Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PZ Packet; 11-10-08
CM LA.KE City of Lake Elmo jL E1.M 0 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 (651) 777-5510 Fax: (651) 777-9615 Www.LakeE1mo.0rc !ICE OF MEETING The City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on Monday, November 10, 2008, at 7a00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Approve Agenda 3. Approve Minutes a. September 8, 2008 4. Public Hearing: a. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER PERMIT: Consideration of an application to permit New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC to add a wireless communications antenna array to the existing city water tower and to construct an accessory equipment shelter at 3303 Langly Court;PF zoning; PID: 13-029-21-32-0069. b. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER PERMIT: Consideration of an application to permit the construction of a new 125-foot monopole wireless communications tower and associated accessory building at 9057 Lake Jane Trail North; RR zoning; PID 10-029-21-32-0012. e. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT: Consideration of an application to alter the zoning requriements for non-agricultural low impact uses to allow truck terminals and mechanic repair facilities to operate in the HD-A-BP zoning district as an interim use. d. INTERIM USE PERMIT: Consideration of an application to allow a trucking terminal and mechanic repair facility as a non-agricultural low impact interim use at 11530 Hudson Boulevard; HD-A-BP zoning; PID: 36-029-21-43-0001. 5. Village Area AUAR Update 6. City Council Updates a. September 16 i. Application to allow new home to be built further from road right-of- way than existing accessory building ii. Front yard setback Variance for 11002 Upper 33'd Street North iii. Conditional Use Permit at 8925 Highway 5 for Beauty Salon iv. Comprehensive Plan update extension request b. October 7 -None c. October 21 -None d. November 5—Accessory structure ordinance 7. Adjourn DRAFT City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 08, 2008 Chainnan Ptacek called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Anderson, Deziel, Helwig,Ptacek,Pelletier, and Van Zandt. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Klatt and Planner Matzek. Agenda M/S/P, Helwig/Van.Zandt,to approve the agenda as presented. Vote: 6:0. Minutes -June 9, 2008 M/S/P, Helwig/Van Zandt,to approve the minutes as presented. Vote. 6.0. August 11, 2008 M/S/P, Deziel/Pelletier, to approve the minutes as presented. Vote: 4:0. Abstained: Anderson,Helwig Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit(CUP); 8925 Highway 5 Planning Director Klatt summarized the conditional use permit application for Belle Arnie Spa, a beauty salon, which would be located at 8925 Highway 5. The property is zoned Limited Business and located in the Prairie Ridge Office Park where there is adequate parking available. The use will take up a little over half of the building— 1,540 square feet of a vacant 2,500 square foot building. He is recommending approval of the application because it meets the city code requirements for a CUP. THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:14 P.M. No one spoke. THE CHAIRMAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:14 P.M. M/S/P,Van Zandt/Pelletier,move to recommend approval. Vote: 5:1. Commissioner Helwig stated that the noxious weeds at the site need to be taken care of. Public Hearing: Variance; 11002 Upper 33rd Street Planner Matzek introduced the variance application requesting approval of a 25 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback requirement to allow a one car detached garage on the property 5 feet from the front property line. She said the short driveway would not allow for a car to wait off the roadway for a garage door to open if the roadway were ever widened. The property must continue to meet the impervious surface requirements. Commissioner Deziel asked why the garage could not be attached to the home. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-08-08 1 DRAFT Lill Martin, applicant Ms. Martin stated that she had originally wanted to put a car port on the home,but was told she could not. She said that if she moved the garage back any further it would block a window and would not meet the side yard setback. THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7.31 P.M. No one spoke. THE CHAIRMAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:31 P.M. M/S/P,Helwig/Van Zandt,move to recommend approval as recommend. Vote: 5:1. Commissioner Deziel.voted against the motion because of his concern for the future implications regarding Upper 33Td Street. Comprehensive Plan Request for Extension Planning Director Matt asked the commission to review a request to the Metropolitan Council for an extension for the City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Update. The Local Water Plan, Local Surface Water Plan and Local Transportation Plan will be updated. Lake Elmo will be requesting a submission extension to December 2010. Chairman Ptacek asked if there would be any penalties for submitting the plan later than the deadline. Planning Director Klatt stated that while the Metropolitan Council could pursue civil penalties,he thought the city had a good case given the progress and the upfront and open request. City Council Updates Planning Director Klatt said the council had amended and approved an impervious Adjourned at 7:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kelli Matzek Planner Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes;9-08-08 2 Planning Commission Date: 11/10/08 Public hearing Item: 4a ITEM: Hold a public hearing to consider a Wireless Telecommunication Tower Permit application at 3303 Langly Court North. REQUESTED BY: Ken Nielsen, Agent for AT&T Mobility-Applicant SUBMITTED BY: Keili Matzek, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Lake Elmo Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request from AT&T to attach a wireless communications antenna array to the existing city water tower and to construct an accessory equipment shelter at 3303 Langly Court. This is a permitted use, but requires a Wireless Telecommunications Tower permit. The water tower currently has two existing wireless communication antennas mounted to the site. The co-location of the antennas reduces the impact to the adjacent neighborhood and is required whenever possible. The proposed antenna array will not project higher than the existing water tower. The proposed accessory building to house the ground equipment will be screened on the north and west side by the planting of 10 trees by the applicant. The proposed landscaping plan was reviewed by the City Forester who found that the proposed landscaping looked adequate for screening and would provide that function at maturity. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: • No additional lighting is proposed by the applicant. • Because the applicant is proposing to add the antenna array to the existing water tower, some of the review criteria outlined for the Wireless Telecommunications Tower permit is not applicable. The review requirements for a new tower are more stringent than that of locating (or in this case co-locating)antennas on an existing structure. • A lease agreement is still being worked out between the city and AT&T. The lease agreement must be entered into by both the applicant and the city prior to any installation or work done at the site. • The applicant will perform an interference study to ensure the proposed frequency will not cause interference with public safety telecommunications. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the applicant's request for a Wireless Telecommunication Tower Permit to allow AT&T to attach a wireless communications antenna array to the existing city water tower and to construct an accessory equipment shelter at 3303 Langly Court North. MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION: I move we recommend that the City Council approve the requested Wireless Telecommunications Tower Permit to allow AT&T to attach a wireless communications antenna array to the existing city water tower and to construct an accessory equipment shelter at 3303 Langly Court North with the conditions outlined in the staff report. ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction....................................................... ......--..........Kelli Matzek, City Planner - Report by staff.......................................................................Kelli Matzek, City Planner - Questions from the Commission...................................Chair &Commission Members - Applicant Comments ..............................................................................Chair facilitates - Questions of the Applicant ............................................Chair& Commission Members - Open the Public Hearing--...................................................................................Chair - Close the Public Hearing........................................................................................Chair - Call for a motion ......................—.—.............. ....................................... Chair Facilitates - Discussion of Commission on the motion ............................................ Chair Facilitates - Action by the Planning Commission..............................Chair &Commission Members ATTACHMENTS: 1. Area map showing the location of the subject property 2. Detailed staff report on the request 3. Aerial image of site 4. Landscape Plan 5. Site Plan 6. Elevation Map € TI IV Oft- im gill--�'Wwfflm -------------- k 3303 Langfy Court North i I I I I I I i City of Lake Elmo Planning Department Wireless Telecommunication Tower Permit Request To: Planning Commission From: Kelli Matzek, City Planner Meeting Date: 11-10-08 Applicant: Ken Nielsen, Agent for AT&T Mobility Owner: City of Lake Elmo Location: 3303 Langly Ct N Zoning: Public and Quasi-Public Open Space (PF) Introductory ,Iq formation Requested The applicant is requesting to attach a wireless communications antenna array to the WTT Permit: existing city water tower and to construct an accessory equipment shelter at 3303 Langly Court. Property The property at 3303 Langly Court is currently owned by the city of Lake Elmo and is Ir:formation: the location of city water tower#1. The property is zoned PF which allows facilities for local government,such as water towers by conditional use permit. The water tower currently houses antenna arrays for two other wireless providers on the 1.1 acre site. Applicable Section 150.110— 150.126 Wireless Telecommunication Tower Permit Codes Contains the standards and requirements for the Wireless Telecommunication Tower Permit. Section 11.02 Definitions WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY. The combination of a wireless telecommunication tower, antennae, and tower accessory equipment. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER. Any pole, spire, structure, or combination thereof,including supporting lines, cables, wires,braces,and masts, intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna or to serve as an antenna. Section 154.063 PF—Public and Quasi-Public Open Space Contains the standards and uses permitted in the PF District. f'irE.`lE.v. .�'Z?lF.'(:'€JTYP7,::wdeatio Tt)tr er F?ermlf;.I Al F'°laimyinq.,, Corpani,Sshm&''7 on; e d-.. 0-.08 Findings & General Site Overview Site Data: Size of 3303 Langly Court North: 51,809 square feet Buildings: two existing buildings which house ground equipment for existing antenna Existing Use: City Water Tower#1/Wireless Telecommunications Antenna arrays and associated equipment Existing Zoning: PF—Public and Quasi-Public Open Space Property Identification Number(PID): 13-029-21-32-0069 Application Review: Existing The 1.1 acre city owned site is currently used for the location of water tower#1 which Conditions: was built in 1960. The PF zoned property is surrounded on all sides by residentially zoned property. The water tower currently houses two cellular antenna arrays from other cellular providers. WTT Permit The applicant is seeking to place a wireless communications antenna array on the Review: existing city water tower. While the Wireless Telecommunication Tower Permit is largely aimed at the construction of new towers, this application is being reviewed as such as the associated wireless communication antennas would be regulated under this section of code. The proposed antenna array and associated equipment building is viewed as a permitted use on the property, but will require a Wireless Telecommunications Tower permit and building permit. Because the applicant is proposing to add the antenna array to the existing water tower, some of the review criteria outlined for the Wireless Telecommunications Tower permit is not applicable. The review requirements for a new tower are more stringent than that of locating (or in this case co-locating) antennas on an existing structure. Height The applicant is proposing to add two antenna arrays to water tower M. The antennas will be located on the catwalk of the tower. Therefore, the antennas will not exceed the height of the peak of the water tower and will be located lower on the structure than other existing wireless communication antennas. Co-location The code specifically requires co-location of antenna when possible. The applicant is proposing to maximize the use of the existing and approved tower for the location of the new wireless telecommunication antennas. This minimizes adverse visual effects of the antenna and accompanying accessory equipment. The site is intended for the co-location of multiple wireless communication facilities— Y_:r>....