026-52 Approving a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit for construction of two accessory structures at the property located at 1175 Orchard Place. BACKGROUND: Metro Retaining Walls & Landscaping, Inc. is the Applicant and Owners’ Representative of the property located at 1175 Orchard Place, and has requested a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit to allow for the construction of a new accessory structure, and a hot tub, with associated site improvements on the property. The subject site is 67,555 sq-ft. in size (1.55 acres), and is located at the northwest corner of Orchard Place and Hunter Lane within an established residential neighborhood. The property is located within the MRCCA Separated-from-River District. Within this district, a MRCCA Permit is required for most new construction of a structure, including accessory structures. The lot is currently developed with a single-family dwelling, attached garage, driveway, and associated rear deck and landscaping. The property owner proposes to construct a 320-sq.ft. accessory structure as an additional private detached garage on the west side of the property. As part of this work, the applicant is also completing work for a new hot tub north of the existing single-family home with a 100- sq.ft. footprint. These two accessory structure improvements would both take place later this fall, following completion of the MRCCA Permit approval process. Overall, the proposed construction of a new garage accessory structure and new in-ground hot tub is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, maintains required bluff setbacks, and includes a landscaping plan and erosion control measures to mitigate temporary and permanent impacts to the established yard from construction. With the Page 904 of 935 conditions included herein, staff finds that the project meets the intent of the MRCCA regulations and City standards for development in this district. At the July 28, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented. A duly noticed public hearing was held, and no residents came forward to speak regarding this application. The Commission discussed the size and code requirements for the in-ground hot tub, as well as the landscaping plan for the proposed improvements. As part of their discussion, the Commission included an additional condition of approval that the landscaping plan be reviewed with the City's Natural Resources Manager. A copy of the 7/28/2026 planning report with attachments is attached to this memo. As noted in the attachment, staff had recommended approval of the application request. Following their discussion, the Planning Commission agreed with the staff recommendation and voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend to the City Council approval of this MRCCA Permit with findings-of-fact and certain conditions, as outlined in the attached [draft] Resolution. The City Council is asked to affirm the Planning Commission's recommendation by adopting Resolution 2026-52 Approving the MRCCA Permit for 1175 Orchard Place. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Resolution 2026-52 Resolution Approving a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit for a New Accessory Structure and Hot Tub at 1175 Or 2.Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes 7-28-26 3.Planning Commission Staff Report 7-28-26 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy Page 905 of 935 Resolution No. 2026-52 Page | 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2026-52 RESOLUTION APPROVING A MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA (MRCCA) PERMIT FOR A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND HOT TUB AT 1175 ORCHARD PLACE PLANNING CASE 2026-14 WHEREAS, Metro Retaining Walls and Landscaping, Inc., (the “Applicant”) in coordination and on behalf of Andrew Hunter (the “Owner”) made an Application for a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit to allow for the construction of two accessory structures and associated site improvements on the property located at 1175 Orchard Place, and legally described in Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LDR-Low Density Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, zoned R-1 Low Density Residential, and is situated in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Title 12-6A-3: Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District, a permit is required to approve any new development activities involving a building permit, land disturbance, vegetation removal, or special zoning approval, and the Applicant is seeking permission to construct two accessory structures under the rules and standards established by the R-1 District and the related Mississippi River Corridor Critical Overlay District ordinance and standards; and WHEREAS, on July 28, 2026, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this MRCCA Permit request, whereby planning reports were presented and received by the Commission, and comments from the public were allowed, and whereupon closing the hearing, the Commission recommended unanimously (5-0 vote) to approve the request from Metro Retaining Walls and Landscaping, Inc. for the MRCCA Permit, which would allow the new accessory structures and associated improvements, as proposed and presented under Planning Case No. 2026-14, with certain conditions and findings-of-fact to support said approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation from the Planning Commission on Planning Case No. 2026-14 is hereby affirmed, and may be approved based on the following findings-of-fact: 1.The proposed construction of a new accessory structure and installation of an in- ground hot tub with associated site and landscaping improvements meets the general purpose and intent of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Separated from River Overlay District. Page 906 of 935 Resolution No. 2026-52 Page | 2 2.The proposed work and disturbance to construct the structures and associated site and landscaping improvements has no direct impact to the Bluff Impact Zone, with no anticipated impact to Primary Conservation Areas, and the project includes landscaping work surrounding the disturbed areas associated with this proposal. The proposed project is within the spirit and intent of the MRCCA Separated from River Overlay District that provides for flexibility within the management purpose. 