HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ packet 8-10-09 u.�.� City
� of Lake Elmo
jL L N10 3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
(651) 777-5510 Fax: (651) 777-9615
Www1akeElmoArg
NOTICE OF MEETING
The City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on
Monday, August 1.0, "009, at 7:00 pm.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. July 13, 2009
4. Public Hearings
a. VARIANCE: Consideration of an application to permit the construction of a
covered stoop within the 30 foot front yard setback at 8618 Ironwood Trail
North; PID: 21-029-21-12-0028.
5. Business Items
a. Wireless Communication Ordinance Draft
b. Open Space Setback Buffers
c. Economic Development Activities
6. City Council Updates
a. July 21, 2009
i. Demontreville Trail Road Reconstruction Project
ii. Sign Ordinance-Approval
b. August.4, 2009—CDBG Gas Line Replacement Project in Cimarron
Neighborhood
7. Adjourn
DRAFT
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of July 13, 2009
Chairman Van Zandt called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission
at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Anderson, Bidon, Britz,Fliflet(7:04),
Hall, Pearson, Van Erem, Van Zandt,Williams,Ziertman. Absent: McGinnis. STAFF
PRESENT: Planner Matzek, Planning Director Klatt.
Introduction of New Commissioner—Todd Williams.
Mr. Williams provided his background and experience to the commission as he
introduced himself.
Agenda
M/S/P, Hall/Anderson, to approve the agenda as presented. Vote 9:0.
Minutes —None.
Public Hearings—None.
Business Items— Wireless Telecommunication Tower Ordinance
Planning Director Klatt provided a summary of what work had been done to date and
raised some questions for the Planning Commission to consider and provide feedback.
Mr. Klatt introduced consultant Garrett Lysiak with Owl Engineering.
Mr. Lysiak described his work experience and his thoughts on city requirements for
wireless tower applications, placement, search areas, and setback requirements.
Commissioner Bidon asked if companies pick locations that make the most economical
sense for their coverage as the flowers are expensive for the company to build. He
believed it was important to provide service in parks.
Mr. Lysiak said a clear ordinance is necessary to identify the city's priority in placement
of the towers. He also said that monopoles in which the technology is located inside the
structure results in more towers as it limits the ability to update the antennas. He stated
that a height requirement of 199 feet or less would not require lighting under current
FAA guidelines.
Commissioner Hall asked if there was a threshold of service reduction that the city could
not or should not ask of the applicant if requesting them to move their proposed tower to
another location.
Mr. Lysiak said that if he helps to write the ordinance,it will be fair with possible
wording added such as"reasonable accommodation."
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; July 13, 2009
DRAFT
Commissioner Williams asked if Mr. Lysiak could provide a table of coverage based on
tower height to help evaluate how many more towers would be required based on the
height requirement.
Mr. Lysiak said he could provide some general information,but it depends upon
vegetation and elevation as well. He did not recommend that the City study individual
sites as it would be very costly and provide little benefit to the City verses responding to
individual applications from wireless carriers. He said that generally, at one hundred
feet, four towers would be needed to substitute one tower at 199 feet.
Planning Director Klatt asked the commission to discuss the current minimum lot size
requirement of 10 acres.
Commissioner Fliflet said properties less than 10 acres could be suitable,but her opinion
would be to maintain a drop zone setback requirement. She suggested leaving a
minimum acreage requirement out of the code.
A straw vote was held: eight in favor of fewer,taller towers; eight in favor of removing
the minimum acreage(Pearson was against because he believed there should be some
minimum acreage required).
Commissioner Fliflet said she would like to see performance standards for the associated
equipment building located on the ground. She suggested they maintain a rural
appearance.
Chairman Van Zandt took a straw poll to suggest expediting this item despite a
moratorium until the end of the year. 9:0.
A five minute break was taken at 9:00 p.m.
Business Items—Buffer Setback in Open Space Preservation Developments
Planner Matzek introduced the item by saying that staff has found that a number of non-
conformities have been created by the 2001 revision to the Buffer Setback in Open Space
Preservation developments. In most cases, it appears this was unintentional as the older
developments now have entire lots that would be considered unbuildable. 'Unfortunately,
many of the newer developments also do not have reduced setbacks, thereby making
vacant,platted lots unbuildable as well.
Commissioner Williams suggested adding the buffer setback information to the setback
chart and not providing a City Council with too much authority in reducing or eliminating
a buffer setback requirement in any future change to the ordinance.
Commissioner Fliflet said she would prefer to view each OP development individually to
address non-conformities rather than providing a generic setback.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; July 13, 2009
DRAFT
Commission Ziertman expressed a concern in reducing the buffer setbacks for existing
OP developments and suggested taking into account the neighbors of those living
adjacent to OP developments.
Business Items—Recommendation on Economic Development Activities—Tabled.
Business Items—Special Event Permit Ordinance-Tabled
City Council Updates
Planning Director Klatt stated that the City Council tabled the sign ordinance and
approved the Storm Water Management and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance at
the Tune 16"' Council meeting. He said that the buffer setback was discussed at the July
7"' Council meeting which resulted in the withdrawal of an appeal application from Mr. .
Pelletier for the denial of a building permit due to the setback and the approval of a
setback reduction in the Tana Ridge and Parkview Estates developments.
Meeting adjourned 10:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelli Matzek
Planner
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; July 13, 2009
Planning Commission
Date: 8/10/09
Public Hearing
Item: q0,
ITEM: Hold a public hearing to consider an application to allow construction of a
covered porch five feet into the required 30 foot front yard setback at 8618
Ironwood Trail North— R-1 zoning— PID 21-029-21-12-0028.
SUBMITTED BY: Kelli Matzek, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning Commission is being asked to conduct a public hearing and consider a variance
request from Vernon and Vicky Reichow to allow the construction of a covered porch five feet into
the required 30 foot front yard setback at 8618 Ironwood Trail North. The existing home currently
is located eight feet from the setback line, but the attached garage extends to the setback line.
The applicants are proposing to add a foyer to the home which would be eight feet deep and
would abut the setback line. This would be a permitted addition to the home without a variance.
However, the property owner is also interested in building an additional five foot covered front
porch onto the foyer, which would then encroach into the setback. The covered porch would
encroach five feet into the front yard setback.
Staff is recommending denial of the variance application as the applicants have eight feet in
which to construct a permitted addition to their home. In addition, the applicants also have the
option, should they chose to maintain the size and layout of the proposed foyer and porch, of
removing the cover to the porch, which would then be permitted under Section 154.081 Permitted
Encroachments on Required Yards.
The applicant has stated that the variance is justified due to the following (applicant's narrative is
attached):
The property owners desire to live the remainder of their lives in their home and believe it
a necessity to have a foyer deep enough for a wheelchair to turn around and maneuver.
They contend that the covered porch would need to be covered to prevent any injuries
caused by the elements such as snow and ice and would need to be a depth of five feet
to again allow a wheelchair to maneuver safely without accident.
For variance applications, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate why this situation is
unique and necessitates flexibility to code requirements. To make this case, a variance can only
be granted by the city when strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship on a
property owner. "Hardship" is broken down into the following three components:
a. The proposed use of the property and associated structures in question cannot
be established under the conditions allowed by the city`s zoning regulations and
no other reasonable alternative use exists;
b. The plight of the landowner is due to the physical conditions unique to the land,
structure, or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures, or
buildings in the same zoning district; The unique conditions of the site were not
caused or accepted by the landowner after the effective date of the city's zoning
regulations;
c. And the approval of the variance would not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood.
In reviewing the request against the three criteria listed above, staff determined all criteria were
not met, as more completely explained in the attached full staff report.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
• The existing home is currently built eight feet from the eastern side property line
where there is a ten foot side yard setback. This was approved by a variance in 1982
and the home is otherwise in a conforming location.
RECOMMENDATION:
In following a strict review of the variance criteria outlined in city code, Staff is recommending that
Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposed variance for Vernon and Vicky Reichow
to allow construction of a covered porch five feet within the 30 foot front yard setback at 8618
Ironwood Trail North.
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 Nearing........................................................................................Chair
- Call for a motion ................................................................................... Chair Facilitates
- Discussion of Commission on the motion ............................................ Chair Facilitates
- Action by the Planning Commission............ ...........-Chair &Commission Members
ATTACHMENTS (4):
1. Staff Report
2. Applicant's Narrative
3. Area Map
4. Proposed Site Plan
City of Lake Elmo Planning Department
Variance Report
To: Planning Commission
From: Kelli Matzek, City Planner
Meeting Date: 8-10-09
Applicant: Vernon and Vicky Reichow
Owner: Same
Location. 8618 Ironwood Trail North
Zoning: R-1
Introductory Information
Proposed The applicant is seeking to construct a covered porch five feet into the required thirty-
Project: foot front yard setback at 8618 Ironwood Trail North. The resulting structure, if
approved, would be twenty-five feet from the front property line.
Variance I A 5-foot variance from the required 30' setback from the front yard property line.
Request(s):
Applicable I Section 154.041 Zoning Districts (R-1).
Codes: : Subd. C—Minimum district requirements.
Requires that all structures be setback a minimum of 30 feet from a front property
line.
Section 154.081 Permitted Encroachments on Required Yards.
The following shall be permitted encroachments into setback:and height
requirements, except as restricted by other sections of this chapter.
(A) In any yards. Posts, off-street open parking, flutes, leaders, sills,pilasters,
lintels, cornices, eaves (up to 3 feet), gutters, awnings, open terraces, steps,
chimneys, flag poles, open fire escapes, sidewalks, fences, essential services
exposed ramps (wheelchair), uncovered porches, stoops, or similar features,
provided they do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the
principal structure or to a distance less than 5 feet from any lot line nor less
than 1 foot from any existing or proposed driveway; yard lights and.
nameplate signs; trees, shrubs, plants, floodlights or other sources of light
trYaIJi>ic;,Request: 8.6.11rr ,.roinvood -,Y'rail
=}t+t27t2Ytti Commission r�1i"�.;Ji l:8-70--09
illuminating authorized illuminated signs, or light standards for illuminating
parking areas, loading areas, or yards for safety and security reasons;
provided the direct source of light is not visible from the public right-of-way
or adjacent residential property.
Findings & General Site Overview
Site Data: Lot Size: 0.92 acres (40,273 square feet)
Existing Use: Single Family Dwelling
Existing Zoning: R-1
Property Identification Number(PID): 21-029-21-12-0028
Legal Description: Lot 8, Block 3, Tablyn Park, Washington County, Minnesota
A lication Review:
Applicable BUILDING LINE. A line parallel to a lot line or the ordinary high water level at
Definitions: the required setback beyond which a structure may not extend.
BUILDING SETBACKLINE. Aline within a lot parallel to a public right-of-way
line, a side or rear lot line, a bluff line, or a high water marls or line,behind which
buildings or structures must be placed.
DWELLING, SINGLE-FAMILY. A residential structure designed for or used
exclusively as 1 dwelling unit of permanent occupancy.
HARDSHIP. The proposed use of the property and associated structures in
question cannot be established under the conditions allowed by the city's zoning
regulations and no other reasonable alternative use exists; that the plight of the
landowner is due to the physical conditions unique to the land, structure, or building
involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same
zoning district; and that these unique conditions of the site were not caused or
accepted by the landowner after the effective date of the city's zoning regulations.