•�.,�::k.l :il3dC'ililt:_'.''J_ ._Ili•:/1 a:�5 Page 2 IT"freles.5' fFlt`CY)f f7?girl ic'izi.on 7GnverI orn,],,if;ATIT Pl([1'ltiing,° Con.rtl:i:s;:iun Rq.)ori; 11-10-08 both on the tower and on the ground. Lighting The applicant is not proposing any additional lighting to the site. Equipment Building The applicant is proposing an 11 '/2' by 20' equipment building at the base of the tower. The flat roofed building is proposed to be ten feet in height. Landscaping The proposed equipment building at the base of the water tower will be screened on. the north and west side of the building by approximately 10 trees to be added by the applicant. The tower will be to the south and the access to the building will be on the east side. This screening will minimize visual disturbances to four residential properties adjacent to the property. Two of the four have side yards adjacent to the property, while the remaining properties back up to the property. The proposed landscaping plan was reviewed by the City Forester who found that the proposed landscaping looked adequate for screening and would provide that function at maturity. fVTT Permit Based on the above analysis, staff is recommending approval of the Wireless Conclusions: Telecommunication Tower permit request to allow a wireless communications antenna array to the existing city water tower and to construct an accessory equipment shelter i at 3303 Langly Court North for the following reasons: 1) The applicant is minimizing adverse visual effects of the antenna and accessory equipment by proposing to make use of the city water tower which is already being utilized for such uses. 2) The proposal complies with the city regulations and development standards. 3) The proposal does not constitute a nuisance. Conditions: 1) A lease agreement must be entered into by both the applicant and the city prior to any installation or work done at the site. Resident Staff is not aware of any concerns surrounding the requested Wireless Concerns: Telecommunication Tower Permit. Property owners within 1000 feet of the property were notified of the application as required by city code. as?3 w z;r't`c:ss ?e'7e,c, eft ur�ictiiit�� 7bl' er f'erprIO. 7'ctt• ' Pilin in Ct)n?raissi oP %t'?'i:; i'/•-1 -08 Additional The watershed district had no comment in opposition to the proposed Wireless Inprnration: Telecommunication Tower Permit. Conclusion: The applicant is seeking approval of a Wireless Telecommunications Tower permit application to add a wireless communications antenna array to the existing city water tower and to construct an accessory equipment shelter at 3303 Langly Court North. Commission The Planning Commission has the following options: Options: A) Recommend approval of the Wireless Telecommunications Tower Pen-nit request; B) Recommend denial of the Wireless Telecommunications Tower Permit request. The 60-day review period for this application expires on 12-21-08,but can be extended an additional 60 days if more time is needed. StaffRec: Staff is recommending approval of the Wireless Telecommunications Tower Permit to add a wireless communications antenna array to the existing city water tower and to construct an accessory equipment shelter at 3303 Langly Court North for the following'reasons: 1) The applicant is minimizing adverse visual effects of the antenna and accessory equipment by proposing to make use of the city water tower which is already being utilized for such uses. 2) The proposal complies with the city regulations and development standards. h 3) The proposal does not constitute a nuisance. f Denial To deny the request, you may use the following motion as a guide: Motion Template: I move we recommend that Council deny the requested Wireless Telecommunications Tower Permit for addition of a wireless communications antenna array and construction of an accessory equipment shelter at 3303 Langly Court North based on the following reasons...(please site reasons for the recommendation) Approval To approve the request, you may use the following motion as a guide: Motion 'l , . U 'irele:." 'I r(' a.cati«n ls,• =taut; P'ifarn� nii,i; C'ott mis ion. l c7a€:tr't; ,=,=_l0--t,�: Template: I move we recommend that the City Council approve the requested Wireless Telecommunications Tower Permit for addition of a wireless communications antenna array and construction of an accessory equipment shelter at 3303 Langly Court North based on the reasons and conditions outlined in the staff report. cc: ken Nielsen, AT&T Mobility Rg/7--.{T&TA!ItC:t7r"afi. fir:: Vial..'• �w W i n " f� � .; "kong MAO � Folk- T "� fir+ ff I t i 1 'jar aw e � k r } • Til 7 z EL oZS v. pph j........... ku Ic fff —7- . ................ ....................... .............. .......... '_---•-^—.._,_.-..`.� , -.-.-'ram^"� ti"�, `�.� 2 _,.—_'..._ t w i, jet �.Wi � ��N —•--�.�-.�. � �3 :� 1 KK pp,,�ry,aaa. � - f •.� �yY L^� / 4� $.g•��< y� SSN y�a r f -f• `t I y �T a tir 4 B$ h ling `° NIX UP��� Tt N O jog I 3 ma �� gig =gym Eli II[[ff Is N O i 5'�NN3LM SfiOdOtld�D 3Hf7M3ll13]=a7-,tOl � U 5 ul r tq dill Planning Commission Date: 11/10/08 Public hearing Item: 4b ITEM: Hold a public hearing to consider an application for a wireless telecommunications tower permit to install a 125-foot tower at 9057 Lake Jane Trail North REQUESTED BY: FMHC Corporation, Applicant SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Kiatt, Director of Planning -_Z REVIEWED BY: Kelli Matzek, City Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Lake Elmo Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request from FMHC Corporation on behalf of T-Mobile Communications to construct a new 125-foot high telecommunications tower on property owned by Daniel and Jean Olinger at 9057 Lake Jane Trail North in Lake Elmo. This property is located at the intersection of Lake Jane Trail North and Jamaca Avenue North immediately north of the City's Fire Station No. 2 property. The selected tower site on the Olinger property is approximately 600 feet from Lake Jane and over 1,000 feet from the closest boundary with the Sunfish Lake Park property. The Lake Elmo City Code permits new towers on certain properties within the City that meet all of the established criteria for wireless telecommunications towers. The attached report demonstrates that the applicant has complied with these requirements and therefore the tower is a permitted use according to the Code. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: • The Olinger property is over 10 acres in size and is zoned residentially, thus meeting the requirements for the construction of a new tower that exceeds the base district height requirements. • The City Code requires the execution of a wireless telecommunication tower agreement before a building permit may be issued for the proposed tower. This agreement needs to include a list of conditions attached to the permit among other requirements as specified by the ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the applicant's request for a wireless telecommunications tower permit to construct a new 125-foot high telecommunications tower at 9057 Lake Jane Trail North in Lake Elmo because it meets all the criteria for the issuance of such a permit, provided the following conditions are met: 1) That the tower be painted a blue or light gray color instead of the dark brown treatment depicted on the submitted plans. 2) 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. 3) 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. 4) 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. MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION: I move we recommend that the City Council approve the request from FMHC Corporation on behalf of T-Mobile Communications to construct a new 126-foot high telecommunications tower at 9057 Lake Jane Trail North in Lake Elmo based on the findings provided by staff and provided the following conditions are met: 1) That the tower be painted a blue or light gray color instead of the dark brown treatment depicted on the submitted plans. 2) 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. 3) 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. 4) 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, ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction........................................................................Kyle Klatt, Planning Director - Report by staff...................................................................Kyle Klatt, Planning Director - Questions from the Commission ...................................Chair &Commission Members - Applicant Comments..............................................................................Chair facilitates - Questions of the Applicant ............................................Chair &Commission Members - Open the Public Hearing ........................................................................................Chair - Close the Public Hearing........................................................................................Chair - Call for a motion ................................................................................... Chair Facilitates - Discussion of Commission on the motion ............................................ Chair Facilitates - Action by the Planning Commission..............................Chair& Commission Members ATTACHMENTS: 1. Detailed staff report on the request 2. Aerial image of the site with the required '/ mile search radius 3. Application form 4. Propose lease tract description 5. Site survey—existing conditions 6. Photo simulation of tower(4 locations) 7. Property owner letter of acknowledgement 8. Site plans and elevation drawings(4) 9. Letter from T-Mobile RF Engineer 10. Existing and proposed coverage maps 11. T-Mobile's 2 year plan 12. T-Mobile search ring 13. Coverage maps—water tower site and neighboring tower sites 14. Landscape plan 15. Public letters: 8989 Lake Jane Trail N; 4235 Ivy Court 16. Letter from City Attorney 17. Tower question and answer sheet City of Lake Elmo Planning Department Telecommunications Tower Permit Request To: Planning Commission From: Kyle Klatt� g Plannin Director )Zt VZ Y Meeting Date: 11110/08 Applicant: FMHC Corporation Owner: Daniel and Jean Olinger Location: 9057 Lake Jane Trail North Zoning: Rural Residential (RR) Introductor y In ormation Requested The applicant has filed an application for a Wireless Telecommunications Tower Permit: Permit on behalf of T-Mobile Corporation to construct a new 125-foot high telecommunications tower on property owned by Daniel and Jean Olinger at 9057 Lake Jane Trail North in.Lake Elmo, Application The Lake Elmo City Code includes provisions related to wireless communications Summary: facilities, and allows new towers to be constructed on sites that meet the specific criteria outlined in the code. This type of use does not require a conditional use permit (as mistakenly stated on the public hearing notice and application form), and therefore is not subject to these particular requirements in the code; it is a permitted use subject to the issuance of a special permit. The proposed site for the wireless communications tower is located near the intersection of Jamaca Avenue North and Lake Jane Trail, and would be located approximately 600 feet from Lake Jane. This site lies immediately north of the City's Fire Station Number 2 and the Washington County/MPCA landfill. The applicant is proposing to lease a 40 by 40-foot portion of this property and to construct a 125-foot high monopole tower and related equipment storage buildings. An antenna array for T-Mobile Communications is also depicted on the submitted site plans. The tower has been designed to accommodate at least two additional wireless carriers and there is space reserved within the fenced compound area for the related accessory buildings. Access to the site would be gained via an access easement over the existing driveway off of Jamaca Avenue North. Applicable Section 150.110 through 150.126 Wireless Telecommunication Tower Permit. Codes: Describes the pernait requirements, application process, allowed locations, co- Co ni is.s n Rep(fY!: %--'0,..Oal! location requirements, standards, and other requirements related to telecommunications facilities. Section 11.02 Definitions WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY. The combination of a wireless telecommunication tower, antennae, and tower accessory equipment. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER. Any pole, spire,structure, or combination thereof, including supporting lines, cables, wires, braces, and masts, intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna or to serve as an antenna. Findings & General Site Overview Site Data: Lot Size: 13.89 acres (includes home site, excludes road right-of-way) Existing Use: Single Family Residential/Equipment Storage Existing Zoning R1 — Single Family Residential and RR---Rural Residential Property Identification Number(PID): 10-029-21-32-0012 The Daniel and Jean Olinger property is currently split between two different zoning districts with the portion fronting Lake Jane Trail and extending to the lake zoned R-1 and the larger back portion zoned RR. There is approximately 11 acres that are zoned RR, and therefore, the portion zoned R-1 could be split from the RR area and still comply with the underlying zoning requirements for lot size. Application Review: Application The City Code specifies the areas within the City in which a new wireless Requirements: communication tower would be prohibited and those areas where it would be an allowed use. The proposed site meets these requirements because it is an agriculturally or residentially zoned parcel greater than 10 acres and is not subject to an open space/conservation easement or within an airport impact zone. The split zoning of this parcel does not present any problems for compliance with the permitted tower locations since both R-1 and RR zones are considered residential districts. In the future, the property owner will not be allowed to reduce the parcel on which the tower is located to less than 10 acres (the minimum size for RR zoning anyway). An application under the City's Wireless Telecommunication Tower Ordinance must include specific information as documented in the Ordinance. This information has been attached for consideration by the Planning Commission as follows: a) A sketch drawn to scale acceptable to the City Planner and City Engineer. The applicant has submitted a survey that depicts the western portion of the parcel under consideration with all buildings on an adjacent to this site. The project drawings for the tower provide details concerning the structures to be 4=: %..iliic: Page 2 b''Yreh,ss Tower i4, F.4[1C C01POf W I f'.:977: Plannirty�C'�;rrir,is.,eur..%:: :«;~!.; 11.3{�...v., located on the leased property, including the tower and accessory building. The survey shows that the closest structure on a neighboring property is a residential home 323 feet away. The next closest structure is the City's Fire Station building at 328 feet. The closest on-site building is a small accessory building 100 feet from the proposed tower. A 15 foot-wide access easement would be provided over an existing driveway off of Jamaca Avenue North. 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. In addition to an elevation drawing of the proposed tower, the applicant has included a series of photo-simulated images of the tower at four strategic locations near the site. The first two represent views from the roads immediately adjacent to the site,while the last two were taken at the edge of Sunfish Lake Park and across Lake Jane. c) A reportfrom a qualified and licensed professional engineer. This report must accomplish the following:: i 1) Describes the wireless telecommunication tower height and design including a cross-section and elevation. There are four plan sheets included with the application,including a cover page, site plan, enlarged site plan, and an elevation drawing. The design of the tower is shown as a monopole structure with a maximum height of 125 feet. 2) Certifies the wireless telecommunication tower's compliance with structural and electrical standards. Additional information submitted by the applicant includes a letter from.T-Mobile's Senior RF Engineer regarding the existing and proposed coverage maps for this area and frequencies to be used by the antenna(with maps), detailed information concerning the design and reliability of a monopole structure, specifications for the antenna, and drawings related to compliance with structural and electrical standards. All of this detailed information, with the exception of the coverage letter and maps, has not been included in the Planning Commission packet. The City Engineer has asked for additional details to be provided for these plans, which would need to be confirmed prior to the issuance of a building permit for the tower. 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. The submitted plans indicate that the T-Mobile antennas would be installed at the maximum height of the tower at 125 feet above grade and future co-location antennas would be located at 85 feet and 105 feet, which results in spacing of 20 feet between these locations. v:'I ina Use;i�''yi7";''-fs'::.`... 7(..'fF.'i.:<,'."siq Im ic't411t rl 7'!>iI"eI-1:'ssomIit'9057 Lizkc Jane Trail; •:?'i;.•l�.RE'%3!>]7 T-!'Pd!)I)t1C'ltr1E'PY ff`h-vless ov,l `r.R rmir:,' Ialtar:aainn":`r}romiuiort&;r..nw-t, U-'1fi_08 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. The plans as noted above show two additional location for antennas in the future. The detailed engineering reports include multiple antenna mounting positions as part of these documents. d) A 2-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 has provided a brief one-paragraph statement that this site is the only part of Lake Elmo that is included in its two year plan. Maps have been provided that illustrate how this site connects to the four existing sites in the surrounding area. Of the other information that is to be included with this plan, the applicant has provided a description of the radio frequencies to the used by the proposed equipment in a letter from their engineer and a map showing the closest of their wireless communications facilities to the proposed tower site (all but one of which is located outside the city limits. This coverage map includes the service areas for the sites within and outside the City. e) The cost./or mailing addresses and application fee. The applicant has provided the required mailing addresses for the public hearing and paid all required fees. fj 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. Information concerning the PCS broadband license for T-Mobile has been provided but not included in the Planning Commission packet. g) 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. The property owner has signed a letter drafted by FMHC Corporation acknowledging the removal requirement. The applicant has also provided a memorandum of lease that has executed by the property owner and T-Mobile. This issue must also be included in an agreement between the applicant, property owner, and City. h) Documentation of the steps to be taken by applicant to avoid causing destructive interference to co-located previously established public safety communications facilities. The applicant's engineer in the included letter has indicated that the frequency bands apportioned to T-Mobile by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)are well isolated from bands used by public safety communication systems, and that they have not had any such '<'i gljt.90).7 1.ulci.''.J!s'e'tc�t`cst?;r.:ll ',I.,pl'i �r-i'?'Iii'%;./e•ri7F:'f'r �6':r"�'lr.,., Jt�vuer•F'errrta�; h:'�?Ifl�'€';t;r-�3nr'ut'tr"!t � rartrtirat,,Ct:ninihaivn ?:x:?,r! 11-10- 8 problems on other sites that they control. FCC licensing requirements further limit the frequencies that can be used, and include penalties for causing interference with public safety facilities. The fire chief has also reviewed the request and did not state any objections to the proposed tower and antennas from a public safety perspective. A copy of the City's FCC radio station authorization has also been obtained and included with this file. No conflicts are anticipated based on all of the above information. i) A detailed landscape plan, which indicates how tower accessory equipment will be screened. The applicant has provided a landscape plan for this site that shows new evergreen plantings around the perimeter of the tower site. Although there does not appear to be any existing vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the leased area,there are larger stands of vegetation to the south and west of the tower. The existing vegetation, which is mapped on the larger- view site plan,provides a very effective screen for the accessory buildings and base of the tower and should be preserved on the site as much as possible during the life of the tower. The required agreement should include a provision related to the long-term maintenance of the existing and proposed landscaping on the site. Other information that has been included in the Commission packet,but not directly related to the ordinance requirements cited above, include a map of the required search ring area for co-location, and coverage maps describing the wireless coverage in this area under current conditions, with the proposed tower, and with placement of an antenna on the City's Ideal Avenue water tower. Permit Co Location Requirements Review: A major component of the wireless communication ordinance is the requirement that new antennas be located on existing towers or structures which exceed 75 feet in height and which are located within % mile of the antenna site being proposed. In this case, there are no such structures within the search distance that meet this requirement; therefore, the applicant may proceed with the current request to build a new facility. Should the tower permit be issued by the City, additional carriers looking to locate an antenna in this area would be required to co-locate on this antenna rather than building yet another tower near this site. Please note that the search ring area provided by the applicant represents the area needed to accommodate their service objectives and is not a representation of the 1/ mile search radius required by the City. Included with this report is a map produced by the Planning Department that depicts the radius required by the Zoning Ordinance. Tower Standards The wireless communications ordinance includes a section devoted to the standards each tower must meet. The following is a discussion of each of these standards based on the information submitted to date: a) Design - To blend into the surrounding environment through the use of °:1J�517 1.,uk .i:Me'7'ra7f; ?Ct., T,,nvo:-!n.7Re-pof?T--''I'eob�. :)rower• Ff'irele.ss 7bTv'�r..n„rml., 19IC 0. rt,r=•atiou color and architectural treatment. The plans for the proposed tower show that it will have a"Cor-Ten"brown weathering steel finish. This means that the steel will not be painted a specific color and that the tower is designed to weather over a period of time. The applicants have indicated that this treatment will provide a more natural look to the tower and that it will blend in well with the existing vegetation around the site. There are no specific architectural treatments proposed that would cause the tower to look like anything other than a straight monopole structure. The included elevation drawing and photo-simulation photographs should provide a fairly good approximation of what the tower will look like on the site, although the color shown is not an exact match for what is proposed. The selected site for the tower is located behind an existing berm and.in the vicinity of larger trees and other vegetation that will provide some screening of the tower base from the south and east. This berm and vegetation will provide a fairly effective screen from certain locations around the site, and will keep most of the tower base and any accessory buildings on the ground out of site from public roads and adjacent property. The tower will be most visible in the immediate area around the intersection of Jamaca Avenue North and Lake Jane Trail. Other Options/Design Considerations: There are four options that the Planning Commission may want to consider in reviewing the tower request for compliance with this standard: I. Requiring a different color for the tower in order to provide a reduced visual impact above the neighboring tree line. In this case the tower could be painted a light blue or gray color to better match the color of the sky. While a brown color will blend in with the buildings and Vegetation on the ground, it would likely have a stronger visual impact when viewed against the sky than a blue or gray color. 