3.The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan. 4.The construction of the structures is shown in the plan to comply with all standards and regulations of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District and with the conditions included herein would be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable ordinances of City Code; the construction proposal represents reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses; and is consistent with the current single-family development pattern of the neighborhood. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the MRCCA Permit requested for the property located at 1175 Orchard Place is hereby approved, with the following conditions: 1.A building permit must be approved and issued by the City prior to the commencement of any site work. 2.The proposed private garage accessory structure shall be adjusted on the site plan to be setback from the front property line at least an additional four feet (4-ft) so that it is further setback from the front property line than the principal structure. 3.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. 4.All erosion control requirements must be put in place prior to the commencement of any grading and site work activities and must remain in place for the duration of the construction activities until proper site restoration plans are completed, including a dual row of perimeter control at the back of the property adjacent to the bluff, perimeter control surrounding other areas of disturbance, and erosion control blankets on any disturbed slopes 3:1 or greater. 5.All grading and construction activity must comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes. Page 907 of 935 Resolution No. 2026-52 Page | 3 6.If any significant or heritage trees are proposed to be removed, the applicant and/or property owner must submit a Forest Alteration Permit to the City for review by the Community Development Manager and the Natural Resources Manager. 7.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. 8.The Landscape Plan must be reviewed and approved by the City’s Natural Resources Manager prior to issuance of any building permits. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of August 2026. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 908 of 935 Resolution No. 2026-52 Page | 4 EXHIBIT A Address: 1175 Orchard Place PIN: 27-33900-01-020 Legal Description: Lot 2, Block 1, HUNTER BLUFF, Dakota County, Minnesota. Page 909 of 935 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES EXCERPT FROM DRAFT/UNAPPROVED 7/28/26 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES E)PLANNING CASE 2026-14 METRO RETAINING WALLS AND LANDSCAPING (ON BEHALF OF ANDREW HUNTER), 1175 ORCHARD PLACE – MRCCA PERMIT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that Metro Retaining Walls & Landscaping, Inc. is the applicant and owners’ representative of the property located at 1175 Orchard Place, and has requested a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit to allow for the construction of a new accessory structure and a hot tub, with associated site improvements on the property. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350 ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development 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 noted that the applicant did inform her that they were unable to attend tonight. Commissioner Johnson asked if the Natural Resources Technician was able to check out the rough undergrowth vegetation. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that she did not ask that staff member to complete a site visit for this request. Commissioner Johnson commented that native plants are often mixed into rough undergrowth. Chair Field asked if the applicant is aware of the requirement to change the location by four feet. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the condition of approval will solidify that requirement. She stated that the applicant has been made aware of the requirement and they are having the plans updated. Commissioner Johnson commented on species that are listed and have been found to be invasive for natural areas. She suggested that those two species be removed and provided alternate suggestions of native cultivars that would blend with the planned aesthetic. Commissioner Corbett asked for more information on whether the plant recommendations come from a City list. Page 910 of 935 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the City has a list and provides a link to another list. She stated that it would be reasonable to include a condition that the applicant work with the Natural Resources Coordinator on the landscaping plan. Commissioner Corbett suggested that there be an updated list that be provided, as Commissioner Johnson will not always be on the Commission. He did not feel that an additional condition is necessary. Commissioner Johnson stated that she would like the applicant to have a discussion with the Natural Resources Coordinator. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided language for a condition that could be added. Commissioner Goldade commented that this will be a rather large in-ground hot tub and asked if there is a difference between that and an in-ground pool. He asked if that difference, or non- difference, is relevant to the MRCCA standards. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that would not be relevant to the MRCCA Permit but would be relevant to the swimming pool standards in Code. Commissioner Corbett asked if impervious surface is considered for a pool. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that would be considered impervious surface as it is a structure. 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 STONE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE MRCCA-CRITICAL AREA PERMIT REQUEST FOR 1175 ORCHARD PLACE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND IN-GROUND HOT TUB, WITH ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS, BASED ON THE FINDINGS-OF-FACT, AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE APPROVED AND ISSUED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY SITE WORK. 2.THE PROPOSED PRIVATE GARAGE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SHALL BE ADJUSTED ON THE SITE PLAN TO BE SETBACK FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY Page 911 of 935 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES LINE AT LEAST AN ADDITIONAL FOUR FEET (4-FT) SO THAT IT IS FURTHER SETBACK FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE THAN THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. 3.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. 4.ALL EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE PUT IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY GRADING AND SITE WORK ACTIVITIES AND MUST REMAIN IN PLACE FOR THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES UNTIL PROPER SITE RESTORATION PLANS ARE COMPLETED, INCLUDING A DUAL ROW OF PERIMETER CONTROL AT THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE BLUFF, PERIMETER CONTROL SURROUNDING OTHER AREAS OF DISTURBANCE, AND EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS ON ANY DISTURBED SLOPES 3:1 OR GREATER. 5.ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES MUST COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES. 6.IF ANY SIGNIFICANT OR HERITAGE TREES ARE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED, THE APPLICANT AND/OR PROPERTY OWNER MUST SUBMIT A FOREST ALTERATION PERMIT TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER AND THE NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGER. 7.ALL WORK ON SITE WILL ONLY BE PERFORMED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 A.M. AND 8:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY; 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. WEEKENDS. 8.THE LANDSCAPING PLAN SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGER. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 5, 2026 meeting. Page 912 of 935 Planning Commission Meeting Date: July 28, 2026 Agenda Item: CASE No. 2026-14 MRCCA Permit Application of Metro Retaining Walls and Landscaping, Inc (on behalf of Andrew Hunter) for a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit for a new accessory structure and hot tub at the property located at 1175 Orchard Place Department: Community Development Contact: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Action Request: The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing on the MRCCA Permit request. The role of the Planning Commission is to consider this application for consistency with the City's Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Action Deadline: 8/31/2026 Introduction: Metro Retaining Walls & Landscaping, Inc is the Applicant and Owners’ Representative of the property located at 1175 Orchard Place, and has requested a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit to allow for the construction of a new accessory structure, and a hot tub, with associated site improvements on the property. A public hearing notice for this item was published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. No public comments were received as of the submittal of this report. Background: The applicant is requesting a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit to allow for the construction of a new accessory structure and hot tub at the property located at 1175 Orchard Place. The subject site is 67,555 sq-ft. in size (1.55 acres), and is located within the Hunter Bluff plat. The property is located at the northwest corner of Orchard Place and Hunter Lane, where Orchard Place curves southward turning into Hunter Lane and within an established residential neighborhood. The lot is developed with an existing single-family dwelling, attached garage, driveway, and associated rear deck and landscaping. The property is located within the MRCCA Separated-from -River District. Within this district, a MRCCA Permit is required for most new construction of a structure, including accessory structures. The purpose of the MRCCA District is to identify development standards and considerations for land uses that have potential to affect primary conservation areas and public river corridor views, and to establish design standards that protect those primary conservation areas and public river corridor views from development impacts, including Page 913 of 935 protection standards for the biological and ecological functions of vegetation, natural character and topography of the MRCCA, bluff and shoreline stability, water quality, and other resources identified in the MRCCA Plan. The property has been included within a prior planning case application in 2019 for a Critical Area Permit. At that time, an addition was constructed at the northeast corner of the home, as well as a new patio/deck off the rear of the home and overlooking the bluff. Proposed Improvements: The property owner proposes to construct a 320-sq.ft. accessory structure as an additional private detached garage on the west side of the property. As part of this work, the applicant is also completing work for a new hot tub north of the existing single-family home with a 100- sq.ft. footprint. These two accessory structure improvements would both take place later this fall, following completion of the MRCCA Permit approval process. The property is part of a developed residential neighborhood and is located near the Bluff Impact Zone and some identified Primary Conservation Areas. The two structures are proposed in locations to minimize potential impacts on sensitive land, vegetation, or slope stability. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan showing landscaping features adjacent to the new hot tub and proposed private garage. The construction of the proposed structure would normally be permitted by City Code through an administrative permitting process. However, due to the location’s designation as a MRCCA District, additional site plan review is required. The proposed accessory structures are modest in scale relative to the existing dwelling and the size of the lot, and the siting preserves open space around the home. Because the site is already developed, this proposal primarily involves modification to an existing lot and landscaped yard, rather than new disturbance of previously undisturbed areas. Analysis: The subject property is located within the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area (MRCCA) District, and is subject to the standards established for this Overlay District that are more restrictive than the R-1 base zoning district standards. Therefore, the construction of these accessory structures requires a MRCCA Permit and associated site plan review. R-1 Accessory Structure Requirements: The property owner is proposing to construction a new 16x20 accessory structure, to be used as an additional detached private garage. City Code Section 12-4A-8: Accessory Structure Standards permits properties that contain greater than .75 acres of buildable area to construct a second detached private garage provided that other applicable performance standards are met. The subject property is 1.55 acres in size and would be permitted a detached private garage of up to 1,000 square feet through an administrative building permit process. The proposed structure is 320-sq.ft. in size which complies with this size standard. Following the approval of this MRCCA Permit, the applicant would be required to receive building permit approval before beginning construction of the garage. The proposed hot tub is illustrated to be 12ft x 8-ft 4”, or 100 square feet. The Accessory Structures Standards ordinance notes that Non-Building Accessory Structures are any physical improvement to a lot that does not meet the definition of building. For the purposes of that ordinance, this is considered a structure and would require an Administrative Permit (Accessory Structure Permit). Non-Building Accessory Structures are still subject to administrative permits, setbacks, and impervious surface requirements, but do not count towards the limitations for storage sheds (1 maximum per lot). Following the approval of this Page 914 of 935 MRCCA Permit, the applicant would be required to receive administrative permit approval before beginning construction of the hot tub. The proposed location for the structures are generally consistent with required setbacks for the R-1 Zoning District. The hot tub’s location has no conflicts with required setbacks from any property lines. The proposed detached garage is compliant with the minimum 10-ft side yard setback, but is slightly closer to the front property line than the principal structure. The subject site is a unique-shaped lot with varying line segments. The front property line does not extend fully to the west, as the property is located just north of the intersection of Orchard Place and Hunter Lane. At its closest point, the principal structure is approximately 106-ft from the front property line. The proposed private detached garage accessory structure is shown to be approximately 102-ft from the front property line at its closest point. A condition has been added that the structure be moved a minimum of 4-ft further to the northwest to comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirement that an accessory structure not be located closer to the front property line than the principal structure. MRCCA - Critical Area Permit: Per Title 12, Chapter 6 Critical Area Overlay District a Critical Area Permit is required for the subject project. Understanding the purpose of the Critical Area regulations is important to this application. Pursuant to City Code Title 12-6A-1, the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is to: • Establish districts under which building height and structure placement are regulated to protect and enhance the Mississippi River’s resources and features consistent with the natural and built character of each district. • Identify development standards and considerations for land uses that have potential to negatively affect primary conservation areas and public river corridor views. • Establish standards that protect primary conservation areas and public river corridor views from development impacts and ensure that new development is established consistent with the purpose of the MRCCA. • Establish design standards for private facilities that are consistent with best management practices and that minimize impacts to Primary Conservation Areas (PCAs), Public River Corridor Views (PRCVs) and other resources identified in the MRCCA plan. • Establish design standards for public facilities that are consistent with best management practices and that minimize impacts to primary conservation areas, public river corridor views and other resources identified in the MRCCA plan while recognizing that they serve the public interest by providing access to the Mississippi River Corridor or require locations within the river corridor and therefor require some flexibility. • Establish standards that sustain and enhance the biological and ecological functions of vegetation; preserve the natural character and topography of the MRCCA; and maintain stability of bluffs and critical area steep slopes and ensure stability of other erosion- prone areas. • Establish standards that protect water quality from pollutant loadings of sediment, nutrients, bacteria, and other contaminants; and maintain stability of bluffs, shorelines, and