I
Property/ The existing home at 8618 Ironwood Trail North is currently located an additional
Application eight feet beyond the required 30 foot front yard setback in the location the applicant
Info: is proposing an addition. The applicant is proposing to add an eight foot by eighteen
foot foyer to the front of the home in a conforming location. In addition to the foyer,
the applicant is proposing to add a five foot by eighteen. foot covered porch in front of
the foyer, which would extend into the front yard setback by five feet.
S:\Land Use\Variancesi8618 Ironwood.TrBRep--Reichow VarianceT PZ_8-10-09.doc
i€xr;:c I?zc���=,s . •^a< Iranss:��t,t iYti.
Planning Gmtwtl:arlh0nReport: 8_.10".09
Variance An applicant must establish and demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set
Criteria: forth in Lake Elmo City Code Section 154.017 before an exception or modification to
city code requirements can be granted. For ease of review, staff provides a three-part
breakdown of the definition of "hardship" in Lake Elmo City code to ensure the
requests are meeting the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
1. The proposed use of the property and associated structures in question cannot be
established under the conditions allowed by the city's zoning regulations and no
other reasonable alternative use exists;
Staff finds the addition of a five foot covered porch within the front yard setback is
not essential to continue a reasonable use of the property. The homeowners can
continue to use the dwelling for residential purposes without the granting of the
requested variance.
The applicants have written in a narrative (attached to this report) that the size of
both the proposed (conforming) foyer and the proposed non-conforming covered
porch is necessary for future use of the property to ensure adequate space to
maneuver a wheelchair, should that come to be needed for those inhabiting the
home. However, an exposed wheelchair ramp and/or an uncovered porch would
both be permitted to be built within the setback without the need of a variance.
Staff finds this criterion is NOT met.
2. The plight of the landowner is due to the physical conditions unique to the land,
structure, or building involved and is not applicable to other lands, structures, or
buildings in the same zoning district. The unique conditions of the site were not
caused or accepted by the landowner after the effective date of the city's zoning
regulations.
The applicants' home (in the proposed addition location) is currently eight feet
from the 30 foot front yard setback line. The applicants' are proposing to add an
eight foot foyer which would be located within a conforming location and then a
five foot covered porch beyond the foyer, which would then extend into the
required setback. Because the applicants' have eight feet in which to construct a
revised configuration of a conforming foyer and covered porch, staff would
suggest the site is not unique, and in fact, offers more opportunities for a
conforming addition than other homes in that neighborhood which are currently
built up to the setback.
In addition, the city code has a list of permitted exceptions to encroachments for
setback requirements which includes uncovered porches, stoops, or other similar
features. If the applicants were interested in maintaining the proposed size of both
the foyer and porch and the applicants were to remove the cover from the porch, a
SALand Use\Variances\861.8 Ironwood TrI\Rep--Reichow Variance_PZ_8-10-09.doc
llw:s3
Variance.Y"sYequie-st: 86118 J1j,(.)jYvvf)od Tra
i'lanning l't,mmi_st on Repo,- ,V....j(j-09
(470H..1, variance would not be needed.
As such, staff finds this criterion is NOT met.
3. The approval of a variance would not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood
A foyer and covered porch would not be out of character for the neighborhood as it
is entirely single family dwellings. Staff finds this criterion is met.
Variance Based on our analysis of the review criteria in City Code, staff would recommend
Conclusions: denial of the variance request to allow construction of a covered porch five feet into
the thirty foot front yard setback at 8618 Ironwood Trail.
Resident Staff is not aware of any resident concerns surrounding the requested variances.
Concerns:
Additional ■ The existing home is currently built eight feet from the eastern side property line
Information: where there is a ten foot side yard setback. This was approved by a variance in
1982 and the home is otherwise in a conforming location.
Conclusion:
The applicants are seeking approval of the following variance:
A 5-foot variance from the required 30' setback from the front yard.
Commission The Planning Commission has the following options:
Options' A) Recommend approval of the variance request;
B) Recommend denial of the variance request;
C) Table the item and request additional information.
The 60-day review period for this application expires on 9-21-09,but can be extended
an additional 60 days if more time is needed.
Staff Rec: Staff is recommending denial of the variance requests to allow construction of a
covered porch five feet into the 30 foot front yard setback at 8618 Ironwood Trail
based on the following:
■ Denial of the request would not deny the owners reasonable use of the property as
the home could continue to be used for residential purposes;
S:Tand Use\Variances\8618 Ironwood'I'rMep--Reichow Variance_PL 8-10-09.doc
4-"
r Request;86,S 111-onibYJod Trail
tit
4 C)TtlY7dl•S,>tl�t7.a ;t, ,`.- (!•F cif
■ The applicants have eight feet in which to construct an addition in a conforming
location on the property in the proposed location;
■ The applicants could build the proposed foyer and porch in the size and shape
requested if the porch were to be uncovered;
■ A wheelchair ramp and an uncovered porch are permitted encroachments into the
setback should the applicants choose to alter their plans and eliminate the need for
a variance.
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 variance based on the
findings of fact provided by staff. (use staffs findings provided or cite your own).
please site reasons for the recommendation)
Approval To approve the requested variance, you may use the following notion as a guide:
Motion
Template: I move we recommend that Council approves the requested variance(s) based on
the following findings of fact...(please site reasons for the recommendation)
...with the following condition:
1. The variance shall expire one year from the date of resolution if not acted
upon; City Council approval.will be required for any subsequent
extension.
cc: Vern and Vicky Reichow, Applicant
Joe Kurle,Applicants' Contractor
SAL.and Use\Variances\8618 Ironwood TrMep--Reichow Variance PZ 8-10-0R.doc
W =c.
To whom this may concern:
Vern and Vicky Reichow,property owners of 8618 Ironwood Trail,are seeking a
variance to the front setback of there property. They are working with R.P. Vogel
Remodeling as the builder,along with Toe Kurie from Joe's Drafting and Design.
The legal description of the property is:
8618 Ironwood Trail N.,Lake Elmo,MN 55042
Tablyn Park, Lot 8,Block.3
Parcel ID# 2102921120028
Parcel size: 40,273 sq. ft. (0.92 acres)
Residential use and zoned Residential
We are proposing to change the front setback requirement of 30'-0"for a covered porch
to 25'-0". Currently,an uncovered porch can exceed the 30'-0"requirement,but a
covered porch cannot.
The application for a variance came up during the design phase of a functional foyer
addition with a covered porch. The front garage wall currently is at the required setback
and the house wall is 8'-0"behind the garage. It quickly became clear that for a
functional foyer with a covered porch to work,a variance was required.
Explanation for request of variance:
Vern and Vicky Reichow, life long residence of Lake Elmo.,desire to live the remainder
of their lives in their home on 8618 Ironwood Trail. Because they are retirement age,
planning ahead is a good idea. While they hope never to be in a wheelchair,Vern's
family has experience with being in a wheelchair. Having a foyer that is deep enough for
a wheelchair to turn around and maneuver in was essential.in the design. The covered
porch,the reason for the request of the variance,was also a necessity to prevent any
injuries caused by the elements,like snow and ice. The depth of the porch, 5'-0",was
needed to allow a wheelchair to maneuver safely without accident. They also like the
neighborhood and not wanting to change the look of it have kept with the design and
character similar to other houses in the area. Because they wish to live their later years in
this house,they want to enter it safely,without injury. Since there are no nursing homes
in Lake Elmo,the Reichows' are faced with few options without the variance. They are
asking to allow the covered porch to extend into the setback by only 5'-0".
The Reichows', R.P. Vogel Remodeling and Joe's Drafting and Design would like to
thank you for considering this request and are willing to assist in anyway possible.
Thanks,
Joe Kurle
Joe's Drafting and Design,LLC
On behalf of Vern and Vicky Reichow
,.
n
oT �S
00
h Yd
Jilt
Olif 3 '�
'.
a.w
F �
_ u
,
.am GEL REMODELING
0&0 IRONWOOD TRAIL, LACE ELMO, MN 55042
E
i
i
i 2z D,
i
,E
1
1 O
1 "
i -
i
1 EXISTING HOUSE �n
f u+_
86196 IRONWOOD TRAIL EXISTING GARAGE
LAK££LMO.MN 55042
I
PARCEL 00•210n21E20028
10' ° TABLYN PARK LOT 8,BLOCK 3
opTgACK.
i
i
� i b
t
r
�o•oo
\lpovoop SITE FLAtt
1/4" = ItYOit
JOB'S DRAn"ING&DESIGN PHONE: (952)237-3436
14835 CAMBRIAN AVE.W. EMAIL: joe@joesdraftutg com
ROSEMOUNT,MN 55068 WEBSiTE: www.jocsdrafting.com
Planning Commission
Date: 8/10/09
Staff Report
Item: 5a
ITEM: Wireless Communications Draft/Oridinance Discussion
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director �C1It
REVIEWED BY: Kelli Matzek, City Planner
Craig Dawson, City Administrator
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to review and provide feedback on a very rough draft of
proposed revisions to the Wireless Communication Ordinance. This draft has been assembled based on
the initial feedback received at a public open house, preliminary review by the Planning Commission and
Council, and discussions with the City's project consultant(Garret Lysiak of Owl Engineering). Please
note that additional changes are expected to be made to the document, and that once the Commission
has completed its initial review it will be further evaluated by the project consultant and City Attorney.
The new ordinance is organized as follows, with brief comments from Staff regarding the intent of each
section:
• Purpose and Intent. This section has been modified by including some additional language to
clarify the overall purpose of the ordinance.
• Definitions. Since the terms used in the Wireless Communications Ordinance do not show up in
other section of the City Code, Staff is recommending that they be included in this section instead
of with the general City Code definitions_
• Permit Requirements. This section breaks down the review process into two separate actions,
one of which requires a Conditional Use Permit(the construction of a new tower)while the other
can be reviewed and approved administratively(co-location or construction on existing
structures). The goal of this two-tiered system is to encourage co-location and reduce the
demand for new towers by making is much easier to locate facilities on existing structures.
• Proof of Need. This new section requires that a wireless carrier provide adequate documentation
that a new tower site is needed before it can be approved by the City. Under the proposed
provisions, the City would obtain much more information than was required under the previous
ordinance in order to establish need.
• Location Requirements and Site Ranking Analysis. This section provides clear rankings for each
type of facility and requires that an analysis be submitted that documents why one of the City's
preferred locations is not feasible. Co-location and existing structures are at the top of the
rankings, with public lands also preferred over private property.
• Co-location requirements. Minor changes from existing language that requires co-location if there
are suitable existing structures for a wireless communications facility within the applicant's search
area.
• Prohibited Areas. Identifies locations where towers may not be located in the community. The
Planning Commission has previously recommended reducing the minimum acreage requirements
in order to allow sites closer to residential service areas to be evaluated.
• Zoning Requirements. Specifies the zoning districts and maximum heights allowed in each
district while exempting public land from these requirements. The Planning Commission has
previously recommended allowing towers in certain instances in residential zones.
• Application and Review Procedures. Outlines the submission requirements for new wireless
communications facilities; very similar to the previous ordinance language but this section could
be modified if the Commission believes that additional information is necessary for the review of a
perm it.
• Construction Permits. Requires compliance with the Building Code.
• Tower Standards. This section has been modified to provide additional evaluation of the potential
effects on neighboring properties and to clarify the height and setback requirements. Several
sections have been merged so that all standards are found in one place in the code. Specific
landscape requirements have been added to this section.