2. Moving the tower to an alternative location on the proposed site. From a visual inspection of the site and a review of aerial imagery for this area,there do appear to be other options on the Olinger property that could provide additional screening of the tower base and accessory equipment, especially when viewed from the northwest portion of this site. The tower site proposed on the attached plans will take advantage of the elevation changes,but places the tower in a location that is more visible from Jamaca Avenue. A site further south would place the tower behind existing vegetation and provide a little better buffer from the properties immediately to the west. This location would be closer to the fire station and an access road to the trails in Sunfish Lake Park. 3. Under this section of the code, the City could ask that the applicant consider other means of reducing the visual impact of the tower, including disguising the structure as something else(i.e. a tree, flagpole, or other natural feature). Although this is an option for the City to consider,there are limits as to how well this particular tower Fer7717 190 14lke J.Dw'Trail:Cell Re'vw- = ui'I.1p r,rwer TVirele,ss T«w,��r Pcr°n fir,-:E'Xf[IC Corporation f,lannin,g C<,nma.IS,Sion Report; 11-1t;-f1:1 could be disguised since it is designed to be the tallest structure in the area. Towers that are designed to either look like something else or blend into an existing environment are typically called"stealth"or "camouflage"towers. Afton has recently approved a new tower for the Washington County Sheriffs Office that makes use of stealth techniques and staff has requested information from their office to use as an example of alternate tower designs. Other towers have been approved or built recently in Washington County and designed to be camouflaged; however, these types of towers will typically be lower than the one that is proposed by T-Mobile. For instance,the Afton tower will be 88 feet tall compared to the current request for a 125-foot tower. A recent tower approved in Stillwater was designed as a stealth tower with the antennas hidden inside the monopole structure,but was 75 feet high. 4. Reducing the overall height of the tower and therefore eliminating the need to provide room for additional carvers is not an option that the City can mandate. The proposed tower could be reduced to 75 feet in height and be designed as a single use facility;however,this would place the tower near or below the existing tree line in the area and may i not provide for the coverage that is sought by T-Mobile. The City's wireless communications ordinance limits height based on the zoning district, size of the parcel, and distance from streets or residential structures, and the current proposal falls within the range permitted under the ordinance at 125 feet. The applicant is required to allow for co-location if the tower exceeds 75 feet in height. The City cannot mandate that only a single-use tower be built, and therefore,not a restriction that the City can place on the applicant. b) Design - To be of a monopole design unless the City Council determines that an alternative design would better blend into the surrounding environment. The plans for the tower indicate that it will be a monopole structure. The proposed height and location makes a stealth or camouflaged design less effective. c) Design -All proposed wireless telecommunication tower shall be designed, structurally, electrically, and in all respects, to accommodate both the f applicant's antennas and comparable antennas,for at least 2 additional users j if the tower is over IOO,feet in height or for at least 1 additional user if the 11 tower is between 75.feet and 100 feet in height. The plans and supporting r engineering details show that the tower is over 100 feet high and designed to accommodate two additional carriers in accordance with this section. d) Design - 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. The tower plans indicate that it will be able to accept additional antennas; the actual separation between antennas will depend on the specific design requirements of each �',•: IL rfl�.1. PrG o Tower e"Pr,ir,.+JS Rh Page 7 T)viverr Pl rtnit" FA-0.C t:01 ,Y)07W4'1OIT Pleaud)7,g C'ommissivr7.Re;�z€)n,• i 1-i+.:%-i:J,`.+ carrier. e) Setbacks from lot line: In all residential zoning districts, wireless telecommunication towers shall be set back 1 foot for each,foot of tower height plus 20 feet. The required setback for the proposed tower is 1.45 feet based on the height of the tower of 125 plus 20 additional feet. The setback from the west and south property lines exceeds 225 feet. fj 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. This requirement is not applicable since the tower far exceeds any required rear or side setback for the RR district. g) Wireless telecommunication towers shall not be located between a principal structure and a public street. The proposed tower will not be located between the principal structure on this lot and a street. h) 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. Not applicable since the tower meets the required setback from a street. i) A required setback may be reduced or its location in relation to a public street varied upon providing the city with a licensed prgfessional 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. The applicant has provided information related to the fall zone for the proposed tower, although this information is not required since a reduced setback is not being sought. j) Height-In all residential zoning districts, the maximum height of any wireless telecommunication tower including all antennas and other attachments,shall not exceed.l.foot for each ].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. The height of the tower will be 125 feet and falls within the maximum permitted height since it is located more than 275 feet from the closest residential structure. k) Height in non-residential zoning districts... This section is not relevant since the applicant's site is zoned residentially. Other Requirements a) Lighting: There is no lighting proposed for the tower. The FAA may require a hazard light which wall fall outside of the City's jurisdiction. The tower is likely below the height at which the FAA would require such a light. ;. � Dr.'t __ S.landland�'.�`.• i�'ti r:r.s.S 7<'l£'t.f)ti Y 17t)T71ti(;e t>Y;i.:S V?!'? 77it7,�1{},y r 3 fXlti r,?,err;'£' l,utt; !s 11 1-�-'::< F t,>T)�,;'; -,12n1;,FE'it11 vE>;"' tI't?elil,:.•s Tow4---P.rmi,:VITC Coqxwenioyt ?Tanning C.`ominission Report: 1I-I 0-0 b) Signs and Advertising: There will be no signs or advertising allowed on the I tower and none are proposed. c) Interference with Public Safety Telecommunication- The tower will need to comply with FCC regulations and licensing requirements. d) Prohibited Subdivisions. The parcel on which the tower is located may not be reduced in size below 10 acres. The Olinger property could be subdivided at some point in the future because a portion of it is zoned R-1 outside of the 10 acres necessary for the tower site. e) Accessory Utility Buildings:All utility buildings and structures accessory to a tower shall be architecturally designed to blend in with the surrounding environment. The proposed accessory building will be constructed with a brick face and a dark metal roof The brick treatment should match the surrounding residential uses well and not stand out in this area. The proposal includes securing the leased area with an eight-foot high chain link fence with barbed wire along the top. Section 154.125 of the Zoning Ordinance, FENCES AS SCREENING AND SECURITY, AS REQUIRED, limits the height of security fences on agricultural and residential property to no more than 72 inches in height. The applicant's plans should be revised to comply with this requirement. f) 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. The proposed plans meet the building design requirements. The City Forester has completed a review of the landscape plan and indicated that the plan as submitted will provide for screening when the plant materials are mature. There are some notes from the forester that should be incorporated into the final plan. Included with the Planning Commission report are two additional pieces of information for consideration by the Commission. The first is a question and answer sheet prepared by the Planning Department to address some of the anticipated questions regarding the tower proposal. The other document is an opinion from the City Attorney noting that the proposed tower is an allowed use and must comply with the City Code sections that are reviewed above. Tower Permit i Based on a review of the applicable code sections, Staff is recommending that the Conclusions: planning Commission recommend approval of the tower request based on the following: f 1) That the applicant has submitted all required documentation for an application to install a new wireless telecommunication tower. 2) That the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the applicable City Code I . .:+.::.:ttiZC? t..• rl c.`.l "F z E..'?f,'l,:Qt?.i/FILYts.C(di�Z{7 r7 !i�9'<.�'!. ,[�r'YY1Rftt/(.?:' ..++.�. 3. ,c. ?i..r >t4i'r I"L.':ei(..?f7r T-ii2?�t?;.f'tolvei, Wireless 760)"r-1D!;7rrit;F'AJHCcbrpo-ation Planning On R0Dan: l i-7 0-08 provisions for wireless telecommunications towers. 3) That the proposed site meets all required setbacks and that the tower is within the maximum permitted height for a Rural Residential zone. Staff is further recommending that the following conditions be included with this recommendation: 1) That the tower be painted a blue or light gray color instead of the dark brown treatment depicted on the submitted plans. 2) That the applicant submitted all documentation requested by the City Engineer prior to approval of a building permit for the tower or related accessory equipment. 3) 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. 4) 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. Other The Planning Commission may consider denying the request for a.new tower provided Options: it can demonstrate that the applicant has failed to comply with the provisions of the wireless telecommunications tower 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 tower does not comply with the maximum height restrictions or setbacks based on the zoning and size of the applicant's parcel, • that the tower will cause interference with an established public safety communications facility, • that the tower exceeds 75 feet in height and has not been designed to accommodate additional carriers, • that an alternate design would blend in better to the surrounding environment. 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. Resident Staff has received two letters in advance of meeting from residents in the surrounding Concerns: neighborhood,one that is opposed and another that offers support for the tower. The full text of these letters are attached for review by the:Planning Commission. Additional I Neither the watershed district nor the DNR provided comment in opposition to the i S.�'ILanf.,�(!jse�'.E'Cri'..'less 1"c'lk�f.�ont7�tilii7ic�(?[TCr:"4 f�LI[;:t,7.:i.`t:rmIt 1.t1i!�'.I-oke fj nr -.- ,r...r[:t,'�, i.�,:i;'L��[?€^:,��;ri-PT RePoi? L"i}li7t_ile too- o-r ZYL'#E•°ti:S' Tcower :"'G;'Pntt; Information: proposed wireless telecommunications tower permit. Conclusion: FMHC Corporation is seeking approval of a wireless telecommunications tower permit to construct a new 1.25-foot high. telecommunications tower on property owned by Daniel and Jean Olinger at 9057 Lake Jane Trail North in Lake Elmo. Commission The Planning Commission has the following options: �ptrons. A) Recommend approval of the wireless telecommunications tower permit request; B) Recommend denial of the wireless telecommunications tower permit request. The 60-day review period for this application ended on 10-24-08, and has already been extended beyond the initial period to the maximum of 120 days. The current review deadline is 12/24/08. StaffRec: Staff is recommending approval of the wireless telecommunications tower permit to construct a new 125-foot high telecommunications tower on property owned by Daniel and Jean Olinger at 9057 Lake Jane Trail North.in Lake Elmo based on the following: 1) That the applicant has submitted all required documentation for an.application to install a new wireless telecommunication tower. 2) That the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the applicable City Code provisions for wireless telecommunications towers. 