other areas prone to erosion. • To create standards for subdivisions and development or redevelopment of sites that protect and enhance the natural and scenic value of the MRCCA, protect and restore biological and ecological functions of primary conservation areas, and encourage Page 915 of 935 restoration of native vegetation where restoration opportunities have been identified in the MRCCA Plan. The following summary of the site is provided as reference: Standard Subject Property Conditions MRCCA Sub District Separated from River Bluff on Site? Yes, extending across the rear of the property Bluff Impact Zone (BIZ) Yes, the Bluff Impact Zone encompasses the rear third of the property, with an average depth of 95-ft extending southeast from the rear property line. The proposed accessory structure (private garage) is setback 72-ft from the BIZ at its closest point, and the hot tub is setback 55-ft at its closest point. Both structures are compliant with the Bluff Setback as well as the Bluff Impact Zone. Significant Vegetative Stands or Primary Conservation Area (PCA) Yes, the northwestern edge of the property is considered to be within a Significant Existing Vegetative Stand area, of Closed Canopy/Ruderal Forest. Subject to Section 12-6A-9 Vegetation Management Yes, selective vegetation removal will occur that is consistent with the minimum necessary for development. The applicant has indicated that the location of the proposed detached garage accessory structure contains low growth vegetation but not grass. At this time, there are no plans for tree removals. Subject to Section 12-6A-10 Land Alteration Standards and Stormwater Management Yes. Structure construction is permitted but stormwater must be diverted from any BIZ area. The new construction and associated landscaping work is subject to the Land Alteration and Stormwater standards. Subject to Section 12-6A-11 Subdivision and Land Development Standards No. The property is not being subdivided, and is not part of a master-planned or phased common development plan. Subject to Section 12-6A-12 Site Plan Requirements Yes. Must include Site Plan and Landscape Plan As described in Section 12-6A-4 C.3., the Separated from River (SR) sub-district describes the management purpose as: “...provides flexibility in managing development without negatively affecting the key resources and features of the river corridor. Minimizing negative impacts to primary conservation areas and minimizing erosion and the flow of untreated storm water into the river are priorities…” Page 916 of 935 As indicated on the attached GIS maps, the Bluff Impact Zone (BIZ) crosses and is generally parallel to the rear property line at a depth of approximately 95-ft. As shown on the attached Site Plan the two proposed structures are outside of the Bluff Impact Zone and Bluff Setback. The proposed site plan will not impact the bluff line or encroach into the bluff setback, nor will it adversely impact identified Primary Conservation Areas (PCAs) within the MRCCA District. The attached MRCCA Maps illustrate the general proximity of the PCAs in the rear yard and at a distance from the improvement area on the parcel. Per Code Sect. 12-6A-12, the Detailed Site Plan must be drawn to scale and the proposed project accurately described through narrative and supporting maps and/or plans. The applicant’s letter of intent is attached to this report detailing the overview of the work proposed, and the Site Plan and Landscaping Plans are also included. The applicant has indicated that the site work includes replacement of the existing landscaping in the rear yard where the hot tub will be placed, and that additional landscaping and a retaining wall will be installed near the proposed detached private garage accessory structure. With the proposed improvements, the site will have an approximate impervious surface coverage of 15%, which is well within the maximum 35% required within the R-1 Zoning District. Vegetation Management: The applicant has indicated that the location of the proposed detached private garage is within an area of the yard that has previously been rough undergrowth vegetation with no turf grass. With the construction of the accessory structure, the area will now be landscaped with shrubs and grass, and a retaining wall will be installed south of the structure and curving eastward across the side yard. The applicant is not proposing to remove any trees on the property as part of these improvements. The City’s MRCCA Ordinance allows the clearing of vegetation that is dead, diseased, or dying, selective removal of species, and the minimum clearing which is necessary for development, when associated with a MRCCA Vegetation Permit approved by the City. With this application, the removal of undergrowth is not of concern to City Staff and would be within the boundaries of a typical MRCCA Permit. Land Alteration Standards: The applicant’s provided site plan illustrates that there are no planned improvements or impacts within the bluff impact zone or bluff setback. The site plan illustrates a silt fence installation in a curve surrounding the hot tub installation area, as well as additional silt fence to the south of the proposed private garage structure and north of the proposed 20”-30” tall retaining wall. A retaining wall of this height does not require engineered drawings or a building permit, but would be considered landscaping and can count towards impervious surface calculations. There are no concerns with the impervious surface as proposed. Subsection 10 of the City’s MRCCA Ordinance regulates land alteration standards and stormwater management. The ordinance allows this level of work proposed with the two accessory structures and associated site impacts. Additional conditions beyond general compliance with the Land Disturbance Guidance Document standards have been included in the recommendation section of this report, noting that erosion control measures must be in place for the duration of