• Wireless Communications Agreement. The bulk of this language is found in the current code;
however, an applicant will now be required to post a financial guarantee to ensure that the tower
is removed should it be abandoned.
• Abandonment and Removal. Provides additional clarification concerning the City's ability to
enforce provisions related to the abandonment of a facility.
• Minimum Conditions, Offer a list of conditions that should be considered by the City with the
review of each wireless communications application. The intent of this section is to clearly
identify the expectations of the City while providing some flexibility to add or subtract from this list
with each unique case.
With the work that has been performed to date, Staff has attempted to provide the basic structure for the
document. Some of the details, including tower design and height standards, can be readily amended
after further consideration by the Planning Commission and members of the public.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The next step in the ordinance update process will be to conduct a public open house after the next round
of revisions to the draft have been completed by Staff. The goal at this point in time is to conduct the
open house in mid to late August, and then to present the final draft to the Planning Commission at a
public hearing in September.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission is asked to review the preliminary draft Wireless Communications Ordinance
and to provide guidance to staff concerning and revisions that the Commission would like to see included
in the final draft before a public hearing is scheduled for this ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Preliminary Draft Ordinance
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ........................................................................Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
- Report/Presentation...........................................................Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
- Questions from the Commission....................................Chair & Commission Members
WIRELESSr�r•�x:n ��r�r� �-��`.�;� _ qd f (}Tcp / 4 pr `yy+pm sy
.i.L'{�R �y yr, (P`b'. ,i.//PLVIt'l�F� C-'B.d.C. �,:tJ
ILITIES
§ 150.110 PURPOSE AND INTENT.
'.��y�y�.••�aFann 1-a a.•.rg�q�; .'_'Yyy_`._ .yam ¢(�,,y �,,�yryryy}�( -tyry _;y,�,�,, �__�(____
• 4?.fZ a.�._..1...�tel
we4ii4�P`✓ "�ti'C.�.
':rhe Ptkrpose cif this ordinance is to allow fora d regr kqe tyke design, location €k.ieni,
construction, maintenance. and Irernoyal of Wireless Communications Toyyers and aten.nas and.
(A) Reasonably accommodate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the
general public;
r Provkde safetcY-c Y �c �k (Vice(trVice thrr,ug the use,€3f wireless communications facilities.
(C ) Minimize adverse visual effects of wireless telecommunication towers, antennae,or
accessory equipment through careful design and siting standards;
.__LQ)'Sjgtly co trot the location and desigm of wireless cok Lik gnici7.tion.s,_facilitie's.so that
allowed f-acilide.s will not.be obtrusive or Vii,ua.11�pleasant,
la Provide clear standards governing all aspects of such.facilities,
\ 9 - „n
". ith.h ah•cv 2-
ss �}�#� 9� fivftt gg&6e J LY" $ la wf$$ �—A6dlFA w,S "}.A'lYl.•••SGS'E3�i1;&d�j
1= ) Maximize the use of existing and approved towers, structures, and/or buildings for
the location of new wireless telecommunication towers in order to reduce the number of the
structures needed to accommodate wireless telecommunication services.
( : rlllo v ne facilities only when a docurnentc:cx_1arcof of need satisfai torn to the City can
be slk.ckv.%r�z
�l Protect reside trial r t. nd neigh�rl��kc�d.s s._._
(1997 Code, § 1390.01) (Ord. 97-24,passed 1-21-1998)
Antenna, A device placed outdoors on a biPildiniz E3I StI tiC lt.t'L and used to trdklSlllft and/or
kre..c..eh;, ra-dio or electrt>rnat-,,netic waves, ex! t a,;irrr : satellite dishes, ten (10) feet or shorter
whip antennas one; inch or less in diameter. an �€ Bi',Zrks3t)iG.yEk�t�; 1��i7 chavin � a�(total en yd) of
riot rnor�e than six feet which ;re located.on a dweljjj or othq�Ts rkTk.k Gtgd hJul�Lt C1�jTD
Monopole. A fi-cestanding, self-sppj2orting tower fhat uses a single Pole. does not use a
lattice desigm an.e lias no ' YAire IS
Satellite Dish m- Satellite Earth Stafion Antenna, A round. conical, or cone-shaved
device more than 18 I'nehes -in diameter anh dj cd outdoors on the rond or on a structure
i! g -u
and used to transmit and/or roceive ra ig or
Wireless Communication Facility, Cables, wires. lines, wavejgu.
o ther 1 .1 _�des, antennas and any
or fficilities issociated with the transmission or :recention of
C01111-01:1-gi cations located or Histg1led on or near a tower or antenim suppoit structure but not
includ satellite eaz1h station antemna (satdli e dish.) 7 liect or less in.dig-j-
Wireless Commmications Tower. A. self-Sup orting monovol,
le, Doles, or lattice structure
constructed at normal grade: and extending into the mr at [east 20 feet and used to
Wireless COMMU-nications fticifitics. (R -�IMPN—rl
Tower Height._The vertical distance from the averagge grade at the beise of'a tower to the
lu�Iiest point of a tower or to the highest Lj�jj.jjl� -,-he hig t 1,virc'ess communications
.1 -gf
fi,icilites on a tower. whic1lieverls higher. (N)
§ 150.111 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS!).
(A.) All neiv wircless cOmmu: ications facilities shall a:c c a�.ire aCgndjtjonal. 1-1se Permit in
accordmice with the Zoninc, District Lgquircments specifted n i Sectigin 150,XXX o-
tz -- f this Chapter
Frith the exec-ption of thus c facilities that are, exempt ftom review undo r Ohis Ch&)tc -2g.r that inky
be W-Droved administratively with a Wif'CleSS COMM.Unications Permit,
A pu-blic hearing lor new wireless communications f.acilty that requires a
Conditional Use Permil shall 1.)e preceded "..)v 10-days ul'iiled notice to the record oymers of
propenty located wft La 1,00Q few'.j f t ke "arce! on which the tower will be.located,
21-21--
iffs
.1 H'S a!loNv�
(1997 Code, § 1390.03) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
(B) Exemptions. The followim are exempt fi-om review under this Clim-)ter:
Tel evi mon.anterm as, satellite dishes one meter(3 9 inches) in diameter OL.Lcss
(2) Satc1lite dishes -,sed cogimercially and three 3 nix: ers in diameter a?`le'sfi
(3 LL,,qceive only antenrmas:
(4) Amateur radio facilities:
(51 Mobile services providin- ar. public infom.tation. coverage of new events or of a
tLinpOlcary or emerge Ley TI'Ll-t-UM
(Q....Administradve Review. Tlie BoPlowing shall be allowed 2L a permitted ise sjLb. .......I -ject to
the issuance of a Wireless 'Corninunications. Permit in accordance with Section 1.50I.XXX of this
clla terms
'LlieteLCL9 jngLiSLs n diameter:
maximum height allowed for
Lmounter aPtennas not exceeding t
structures in the underlying zoning dist ict
(3 B-q:i1din-, mounted antemmas not exceedling.25 feet above the highest_part of the
bUilding tO which they are a�ttached,
(4) antennas not exceedi.rig, 25 feet above the hig LuLsLpa )f the
utility pole to which they are attache d
Antenn.as cg.-localed on an e.-dafin&)yLr€'Iess Q-0m.muilications fa iLity_structure.
150.ULO-5 PIZOOF OFF,NEED
_—LALAs. e�rt qf an for a Con(btional. Use Permit or Wireless Commu-nicatiarts
Permit mi applicant shall deinonstrate moof of lig-:A by providing a coverag /interference
anallysis and -C.apacity analysis. vvhieh indicates that the locai.on. of the tower or antempas as
pro i� necess, i:y to-Trll-1 e M t the frMUOV PIUS OtIler. iy- riceds of the "cellular
_31osed -
qte.p-) as
which cannot be adequately served by.locatina the toot r/or antenna at another site. For purpose
f the analysis p-building sery ce is not deemed to be gs critical. as outsiLli'' c,overage, The of
,
ated to tl e Sal, Gictioll. o F the 1,
C NV,
--need-for the tower or antennae must be demonstr
csslonal RF ena rad....i.o
pLoviding the City an alysis from a.qualified pro.f ine.er with ..........
ub ance by the City orior to comr,
t'r cane a�ysis V�,o which J.s q ject to accept, �7
work. The cost of fg.eLL ag review of` ft of need. tc,
j _jL _j_�eL(Lof_
Vjit:i,_agV qS onsibilitv. The aqn�tl-�Lsis umd th.e material pro y:ided bytht, ell giricer SIMI:
least the R)Ilowina.
—(*I) Structural Capacity A—palysis. Provide an analysis olf..tlie impa_ct off tfir _ act
acilit ()r the tower's can.-ying gapacity of at least three (D nnA
a
ty pica! maximum flaq under the co-locati( n provision of this code.
(2) Provide a-p.d.analysis for:.
(a) City pLmperty a for On
street IeLeL in vehich% and �ai._building level—Wilh s.a.i..d interf�rgnce
n in L �-y
teefign afforded or all fl. �-, fr�quencjes ise or which could be in q- b jLie City7w (.)tlLc Lr
.......... .
nublic safety.agenOes.
(b) Privatj�LLrM�r�—; wijb_values-feUressed in. dBuv) for on street level and in.
buildigg evel with said. analysis indicating the protection aflJorded pi'operty wfthiii ne-balf mile
of the proposed facility and site,
J) System Capacity A4;!J,NKis f the system coverage analysis does not show a
coverage nged,-pm jdc asygem cmacity amnal Sis.
(4) Radio Frequency Radiation Ilazard Analysis. The analysis must address
.............
ctailllj-�iancc wi.tli the most current FCC`Bulletin GEI 65radutionstmidard. AvearIvrevo-itmust
be Submitted 'hel-bre December 31 or each. year showing the results of on-site m -nents of
- easurei
the sile, A Reeistered Proiessionzil )HIlginggr icLsf sigli these measurements and joorL
5) Map of Existinz and I-Irq�,cd�F'4cffitjes. A
-xisting mid any proposed facilitic,", with'n four (4 miles of the site being, c onsid.ei.ed.
Telecommunications equipment and towers within this area shall by 1dentifted by twe—fun.ction.,
Ind height. '.,'be capacity of existing towers localcd within four (4) ,m1Ies (th.c
stud.y area to cari�v addi tional Eaciliti es.mus, be provided.
(6) Mari of Existing 13u dings a nd Structures. A Iraq showing tlx location of`all.
j
�exjstjLig bujj�ljng& Nvater towers and. so-octures over sevenoj i alit
J_ _kyc L_(Z-�h..feet or more Jr--he
above the Lgound within two (2) mileq o!'the site being considered. The p tqijqiaj to use these
buildings and structures as a savoortin base for an antenna or telecommunications EacilitY
puM.ose must lie described and anallyzed.
— (7) Other Informadon, tkn.y other information deemed necessary by the City in order
to demonstrate the need for a new wireless cornmunications. :(heirity,
(8) Exception. f the Loquetst is limited to id-ding,an an.henna array On. an.existin g.tower
without increasing the heiviht of the tower support structure or otherwise...-permitted after, an.
admin..:istrative review . If,_LmWer Section 150.11.1. the City may yvaive so--me of all. of the proof<A
need requirements listed, above.