3) That the proposed site meets all required setbacks and that the tower is within the maximum permitted height for a Rural Residential zone. And with the conditions as outlined on pages 9 and 10 of this report. Denial To deny the request, you may use the following motion as a guide: Motion i Template: I move we recommend that Council deny the requested wireless telecommunications tower 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 we recommend that the City Council approve the requested wireless telecommunications tower permit based on the following findings...(use staffs " 'i;Z O O fit" ` <_on7- ;nob? . !1 b1r y et agee _e To-wer herrrlit;F'..W.T.K.,Coqwwatirm Plannin g Conw-,,issian Rep-irt.., 11-10-08 findings provided ahove or cite your own) cc: Kelly Swenseth, FMHC Corporation Daniel and Jean Olinger, 9057 Lake Jane Trail North Susan Hoyt, City Administrator S.-bvl-w/I-i'sel T'oqecom in"i �Cv 17.0?? JaIR;73n..7d., Ceti Toltvi-11'.'I 7-1,,v bUc iw.ver M4,ge 12 1 ` s a� n S v . T CL k ;3: a a LL IE 15 Ig w¢ J a4 Y€ ally LU AQ 1 3� • II�T� i P!' f 3. y., Pee $ City of Lake Elmo DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM ❑Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑Variance * (See below) ❑Residential Subdivision El Zoning Plat Zoning District Amendment ❑Minor Subdivision O 01 -101ots ❑Text Amendment ❑Lot Line Adjustment O 11 —20 Lots O 21 Lots or More ❑Flood Plain C.U.P. ❑Residential Subdivision [ Excavating&Grading Permit Conditional Use Permit Sketch/Concept Plan ❑Appeal ❑PUD Conditional Use Permit(C.U.P.) ❑Site&Building Plan Review APPLICANT Ywenseth FMH g Corporation,29U1 yletro Drive Suite 225,Bloomington MN (S 4 25 (Name) (Mailing (zip) TELEPHONES: None 952-831-1043 218-79I-0382 952-831-0623 (Home) (Work) (Mobile) (Fax) FEE OWNER: Daniel and Jean Olinger Lake Jane Trail North,Lke Elmo MN 55042 (Name) (Mailing Address) (Zip) TELEPHONES: 651-777-1047 (Home) (Work) (Mobile) (Fax) PROPERTY LOCATION (Address and Complete(Long)Legal Description): See Attachment at Exhibit E DETAILED REASON FOR REQUEST: T-Mobile is proposing to build a one-hundred twenty five foot(125')monopole to locate antennas for a wireless communications facility. The tower and facilities would be avaialbe for two additional carriers to collate their antennas on the monopole and their ground equipment within a forty by forty foot(40'x40')fenced compound with the accessory ground equipment to be located within a shelter that complies with Lake Elmo's tower ordinance requirments. *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,I hereby acknowledge that I 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 aDplication procedures and hereby agree to pAy all statements received from the Cily pertainingto addi 'onal aDnlication ex ense. fgna u o Appi�can ate Signature of Applicant Date 1/22/2004 City of Lake Eltno•3800 Laverne Avenue North•Lake Elmo•55042.651-777-5510•F� T,) ? A.r� ter �t z 991itNE7ik�CfWI§ M14 bps# h f 5 a5 5# 7 t wtisuw eg sssrvc p C rs�:. �_ ..� -�as�•s'1 a..eauaF^r�as" .�..c.�as-sw.�r*¢trs. ,r,.z. �• :y,.ir - •�, -..:,.a:nu. �:m; ..�.s,av�;,:'W,;,,_,,a.«.ca n ,.,_;,n,.n���•. t A:�rast:la:;.�44.8 T- ILE USA MCI . ` an et Olinger" LE: E i''IDESCRHMON''.. . lemse:;tr sear,d adrws tal art.0v rre at Lot. ,. 8 tie0' ToWnslup 29 fiti R-Ang 2 WotOf'the F.utth Pli Meridian, emmen ng.atsr w ersdfio.v ieno %'t e ; r : aiixt . 1 s-eeorids i ,'bearings;baso�on ashixj Qn comy coolx3axiate 0a Along the�t line of 040emmeatt Lp S 154.170 feet;thence on.a beajing oft.ast distancEs f 2.40 .7 het to t1�e point:ofbegim,hik%of the lease tact to bt. d s+ gibed :thmoe.-on a:bearh g ofNbA a dist=d of 64;00 fist; earing o East a distance(0 eet thence on a bearing of t x a��is cz cif 0.i 0 t eta thence oti;a beaxiix g of st da tia e p 40.fl0 feed to gad,p ii t cf g a ffs : aid.lease Tact contaim..1600 squarp feet. An easenet ft Ppow.s I :O kfeet in d rover; ►deir:a�d acr..ass "r veirn ent Lot 5, 9ee166n 10 1 Tomuffip.29146r.th,R -o . f't. Fox�rt�Principal 1 �idiana aslkir gte n,W=- ta..'Ilo meter fna of's d,easemei7t�s..de ribe�as Mall ass:. ox a ai the` r of of id".0pyomm%-'Lot.5; .efice North 00 deg�e�g. 5 :aaiarttt 1: etds.Wes#_ I* on cis asbngrtx dot �oordtetait; 460g*-p west Told of 'id.Goverxmment.Lot 54 distance:of1543.70 reef;thence-ow g Qf East a distance of 295.17 feet;thence on a hearing of South.a distaAce bf�,;tk. .'et to.fl*poiat o beg nning of the cezata lilac ta l e:described; thence.0 a bowl ig of eati ax statIee4of"2.62.08 feet to the east dine:°Qf Jam=Avenue North and said center hie tl ter ut n&.. aid.titi014y easm.eat-:00)IIains 2,024 square feet. Sheet 1 of-2 sheets' .,�-,....,� � .-.�__..,,.>,...,�T.•r,.µ�„�>,..-�>.;:,a,.n.,�-.�.na,,. .u,,...,�_.,,.�,.,,r>v.�.v,--..,,... �;�--.-.,.. a.w:��;h ,s_,z�x,.x. r :,�,>n n_._�,� _....:w_,... p.,.. 51 "iffle-N 7NC-wak, Inc. rE� hY �r2Ut>tV9�2F� { M11ihR #fYLiS tHtt 3�ab 1a� r�sra�87 vvtvr {r3sv1Y � crrn ;:s v _ ..x::t-.�,ra�r,:.•s�+amr..,:�� ^xa.�aai'—+� -�.�t's.,Y.ls.,�-� - .....x:..,-7r,« e:er. ur s:r.v.,.;-..�:ri sx,..,.,,:.'��...M,. sz ,.,c:e�...�.�e+�,.�,-�,..:+c,,,=;;^;:�.! A'iAA1SF lJ AM SS EAi;.+',"'.•,NM.NT D SC,:.W.,: .&l,L'4iv* An easeiiaez ft�r aecess,putpases 1 :t tl feet bl dt aver, under an, across'Govex ent lsot 5,9:ecnrnx 10* T©wnsMP �No , ige,�.1 hest of the Fourth Primipa eiidi z. Washington,lUlzi%OOW:, U OaWJihO,.of said easerxient, deser bed a�;fo1lo s.,. za ing at°fie soL hwest c ernes oaf s ( o ernrr�e t Lat th ri aitJh.O degmes ut�s 21 secont3s West,beartngs:laased Vas on Caunty Cdor+dinate OiA: On .the xvest: i .s c fic very iu c t a slistan of 1543.70 feet,hence on l anC rig: s#' d sta ofZ8T6T feet ftpp of begbaning aftho center.line to be files bed;:then can ;bearing of North.a distance of 52.77 feet,thence northwesterly;a distance of 31:1201 feet gong a.tasigential 7t.urvc,,concave to the southwest;having a radius. o3Ia.: f c tal angl6if 55 degr.e s 06 iutes 00.Seconds;:thence North 55 de grew(]l}`uifutl M(?O::secor� s`"�d�s��ertt tca s-:"d curve, a dista�e�f 19.35:fit,.: thmo.c.Westei y a distaTwe 4f 36.7"et-a cng a tangential•curve,coneave to the south, he ug a radaus of 32.50 feet*-,apdia.central.angle of 64 degrees 51 mitautes 53 seconds; thence South 6.0 degrees:fly,motes 07 seconds West, tangent to the last t descr' d cUrvel: a.d%stattce if 3234 ft;'therace;vvestlrt% eof 15Q feet along a:tangential curve,, c4ricave t the F1o7,having a zaius o32: 3 feet d a c'etral arsgle of degrees 31 mi xtures(34 seceiuds thence Swath 8fi A*Og..rees 39 tes 11 seeonds'4hh7est, gent to tl e last described t;�eb a distance of 148.83 feet to the eas :litae of iaca Avenue l�lozfi anal said center lime there.ti aminating M access and utility eAsement contains 5,04 square feet, �ha�G2�af�:5'hee�s • :T"W31 t t:t r061z r dog.. UC':+xxv:.Try.T,Yt?T,..-...,.x,..S.zCT.`ti'�w•o^C:.'.Pflir.Eu:.4 .�rt�-ti --..v.M_.M.iW;a,-..vi5+afa'Y.fi. - ,+,+Y.s.:wi'.K xaNi-dvr. ,_.a3k.0 v^z.� •vn ei., ur.,::,-T.: wer-... s,.�v.._'t..:._t _rriti�_ 4 nrai:-..., ...-..ss.,.' tt 7 �t Ya{ 2s { stg?$ C .# i g ogEs ese gS ix _ p� =a a$ i 3; aa•�bxs$a3E E gg €S tF yz g ;eke 14, 6j- -4 ggYa� s � # a��r ii#y!'4.E # # b • s a s:q R bf s. to §, s a XSn. ? 5ea sE§f a aA{ ep # a C3 i FH i E14 s— Z *, xg E x 6rs`C,e t dBa #. t 4 e� at F3 R �ig• It 6�8g .x�E��B�aaRT 3$x"w� Rb. E ixSrTE e�at�$s.$'t� ; a $ ^ig Eel x yE O M @ P •-aP -2tk� i� E � EE§�tE ��'� � � _ 3 ""��" ��R5. p .bt i� Jt_".�i�� `s6 d 5e8a s� _ N r "'' .�$ &&cag�F�. a �a E�s$5 g�$.�� $ $ � q�k E r { bF a gF 5 gBg`._.tb s•8¢�8� = 8�as��giy� o ff `�. g ¢g �iT Et#" AA a �E�&ag Ey a a li5 y '�# � � Z � Fp [EsF 6F g¢ $'6 y! 3x � gs.,�gte ER 66 G_• Z. ;D Sal, t sagF LL&,"d- tir & ela € VJ # ac g a 3E ; _ eEL bra p a 2 ¢€ �, E alga . « £ 3 V N g 4m. s�eSxs}" �y` i'tv s aia� § 8a.� € xETs`E .z a gsg cc''E• r 'Fla s € k � a -4 V Tsx a�c`{t $ _ $ $ E � E $,€$ "pas 3_ E$Ly�k•i �a..s �2 s <r � a.# F t t gEa° g s-Ls. t 5 �s'--"r t ss is f •q "�i:' a € €;LF i' a K a ts: Yg- e w ai$ �ESBa3s�§gng&6yg Nft. _,R,, �g' it I'iG -s i�E �• $'"GEsfa, b _ - P � F 8 59 Eb'q� [ ; t i [ § e` FL - } C Bpq' � � � "6� ' 66ES - �'iE i Fg &$g EE } f � 6L# `f a # F TZ Z $E x o z �. 4 a a a Y a 1 I �; •�� �� �� �� � Boa a i � yi zRZ,it > yy e" 50 �� � Z ��� � � sp".�'.�4�1•''� [�ti'S-•�—J-� '.-ss, �ricrmr°w"— '� S € Q ���� .,•,f ''wswir�.mawN a°°' gfiE�q��. S 1a�y� �.��� �1 � �5R bR w $ J - ( �+g y�•e' emnbr:w mrv. _ #'� � e �1� 'g�� ?. `4 {@� j z qx' ki1210t1 3f1N3AV °° ""° vuv" LD Vf wl , V y b N hg Ob•ZE A a.p gg a ' ,7 III li '� Ul Ml In y � . . � ,F' '� ✓� a ''� � a r l M ON r, s �� c,,�ti M� h� r < LO W i, IN f Yr � I A. "s y w. Mc ` RM j All � d :� ti �F x i IF 10 i t t � r 1 .a' Site Address.9057 Lake Jane Trall Nei Sile 1 umbat.Al N 72 View DPOO p an:Looking northeast at locatjoh of proposed,I pot e towar fr4ttt a viewpoint about 409 away. Pago, Of 4 r I a _rPk, A3 view §Olulated Photo iaiph v i 'x rc 4 a n� I, I. Sfte Address-!3057 Lake ,6'frail 1�o c Uk Zho State- Sits tit M6ar'41 N061 $sh c rr sly t r i f yr3 f#�rprfu r #�+I iu,r, View Desc iptio ��t��t��i��)orthe�r�at conkriklion may u ry rri t v r, 100w1on of proposed 1 2,0,Mo p e tower fT drn _ �, . _ rt �a Y. p' ti If +Ar 9•. r IV,wm 3 r fi w Kelly Jane Swenseth FMHC Corporation 2901 Metro Drive,Suite 225 Bloomington,MN 55425 Office:952-831-1043 Cellular:218-7 91-03 82 Izsxvensetli@fn-lzc.com 2 Kyle Klatt From: Kelly Swenseth[kswenseth@fmhc.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 9:44 AM To: Kyle Klatt Cc: pconlln@fmhc.com Subject; A1N0672- Lake Elmo: Photo Simulations of T-Mobile Monopole at the Daniel Olinger Property Attachments: Al N0672-photosim-R2-110408.pdf l<yle, Please find the attached PDF of the photo simulations for 125'monopole proposed for the Dan Olinger property. Ryan measured the trees adjacent to the tower site on Monday and determined them to be between 70'to 80'tall. The wood I4-frame transmission tower off to the south of the proposed site that you asked about is somewhere in the.range of 70' to 80' above ground level. The steel transmission tower to the east of the wood 1-1-frame is much taller than that. Below is an aerial photo showing the locations from where the pictures where taken and the approximate distances they are from the base of the proposed monopole. Best regards, Kelly r , '=: 4 :"- �.•yam., ^;„ �'~~ AP yam. LU a., 'LV r r � Jill 4 t k ♦ mil �f 0 1�..... JA t \ +te fit, '.1 :I ;t _<x -a co Ah A d C Z cz wfj 43 . x i O LZ L .; r. � z a' to 'cm Yam-- "_ iy \7-4 ti L �J . :t ti 1 i \w aQt L O W i ti EE r �w1q� 3 \ 1 v C C3 ^ ���y'�-ice* �•v v. ` �s �� U � w 01/30/2007 22: 23 7771047 DAN OLINGER PAGE 01 Friday,August 8. 2008 Daniel& Jean Olinger 9057 Labe Jane Trail North Lake Elmo,MN, 55042 Re, T-Mobile Telecommunications Tower Removal Letter Dear Daniel &Jean, Per the Lake Elmo Inning code,we are required to get your written authorization 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. Along with this letter is a copy of the zoning drawings that outline the area which is subject to the tow r lease. By signing this document you are agreeing with the removal requirement stated above. Sincerely, txy 3 aster Gary Buster FMHC Corporation 2901 Metro Drive, Suite 225 Bloomington,MN, 55425 952-831-1043-Office 952-831-0623-Fax 417-830-7543-Cell Daniel Olinger �1� Jean Olinger l w i T f k { 0 ORIN 15 nd I ? 14 ■�s�ia �� n I I f 2 [ i ifs/�llutr,e/� ! P ;xIT n aiA ax-so-u�aa axusio 5 Mab-u�oa vnusiz3 I a E, r_J, i i i ' iiiiiiniitiiii1ilJJUJJ1iJJ� .. ........ uj ¢ m ! NIIt Lu bo ¢ x 3gkems �aq E Mogo�� FsFyGGGFGGFG G,Gu G.,nc F"G GG_» V -j .n mW t �tr S i oe 9O sc^�f gggg @3@3LLI m so D 4itC s� agC 3C) f 333�33ag WMGG G uGGFGG F G G G G G G G d GG F fit KN O �I W I U D s 3 m Ix I m 5 Y �`6� y z :± a. sa&; Qa€. gG9E `YGe } 2a a I _fed € R E [ >�� �, R3z5$ q j i�� R � k R �t 3 $ uv� E�s3Cl«7�.d�3u���Y�zh�=eGu"«GG�✓3��2$ �g ®Q� qo 4- Me gin .�.,.? , XUr lie p fI c' 1 Yi'~ 1 �{6• i of.f it IF, � �I� alb �� WHO cL cn C;g II i 6 i E p "IN goo _ An §�$ = g _ %��� a z � � �lfiiYV i nfill , $ YWeu a« Hugo s_� Ms�c a $-•" z bs �a g2�84tivi�E�g'r�� WNGR ? �Rs�y� !!! w g y 4e ` t o �v. s"� zl aNN m »gas 111g g secs 1sgi -Up. �a ME: yIIlip e Gov41P� _ r:o. gar p o x, � Qygwgia tjI a j it it 1 Nj ui t3,'Y,I 4h INr euegt $ ff s �«a $�,if riigi p@ M a j Yrim- �:�Mg W t W �sei3'nS �i �o3t � � W E�� .JI a i i i_ Pi i i i it i i i� �; iV'�i i i^i i i i i r i i i,,, i11JJ1Lw11iii i i i i�i i i i i i i�i l l i l l l ll',� •w^�^^°• .� a a II IT O�� $ ¢ yYt a ° I . nh hl Ll - r6 fag a; qg yl3 I �� �I � 1 t •P'� �! I R � t wI it --- — % ---------- ---___ `-- j 9 1 .. . ........................ f i fill L_ia: I,_I i i r a i i i 1 i,n IIII)III iL.iLLL LL I i' i l l 1'I]? v:•'"°""`°°3f0" N I F � z�l alb W t 15 �� II :I2ial8 c c!> rig -IN VgS gg o € g b ' R 4 ' § e `gyp B�IKill PF i� C 6 ffi i y I e t( 3 I y y di�13 ".j 39 e c b Y 4. ! I AN N do sl pkcs$se a !! OR b cp W �b a I 8a jag �� 4 Sig. jfJ ii i � } � } IV4 s e� ixawn sbxame 3asaw-�B-Xx. 'I �,i t t, i „L-�w. Lii.;_.]