the project, including a dual row of perimeter erosion control to be installed at the back of the property to protect the bluff, Page 917 of 935 and erosion control blankets to be placed on any disturbed slopes 3:1 or greater. Overall, the proposed construction of a new garage accessory structure and new in-ground hot tub is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, maintains required bluff setbacks, and includes a landscaping plan and erosion control measures to mitigate temporary and permanent impacts to the established yard from construction. With the conditions included herein, staff finds that the project meets the intent of the MRCCA regulations and City standards for development in this district. Interagency Review: Under the MRCCA Ordinance, the city is required to submit the MRRCA permit request to the MNDNR and the National Park Service (NPS). The plans and project information was transmitted to both agencies for their review and comment. At the time of publication of this report, the City has not received comments on this application from either agency. Staff will provide a verbal update if there is correspondence at the Planning Commission meeting. Alternatives: 1.Recommend Approval of the MRCCA-Critical Area Permit request for 1175 Orchard Place, which would allow for the construction of a new accessory structure, hot tub, and associated site improvements, based on the findings-of-fact that the proposed project is compliant with the policies and standards of the MRCCA Overlay District and City Zoning Code standards, and with certain conditions; or 2.Recommend Denial of the MRCCA-Critical Area Permit request for 1175 Orchard Place, based on certain revised or amended findings-of-fact that the application does not meet certain policies and standards of City Code as determined by the Planning Commission; or 3.Table the request and request additional information from staff and/or the applicant; Staff will extend the review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with Minnesota State Statute 15.99. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the MRCCA-Critical Area Permit request for 1175 Orchard Place to allow construction of a new accessory structure and in-ground hot tub, with associated site improvements, based on the attached findings-of-fact and with the following conditions: 1.A building permit must be approved and issued by the City prior to the commencement of any site work. 2.The proposed private garage accessory structure shall be adjusted on the site plan to be setback from the front property line at least an additional four feet (4-ft) so that it is further setback from the front property line than the principal structure. 3.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. 4.All erosion control requirements must be put in place prior to the commencement of any grading and site work activities and must remain in place for the duration of the construction activities until proper site restoration plans are completed, including a dual row of perimeter control at the back of the property adjacent to the bluff, perimeter control surrounding other areas of disturbance, and erosion control blankets on any Page 918 of 935 disturbed slopes 3:1 or greater. 5.All grading and construction activity must comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes. 6.If any significant or heritage trees are proposed to be removed, the applicant and/or property owner must submit a Forest Alteration Permit to the City for review by the Community Development Manager and the Natural Resources Manager. 7.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. Attachments: 1.Findings of Fact for Approval 2.Site Location Map 3.MRCCA Primary Conservation Areas Map 4.Letter of Intent 5.Site Plan 6.Landscape Plans Page 919 of 935 Planning Case 2026-14 (MRCCA Permit for 1175 Orchard Place) Page 1 of 1 FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL MRCCA -Critical Area Permit for Planning Case No. 2026-14 (1175 Orchard Place) The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1.The proposed construction of a new accessory structure and installation of an in-ground hot tub with associated site and landscaping improvements meets the general purpose and intent of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Separated from River Overlay District. 2.The proposed work and disturbance to construct the structures and associated site and landscaping improvements has no direct impact to the Bluff Impact Zone, with no anticipated impact to Primary Conservation Areas, and the project includes landscaping work surrounding the disturbed areas associated with this proposal. The proposed project is within the spirit and intent of the MRCCA Separated from River Overlay District that provides for flexibility within the management purpose. 3.The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan. 4.The construction of the structures is shown in the plan to comply with all standards and regulations of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District and with the conditions included herein would be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable ordinances of City Code; the construction proposal represents reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses; and is consistent with the current single-family development pattern of the neighborhood. Page 920 of 935 6666666666666 666666666 6666666666666666666666666666!**! " "³ " ³ * ** ³ ( * ³ ³( ³³³³³! ³ ³ ³ ³ """ " " "" "³³ ³³" ³* ³ ³³ ³ * * * * * ³ * * ** * * ³³ ³ ³³ "*6666666 6 666666666666666666!!