ND SITE RANKI NCB ANALYSIS
_(A) Location Reg uIrements for New Facilities. It q!w w1rdess communications facility
is needed, 'based on the materials and studies submitted (Mewed 1,v t1i
tqe . v...C�jjjg__
refc.r.ggces, Jjst,,.:,.e in ranked. order, shall. be followed anc analvzcd to
determ.iDC the most Lippl'Opriate Iocation:
--1111 11se of ExIgthag Towers. An exjLs,,fijjg. tower mLLst be mscel; to sure-Port the; pr-e--posed
fiacilitv, fno exIsting ower has ad{ i
ow how
towers in.Whe_,sludyarea can-be m(ldified to accommodate the pr:)po.sed.facility.
(2) f ise of Existill. used.
Preference shall be ; Iven to exJ'StJn(YLiifttdes �gh I _ yqjtage uti.litv towers and water towers.
Q Use of Existina Buildl)'ws Four or More furies i�if,�ejj_ commere I
'I Pql�:Ijc and ja
3., .... ........
buildimrs four or more stories high )Ahich can mc�ry likely ,i %ij i ties without
obstructina -views or bein.'2 Obtrusive to scenic views shall. be g-M:-, -ver shorter
(4) Within an existing public Litility Mwer line right-of-wav or within 1.00 feet cif fhe
nght-of-way.
51 Public Lan l__L Facilities. In situations, in which one of t-he thrgp_qptiqns li;.ted.
above is not feasible, land owned.b the Citv or other Dublic Droveitv will1 be aivex._qLglygUref.'erence to
(6) L.ess re ference over more
restrictive zoningji
----I _Lstricts.
—CL-Sites yjth the least imnact on residential areas and which are the least offensive to
the colninurlity�s_lqral character shall be g.!ye.n..j2.refi,,renc,_.
L_
In all case,,; except for non-con.forminfa existing towers, the location rnust meet the
zonint4 requirements.
9) Amateur radio tmyers in Agriculture -and Residential Zoning Districts are not.
D ouired to co-locate.
B In. cases where a lower ranked afternative is proi'.)osed. the applicant shall file a written
I. ef iblished hierarcliv within
,inalvsis demonstratina-that desvite diliaenf. -forts .to adhere to the est< ...............
the potential service area as dclerrinined by a qualified radio f Muencv en.ainee.r. hi(Jiier ran.ked
L)Vt'Lmjs are not:technologically `gcisible.
§ 150.112-7 CO-LOCATION REQUIREMENTS.
A-40f tY.-OlVidedIn accordance with the 1L)gaign rep uirements and site
pLof _fankingE(Yund.in this Chapter, aim nn&-u44ited4-o-..�' le wireless
t.t4ecommunication services shall be located on existing towers or structures which exceed�-5-3 5
feet in height and which are located within 4,14 potential service area for
the site being proposed by the applicant. In the event that co-location is not possible, the
applicant must demonstrate that a good faith effort to co-locate on existing towers and structures
was made but an agreement could not be reached.
(1997 Code, § 1390.08) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
§459A 4-81zW,:r,,�P—T1GN
il.eguirements. The City Council shall waive any or all of
the co-location requirements if it is determined that:
I -----{A)-__-(1 l_The antennae and/or tower accessory equipment would cause the structural
capacity of an existing or approved tower or building to be exceeded, as documented by a
qualified and licensed professional engineer, and the existing or approved tower or building
cannot be reinforced,modified, or replaced to accommodate the antennae or tower accessory
equipment at a reasonable cost;
-— (2) The antennae and/or tower accessory equipment would cause interference
materially impacting the usability of existing antennae or tower accessory equipment as
documented by a qualified radio frequency engineer and the interference cannot be prevented at
a reasonable cost;
I -—(G)- _Existing or approved towers and buildings within the applicant's search radius
cannot or will not accommodate the antennae and/or tower accessory equipment at a height
necessary to function reasonably as documented by a qualified radio frequency engineer; and/or
_ Other unforeseen reasons make it infeasible to locate the antennae and/or tower
accessory equipment upon an existing or approved tower or building.
(1997 Code, § 1390.09) (Ord. 97-24,passed 1-21-1998)
I
I § 150.113- PROHIBITED AREAS.
Wireless telecommunication towers shall not be allowed in the following areas:
I (A) Residentially zoned parcels of less than 4-0---2.5 acres unless the wireless
telecommunication tower and ground facilities accessory thereto are located within 1.00 feet of
the right-of-way of a public utility transmission line;
(B) Open space easements or conservation easements; and/or
(C) Airport impact zones without consent of the F.A.A.
(1997 Code, § 1390.03) (Ord. 97-24,passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 150.1143 REQUIREMENTS.
� izr;- - €r tel ;omr :aficx�;� 1 r �k te;:siiric
itt-t ?£i '.• Y�oll ,t+;r;+x, .or...lm
c--cn�-�C�crvz 3C-3_
-:..•t•,f
r"-_an i r•-rn a:e-t�-es.
499? G"e"e, Li pa,
.... x W..
(A) Wireless communicatiops fli,gilities that Lfguirq_a Cogditiopal Use Perini ,i:
installation of a,neNv towg hall. rMitted iii the followine, zoriiiw:districts and subject to-the
height restrictiogs provided thew meet.all.ot! ajj�eALqftem 'thi ordi fizz nce:
Zonin District M.a-xiijaum H6g)h-t MM IUM,
flarcel Area
175
R.R-Rural Residential Zw-iim�
apd R-4 Residential. -f 5 2-5
Not .A.11owed -
RF Residei,.mal Estat s -75 2.5
f-.�31 -QB. HB -Business 1.50
Bl" - Business Paf 175
!)LL --PUNic Faghly, None
district, new.facilities mav be allowed.withip.ap existing-kLAILq
'Ifility, pq
(C) Public land exemption, A w1rei.ess com-municatiogs facility Slavhe lo€,atecl or. art
112.e.- fit` or another publ -c� m -� district or site
oth,_--ic entitv i nirdless of the zon;
0 Lfh-q urty,
-PSU
§ 150.1154 APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURF�S.
(A)Wireless Communicatioas, P iLrn.i.L(Acii.ni.-ti...istrative An Lio-val An,aq�Aicg)t se6king
V, L)r cry 7,L f a facilLty-!Liat_gqyi bq )a yed adin.imstratively,with a wireless mi'm pications
Lo
p all CM. t- .b ow for a Q oridi t imia, Use Permit
gqjLt.,,i1j. - entslised el
�12L f
but be exenv-q from those r Lili-cn.-�ejitsfbuvd inn sectiorj, 154.01ISo-i't,,i.c ('*LtvCode.
incl-ading h -,)tL chearing re uirements. An amlication found to compLy �,v
q -itL-jje proyj�,JoTjs
of this Ch�,qp� i�mav b�e approve hy Director. Approval shal' be in wrj�till
an g
is ntifvii g the specific facil-tyapprov d, thelg�jqon, mountigg hw jpht:� wjd otherj)erfiiient
inforriiation aild any copa'itions of awro-v-al. if the requested facility is to be )-ocated on. rmbfiq
12rpjiertv-,the agreem.em al.lowi.,ig the ec p.d x uted r to issuing the
2r-j-11_6 t
onditional Use 1'crmit- Wireless commullic"'a-iolis facifitle, that require a Conditional.
Use Permit.T---e subj.egi to +,b jp 154.018 of this Code in. addition
j the
!oL all re airements of'Section 150J 10 of the Code--Avolican''.ons shall be submitted on forins
orovided by ffit City -aDd shall include the rollowing information:
(R-A) A t site plan drawn to scale acceptable to the f.y l4e,*.;=e.
ffo-+R-,-�er-Pla.nt7.iti2Dir actor which illustrates:
(1) The parcel on which the tower and accessory ground facilities;
(2) The buildings located and to be located on the tower parcel;
(3) The buildings located within 44W200 feet of the perimeter of the tower parcel; and
(4) Access easements as necessary to the tower parcel.
8 =. scaled.d:xawin( of the exterior of the Pro osc:�. wireless communications facility,
cl. ealy sltouring the tnetLad. of fens_ n. , c olc)ratic materi:a,l& and camouflage techniques bein
used.
(C) Photo-simxtl.at€.c-�'Est c2nstruction renderings of the t)rc�a:used wireless cornmunj cations.
facilities,ectuitz .ent enclosures, ai1c1 arrcillar structux�s L�a 1 .v w_ ld look after construction
fio:Rix .locations at the yeri hi ry of the -)ro .ores site. which sl all at a rninirmim, include
rendertn<gs from the.Vanta e rL6JAt of ata.y r=cl'acant s a -)i coai pi-€cral or
residential structures. The renderings slzal.l. alsc,_�incluc e .lations oF_the,,7ntcma.a.
s nporti.ng structure after it has bee fulldeveloped wi h antea�na st��.cturv4 (ttaeU� q�sJiaTartt z_z�!Y
assume for the purpose of tide aiaulation that other antenna stractures on the fac.ilit-,'will.
resemble tigex�r�rc}��_,sed struicttir sip , and.design).
�_ _.._.
A i
itY ..,:scc%£ 03 c Ott
c�-s-� .. � �-cTx�a4 u cce��:re-uuz�..-4-�.-t2•SL•'^�.-�-t -�--}�y
x-�--
_
e:''�°tttf £'r i l 1 t:lam u.:f,.+ 1T 4 E �E?e <t 7 +r. &C r P "o' ,; 4,, 100
5 , ac s,vaxaarx—c'Y-cx'i'c w.... :.,2.:sri r.n x-.�F CCET'.a:'S""'.k'f�'ti:Ld'.v'�'.�.--'`r�i`7L722'n..—�-cf1;f
OF -4 e te--irii+ef•.•s 1, .,ted .d
visibi it
s, ee ,>�.,t=1-t�Ftb t r-ic lc c F. —Z'r e Q -Pla fit4 4-d,r=-e,1,E' f �V
tl��,�1 b n iagc -an€1 Plans a 4' e4e,, .a_.
'D Exterior paint or f inisli samples.of the colors `eo he used in the construction of the
wireless communications facility.
([ {) A report from a qualified and licensed professional engineer which:
(1) Describes the wireless telecommunication tower height and design including a
cross-section and elevation;
(2) Certifies the wireless telecommunication tower's compliance with structural and.
electrical standards;
(3) Documents the height above grade for the mounting positions, which can be used
for co-location and the minimum separation distances between the co-location positions; and
(4) Describes the wireless telecommunication tower's capacity to support antennae,
including an example of the number and type of antennas that can be accommodated on the
wireless telecommunication tower.
(DE) Lt!,..-c�qqiunctionxkqthtlieiii��omi.qt -t !rat is p
jq,L rqquir d,to demmis e V - roof of need.for a
................
pc-�N, facility qj2dcLfhj��Q tei. the applicant shall gubm' -vear plan for wireless
1�v�—_ it a TV5
telecommunication facilities to be located within the city 11 x s bn it l 41&applic-'r
The city acknowledges that the plans are fluid and in all likelihood will change depending upon
market demands for the service. The city will maintain an inventory of all existing and
reasonably anticipated cell site installations. The applicant shall provide the following written
information in each 5-year plan and the plan must be updated with each submittal for a new
wireless telecommunication tower permit as necessary:
(1) A description.of the radio frequencies to be used for each technology;
(2) A list of all existing sites to be upgraded or replaced, and proposed cell sites within
the city for these services by the applicant; and
(3) A presentation size map of the city,which shows the 5-year plan for cell sites, or if
individual properties are not known,the geographic service areas of the cell sites.
