HomeMy WebLinkAbout20081209CCPCity of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North
December 9, 2008
7:00 p.m.
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
C. ATTENDANCE: Johnston DeLapp Johnson Park Smith
D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: (The approved agenda is the order in which the City
Council will do its business.)
E. ORDER OF BUSINESS; (This is the way that the City Council runs its meetings
so everyone attending the meeting or watching the meeting understands how the
City Council does its public business.)
F. GROUND RULES: (These are the rules of behavior that the City Council
adopted for doing its public business.)
G. APPROVE MINUTES:
1. December 1, 2008
December 3, 2008
H. PUBLIC COMMENTS/INQUIRIES: In order to be sure that anyone wishing to
speak to the City Council is treated the same way, meeting attendees wishing to
address the City Council on any items NOT on the regular agenda may speak for
up to three minutes,
CONSENT AGENDA: (Items are placed on the consent agenda by city staff and
the Mayor because they are not anticipated to generate discussion. Items may be
removed at City Council's request.)
2. Approve payment of disbursements and payroll
3. Audit engagement letter -- Abdo, Eick & Meyers, LLP
J. REGULAR AGENDA:
4. 2009 property tax levy, Resolution no. 2008-059
5. Adopt 2009 Budget; Resolution no. 2008-060
6. Presentation by the St.Croix Valley Foundation
7. V-Box sander purchase — Public Works
8. a. Wireless Telecommunication Tower Ordinance amendments
b. Wireless Telecommunication Tower Permit for T-Mobile at 9057 Lake
Jane Trail North
c. Set date for public hearing on moratorium for the construction of new
wireless telecommunication towers
9. Interim use permit — E&E Properties (continuation)
10. Comprehensive planning efforts and authorizations to proceed on the
Transportation and Surface Water Management System Plans
K. REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor and Council members
L. Adjourn
City of Lake Elmo
City Council Minutes
December 1, 2008
Mayor Johnston called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m,
Present: Mayor Johnston and Council Members DeLapp, Johnson, Park and Smith
Also present: Planner Director Klatt, City Attorney Filla, City Engineer Griffin, Finance
Director Bouthilet, KDV Financial consultant, Joe Rigdon and City Clerk Lumby
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
MOTION: Council Member Smith moved to approve the December 1, 2006' City Council
agenda as amended by adding hem 10. Interview questions for hiring of Interim City
Athninistrator; Councif Reports: Plastic recycling. Council Member Johnson seconded
the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
GROUND RULES:
APPROVED MINUTES:
November 18, 2008 minutespostponed to December 9, 2008
PUBLIC COMMENTS \INQUIRIES:
Bob Schumacher, 9155 28th St. N., stated his proposed tax statement showed an increase
of 175.3%. Council advised him to call the city assessor, Frank Langer.
CONSENT AGENDA:
MOTION: Council Member .Johnson moved to approve the consent agenda items 2, 3
and 6. Council Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
• Approve payment of disbursements and payroll in the amount of $167,779.26
• Approve Workers' compensation for elected officials; Resolution no. 2008-054
• Approve letter of agreement with KDV for financial support services in 2009
• Approve one -day off -site charitable gambling license for Maplewood/Oakdale
Lions Club; Resolution no. 2008-058
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 1, 2008
Approve 2009 LiQuor Licenses
The liquor license for the Lake Elmo Inn extends to the outdoor patio located at the
northeast corner of 3442 Lake Elmo Avenue and the outdoor patio on the south side of
the Lake Elmo Inn Event Center.
MOTION: Council Member DeLapp moved to approve the 2009 liquor license renewals
conditioned on approval by the Washington County Sheriffs Department, Council
Member Park seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Approve letter of agreement with KDV for financial support services in 2009
Finance Director Tom Bouthilet explained the city utilized Joe Rigdon of KDV on the
recommendation of the city auditor, Steve MacDonald, to reconcile the city's records to
be consistent with best practices for government accounting. The work in 2009 would
include a utility rate study of the three utilities.
MOTION: Council Member Johnson moved to approve the letter of ctgreement with KDV
for financial support services in 2009. Council Member Park seconded the M01/071.
Mayor Johnston and Council Members Johnson, Park and Stnith voted in favor of the
motion and Council Member DeLapp voted against.
The Council adjourned the city council meeting at 7:22 pan.
TRUTH IN TAXATION PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED 2009 BUDGET,
Mayor Johnston opened the public hearing at 7:23 p.m.
Joe Rigdon, KDV finance support consultant, presented an overview of the proposed
2009 budget and answered questions from the City Council.
Council Member DeLapp asked if the city could get a cost per capita for the tax levy.
Mayor Johnston closed the public hearing at 7:46 pan.
The Council will adopt the proposed 2009 budget at the December 9th City Council
meeting.
The Council reconvened the city council meeting at 7:47 p.m,
Consider a wireless telecommunication tower permit and lease agreement to allow AT&T
to attach an antenna array to the city water tower and to construct an accessory ecniinment
shelter at 3303 Langley Court North, Resolution no. 2008-055
Kyle Klatt, Planning Director, reported the City Council was asked to consider a request
from AT&T to attach a wirelesS communications antenna array to the existing city water
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 1, 2008 2
tower and to construct an accessory equipment shelter at 3303 Langly Court. This is a
permitted use but requires a wireless telecommunications tower permit. Annual rent is in
the amount of $14,000 prorated for the initial partial year, which shall be increased
January 1, 2010 and each January 1, thereafter
MOTION: Council Member DeLapp moved to adopt Resolution no. 2008-055 approving
a wireless telecommunications tower permit and lease agreement to allow AT&T to
attach a wireless communications antenna array to the existing city water lower and to
construct an accessory equipment shelter at 3303 Langly Court North. Council Member
Park seconded the 1770a017. The motion passed unanimously.
Consider zoning text amendments to allow a bus/truck terminal as a non-auicultural low
impact use in the FID-A-BP zoning district, Ordinance no. 08-010; Resolution no. 2008-.
056
Planning Director Kyle Klatt explained the City Council was being asked to consider text
amendments to the zoning ordinance to allow a bus/truck terminal as a non-agricultural
low impact use in the HD -A -BP district (agriculture holding zone for properties guided
for business park development). This request was made by Terry Emerson, 11530
Hudson Boulevard South, concurrent with an application for an interim use permit that
could only proceed if the zoning amendment- is approved by the Council.
AIOTION: Council Member Johnson moved to approve Ordinance no. 08-010 approving
a zoning text amendment to allow a bus/truck terminal as a non-agricultural low impact
use in the HD -A -BP ..7017ing district based on the reasons cited and on the findings
presented. Council Member Park seconded the motion. Mayor Johnston and Council
Members Johnson, Park and Smith voted in favor of the motion and Council AJember
DeLapp voting against.
Consider an interim use permit for a truck terminal within a HD -A -BP zone at 11530
Hudson Blvd., Resolution no. 2008-057
Planning Director Kyle Klatt explained the City Council was being asked to consider a
request for an interim use permit to establish a bus/truck terminal facility as a non-
agricultural low impact use at 11530 Hudson Blvd. to replace the vacancy on the site
from the legally permitted bus garage that was on the property until July 2008.
Council Member DeLapp gave a verbal summary of when the bus garage was allowed to
locate on the property. He questioned the number of trips Mr. Emerson estimated from
the proposed terminal and how well the city would monitor conditions it puts on the land.
Discussion ensued followed by a motion for adjournment.
MOTION: Council Member Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 845 p. m. Council
Member Park seconded the motion. Council Members Johnson, Smith and Park voted in
favor of the Motion and Mayor Johnston and Council Member DeLapp voted against.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 1, 2008
City of Lake Elmo
City Council Minutes
Special City Council Meeting
December 3, 2008
INTERVIEW CANDIDATES FOR INTERIM CITY ADMINIS fRATOR
Mayor Johnston called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Present: Mayor Johnston, Council Members DeLapp, Johnson, Park, Smith and Council
Member -elect Emmons
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
MOTION: Council Member Johnson moved to approve the Special City Council Meeting
agenda as presented. Council Member Smith seconded the 11101i011, Mayor Johnston and
Council Members Johnson, Park; Smith voted in favor of the motion and Council
Member DeLapp voted against the motion.
The City Council reviewed the 15 interview questions that were presented and shortened
the list to six questions.
MOTION: Council Member Johnson moved to approve Interview Ouestions 1, 2, 3, 7,
10, I I. Mayor Johnston seconded the motion. Mayor Johnsion and Council Members
DeLapp, Park votedlr the motion and Council Members JOIMS017 and Smith voted
against the motion.
The City Council interviewed the following Interim City Administrator candidates:
Jim Norman
Plat Klaers
Todd Bodem
Craig Dawson
Dan Donahue
The Council discussed the merits of hiring an applicant who wanted to serve as an
Interim City Administrator for a term of four to six months versus an applicant that
desired the long-term city administrator position. There was Council discussion on the
candidates' qualifications,
MOTION: Council Member Johnson moved to authorize the Mayor to offer the position
of Interim City Administrator to Crag Dawson, conditioned upon satisfactory report on
background checks from the Human Resources attorney and to negotiate an employment
agreement as soon as possible. Council Member Smith second the motion. The motion
passed unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:21 p.m.
City Council
Date: 12/09/2008
CONSENT
Item: 2
ITEM: Approve disbursements in the amount of $106,377.20
SUBMITTED BY: Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director
Claim #
ACH
ACH
DD1940-DD1954
33550-33601
33602-33621
Amount
$ 9,404.59
$ 1,325.71
$ 20,505.89
$ 25,272.31
$ 49,868.70
Total: $ 106,377.20
Description
Payroll Taxes to IRS
Payroll Taxes to Mn Dept. of Revenue
Payroll Dated 12/04/2008 (Direct Deposit)
Payroll Dated 12/04/2008 (Payroll & Benefits)
Accounts Payable Dated 12/01/2008
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to approve disbursements in
the amount of $ 106,377.20
Accounts Payable
Checks for Approval
User: juIic
Printed: 12/04/2008 - 10:06 AM
Check Number Check Date Fund Name
33608 12/09/2008
33609 12/0912008
33607 12/09/2008
33619 12/09/2008
33615 12/09/2008
33612 12/09/2008
33605 12/09/2008
33621 12/09/2008
33621 12/09/2008
33606 12/09/2008
33604 12/09/2008
33617 12/091200S
33613 12/09/2008
33613 12/09/2008
33620 12/09/2008
33620 12/09/2003
33620 12/09/2008
33620 12/09/2008
33620 12/09/2008
33620 12/09/2008
33620 12/09/2008
33620 12/09/2008
33620 12/09/2008
33620 12/09/2008
33620 *I 2/09/2008
33620 12/09/2008
33620 I 2/09/2008
33620 12/09/2008
33620 12/09/2008
33620 12/09/2008
33602 12/09/2008
33602 12/09/2008
33611 12/09/2008
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
Village
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
Capital Aquisitinns
Capital Agnisitions
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
Sewer
Sewer
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
Capital Aquisitions
ACCOIN nt Name
Software Support
Landscaping Materials
Equipment Parts
Conferences & Training
Repairs/Maint Contractual Bldg
Contract Services
Contract Services
Cleaning Supplies
Shop Materials,
Equipment Parts
.Repairs/Maint Contractual Bldg
Street Maintenance Materials
Office Equipment & Furnishings
Use TM Payable
Street Lighting
Electric Utility
Electric Utility
Street Lighting
Electric Utility
Electric Utility
Electric Utility
Street Lighting
Electric Utility
Electric Utility,
Electric Utility
Electric Utility
Electric Utility
Street Lighting
Electric Utility
Street Lighting
Rcpairs/Maint Contractual 131dg
Uniforms
Improvements Other Than Bldgs
Vendor Name
City of Roseville
Earl F. Andersen, Inc.
Catco
U of M Continuing Education
Plunken's Pest Control
Miller Excavating, Inc,
13onestroo
Zack's, Inc,
Zack's, Inc,
Boyer Trucks
Batteries Plus Woodbury
Schifsky & Sons
MLite, Inc_
ity-Lite, Inc.
Xccl Energy
Xcel Energy
Xcel Energy
Xcel Energy
)(eel Energy
Xcel Energy
Xcel Energy
Xcel Energy
Xcel Energy
Xcel Energy
Xcel Energy
Xcel Energy
Xccl Energy
Xcel Energy
Xcel Energy
Xccl Energy
Aramark
Aramark
Menards - Stillwater
AP Checks for Approval 12/04/2008 - 10:06 AM ) Page 1
Amount
1,380.83
393,04
83.20
170.00
79.88
720.00
6.849.69
48.99
118.42
124.01
0.61
215.50
6,989.90
-426.61
54.73
639.32
1,836.90
24.13
8.61
237.06
8.52
33.98
152.37
15.74
28.41
420.73
187.31
26.02
41.22
9.69
61.37
34.36
362.87
Check Number Check Date Fund Name
33614 12/09/2008 General Fund
33614 12/09/2008 General Fund
33614 12/09/2008 General Fund
33614 12/09/2008 General Fund
33614 12/09/2008 General Fund
33616 12/09/2008 General Fund
33603 12/09/2008 General Fund
33603 12/09/2008 General Fund
33603 12/09/2008 General Fund
33603 12/09/2008 General Fund
33610 12/09/2008 General Fund
33618 12/09/2008 Water
Account Name
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
Equipment
.Repairs/Maint Contractual Eqpt
Equipment
Equipment
Contract Services
Other Equipment
Vendor Name Amount
Nextel Communications
Nextel Communications
Nextel Communications
Nextel Communications
Nextel Communications
Sprint
Aspen Mills, Inc.
Aspen Mills, Inc_
Aspen Mills, Inc_
Aspen Mills, Inc.
Kern DeWentz. Viere
Telemetry & Process Controls
Total for this Date:
Report Total:
129.05
204,80
65.08
22.89
105.64
43.98
199.90
17.08
69.50
69.50
5,889.00
22,006.48
49,868,70
49,868.70
Page 2
AP Checks for Approval { 12/04/2008 - 10:06 AM
City Council
Data 12/03/08
CONSENT
Item: 5
ITEM: Audit EngagementLetter
SUBMITTED BY: Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director
�� � � __ �"�� � � ���� �����_ " ' �'I �Ipp _I_ _
�UK8�ARYANOACTON�B�UE8TEO�The{� hznons�e av in
ABDO EICK & MEYERS LLP for the 2008 audit of the financial statement of governmentai
activities, the business -type activities (enterprise fundo).each major fundmondtheoggnegobe
remaining fund information, which collectively comprise the basic financial statement of the City
asnfand for the year ending December 31.20O8.
The objective ofthe audit is the expression ofopinions anhzwhether the basic financial
statements are fairly presented, in all material respects and in conformity with accounting
principles. The audit will be conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted
in the United States of America and will include tests of the accounting records and other
procedures considered necessary hoenable the Auditors toexpress such opinions.
The Fee for services as outlined in the letter of engagement will be the standard hourly rate plus
out-of-pocket costs. The Auditor estimates the gross fees, including expenses will be
approximately $ 26,900 and an additional $510,00 for the Office of the State Auditor's Reporting
form.
RECOM MENDATION: Approve A8DO.BCK & MEYER8LLP for the audit of the 2008 basic
financial statement of the City of Lake Elmo.
ATTACHK8ENT�ABDO.BCK&K8EYERS letter ofengagement for 200Ofinancial statement
DO
EICK
Accountants & Cons&ants
Grandview Square
5201 Eden Avenue
Stine 370
Edina, MN 55436
Honorable Mayor and Council
City of Lake Elmo
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
November 25, 2008
We are pleased to confirm our understanding of the services we are to provide City of Lake Elmo, (the City) for the year ended
December 31, 2008. We will audit the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, each major
fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information, which collectively comprise the basic financial statements of the City as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2008. Accounting standards generally accepted in the United States of America provide for
certain required supplementary information (RSI), such as management's discussion and analysis (MD&A), to accompany the
City's basic financial statements. As part of our engagement, we will apply certain limited procedures to the City's RS1. These
limited procedures will consist principally of inquiries of management regarding the methods ofmeasurement and presentation,
which management is responsible for affirming to us in its representation letter. Unless we encounter problems with the
presentation of the RSI or with procedures relating to it, we will disclaim an opinion on it. The following RS1 is required by
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States America and will be subjected to certain limited procedures, but will
not be audited:
1. Management's Discussion and Analysis.
Supplementary information other than RS1 also accompanies the City's basic financial statements. We will subject the following
supplementary information to the auditing procedures applied in our audit of the basic financial statements and will provide an
opinion on it in relation to the basic financial statements:
1. Combining and Individual Fund Financial Statements and Schedules
2. Summary Financial Report - Revenues and Expenditures for General Operations - Governmental Funds
AUDIT OB,J ECTIVE
The objective of our audit is the expression of opinions as to whether your basic financial statements are fairly presented, in all
material respects, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and to report on
the fairness of the additional information referred to in the first paragraph when considered in relation to the basic financial
statements taken as a whole. Our audit will be conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards established by
the Auditing Standards Board (United States) and will include tests of the accounting records and other procedures we consider
necessary to enable us to express such opinions. If our opinions on the financial statements are other than unqualified, we will
fully discuss the reasons with you in advance. lf, for any reason, we are unable to complete the audit or are unable to form or have
not formed opinions, we may decline to express opinions or to issue a report as a result of this engagement,
2008 ALG-C : Audit Engagement Letter---Slandard
952.835.9090 • Fax 952.835.3261
www.aemepas.eoin
City of Long Lake
November 25, 2008
Page 2
MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES
Management is responsible for the basic financial statements and all accompanying information as well as all representations
contained therein. We will prepare a general ledger trial balance for use during the audit. Our preparation of the trial balance will
be limited to formatting information in the general ledger into a working trial balance. As part of the audit we will prepare a draft
of your financial statements and related notes. We will also use the financial statements to complete the Office of the State
Auditors' City Reporting Form. We will also enter the current year capital asset transactions into our software based on
information you provide. You are responsible for making all management decisions and performing all management functions
relating to the financial statements and related notes and for accepting full responsibility for such decisions. You will be required
to acknowledge in the management representation letter that you have reviewed and approved the financial statements and related
notes prior to their issuance and have accepted responsibility for them. Further, you are required to designate an individual with
suitable skill, knowledge, or experience to oversee any non -audit services we provide and for evaluating the adequacy and results
of those services and accepting responsibility for them,
Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining internal controls, including monitoring ongoing activities; for the
selection and application of accounting principles; and for the fair presentation in the financial statements of the respective
financial position of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, the aggregate discretely presented component units,
each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City and the respective changes in financial position and
where applicable, cash flows, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Management is also responsible for making all financial records and related information available to us and for the accuracy and
completeness of that information. Your responsibilities include adjusting the financial statements to correct material
misstatements and confirming to us in the representation letter that the effects of any uncorrected misstatements aggregated by us
during the current engagement and pertaining to the latest period presented are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate,
to the financial statements taken as a whole.
You are responsible for the design and implementation of programs and controls to prevent and detect fraud, and for informing us
about all known or suspected fraud or illegal acts affecting the City involving (1) management, (2) employees who have
significant roles in internal control, and (3) others where the fraud or illegal acts could have a material effect on the financial
statements. Your responsibilities include informing us of your knowledge of any allegations of fraud or suspected fraud affecting
the City received in communications from employees, former employees, regulators, or others. In addition, you are responsible
for identifying and ensuring that the City complies with applicable laws and regulations,
AUDIT PROCEDURES - GENERAL
An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements;
therefore, our audit will involve judgment about the number of transactions to be examined and the areas to be tested. We will
plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable rather than absolute assurance about whether the financial statements are free of
material misstatement, whether from (1) errors, (2) fraudulent financial reporting, (3) misappropriation of assets, or (4) violations
of laws or governmental regulations that are attributable to the entity or to acts by management or employees acting on behalf of
the City.
Because an audit is designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance and because we will not perform a detailed
examination of all transactions, there is a risk that material misstatements may exist and not be detected by us. In addition, an
audit is not designed to detect immaterial misstatements, or violations of laws or governmental regulations that do not have a
direct and inaterial effect on the financial statements. However, we will inform you of any material errors and any fraudulent
financial reporting or misappropriation of assets that come to our attention. We will also inform you of any violations of laws or
governmental regulations that come to our attention, unless clearly inconsequential. Our responsibility as auditors is limited to the
period covered by our audit and does not extend to any later periods for which we are not engaged as auditors.
2008 ALG-CL- I. 1: A attit Engagement Lerter—Standard
952.835.9090 • Fax 952.835.3261
www.aemcpaa.com
City of Long Lake
November 25, 2008
Page 3
Our procedures will include tests of documentary evidence supporting the transactions recorded in the accounts, and may include
tests of the physical existence of inventories, and direct confirmation of receivables and certain other assets and liabilities by
correspondence with selected individuals, funding sources, creditors, and financial institutions. We will request written
representations from your attorneys as part of the engagement, and they may bill you for responding to this inquiry. At the
conclusion of our audit, we will require certain written representations from you about the financial statements and related matters.
AUDIT PROCEDURES - INTERNAL CONTROL
Our audit will include obtaining an understanding of the entity and its environment, including internal control, sufficient to assess
the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements and to design the nature, titning, and extent of further audit
procedures. An audit is not designed to provide assurance on internal control or to identify deficiencies in internal control,
However, during the audit, we will communicate to management and those charged with governance internal control related
matters that are required to be communicated under AICPA professional standards.
AUDIT PROCEDURES - COMPLIANCE
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free ofmaterial misstatement. we will
perform tests of the City's compliance with applicable laws and regulations and the provisions of contracts and agreements.
However, the objective of our audit will not be to provide an opinion on overall compliance and we will not express such an
opinion.
AUDIT ADMINISTRATION, FEES, AND OTHER
We may from time to time, and depending on the circumstances. use third -party service providers in serving your account. We
may share confidential information about you with these service providers, but remain committed to maintaining the
confidentiality and security of your information. Accordingly, we maintain internal policies, procedures, and safeguards to protect
the confidentiality of your personal information. In addition, we will secure confidentiality agreements with all service providers
to maintain the confidentiality of your information and we will take reasonable precautions to determine that they have
appropriate procedures in place to prevent the unauthorized release of your confidential information to others. In the event that we
are unable to secure an appropriate confidentiality agreement, you will be asked to provide your consent prior to the sharing of
your confidential information with the third -party service provider. Furthermore, we will remain responsible for the work
provided by any such third -party service providers.