�L- �_I..L.i._L�1.1J../+ LW11.I.li�J.JJ111J.Ll.LLLLLL�ALLLLL1LJ.x� Memorandum From: Thierry Colson,Senior RF Engineer,T-Mobile USA Date: 3/31/2008 Re: Lake Elmo Fire Station 2,Lake Elmo,MN (AIN0672C) I am the Senior Engineer responsible for the design and location of this proposed site. I have been doing wireless network design for 12 years,and have planned and built hundreds of sites. It is my intention to describe the goals and objectives of this particular location and to examine the other possible locations we've considered in this area. I have attached a map off-Mobiles current site locations in the Lake Elmo and surrounding area. Also indicated on this map is the proposed T-Mobile Tower at the Fire Station N2. Our primary objective with this site is to provide new coverage in the City of Lake Elmo. It's important that this new coverage link and compliment the existing coverage. It's also important that we minimize the potential overlap in areas where the existing coverage is already of an acceptable quality. Our target objective is the area around Lake Jane.Currently in this area there is very poor or no coverage. I have attached a map that is a computer generated depiction of our current coverage in our target area.The color scheme represents the general strength of the signals generated by our network. The green areas are the strongest,and represent a signal strong enough to penetrate most commercial and Residential buildings. The yellow is typically strong enough to provide service In-car.The last signal level displayed is the grey,and indicates areas where the signal is strong enough for outdoor coverage. I have also attached a map using the same color scheme that depicts the coverage of our proposed site at the Fire Station.Comparing these two maps and the improvement in both the amount of our coverage and the strength of that coverage is very apparent. For reference,I've also attached a map depicting the coverage as it would be if we were to abandon the Fire Station location site,and collocate on the Water Tower or the Xcel tower.This plan has two drawbacks. This location is only I mile from our existing site at the Oakdale WT on Hadley Avenue North. Secondly, it does not provide as much new coverage in the Northeastern portion of our target area as our proposed FS site does. The frequencies used by our equipment will be restricted to the bands as follows: Transmit: PCS B block(1950 to 1964),PCS C4 Block(1980 to 1985),AWS R3-E(2140 to 2145) Receive : PCS B block(1870 to 1885),PCS C4 Block(1900 to 1905),AWS R3-E(1740 to 1745) August 5, 2008 These bands apportioned to T-Mobile by the FCC are well isolated from other bands used by public safety communication systems.There have been no incidences of interference with public safety systems on our existing sites,or any interference with consumer radio,television, or similar services. Part of the license from the FCC states that we can not transmit outside of our assigned frequency blocks. One of the penalties listed is loss of our license. We take interference very seriously,and in the rare event that any interference occurred,we would work to correct it as quickly as possible. CONCLUSION I hope that this information will assist the Town in its decision-making process. I look forward to meeting with you and discussing the information included in this report as well as providing any additional information that you may require. Sincerely, Thierry Colson Sr RF Engineer t 2 Y I ` V 41. 4-4 0..E .ui�� arflats Ave IV a y 4d s e I � � 22 AX - n ' A' 6 � , £ w LU LU o LLI r5 Ee_ h ' - LL toll r } .,zr r� Nh } srh a r , ICiCL I Ilk ., v r a C i JY 9� e lei.i Ave VR LU Uj cc LU . hE , 4*A p N k LU rr� s r �iii t T-Mobile's Two Year Plan for Lake Elmo As the attached plots show,there is only one site in T-Mobile's Two Year Building Plan for the Lake Elmo area. Centered south of Lake Jane,the proposed site AlN0672D located on the Olinger Property, will fulfill the objective of providing In-Building and In- Car coverage in the area West and Northwest of Lake Elmo.The attached plots illustrate how this proposed site connects to the four existing sites in the surrounding area. f Search Ring Area for Location of Proposed 'P-Mobile Monopole AN IN k , NNg, in Jr town,4k, ti i tk P. fig(Ell , 4 am Saint KIM i rid ri 4 r 4 117r3w ". 9 � ts.. 5+Atlz' :�;+r rc!��a-u' ,•1y,poS„�, yy�� F p� f FP co ,x Q1"s :h r ps _ J. liL7f co CL �M ig 41, 'KOV Mall UARMIA h NOT X— '._ w -•-� I I' i - f RA r a 2 r _ � 4 "WIT NOW LU f PEA � •. �1 .� i,��i'��`, � 3 �i 4� .y �M p} S Ly ' r u- IV No } . 7 & °� � � I �1 ifs f.J•j � �; LU 6 5f' � YRiT A3 Fi 14�w 1 x� g� W Lo it as _ � Va It NOT F ? yAt;•s 7- t A. 'mom.. .irk ••�}" '1y �' 'n= Wm r . cu � Uj *T I � µ ) OL N �F �.,�f r�� •.,�',i{ft_ E » S 1 � n, ( Kea Ulf B iele n to U �x 1 gM Y,; �mr12 ts tl® gL�py � �� IS t t t] ua - 0 RII �r C •O W � a z 'IlrkIk I! CLEI-- 95J9 �E 1 � } 4� / £ev { Ms ' l � 1 � EE j 1� axe �� t4j II al fW V --------------------- A i tie h ; V ---- ----- -------- _ I .43 a .�L_L_L_L�_,.L-Lj.._1Ljm 11 I 1 I I.111 I�111 I I I i I I I I 11,1.f_.l I!I I ly,a.a,�a.a va.oaa,u I .........-----........... _ W.. i' �I LJ 8a9 E I• ] iE ; g r• s [g `P.9" S 3 y`U 3� eB 3,. b3W u o I3 1 1 �.rd� �de $L?i tg ef1��� y,� � 3e r = � �%a � :� S � �� @ �m � �i�' 7 r�• sY � f x � �� �3f 1 it W s n _ Wd f �, a� j �a� _ r QRo � a zy = �� :� ! w i s"J. g a a s a A k,M $ �zF eg I a � e' m z e �� � � � 1 � �•-� v 1 e� 3 +s e r a w : � a � � s� a N U � I:� � � �' �$I `''J� �a � ` v x. r* a a V I i IT I� �•€ s G7 d at a "�g k �� 9v �Tg a n £ s ;5 t rJ ,�� �rg6 � �t egg `' Ne ' cn irI o f ¢I g J!" g r a 3 C9 Za a a� x Iz�l J �a I y i t 1 $ , �` s" �F e i 1 I €e � U� ��Rr � �I�fri ' � I I i X� Z r 4 Z azi E eE a- IN et fr t If _ Y p9e 3 3^ aK. ` g s ! l m K p j r l ks gg era `' P.Mgi I l zY a ��`s ge5"gam "fig j. "� / t rr•kEk a j '''I I -��'� � sp. a�ar� j _ 3 J IEli 1z I I! -� re }'�� �� w� � rEi� � 1 • P }n ;� � � �I i 36 f � / cn �� � � cP `/ _ t�l �_■ i I-! �.._ }� �} wig �� / / � Id �? kE E 4. s• i R I r �T nb, 'w k5oe Iu s' w r w i imp o f 1 3 Ijl _J I I I L �n Ld Illb}JJ lJ I[ J I I li ! J v,sm .wmwn —� 9989 Lake Jane Trail N. ILake Elmo,MN 55042 V E, November 2, 2998 Ms. Kelli Matzek,Planner City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue N Lake Elmo,MN 55042 Dear Ms. Matzek; Thank you for the opportunity to provide input into the planned erection of a new 125-foot Wireless communication tower on property at 9057 Lake Jane Trail.N, We will be out of town should the matter be discussed on November 10`h as is planned,so will not be attending the hearing, Although we are in close proximity to this proposed tower,we have no objection to its construction and wish to have this noted. However,we do wish to be kept informed as to when and if construction is expected to be completed. Sincerely yours, Aute, � . Paul H. Pallmeyer From: SDiederichs [maiito:SDiederichs@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:00 AM To: Kelli Matzek; Susan Hoyt Subject: Proposed cell phone tower south of Lake Jane Hello Susan and Kelli, I cannot adequately express via email my total disapproval of a 125 foot cell phone tower proposed in a residential area. Placing that kind of structure, along with an 8 foot high fence with 3 strands of barbwire, is clearly not appropriate on Jamaca avenue next to homes and Lake Jane. I am all for technology and a cell phone user, but placement of towers must minimize adverse visual impact, not introduce health/hazard concerns, and certainly not negatively impact property values. Certainly there has to be a less intrusive place for this tower. Finally, we moved to Lake Elmo 16 years ago to get away from lights, noise, and to enjoy the character of Lake Elmo. The fact that this proposal even sees the light of day is unsettling. Thanks for your time and hope to see you at the meeting on November 10th, Steve Diederichs 4235 Ivy Court Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Warren E.Peterson 2EERSON Suite 800 Jerome R Filla 0 55 East Fifth Street Daniel Witt BFramergman '['�j'�]y� A BERGM ]\ �j 5t.Paul.MN 1)291-17i 8 Glenn A.Bergman r l� �tv$ �l v 1651)29i-8955 John Michael Miller a (651)228-l753 facsimile Michael T.Oberle www.pfb-pa.com Steven H.Bruns' Paul W.Fahning' Sonia R.Ortiz Amy K.L.Schmidt Ben 1.Rust Jonathan R.Cuskey Jared M.Goerlitz (653)290-6907 ifilIaOpfb-pa.com November 6, 2008 Kyle Klatt City Planning Director City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Ave. North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 RE: Wireless Telecommunication Tower Lake Jane Trail Kyle: Although wireless telecommunication towers are not listed as a permitted, conditional or accessory use in the agricultural or residential zoning districts of the City, this type of use is allowed in those zoning districts if located on parcels greater than ten (10) acres (City Code Section 150.113(C)); or if located on parcels less than ten (10) acres if the tower and support facilities are located within 100 feet of the right of way of a public utility transmission line (City Code Section 150.112(A)). However, the applicant must comply with the provisions of City Code Sections 150.110-150.126. If you have any questions, please contact me. Very truly yours, ?oe JP.t' [ .lPl-/jmt F:luserslJessieaUerry\LElCorrespondencelKlatt Ltr.1 1.6.2008.doc 'ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONS`N General Question and Response Handout: T-Mobile Tower Review Prepared by: Lake Elmo Planning Department Date: 11/6/08 Does the request comply with all applicable zoning regulations? The Planning Department and City Engineer have completed an initial review of the request and found that it meets all of the required zoning standards. The application as submitted is also complete. The applicant has been asked to provide additional information concerning the fall zone for the tower,an additional narrative for the co- location plans, and to further document potential visibility from Sunfish Lake Park. The Zoning Ordinance specifies that a tower may be located in a rural residential zoning district on parcels of 10 acres or more. This site is 15 acres. The proposed tower will be 125 feet high. Can the tower be located somewhere else in the City? Yes -there are several sites that meet the zoning criteria for the construction of a new wireless communications tower; however, the current application is a CUP and therefore the City must review the current application against these requirements as well. Based on the coverage maps provided by the applicant, moving the tower further away from the Olinger property also will move it further away from the area that it presently lacking in coverage. Other potential sites either place it closer to Sunfish Lake or other residential areas. The applicants have studied possible co-location on the City's Ideal Avenue water tower, but have indicated that this site will not provide the improved coverage that is sought. This tower is also well outside the City's required search radius and the applicant is not be required to conduct this analysis in order to apply for the CUP that is being sought. Can the tower be located somewhere else on the Olinger property(further away from Jamaca Avenue)? Because it is a 15-acre parcel, there are other locations on this property that would meet the required setbacks for a new tower. The proposed site was chosen because it would place the tower and related accessory buildings behind an existing berm and vegetation, while other portions of the site are much more open and visible from adjacent property. The property owner also used the propose site for storage and non-agricultural activities and farms most other areas on the property. The propose site would also require the least amount of disturbance to provide access and electric service to the tower. It looks like the extreme southeastern part of the site might be an option, however,this would place the tower immediately adjacent to Sunfish Lake Park. Can the tower be camouflaged somehow? Yes--there are techniques that can be used to make the tower look like something else; however, in this location it will still be the highest object around. Camouflaging works best in urban areas where the height of the tower would not be in such stark contrast to the surrounding properties. In this case, proper color selection and screening around the site would produce better results than attempts to conceal the tower. It is a monopole design, which in most cases,is usually less-intrusive than a lattice-style design. What color will the tower be painted? The plans indicate that the tower will be coated with a brown color. T-mobile's project manager indicated this color was chosen to help the monopole tower blend in better with the surrounding trees and other vegetation. Other colors could be used at the request of the City. Is the Water Tower on Ideal Avenue and Option? The applicant has submitted an RF study