W) -000
e
d. l ie, e 4'e I . . . , 40
PR..'J, -' - .
(F) An application fee in an amount prescribed from time to time by City Council
resolution as necessary to reimburse the city for costs incurred to process the wireless
telecommunication tower permit application-4LO-1-1,g�with an escrow a�vmien�tas )r C-d by the
to cover the c(7.y4t's associated with the Citv's rev;cw of the permit;
(G) Confirmation that the applicant is properly licensed by the F.C.C., or is the authorized
representative of a wireless telecommunication provider properly licensed by the F.C.C.;
(H) Written authorization from the property owner describing the area which will be subject
to the tower lease and acknowledging that the property owner will be responsible for removal of
the wireless telecommunication tower, antennae, and tower accessory equipment which is
unused or abandoned for 12 consecutive months;
(1) Documentation.of the steps to be taken by applicant to avoid causing destructive
interference to co-located previously established public safety communications facilities; and
(J) A detailed landscape plan,which indicates how tower accessory equipment will be
screened.
(1997 Code, § 1390.05) (Ord. 97-24,passed 1-21-1998)
1'lrrm14 i "xe i
d4e4&wei..... 1 4w--haea
= tlii�'tr c�—nsif.`xz� `t�i2c�lz srrcnc4.zcc „} £z? 5
fie
'f .. liff—.B74'v"r'
-�Cal•�'E)'vl'-i3
are-
,'x .z�..rri—ut _'�.'L. .,�. „ �. j,....... � _ _ M*iafft......
1,TJ'4^>L�L� 'i�{7y Z.�'�'�C'Yfi.+'S�°'t���'{�"'�"Ji 4"F'8"�--�..i��Tf7S(7_ 9 f �'+ tfz 1'•
c=r�.itiri-c—mac �d�?Uzi-i,3•E&}.Y€!:H-�(%�.'i=vci:€'zzi` ."
!"YQ( n s
§ 150.119 CONSTRUCTION PERMITS.
All wireless telecommunication towers erected, constructed, or located within the city, and
all wiring therefore, shall comply with the requirements set forth in the Uniform Building Code.
(1997 Code, § 1390.10) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 150.120 TOWER STANDARDS.
(A) Wireless telecommunication towers shall comply with the following standards unless
the City Council grants a variance as necessary to reasonably accommodate the wireless
telecommunication tower. Variance procedures shall be processed according to the zoning code.
(B) Design.
(1) To blend into the surrounding environment through the use of color and
architectural treatment techniques that softens the visual impact of the wireless communication
tower on the surrounding environment.
(2) To be of a monopole design unless the City Council determines that an alternative
design would better blend into the surrounding environment;
(3) All proposed wireless telecommunication tower shall be designed, structurally,
electrically, and in all respects, to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and comparable
antennas for at least 2 additional users if the tower is over 100 feet in height or for at least 1
additional user if the tower is between 75 feet and 100 feet in height; provided that this standard
may be waived or otherwise modified by the City Council as necessary to allow the applicant to
construct a wireless te-kcommuni cation tower that better blends into the surrounding
environment.
(4) 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.
(C) Adve se qIT et4,,Y onprqperde�sy.
(1) New wireless communicatiops. facilities shall be configured and located.in a
manner that shall. ininanize adverse e6ects, including visuall.impacts on adiacent propertics. The
app.licant shall demon s[rate that alternative locations, configurations, and.facility ter aes have been
examined.mid s1wa.1 address in narrative and grg: chic fbi-m ffic feasibility of any alternatives that
rnav have fewer adverse effects oa adjacent...ropertles thav the facility,configuration. wEid
jocation p-.oposed.
L
(2) 'Lhef'ollowirjp-atLiibutessliall.be considered.frf)mvintap-1-points atadiacent
prop. -u roes, and occ pied structures: height and.location,mass and scale. inatt 'als and
color. ex ctures.
(3) An..aptalicantt sl-,.afl. demonstrate through-the photo-siiiiulation...IgqyiL7efr.ents tLn4gr
Section 150.IT 4 that '.he-Droiect desigi.-..emntloya,.each of these gttributes in_ ai,.qW.-'.XIer that
'M' imizes adverse effects to flyLgL
e_ate§_110x a LOS,S-0 2 Lie-
(D) Setbacks, 1-4 t
(1) No communications tow,er shall be located in the required front, side— oi-rear yard
of_any_Ljj
(2) No.f.'roestanditug communications tower shall be locatued be located closer than
125%of the tower heig-yht from any lot lines with the following --xce-T)tioa,5
i-tfi , 'Dowers may encroach into"-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.
set bar; 1 4_)'qt'fi)r-eaA.f6et ef.
(3) Setbacks fi-ona buildlIN;L
(a) In resictential zotling districts. wireless commup.laitions lowers slial' be set
back a ininimum of]00%of the tow ter lei Alt from aresidential dwclliii.g.
(b) No setbacks shall be rewired froin co m.erciaj and industral orgicultural
buildings provided all other rgjuirennenis. ofthis code are nict.
(4) Wireless telecommunication towers shall not be located between a principal
structure and a public street.
Fee € i isati�r lta a pItt
— r s l Isc.of cxist_____zn I <=I� 1t oles. laz TI volta C poles or towers, and other existing
strLtctures are ex nn..yt £'Tom the setback requirements i7€-ov ded.that such pole, tower. or structure
is not increased i-n heiv .
(6) A required setback may be reduced or its location in relation to a public street
varied upon providing the city with a licensed professional engineer's certification that the
wireless telecommunication tower is designed to collapse or fail within a distance or zone shorter
than the required setback distance.
(E) Height.
— )obi n. %al to i i
t'c :EH3r rr2xs" c �erc�a e #E° "r€=EIEIHCi� � HkEF1£,- .,+r—rr2 :' :c5—� s'�1I z s 3 « q
1� .:-hers lrr �a resit#€ itawel€i rit
€7r t, , + ,A w:
its-e>r m� € n, ,2 c r .,_ +�t<F.:traf{:° -tat :rf-=? t{a 40-a€, ,
a e rza st eed-ls #ec -i -1 �h-arc t Eai-fir a s i:t, w H elm s
l.T'E-IT.'—✓S.�FCTCi��t�'£u.s ��'i./.Y�.r'—�6� �+..JP_�3..c�:. tF.iY�l���.T'..$..£S�bEti.fi�v�].L�'{,'�l�-iir'11�t�4'1�L��'S���.��S:�Ti.��'F1TC.il�Y�i
tl� .-frt3 car I t I ll #<�c t €ar-t v 1�- got of cr y i s
The ma-xiimum l.ici.ght€:>f a wireless eo mun:icatio.n.s tower shal.I be d.eterin.i aed
leased on the €nd.erl it�?g o air.-district and will be the, atnoUTA specafil' in secti.on. 1510.11.4.
L1�r',ham jPzg. At night, wireless telecommunication towers shall not be illuminated by
artificial means.
Ci) l tx,�Vls cry ir2 °and €fir_ ftairr;._ All wireless cone€ io __._ „�arid.related btt i di
facilities shall lac;landscaped and ercened with nalural � ggtati . sun the visual iz°sx z a€�t..
The natural �c�.�ctatton on tb tiit�_ shall be.documented on tla� a� I_ v€it ' le existi�
vegetation shad be retained to the maximum extent nossil�l.. {7. q <an.a.Ivsis of the:site.
New landscaping shall lac, selecte€ that includes.conaitirc.)u.; and € ':W.ou ants and trc;es teat.
are hardy for conditions can the site without:the use of aumnented water.
(1 l:antf.se�.)in.g shall.include grc..�tznd co�-�x� dower stor�r in.id-st€:�:r--°;, anj uLrpeyr st:.ory.__— ,_�
Plants. ]FRIant density shall be sufficient to r.u.-ovide go percent op lie t,rouiiel up to a
acity firom-
disctance of fi,,et hiah for 60 nercent or,in re ofthe site with the pi antingr to 1)elocated based, on
an-anaMis of the site in relation to the Surrounding area. Greater or lesser amoulits and
.p�Eq,o n:1. t t Y-ei-.q 21. re wired or allowed basedCiteson the Cs revie w,
..ly 1
(1997 Code, § 1390.12) (Ord. 97-24,passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
" -
(H) RynsT andAdvertisiiw� The use of any portion of a wireless telecommunication tower
for signs other than warning or equipment information sign is prohibited.
(1997 Code, § 1390.13) (Ord. 97-24,passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
§- MA4U-%4-, CA-TR'4N: -.
Inlerkrence Ivith nzLbIi(,,,,Lq few communication. No wireless telecommunication facility
shall interfere with public safety telecommunications. All wireless telecommunication
towers/antennas shall. comply with F.C.C. regulations and licensing requirements.
(1997 Code, § 1390.14) (Ord. 97-24,passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99
g-rea
-,4'1ftII4w44v-4 r4h-er-
subc dL,4 -t��&4 ke-wif eic-s-s-'�;l ieatioff-;I ae4i t y4s
leea4ed
Q'I `�j
390.1-5.11 ('101fd'.. r-Wsse-d-.1 21 19984
sogytili LnILIclings. All utility buildings and structures accessory to a tower shall
be architecturally designed to blend in with the surrounding environment and rnnitted
in.addition to the nuinber of accessor.-r bui Idings otherwise allowed in caC-1170—tl,
(1997 Code, § 1390.16) (Ord. 97-24,passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 1.0.99
.................... . (1) Control building S. The control. bui din-s shall be desiancu` to be a-TCjIitCCturallv
.g���Aacenit buildings. The control buildings .shall rot be v.11aced in minimum
setback areas nor shall then encroacli into rNuiredJugids,, � eas.
(2) Ground moupted cquipment+ Ground iriounted qquipment shall not be visible From
bevond.Uic boundaries of the site and shall be screened by a solid wall or fence said dense
la ndscarning.znati n described.iDj2xnijgraph G above,
— 1�fx � te€i ipn € �t:ec�ry ta-a� -i�� � �icrweIc
, ,.�„t�,� f) fund i[be
fti[Y�F¢:yy`EyLpA�7��i-G •}�G�i 'LA-f..•("S�T.fR��'�C�.l\:1"'t.)2J
" tlZ i%A ':IGZ4s4..1��•lE' *'T 1.'t.�t ..l LiLiA4'9'v`�.S i-�'z��:n�,M 4.4 �F.�1-AL�C'l/��+ �-a Y..�'�1�••���'.R-t"tGa'v.� .C�L�SS
-S{:ak3•�-i-�Tc:-s�-i'�{�t-k�t'-cii�-��-�s-E�epz
-9 -?4- 4.•-24-199 )
§ 150.116 COMMUNICATIONS TOWER
AOB.:I11"',hl.l;NT.
(A) Upon Faeeipi -s-�,�- feeemm-effdal. c�rv-G-s`y' 'ca��"......
the applcat-R 2'sl'l? ap!�!�`f'`�r'E:
r i•tx E 4 ; Fe E - t° 4.
FAT' -b•FRL..Z:J7.'CTR"iLTiZL4'L+ "' -�G' 'L� 1L G'�T&'CP '•'Clr-Z3--iS l vA{.7 'AS:.I�C B of
the application is approved by the City Cecil,a wireless44ecommunications,towear
permit and a building permit shall be issued upon the execution of a wireless telecommunication
tower agreement.