We understand that your employees will prepare all cash or other confirmations we request and will locate any docurnents
selected by us for testing.
Steven R. McDonald, CPA is the engagement punier and is responsible for supervising the engagement and signing the report.
We expect to begin our audit on approximately May 4, 2009 and to issue our reports no later than June 22, 2009.
Our fee for these services will be as follows:
Audit 26,900
Office of the State Auditor 2008 Reporting Form 510
We will issue progress billings during the preliminary and fieldwork stages of the audit and are payable on presentation. in
accordance with our firm policies, work may be suspended if your account becomes 90 days or more overdue and may not be
resumed until your account is paid in full. If we elect to terminate our services for nonpayment, our engagement will be deemed
to have been completed upon written notification of termination, even if we have not completed our report. You will be obligated
to compensate us for all time expended and to reimburse us for all out-of-pocket costs through the date of termination. The above
fee is based on anticipated cooperation from your personnel and the assumption that unexpected circumstances will not be
encountered during the audit. If significant additional time is necessary, we will discuss it with you and arrive at a new fee
estimate before we incur the additional costs.
2008 .4 1,G-CL-1.1.- Audit Engagemeat Letter--titundarci
952.835,9090 • Fax 952.835,3261
WWW.F1C mcpas.coni
City of Long Lake
November 25, 2008
Page 4
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the City and believe this letter accurately summarizes the significant terms of
our engagement. If you have any questions, please let us know. If you agree with the terms of our engagement as described in this
letter, please sign the enclosed copy and return it to us.
Very truly yours,
ABDO, BECK & MEYERS, LLP
Certified Public Accountants and Consultants
Steven R. McDonald, CPA
Managing Partner
RESPONSE:
This letter correctly sets forth the understanding of City of Lake Elnio.
By:
Title:
2008 ALG-CL-I]: .4aarit Engagement Leiter—Stanclarct
952.835.9090 *F 952.8353261
www.aernepas.com
City Council
Date: 12.8.08
Regular
Item
ITEM: 2009 Property Tax Levy
SUBMITTED BY: Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The city council is being asked to consider adopting
the final 2009 property tax levy. The certification to the Washington County Auditor will be as
General Fund Levy
2004G.O. Capital Improvement Plan Bonds
2O08G.O.Equipment Certificates ofIndebtedness
Total
$2,332,130
319,885
58.188
$2,708,203
By both utilizing the adjusted net tax capacity increase hofund expected declines inpermit and
fee revenues while maintaining levels of government services, the City isproposing todocreaoe
the payable 2OO8city tax rate by3.896from 3D.55396in2DU8to 19�81096 in2OD9. In other
words, property owners with no change in market values from payable 2008 to payable 2009
should experience a 3.6% decrease in the city portion of their overall property tax bill, In the
event of a market value decrease or increase from payable 2008 to payable 2009, city property
taxes would change proportionately.
The city is proposing to enact certain special levies for payable 2009 of $376.073. This includes
$31Q.885and $50.18O respectively,for the pre-existing special levies for the 20O4G.Q. Capital
Improvement Plan Bonds (city fmoi|itieo). and the2000 G.O. Equipment Certificates of
Indebtedness (fire iruoh).
RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution #2DD8-59Adopting Final PnopepyTax Levy in
the amount of $2'7O9203.
MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION:
Move to approve Resolution # 2008-59 Adopting Final Propery Tax Levy in fhe amounf of
1 Resolution #2OO8'5gAdopting Final Tax Levy
MY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-59
RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINAL TAX LEVY
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, County of Washington.
Minnesota, that the following sums of money be levied for the current year, collectible in 2009,
upon the taxable property in the City of Lake Elmo for the following purposes:
General Fund Levy $ 2,332,130
2004 G.O Capital Improvement Plan Bond $ 319,885
2006 G.O Equipment Certificate of Indebtedness $ 56,188
Total Levy $ 2,708,203
ADOPTED, by the Lake Elmo City Council on the 9th day of December, 2008.
Dean Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sharon Lumby, Clerk
City Council
Date: 12.9.08
Regular
Item 5
ITEM: Adoption nf2ODQBudget
SUBMITTED BY: Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The city council kubeing asked huconsider adopting
the final 2009 General Fund Budget. The city council discussed the draft budget in three
workshops and adopted the proposed general fund budget and the obv'soverall preliminary
property tax levy onSeptember 2.2OO8. The proposed overall city 2DUQbudget includes the
general fund, special revenue funds, debt service funds, capital projects funda.enherpriaefundo.
and odraft five-year capital improvement plan (Cl P).The C|P including capital projects ond
enterprise fund impeots, will be reviewed by the planning commission and scheduled for city
council review, discussion, and final adoption in 2009. Overall 2009 general fund expenditures
are budgeted at$2.892.O8O.oro1.496decrease from the amended 20O8general fund budget.
The 2009 general fund budget is considered "balanced", with overall general fund budgeted
revenues also ot $2.892.000ora1.496decrease.
The City conducted mTruth inTaxation hearing nnDecember 1.2UO8\oreceive the final draft of
the General Fund Budget and toafford interested parties the opportunity to comment onthe
Budget
RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution #2O08'6OAdopting the 2009General Fund
Budget in the amount of $ 2,892,060.
&4(]T{}N FOR CONSIDERATION:
Move to approve Resolution # 2008-60 Adopting the 2009 General Fund Budget in the
amount of $2.892'O60.
1 Resolution #2UO8-OOAdopting 20U9 General Fund Budget
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-060
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2009 GENERAL FUND BUDGET
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is required to adopt a formal budget for the general
fund expenditures;
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo held its Truth in Taxation Hearing on December 1, 2008;
WHEREAS, the Lake City Council closed the public hearing on the 2009 general fund
budget at the close of the meeting on December 1, 2008 without need for continuation;
BE IT RESOLVED the Lake Elmo City Council adopts the 2009 general fund budget
in the amount of $2,892,060
ADOPTED, by the Lake Elmo City Council on the 9th day of December, 2008.
Dean Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST;
Sharon Lumby, City Clerk
City Council
Date: 12.5i08
REGULAR
Presentation
ITEM: Presentation bythe St. Croix Valley Foundation
REQUESTED BY: Jill Shannon, Director ofCommunity Partnerships
SUBM/TTEOBY� 8h�ronL�mby.QtyClerk
' '--
SUMMARY AND ACTION: The oih/ council is being asked to hear presentation on the 8i Croix
Valley Area Foundation about its purpose, programs and activities of the foundation,
ORDER OFBUSINESS
Presentation Jill Shannon
Questions tothe presenter Mayor and Council Members
Questions from the public, if any Mayor facilitates
NQACTION REQUIRED
Space for Arts
-,S•rtS
`r:rt
Art & Economic Prosperity
in the St. Croix Valley 0,
St Croix Valley - $19.17
_
-Twin Cities 7 County M $22..56
SI. Paul $22.83_
Minneapolis - $20.40
Cultural .e ASSeSSMent
- AND
prconzrnrninij
Artspace, fea(lir,i) nort.roL,
re -a) estEzc developer Mr friu
Art & Economic Prosperity F,
in the St. Croix Valley
Organizations
$6.8
Atta:NICC .59.brnIn
„..
9 organizations
Phase I Acir
Phric=o it: Art
Timelinct:
Cost:
Funding:: Varie;y of
Us'ed for: Fr plarinin; enriti:?r4,
Greater Stillwater Area Cultural Needs & Use Assessment
Project Budget
Direct Expenses
Personnel
Artspace 551,523
Anne Howden Consulting $5,000
PROJECT TOTAL $56,523
Project Breakdown
Phase I - Org & Community Assessment
Phase - Artist Market Suivey
Decision Facilitation
$26,523
$25,000
$5,000
556,523
Income Received Pledged Pending TOTAL
Participating Organizations (inc SCVCF1 $4,600 $4,600 59,200
Individuals $6,000 $6,000
Pugsley Fund of HRK Foundation $5,000 $5.000
Tozer Foundation $5,000 $5,000
Foundations $20,019 $20,019
Foundation requests pending:
Katherine B. Andersen Fund of St, Paul Foundation
Fred C. & Katherine B. Andersen Fdn
Hardenbergh Foundation
Municipal Governments (20% of total) $11,304 $11,304
$9,600 $15,600 $31,323 $56,523
Municipal Government - Proportional Contribution? - 20% of total cost
Met Council Population and Household Estimated
Estimate 411/2007 'A population Contribution
Afton 2,937 6% $662
Bayport 3,273 7% $738
Baytown Township 1,774 4% $400
Lake Elmo 8,182 16% $1,845
Lake St, Croix Beach 1,177 2% $265
Lakeland 1,905 4% $429
Lakeland Shores 363 1% $82
Marine on St. Croix 703 1% 5158
Oakpark Heights 4,751 9% $1,071
St. Mary's Point 405 1% $91
Stillwater 18,112 36% $4,083
Stillwater Township 2,625 5% $592
VVest Lakeland 3,934 8% $887
50,141 1003/4 $11,304
Greater Stillwater Area
Cultural Needs &KJse Assessment
Agroup nfnonprofit cultural organizations inthe Greater Stillwater area have recently joined ho
explore the viability ofcreating orsharing opaoe(s)homeet their respective needs and kmsatisfy the
growing needs of the cultural community. The proposed Needs & Use Assessment is the first step in
this venture,
Rationale: The communities inthe lower St. Croix Valley are known for their special charm, their
rich cultural organizations and uaehome for abounty ofrecognized artists, But more than just
providing entertainment, the St. Croix Valley's cultural offerings contribute to a unique sense of place
that attracts new residents, draws new businesses and provides a destination for thousands of
visitors from the Twin Citioometropolitan area, Wisconsin and beyond. Recent research shows
what active community leaders have known for years — this artistic heritage spurs local economic
development, Audience patrons in the St. Croix Valley spend at a comparable rate per capita to the
audience patrons in Minneapolis and St. Paul and in so doing they provide business to local
restaurants, merchants and municipalities,
Yet, in the midst of this rich cultural landscape, arts organizations in the Greater Stillwater area are
fragmented, often hidden or "homeless" and the absence of a cultural or performing arts center is
well known. Meanwhile for -profit creative businesses recognize how the negkzn'ahistoric character
has special appeal for their customers and creates opportunity for other creative ventures, VVhi|o
visions of new gallery, performing art space and cultural districts abound, what isn't known is the
extent these new visions can build an the capacities and future needs of our existing cultural
organizations, |nthere synergy inocoordinated, collective approach?
Over the next 25 years, the St. Croix Valley's population is projected to grow 65 percent, more than
double the rate of growth of the entire Twins Cities metro area, By giving proper attention to the role
of the arts in this development, we will retain and build on the unique character that attracts new
businesses and sparks revenues for our region'soverall prosperity.
Who Will Conduct the Study? Based inMinneapolis, Adopaceisthe nation's leading nonprofit
real estate developer for the art&
What the Needs & Use Assessment Will Provide: Believing that programming need and
organizational capacity are the basis offuture planning, this study will engage cultural organizations
in the Stillwater -Lake Elmo region and will provide recommendations for specific multi -use
cnncept(s)for arts spoma(s)based onthe:
a) growing programming and space needs of cultural organizations in the area;
b) efficiencies inanew and/or existing shared use tacNy(ies);
c) financial capacity of existing organizations to capitalize and operate new space or
programming \oaddress these needy�
d) role of arts in local municipal planning,
Overall the recommendations will focus onneed, scope, timing, and costs. The study will help the
group� a) strategize on collaborative programming and efficiencies in site development; b) move
forward onone site -specific project orprojects at multiple sites; orc)craft omix ofthese options, |f
deemed necessary, a second phase of this study will determine the interests of artists in renting
otudio/workspacm,
Outcome: A range of concepts could come out of this project: performing art space� artist live -work
space, gallery space, classrooms; space for for -profit creative businesses. The goal nfthe project is
to establish what may be feasible given future programming and financial capacity to capitalize and
operate space for new cultural programs. Specific information will include financial models (capital
and operating) for ownership and operation ofshared facilities,
Coot Phase|: Needs & Use Assessment: $26.500
Phase It: Artist Interest Survey: $25,000
Core Group
Art Reach Alliance
La* E�moRegional
Art Center,
moPhipps Center
for the Ads
Stillwater, Area Public
nc�?onmmmmunity
Foucation
nmityLutheran Church
Theatre A,*omateso/
Stillwater- Performing
Arts Steering oommm=*
Valley Clirmoeroomnle
Other Cultural
Organizations mthe
Greater Stillwater Area
Arcola Mills
Art otCroix
Bridge Theatre
music st, Croix
St, Croix Ballet Academy
St. Croix Concert Series
St. Croix Valley
Boys Choir
St. Croix Valley Chapter
of the Barbersf7op
Harmony Society
Stillwater Music Festiva/
Valle de Croixc»nmx
xamey Dance &*rts
Academy
washingtoo county
Historic cuvnmovse
Washington county
Historical Society
Mite Pine Festival
Conveneouv
� sccmixVille'
'�C000UDjty
� Fouodadnn
41 contributions are
tax deduct0le,
por=mnmfo^mawon,
please contact
Jill Shannon
Director u,Community
Partnerships
715-386-9490
/noSecond St, Ste o14
Hodson, W154016
City Council
Date: 12/9/2008
REGULAR
Item: 7
ITEM: V-Box Sander Purchase
SUBMITTED BY: Mike Bouthilet, Public Works Superintendent
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planer
Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
Early on this winter season the need to add an additional sander to the Public Works
snow/ice control operations has been apparent. To date (4 Dec) we have had to respond to
icy conditions four times. Three of the four operations only needed one truck to address
high volume intersections, This required us to send out a full size dump truck to cover
the City. The same ice control could have been achieved with our Ford 450 if we had the
V-Box sander. On the fourth operation four dump trucks went out, but we have the
personnel to man the Ford 450, again if it had the V-Box sander. There are also
incidences after we have completed snow removal operations with heavier snowfall, to
go back out hours later to address random icy conditions due to re -freezing. This truck
would also respond to these conditions,
Using this truck would be more economical than having to use a full size dump truck for
minor ice conditions, and when needed, add a firth vehicle to completely cover the City
when conditions warrant.
The MAC has discussed and recommended the purchase of this V-Box, but it is
programmed in the CIP to go on a new truck next year. This unit is an insert and could
be moved to another truck in the fleet when appropriate. The MAC did not meet to
discuss this V-Box purchase for this current year, but a poll of the members was
conducted and it was unanimous that the purchase should proceed now and further
evaluation be conducted on the new truck and attachments.
This is a state contract bid item. Funding is available in the current CIP.
The Council is being asked to approve the purchase of the V-Box sander in the
amount of: S5, 459.83 (tax included)
������
VV�"� Lig
Sand and Salt Spreader
The Henderson Pickup Spreader-Lite sand and salt spreader is lighter weight than its family mem-
ber theFSP.but with all the performance traits. The HPS-Litesand and salt spreader is lower
cost unit to keep your budget from melting away. The people at Henderson are well aware of how
you have hocontrol your budget, aoxvadesigned andbu|Koaund/ma|t spreader that iorugged, de-
pendable nndsdiUotovovvithinyou,budget.TheHP5-Lbehaveacnurotenpn*mdcVrt;o}.inoreaoed
payload, and is easy to mount, These dependable spreaders share many of the major components
nfthe popular F8Pfor parts conformity. VVestand behind what xvesell with dependable dealers for
parts and service, whenever and wherever you need them, o1 competitive
price. Whatever your ice control requirements, check first with...
Standard Features:
° Body length is 8'
° Inside Width 403/4
* Overall length 1131/4"
• Capacity struck |x1.8cu. yd.
• Body weight is approx. 640 lbs
w 10.5HPkCBriggs and Stratton engine
0 12~mkelectric starter assures fast start every time.
* Completely enclosed in -cab control console with
rocker switches for electric throttle control, electric
clutch on/o#.and engine start
0 Polyurethane spinner eliminates rust and extends
spinner disc life
a Spreader battery kit (includes battery tray, box and
cable)
° 14^chain conveyor
* Single lift point for quinkone-man installation
HENDERSON MANUFACTURING, INC.
Hoppers are continuously welded, whkh minimizes
corrosion points
VYo|d on tie down lugs eliminates scratching of paint
and speeds installation time
Optional Equipment:
• Stainless steel hopper r"i'_
w Vehicle battery wiring harness
° Four nylon straps with ratchet hold downs
° Inverted vunoffered inmild steel urstainless steel
* Top grate screens
� 12^long spinner chute offered (n mild steel orstainless
steel
� 11 HIP Honda engine
��_
52O57'Phon��(ROO)350-4870'vmwvvhendenson'nf
1OO5O.Third Street 'POBox 4O'Manchester, [A
C1/5
JEQUIPMEN
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS: 9150 Pillsbury Avenue South, Bloomington, MN 55420-3686 - Phone: (952)608-2525 - Fax: (952)656-7157 Websiter ww&aspenequipment.com
Cust Name: Lake Elmo, City Of
Contact: Mike Bouthilet
Phone: 651-233-5414
Fax:
Quote Number:
LAKE ELMO, CITY 0E-25-HEN-39784-v2
Quote Date: 12/212006
Aspen Equipment is pleased to offer the following quotation for your consideration
Qtv Part/Spec Number
1 7.2 HPSSS
Submitted by,
Mark Lundeen
612-719-4414
Description Carryout
Henderson 8Stainless, V-Box Sander,Briggs, Inverted-V, Top Screens $5,126.60
State Of MN Contract # 439,81
Quote Sub Total: $5,126,60
Sales Tax: $333.23
Total: $5,459.83
• Equipment Specifications subject to change
• FOB Bloomington, MN (Unless otherwise specified)
• Quote valid for 30 days from date of quotation
Any chassis modifications including, but not limited to alterations or relocation ot components related to Mel tanks, air tanks, brakes, exhaust systems, battery boxes, protrusions above and below the
frame rails, shortening or lengthening frame rails and the like will be added to the selling price. "• Aspen Equipment reserves the right to add any applicableMenurecturert Steel Surcharges lo this
quotation.
Exhaust Systems: With the new EPA mandated diesel exhaust systems for 2007 many changes are taking place. Manufacturers are often unable to depict accurately how the exhaust systems are
configured and have difficulty stipulating whether certain components (Le. PTOs and pufrips) may fit in the confined spaces beneath the truck 2007 EPA COMPLIANT DIESEL EXHAUST SYSTEMS
CANNOT BE MODIFIED, RELOCATED OR REPLACED BY ASPEN EQUIPMENT, Due to evolving designs, Aspen Equipment can not maintain expertise on every chassistenginertransmissionlexhaust
configuration possible, regardless of who orders or specifies it. Nor can Aspen Equipment guarantee that a chassis ordered today will not change in design prior to delivery from the factory. Therefore,
Aspen Equipment does not warrant that quoted products can be installed on a chassis without modifications to the chassis or products instatled. As such, Aspen Equipment will not be responsible for the
cost of modifications due to exhaust systems cenfling with the installation of quoted products. Aspen Equiprnent will make every reasonable effort to ensure that installations ere completed Without
additional charges to the customer.
1 of 1
City Council
Date: 12/9/08
Regular
On1\manma No 08-011
Resolution No, 2O08-001
Item: 8
ITEM: o)Consider amendments hnthe wireless telecommunications tower
ordinance
b)Further consider erecommendation related toanapplication for a
vvina|eso 125foot telecommunications tower permit for QO57 Lake Jane
Trail North
n)Consider setting opublic hearing toestablish amoratorium onthe
construction of new wireless telecommunications towers
REQUESTED BY: RMHCCorporation, Applicant
Dan and Jean Olinger, property owners, 9057 Lake Jane Trail North
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle K]att, Planning Oinaohzr
REVIEWED BY: Jerry Filla, City Attorney
SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTE[l The City Council is being asked bzconsider the
following actions related to request from FK4HC Corporation toconstruct a 125-footwire|ens
telecommunications tower atQO57 Lake Jane Trail North-,
1. Consider adoption ofanordinance that would amend the wireless telecommunications
ordinance to expand the required search radius, provide for a waiver of the co -location
requirements when a stealth or camouflage design would better blend into the
surrounding environment, require submission of a 5 year plan instead of a 2 year plan
from wireless communications providers, and establish aclear priority omongthe allowed
sites for towers.
2� Consider a recommendation to approve the applicant's request, but at height of 90 feet
instead of125feet and with orequirement that the tower becamouflaged tomatch the
surrounding trees onand around the site. This recommendation isbased onaffirmative
action by the Council on the preceding item to allow a 90-foot tower without a co -location
3. Consider setting a public hearing date to establish a moratorium on the construction of
new wireless telecommunications towers.
Each of these neonmnnyndehnns is in response to the direction provided by the Council at its
December 2.2OO8workshop, The questions that were documented from the workshop meeting
have been forwarded to FMHC Corporation for a response; however, the majority of these
questions pertained 0othe design submitted bythe applicant and not the ning|e-uoe.camouflage
design that has been recommended, The findings aodrafted inthe attached resolution are
therefore very specific to the recommended design and present site conditions, Avvritten
response to the questions has been requested in time to either mail with the agenda packet or
email inadvance ofthe meeting.
In order to reduce the amount of time spent copying materials for this item, the Council is asked
to bring the binder distributed in advance of the workshop to the December 9, 2009 meeting, Any
new information is attached to this report.