performed by one of their engineers. This study shows that an antenna placed on the water tower will not provide improved service for tri- lakes area much beyond the current situation. The RF Engineer will be attending the Planning Commission to discuss his findings and to address any questions about his work. The City could verify this work by hiring an independent RF consultant; however, such a study would be expensive and likely require hiring someone from out state. Does the tower comply with FAA requirements? The applicant will need to obtain all required federal and state permits before commencing construction of the tower. The City's Village water tower was recently registered with the FAA and found to not pose a hazard for aircraft. It does not appear that a 125-foot tower in this location will require any special lighting. Have the fall zones been properly identified and will the tower pose a risk to anyone? T-mobile has submitted an analysis concerning the safety of the proposed tower,and included the calculations that would be performed to determine the appropriate fall zone. The final determination of a fall zone will vary depending on the type of steel used.; however, so a definite answer would not be available at this time. Planning staff has asked that the applicant provide a range of distances that could be impacted based on the best available information. The tower meets all required setbacks from residential dwelling units. No such setbacks are required from other types of buildings. Will other carriers be able to co-locate on this antenna? The tower has been designed to support at least two additional carriers in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has been asked to provide an additional narrative that better explains the submitted drawings depicting the potential co-location areas on the tower. Will the tower be visible from Sunfish Lake Park and Lake Jane? The upper portions of the tower will likely be visible from Lake Jane and from certain portions of Sunfish Lake Park. Staff has met with the applicant on site next with the specific purpose of better determining the potential visual impact from these two locations. One result of this meeting will be at least on additional photo-simulation showing the tower at the edge of the Sunfish Lake Park properties. The two photo-simulations that were initially submitted show how the tower will look from two vantage points fairly close to the proposed site. What other options might be available for providing cellular service in the selected service area? A single use tower under 75 feet in height would be allowed by the Zoning Ordinance; however, single use facilities would likely not work as well in Lake Elmo as they do in more urban environments. Additional height is needed in Lake Elmo to provide service to residential areas that are spread out across a larger distance due to the abundance of lakes, parks, open space, farm land, and other areas with few residential structures. Planning Commission Date: 11/10/08 Public hearings Items: 4c and 4d ITEMS: Hold a public hearing to consider a zoning text amendment to allow a bus/truck terminal as a non-agricultural low impact use in the HD-A-BP zoning district Hold a public hearing to consider an interim use permit for a truck terminal within a HD-A-BP zone at 11530 Hudson Boulevard. REQUESTED BY: Terry Emerson, E&E Properties, LLC, Applicant SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Director of Planning rZ REVIEWED BY: Kelli Matzek, City Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Lake Elmo Planning Commission is being asked to consider two separate requests from Terry Emerson of E&E Properties, LLC as follows: • 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, • To approve an Interim Use Permit to establish a Bus/Truck Terminal facility as a non- agricultural low impact use at 11530 Hudson Blvd. S. in Lake Elmo. The City's regulations for both the A—Agriculture zoning district and HD-A-BP district(Agriculture holding zone)currently do not allow the parking and storage of semi-trailers as a non-agricultural low impact use. Because these requests are interconnected, they have been placed on the Planning Commission agenda for action concurrently. If the Commission does not recommend approval of the quested zoning amendment, the interim use request cannot proceed and will need to either be withdrawn or recommended for denial. ADDITIONAL_ INFORMATION: • Staff will present additional information comparing the former use of the property at 11530 Hudson Boulevard South with the proposed interim use. • A consent agreement is presently being drafted and will be presented to the City Council in conjunction with the interim use permit request if recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Staff recommendation for each of the requests is summarized as follows: Non-agricultural low impact use zoning amendments: Staff recommends 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: 1) 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 agricultural property on an interim basis until such time that public sewer service is provided to the area south of 1 pth Street. Interim Use Permit Staff recommends approval of the interim use permit to establish a truck terminal at 11530 Hudson Boulevard South 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. 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. 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. 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. MOTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION: Non-agricultural low impact use zoning amendments: I move we recommend that the City Council approve 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 findings provided by staff. Interim Use Permit I move we recommend that the City Council approve the interim use permit to establish a truck terminal at 11530 Hudson Boulevard South based on the findings provided by staff and provided the following conditions are met: 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. 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. 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. ORDER OF BUSINESS (2 SEPARATE AGENDA ITEMS): Introduction........................................................................Kyle Klatt, Planning Director - Report by staff...................................................................Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Questions from the Commission...................................Chair & Commission Members Applicant Comments..............................................................................Chair facilitates - Questions of the Applicant ............................................Chair&Commission Members Open the Public Hearing ........................................................................................Chair Close the Public Hearing........................................................................................Chair - Call for a motion ................................................................................... Chair Facilitates - Discussion of Commission on the motion ............................................ Chair Facilitates Action by the Planning Commission..............................Chair& Commission Members ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application form 2. Detailed staff report for the zoning amendment 3. Draft ordinance amending non-agricultural low impact use provisions 4. Properties affected by proposed zoning amendment 5. Detailed staff report for the interim use permit request 6. Location Map 7. Legal description of property 8. Project description 9. Additional project information (10/30/08) 10. Site plan 11. Existing site conditions (aerial image) 12. City Engineer traffic review Fee $ City of Lake Elmo DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM id"SS.•"j��'.,,fit ❑Comprehensive Plan Amendment C]Variance * (See below) ❑Residential Subd11v1s1'0';b=y_- d t'BY 3 Preliminary();final Plat Zoning District Amendment ❑Minor Subdivision O 01 -- 10 Lots '.rV ' FF ~ X .Text Amendment El Line Adjustment O 11 --20 Lots <a< O 21 Lots or More D Flood Plain C.U.P. ❑Residential Subdivision ❑Excavating&Grading Permit Cor' Itional Use Permit Sketch/Concept Plan f? ,, bur'FL y f ❑Appeal ❑PUD ❑Conditional Use Permit(C.U.P.) ❑Site��a&Building Plan Review APPLICANT A4')� `' .. C S3 oz A 9 3 b_4- i✓ e r (Name) ( ailing Address) (Zi6 TELEPFIQNES.�Z2-�`�• Gr-'/� 3 323it ,- 06 (Home) (Work) (Mobile) (Fax) FEE OWNER: (Name) (Mailing Address) (zip) TELEPHONES: (Home) (Work) (Mobile) (Fax) PROPERTY LOCATION (Address and Complete(Long) Legal Description): Vvy DETAILED REASON FOR R QUEST: 0. �9- J�, y [/, /yip / i1 P, A5// _/�UtS; *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,I 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 a lication procedures and hereby agree to pay all statements received from the Cily pertainingto additiaarralsaDolication expense. SSy`r ature o nt Date Signature of Applicant Date t/2212004 City of Lake Elmo•3800 Laverne Ava;mie North•Lake Elmo•55042•651-777-5510•Fax 651-777-9615 City of Lake Elmo Planning Department Non-Agricultural Low Impact Use Ordinance Amendment Request To: City Council From: Kyle Matt, Planning Director Meeting Date: U-10-07 Introductory In ormation Summary& The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request from Terry Emmerson of Action E &E Properties, LLC, 11530 Hudson Boulevard North,to amend the Zoning Requested: 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. 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 I& 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 1 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 tow 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 Planning Commission. 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 lCtr't-tt ri ulft!r€t?1(m-impac't uses: hTD-A-.41' Page t plarirai,ts; ell-lon li-i0-08 a non-agricultural low impact use. Should the amendment be approved by the City, the 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 of any weight or any vehicle over 26,000 pounds capable by design of being licensed for use on public roadways. 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 I 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. Commission The Planning Commission 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 ijieS'h t>/f.tPt 1.=.'.'tN.t:'ut?`.i'J.'J L7d'7dC'fY._"i)f...,"r�[dS':, p.`.JtifitJ:J�(-Y f'tc i i-1,';_{){` rl7(.m-raVI(-u?fttr a? ,^pr . sc:,s:t'1:)-.I-.i3'!3<{rt7,iCf Page 3 PtCllzrtcF t C<>r,;,iai .'inn.Report; if-10-08 Changes; C) Table the item for further study; or 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 Rec: Staff is recommending approval of the request by Terry Emmerson 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: 1) 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 agricultural. property on an interim basis until such time that public sewer service is provided to the area south of I& Street. Denial Motion To deny the request, you may use the following motion as a guide: Template: I 1 move we recommend that the City Council 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 we recommend that the City Council 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 staffs findings provided above or cite your own) �'i`iri idd«�L';'tiy%Ic'i+E•iJ.: r.c..fi.:,':.LtT�7'tC:'7 7?e,;1r-47 S(1fcyS ltti%d%!^,l _e'1 Fi<::.s.s.yr.,J_t.<Ytt�,'';',A`C%li—,rt"CdSt;' CITE' OF LAKE ELMO COUNT' OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 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 i Wmt_, i lens or any vehicle over 26,000 pounds capable by design of being licensed for use on public roadways;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. `JEJUMMINAL. 3L S/'11` E. CK...,n area and buikliiig where buses trucks, end c ar o are„stored,where load na and_unl(-)aedinsr is carried oni-�:,���ilz fly, and.where mirror mai?aterrtin�.e:oftl�es�ts c>��rehicl.�s is���;rfc�E�1�� . 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. (2) (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. 1 (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 properly 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 fiom 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 immediately, 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. (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. (1) All signs shall comply with the city's regulations. 0) 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 2 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 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 property owner is forced to transfer title to any part of the contiguous real estate due to eminent domain. _— (11 on-a _,ricultural low imna.ct uses nnav not include the Parking or storage:of sena.1-trailer trucks or a Bust"Truck Tenn:in.al e&qV a.s Otherwise pernlitted as an Interim Use in the RQ-A-BII r�anr j �-, ,Jstrict. (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. 