(B) The agreement shall be signed by the applicant and property owner and the terms of the
agreement shall include the following:
(1) A list of the conditions of approval to the wireless telecommunication tower
permit;
(2) A statement indicating that failure to comply with the conditions of approval shall
result in the removal of the wireless telecommunication tower, antennae, or tower accessory
equipment;
(3) A statement indicating that the expenses incurred by the city to enforce the
provisions of the wireless telecommunication tower agreement shall be reimbursed by the
applicant;
(4) A statement, which requires the applicant to utilize the procedures established by
the F.C.C. to resolve any complaints received relating to interference allegedly caused by the
wireless telecommunication tower; and
(5) A statement indicating that a wireless telecommunication tower which has not been
used for consecutive months shall be�deemed abandoned and may be requi
red to be removed
in + P-a-tid-j:�y .;i a to 4---sme Ter-- iZid-Rubet •.bu sacordance with. Section 150.11 7 below. € -ice ? c>u 4633 `?�1...z-latheyn-,&y
1 am f ?3-time tE>film : To ensure ccfnwhance with this i)mvision.the al-nilieant..must
Irtr. nai7ce bond or letter of credit, n an amount suffic,iclat to cover tl-.[e rgmoval or
reduction costs.
(1997 Code, § 1390.07) (Ord. 97-24,passed 1-21-1998)
with a miiiinium hei inh.t of six (L) feet.chaii.i. Fink fence with a jockgd 2ale.
1I All L
_!ov-ers a.n€<! taleir anten.qas shall utifize building materm's. colors tex'ures-
screening and !w Lpt] 'cc tj J.v jifathat(�,ff elybtend the tower facifi.ties witbir, the
surroundinumatural settina an.d.buift envit°ot txegalty to thLe g1att�t exten
possible.
0 2)7No Dart of anymvitenna or tower. -nor any Iiiie.s. cab"I"e, C-QUirrment. wires. or braces
shall at ariv time extend across or over anIV nart of the rimht of way.vublic street
hidgway,or sideNvalk. wifhout Wjoyaj.hy the City 01-irough the zopir at permit
approval process.
0 3)AIJ., obsoletc or amised towcrs and accorinmrivi.ng agqqssory ".'acilitics shall be
removed.wjthip I'�' .rrwnths of the Cessad.o.11 (�Lf_pp era tioljs al the site -anless a time
extensioLl-Ls '10rovgq )v the City. After thie facilities are rmmcd. the site s' all be
restored to its crrtinn.al. or art improve d state which incluc�E s removal o-f all concrete
to 6-feet be norm.al. grade -and surroundim-, area returned to gKadin.
Electronic equipment shall not be removed. in advance rern.ovaj of obsolete or
unused. towers. To giLTure corfir' the a p ticant must submit a verforni'Mice
100 000 to cover the reni-oval costs.
bond or'titter of credit in all]0 LKIlt Of
Failure to remove the strucWr�, shalt be cause for the Cim-to rennove the tower and
associated c m -it qn.�,, assess the costagainst the required bonding i
-��ir Iettcy
credit instrument.
f 14)Yearly re-por', shmk,in(, compliance with RF Radiation Hazard, Stapdard and
ccr-tificatior). 0i`€-ettui!•ec removal bond is required to be receivedi betbre 1, bel.
3-1- off each. vear.
Planning Commission
Date: 8i10109
Item: 5101.
ITEM: Addressing Buffer Setbacks in Open Space Preservation (OP)
Developments
SUBMITTED BY: Kelli Matzek, Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: At the July Planning Commission meeting, the
commission was informed that a number of non-conformities exist in Open Space
Preservation (OP)developments with regards to the buffer setback. Staff is now
bringing forth information on seven of the nineteen OP developments for review by
the commission. Staff has researched what was approved by the City Council at the
time of approval for the various developments, provided maps of what this means
with respect to structures on the property or buildable area remaining on a lot, and is
recommending reduced buffer setbacks in some cases.
The Planning Commission is being asked to review the research and
recommendations provided by staff on buffer setbacks in seven OP developments
and to provide feedback on the proposed reduced buffer setbacks.
At this time staff is proceeding with addressing the non-conformities in the existing
OP developments and will bring back a draft ordinance to revise the language for the
buffer setback at a future meeting.
History of the Open Space Preservation Ordinance
The Open Space Preservation development ordinance was first written for Lake Elmo
in the 1990's. The purpose of the ordinance is to provide a developer the ability to
cluster more homes than otherwise permitted on smaller lots and to set aside land as
preserved open space in perpetuity. Originally, an Open Space Preservation
development required an additional step to rezone the property as OP before a
development was reviewed and approved. Since then, this approach has been
revised so that an OP development could be permitted by a conditional use permit in
specific zoning districts, thereby eliminating the additional step of rezoning the
property. Although the zoning district code language was repealed, the zoning of the
existing developments was never retroactively returned to Agricultural or Rural
Residential, and therefore the Open Space district remains on the zoning maps.
As a part of this ordinance from the beginning, a buffer setback (originally called a
buffer zone)was identified as an effort to physically buffer the existing adjoining
neighbors from the more densely built clustered homes. The buffer setback section
of the ordinance has been revised a few times throughout the years to its current
form, which was last approved in 2001. A buffer setback has always been required,
but has varied in depth from 100 to 200 feet and has been revised from once just
requiring "main structures"to be outside the setback to all structures and road
surfaces not at a 90 degree angle.
The OP ordinance permits the City Council to modify any of the minimum standards
outlined in the ordinance by a 4/5 vote. Staff has found this clause has been used in
altering the buffer setback requirement in some of the OP developments.
The current OP ordinance is attached at the end of this report with the buffer setback
section on pages four and five.
Current Issues:
Staff has found difficulty in implementing the current buffer setback due to its
revisions over time and its resulting impact on existing developments as well as the
unknown intent at the time of development review. At this time, staff is seeking to
clarify this information for existing OP developments by clearly establishing the buffer
setback in each development.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
➢ At the July 7, 2009 City Council meeting, a resolution was approved reducing the
200 foot buffer setback in Tana Ridge and Parkview Estates developments from
200 feet to generally 50 feet, although one lot in Parkview Estates was provided
an additional reduction to 20 feet.
➢ Staff received an appeal application on the denial of a building permit application.
The applicant lives on Lily Avenue in the Tana Ridge neighborhood and applied
to build an in-ground pool in the rear yard. Staff found this would not be
permitted as it falls within the buffer setback of the OP development. The City
Council approved a buffer setback reduction in the development and the
applicant withdrew their appeal application.
➢ The City Council recently approved a variance for an in-ground pool and spa at
2931 Jonquil Trail North. Due to unique circumstances, the pool and spa were
permitted to be 12 feet within the 100 foot buffer setback in the Farms of Lake
Elmo development.
➢ The Open Space Preservation ordinance was revised in 2008 to address
concern over the impervious surface requirement in the developments. Staff
found numerous non-conformities in existing developments. The impervious
surface requirement was raised to twenty percent with an additional five percent
permitted if mitigation measures were approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
At this time, staff is asking the Planning Commission to review the research and
recommendations provided by staff and to provide feedback on the proposed reduced buffer
setbacks.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
Move to recommend approval of the reduced buffer setbacks provided by staff in the
development.
ATTACHMENTS (3):
1. Staff recommendation table
2. Maps of OP developments
3. Current Open Space Preservation ordinance.
z
O CD on
OLO
t4 O 0, C O O a', Z� zo, O T $
C L t�6 C N O E "�' X cm N O cc:_ i O T C 4 a to C7 C O O
a o n v aa = 0vM �_
ra ' ° a� ° o w m a aa) a 1 m > o t co
c a) o o °� I ai E E o -a a o a O
E a— aZO
�i o °) 0
w. a� a o
a� � o 'm fl CL a)
EQ Oc0 0- � I > °' �' � a °' a�' voov�
c
O O fV
o g v a ! ° ai a o a� n
O m N !E "0
N c p -a nS I N O 2 ) N a m
.0 CU O o) 3 O O cII O w aJ m a U O N .,... O N E
a) -(0-o 0 o a, •m .5 o ° a� c
C Ll! N n O N 'cn O tlJ Q a c� -� v�-
CO L i O C V U Oa � � 4 O D O � O > T
Ny N O 4 Q N 0 -- O U O U O,, s O O N
G1 R7 0 n 1 0 d OL N a�j O N lu 0 0 a 1 p N C O
i� ui w E � I a s u� Cl) w ro! n m Z o ° Q
.. -
Li
o N
iu -
u(Di U m
c ca ° Cl) Z
p, ,Q .
a. N O
O
O C!1
N -0 -O
3 > v > � a' rom
a o o c E z cn
CL0 CLo
s c V ) 0 0
Y
V 2
m C
1]
�+ N
d � •
O
7 d Q
� � 4
L
) 'a LL
O G�
0
Lu v C
C
a7 �
CL
® U
C
B. fU
O
Im
r X
N U
X _
w
i
{
ar
o �
° o O m o c o a b >
_oa `- aio � ° C c m 1 ° -2orn
o m ° Li 3 a a a o a fo ui
w o a O j m 'cn o to 0)m °c E �' °a 0. ° E o
o c"a cca a ro ° •o uai I v > 3 c
o c
m � w m aL
v Q ° o a °
EE o 0 tv >
° Co E m o, cu o > o D ca m d �
° ° � )
u
E o 0 o � o > � -0 m -aai� c� o
d :mo i m E c .5 n 0 .� o c ° CL o a -- a ° a
c o c - 4 o a o as B o o m O cn m `m a
U N D c a3 � F a
> a) » 0 CD Ao alX O fas dm O �
° -° c c�
m a _0v >, - aa
— a> :Q m 0 as .5 0 0
C U[ -00 -0 ami O Cal o to .� 'Lll m n Q U1 0 > m
a ° a a ° c cro i
a �o c m'= .c �d c Q7 N N
m a) Cc)
N o oOOOc > -CD E O -0 ro U) > (II o C11 a) a p
w U! dLU m 010 to -0 0 o - , ZE m0) .c � -0 Q o �
a a- nL 0 °0
: ZL
m Lu O a
V) v
LLL t
CL
(� 0 O "0
d d = O 5CCL
tb
-
,F:t '
3 � �
3 > >
s o o o c
to c cc
o
t 2
d
=
cn o $
a cn
m c E
p� = o
c LL
c
o O
4iJ � e �
c
CD
E
Q
0 Of
> 0)
a� c
0 U)
CL 0
O (J
rn �,
>
W o
w I �a
� � O
Q I U
C
I
ro (D 1 0 0 a
-p E I= o`��.•i• N' -m '.L"1 W L-, , dN a� � -o v
al n - O = a : '
CDa c
. ro Q3 C'
>O o Q o
C vQ CZ CU c zcn3
!'IIt}_}Vm
cn}o'a O v f
ro C,-0v
o -8 =a N oCn v
a ro 0 cl) a) � (0oro I
rI
o r- . a� om ° ma o Op °
o 12 -0" m 'D U 1
ro m v
tl p C) E -C O O C 4) r "- ro C N .N
C > W Q C N > QC1 1
o ° v aivv .v
n Uc
OU o u -° c3- �4aro)
.II
LsOco
a of c E .- m ? a) aE o 0
Q yy-� croc c a d I-- w a
- ro a) O >
c � co' � C' v
o c u)ro
o >0 o c%� E > nv Lao
mo . ro0) C nO �` fl
-a car `O C_ c - o � -I .° Yro E O O a o V o .c? Lco v O O o «
cui a- 2) c W 0- v W % ro a c
C ro C (� LL ro Nc � '
>
J_- a3 ro UJ) � fl
Q a c ca) 0 °a oLccOUO O U >Q7 ro O U O Oa n. a) '0 _ a) —
o_
v X �0 o Q) o o U o v U c oZ Y (a a n ro n U u wLro11Yv � Tn nroi a I
_p
c
LIJ iC.