INFORMATION ONPROPOSED ORDINANCE
The proposed ordinance amending the wireless telecommunications tower ordinance has been
drafted in a manner so that the establishment ofcommunications facilities is not prohibited in the
community. If adopted, it would provide for additional flexibility for the Council to allow a lower
and camouflaged tower that would better blend into the surrounding environment and minimize
adverse visual effects ofthe tower. Aprovision has been added 10require alarger search radius
for potential co -location sites (from 1/4 mi|e to 2 miles); hovvever, the impact of this proposed
change will likely be minimal with regards to the present request for the following reasons:
T-mobile's RF Engineer testified at the Planning Commission hearing that the area that
could be served by an antenna on the Ideal Avenue water tower already has coverage
provided from anear-by Oakdale site. The expected improvement incoverage from the
water tower would not extend far enough into the Lake Jane area for T-mobile to consider
this mviable option,
Without sufficient coverage south of Lake Jane from either new tower around the
applicant's site or on the water tower, there do not appear to be any existing structures
that extend far enough south 0zadequately cover the Lake Jane area.
Another majorohongehnmUlepneaentordinanneksdheadditionofapnzvisionthat allows the
City Council to waive co -location requirements to allow an applicant to construct awireless
telecommunication tower that better blends into the surrounding environment. With this change,
the Council may consider a camouflaged tower as a mechanism to permit towers on sites that
could impact important natural and open space areas inthe community.
Although the ordinance amendments aodrafted would provide more flexibility than presently
allowed under the current ordinance, it leaves several of the more general questions and
concerns from the Council and public left unaddressed, specifically:
� Whether or not fewer, taller bzvvens with co -location are preferable to a larger number of
smaller, camouflaged towers throughout the community.
* If allowed, which portions ofthe City are most appropriate for the siting oftaller towers,
° How tnbest address the future requests from the wireless telecommunications industry
while remaining compliant with the Federal Telecommunications Act,
Because of the other questions and issues that need to be addressed by the Chv, a moratorium
has been recommended to give the City time to conduct additional research on these questions
and further revise the ordinance toaccomplish the City'nobjectives,
T-M[}B|LETOWER PERMIT RECOMMENDATION
Based on the testimony received and all of the information that has been reviewed by the Cky,
staff is recommending that the City Council consider approving the request for a new tower but to
make this approval contingent upon the height being reduced to 90 feet with camouflaging to
change the design ofthe tower look like a tree. This action would bebased onthe proposed
revisions tothe telecommunications tower ordinance that will allow osingle-use tower toexceed
75feet inheight. This recommendation isfurther based onthe following findings:
1) The applicant has stated that any new wireless communications antennas need to be
located above the surrounding tree canopy in order to provide sufficient coverage in this
area. The trees onsite have been measured tubeomaximum of75'8Ofeet inheight,
2
with most ofthe larger trees located k)the east and south ofthe tower site. The primary
residential areas that would beserved bythe tower are located to the north and west pf
this site. A9O'foothowervvou|dprovidea1O'15footinonaaaeinhe|ghtabovetheneareot
adjacent trees.
2) The tower site is located inclose proximityand would be highly visible from prime nm8uns|
enaao inthe community, including Lake Jane and Sunfish Lake Park. The City has
historically worked to protect scenic vistas ho and from this park by rejecting proposals for
buildings and towers within the parh, and has recently placed the park into apermanent
conservation easement hzfurther promote the preservation ofthis natural area.
3) The diagrams for the tower indicate that one nfthe co -location points ofthe tower is
located ot85feet inheight, The recommendation for aQO'hoVttower would allow for
some additional height anamodest buffer beyond the lowest point atwhich onantenna
would be located on the proposed she under the original tower proposal.
4) A single -use tower may be integrated with the surrounding environment to a much higher
degree than o larger monopole since it can: a) be constructed at a lower elevation than a
tower designed for accommodate additional carhers, and b) be designed to be
camouflaged onthe site with architectural treatments that make itlook like ntree, The
City ofAfton, k8Nrecently approved atower very close toSOfeet that was designed to
look like a pine tree.
5> The Radio Frequency studies conducted bvthe applicant indicate that adequate
coverage cannot be obtained by placing an antenna on the Ideal Avenue water tower and
that anew antenna ianeeded inthe area south ofLake Jane.
0) There are very few sites that will provide coverage in the area south of Lake Jane and
where the visual affects ofataller tower can beminimized. Alower and camouflaged
tower allows this area to be covered by wireless communication services while softening
the visual impacts onthe natural and scenic environment ofthis area,
Atower that |s designed to be camouflaged tolook like mtree would address many of the
comments and concerns that were raised during the public hearing and subsequent Council
workshop onthis request. For instance, the questions regarding the potential visual impacts of
three separate antenna arrays would beaddressed since asingle array could bebetter
concealed aupart ofthe design. The primary drawback from mcommunity perspective would be
that alower tower would likely not cover aslarge cfanarea, thus necessitating another tower site
inorder toaddress gaps incoverage. The intent the proposed moratorium would be toallow the
current request at a lower height while giving the City the ability to more completely research the
issues associated with the siting oftowers inLake Elmo,
MORATORIUM INFORMATION
The purpose of a moratorium would be to give the City additional time to first study the recent
trends and issues associated with wireless telecommunication facilities and then to revise the
current ordinance to better address the questions and concerns that have been expressed about
the current ordinance. The Council iytherefore being asked boset apublic hearing date to
consider o moratorium at future meeting,
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The City Attorney has prepared adraft ordinance and included a copy ofthe current ordinance
A.copy ofthe questions forwarded 0zthe applicant ks attached hothis report. Any response from
the applicant will either be included with the agenda packet oremaikad to council members in
advance of the meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the above analysis. public |nput, and previously submitted documentation the staff
recommends the following:
1) Adoption of the attached ordinance to amend the wireless telecommunications ordinance.
2) Approval of the request for awireless telecommunications tower permit toconstruct a
new tower at 9057 Lake Jane Trail with the following conditions:
e) The tower shall belimited ho9Oinheight.
b) The tower shall be designed to be camouflaged with architectural treatments that
make it look like a tree, consistent with the recent Afton, MN tower approval and
examples included aopart ofthe December 2.2OO8City Council workshop
packet.
c) The final design ofthe tower based onconditions (a)and (b)shall bereviewed
and approved by the Planning Oineohzc
d) That the applicant submit all documentation requested bythe City Engineer prior
to approval of a building permit for the tower or related accessory equipment.
o) That the applicant and property owner enter into an agreement with the City in
accordance with Section 16U,110ofthe wireless telecommunications tower
ordinance prior to the issuance of a building permit for the tower or related
accessory equipment.
f) That the height of the proposed security fence be limited to 6 feet (72 inches) in
height to remain consistent with the Lake Elmo fence ordinance.
3) Setting apublic hearing date of January 6.2008toconsider adoption of amoratorium on
the construction ofnew wireless telecommunication towers.
MOTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION:
Move approval ofOrdinance No. Q8'01Ybased onthe reasons cited above,
Move approval ofResolution No, 2008-061 bzallow the construction ofa moir»/eun
telecommunication tower at8057Lake Jane Trail North,
Move to set a public hearing date of January 6, 2009 to consider adoption of a moratorium on the
construction oynew wireless telecommunication towers.
ORDER OFBUSINESS:
- Report -----------...... ........ ---.......... Kyle K|att,Planning Director
Questions from the Council --- Mayor & Council Members
Questions/Comments from the app|icont....... ----------...... Mayor facilitates
Questions/Comments from the public ..... --------....... ........... Mayor facilitates
4
Call for mMotion
(required for further discussion; does not
imply approval nfthe motion ..... ---..................... ----............ —'Mayor facilitates
- Discussion --------------------- Mayor facilitates
' Action on motion ------------------------------ Council
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Council Packet from December 2.2OO8(Please bring homeeting)
2� Resolution No. 2OO8-D61
O. Workshop questions presented to applicant (answers to be provided if submitted in
time for packet)
4. Letter from City Attorney
5. Ordinance No. O8-011 relating Vzwireless telecommunications towers
8, Current ordinance
7, Comparison ordinance
5
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-61
A RESOLUT ON APPROVING A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER PERMIT TO
CONSTURCT A TOWER AT 9057 LAKE JANE TRAIL NOR7'H
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, FMHC Corporation, 2901 Metro Drive, Suite 225, Bloomington, MN on
behalf of T-Mobile Corporation ("Applicant") has submitted an application to the City of Lake
Elmo (the "City") for a Wireless Telecommunications Tower Permit to establish a wireless
telecommunication tower at 9057 Lake Jane Trail North; and
WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo
Code of Ordinances Section 150.115; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter
on November 10, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the application for a wireless
telecommunications tower permit at a workshop conducted on December 2, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further considered said marter at its December 9, 2008
meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the
City Council makes the following:
FINDINGS
1) That the procedures for obtaining said Wireless Telecommunications Tower Permit are
found in the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 150.110 through 150.126.
2) That all the submission requirements of said Sections have been met by the Applicant.
3) That the proposed application as submitted is to construct a 125-foot high monopole
tower at 9057 Lake Jane Trail North.
4) That the City's previous and recently amended wireless telecommunication towers
regulations emphasize the City's concern that such structures be constructed in a manner
that allows them to blend into the surrounding environment in a reasonable manner.
5) That the City Council has determined that a lower tower designed to be camouflaged as a
tree is more appropriate for the surrounding area based on the following:
a. The applicant has stated that any new wireless communications antennas need to
be located above the surrounding tree canopy in order to provide sufficient
coverage in this area. The trees on site have been measured to be a maximum of
75-80 feet in height, with most of the larger trees located to the east and south of
the tower site. The primary residential areas that would be served by the tower are
located to the north and west of this site, A 90-foot tower would provide a 10-15
foot increase in height above the nearest adjacent trees,
b. The tower site is located in close proximity and would be highly visible from
prime natural areas in the community, including Lake Jane and Sunfish Lake Park,
The City has historically worked to protect scenic vistas to and from this park by
rejecting proposals for buildings and towers within the park, and has recently
placed the park into a permanent conservation easement to further promote the
preservation of this natural area.
c. The diagrams for the tower indicate that one of the co -location points of the tower
is located at 85 feet in height. The recommendation for a 90-foot tower would
allow for some additional height as a modest buffer beyond the lowest point at
which an antenna would be located on the proposed site under the original tower
proposal.
d. A single -use tower may be integrated with the surrounding environment to a much
higher degree than a larger monopole since it can: a) be constructed at a lower
elevation than a tower designed for accommodate additional carriers, and h) be
designed to be camouflaged on the site with architectural treatments that make it
look like a tree. The City of Afton, MN recently approved a tower very close to
90 feet that was designed to look like a pine tree.
e. The Radio Frequency studies conducted by the applicant indicate that adequate
coverage cannot be obtained by placing an antenna on the Ideal Avenue water
tower and that a new antenna is needed in the area south of Lake Jane.
There are very few sites that will provide coverage in the area south of Lake Jane
and where the visual affects of a taller tower can be minimized. A lower and
camouflaged tower allows this area to be covered by wireless communication
services while softening the visual impacts on the natural and scenic environment
of this area.
6) That the wireless telecommunications tower will be located on property legally described
on the attached Exhibit "A". Commonly known as 9057 Lake Jane Trail North,
7) That a tower on this site that is no higher than 90 feet and designed to be camouflaged as
a tree will:
a. Reasonably accommodate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to
the general public;
b. Minimize adverse visual effects of wireless telecommunication towers, antennae,
or accessory equipment through careful design and siting standards;
c. Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failures through
structural standards and setback requirements; and
d. Maximize the use of existing and approved towers, structures, and/or buildings for
the location of new wireless telecommunication towers in order to reduce the
number of the structures needed to accommodate wireless telecommunication
services.
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
Based on the foregoing, the Applicant's application for a wireless telecommunication tower
permit is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions:
a) The tower shall be limited to 90 in height.
h) The tower shall be designed to be camouflaged with architectural treatments that
make it look like a tree, consistent with the recent Afton. MN tower approval and
examples included as part of the December 2, 2008 City Council workshop packet,
The final design of the tower based on conditions (a) and (b) shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Director.
d) That the applicant submit all documentation requested by the City Engineer prior to
approval of a building permit for the tower or related accessory equipment.
) That the applicant and property owner enter into an agreement with the City in
accordance with Section 150.116 of the wireless telecommunications tower ordinance
prior to the issuance of a building permit for the tower or related accessory
equipment.
t) That the height of the proposed security fence be limited to 6 feet (72 inches) in
height to remain consistent with the Lake Elmo fence ordinance.
g) That this approval shall be effective on the 43 d day of December 2008.
Passed and duly adopted this 91h day of December, 2008 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
Dean A. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Hoyt, City Administrator
QUESTIONS
REGARDING LAKE JANE TOWER SITE
1. Does your FCC license apply to PCS, B-Block, C4-Block?
2. Does your FCC license apply to AWS R3-E; FCC grant?
3 Does the Lake Jane site deployment depend upon negotiations for other providers co -
locating on the tower?
4. Has a Nation Wide Programmatic Agreement of tower location and historic preservation
study been completed?
5. Is any landscaping proposed for the area south and east of the tower site closer to the
southeast property lines of the Olinger property?
6. Are the proposed 4 foot high trees and existing buffers sufficient to screen ground
structures from Jamaca Ave,?
7. Assuming that the City's current regulations do not require co -location:
A. What is the minimum height of a tower on the Lake Jane site that would allow
you to provide the requested services?
B. Can a stealth tower on the Lake Jane site serve your purpose?
8. What is the height above average terrain?
9. What are the average tree height measurements in relation to the tower base within the
immediate surrounding area to warrant the additional height?
10. Have you explored the possibility of a stealth tower?
11. Have you considered some type of camouflage for the proposed tower?
P. What type of monopole is being proposed?
13. Will there be climbing pegs, flange bolts and slip joints on the proposed tower?
14. Are the cable lines going to be inside or outside of the pole?
15. How many additional Lake Jane area customers will be served or have improved service
as a result of the construction of this pole?
16. Will the new tower have both the older voice system and the newer 3G network?
17. Do you have any documentation supporting your decision to choose this specific site
rather than other sites in this area?
18. Did you investigate other parcels within this area for tower sites? What were the results
of the investigation or conversations with other private property owners whose land
might also satisfy your purpose?
19. Can you co -locate on the City water tower and provide the services that are requested in
the area that you wish to serve around Lake Jane?
20. Would you be willing to place a crane on the site at the proposed height for one or two
days?
21. How many complaints have you received about the quality of the service in the Lake
Jane area?
22. If the proposed tower is constructed, vvill you need to construct additional towers in the
City of Lake Elmo, and if so, how many?
23. Are there any things that you can do to soften the visual impact of the tower on the Lake
Jane and Sunfish Lake park areas?
24. Have you explored the possibility of cutting down some of the trees on the Lake Jane site
in order to facilitate a lower tower?
25. Is it possible for you to construct two smaller towers in the Lake Jane area instead of one
larger tower and still provide the services that are being requested?
26. Will you be placing a generator on this site, and if so, where will it be located?
27. What will be the capacity of this particular tower; how many additional users or services
will accommodate before another tower is required?
28. Will there be walk ways on top of the tower around the antenna arrays?
29. What types ofantennas are being imposed?
2
Warren E. Peterson
lerome P. FiIla
Daniel Witt Fram
Glenn A. Bergman
iohn Michael Miller
Michael T. Oberle
Steven H. Bruns*
Paul W. Fahning'
Sonia R. Ortiz
Amy K. L. Schmidt
Beni. Rust
Jonathan R. Cuskey
Jared M, GoerUtz
Kyle Klatt
Planning Director
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Ave. North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
FRAIVIOBERGMAN
December 4, 2008
RE: Wireless Telecommunication Towers
Kyle:
Attached are the following:
Suite 800
55 East Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101-1718
16511 291-8955
16511 228-1753 facsimile
www,pfb-pa.com
(651)290-6907
jfillaapfb-pa.com
VIA EMAIL
1. A copy of the City's current regulations.
2. A copy of an Ordinance, which would revise portions of the regulations.
3. A comparison document which shows changes to the existing regulations and
which would be effectuated by the adoption of the Ordinance.
As was previously discussed, the Telecommunication Act of 1996 reserves zoning
authority to local governments, but also limits the ability of a local unit of
government to adopt regulations (e.g. Cities cannot adopt regulations which prohibit
or have the effect of prohibiting wireless telecommunication service).
The changes proposed to the City's regulations do not, in my opinion, prohibit or
have the effect of prohibiting wireless telecommunication service. The new
provisions simply highlight the authority of the City to adopt conditions of approval
which address visual impacts on surrounding parcels.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
JPF/jmt
Attachments
'ALSO ADMITTED IN WISC:ON SI N
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 0--011
AN ORDINANCE RELATING WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS
The Lake Elmo City Council ordains that City Code Sections 150.113 (A)(B)(C); 150.114
(D)(3); 150.117; and 150.12o(B)(2)(a) and (B)(1)(c) are hereby amended to read as follows:
S150.123 ALLOWED TOWER SITES.
Applicants for a wireless telecommunication tower permit shall make a reasonable
effort to locate the towers and accessory ground facilities in the following areas:
(A) 1st Priority, On an existing public utility power line support structure, within an
existing public utility power line right-of-way, or within loo feet of the right-of-
way;
(B) 2nd Priority. On publicly owned property, as approved by the City Council;
and/or
(C) '1rd Priority. On agriculturally or residentially zoned parcels greater than io
acres.
§ 150.114 APPLICATION.
Applications for a wireless telecommunication tower permit shall be submitted on
forms provided by the City Planner, which shall include the following information:
(D) A 5 year plan for wireless telecommunication facilities to be located within the
city shall be submitted by the applicant. The city acknowledges that the plans
are fluid and in all likelihood will change depending upon market demands for
the service. The City will maintain an inventory of all existing and reasonably
anticipated cell site installations. The applicant shall provide the following
written information in each, 5 year plan and the plan must be updated with each
submittal for a new wireless telecommunication tower permit as necessary:
(3) A presentation size map of the city, which shows the 5-year plan for cell
sites, or if individual properties are not known, the geographic service
areas of the cell sites.
5150.217 CO -LOCATION REQUIREMENTS.
Except as hereinafter provided, antenna utilized to provide wireless telecommunication
services shall be located on existing towers or structures which exceed 75 feet in height and
which are located within 3. 1/2 miles of the antenna site being proposed by the applicant. In the
event that co -location is not possible, the applicant must demonstrate that a good faith effort
to co -locate on existing towers and structures was made but an agreement could not be
reached; or that co -location on existing structures will not allow the applicant to provide
services to the required service area.
S 150.120 TOWER STANDARDS.
(B) (1) Design.
(a) To blend into the surrounding environment through the use of color; and
architectural treatment and techniques that soften the visual impact of
the wireless telecommunication tower on the surrounding environment;
(c) All proposed wireless telecommunication tower shall be designed,
structurally, electrically, and in all respects, to accommodate both the
applicant's antennas and comparable antennas for at least 2 additional
users if the tower is over wo feet in height or for at least 3. additional user
if the tower is between 75 feet and wo feet in height; provided that this
standard may be waived or otherwise modified by the City Council as
necessary to allow the applicant to construct a wireless
telecommunication tower that better blends into the surrounding
environment.
Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective the day following its publication.
Adoption Date. Passed by the Lake Elmo City Council on the day of 2008.
Dean Johnston, Mayor
Susan Hoyt, City Administrator
Publication Date: This Ordinance was published in the
FAusers \Jessica1Jerry \ LE \Ordinance-Telecornrnunications Tower.vi,doc
2
General Provisions
CURRENT
15
(B) Wind generator permits may be revoked by an affirmative vote of 3 Council members for
noncompliance with the conditions of the permit.
(1997 Code, § 1385.06)
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER PERMIT
§ 150.110 PURPOSE AND INTENT.
The wireless telecommunication tower permit regulations are intended to:
(A) Reasonably accommodate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the general
public;
(B) Minimize adverse visual effects of wireless telecommunication towers, antennae, or accessory
equipment through careful design and siting standards;
(C) Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failures through structural standards
and setback requirements; and
(D) Maximize the use of existing and approved towers, structures, and/or buildings for the location
of new wireless telecommunication towers in order to reduce the number of the structures needed to
accommodate wireless telecommunication services.
(1997 Code, § 1390.01) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998)
§ 150.111 PERMIT REQUIRED.
tio person shall install a wireless telecommunication facility or any portion thereof, at a height
greater than is allowed for structures in the underlying zoning district without first being issued a
wireless telecommunication tower permit.
(1997 Code, § 1390.03) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 150.112 PROHIBITED AREAS.
Wireless telecommunication towers shall not be allowed in the following areas:
(A) Residentially zoned parcels of less than 10 acres unless the wireless telecommunication tower
and ground facilities accessory thereto are located within 100 feet of the right-of-way of a public utility
transmission line;
16 Lake Ehno - Land Usage
(B) Open space easements or conservation easements; and/or
(C) Airport impact zones without consent of the F.A.A.
(1997 Code, § 1390.03) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 150.113 ALLOWED TOWER SITES.
Applicants for a wireless telecommunication tower permit shall make a reasonable effort to locate
the towers and accessory ground facilities in the following areas:
(A) On an existing public utility power line support structure, within an existing public utility power
line right-of-way, or within 100 feet of the right-of-way;
(B) On publicly owned property, as approved by the City Council; and/or
(C) On agriculturally or residentially zoned parcels greater than 10 acres.
(1997 Code, § 1390.04) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 150.114 APPLICATION.
Applications for a wireless telecommunication tower permit shall be submitted on forms provided
by the City Planner, which shall include the following information:
(A) A sketch drawn to scale acceptable to the City Planner and City Engineer which illustrates:
(1) The parcel on which the tower and accessory ground facilities;
(2) The buildings located and to be located on the tower parcel;
(3) The buildings located within 100 feet of the perimeter of the tower parcel; and
(4) Access easements as necessary to the tower parcel.
(B) A sketch drawn to scale or a photo image acceptable to the City Planner and City Engineer
which illustrates the relative size of the proposed wireless telecommunication tower or existing structure
on which the antenna will be located compared to structures located within 100 feet of the perimeter of
the parcel on which the tower is located and which illustrates the visibility of the tower from adjoining
parcels located within 100 feet of the perimeter of the parcel on which the tower is located. The City
Planner may also require a visual impact demonstration including mock-ups and/or photo montages and
plans for painting the tower;
General Provisions 17
(C) A report from a qualified and licensed professional engineer which:
(1) Describes the wireless telecommunication tower height and design including a cross-section
and elevation;
(2) Certifies the wireless telecommunication tower's compliance with structural and electrical
standards;
(3) Documents the height above grade for the mounting positions, which can be used for
co -location and the minimum separation distances between the co -location positions; and
(4) Describes the wireless telecommunication tower's capacity to support antennae, including
an example of the number and type of antennas that can be accommodated on the wireless
telecommunication tower.