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !. !!2 !!2 !. !. !. !!2 !!2 !!2 1171 1175 1155 1147 1819 1845 1855 1850 1154 1827 1833 1149 1840 1230 1831 1200 1835 1176 1140 11451151 1830 1836 1838 1143 1139 1841 1851 1218 1222 1214 1210 1206 1830 1838 1844 1852 1859 1167 1165 1858 1253 1135 11641166 1775 1145 17751775 1139 1157 1160 1838 1155 1775 1840SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYORCHARD PL HUNTER LNORCHARD CIRORCHARD HEIGHTS LNDakota County, MN Sit e Location/Aerial Map1175 Orchard Place Date: 7/15/2026 City ofMendotaHeights0200 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 921 of 935 MRCCA Primary Conservation Areas (PCA's) MRCCA Data Resource Layers MRCCA Boundary City and Township Boundaries Parcels MRCCA Primary Conservation Areas Natural Drainage Routes Shore Impact Zones Native Plant Communities Significant Existing Vegetative Stands BIZ Wetlands 100 Year Floodplain River 100 ft Page 922 of 935 Page 923 of 935 Page 924 of 935 Page 925 of 935 Page 926 of 935 Page 927 of 935 Page 928 of 935 This page is intentionally left blank 9.g REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Municipal Campus Building Project - Resolution 2026-46 Directing the Development of a Plan B Schematic Design for the Police Station and City Hall Municipal Campus Building Project ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator ACTION REQUEST: Consider approving Resolution 2026-46 Directing the Development of a Plan B Schematic Design for the Police Station and City Hall Municipal Campus Building Project. BACKGROUND: The Municipal Campus Building Project consists of the proposed construction of a new Police Station and City Hall to replace the City's existing municipal facility at 1101 Victoria Curve, which was constructed in the late 1980s. Throughout the planning process, the City Council has taken a number of formal actions, including selecting professional consultants, approving project planning and design agreements, reviewing facility needs assessments, and authorizing the project to advance to the design development phase. These actions have enabled the City to identify facility requirements, evaluate project alternatives, and develop preliminary design and cost information to support future decision-making. As part of that process, the Council evaluated several approaches to addressing the City's aging municipal facilities. Alternatives included renovating and expanding the existing City Hall and Police Department, acquiring and renovating existing commercial property within the City, and constructing a new municipal building on the current municipal campus. Each alternative was evaluated based on operational needs, long-term functionality, financial considerations, construction feasibility, and the City's ability to continue providing high-quality public services. Following that evaluation, the City Council, in December 2025, unanimously approved advancing a new combined Police Station and City Hall on the existing municipal campus site and authorized the project to proceed. The resulting schematic design ("Plan A") reflects the policy direction and design assumptions previously approved by the City Council. Page 929 of 935 As the project has progressed, Council members and residents have continued to discuss topics including building placement, project scope, park impacts, construction sequencing, project costs, financing, and long-term affordability. As a result, the Council requested that staff prepare information regarding the development of an additional schematic design alternative ("Plan B") for Council consideration. A Plan B schematic design would provide an additional concept for comparison and could evaluate alternative building placement, site layout, project scope, construction sequencing, and other design considerations while continuing to address the City's long-term municipal facility needs. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Preparation of a Plan B schematic design will require additional professional architectural and engineering services in the amount of $397,250. Because the Plan A schematic design has already been completed, these services would be in addition to the professional services previously authorized by the City Council. In addition to the direct design cost, preparation of an alternative concept is anticipated to extend the overall project schedule and could increase future project costs due to inflation, construction cost escalation, market conditions, and the additional time required before bidding and construction. At the same time, an alternative schematic design may identify opportunities to reduce project costs, lessen site impacts, or better address Council priorities. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Res. 2026-46 Plan B Schematic Design Approval 2.Res. 2025-93 Ordering the Improvement and Authorizing Plans and Specifications 3.Res. 2026-37 Approving the Schematic Design and Authorizing Design Dev. CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 930 of 935 Res. 2026-46 Page 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2026-46 DIRECTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PLAN B SCHEMATIC DESIGN FOR THE POLICE STATION AND CITY HALL MUNICIPAL CAMPUS BUIDLING PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Council has identified the need to replace the City's aging municipal facility located at 1101 Victoria Curve in order to address long-term public safety, operational, and service delivery needs; and WHEREAS, beginning in 2025, the City Council initiated an open and transparent public engagement process to gather input from residents, stakeholders, and community organizations to learn about community priorities, values, and needs related to municipal facilities; and WHEREAS, based on this initial public participation and input, the City Council established a set of community principles that have guided the Municipal Campus planning process with the goal of creating a facility that reflects the character of Mendota Heights, supports responsible stewardship of public resources, provides safe and efficient municipal and public safety services, preserves and enhances community connections, incorporates sustainable design principles, and serves the community's needs for decades to come; and WHEREAS, the City Council has undertaken a comprehensive planning process for the Municipal