In
W Ac
EQ.
�> (D UJ
C Q w C
w Z Z
3 > O > E 4
v Q
- --......-.. ........-.....---.......- -,.. ---.......... - . SII
d
w O
d I O w
oE
4--
.E- U'. ^ .,o ro ox
x H O LO o aa) o Q
W cov
C
d
m
O > ca
c C rn
c
N �
x L
w
0
Ln
cn
w
c.
w E
O U
Z U
m e c ro 4- o .- J o
o a� i '� o o d z I o d 0 0
> o cv c� o
co c w o
CL Y
C C C? m p LI CD p ._ 0) 0 �.X M iO CL
Q �p
ro Y N O to
E O
D -0
N-c cn;
A - OD U rocni rO L ?
CD _ ( M ' IY
° o a) ro C o
O m
E (nNo °° 1-0Q) a o
o cc 0 0 �0 o o 0 oNrovc oE o _0 0 on
ro ox oo . = °°
- > o •° p
cN
¢ � c ' ° oro3 o� Eo Q co =
� � °NQ O ov �-rO '= I-- U p (9 N c o=
�yin
0) � o m c ioo ° a) Ra7J
,n U
ro O
cE d mU a US Cc N =tts O vZN, O �oa ca a
° MmL -00 p w01 m Q a) OUa7 NM C) o
o > -0wC
0 o E c E -n
u � O ° as
-o! n a) sU z o
O O C 1 O V a) (0 a) > O > N 0 O
a? a) N
cq ro ro 3 . Z a;5 ° E o n i'� m ro ra w u) -o o -o cx °
E o #+
a it
ro ro
3 � �
ro
3 > >
m C C)
0 T
m LLI
a
N 03
0) Cli
y U
o m s Z
m c tm E E
r o 0
w LL rs
No as Z�f Z-f
u1 lcc o0
a..
c _
CL
0 0
d E
>
w
o m
C
0
c o
E
K
w U-
c
0
m
o
2�
O
- -
z o
p I U O
d T � L I U _�
N C -c E O in
� (D O 0 0 m U
"L3 � O N C 4J � �X
O Y (D m Mi to 0) O CD N O S u� O
mM >
-0 0 m Q �IO � YU 0m o ao Q- 1° a> > m maai
o a .-
(� al m ro i w o .E o ` 00 .� �f QJ CL
N A to
aD cn I` 3 m iv o a 4-0 -0 CD E o O 0 .c -o c
c c av a -- c s c� -0 o = c m z2 U l c 3 0
w U3 o- m Q cn 3 > C) o m a>
c m E o c I, ai v-
� a� (D cu n o = o o ' 0 o o Q)
cn o LCU
' v c E C c? E a� o` m _
c �. 3 u1 ai c .a -0 a� u.E t _0 - "
n
tOA o a3 m o rU O N � O U 0 CL-Id
0 0 Q� O C�
m C N C1!in Cif to U U 0 i
c Q� U Q U 3 -0 w,! cn ° u3s W 0 c c m
► E Z' c
a o m
� o
CU.
LL a
.o
CL
w.
� ul c
0 QI i O `C3
Q c
.. .. - a ,,• FLU
i4
� 0
� .r ma)
L .fl >, 0
m
3 o _ n
° o 'o. c
o =" �
m a .a a- e 0
n. O Ci O rn
m c m c� f °
m o >
a)
m m
0 0
a� cn
Z
ami 0 Y.
LL b m
0 CDd u- o m
CD o mw n: C N
N
CL
� o m
c U
o
p _ m
> ° m
O N
0. E m
E o
0 m o
z a
� � E
o
uj ro m
I '•'
i � ll � l 1 it �
Iflfj ' ii _
l � l ! 14
fi i
!
I
O f4. � dti
I
cv
CL
L.
i l j y O IV Y
cc
[ p 0
a
1 1 C7; N.In O;CL Of
.
0
�i
ff l 0j 10�0 4
CL
cc 0
'0 A O
I ...
� cOIOO
[2 E j C �o GIm rn CL
0
b!.ci""�} O! � OI+�H �! �
N f�FN! i� C
�1 ! !Cii ��ai�f L, G!
cc' �I m II W I co[O nS
Discover Crossing; Buffer Setback
IN
Rs t.
F'
a�^
ail
z��z
f,
�y
ti
i
Wy �I
1
50 Foot Buffer Setback Ate= >-: _ 100 Foot Buffer Setback 200 Foot Buffer Setback
w-.
4i L
O� IIl3�
r
� mMM
.;
Ar
Ln
00
�r
� k
f
s
�K OO
`^ ,Y
Whistling Valley l; Buffer Setback
Y
a N.
r . ;.
r 5 ,
t�
s
r
50 Foot Buffer Setback 100 Foot Buffer Setback 200 Foot Buffer Setback
Whistling Valley ll; BLIffer Setback
� �� -Y"\ ° Tom^"'..•-'�"-•+.� �� T
n
7 n ,-t
if
�5
b
• � jF
Kx Q $
7
ti
I ..
b C j
t^I:�
.ry A
s � a
85 Foot Buffer Setback s- h• :- 100 Foot Buffer Setback 200 Foot Buffer Setback
Whistling Valley I11; Buffer Setback
�s
I�pll�
I'
z
I
M� � III III 'III
y`w
rfr t
4a
C
100 Foot Buffer Setback 200 Foot Buffer Setback
u_
�j
� a
-IM T-�
17,
lie
J
Ln
44
(6
s7 S�
ff1 co
a
Prairie Hamlet
IT
-,.,go- �..+' S
3 �
'k 3
n
4 �
,1
i
RV
" �jO
E
� YW
50 Foot Setback
100 Foot Setback
200 Foot Setback
OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION
§ 150.175 PURPOSE.
(A) The purpose.of open space preservation(OP) is to maintain the rural character
of Lake Elmo by preserving agricultural land, woodlands, corridors, and other significant
natural features while allowing residential development consistent with the goals.and
objectives of the city's Comprehensive Plan. This type of development will allow an
alternative to large lot, single-family housing and will reduce the cost of constructing and
maintaining public facilities and infrastructure.
(B Protected open space will enhance and preserve the natural character of the
community and create distinct neighborhoods.
(Ord. 97-79,passed 5-1-2001)
§ 150.176 INTENT.
(A) It is the intent of the City of Lake Elmo to accomplish the stated purpose of OP
by approving a conditional use permit for portions of property currently zoned
Agricultural, Rural Residential, and Rural Estate; and by adopting the comprehensive
development regulations contained herein.
(B) In return for requiring preserved open space as contained herein; it is the intent
of the City of Lake Elmo to allow dwelling unit density that will provide a development
density equal to or greater than the prior zoning; AG, Agricultural, RR, Rural Residential,
and RE Residential Estate.
(Ord. 97-79, passed 5-1-2001)
§ 150.177 DEFINITIONS.
Unless specifically defined in §§ 150.175 et seq., common definitions, words, and
phrases used in §§ 150.175 et seq. shall be interpreted so as to give them the same
meaning as they have in common usage throughout this code and are found in § 11.01.
(Ord. 97-79,passed 54-2001)
§ 150.178 USE REGULATIONS.
Within OP,the following uses are allowed.
(A) Permitted uses.
(1) Single-family, detached;
(2) Preserved open space;
(3) Conservation easements;
(4) Agriculture;
(5) Suburban farms;
(6) Private stables;
(7) Single-family, attached;
(8) Townhouses (no more than 25°o in any development); and
(9) Wayside stand.
(B) Accessory uses. Uses that are typically found accessory to a permitted use.
(C) Prohibited uses.. All other uses are hereby prohibited.
(Ord. 97-79,passed 5-1-2001; Am. Ord. 08-006,passed 6-17-2008) Penalty see § 10.99
§ 150.179 OP CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIRED.
No property may be developed responsive to §§ 150.175 et seq, unless approval is
obtained from the City Council following its approval of the concept plan, development
stage plan, conditional use permit, and final plan described herein. Applications for
Council approval shall be submitted on forms provided by the City Administrator
together with all required fees, maps, surveys, and planning data. Only completed
applications shall be referred to the Planning Commission for review.
(Ord. 97-79,passed 5-1-2001) Penalty. see 10.99
§ 150.1.80 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
(A) OP developments shall comply with the following minimum standards unless
modified by 4/5 affirmative votes of the City Council.
(B) (1) Land area. Applications for a residential development in the OP District
shall meet all the following criteria.
(a) The minimum land area for an OP conditional use permit is a nominal
contiguous 40 acres. The ratio of parcel length to width shall not exceed 3 to 1. The total
number of dwelling units permitted shall be according to the development density criteria
contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The total number of dwelling units within an OP
development shall not exceed the density limitations contained in the Comprehensive
Plan for OP Districts.
(b) The total preserved open space area within the OP development shall be at
least 50%of the total buildable land area, as defined by§ 11.01. Areas not meeting the
definition of buildable land area shall not be not be considered to be preserved open
space in determining the amount of preserved open space proposed.
(c) Dwelling units shall be grouped so that at least 50%of the buildable land
area of the proposed development remains preserved open space. The preserved open
space shall consist of agricultural lands, natural habitat,pedestrian corridors, or
neighborhood or community recreational areas.
(2) Open space easement required.
(a) Preserved open space standards.
1. All preserved open space shall be subject to a conservation easement
and used for the purposes as defined by §§ 150.175 et seq. The land shall be controlled
in I or more following manners as determined in the city's sole discretion:
a. Owned by an individual or legal entity who will use the land for
preserved open space purposes as provided by permanent conservation restrictions (in
accordance with M.S. Ch. 84C.O1.-.05, as it may be amended from time to tune),to an
acceptable land trust as approved by the city; and/or
b. Conveyed by conservation easement to the city.
2. Not less than 60%of the preserved open space shall be in contiguous
parcels of not less than 10 acres.
3. Parks and recreational facilities shall be provided in addition to
preserved open space as specified in the Lake Elmo Parks Plan; and, consistent with the
park dedication and fees-in-lieu standards as specified by Chapter 153.
4. The preserved open space land shall be maintained for the purposes for
which it was set aside. If preserved open space was set aside for agricultural purposes or
for natural habitat, a plan shall be submitted which will indicate how the land will be
maintained or returned to a natural state and who will be responsible for plan
implementation. Developers shall provide copies of deed covenants to prospective
purchasers, and conservation easements to the city, describing land management practices
to be followed by the party or parties responsible for maintaining the preserved open
space.
5. Where applicable, a homeowner's association shall be established to
permanently maintain all residual open space and recreational facilities. The
homeowner's association agreements, guaranteeing continuing maintenance, and giving
lien right to the city if there is lack of the maintenance shall be submitted to the city as
part of the documentation requirements of§§ 150.175 et seq. for a final plan. .
6. Preserved open space parcels uses shall be contiguous with preserved
open space or public park, on adjacent parcels.