(D) A 2-year plan for wireless telecommunication facilities to be locatecl within the city shall be
submitted by the applicant. The city acknowledges that the plans are fluid and in all likelihood will
change depending upon market demands for the service. The city will maintain an inventory of all
existing and reasonably anticipated cell site installations. The applicant shall provide the following
written information in each 2-year plan and the plan must be updated with each submittal for a new
wireless telecommunication tower permit as necessary:
(1) A description of the radio frequencies to be used for each technology;
(2) A list of all existing sites to be upgraded or replaced, and proposed cell sites within the city
for these services by the applicant; and
(3) A presentation size map of the city, which shows the 2-year plan for cell sites, or if
individual properties are not known, the geographic service areas of the cell sites.
(E) The cost of mailing addresses for all property owners of record located within 1,000 feet of the
subject property to be complied by the city;
(F) An application fee in an amount prescribed from time to time by City Council resolution as
necessary to reimburse the city for costs incurred to process the wireless telecommunication tower permit
application;
(G) Confirmation that the applicant is properly licensed by the F. C. C., or is the authorized
representative of a wireless telecommunication provider properly licensed by the F.C.C.;
(H) Written authorization from the property owner describing the area which will be subject to the
tower lease and acknowledging that the property owner will be responsible for removal of the wireless
telecommunication tower, antennae, and tower accessory equipment which is unused or abandoned for
12 consecutive months;
18 Lake Elmo - Land Usage
(I) Documentation of the steps to be taken by applicant to avoid causing destructive interference
to co -located previously established public safety communications facilities; and
(J) A detailed landscape plan, which indicates how tower accessory equipment will be screened.
(1997 Code, § 1390.05) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998)
§ 150.115 PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW.
(A) Upon receipt of a completed application, the City Planner shall schedule a hearing before the
Planning Commission which shall be preceded by 10-days mailed notice to the record owners of property
located with 1,000 feet of the parcel on which the tower will be located.
(B) The Planning Commission shall make recommendations to the City Council regarding the
issuance of the wireless telecommunication tower permit and, in particular, in regard to the following:
(1) Compliance of application with the city regulations and development standards; and/or
(2) Proposed conditions, as necessary, to prevent the wireless telecommunication tower,
antennae, and tower accessory equipment from becoming a nuisance to surrounding property owners.
(1997 Code, § 1390.06) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998)
§ 150.116 CITY COUNCIL REVIEW.
(A) Upon receipt of Planning Commission recommendations, the City Council shall review the
application. The City Council may approve the application subject to conditions, table its review until
a date certain, or deny the application for a wireless telecommunication tower permit. If the application
is approved by the City Council, a wireless telecommunication tower permit and a building permit shall
be issued upon the execution of a wireless telecommunication tower agreement.
(B) The agreement shall be signed by the applicant and property owner and the terms of the
agreement shall include the following:
(1) A list of the conditions of approval to the wireless telecommunication tower permit;
(2) A statement indicating that failure to comply with the conditions of approval shall result
in the removal of the wireless telecommunication tower, antennae, or tower accessory equipment;
(3) A statement indicating that the expenses incurred by the city to enforce the provisions of
the wireless telecommunication tower agreement shall be reimbursed by the applicant;
General Provisions 19
(4) A statement, which requires the applicant to utilize the procedures established by the
F.C.C. to resolve any complaints received relating to interference allegedly caused by the wireless
telecommunication tower; and
(5) A statement indicating that a wireless telecommunication tower which has not been used
for 12 consecutive months shall be deemed abandoned and rnay be required to be removed in the same
manner and pursuant to the same procedures as for hazardous and substandard buildings (M.S. §§ 463.15
through 463.261, as they may be amended from time to time).
(1997 Code, § 1390.07) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998)
§ 150.117 CO -LOCATION REQUIREMENTS.
Except as hereinafter provided, antenna utilized to provide wireless telecommunication services shall
be located on existing towers or structures which exceed 75 feet in height and which are located within
1/4 mile of the antenna site being proposed by the applicant. In the event that co -location is not possible,
the applicant must demonstrate that a good faith effort to co -locate on existing towers and structures was
made but an agreement could not be reached.
(1997 Code, § 1390.08) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 150.118 EXCEPTIONS TO CO -LOCATION REQUIREMENTS.
The City Council shall waive any or all of the co -location requirements if it is determined that:
(A) The antennae and/or tower accessory equipment would cause the structural capacity of an
existing or approved tower or building to be exceeded, as documented by a qualified and licensed
professional engineer, and the existing or approved tower or building cannot be reinforced, modified,
or replaced to accommodate the antennae or tower accessory equipment at a reasonable cost;
(B) The antennae and/or tower accessory equipment would cause interference materially impacting
the usability of existing antennae or tower accessory equipment as documented by a qualified radio
frequency engineer and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost;
(C) Existing or approved towers and buildings within the applicant's search radius cannot or will
not accommodate the antennae and/or tower accessory equipment at a height necessary to function
reasonably as documented by a qualified radio frequency engineer; and/or
(D) Other unforeseen reasons make it infeasible to locate the antennae and/or tower accessory
equipment upon an existing or approved tower or building.
(1997 Code, § 1390.09) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998)
20 Lake Elmo - Land Usage
§ 150.119 CONSTRUCTION PERMITS.
All wireless telecommunication towers erected, constructed, or located within the city, and all
wiring therefore, shall comply with the requirements set forth in the Uniform Building Code.
(1997 Code, § 1390.10) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 150.120 TOWER STANDARDS.
(A) Wireless telecommunication towers shall comply with the following standards unless the City
Council grants a variance as necessary to reasonably accommodate the wireless telecommunication
tower. Variance procedures shall be processed according to the zoning code.
(B) (1) Design.
(a) To blend into the surrounding environment through the use of color and architectural
treatment;
(b) To be of a monopole design unless the City Council determines that an alternative
design would better blend into the surrounding environment;
(c) All proposed wireless telecommunication tower shall be designed, structurally,
electrically, and in all respects, to accommodate both the applicant' s antennas and comparable antennas
for at least 2 additional users if the tower is over 100 feet in height or for at least 1 additional user if the
tower is between 75 feet and 100 feet in height; and
(d) Where possible, all proposed wireless telecommunication towers must be designed to
allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower and to accept antennas mounted at various
heights.
(2) Setbacks from lot lines.
(a) In all residential zoning districts, wireless telecommunication towers shall be set back
1 foot for each foot of tower height plus 20 feet.
(b) In all zoning districts, towers may encroach into the rear or side yard setback areas,
provided that the rear or side yard property line abuts a commercial or business zoned property and the
wireless telecommunication tower does not encroach upon any easements.
(c) Wireless telecommunication towers shall not be located between a principal structure
and a public street.
General Provisions 21
(d) A required setback may be reduced or its location in relation to a public street varied,
at the sole discretion of the City Council, to allow for the integration of a wireless telecommunication
tower with an existing or proposed structure such as a church steeple, power line support device, or light
standard.
(e) A required setback may be reduced or its location in relation to a public street varied
upon providing the city with a licensed professional engineer's certification that the wireless
telecommunication tower is designed to collapse or fail within a distance or zone shorter than the
required setback distance.
(3) Height.
(a) In all residential zoning districts, the maximum height of any wireless
telecommunication tower including all antennas and other attachments, shall not exceed 1 foot for each
1 foot the tower is setback from a residential dwelling unit up to a maximum of 195 feet for parcels of
40 acres or more and 125 feet for parcels between 10 to 40 acres in size.
(b) In all non-residential zoning districts, wireless telecommunication tower and antennae
shall not exceed 195 feet in height above ground for a freestanding wireless telecommunication tower,
and 195 feet in height above ground as measured by the lowest ground elevation adjacent to a building
on which the tower/antenna is located, including all antennas and other attachments where the zoning
district is adjacent to a residential zoning district. The setback from a common lot line shall be 2 feet
for each 1 foot of tower height.
(1997 Code, § 1390.11) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 150.121 LIGHTING.
At night, wireless telecommunication towers shall not be illuminated by artificial means.
(1997 Code, § 1390.12) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 150.122 SIGNS AND ADVERTISING.
The use of any portion of a wireless telecommunication tower for signs other than warning or
equipment information sign is prohibited.
(1997 Code, § 1390.13) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
22 Lake Elmo - Land Usage
§ 150.123 INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC SAFETY TELECOMMUNICATION.
No wireless telecommunication facility shall interfere with public safety telecommunications. All
wireless telecommunication towers/antennas shall comply with F.C.C. regulations and licensing
requirements.
(1997 Code, § 1390.14) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 150.124 PROHIBITED SUBDIVISIONS.
Where a wireless telecommunication facility has been located on a residentially or agriculturally
zoned parcel greater than 10 acres, except when the facility is located within a power line easement, or
within 100 feet of the easement, the parcels shall not be further subdivided unless the resulting parcel
on which the wireless telecommunication facility is located continues to be more than 10 acres in size.
(1997 Code, § 1390.15) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 150.125 ACCESSORY 'UTILITY BUILDINGS.
All utility buildings and structures accessory to a tower shall be architecturally designed to blend
in with the surrounding environment.
(1997 Code, § 1390.16) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 150.126 GROUND -MOUNTED EQUIPMENT.
All ground mounted equipment accessory to a wireless telecommunication tower shall be enclosed
in a building with brick walls and have a dark colored standing seam metal roof and be further screened
with sufficient trees, as determined by the City Planner, and shrubs to substantially reduce the visual
impact.
(1997 Code, § 1390.17) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
ALARM SYSTEMS
§ 150.140 PURPOSE AND INTENT.
(A) The purpose of §§ 150.140 et seq. is to encourage security, fire, or medical alarm users and
alarm businesses (including, but not limited to, sales, installation, and/or monitoring) to maintain the
operation reliability and the proper use of alarm systems so as to limit unnecessary police, fire, and
emergency medical responses to false alarms and alarm malfunctions.
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION TOPPER PERMIT
§ 150.110 PURPOSE AND INTENT.
The wireless telecommunication tower permit regulations are intended to:
(A) Reasonably accommodate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to
the general public;
(B) Minimize adverse visual effects of wireless telecommunication towers, antennae, or
accessory equipment through careful design and siting standards;
(C) Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failures through structural
standards and setback requirements; and
(D) Maximize the use of existing and approved towers, structures, and/or buildings for
the location of new wireless telecommunication towers in order to reduce the
number of the structures needed to accommodate wireless telecommunication
services.
(1997 Code, § 1390.01) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998)
§ 150.111 PERMIT REQUIRED.
No person shall install a wireless telecommunication facility or any portion thereof, at a
height greater than is allowed for structures in the underlying zoning district without first being
issued a wireless telecommunication tower permit.
(1997 Code, § 1390.03) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 150.112 PROHIBITED AREAS.
Wireless telecommunication towers shall not be allowed in the following areas:
(A) Residentially zoned parcels of less than 10 acres unless the wireless
telecommunication tower and ground facilities accessory thereto are located within
100 feet of the right-of-way of a public utility transmission line;
(B) Open space easements or conservation easements; and/or
(C) Airport impact zones without consent of the F.A.A.
(1997 Code, § 1390.03) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, sec § 10.99
§ 150.113 ALLOWED TOWER SITES.
Applicants for a wireless telecommunication tower permit shall make a reasonable effort to
locate the towers and accessory ground facilities in the following areas:
(A) 1 s' Priority. On an existing public utility power line support structure, within an
existing public utility power line right-of-way, or within 100 feet of the right-of-
way;
(B) 2" Priority. On publicly owned property, as approved by the City Council; and/or
(C) ri Priority. On agriculturally or residentially zoned parcels greater than 10 acres.
(1997 Code, § 1390.04) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 150.114 APPLICATION.
Applications for a wireless telecommunication tower permit shall be submitted on fon-ns
provided by the City Planner, which shall include the following information:
(A) A sketch drawn to scale acceptable to the City Planner and City Engineer which
illustrates:
(1) The parcel on which the tower and accessory ground facilities;
(2) The buildings located and to be located on the tower parcel;
(3) The buildings located within 100 feet of the perimeter of the tower parcel; and
(4) Access easements as necessary to the tower parcel.
(B) A sketch drawn to scale or a photo image acceptable to the City Planner and City
Engineer which illustrates the relative size of the proposed wireless
telecommunication tower or existing structure on which the antenna will be located
compared to structures located within 100 feet of the perimeter of the parcel on
which the tower is located and which illustrates the visibility of the tower from
adjoining parcels located within 100 feet of the perimeter of the parcel on which the
tower is located. The City Planner may also require a visual impact demonstration
including mock-ups and/or photo montages and plans for painting the tower;
(C) A report from a qualified and licensed professional engineer which:
(1)
Describes the wireless telecommunication tower height and design including
a cross-section and elevation;
(2) Certifies the wireless telecommunication tower's compliance with structural
and electrical standards;
(3) Documents the height above grade for the mounting positions, which can be
used for co -location and the minimum separation distances between the co -
location positions; and
(4) Describes the wireless telecommunication tower's capacity to support
antennae, including an example of the number and type of antennas that can
be accommodated on the wireless telecommunication tower.
(D) A 5 year plan for wireless telecommunication facilities to be located within the city
shall be submitted by the applicant. The city acknowledges that the plans are fluid
and in all likelihood will change depending upon market demands for the service.
The city will maintain an inventory of all existing and reasonably anticipated cell
site installations. The applicant shall provide the following written information in
each,2-1- 5 year plan and the plan must be updated with each submittal for a new
wireless telecommunication tower permit as necessary:
(1) A description of the radio frequencies to be used for each technology;
(2) A list of all existing sites to be upgraded or replaced, and proposed cell sites
within the city for these services by the applicant; and
(3)
A presentation size map of the city, which shows the Z5-year plan for cell
sites, or if individual properties are not known, the geographic service areas
of the cell sites.
(E) The cost of mailing addresses for all property owners of record located within 1,000
feet of the subject property to be complied by the city;
(F) An application fee in an amount prescribed from time to time by City Council
resolution as necessary to reimburse the city for costs incurred to process the
wireless telecommunication tower permit application;
(G) Confirmation that the applicant is properly licensed by the F.C.C., or is the
authorized representative of a wireless telecommunication provider properly
licensed by the F.C.C.;
(H) Written authorization from the property owner describing the area which will be
subject to the tower lease and acknowledging that the property owner will be
responsible for removal of the wireless telecommunication tower, antennae, and
tower accessory equipment which is unused or abandoned for 12 consecutive
months;
(I)
Documentation of the steps to be taken by applicant to avoid causing destructive
interference to co -located previously established public safety communications
facilities; and
(J) A detailed landscape plan, which indicates how tower accessory equipment will be
screened.
(1997 Code, § 1390.05) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998)
§ 150.115 PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW.
(A) Upon receipt of a completed application, the City Planner shall schedule a hearing
before the Planning Commission which shall be preceded by 10-days mailed notice
to the record owners of property located with 1,000 feet of the parcel on which the
tower will be located.
(B) The Planning Commission shall make recommendations to the City Council
regarding the issuance of the wireless telecommunication tower pennit and, in
particular, in regard to the following:
(1) Compliance of application with the city regulations and development
standards; and/or
Proposed conditions, as necessary, to prevent the wireless
telecommunication tower, antennae, and tower accessory equipment from
becoming a nuisance to surrounding property owners.
(1997 Code, § 1390.06) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998)
§ 150.116 CITY COUNCIL REVIEW.
(A) Upon receipt of Planning Commission recommendations, the City Council shall
review the application. The City Council may approve the application subject to
conditions, table its review until a date certain, or deny the application for a wireless
telecommunication tower permit. If the application is approved by the City Council,
a wireless telecommunication tower pen -nit and a building pen -nit shall be issued
upon the execution of a wireless telecommunication tower agreement.
(B) The agreement shall be signed by the applicant and property owner and the terms of
the agreement shall include the following:
(1) A list of the conditions of approval to the wireless telecommunication tower
pennit;
(2) A statement indicating that failure to comply with the conditions of approval
shall result in the removal of the wireless telecommunication tower,
antennae, or tower accessory equipment;
(3) A statement indicating that the expenses incurred by the city to enforce the
provisions of the wireless telecommunication tower agreement shall be
reimbursed by the applicant;
(4) A statement, which requires the applicant to utilize the procedures
established by the F.C.C. to resolve any complaints received relating to
interference allegedly caused by the wireless telecommunication tower; and
(5)
A statement indicating that a wireless telecommunication tower which has
not been used for 12 consecutive months shall be deemed abandoned and
may be required to be removed in the same manner and pursuant to the same
procedures as for hazardous and substandard buildings (M.S. §§ 463.15
through 463.261, as they may be amended from time to time).
(1997 Code, § 1390.07) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998)
§ 150.117 CO -LOCATION REQUIREMENTS.
Except as hereinafter provided, antenna utilized to provide wireless telecommunication
services shall be located on existing towers or structures which exceed 75 feet in height and which
are located within 1/42 mile of the antenna site being proposed by the applicant. In the event that
co -location is not possible, the applicant must demonstrate that a good faith effort to co -locate on
existing towers and structures was made but an agreement could not be reached7; or that co -location
on existing structures will not allow the annlicant to provide services to the required service area.
(1997 Code, § 1390.08) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 150.118 EXCEPTIONS TO CO -LOCATION REQUIREMENTS.
that:
The City Council shall waive any or all of the co -location requirements if it is determined
(A) The antennae and/or tower accessory equipment would cause the structural capacity
of an existing or approved tower or building to he exceeded, as documented by a
qualified and licensed professional engineer, and the existing or approved tower or
building cannot be reinforced, modified, or replaced to accommodate the antennae
or tower accessory equipment at a reasonable cost;
(B) The antennae and/or tower accessory equipment would cause interference materially
impacting the usability of existing antennae or tower accessory equipment as
documented by a qualified radio frequency engineer and the interference cannot be
prevented at a reasonable cost;
(C) Existing or approved towers and buildings within the applicant's search radius
cannot or will not accommodate the antennae and/or tower accessory equipment at a
height necessary to function reasonably as documented by a qualified radio
frequency engineer; and/or
(D) Other unforeseen reasons make it infeasible to locate the antennae and/or tower
accessory equipment upon an existing or approved tower or building.
(1997 Code, § 1390.09) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998)
§ 150.119 CONSTRUCTION PERMITS.
All wireless telecommunication towers erected, constructed, or located within the city, and
all wiring therefore, shall comply with the requirements set forth in the Uniform Building Code.
(1997 Code, § 1390.10) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
(c)
§ 150.120 TOWER STANDARDS.
(A) Wireless telecommunication towers shall comply with the following standards
unless the City Council grants a variance as necessary to reasonably accommodate
the wireless telecommunication tower. Variance procedures shall be processed
according to the zoning code.
(B) (1) Design.
(a) To blend into the surrounding environment through the use of color; and
architectural treatment and techniques that softens the visual impact of the
wireless telecommunication tower on the surround in environment:
(b) To be of a monopole design unless the City Council determines that an
alternative design would better blend into the surrounding environment;
All proposed wireless telecommunication tower shall be designed,
structurally, electrically, and in all respects, to accommodate both the
applicant's antennas and comparable antennas for at least 2 additional users if
the tower is over 100 feet in height or for at least 1 additional user if the
tower is between 75 feet and 100 feet in height; andprovided that this
standard may he waived or otherwise modified by the City Council as
necessary to allow the applicant to construct a wireless telecommunication
tower that better blends into the surrounding environment.
(d) Where possible, all proposed wireless telecommunication towers must be
designed to allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower and to
accept antennas mounted at various heights.
(2) SetbacksSetbacksfroin lot lines.
(a) In all residential zoning districts, wireless telecommunication towers shall be
set back 1 foot for each foot of tower height plus 20 feet.
(b) In all zoning districts, towers may encroach into the rear or side yard setback
areas, provided that the rear or side yard property line abuts a commercial or
business zoned property and the wireless telecommunication tower does not
encroach upon any easements.
(c) Wireless telecommunication towers shall not be located between a principal
structure and a public street.
(d) A required setback may be reduced or its location in relation to a public
street varied, at the sole discretion of the City Council, to allow for the
integration of a wireless telecommunication tower with an existing or
proposed structure such as a church steeple, power line support device, or
light standard.
(e) A required setback may be reduced or its location in relation to a public
street varied upon providing the city with a licensed professional engineer's
certification that the wireless telecommunication tower is designed to
collapse or fail within a distance or zone shorter than the required setback
di stance.
(3) Height
(a) In all residential zoning districts, the maximum height of any wireless
telecommunication tower including all antennas and other attachments, shall
not exceed 1 foot for each 1 foot the tower is setback from a residential
dwelling unit up to a maximum of 195 feet for parcels of 40 acres or more
and 125 feet for parcels between 10 to 40 acres in size.
(b) In all non-residential zoning districts, wireless telecommunication tower and
antennae shall not exceed 195 feet in height above ground for a freestanding
wireless telecommunication tower, and 195 feet in height above ground as
measured by the lowest ground elevation adjacent to a building on which the
tower/antenna is located, including all antennas and other attachments where
the zoning district is adjacent to a residential zoning district. The setback
from a common lot line shall be 2 feet for each 1 foot of tower height.
(1997 Code, § 1390.11) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 150.121 LIGHTING.
At night, wireless telecommunication towers shall not be illuminated by artificial means.
(1997 Code, § 1390.12) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, sec § 10.99
§ 150.122 SIGNS AND ADVERTISING.
The use of any portion of a wireless telecommunication tower for signs other than warning
or equipment info, illation sign is prohibited.
(1997 Code, § 1390.13) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 150.123 INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC SAFETY TELECOMMUNICATION.
No wireless telecommunication facility shall interfere with public safety
telecommunications. All wireless telecommunication towers/antennas shall comply with F.C.C.
regulations and licensing requirements.