Campus Building Project, including selecting professional consultants, approving planning and design agreements, reviewing facility needs assessments, evaluating project alternatives, and authorizing the project to advance through the design development process; and WHEREAS, the City Council has evaluated a variety of alternatives to address the City's long- term municipal facility needs, including renovating and expanding the existing City Hall/Police Department building, acquiring and renovating existing commercial property within the City, and constructing a new municipal building on the existing municipal campus; and WHEREAS, each alternative was evaluated based upon operational needs, long-term functionality, financial considerations, construction feasibility, and the City’s ability to continue providing high-quality public service; and WHEREAS, through its project management and architectural consultants, the City completed a schematic design for the proposed Municipal Campus Project to implement the community principles; and WHEREAS, consistent with City Council direction, the current schematic design located the proposed Municipal Campus building west of the existing City Hall/Police Department building, requiring the relocation of Civic Center Park/ Mertensotto Field; and Page 931 of 935 Res. 2026-46 Page 2 WHEREAS, Resolution 2026-37 approved the schematic design plans for the proposed Police Station and City Hall Municipal Campus Building Project (“ Plan A”), and authorized the project to proceed to the Design Development phase; and WHEREAS, the City Council has continued to encourage robust community engagement and has received ongoing input from residents, stakeholders, and community organizations regarding the proposed project, including comments related to project scope, site layout, park impacts, project costs, and long-term affordability; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the importance of evaluating reasonable alternatives before making any final decisions regarding a capital investment of this magnitude; and WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to evaluate an alternative schematic design ("Plan B") that would locate the proposed building on the east side of the municipal campus in order to preserve Civic Center Park/Mertensotto Field and provide an additional concept for comparison with Plan A; and WHEREAS, the City Council has been advised that preparation of an alternative schematic design will require additional professional architectural and engineering services at a cost of $397,250, will extend the project schedule, and may increase future project costs due to inflation, construction cost escalation, market conditions, and the additional time required before construction bidding. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: 1.The City Council directs staff to proceed with the preparation of an alternative ("Plan B") schematic design for the Municipal Campus Project. 2.The Plan B schematic design shall provide the City Council with an alternative concept that may include, but is not limited to: a.Evaluation of an alternative site layout and building configuration. b.Preservation of existing Civic Center Park/Mertensotto Field. c.Planning-level cost estimates including relocation expenses of current operations to a temporary location for the municipal campus construction period. d.A comparison project schedule, operational impacts, and other significant differences between Plan A and Plan B. 3.Staff are authorized to negotiate and execute an amendment to the City's existing professional services agreement with the project consultants for preparation of a Plan B schematic design in the amount of $397,250, subject to City Attorney review as to form. Page 932 of 935 Res. 2026-46 Page 3 4.Upon completion of the alternative schematic design, project consultants shall present Plan A and Plan B to the City Council, for comparison and discussion prior to any final decision regarding project advancement. 5.Nothing in this Resolution shall constitute approval of either schematic design for construction. The purpose of this authorization is to provide the City Council with additional information to support future policy decisions. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, this 5th day of August 2026. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 933 of 935 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2025-93 A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL BUILDING WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights (“City”) has determined that improvements are needed for a new Municipal Campus Project, including facility space needs for the Police Department and City Hall staff; and WHEREAS, the proposed improvements are necessary to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the community and staff, and support long-term infrastructure planning; and WHEREAS, the City’s consulting firm, ICS Consulting, Inc., has presented a preliminary scope and estimated cost for the project of $33,100,000.00. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that: 1.The new Municipal Campus Construction Project is hereby ordered to proceed. 2.The City Administrator and Mayor are authorized to execute AIA contract documents B132 and C132 (program management, design and construction management) with the City’s professional services consultant, ICS Consulting, Inc. (ICS) for the implementation of the identified improvements. 3.Upon fully executed AIA contracts between the city and ICS, the City's partner, ICS Consulting, Inc. is directed to begin design services for the project and take all necessary steps to prepare for bidding in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 and/or applicable procurement laws. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 16th day of December, 2025. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 934 of 935 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 935 of 935