3 (E) Use permitted by interim use permit. The following uses may apply for an interim use permit in the HD-A-BP zoning district: 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. ?)_% non-actur � im act ttsmie .-under this Section naW aI �a tt include a Buy Truck'"rer niiial rovidecl the use i.s loc.atcd on a —1?��_...._ -sloc. mu-cell within fe t of Interstate High a;r �4 (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. (1) 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. <signature> ---------_-.___-_.-- Mayor Dean Johnston ATTEST: <signature> —— Susan Hoyt Administrator 4 This Ordinance No. was published on the day of , 20 5 I°I�V.j � a�"'`� i i j ',,-'�...•rr� ° �4 v�{i- a 1 r kx_i, ,` k ` r €: z�� �a e i ''r��r.. � 7 ..".';'•��Fd � q �` �r!'ram T. ' 'f y t ��c l hR �+� K'r �rx�r��a r 3u'��7`L] � Ir' s s�« PropertiesRevised Use Ordinance Proposed; • j �44 a -r f y,....>•r;:W..,, a,�.s.-n..:vle " _+ , _F vrl „��, u"'� � ` �' sr p F�''3� 1 ;,�il...a a y� s "�w s •m �' a I,t. ��" � wt�'t - „�•�'' �' 1 t�i +� �^^' � 1 ..,, �f?' # I(� -r' �..�.r va:v`� f-:1 �;: s 1 r ' ,.. r ,` f' `� b i` ,j. �" "A Et$"�;;-^*"a- 'Log`'.•s1 "�"�. NA,�,.., 4,�4_ u"kµ �f`+, S sst ^lu,:yV ,7x,� f L -, h Gy4•�r 4`'wi tt l _ "•"'' 1!'rTw ry s :t r,.,�a t; ,� �' r i..+t�S' i q 9i- '?s, 1 '! _. w+ ;��° ! '•., !��'� \._° V° t kl 5 Y i . ! ".p,,.�.¢ v i - p A� �%�� y ✓ N �� rt 4 « < � s ,��µ�I"•'Y.sr—�' x T'.:-. k y,�9 s�'tf � 1 s�.,-� � w:i I p f � i.� S �''' r � v I I •' j µ� dt i ii{sr+�'" �°'T.i<� S�`e'. 9. %1,,.�� "k"�9;•: "z'r�l �� t. i, «�" c ! s+R ¢ 10 r v 4 sY yh k t• M -. ,,.-r�'.' s'�'s '� tic �.,: rc. >rA r�- _ts` ;:y�'.T' t*s a h4>3 "YIN ,Y ,n P rY r y d I {i t i P fr f ->, er ::,?�T yyi 7 I< Y✓a ���` � ����'' e r � I s � r f 2 t-Ar r w-. . �y f ,` 5 s i r , z- ryry i � S4-e,�. •." � ,r �;.� '-r•^S.a. ...��� �u � .+".�;f k �sB 4 rl,.s i I '1 :: r }, � �. i:y - �trJ k ar •q Iel y t#' Er r. .' +.Mh Hr'D 7 °'�"yt�r„ .,,,•r "',+s'..rr aa, 5 ,. d " I {, '' x. � s " , p'b rQj < �k V- C is .r U A, "� S� �`r�'m r ' k b tr s 2 r hk �y/ ', t }OF .; _,,a ' d �.'� t « :, yp, � d• ' �muFa ^C Ili �u"r':� � P �-{rsr,� N r• r� ,� !, � ,�!.� �j,.rH g: 0 MIS j! u r as--f�r'F's, a- 4 f.tii�.. 3.^.'7f.. .. k ..t '-. t I.�. n ":� :ai 'uMi Ell G•���'..1.4���M, cam:. !�� ' M5^. hS.i'�,J�IPJ'4.4�`45-.4.'H.:..^') .Z4 R."�..1Fw�t',! l.� -i. 11 r'�- .� i F� Ik! �n{"4k� ��F �y •i •',� J YL.��F Nf� ��� ^ City of Lake Elmo Planning Department Interim Use Permit Request: Non-Agricultural Low Impact Use To: Planning Commission From: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director It Meeting Date: 11/10/08 Applicant: Terry Emmerson,E & E Properties,LLC Owner: E & E Properties, LLC Location: 11530 Hudson Boulevard South Zoning: HD-A-BP (Agricultural District Holding Zone) Introducto In ormation 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 t}{serirn U.w Permit;Ed,. ..E PYopei'iies%i-fu t',son Blvd Pkinnin,;=Commission Rc,L'on; 1?-10-08 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 snake 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 Odes: 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 or any vehicle over 26,000 pounds capable by design of being licensed for use on public roadways; 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 performed. 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 (PID): 36-029-21-43-0001 ):;La;,d 6'selii'ferim, (,;.5'::'�s1 i ?li' ".i C;'.go;'i B , V '! - h t':i.1`''�}�'��.'J��.i'j)';re>.r;rr�i',•.s.�;,= trucJ,r:e;r,�.�'ar;i T.l•rl_:;,,.. ::> Ppk e hit'errlrrfJ17t'7'i?f'5r' :':txrtrtir� Conir,iission IiepwrE; 11-1.10-.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. A dication 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: j 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 whale 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- AgArea."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 AgArea 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. 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 j continuous agricultural gross lot area. The total area for these surfaces fall under the maximum permitted by this section. c) Non-agricultural low 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. 1530 Hyi difm Bl--ill''i`P2 i r;'.i?(?f"l i.'J't71'79e.'f'.43f[!ruck L"n'p€-rie );"40--{Jt+.doe.. page" 2 Arer'rrnz Uw,- erm;L E&E Blvd Planning, :{I-i(s'_08, 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. 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 tenninal should generate a fewer number 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 immediately, 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 i 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. 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. Based on the past use of this property, the proposed truck terminal should not generate any additional 1 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. 'Land(.iscr',tverIrn (;S l';'30'flud,,on BlvdNIPZ Rer.tor"vmepe.'SOR IMICIA.10IM1,17,11 11-1008.doc Page 4 it tell n Use Perin t;.E&E Pr{tp£':C'{'7(:'S'.••l FY:whon B11--r . 1ilt7t!ld<,S"(}-ornivission Report: 1140-08 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. 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. i) 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. j) Rate and volume of runoff from the CUP shall not exceed the 1%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 from Agriculture to a more intensive use, the conditional use permit shall terminate and all non-con forming structures shall be removed from the site within 1 year fr om 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. 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 terminal. 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 ,l:l�,s..r'fd�iy`:u;:F._.. Y 'Sc _ 1:ii.GiSfJ>'i.t3tb';{., ,t'I.,x£{!�)t.7!'r e:."D7,'Yr;:'i".1Oi7.it'G'c:r•: E=i^IFFx';r"€.. .. _,I._f%;.t�f?� ... hilernrr CwP nit,•.aCS'. ' {Y?{'7'?tf'S;`f/Eit%,}l;i, h"..' Planning r'`;.n.rrris, iron R?eporr.; notice and a public hearing, if the Council finds inds that the public health, safety, or welfare 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 planning 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 semi-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 J. Md.`:f3%t l>7 S•ti N•t. ZAt ci???";{:-.-YFV;r'`S{3fE 1'.+WCA {,rt'rk:tiit; ,..-p'%••(, ,-r,r>i at` Pfa7'zninc;Cf)?3tl?Ii,S'sio Re1..Port 11-10-08 applicant has specified in the application materials that the use will terminate 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 staff finds that this criterion is met. 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. Interim Use Based on a review of the applicable code sections, Staff is recommending that the Permit planning Commission recommend approval of the interim use permit based on the Conclusions: 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. 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. 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. I.�;'seI.;fzr�-:rir :�c`,1.7J ir'r i'1it.:J>c>ra f�'i%r�r,,�':;1?i°prat.,rr::. ...r':4«rt truti;t.L"^rrirtt.f _, ,'r .{i<S.tf r T"f gre f' h7tf--u77.') Use�p!'.'!7`{ [..:L Z Cyr'YiiE)ilE'8i1�(rJPi�::{372Lkf4%lt lct!'1rI1Yl;�E)tl7Ttz1.1SXt>%%rtc�Gr•'�; t„-.., 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. Other The Planning Commission may consider denying the request for an interim use Options: provided it can demonstrate that the applicant has failed to comply standards of the non-agricultural low irnpact 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. .Resident There have been no letters or other comments submitted to the City in advance of the Concerns: public hearing on this matter. Additional Neither the watershed district nor the DNR provided comment in opposition to the In formation: proposed interim use permit. Conclusion: Terry Emmerson 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 11530 Hudson Blvd. S. in Lake Elmo. i Commission The Planning Commission has the following options: 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 application. r;+,.:;��i_ .P.7 '}sft Y;. ,..,._,- .n:,,, ::-a•�r;"jtti l"i t'.i. ''F(';+`7'%,.,7121 %%-.�(,.i..t`j;``:.(�pi .,. ..u.:._. ., C<. i7tC't t.?. ..:�(':II_ ,,.:L..x-..r ,3,'. }a:r�n Use Yi, .1r.�.'l. f�':f}7�: {LE:�tj lf�.l�w(,f 1�11y � ".a 'Ianainh C'v;rr r>issr'E;Y Report,, 11-10-08 StaffRec: Staff is recommending approval of the interim use permit for a Interim Use Permit to establish a Bus/Truck Terminal facility as a non-agricultural 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 we recommend that Council 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 we recommend that the City Council approve the requested interim use permit based on the following findings...(use staffs findings provided above or cite your own) I cc: Terry Emmerson, E&E Properties, LLC .....�L _:ti.?!; ..>. . hYf.G.wtI Hl.Y't?:A'"LPG:.. _ rr.:.?,'•:)':(4'?C°i:S"f.Fri.Ii'1.iC'k Ef'YiTiLif-+.;.: 'age 9 I _.._-' _..- _ _.._......._..--..__......_..- ....._....... .. .. . ............._..._..._. .._..._...-. ... . _............ __........_._.._....._ ilia C T� -"•_-1 •ham, s '� a':.::.. HIM M c�v, ¢n L� u to �Y.v�r �'a as J ka i i �,-- I a* a ' ... 7V 1 I J ... ............ Q y I 1 i 1 That part of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 36, To--reship 29 North, Range 21 West, Washington County, "Minnesota lying easterly- of the West E 33. 0 feet (2 rods) thereof, EXCEPT that par.designated as Parcel 44 on-'Minnesota jDepartment of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. g2.33, State Prajecc vo. 829? (94-392)9C4, recorded as Document No. 4_24337' in the office of the Count, Recorder,Washington.County,;vEnnesoca. Subject co highway easements in favor of W ashan goon Count}r as described in Book 238 of Deeds, page 91, and Book 3C9 of Deeds, cage 831, of record, and on file in said office of the County-Recorder. Also,subject to highway easements in favor of the State of',Mir7nesota as described in Book 109 of Deeds, page 622, Book 109 of Deeds, page 638, and Book 220 of i Deeds,page 11, of record and on file in said office of the County Recorder. t 1 3 i1 331 1 I4 It`! f 1 I( fr` t 1 3 vp It.. 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(yak Park Heights for the new bus company. The building has been vacant since July 2008. ME 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 tracks are gone 2-7 days. There would be no negative impact on traffic flow. Linder 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 I-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 fulI 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 Gam to 6pm without any peak periods of activity. The route these tricks 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 444 Cedar Street,Suite 1500 TKDA Saint Paul,MN 55101-2140 ENGINEERS°ARCHITEC-1-S-PLAMIEt;S (651)292-4400 (651)292-0063 Fax voww.tkda,com MEMORANDUM To: Ryan Stempski Reference: E&E Properties Copies To: Jack Griffin, City Engineer Traffic Review City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota Proj. No.: 14078.001 From: Bryant Ficek Routing: Date: October 28, 2008 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 terminal and repair facility, located on the north side of the I-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 I-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 I-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 Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity 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 determine if additional pavement is needed for the larger trucks. • Examining sight distance at the Manning Avenue intersections with the 1-94 ramps to determine 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 bryant.fZcek(lticda.com. 8 i { Er ap W� a � C` i ;----•-'--�� � 8 ° � � '� 8 d j EEC !�@5 F � � t it-,--• `y e , l f � t � es� o °c E s c 3 �t II�� qy� 2I11 fi 4E ' fi L {�� 1 �Vs�R ._ V '�'}. I � .Hw ru.s�+=w.a i�a. 3.:.,�� �•--.� i � 1 � _ ti�,JI _.�lj --tl V1 ------ ZI to� J�z 29 iz JI cu AN Oio � 4 t if i g--�--'-- l r q•` - - � a s I i C o i �J � r76 x I ILL. n..,uwyew�'hu rxr s• �, ,� �i Kam+ 14 -- ---- -- ---= PDOY 21DI,IJd p rw.sl.w a<s nr a�m s.n ra.- JII6(15n _'`.4 - .�._—__.�.__..._�- •5 .,- ::.. C ii'fia«uwoa i • !6^I'=TOSS [o— N Y 3Lff5'NOA7' 8 mos HOSOnm fW OE9.L •—�?... _ E I f � A i � lM55N'i'OKRT/Yf7VL0A.L7iVI5Xl£4Ul¢[ �W U �C w 'ill E>. �., r` e , sarta3aaaa 3V3 sNoulartoD DNrtslx��-�-_.._ �'.�_""._�j... �.trt���gz r 3 � � � � -a,�•.;o.�yµa•.�.w�o,,i•�oa _.�_I 1 I I C 1 I c �€ 'I Y L R i i p^ 51 INI F Y Y UJr a 4 ' C � T REY- TH - u t j �� w I \ PRIVAT5 ROAD F.., x