(1997 Code, § 1390.14) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 150.124 PROHIBITED SUBDIVISIONS.
Where a wireless telecommunication facility has been located on a residentially or
agriculturally zoned parcel greater than 10 acres, except when the facility is located within a power
line easement, or within 100 feet of the easement, the parcels shall not be further subdivided unless
the resulting parcel on which the wireless telecommunication facility is located continues to be
more than 10 acres in size.
(1997 Code, § 1390.15) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 150.125 ACCESSORY UTILITY BUILDINGS.
Al! utility buildings and structures accessory to a tower shall be architecturally desi gned to
blend in with the surrounding environment.
(1997 Code, § 1390.16) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 150.126 GROUND -MOUNTED EQUIPMENT.
All ground mounted equipment accessory to a wireless telecommunication tower shall be
enclosed in a building with brick walls and have a dark colored standing seam metal roof and be
further screened with sufficient trees, as determined by the City Planner, and shrubs to substantially
reduce the visual impact.
(1997 Code, § 1390.17) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
FAusers\Jessica\JernALETower Permit.v2.doc
City Council
Date: 12/108
Regular
Ordinance No, 08'10
Resolution o.20O8'O56
ITEMS: Consider zoning text amendments toallow abus/truck terminal amenon-
agricultural |mwimpaotusaintheHO-A'BPznningdistrict
REQUESTED BY-. Ten Emerson, E&EProperties, LLC.Applicant
SUBMITTED BY: Kvks K]att, Director ofPlanning
REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission
Susan Hoyt, City Administrator
JenyFiUa. City Attorney
KeUi&1otzek.City Planner
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The City Council is being asked to consider text amendments to the zoning ordinance to allow a
bus/truck terminal as o non-agricultural low impact use in the HD-A-BPd(atrict (agriculture holding
zone for properties guided for business park deve|oprnent). This request has been made by
Terry Emerson, 1153OHudson Boulevard South, concurrent with anapplicant for oninterim use
permit that could only proceed ifthe zoning amendment isapproved bythe Council.
The applicant's property is located along interstate Highway 94 near the intersection of Hudson
Boulevard South and Manning Avenue and iacurrently zoned HD'A'BP, The zoning text
amendment igrequired because the current zoning ordinance excludes the parking of''eemi-t[uck
trailers or any vehicle over2O.UOO pounds capable by design of being licensed for use on public
roadways" asmnon-agricultural low impact use. This proposed amendment eliminates this
limitation on vehicles and would make itpermissible 10 have a bua/truckharm|nal as an interim
use in the HD -A -BP holding zone subject to all restrictions of any other non-agricuitural low
impact use and the issuance of an interim use permit, The interim use limits the life of the use to
when the city deems itisappropriate toterminate it, typically due toachange inconditions such
as rezoning due to availability of sewer as guided in the comprehensive plan. The interim use is
reviewed every two years bythe city toassure conformance to the permit and the opportunity to
eliminate the interim use due tochanging conditions. Current code requirements inthe
agricultural holding zones remain the same. This does not affect other agriculturally zoned
properties. The planning commission recommended approval ofthe zoning amendment, The
staff concurs with the recommendation.
One comment from the public was received related hothe Northern Lights gas line that runs near
this property. It was determined that the line was located ononadjacent property and that it
would not have animpact onthe applicant's property. Another comment was received via email
from a resident explaining that previous requests for truck terminals had been rejectedbythe City
The following is a table that very briefly summarizes the zoning differences that would exist
between the Aand HD'A'BPzoning districts should the proposed amendment he adopted bvthe
Non -Agricultural Low Impact Use Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit
Parking oftrucks allowed? No Yes
Maximum Area 4Y6nfagriculture area 596ofagriculture area
Number of parcels affected (approx) 40 4
Please note that ifthe proposed amendment isnot approved, all other aspects ofthis chart would
remain the same, and non-agricultural low impact uses would continue torequire different zoning
permits depending an whether or not an agricultural zoning district is located in one of the Citv's
holding zones.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the zoning amendment request
at its November 1O.2OOOmeeting. Acomment regarding the gas line aanoted above was
acknowledged by the Commission. The Commission recommended approval with a vote of
oyes and 2 nays. Those members that voted against the proposal noted that the original
ordinance was drafted to specifically prohibit atruck terminal operation from locating in these
areas and that the potential impacts from trucks could bemuch greater than buses or smaller
vehicles.
Some of the key questions that are directly related to the proposed interim use. and indirectly
related to the zoning amendment request, include the following:
What /sthe anticipated /eve/oftraffiomndertheinhenmmno? The applicant has indicated
that there will approximately 12Ovehicle trips from the site each day, with apeak activity level qf
around 2DDvehicle trips per day (this figure includes non -truck traffic iVthe site). The analysis for
the previous bus garage estimated the trip generation for this use at328trips per day. The code
allows 42Otrips per day based on the total acreage owned as agricultural land around the site.
What will the hours ofoperation be? The level ofactivity nnthe site will bespread out fairly
evenly throughout the day and will not be based on a specific morning or afternoon rush. Nearly
all traffic will beaccommodated between the hours ofOa.rn,and 6p.ro.
What routes will trucks take &nand from the site? The applicant has stated that almost all
anticipated truck traffic will originate to and from the 'interstate highway adjacent to the site.
Although there is possibility that an occasional truck will need to use an alternate route through
Lake Elmo, as an interstate trucking operation there is no reason for these vehicles to use the
local street system togain access tothis property,
What are the anticipated negative impacts and how are they accommodated? The
anticipated impacts are associated primarily with the conversion from bus to senli'trai|ertruch
traffic, and specifically because the trucks are alittle larger and would likely generate more noise
than the buses. From the engineering review, /t is anticipated that the current road system will be
able to accommodate the proposed interim use given the low levels of traffic generated by the
site and the lack ofa specific peak period ofactivity, The other impacts from the trucks can be
mitigated through screening around the site. The proposed Ordinance contains erestriction that
a buaitruck terminal interim use cannot be located more than 1 OOO feet from inhargtebs 84 in
order to minimize and impact to areas outside of this corridor,
What are the similarities and differences between the proposed use and the former bus
garage? As noted above, the daily traffic in terms of number of vehicles entering and exiting the
site will be lower with the bus garage. The total number ofvehicles stored will be about the
same, around GO to 80 larger vehicles, and the visibility nfthese vehicles will also be roughly the
same since there are not changes proposed iothe existing berm and landscape screen around
the site. One significant difharencebehweonthehonnerond proposed use ofthe site isthat the
trucks will not be dispatched on routes throughout the City and will instead originate only from
\nharateteS4.
Does aninterim use /nthis location make sense? The previous bus garage has operated on
this site for several years without any major isaues and the conversion toa truck terminal will not
result inasignificant departure from the past use. The interim use would allow aviable use of the
land (and existing improvements onthe land) until such time that the property iaredeveloped. As
an interim use. the City will have control over when the use is terminated, and can review this
permit ooconditions change, Based onthe relatively low traffic generated from the proposed
use, it should be able to co -exist with other uses in the area until sewer service 'is provided to the
area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based upon the above analysis and public input, the planning commission and staff recommend
to amend the zoning ordinance requirements for non-agricultural low impact uses toallow for
semi -trailer truck parking and asemi-trailer transfer operation as aninterim use inthe HQ,A'BP
zoning district in accordance with the draft Ordinance for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed Ordinance amendments will limit abus/truck terminal toonly those
portions ofthe City adjacent V)the Interstate U4corridor, This corridor is an appropriate
location for interim uses that will generate larger truck traff ic associated impacts until
such time conditions warrant major pub|ic infrastructure improvements.
2\ That the proposed Ordinance will not substantially alter the current uses and activities
permitted aoanon-agricultural low -impact use. The proposed truck terminal will operate
inavery similar manner hzthe former bus dispatch center/garage use ofthe property,
and in some cases will have less of an impact on areas outside of the affected property.
The ordinance limitations placed on non-agricultural low impact uses will not be altered
bythe proposed amendment and will further restrict the impacts from such uses.
3) That the propose Ordinance will allow the reasonable use of agricultural property on an m
interim basis until such time that public sewer service /oprovided to the area south of10
8treet. Sewer iunot planned for this area until 2O2O'2O3O during which time zoning
changes ornon-agricultural development will not beallowed.
4) That the Planning Commission has recommended approval ofthe request atameeting
conducted onNovember 1O.20D&
MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION�
Move approval of Ordinance No. 08-010 based on the reasons cited above and based on the
following findings:
° The proposed ordinance amendment is consistent with the City'nlong range plan for the
area south of Tenth Street, and specifically, that it would not allow o permanent use to be
established in this area that is inconsistent with the plan.
The proposed ordinance amendment would allow the reasonable use of existing parcels
that are planned for future oewnned development /n advance of the zoning and
comprehensive plan updates that will impact this area
ORDER OFBUSINESS:
' Report .... .............. ------.—................ ---.......... Kyle K]att.Planning Director
- Questions from the Council .---........ --------.—.Mayor & Council Members
Question s/Comments from the applicant Mayor facilitates
Questions/Comments from the public Mayor facilitates
Call for aMotion
(required for further discussion; does not
imply approval of the motion. ... ...'... Mayor facilitates
Discussion ......... —..... —...... —..... ... ....... ---...... --Mayor facilitates
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Application form
3. Planning analysis report for the zoning amendment
4. Draft ordinance amending non-agricultural low impact use provisions
5. Resolution for summary publication
INTERIM USE AREA
Non -Agricultural Low Impact Use
(3.3 Acres of Site)
INTERSTATE H
City of Lake Elmo
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM
El Comprehensive Plan Amendment
LI Zoning District Amendment
XText Amendment
[11] Flood Plain C.U.P.
Co1itiona1 Use Pe
E] Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.)
APPLICANT4—
(Nar;te) -
TELEPHONES:772— 9'0
FEE OWNER:
TELEPHONES:
(Home)
PROPERTY LOCATION (Address and
j/5:30
Fee $
C Residential Subdivision,:t4
et1/'
Preliminary/Final Plat
0 01 — 10 Lots
O I — 20 Lots
0 21 Lots or More
E Excavating & Grading Permit
Appeal
(Fax)
(Zip)
PUD
REASON FOR R
LJ Variance * (See below)
Exi Minor Subdivision
El Lot Line Adjustment
LI Residential Subdivision
Sketch/Concept Plan
Site & Building Plan Review
a Are3 0 ‘t,4cc)
ding Address)
(Work)
p)
(Mobile)
Address)
ShVAte
(Mobite)
e (Long) Legal Des
*VARIANCE REQUESTS: As outlined in Section 301.060 C. of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code, the Applicant must
demonstrate a hardship before a variance can be granted. The hardship related to this application is as follows:
In signing this application,' hereby acknowledge that 1 have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and current administrative procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explanation as
outlined in the application procedures and hereby agree to nay all statements received from the City pertaining to
additiQya application expense.
Date
Signature of Applicant Date
112212(Q4 City of Lake Elmo • 3800 Laverne Avenue North • Lake Elmo • 55042 • 651-777-5510 • Fax 651.777-9015
City of Lake Elmo Planning Department
Non -Agricultural Low Impact Use Ordinance Amendment Request
To: City Council
From: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
Meeting Date: 12-1-08
Introductory Information
Summary & The City Council is being asked to consider a request from Terry Emerson of E & E
Action Properties, LLC, 11530 Hudson Boulevard North, to amend the Zoning Ordinance
Requested: requirements for non-agricultural low impact uses to allow for semi -trailer truck parking
and a semi -trailer transfer operation as an interim use in the HD -A -BP zoning district.
The ordinance as requested would only change the requirements for this particular use as
an interim use in the City's agricultural holding districts south of 10th Street. The intent
of the ordinance is to leave all of the current regulations for other agricultural zones in
the City in tact.
The zoning amendment that will be needed in order to accomplish this objective is a
revision of the definition of non-agricultural low impact uses to allow for the parking of
semi -trailer trucks in the HD -A -BP holding district. Revising this definition, however,
would change the applicability of this ordinance to all zoning districts, which is not
recommended. Therefore, the Planning Department is suggesting the following
Ordinance changes based on the applicant's request:
1) Amending the definition of "non-agricultural low impact uses" to remove any
reference to the parking of semi -trailer trucks. A definition for Bus/Truck
Terminal has been added to incorporate a specific definition into the Zoning
Ordinance for the use that has been requested.
2) Amending the standards for non-agricultural low impact uses in the A —
Agricultural zoning district provisions to prohibit the parking of semi -trailer
trucks (and Bus/Truck Terminals).
3) Amending the criteria for non-agricultural low impact uses in the HD -A -BP
holding zone to specifically permit the parking of semi -trailer trucks and a
Bus/Truck Terminal as an interim use.
The specific Ordinance amendments are included in the attached draft Ordinance for
consideration by the City Council.
Additional In response to the zoning text amendment that was received, Staff has drafted an
Information: Ordinance that attempts to: 1) limit the extent and area that a Bus/Truck Terminal could
be established and 2) to allow this type of use under the City's current requirements for
a non-agricultural low impact use. Should the amendment be approved by the City, the
NO)1-(1griCIIIMI',31 1.(11i'-111111C1t1 1.1SCS: 1-1.0^/1-z1
)11' (.(1741....)) Ih:juel; 12— I -ON
Page 2
applicant has further submitted a request for this specific use in a location that conforms
to the draft Ordinance.
The attached aerial image depicts the parcel that would be affected by the proposed
changes, which include four properties in the extreme south eastern portion of the City
near the intersection of Manning Avenue and Hudson Boulevard South. These
properties are all guided for Business Park Development in the City's Comprehensive
Plan, and accordingly, have been placed into the HD -A -BP holding district until such
time that sewer service is available to these sites. The applicant owns a parcel
immediately adjacent to Hudson Boulevard South and has recently used this property
for a school bus garage under the non-agricultural low impact use standards.
Should the proposed amendment be approved by the City, the only change from the
current ordinance would be the allowance of semi -trailer parking on parcels zoned HD -
A -BP rather than limiting these uses to only off -road mobile construction equipment.
All other requirements, including the amount a land that must be set aside for
agricultural uses, the total number of trips generated by the use, and other current non-
agricultural low impact standards would remain the same.
The standards for all other A — Agriculture districts would not be changed and semi-
trailer truck parking would still no longer be allowed in these areas if the amendment
were approved.
Ordinance Staff is recommending approval of the proposed amendment because it is consistent
Review: with the City's long range plan for the area south of Tenth Street and because it would
continue to allow the reasonable use of existing parcels that are planned for future
sewered development in advance of the zoning and comprehensive plan updates that
will impact this area. A critical component of the ordinance as drafted is that it allows
semi -trailer truck parking only on those parcels that are zoned A — Agriculture and also
located within the temporary holding zone along Interstate Highway 94. Since the
Ordinance currently allows for the parking of larger vehicles on these sites, including
buses and off -road mobile construction equipment, there should not be a significant
difference in the operation or impact from these sites.
By limited the allowed sites for Bus/Truck Terminals to only those parcels within a
certain distance of the interstate, the ordinance has been drafted to ensure that only
those parcels that have close access to the Highway will be allowed to accommodate
semi -trailer truck parking on a limited basis.
Council The City Council has the following options:
Options:
A) Recommend approval of the proposed ordinance to amend the non-agricultural
low -impact use regulations;
B) Recommend staff make changes to the proposed ordinances, or add additional
changes;
: 1.111111{%.1 II(/tit:
ilcillturol 101,,'-imp1ct Nscs: 110-
ly Council &Toil: 12-1-0,S'
C) Table the item for further study; or
Page 3
D) Recommend denial of the request upon finding that the proposed ordinance
would have a negative effect on the City or that the ordinance is inconsistent
with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan.
The 60-day review period for this application will end on December 30, 2008, and can
be extended another 60 days if needed.
Staff Ree: Staff is recommending approval of the request by Terry Emerson of E & E Properties,
LLC, to amend the Zoning Ordinance requirements for non-agricultural low impact uses
to allow for semi -trailer truck parking and a semi -trailer transfer operation as an interim
use in the HD -A -BP zoning district in accordance with the draft Ordinance, based on the
following:
I) That the proposed Ordinance amendments will affect a small number of parcels
within the City that are planned for future business park development.
2) That the proposed Ordinance will not substantially alter the current uses and
activities permitted as a non-agricultural low -impact use.
3) That the propose Ordinance will allow the reasonable use of agricultw.al
property on an interim basis until such time that public sewer service is provided
to the area south of 10th Street.
Denial Motion To deny the request, you may use the following motion as a guide:
Template:
I move to deny the request to amend the non-agricultural low impact section of the
Zoning Ordinance to allow a bus/truck terminal as an interim use in the HD -A -BP
zoning district based on the following findings...(please site reasons for the
recommendation)
Approval To approve the request, you may use the following motion as a guide..
Motion
Template: I move to approve the request to amend the non-agricultural low impact section of the
Zoning Ordinance to allow a bus/truck terminal as an interim use in the HD -A -BP
zoning district based on the following findings...(use staff' s findings provided above or
cite your own)
. A'ep )101:S/11,,::...ulie 12-
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 08-010
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING REGULATIONS GOVERNING NON-
AGRICULTURAL LOW IMPACT USES
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section
11.01 (Definitions) is hereby amended to read as follows:
NON-AGRICULTURAL LOW IMPACT. The outdoor storage of off -road mobile
construction equipment of any weight, c:cluWag-scriii. true]; trailers, or any vAiele. over
26,000 pourdu capable by d csi gei • • - ways; the indoor
storage of the aforementioned items and other goods and materials which, in the
determination of the City Council, do not jeopardize the health, safety, or welfare of the city;
nature farms; agricultural museums; farmer's markets; small engine repair shops; contractor
maintenance shops; or office space as an accessory use to the aforementioned uses.
TERMINAL. RIJS/TRUCK. An area and buildin where buses, trucks. and carao
are stored, where loadinu: and unloadirw, is carried on regularly, and where minor
maintenance of these types of vehicles is performed.
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section
154.033 subd (F) is hereby amended to read as follows:
(F) Non-agricultural low impact use standards.
(1) (a) The city desires to maintain and preserve open space and
agricultural land within the city. The city recognizes the monetary regards that may be
enjoyed by a farmer or larger property owner who sells his or her land for development.
The city further recognizes that allowing non- agricultural low impact uses, strictly
controlled and regulated by conditional use permit, might allow a farmer or large
property owner an economical use of his or her property that is zoned for agriculture.
The following standards shall apply to these types of uses.
(b) It is also the intent of the city to preserve the appearance of
rural character within the community by establishing standards for the setback and
screening from adjacent property and public roadways by natural features of any open
storage as may be associated with the non-agricultural use.
() (a) All of the property owner's real estate that is contiguous to
the non-agricultural low impact use must be zoned Agricultural and remain so zoned
while the conditional use permit is in effect.
(b) The area where the non-agricultural low impact use is
located shall be legally defined as approved by the city and is hereafter known as the
"Non-Ag Area." The Non-AgArea shall not exceed 4% of the property owner's
contiguous agricultural zone gross lot area. The building footprints and asphalt and
concrete surfaces within the Non-Ag Area shall not exceed 1.5% of the property owner's
contiguous agricultural zone gross lot area. Landscaping, berms, ponds, gravel
driveways, and other improvements that would otherwise be permitted in the Agricultural
zone may be located outside of the Non-Ag Area.
(c) Non-agricultural low impact uses shall only be allowed on
a parcel of a nominal 40 acres or larger.
(d) Non-agricultural low impact uses shall not generate more
than 3 trips per day per acre of contiguous agriculturally zoned area, with the exception
of land, with sole access to Hudson Boulevard that shall not generate more than 6 trips
per day per acre.
(e) Any uses under this section involving the outside storage of
vehicles, equipment, or goods shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from any public
roadway or adjacent landowner's boundary, except that the setback from the 1-94
frontage road shall be not less than 50 feet. In addition, any such outside storage shall be
screened from view from adjacent property and the public roadway by berms and
landscaping. A plan for such screening shall be submitted with the application for the
conditional use permit which shall clearly demonstrate by view cross -sections that said
screening will be effective immediately, and in all seasons. Degradation of such
screening by loss of landscape rnaterials, outdoor storage of items that exceed the
screened height or for any other reason shall be grounds for rescinding the outdoor
storage portion of the conditional use permit.
(f) Non-agricultural low impact uses may not generate more
than 3.0 SAC units per 3.5 acres or 235 gallons per day per net acre of land based upon
design capacity of facilities, whichever is more restrictive.
(g) The property owner shall maintain the remaining land or
farm outside of the CUP Area in accordance with the permitted uses of the Agricultural
zoning district and the required practices of the Soil and Water Conservation District.
(h) All lighting shall comply with the city's regulations.
(i) All signs shall comply with the city's regulations.
(j) Rate and volume of runoff from the CUP shall not exceed
the 1% rule and shall be verified by the City Engineer.
(k) In the event that the property owner, or future property
owner, initiates a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning of any or all of the
contiguous real estate from Agriculture to a more intensive use, the conditional use
permit shall terminate and all non -conforming structures shall be removed from the site
within],year from the date of the City Council's adoption of the Comprehensive Plan
amendment and rezoning, unless the city agrees otherwise. This section shall not apply if
the city initiates rezoning or if property owner is forced to transfer title to any part of the
contiguous real estate due to eminent domain.
(1) Non-agricultural low imnact uses rnav not include a
Bus/Truck Terminal or the nark int.,: or storage of semi -trailer trucks or tnv vehicle over
26,000 rounds capable by desi all of hchw licensed tbr use on nubile roadways excent as
otherwise permitted as an lnk-rim Use in the T1D-A-BP zoning district.
(1) All conditional use permits granted to a non-agricultural
low impact use shall be reviewed on an annual basis, and may be rescinded, after a 2-
week notice and a public hearing, if the Council finds that the public health, safety, or
welfare is jeopardized.
(m) The standards for buildings or structures, as listed in the
minimum district requirements of the Agricultural Zone, shall not apply to structures
built prior to the effective date of this chapter.
Section 3. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section
154.034 Agricultural Business Park Holding District (HD -A -BP) is hereby amended
to read as follows:
(A) Purpose. The Agricultural Business Park Holding District (HD -A -BP) is
intended to regulate land use within agricultural areas planned and staged for business
park development with access to regional sewer service. Areas zoned HD -A -BP will be
rezoned upon the availability of sewer service and when consistent with the
"Development Staging Plan" contained in the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan. The
future zoning district regulations will be consistent with the comprehensive plan guidance
of the property for Business Park use.
(B) General regulation. All regulations governing the Agricultural (A) zoning
district shall also apply to properties zoned Agricultural Business Park Holding District
(HD -A -BP) except as outlined in this section.
(C) Permitted uses. The permitted uses in the HD -A -BP zoning district shall
be the same as in the Agricultural (A) zoning district except that non -farm dwellings shall
be prohibited.
(D) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. The uses permitted by
conditional use permit in the HD -A -BP zoning district shall be the same as in the
Agricultural (A) zoning district except that Open Space Development Projects shall be
prohibited,
(E) Use permitted by interim use permit. The following uses may apply for an
interim use permit in the HD -A -BP zoning district:
1 ) Non-agricultural low impact uses under the same regulations as in the
Agricultural (A) district with the exception that the Non-Ag Area shall not
exceed 5% of the property owner's contiguous agricultural zone gross lot area.
2) A non-aurieultural low impact use as permitted under this Section play.
include a Bus/Truck Terminal provided the use is located on a parcel within
1,000 feet of Interstate i1iway 94
(F) Accessory uses and structures. Regulations governing accessory uses and
structures in the HD- A -BP zoning district shall be the same as in the Agricultural (A)
zoning district.
(G) Minimum district requirements. The minimum district requirements in the
Agricultural Business Park Holding District (HD -A -BP) shall be the same as in the
Agricultural (A) zoning district.
(H) Cluster development. Cluster development in the HD -A -BP zoning
district is prohibited,
(I) Non-agricultural low impact use standards. Regulations governing non-
agricultural low impact use standards in the HD -A -BP zoning district shall be the same as
the Agricultural (A) zoning district.
Section 3. Adoption Date
This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and publication in the
official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo.
This Ordinance No.
was adopted on this day of
20 , by a vote of Ayes and Nays.
ATTEST:
<signature>
Susan Hoyt
Administrator
<signature>
Mayor Dean Johnston
4
This Ordinance No.
20 .
was published on the day of
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-56
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF
ORDINANCE NO. 08-010 BY TITLE AND SUMMARY
WHEREAS, the city council of the city of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No. 08-010,
an ordinance to amend the requirements for non-agricultural low impacts uses; and
WHEREAS, the ordinance is lengthy; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 412.191, subd. 4, allows publication by title and
summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and
WHEREAS, the city council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the
public of the intent and effect of the ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Lake Elmo,
that the city administrator shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. 08-010 to be
published in the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance:
Public Notice
The City Council of the city of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No. 08-010. The ordinance
amends the definition for the term "non-agricultural low impact" to eliminate an exception related
to the parking of semi -truck trailers and adds a new definition for "bus/truck terminal". The
Ordinance also amends the zoning district standards to allow a bus/truck terminal as an interim use
(non-agricultural low impact use) in the HD -A -BP Agriculture Holding District but to prohibit such
a use as a non-agricultural low impact use in the A -Agriculture Districts.
The full text of Ordinance No. 08-010 is available for inspection at Lake Elmo city hall during
regular business hours.
Mayor Dean Johnston
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Lake Elmo that the city
administrator keep a copy of the ordinance in her office at city hall for public inspection and that she
post a full copy of the ordinance in a public place within the city.
Dated: , 20 .
ATTEST:
Susan Hoyt
City Administrator
(SEAL)
Mayor Dean Johnston
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Four Properties Affected by Revised Interim
Use Ordinance Proposed; HD -A -BP
October 29, 2008
nterstate 94
City Council
Date: 12/1/08
Regular
Renolti .2UO0'O57
ITEMS: Consider aninterim usepennit for atruck terminal within aHD-A-BPzone
et1153OHudson Boulevard.
REQUESTED BY: Terry Emerson, E&EProperhes. ILL Applicant
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle K]att. Director ofPlanning k' u~IL/
REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission
Susan Hoyt City Administrator
JerryFiUa City Attorney
KeUiK8atzek.City Planner
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Lake Elmo City Council is being asked to consider a request for an interim use permit to
establish a bus/truck terminal facility as a non-agricultural low impact use at 11530 Hudson Blvd.
South in Lake Elmo to replace the vacancy on the site from the legally permitted bus garage that
was onthe property until July 2OOB. The comprehensive plan identifies this property, and several
other parcels around it, as being guided for business park development. The application requires
approval ofthe zoning code text amendment considered inthe previous action.
The applicant's property is located at the intersection of Manning Avenue South and Hudson
Boulevard South and along the Interstate 85corridor. The portion ofthe property that has been
used as o non-agricultural |ou/ impact uoe>e at the far eastern edge of the parcel, nearly 2.000
feet from the Manning /\ve./HudsmnBlvd. intersection. The current land uses surrounding the site
include mostly agricultural farms fields and vacant land, with the drive-in theater located further
west along Hudson Blvd. The zoning ofsurrounding lands varies, but iopredominately
agricultural with the parcels an either side of the drive-in property along Hudson Blvd. zoned
General Business (the small island at the intersection of Manning Ave. and Hudson Blvd. is
zoned Rural Rea|denda|). All ufthe land south ofloth Street ioincorporated aspart ofaholding
zone.
The previous use ofthe property was aschool bus garage and dispatch facility under the non-
agricu(tural low impact use provisions of the A -Agriculture zoning district; no site changes from
the previous plan are proposed in order to accommodate the proposed truck facility.
The planning commission recommended approval of the permit following its approval ofthe
rezoning. Interim uses are reviewed every two years by the city staff for conformance to the
interim use requirements and to determine if the interim nature of the use should be terminated
due bza change inconditions such oathe rezoning ofthe site due to the availability ofsewer,
The planning commission recommended approval of the interim use permit following its approval
ofthe text amendment allowing this asaninterim use,
The proposed interim use would fall under the newly created definition for a bus1truck terminal
and HD'A'BPzoning district aaamended. lnthis case, the request meets the criteria for anon -
agricultural low impact use because the site is located within 1 DODfeet of Interstate Highway 94
and meets all requirements for an interim uses in a HD'A-BP zoning district.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
• Public input at the public hearing: The Planning Commission received one comment at the
hearing related hothe Northern Lights gas line that runs near this property. |twas determined
that the line was located on an adjacent property and that it would not have an impact on the
applicant's request. Anemail from eresident was also submitted prior hzthe meeting noting
that pervious truck terminal proposals have been rejected bytheCityCounoU.
m A consent agreement for the interim use, which is required under the Zoning Ordinance, has
been drafted isattached aopart ofthe resolution ofapproval.
Because the proposed s1te is located adjacent to an interstate highway and county highway,
the adjacent transportation authorities were asked to review the interim use permit request.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation has submitted a response to the request and
found the site plan tobeacceptable; Washington County has not submitted aresponse. In
reviewing these requests, engineers vvU/typically comment ifthere are any anticipated
impacts to the County or State nnaU system. In this noaa the lack ofcomments indicates that
there are nVsuch impacts expected with the proposed interim use,
The Planning Commission recommended that a shorter review period of one year beput hn
place eoopposed &othe two years required bvcode. The Commission wanted tqmake sure
that there would be an opportunity to respond to any unforeseen issues related to the
proposed use in o timely manner rather than waiting two years to review the use.
RECOMMENDATION:
The recommendation iohJapprove the request because itmeets the conditions ofthe zoning
code for aninterim use permit based upon the following findingec
1) That the applicant has demonstrated compliance with all ofthe standards for anon-
agricultural (mwirnpactuw and
2) That the applicant has demonstrated compliance with all applicable City Code standards
for Mheisnuonneofaninterim use.
—with the following conditions
1> That the applicant enters into aconsent agreement with the City in accordance with
Section 154.O1S.8ubd.(B.5)ofthe City Code.
2) That additional screening be provided in all locations recommended by the City Forester
in order to replace vegetation that has either died or been removed, The intent of this
condition is to provide for full screening of the interim use.
3> That the interim use bereviewed within one year ofapproval instead of the two years
specified in the City Code.
4) That the interim use will terminate when any portion of the property is rezoned or when
public sanitary sewer is provided tothe site.
5) That the interim use permit commence upon the effective date of the applicant's current
request to amend the non-agricultural low impact use sections of the City Code.
MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION
Move to approve Resolution 2008-057 for the interim use permit toestablish a truck terminal ;t
11530Hudson Boulevard,
ORDER OFBUSINESS:
Report Kyle H]att.Planning Director
Questions from the Council .... ......... ................ —............ Mayor & Council Members
Questions/Comments from the applicant. ............. ---........ .—.... �Mayor facilitates
Questions/Comments from the public ...... ......... --............ —........ Mayor facilitates
Call for aK8odon
(required for further discussion; does not
imply approval ofthe mobon---.... .... ................ —........ —....... ..... Mayor facilitates
Discussion —...... —....... ......... ...... ....... --............ ....... ...... ..... Mayor facilitates
Action onmoUun... —'----..-----........... —.... ............. —...... —.—..Council
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Resolution Nu.2D08-O57
3. Consent Agreement
4. Application form
5. Planning analysis report for the interim use permit
0, Project description
7� Additional project information (10/30/88)
8. Site plan
9. Existing site conditions (aerial image)
1O.City Engineer traffic review
11. K8nDOTreview comments
12, Public comments
11530 Hudson Boulevard
sugotwaii
S.TATt IANZirr
„ „
INTERSTATE HWY 94
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-057
A RESOLUTION GRANTING AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A BUS/TRUCK
TREMINAL AT 11530 HUDSON BOULEVARD SOUTH AND APPROVING A
CONSENT AGREEMENT FOR THE INTERIM USE
WHEREAS, Terry Emerson, E & E Properties, 11530 Hudson Boulevard South,
has requested an Interim Use Permit to establish a non-agricultural low impact use at
11530 Hudson Boulevard South to establish a bus/truck terminal in a HD -A -BP zoning
district,
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on
November 10, 2008, and reviewed and recommended approval of the Interim Use
Permit for a bus/truck terminal on the site based on the following findings:
1) That the applicant has demonstrated compliance with all of the standards for a non-
agricultural low impact use; and
2) That the applicant has demonstrated compliance with all applicable City Code
standards for the issuance of an interim use.
WHEREAS, Section 154.019, Subd. (B, 5) of the City Code requires the applicant to
enter into a consent agreement with the City the specifies the terms and conditions of
the interim use; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo City Council reviewed the interim use permit request
and consent agreement at its December 1, 2008 meeting.
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Lake Elmo City Council hereby
approves an Interim Use Permit at 11530 Hudson Boulevard South to establish a
bus/truck terminal as a non-agricultura( low impact use and authorizes the execution of
the consent agreement for this interim use subject to the following conditions:
1) That the applicant signs the approved consent agreement with the City in
accordance with Section 154.019, Subd. (B, 5) of the City Code.
2) That additional screening be provided in all locations recommended by the City
Forester in order to replace vegetation that has either died or been removed.
The intent of this condition is to provide for full screening of the interim use.
3) That the interim use be reviewed within one year of approval instead of the two
years specified in the City Code.
4) That the interim use will terminate when any portion of the property is rezoned or
when public sanitary sewer is provided to the site.
5) That the interim use permit commence upon the effective date of the applicant's
current request to amend the non-agricultural low impact use sections of the City
Code.
This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo on the ls` day
of December 2008, by a vote of Ayes and Nays.
Dean A. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Hoyt, City Administrator
(SEAL)
CONSENT AGREEMENT
INTERIM USE PERMIT
1.0 Parties. This Consent Agreement/Interim Use Permit ("Agreement")
is entered into by and between the City of Lake Elmo, a Minnesota
statutory ("City"); E and E Properties, LLC, a Minnesota Iimited liability
corporation ("Applicant").
2.0 Recitals.
A. Applicant is the record fee owner of the following described
property situated in Lake Elmo, MN ("Property")
That part of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 36,
Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Washington County,
Minnesota Tying easterly of the West 33.00 feet (2 rods) thereof,
EXCEPT that part designated as Parcel 44 on Minnesota
Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 82-35, State
Project No. 8292 (94-392)904, recorded as Document No. 424557
in the office of the County Recorder, Washington County,
Minnesota.
Subject to highway easements in favor of Washington County as
described in Book 258 of Deeds, page 91, and Book 309 of Deeds,
page 831, of record, and on file in said office of the County
Recorder.
Also, subject to highway easements in favor of the State of
Minnesota as described in Book 109 of Deeds, page 622, Book 109
of Deeds, page 638, and Book 220 of Deeds, page 11, of record
and on file in said office of the County Recorder.
B. The Property is zoned HD -A -BP.
C. Interim uses are allowed in the HD -A -BP zoning district subject to
the regulations contained in Lake Elmo City Code Section 154.019.
D. Applicant has requested that the City allow the portion of the
Property described on Exhibit A as the "Interim Use Area" to be
used as a bus/truck terminal:
E. On the 23rd day of October 2008, Applicant submitted a completed
application for an Interim Use Permit,
F On the 10th day of November 2008, the Lake Elmo Planning
Commission, at a public hearing, reviewed the Interim Use Permit
application, city staff comments and reports, Applicant's comments
and reports, public comments, and recommended approval of the
interim bus/truck terminal use subject to certain conditions.
G. On the 1st day of December 2008, the Lake Elmo City Council
reviewed the Interim Use Permit application, city staff comments
and reports, Applicant's comments and reports, public comments,
and the recommendations of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission,
and made the following findings:
1. The proposed bus/truck terminal is allowed as an interim in
the HD -A -BP zoning district and conforms to standard
zoning regulations.
2. The proposed use will not adversely impact nearby
properties through nuisance, noise, traffic, dust or
unsightliness and will not otherwise adversely impact the
health, safety and welfare of the community.
3 The proposed use will not adversely impact the
implementation of the comprehensive plan.
4. The date or the event that will terminate the proposed use is
identified with certainty.
5. The Applicant will sign a consent agreement and agree that
the Applicant, its successors and assigns, is not entitled to
future re -approval of the Interim Use Permit, and that the
Interim Use Permit will not impose additional cost on the
public if it is necessary for the public to fully or partially take
all or a portion of the property in the future.
6 The Applicant agrees to all conditions that the city council
deems appropriate including the requirement of financial
security to cover the cost of removing the interim use and
any interim use structures upon the expiration of the Interim
Use Permit.
7. There are no delinquent property taxes, special
assessments, interest or city utility fees due on the Property.
8. The term of the interim use will not exceed two (2) years.
3.0 Terms and Conditions. The Lake Elmo City Council hereby authorizes
and Applicant, for itself, and its successors and assigns, agree that the
interim bus/truck terminal use shall be subject to the following conditions:
A. The Applicant, and its successors and assigns, shall have no
entitlement to future re -approval of the Interim Use Permit,
and will provide a financial surety in the amount of
to ensure that the interim use will not
impose additional costs on the public, if it is necessary for
the public to fully or partially take the Property in the future.
B. Applicant will provide additional screening in all locations
recommended by the City Forester in order to replace
vegetation that has either died or been removed. The intent
of this condition is to provide for full screening of the interim
use as illustrated on Exhibit A attached hereto.
Interim use shall utilize the Interim Use Areas illustrated on
Exhibit A attached hereto.
D. The Interim Use Permit is valid until the first occurring
following event:
1. For one (1) year from the date of the approval of this
Agreement;
2. Until a violation of the conditions of this Consent
Agreement;
3 Until a change in the City's zoning regulations, which
renders the interim use non -conforming; or
4. Until the redevelopment of the Property for a
permitted or conditional use as allowed by the City's
zoning regulations.
4.0 Rescission of the Conditional Use. The Conditional Use Permit, which
was previously issued for the Property is hereby rescinded and replaced
by this Consent Agreement.
5.0 Acknowledgement and Consent. Applicant acknowledges that this is a
legally binding agreement and that Applicant has had an opportunity to
review the Agreement with legal counsel. Applicant consents to the terms
of this Agreement and its restrictions on the use of the Property and the
Interim Use Area.
Dated:
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
By:
Dean Johnston
Mayor
E and E Properties, LLC
Dated: By:
FAusers\Jessica‘Jerry\LE1Interim use Agr.-v2.doc
Its:
Terry Emerson
4
Exhibit A
, apoy- rrirssocistr.,s, Incr
40,340 Fr.K.; .111.1.nt4M.
3.0.sconmit.....
tOZ 3.03,01,
.40
Yr°
1 •
rk r
.......
!:!!!!, •
„1.!.
) )-
, -
SITE PLAIN'
Bus Storage Site
E & E PROPERTIES, LLC
P.M, +W..,
TRUNK HIGETWAY
Mt, .1 .CEL
rertreeerwe .3 0,64 ..Cir 0. 0.90
) INTERIM USE AREA i
VICINITY MAP
34ti raWV,
ji
1 .^
L
South To Nnrth ITenr.s—Stctioc
Dep(atin157 TI-DiTal tine Cl :Tee ,r1 Cram) Areo
'C'41
`rt:ttrett.'fiTtrtt-ttree—t't
e ttre
West 7, Ecsf Crusf,-14,ction
tr,,,:r.irrla !,,2,-2tpf s,ic Frr, ;4,41,r4 Fool
Tirr
.2t.L. J. 155
teCEND
Ana,. Are Op - 31E,
0.30
k•
,÷argrTrr,Sri',"'Farr.
b
City of Lake Elmo
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
0 Zoning District Amendment
Text Amendment
E Flood Plain C.U.P.
Conditionai Use Pe
c.):1,14 e.'1171
Conditional Use PermitC.U.P.)
Variance * (See below)
Minor Subdivision
Lot Line Adjustment
0 Residential Subdivision
Sketch/Concept Plan
Site & Building Plan Review
7 Residential Subdivisl'o'n.i-
Preliminary/Final Plat
O 01 - 10 Lots
O 11 - 20 Lots
O 21 Lots or More
El Excavating & Grading Permit
LI Appeal
APPLICANT lee.1444,1-.22C, )/Se3 (4-4/5 teivd,ia
(Mailing Address)
(Naiile)
TELEPHONES: 722— 91:2 22 9.34. -.6 0S-C 652Y57- 33".?
(Home)
FEE OWNER: /1/
(Name)
TELEPHONES:
(Home)
(Work)
C—d
(Miling Address)
(Work)
Y1.36 C36',C?
(Mobile) (Fax)
(Mobile)
PROPERTY LOCATION (Address and Complete (Long) Legal Descripti
i.573c) /17- Wye/
S A
DETAILED R
At-)4P
e,
n):
(Fax)
E PUD
(Zip)
SON FOR R
*VARIANCE REQUESTS: As outlined in Section 301.060 C. of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code, thAppIicantmust
demonstrate a hardship before a variance can be granted. The hardship related to this application is as follows:
In signing this application, I hereby acknowledge that 1 have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and current administrative procedures. 1 further acknowledge the fee explanation as
outlined in the application procedures and hereby agree to nay all statements received from the Citv pertaining to
additiarrahapplication expense.
34 10 -23 -28'
Date
Signature of Applicant Date
1122/2004 City oi Lake Elmo • 3800 Laverne Avenue North • Lake Elmo • 55042 • 651-777-5510 • Fax 651-777-9615
City of Lake Elmo Planning Department
Interim Use Permit Request: Non -Agricultural Low Impact Use
To: City Council
From: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
Meeting Date: 12/1/08
Applicant.' Terry Emerson, E & E Properties, LLC
Owner: E & E Properties, LLC
Location: 11530 Hudson Boulevard South
Zoning: HD -A -BP (Agricultural District Holding Zone
Introductory Information
Requested The applicant has submitted request for an Interim Use Permit to establish a
Permit: Bus/Truck Terminal facility as a non-agricultural low impact use at 11530 Hudson
Blvd. S. in Lake Elmo. This application was submitted concurrently with a request to
amend the Zoning Ordinance to specifically allow the proposed interim use. For the
purpose of this review, it is assumed that the amendment will be approved by the City
Council. If it is not, the application for an interim use will be invalid.
Application The requested interim use would allow a bus/truck terminal to be established on this
Summary: property as a non-agricultural low impact use. The site has previously been used as a
school bus garage and office; however, the bus company did not renew it lease with
the property owner for this past year and the previously approved Conditional Use
Permit for this particular activity is no longer valid. In the interests of finding a
suitable use for the old garage building and parking area, the applicant is proposing
bring a truck terminal and storage operation on to this site.
The attached application proposal, with the October 30, 2008 update, provides
information about the trucking operation that is proposed fort his site. Details include
the following:
Name of company: D & T Trucking
Type of business: Regional and long haul trucking
On -Site Activity: Trailer storage, dispatching, minor repair and maintenance,
fueling station
Materials transported: Light refrigerated and dry goods
Daily Trips: 120 trips per day
Truck traffic: 20-25 per day/40 per day peak
livcrior Pc.rmir: EA:4: 1-Yol)oprit2,s.,11.ra,;(,,N. l31,q
Ci (ouhroil R.q.,orl.. 12-7-0
Truck Traffic Origin: Primarily outstate, all traffic coming to the site will
originate from the interstate highway
Employees: 17 office, 3 mechanics
Hours of operation: 6:00 am to 6:00 pm, limited truck access after 6:00 pm
Zoning Classification: Bus/Truck Terminal under the Non-agricultural low
impact use standards
The applicant has not proposed any changes to the site plan that has previously been
approved by the City for the bus garage, and will make use of the existing building,
driveway, and parking areas that were used formerly by the bus company. A fueling
station will be included as part of the site plan in the same location as a similar facility
that served the bus garage.
Applicable Section 154.033, Subd. (F) Non-agricultural low impact use standards
Codes:
This section is referenced in the HD -A -BP zoning district to determine the
standards for non-agricultural low impact uses within the holding zone.
Section 154.034 HD -A -BP - AGRICULTURAL BUSINESS PARK HOLDING
DISTRICT (as amended)
Specifies that a bus/truck terminal is allowed as an interim use under the
requirements for a non-agricultural low impact use.
Section 11.02 Definitions (as amended)
NON-AGRICULTURAL LOW IMPACT. The outdoor storage of off -road
mobile construction equipment of any weight; the indoor storage of the
aforementioned items and other goods and materials which, in the determination of
the City Council, do not jeopardize the health, safety, or welfare of the city; nature
farms; agricultural museums; farmer's markets; small engine repair shops;
contractor maintenance shops; or office space as an accessory use to the
aforementioned uses.
TERMINAL, BUS/TRUCK. An area and building where buses, trucks, and
cargo are stored, where loading and unloading is carried on regularly, and where
minor maintenance of these types of vehicles is perfoinied.
Findings & General Site Overview
Site Data: Lot Size: 70 acres (excludes road right-of-way)
Existing Use: Agriculture/Vacant school bus garage
Existing Zoning: HD -A -BP: Agriculture District Holding Zone
Property Identification Number (ND): 36-029-21-43-0001
hib:!om I L' Eltql A
Intc:771 Pc,rfnir: fA 11; Pri)pc,"O,,.•;.:1-1(0,;,.m filvd
Council Ropoil: I :?-1-0,';
Although this site is less than 70 acres once road right-of-way and road easements are
deducted from the total land, all previous reviews for non-agricultural low impact uses
on the site have used the net total of 70 acres for purposes of determining compliance
with the standards. This is the amount used in the current review to maintain
consistency with past decisions on the property.
Application Review:
Permit Under the present ordinance, the storage or maintenance of semi -trailer trucks is not
Review: permitted as a non-agricultural low impact use based on the definition that excludes
such uses. Should the ordinance be amended in accordance with the request submitted
by the applicant, a trucking terminal would be permitted as an interim use in the HD -
A -BP district subject to the same requirements for non-agricultural low impact uses.
A review of the current request compared to these standards is as follows:
a) All of the property owner's real estate that is contiguous to the non-
agricultural low hnpact use must be zoned Agricultural and remain so zoned
while the conditional use permit is in effect. Because this use is classified as
an interim use under the HD -A -BP district, any rezoning of the property would
terminate the property owner's ability to continue operation of the use.
b) The area where the non-agricultural low impact use is located shall be
legally defined as approved by the city and is hereafter known as the "Non-
Ag Area." The Non-Ag Area shall not exceed 4% of the property owner's
contiguous agricultural zone gross lot area. The building footprints and
asphalt and concrete surfaces within the Non-Ag Area shall not exceed 1.5%
oldie property owner's contiguous agricultural zone gross lot area.
Landscaping, berms, ponds, gravel driveways, and other improvements that
would otherwise be permitted in the Agricultural zone may be located outside
of the Non-Ag Area. The HD -A -BP interim use requirements follow these
standards, but allow the "Non-Ag" area to be a maximum of 5% of the gross
lot area. Of the applicant's 70 acres, 3.5 acres may be devoted to the "Non-
Ag" portion of the site. The total area that is currently devoted to the non-
agricultural activities is slightly less than 3.3 acres. With no changes proposed
to the parking areas, driveways, or buildings, the applicant will be able to meet
this requirement.
A review of the building footprint and asphalt/concrete surfaces on the
applicant's site plan shows that building is 15,360 square feet in size and the
other asphalt and concrete surfaces total 9,500 square feet which is 0.8% of the
continuous agricultural gross lot area. The total area for these surfaces fall
under the maximum permitted by this section.
Non-agricultural !ow impact uses shall only be allowed on a parcel of a
nominal 40 acres or larger. The applicant's parcel is 70 acres in size and
therefore meets this standard.
d) Non-agricultural low impact uses shall not generate more than 3 trips per
(fve-hvcrin; filvd \int,: iCnithlr.11
i.tee 3
/Merin/ 1,1,SCIY17/111; ErY.://: I ' roin6T1
( or! I 2- I -OS
day per acre of contiguous agriculturally zoned area, with the exception of
land, with sole access to Hudson Boulevard that shall not generate more
than 6 trips per day per acre. Since the applicant's property has frontage
along Hudson Boulevard, he is allowed to have 6 trips per day per acre for a
maximum of 420 vehicle trips per day. The description for the trucking
operation indicates that there will be a total of 60 vehicles accessing the site
everyday for a net total of 120 vehicle trips per day. The applicant has also
stated that there is potential for additional truck traffic during peak times which
would push the total vehicle trips closer to 200 per day. Even factoring in
additional trips by employees working in the office, the total trips under the
proposal presented will be well under the maximum for the site. The estimates
for the bus garage, in comparison, showed that there had been 328 vehicle trips
each day on this site. The proposed truck terminal should generate a fewer
mu-nber of vehicle trips based on this and fall within the required limits
prescribed by the Ordinance.
e) Any uses under this section involving the outside storage of vehicles,
equipment, or goods shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from any public
roadway or adjacent landowner's boundary, except that the setback from the
I-94 frontage road shall be not less than 50 feet. In addition, any such
outside storage shall be screened from view from adjacent property and the
public roadway by berms and landscaping. A plan for such screening shall
be submitted with the application for the conditional use permit which shall
clearly demonstrate by view cross -sections that said screening will be
effective hnntediately, and in all seasons. Degradation of such screening by
loss of landscape materials, outdoor storage of items that exceed the
screened height or for any other reason shall be grounds for rescinding the
outdoor storage portion of the conditional use permit. The current parking
areas are located at or beyond 50 feet from the Hudson Boulevard right-of-
way, an the building is set back a distance of 100 feet. A landscape berm with
plantings has been provided around the perimeter of the site and provides an
effective screen from the adjacent property and roads. There are a few areas
within this screening area where plants have recently died; there plants should
be replaced to fill in any screening holes as a condition of approval for the
interim use. As the berm and screening is presently in place, Staff has not
recommended that the applicant be required to submit a cross section diagram.
With no changes proposed to the current site the applicant will be able to meet
this condition.
t) Non-agricultural low impact uses may not generate more than 3.0 SAC units
per 3.5 acres or 235 gallons per day per net acre of land based upon design
capacity offacilities, whichever is more restrictive. Based on the past use of
this property, the proposed truck terminal should not generate any additional
impact than the bus garage. The usage by the site will need to be monitored to
ensure that the total limit established by this provision is not exceeded.
The property owner shall maintain the remaining land or farm outside of the
g)
/ //:1,4? Jjiy, //iVilic,?./01/
Page 4
1111eritil M-t,1
1c.poo: I 2-
CUP Area in accordance with the permitted uses of the Agricultural zoning
district and the required practices of the Soil and Water Conservation
District. There are no changes proposed with the applicant's request.
h) All lighting shall comply with the city's regulations. No changes to the
current lighting situation is proposed; any such changes would need to be
approved after submission of a revised lighting plan for the property.
All signs shall comply with the city's regulations. The business owner will
need to secure the proper sign permits before installing any new signage on the
property.
Rate and volume of runofff.rom the CUP shall not exceed the I% rule and
shall be verified by the City Engineer. Because there are no site changes
proposed under the applicant's proposal, the City Engineer was not asked to
revisit the storm water calculations submitted with past proposals on the
property. There is a storm water pond on the site that should continue to
function the way it was originally designed.
k) In the event that the property owner, or future property owner, initiates a
Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning of any or all of the
contiguous real estate front Agriculture to a more intensive use, the
conditional use permit shall terminate and all non-confornting structures
shall be removed from the site within 1 year from the date of the City
Council's adoption of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning,
unless the city agrees otherwise. This section shall not apply if the city
initiates rezoning or if proper0owner is forced to transfer title to any part of
the contiguous real estate due to eminent domain. The City's interim use
requirements are somewhat different than this section in that an interim use
will terminate if any of the following occur: 1) the date stated in the permit; 2)
upon violation of conditions under which the permit was issued; 3) upon
change in the city's zoning regulations which renders the use nonconforming;
or 4) the redevelopment of the use and property upon which it is located to a
permitted or conditional use as allowed within the respective zoning district.
Because this use is classified as an interim use under the HD -A -BP regulations,
the interim standards should be applied to this particular use. The major
differences between these two sections are that the property owner is not given
one year to remove the business when the comprehensive plan or zoning is
changed for the site and the City may initiate a rezoning that requires the
removal of the business.
1) Non-agricultural low impact uses may not include the parking or storage of
semi -trailer trucks or a Bus/Truck Terminal except as otherwise permitted as
an Interim Use in the HD -A -BP zoning district. As a interim use in the HD -
A -BP district the applicant is permitted to request a truck teiiuinal.
m) All conditional use permits granted to a non-agricultural low impact use
shall be reviewed on an annual basis, and may be rescinded, after a 2-week
notice and a public hearing, if the Council finds that the public health,
11:s,• Co?i,),'11 z_yro.'“?I: 4n,P.:A.
Page
Inicr181 Ect:E Proporlicf,-'11i;ilsob Blvd
City (ouocil
safety, or zvelfare is jeopardized. As an interim use, the property will be
subject to the violation and termination requirements for interim uses.
n) The standards for buildings or structures, as listed in the minimum district
requirements of the Agricultural Zone, shall not apply to structures built
prior to the effective date of this chapter. This section is not applicable to the
current request.
The City Engineer was asked to perform a traffic review for the proposed business and
noted that the proposed traffic that will be generated by the proposed business falls
well below the threshold for a MnDOT traffic impact study. The most significant area
of concern indentified in this report is the turning movements on and off of Manning
Avenue. Additional study of these intersections is encouraged as part of the City's
ongoing transportation plamning efforts.
Permit Staff is recommending approval of the request for an interim use permit primarily
Review: because the proposed use is not intended to have any additional impacts beyond the
former use of the property, and in some instances, should reduce the overall impacts
that can be observed. The most significant change from the previous operation on this
site is the size of the vehicles that will be stored on the site. Given its close
proximately to an interstate highway; however, this area seems well -suited for the
traffic that is anticipated compared to other portions of the City. The bus garage also
generated a fair amount of additional traffic (beyond normal bus routes) since it was
located in the extreme southern portion of the City. The truck terminal is anticipated
to produce very little traffic outside of the immediate connecting roads to Highway 94.
In reviewing the standards for granting an interim use, Staff has made the following
findings:
1) The use is allowed as an interim use in the respective zoning district and
conforms to standard zoning regulations. This criterion is met.
2) The use will not adversely impact nearby properties through nuisance, noise,
traffic, dust, or unsightliness and will not otherwise adversely impact the
health, safety, and welfare of the community. Although the truck terminal
will produce noise and other impacts associated with the entering and
existing of senzi-trailer trucks, its isolated location and close proximately to a
major interstate corridor will help the use remain compatible with the
surrounding land uses until such time the zoning regulations change on the
property. Given the restrictions on the size and net traffic generated by the
use under the non-agricultural low impact use provisions, the impact to
adjacent properties will be minimal. This criterion is met.
3) The use will not adversely impact implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.
The improvements occupy a minor percentage of the overall parcel and may
not be expanded beyond the current limits. This criterion is met.
4) The date or event that will terminate the use is identified with certainty. The
applicant has specified in the application materials that the use will terminate
iNfo.!111 / ..f) l71",/ ( it.'11,".q 1 111 117f,,A wi.th ocif 1 r.!“ ;10c.
Page 6
hTh-TiO? US(.' TAIL Properi uls 4.) ir
City Council licp, 1- -
Interim Use
Permit
Conclusions:
once the property is sold or developed under future zoning. Staff is
recommending that the termination date be set at either 1) when the property
is rezoned or 2) at such time that sewer service is provided to the site. Either
of these actions will be required before the property may be redeveloped into
some other use. With the proposed change in language stafffinds that this
criterion is ntet.
5) The applicant has signed a consent agreement agreeing that the applicant,
owner, operator, tenant and/or user has no entitlement to future reapproval of
the interim use permit as well as agreeing that the interim use will not impose
additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to fully or
partially take the property in the future. A consent agreement will need to be
approved by the City Council as a condition of approval.
6) The user agrees to all conditions that the City Council deems appropriate for
permission of the use including the requirement of appropriate financial surety
to cover the cost of removing the interim use and any interim structures upon
the expiration of the interim use permit. This item can also be addressed as
part of a consent agreement with the City.
7) There are no delinquent property taxes, special assessments, interest, or city
utility fees due upon the subject parcel. This criterion is met.
8) The term of the interim use does not exceed 2 years. The interim use permit
will need to be revisited by the City in two years.
Based on a review of the applicable code sections, Staff is recommending that the
Planning Commission recommend approval of the interim use permit based on the
following:
1) That the applicant has demonstrated compliance with all of the standards for a
non-agricultural low impact use; and
) That the applicant has demonstrated compliance with all applicable City Code
standards for the issuance of an interim use.
Staff is further recommending that the following conditions be included with this
recommendation:
1) That the applicant enters into a consent agreement with the City in accordance
with Section 154.019, Subd. (B, 5) of the City Code.
2) That additional screening be provided in all locations recommended by the
City Forester in order to replace vegetation that has either died or been
removed. The intent of this condition is to provide for full screening of the
interim use.
3) That the interim use is valid for a period of two years and must be renewed by
the City Council prior to the end of this time period in order to continue
operating from the site.
.1,311C/ inicT;in 1.10 Iht,ran: fri,(4; fc,tnilig-if 12- ;-0,Y,
Page 7
leritU PC171111: 81.1.d
City
Other
Options:
Resident
Concerns:
Additional
Informa(ion:
Conclusion:
Council
Options..
4) That the interim use will terminate when any portion of the property is rezoned
or when public sanitary sewer is provided to the site.
5) That the interim use permit commence upon the effective date of the
applicant's current request to amend the non-agricultural low impact use
sections of the City Code.
The City Council may consider denying the request for an interim use provided it can
demonstrate that the applicant has failed to comply standards of the non-agricultural
low impact use provisions or the interim use ordinance. These requirements are
detailed in the preceding sections of this report.
Examples of information that would support a recommendation for'denial include:
that the use will generate more vehicle trips per day than allowed as a non-
agricultural low impact use,
that the interim use will adversely impact the implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan
This list is not intended as an exclusive recording of all possible findings that could be
made and should be used as an example to formulate findings that are not in or differ
from the Staff report.
There have been no letters or other comments submitted to the City in advance of the
public hearing on this matter.
Neither the watershed district nor the DNR provided comment in opposition to the
proposed interim use permit. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has
submitted comments and found the site plan to be acceptable.
Terry Emerson of E&E Properties, LLC has submitted request for a Interim Use Permit to
establish a Bus/Truck Terminal facility as a non-agricultural low impact use at 1 L530 Hudson
Blvd. S. in Lake Elmo.
The City Council has the following options:
A) Recommend approval of the interim use permit request;
B) Recommend denial of the interim use permit request.
The 60-day review period for this application will end on 12/30/08 and may be
extended an additional 60 days if more time is needed for the City's review of this
CAP 1/;7(1,::,n 'otio,?11 P„virri iltqC
hilerim /is Permit: E E Properric.,'Hudcon Blvd
("ii): Council Rcporr: 12-1-0S
application.
Planning The Planning Commission is recommending approval of the interim use permit for
Commission a Interim Use Permit to establish a Bus/Truck Terminal facility as a non-agricultural
Rec: low impact use at 11530 Hudson Blvd. S. in Lake Elmo based on the following:
1) That the applicant has demonstrated compliance with all of the standards for a
non-agricultural low impact use; and
2) That the applicant has demonstrated compliance with all applicable City Code
standards for the issuance of an interim use.
Denial To deny the request, you may use the following motion as a guide:
Motion
Template: I move to deny the requested interim use permit based on the following
findings... (please site reasons for the recommendation)
Approval To approve the request, you may use the following motion as a guide:
Motion
Template:
I move to approve the requested interim use permit based on the following
findings...(use staff's findings provided above or cite your own)
cc: Terry Emerson, E&E Properties, LLC
(:,,C f,";,H firrk )64 q.:•r/ /O.( r,.."7i,7,.11
Proposal:
E&E Properties is requesting to amend the zoning code 154.034 HD -A -BP Section E,
which is "Use permitted by interim use permit".
The building was built for outside storage of equipment and repair facility. As you know
the property was used as the school bus terminal for the Stillwater Area Schools for the
past six years. The company lost their contract with the School District and the School
District leased property in Oak Park Heights for the new bus company. The building has
been vacant since July 2008.
E&E Properties is requesting this zoning code to be amended to allow us to lease a
portion of the building and property to D&T Trucking. The building location affords
easy access to exit and enter the 1 -94 corridor. D&T Trucking is a regional and long
haul over the road trucking company providing light refrigerated and dry goods
transportation services to the continental 48 states. This means their trucks are gone 2-7
days. There would be no negative impact on traffic flow.
Under the current zoning the allowable trips per day is 420. D&T Trucking trips per day
including office personnel and shop mechanic personnel and trucks would be 1/3 of the
previous trips of the bus company. The typical daily use would be approximately 35 cars
and 20-25 trucks per day. The total of 60 vehicles would generate 120 trips/day. This
total could be 200 trips/day once a month. The majority of that would traffic on and off
1-94. Their would be approximately 25 Tractor trucks and 40 trailers parked on the
property.
The remaining portion of building and property upon lease would not exceed or generate
more trips than the previous tenants Laidlaw Transit. The nature of these types of
business would be less trips and the flow would be on/off 1-94. The use of the property
and building and impact does not differ from its previous use. Impact would be directed
to the on/off of 1-94 and would generate less trips.
A fueling station would be installed where the previous station was with Laidlaw Transit.
Under the Interim use zoning code stated above we are requesting language be added to
allow a trucking terminal and mechanic repair facility with access to 1-94 frontage road.
The building and site has not changed from the original plan. All signage if any will be
approved by the city and lighting changes if any would also be by city approval.
October 30, 2008
In response to your letter dated October 21, 2008.
The property within 500 feet of 11530 Hudson Blvd. consists of, road right of
way, vacant, or in farm land. The closest business is the Vali Hi Drive In theater.
A copy is enclosed with proof of ownership.
D& T Trucking will have 20 full time employees. Approximately 17 office and 3
mechanics. There will be 20 to 25 trucks that will come and go on a normal day.
Once a month this number could be as high. as 40. The office and shop personnel
would come in morning and leave afternoon. The trucks would run through out
the day from 6am to 6pm without any peak periods of activity. The route these
trucks will take is the frontage road to Manning Avenue then east or west on 1-94.
There would be little impact on Lake Elmo public streets. The type of trucks
operating from the site would be approx 76' long with tractor trailer. The trailers
are approx. 53' long.
A plan of the existing sewer and water is enclosed.
In regards to definitive termination date for Interim use. The building exists and I
need to lease it to provide my income until the property is sold or developed
under future zoning.
The above should address each of the items stated in the letter.
Terry Emerson
t. •
SITE Pi AN POO
Bus Storage Site
E & E PROPERTIES, LLC
!!!
4-4..
I !zitt t 444
- 4444 44/ 4140,44; 401,
PA
TRUNK HIGHWAY 12 --
71, AYE, .77777 (7777777. 747Y7Y
!WU.,4r444Y 7.64 777YE5 7 en
StTE 74177. 7 177
ro 0a6t froos—Soctico (;;A —Ai
Oortiotioa 9; Soto From PrivotY
. I
I
Dtzpity k,t.ttstviates; .111c.
7...16.1.1140 7,1,,,v717 PLot!!..1t,
.3j 4.•^111113,
VICLNITY sp
627. 36 TZPN.
!I 7----7',!!Yt•'-'9--
Scyah To 1.6yrtlY Cross-566'OP",
Dapictityp Typinui Lin, Of Ole tiorazo Groy61
yss
LETENO
reNotte, Na ,Nrad V' 0 Ar,,
N.NN
liFL7„:44Fia-F4!-Tt'ir!!:
EXIS 1 ING CONDITIONS
,
NOTaii
F
;Fr
0-'63
TKDA
ENGINEERS - ARCHITECTS PLANNERS
MEMORANDUM
To: Ryan Stempski
Copies To: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
From:
Date:
Bryant Ficek
October 28, 2008
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500
Sam Paul, MN 55101-2140
(651) 292-4400
(651) 292-0083 Fax
Reference: E&E Properties
Traffic Review
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
14078.001
Proj. No.:
Routing:
As requested, the potential traffic impacts from the proposed development in the Interim Use Permit
application have been reviewed. The proposed development is a truck teiininal and repair facility, located on
the north side of the 1-94 frontage road to the west of the Manning Avenue interchange. Although a formal
traffic study with detailed analysis was not provided, the site information provided in the application and
available traffic data from other sources are sufficient for a traffic review.
On an average day, about 35 vehicles from employees and 20 to 25 trucks are expected from the site,
equating to approximately 120 trips per day. The maximum trips per day are expected to be 200, which
would include other miscellaneous trips such as mail or parts deliveries and employee trips for lunch, It
should be noted that Mn/DOT guidelines indicate that a traffic impact study is not needed if the proposed site
will generate less than 2,500 trips per day or 250 trips per peak hour. In this case, the maximum expected
trips are well below this threshold.
The majority of trips are expected to be to and from the 1-94 and Manning Avenue interchange. Hours of
operation were not listed, although truck drivers are more likely to travel during off-peak times to avoid
congestion.
The frontage road is an undivided two-lane roadway. Manning Avenue is a four -lane divided roadway. The
intersections of Manning Avenue with the frontage road, the 1-94 westbound ramps, and the 1-94 eastbound
ramps will experience the greatest impact from, the proposed site. The Manning Avenue approaches at these
intersections provide two through lanes in each direction and exclusive left- and right -turn lanes. Exclusive
turn lanes are also provided on the ramp approaches to Manning Avenue. The frontage road provides one
approach lane for all movements at Manning Avenue. Each intersection is under side -street stop sign control,
with Manning Avenue traffic able to proceed without stopping.
At a planning level, the roadway and intersection geometry provides sufficient capacity for the current traffic
volumes of 12,000 vehicles per day on Manning Avenue and 940 vehicles per day on the frontage road. This
geometry is expected to accommodate the relatively small daily traffic generated by the proposed site. The
side -street delay at each intersection will increase with the larger and slower starting truck traffic. In
particular, the peak hour delay for the side streets may noticeably increase if a significant number of the
expected truck traffic occurs during the peak. As mentioned, truck trips are more likely to occur during non -
peak periods, suggesting only a minor overall increase in intersection side -street delays.
An Employee Chimed Company Prnrnotij Affirmative Acts and Equal OpportuniT
Memo Page 2 October 28, 2008
E&E Property - Traffic Review
City of Lake Elmo, MN
With one approach lane on the frontage road at the Manning Avenue intersection, the truck turning
movements should be examined. In particular, the eastbound-to-southbound right turn may need additional
pavement for the longer trucks. The ramp intersections with Manning Avenue provide sufficient corner radii
to accommodate larger vehicles.
The sight distance for the ramp intersections may also need to be reviewed. A recent visit to the site area
noted that the rise in elevation to bridge over 1-94 limits the sight lines. The actual sight distance was not
measured during this visit. The sight distance may therefore be acceptable, but less than comfortable. A
cursory review of crash records at the three Manning Avenue intersections and on the frontage road did not
reveal a specific crash problem or trend. However, the sight distance should be measured to determine if
adequate sight is available for those vehicles stopped on the side -street approaches to the Manning Avenue
intersections. In addition, the crash and severity rates should be examined in the future to determine if the
introduction of additional truck traffic had a significant effect. Depending upon the exact results of the sight
distance study or any future crash study, mitigation such as all -way stop control or signalization may be
needed.
The two ramp intersections on Manning Avenue are provided with overhead street lighting. It does not
appear that the Manning Avenue and frontage road intersection or the proposed site entrance have street
lighting. Depending upon the hours of operation, overhead street lighting at one or both locations may be
desired to aid other drivers as they approach the site on the frontage road.
Based upon the traffic review of the information presented in this memorandum, the proposed site detailed in
the Interim Use Permit is not expected to adversely affect traffic operations in the area. However, the City is
recommended to consider the following items in conjunction with their overall review of the proposed site:
Providing overhead street lighting at the Manning Avenue and frontage road intersection and/or the
site entrance to improve safety.
Examining the eastbound-to-southbound right -turn movement at the frontage road and Manning
Avenue intersection to deter mine if additional pavement is needed for the larger trucks.
Examining sight distance at the Manning Avenue intersections with the 1-94 ramps to deteimine if
adequate sight distance is provided for both passenger cars and trucks.
Examining intersection crash rates in the near future to determine if the increase in truck traffic has
resulted in an increase in crashes.
The results of the sight distance study or crash rate study may require mitigation such as improved
intersection control. Any identification of traffic issues and potential mitigation will need to be discussed
with Mn/DOT and Washington County. If you have questions or comments about the information provided
in this memorandum, please contact me at (651) 726-7944 or brvant.fieek(aqkda.com.
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan District
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, MN 55113-3174
e7;
November 12, 2008
Mr. Kvle Klatt
Planning Director
City of LakeElmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
SUBJECT: E & E Properties (Mn/DOT) Review #S08-063
NW Quadrant of 1-94 and Co Rd 15 (Manning Ave)
Lake Elmo/Washington County
Control Section 8282
Dear Mr. Klatt:
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above -referenced site
plan and find it to be acceptable.
As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as
plats and site plans to:
Development Reviews
Mn/DOT - Metro Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require either:
1. One (1) electronic pdf. version of the plans (the electronic version of the plan needs to be
developed for 11" x 17" printable format with sufficient detail so that all features are
legible);
Seven (7) sets of full size plans.
If submitting the plans electronically, please use the pdf. format. Mn/DOT can accept the plans
via e-mail at metroclevreviews(e4dot.state.mn.us provided that each separate e-mail is less than 20
megabytes. Otherwise, the plans can be submitted on a compact disk.
If you have any questions regarding this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 234-7792.
Sincerely,
Jon P. Solberg
Senior Planner .k,/
An equal opportunity employer
Copy:
Copy via Groupwise to:
Arm Braden
Nancy Jacobson
Adam Josephson
Buck Craig
Douglas Nelson
Haytham Ibrahim
Wayne Lemaniak
Tod Sherman
From: Susan Dunn heelth.00nI
Sent Monday, November 1020084:47 PM
To: Kyle Klatt
Cc: Susan Hoyt
Subject: RE: Planning Commission Meeting
Truck terminals have been reviewed and rejected for various reasons. Fed Exwanted holocate inLake Elmo ( Machine
Shed area ) and ended up in [)ekdaks by Century Avenue. That trucking use has caused mbd of safety issues in the area
with the college and residents. .
\ think the name was Brockman truck\ng..have lots oftrailers along /-S4/old County 15 inAfton and that city wants
them out ofthere, soperhaps that's the reason Terry iagoing for the new designation for the school bus area,
If 1'94 is suppose to be great for Woodbury and Lake Brno's future a truck hannimg\ /traUe, graveyard may not be the
best fit.
/ didn't have time to nged the entire packet., | am sure you covered everything well and the commissioners will get both
Just some thoughts..
City Council
Date: December 9.2OOR
REGULAR
Item: 1. 0
Motion
ITEM: Comprehensive Planning Efforts and Authorizations to Proceed on the Transportation
and Surface Water Management System Plans
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Ryan Stempski, Assistant City Engineer
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The city council isbeing asked hoauthorize TKDAho
proceed with the preparation of the local transportation and surface water system plans
necessary to complete the 2030 Comprehensive Plan updates and to meet the requirements of
the |uoa| watershed districts.
On December 6, 2008, it is expected that the Metropolitan Council will act on a requestto allow
an extension to May 29, 2009 to require Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan be updated and
submitted for comment. The initial request tothe Metropolitan Council was for atwo-year
extension that would have given the City until December 31, 2010 to complete the required
updates, The later deadline was sought to provide additional time to incorporate information from
the Village AUAR planning process into the overall update and to complete a more extensive
review ofthe transportation plan, With the expected decision bythe Met Council togrant a
shorter extension, the scope of the proposed work has been scaled back by removing any Village
area updates (which can be processed, ifneeded, atolater date) and reducing the amount of
time that would bespent onthe transportation plan,
To ensure that the May 29, 2008 deadline is met, the comprehensive plans for transportation,
wanbawabs[ (includes surface water and water supply), and regional parks must be updated in
accordance with the Metropolitan Counci|'nSystem Statement.
TKDAhscurrently under authorization bocomplete the water supply plan. No additional
authorization isbeing asked at this time,
On Septamber4. 2007 the City Council authorized staff to send o Request for Proposals
(RFPs) tocomplete the Transportation Comprehensive Plan. To date, this RFP has not
been released. Given the May 29. 2009 deadUne, staff is recommending thotTKDA be
authorized toproceed with this work.
The local surface water management plan is required as part of the local comprehensive
plan. The |noa| surface water management in also required to be submitted and
approved bythe watershed districts, including Valley Bnynoh, Brown's Creek and South
Washington Watershed Districts. The deadline tosubmit Uothe Valley Branch Watershed
District was November 10. 2007. Atthe city request, the Valley Branch Watershed
District has provided the city an extension to March 31, 2009.
The goal ofthese authorizations ishzcomplete the minimal requirements ofthe Metropolitan
Counci|'oSyahapn Statements and watershed districts hocomply with the given deadlines. All
plans will be completed on the basis of the current land use plan adopted in 2005.
BACKGROUND
Anrequired bythe Metropolitan Land Planning Act, local governmental units must have prepared
a comprehensive plan to be reviewed and approved by the Metropolitan Council within three
years following the receipt ofthe metropolitan system statement. The official issue date of the
City ofLake Elmo'nsystem statement was September 12 2005.
System statements explain the implications of metropolitan system plans for each individual
community inthe metropolitan area. They are intended tohelp communities prepare orupdate
their comprehensive plan.
The system statement includes forecasts atdensities that assure regional growth is
achieved consistent with adopted policies. The system statement also contains anoverview of
the transportation and aviation, transit, wantewater, and regional parks system plan updetes, and
system changes affecting each community,
The following forecasts are part ofthe 2O3ORegional Development Fran7mwmok(adopted
January 14. 2004 and updated onAugust 24. 2005). They are used by the Metropolitan Council
to plan for regional systems, Communities are asked to base their planning work on these
Forecast of Lake Elmo's population, households and employment:
Population
Households
Employment
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
2000
8.863
2.347
1,636
Revised Development Framework
2010
9,952
3,619
2,250
2020 2088
18.403 24.000
6.324 8.727
7.200 14.000
The May 29, 2008 deadline represents the date that the plan must be submitted to the Met
Council. There would still beamandatory 0month review period for adjacent communities that
would commence onthis submission date.
RECOMMENDATION
It is hereby recommended that the City Council authorize TKDA to complete the Transportation
and Surface Water Local System Plans per the System Statement requirements of the
Metropolitan Council.
SUGGESTED MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION
Move to authorize the Acting City Administrator to execute Authorizations with TKDA to complete
the Transportation and Surface Water Management System Plans in the estimated amount of
ATTACHMENTS
1.Surface Water Management Plan Authorization.
2, Transportation Plan Authorization.
ORDER OFBUSINESS:
9 Introduction
* Report bystaff orother presenter
• Questions from city council members to the presenter
° Questions/comments from the public hzthe city council
(a maximum of three minutes per question/statement)
* Action on motion
Kyle K]att, Planning CUneohor
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Mayor and council members
Mayor facilitates
City Council
T
ENGINEERS - ARCHITECTS - PLANNERS
MEMORANDUM
To:
Copies To:
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500
Sant Pau, MN 55101-2140
(6511 292-4400
651 292-0083 Fax
www.thda.com
Ryan Stempski, P.E. Reference: Lake Elmo Local Surface Water
Management Plan
Proj. No.:
From: Sherri Buss, R.L.A. Routing:
Date: December 2, 2008
14078.001
Attached is the proposed Authorization for completing the Lake Elmo Local Surface Water Management
Plan (LSWMP). The scope of work and cost estimate include the tasks that would be required to meet all of
the requirements of the Metropolitan Council and State Statutes, as well as the requirements of the local
watershed districts that will need to approve the plan. The watershed districts have requirements above and
beyond those of the Metro Council and Statute 103B.
Watershed District Requirements and Estimated Costs
The attached authorization provides a list of Metro Council/State requirements, and a separate list of the
additional watershed district requirements. Based on discussion with the Watershed Districts' staff, the
additional requirements are for more detailed analysis of the following items:
• Physical environment and land use (and relationship to surface water issues)
• Surface water management system maintenance issues and policies
• Detailed assessment of identified local water management problems and proposed actions
• Integration of the City's SWPPP into the goals and policies in the plan
We estimate that the cost of the additional watershed district requirements and coordination is approximately
$5,000 of the total cost estimate for this project ( 39,300).
Relationship of Estimated Costs to Permitting
The cost estimate is based on the assumption that the City will continue to rely on the Watershed Districts to
manage permitting activities. If the City decides in the future that it wishes to manage permits for surface
water issues, the City will need to amend the surface water plan, and complete additional modeling, system
analyses, and policies, as well as identify the permitting process for land and wetland alteration work.
An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity
CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA
AUTHORIZATION FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
TO: Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson
and Associates, incorporated
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Pursuant to our Agreement dated February 2, 1988, you are hereby authorized to proceed with
the professional services described as follows.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Metropolitan Council requires communities to have a local Surface Water Management Plan
(SWMP) as part of the updates to the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The SWMP needs to he
consistent with the requirements in the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, Metro Council's Water
Resources 'Management Policy Plan, Minnesota Statute 1.03B, and with local watershed
management plans. The local watershed districts have additional requirements for the City's
plan. The City needs to develop its local SWMP to meet these requirements, and has requested
that TKDA develop a scope and cost estimate to complete the SWMP.
II. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY TKDA
TKDA is requested to provide the following services:
A. PREPARE PLAN
1. Review and summarize relevant local regulatory agency requirements which will
affect the content of the SWMP.
Review and summarize studies completed by local regulatory agencies and their
requirements for the City's SWMP, and incorporate the findings into the SWMP,
Prepare a SWMP that contains each of the following sections as required by the
Metropolitan Land Planning Act, Minnesota Statute 103B, and local watershed
management plans:
a. Metro Council and MN Statute 103B Requirements:
• Executive Summary
• Purpose of Plan
Water Resource Management Related Agreements
Land and Water Resources inventory
Establishment of Policies and Goals
• Assessment of Problems and Corrective Actions for Problems
Identified
• Financial Considerations
• Implementation Priorities and Program
• Amendment Procedures and Updates
• Review Storm Water Improvements for Old Village
b. Watershed District Requirements —Local Watershed District requirements
in addition to the Metro Council and State requirements
• Description of Physical Requirements and Land Use
• Local Surface Water System Maintenance issues and Policies
• Detailed Assessment of Selected Local Problem Areas and Actions
• Integrate City SWPPP into Plan
4. Prepare necessary mapping and figures needed for the SWMP.
B. MEETINGS
Attend four meetings with City staff and two meetings with the City Council to
discuss the SWMP.
Attend two meetings with the Valley Branch Watershed District, two meetings
with Brown's Creek Watershed District, and two meetings with South
Washington Watershed District to develop the SWMP.
C. DELIVERABLES
1. Provide two separate submittals of the Draft SWMP to the City (two copies in
each submittal) for review and comment. Incorporate any revisions after review.
Submit one electronic copy each of the Draft SWMP to: Valley Branch
Watershed District, Brown's Creek Watershed District, and South Washington
Watershed District, for review and comment. Incorporate any revisions after
review.
Submit ten copies of the Final SWMP to the City. Submit two copies to the
Metropolitan Council, Submit one copy each to: Valley Branch Watershed
District, Brown's Creek Watershed District, and South Washington Watershed
District.
4. Provide two full-size copies of the Overall Condition Index to graphically
represent the street conditions to the City.
5. Submit electronic version of the Final SWMP in Adobe PDF file format to the
City.
III. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
If the need for Additional Services is determined, and the fee for the additional work is agreeable
and the OWNER authorizes such services in writing, TKDA shall furnish or obtain from others
services of the types listed below which are not considered as normal or customary services.
These Additional Services shall be compensated for on an Hourly Rate basis as defined in the
General Agreement, a part hereof, and such compensation shall be over and above any
maximums or lump sum amounts set forth in this Authorization.
A. Meetings beyond those provided in SECTION II.
B, Non -degradation study to modify the Plan in anticipation of required conformance with
the non -degradation requirements of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
Municipal Separated Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit.
C. Review and update City ordinances based on goals and policies that are developed in the
SWMP.
D. Additional services in connection with the Project, including services not normally
furnished by the CITY and services not otherwise provided for in this Authorization and
our Agreement, a part hereof,
IV. OWNER'S RESPO SIBILIFIES
The OWNER'S responsibilities shall be as set forth in the Agreement and as further described or
clarified hereinbelow:
A. Designate one individual to act as the OWNER'S representative with respect to the work
to be performed, and such person shall have complete authority to transmit instructions,
receive information, interpret and define policies, and make decisions with respect to
critical elements pertinent to the Project.
B. Provide TKDA with access to the site as required to perform services listed in
SECTION II above.
V. PERIOD OF SERVICE
TKDA shall start services promptly upon receipt of this executed Authorization and complete
services by May 29, 2009. A preliminary schedule is as follows:
Authorization to Proceed from City
Submit Draft SWMP to City
December, 2008
l'ebruary, 2008
Submit Draft SWMP to Watershed Districts and Adjacent Communities March, 2009
Submit Final SWMP to City and Metropolitan Council May 29, 2009
VI. COMPENSATION
Compensation to TKDA for services provided under SECTION 11 of this Authorization shall be
on an Hourly Rate basis as defined in the AgreementArticle 3, in an amount estimated to be
$39,300.
Approved at a meeting of the on , 2008.
By Attest
Consultant Acceptance by , 2008.
Authorized TKDA Representative
4
T
ENGINEERS -ARCHITECTS- PLANNERS
MEMORANDUM
To: Ryan Stempski, P.E.
Copies To:
444 Cedar Street: Suite 1500
Sat Paul, MN 55101-2140
(651) 292-4400
651) 292-0083 Fax
www,lkda,corri
Reference: Lake Elmo Transportation Plan
Proj. No.:
From: Bryant Ficek Routing:
Date: December 3, 2008
Attached is the proposed Authorization for completing the Lake Elmo Transportation Plan. The scope of
work and cost estimate includethe tasks that would be required to meet all of the requirements of the
Metropolitan Council and other agencies, like Washington County, that will need to approve the plan.
Requirements and Estimated Costs
The attached authorization provides a list of Metro Council/State requirements. Based on the review of the
current Transportation Plan against the current guidelines and requirements, the new Transportation Plan will
be significant revision and update. Some of the new inthrmation and revisions required include:
• More detailed discussion of the existing transportation system, including the functional classification
of roads and roadway jurisdiction
• Traffic forecasts and capacity analyses consistent with the Metro Council and Washington County
models
• Safety Analysis based upon crash records
• More detailed discussion of transit, rail, and aviation
We estimate that the total cost for this project is $29,800. This amount includes using a sub for traffic
forecasting estimated at $ 5,000.
Relationship of Estimated Costs to Assumptions
The cost estimate is based on the assumption that the City will not adjust land use or socio-economic
forecasts. Keeping the land use and socio-econornic forecasts consistent with the existing plan reduces the
cost associated with providing traffic forecasts and associated analysis. lf the City decides in the future to
adjust the land use or socio-economic forecasts, the City will need to amend the transportation plan, and
other parts of the comprehensive plan, which would require additional modeling, revised system analyses,
and potentially revised policies.
The cost estimate further assumes that the existing traffic counts and the Park Plan are sufficient. Traffic
counts will he obtained from the existing Transportation Plan or other sources, such as the Washington
County Transportation Plan. The existing Park Plan will be referenced for the trail section of the
Transportation Plan. New traffic counts or updates to the Park Plan are not included in this cost estimate.
An Employee Owned Company PrO117011Pg Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity
CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA
AUTHORIZATION FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
TO: Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson
and Associates. Incorporated
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500
St, Paul, Minnesota 55101
Pursuant to our Agreement dated February 2, 1988, you are hereby authorized to proceed with
the professional services described as follows.
TRNASPORTATION PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Metropolitan Council requires communities to have a Transportation Plan as part of the
updates to the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, The Transportation Plan needs to be consistent
with the requirements in the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The City needs to develop its
local Transportation Plan to meet these requirements, and has requested that TKDA develop a
scope and cost estimate to complete the Transportation Plan.
II. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY TKDA
TKDA is requested to provide the following services:
A. PREPARE PLAN
1. Review and summarize relevant local regulatory agency requirements which will
affect the content of the Transportation Plan,
2. Review and summarize studies completed by local regulatory agencies and their
requirements for the City's Transportation Plan, and incorporate the findings into
the Transportation Plan.
3. Prepare a Transportation Plan that contains each of the following sections as
required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and detailed in the Local
Planning Handbook:
• Policies and Strategies for developing a inulti-modal transportation system
• An assignment of socio-econornic forecasts to Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ)
Highway and Roads Plan that describes the existing roads and planned
improvements as well as analyzes traffic volumes and addresses safety and
capacity issues
A Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Special Situations planning section that could include a summary of the Lake
Elmo Village AUAR
A Rail Plan that identifies any rail related facilities
A Transit Plan for facilities and service
• An Aviation Plan that identifies aviation related facilities and addresses
airspace protections
4. Prepare necessary mapping and figures needed for the Transportation Plan,
B. MEETINGS
1, Attend four meetings with City staff and two meetings with the City Council to
discuss the Transportation Plan.
2. Attend two meetings with the Washington County Transportation Department- to
develop the Transportation Plan.
C. DELl VERABLES
1. Provide two separate submittals of the Draft Transportation Plan to the City (two
copies in each submittal) for review and comment. Incorporate any revisions
after review.
2. Submit one electronic copy of the Draft Transportation Plan to Washington
County for review and comment. Incorporate any revisions after review.
3. Submit ten copies of the Final Transportation Plan to the City. Submit two copies
to the Metropolitan Council. Submit one copy to Washington County.
4, Submit electronic version of the Final Transportation Plan in Adobe PDF file
format to the City.
III. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
If the need for Additional Services is determined, and the fee for the additional work is agreeable
and the OWNER authorizes such services in writing, 'I'KDA shall furnish or obtain from others
services of the types listed below which are not considered as normal or customary services.
These Additional Services shall be compensated fbr on an Hourly Rate basis as delined in the
General Agreement, a part hereof, and such compensation shall be over and above any
maximums or lump sum amounts set forth in this Authorization.
A. Meetings beyond those provided in SECTION II, such as public open house meetings or
additional meetings with the City or County.
_
B. Review and update City ordinances based on goals and policies that are developed in the
Transportation Plan.
C. Additional services in connection with the Project, including services not normally
furnished by the CITY and services not otherwise provided for in this Authorization and
our Agreement, a part hereof
IV. OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES
The OWNER'S responsibilities shall be as set forth in the Agreement and as further described or
clarified hereinbelow:
A. Designate one individual to act as the OWNER'S representative with respect to the work
to be performed, and such person shall have complete authority to transmit instructions,
receive information, interpret and define policies, and make decisions with respect to
critical elements pertinent to the Project.
B, Provide TKDA with access to the site as required to perform services listed in
SECTION II above.
V. PERIOD OF SERVICE
TKDA shall start services promptly upon receipt of this executed Authorization and complete
services by December 31, 2008. A preliminary schedule is as follows:
Authorization to Proceed from City December 2008
Submit Draft Transportation Plan to City March 2009
Submit Draft Transportation Plan to County and Adjacent Communities April 2009
Submit Final Transportation Plan to City and Metropolitan Council May 2009
VI. COMPENSATION
Compensation to TKDA for services provided under SECTION 11 of this Authorization shall be
on an Hourly Rate basis as defined in the Agreement Article 3, in an amount estimated to be
$29,800.
Approved at a meeting of the on 2007.
By Attest
Consultant Acceptance by , 2007,
Authorized TKDA Representative
4