(b) Lot design. Lots shall be designed to achieve the following objectives
(listed in order of priority):
1. On the most suitable soils for sub--surface septic disposal;
2. On the least fertile soils for.agricultural uses, and in a manner which
maximizes the usable area remaining for the agricultural use;
3. Within any woodland contained in the parcel, or along the far edges of
the open fields,adjacent to any woodland (to reduce impact upon agriculture,to provide
summer shade and shelter from winter wind, and to enable new construction to be
visually absorbed by natural landscape features);
4. In locations least likely to block or interrupt scenic vistas, as viewed
from Highway 36 and Highway 5 corridors, and other local roads as designated in the
Comprehensive Plan; and
5. Away from woodlands in open fields.
(c) Structures. Homes shall be oriented on the site that meets the criteria of
rural hamlet. It is desired that the structures within neighborhoods convey a particular
architectural style with similar building components, materials,roof pitches.
(d) Buffer zones. Where a proposed OP development abuts an existing
residential development or a parcel of land not eligible for future development under the
OP ordinance due to insufficient parcel area, a 200 foot setback.shall be provided
between the property line of the abutting parcel and any structure or driving surface
within the OP development. Driving surfaces that cross the setback area at a 90 degree
angle shall be the only exception. Where a proposed OP development abuts an existing
OP development,or a land parcel eligible for future development under the OP
ordinance, a 100 foot setback from any structure within the proposed OP development
and the property line of the abutting parcel may be substituted. The setback substitution
shall only be approved when there is existing mature vegetation and/or changes in
topography occurring on the site proposed for development; and/or where the OP site
developer introduces the physical features that provide an effective year round buffer of
the structures proposed fox the OP site from existing residences or development. The
determination of the buffering effectiveness of existing or introduced physical features
that qualify a site for a 100 foot buffer shall be at the sole discretion of the City Council.
(e) Boulevard landscaping. Boulevard landscaping is required along all
streets to consist of at least 1 tree per every 30 feet or placed in dusters at the same ratio.
A landscape plan for the entire site is required and shall consist of at least 10 trees per
building site; and trees shall not be not less than 1.5 inch in caliper measured at 54 inches
above grade level.
(f) Pathway. A pathway system or sidewalks shall be identified which will
extend through the buildable land area or through the open space land to connect to a
planned or developed pathway on adjacent parcels or to a local road. Pathways shall be
linked to the "Old Village" to emphasize the connection between existing and new
development. Pathways provided shall be at least equal in length to the sum.of the
centerline length of all public roads within the development. Pathways shall be
constructed of asphalt or concrete in compliance with the standard city design plate for
OP trails.
(g) Densities. The maximum dwelling unit density shall be 18 units per 40
gross acres of buildable land.
(h) Minimum district requirements:
Open Space Preservation District(OP)
Single-Fandlj' To«-nhouse
Maximum Building Height:
Primary Structure 2 and '1/z stories or 35 feet 2 and 1/2 stories or 35 feet
Accessory Structure 25 feet 1 story or 20 feet,whichever
is less
Minimum Lot Width: IOTA NA
1,z acre lot; 1 acre lot
Maximum Impervious Surface 20%. This percentage may be
Coverage: increased to 25%provided a
pervious paver or comparable
Gross Lot Area system is installed consistent
with the City of Lake Elmo
Engineering Standards
Manual or storm water
mitigation measures are
installed.to mitigate the
runoff created by the
additional coverage above the
base district amount. All
mitigation measures must be NA
approved by the City
Engineer.
Minimum Setback Requirements:
Front Yard 30 (cet ?() feet
Open Space Preservation District(OP)
Single-Family Townhouse
Side Yard 15 Feet or 10% of lot width, 15 feet or 10% of lot width,
whichever is greater whichever is greater
Corner Lot Front 30 feet 30 feet
Corner Lot Side Yard 30 feet 30 feet
Well From Septic Tank 50 feet 50 feet
Minimum Lot Size:
Individual Well and Septic System 1 acre NA
Individual Well and Communal ii acre 8,000 square feet per unit
Drainfield
(i) Utilities.
1. OP developments may be platted to accommodate home site lots with.
either individual septic tanks and drainfields; or,with individual septic tanks and
communal drainfields. Single-family or multiple-family lots under 1 acre shall be
constructed with an individual septic tank and a communal drainfield.
2. All septic systems shall conform to the performance standards of the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's standards for sewage treatment systems WPC-
7080 and its appendices, or the M.P.C.A. standards in effect at the time of installation and
septic system regulations of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code.
3. Communal drainfields may be partially or completely located in an area
designated as preserved open space provided:
a. The ground cover is restored to its natural condition after
installation; and
b. Recreational uses are prohibited above or within 50 feet of
communal drainfields, or as approved by the City Engineer.
4. No wetland treatment system shall be allowed within the village green.
(j} Streets. Streets shall be developed according to the following standards
that promote road safety, assure adequate access for fire and rescue vehicles, and promote
adequate vehicular circulation.
1. Streets shall be designed according to the following standards;
pavement shall be 14 to 16 feet wide-for 1-way streets; pavement shall be 22 to 24 feet
wide for 2-way streets; and,the pavement width shall be 22 to 24 feet for streets where
homes are located on 1 side of the street.
2. The minimum street right-of-way.for 1-way streets shall be 40 feet and
the minimum right-of-way for 2-way street shall be 50 feet.
3. Streets shall not be constructed with a rural cross-section.
(Ord. 97-79,passed 5-1-2001; Am. Ord. 97-184,passed 10-3-2006; Am. Ord. 97-199,
passed 11-5-2007; Am. Ord. 08-008, passed 8-19-2008) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 150.181 HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
Historic structures on the site shall be identified.
(Ord. 97-79, passed 5-1-2001) Penalty, see � 10.99
§ 150.182 OP DEVELOPMENT/CONCEPT PLAN.
(A) Required submittals; OP development/conceptplan. The applicant shall.submit
20 copies of a concept plan for a development of an OP that shall include the following
information.
(1) An existing conditions plan which identifies the following(drawn to a scale
of 1 inch equal to 100 feet):
(a) Primary conservation areas;
(b) Secondary conservation areas;
(c) Site topography at 2 foot contour interval; and
(d) Location and description of existing vegetative cover.
(2) A general site plan to include the general location of all platted lots, streets,
and.open space areas,structures,trails, common open spaces, and parks (drawn to scale
of 1 inch equal to 100 feet).
(3) The applicant shall submit a schedule of site characteristics, calculated in
acres, which shall include the following.
(a) Environmental resources. Include map and calculated acreage of the
following:
1. Total site;
2. Protected wetlands;
3. Wetland buffer/setback area;
4. 12%- 24% sloped area;
5. 25% +sloped area; and
5. Woodlands.
(b) Public improvements. Include map and calculated acreage of the
following:
1. Public road right-of-way;
2. Drainage way and ponding areas;
3. Trails/bikeways and sidewalks (outside of road right-of-way);
4. Utility easements; and
5. Public parks.
(c) Proposed development. Include neap and calculated acreage of the
following:
i. Total residential area;
2. Total commercial land area; and
3. Total preserved open space.
(d) A general landscape plan.
(e) Statement of intent. If applicable, provide a statement of intent
establishing a homeowners association with bylaws and deed restrictions to include, but
not be limited to, the following:
1. Ownership,management, and maintenance of defined preserved open
space;
2. Maintenance of public and private utilities; and
3. General architectural guidelines for principal and accessory structures.
(f) Proposed staging plan.
(g) Historic preservation plan. Where applicable, an historic preservation
plan,for any historic structures on the site.
(B) Planning Commission review.
(1) Upon receipt of a completed application for an OP development/concept plan
as certified to by the City Planner,the Planning Commission shall review OP
development concept plan application at a public hearing preceded by 10-days published
notice and 2-weeks mailed notice to the recorded owners of each parcel located within
350 feet of the perimeter of the proposed development.
(2) The Planning Commission shall make its recommendations to the City
Council within.30 days of receipt of a complete application, and shall include its findings
on the following.
(a) The concept plan is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of
the Comprehensive Plan.
(b) The concept plan is consistent with the purpose of§.§ 150.175 et seq.
(c) The concept plan complies with the development standards of§§ 150.175
et seq.
(C) City Council review. The City Council shall review and approve or deny OP
development concept plan within thirty days of the receipt of a completed application..
The City Council may also table its review a reasonable time, if necessary to obtain
information that will enable the Council to make a reasonable decision, and if the
extension is consented to the by the applicant on the record. OP development concept
plan approval shall require 3 affirmative votes of the City Council.
(D) Limitation of approval. Unless an OP development preliminary plan is
submitted within 12 months from the date on which the City Council approved the OP
development concept plan, the concept plan approval shall expire. The City Council, in
its sole discretion, may extend the filing deadline for an OP development preliminary
plan and conditional use permit if an application for extension is filed and approved by
the City Council before the OP development concept plan approval expires.
(Ord. 97-79,passed 5-1-2001) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 1.50.183 OP DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT,
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
(A) Submittals. The OP development preliminary plan shall include the following:
(1) . A statement of city action necessary for implementation of the proposed
Plan,
(2) Twenty sets of site plans, drawn to scale of not less than 1 inch equals 100
feet containing at least the following information:
(a) Proposed name of the development(which shall not duplicate nor be
similar in pronunciation to the name of any plat previously recorded in Washington
County);
(b) Property boundary lines and dimensions of the property and any
significant topographical or physical features of the property that may have an impact on
the open space or the development;
(c) Location, dimensions, and number of all driveways, entrances, curb cuts,
par stalls, loading spaces, and access aisles, and all other circulation elements including
bike and pedestrian trails; and the total site coverage of all circulation elements;
(d) Location, designation, and total area of all preserved open space;
(e) Location, designation, and total area proposed to be conveyed or
dedicated for public open space, including parks, playgrounds, school sites, and
recreational facilities;
(f) Proposed lots and blocks, if any, and numbering system;
(g) The location, use, and size of structures and other land use on adjacent
properties;
(h) Preliminary sketches of proposed landscaping;
(i) General grading and drainage plans for the developed OP development;
(j) The development plans shall also indicate the results of deep soil test pits
and percolation tests, at the rate of no fewer than 2 successful test results for each
proposed septic disposal area; and
(k) Any other information that may have been required by the City Council in
conjunction with the approval of the OP development concept plan.
(3) An accurate legal description of the entire area within the OP development
for which development plans approval is sought;
(4) Architectural and performance standards for the development;
(5) Preliminary grading and site alteration plan illustrating changes to existing
topography and natural vegetation. The plan should clearly reflect the site treatment and
its conformance with the approved concept plan;
(6) A preliminary plat prepared in accordance with M.S. Ch. 505, as it may be
amended from time to time, Chapter 153 of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code, and other
applicable laws;
(7) A Soil Erosion Control Plan clearly illustrating erosion control measures to
be used during construction and as permanent measures; and
(8) Homeowner's Association documents including bylaws, deed restrictions,
covenants, and proposed conservation easements.
(B) Planning Commission review. Upon receipt of a complete OP development
preliminary plan by the city, as certified as complete by the City Planner, the City
Planner shall refer the preliminary plan to the appropriate city staff, consultants, and
other review agencies. The Planning Commission shall review the OP development
preliminary plan and shall schedule public hearings as required for preliminary plat and
conditional use permit review within 30 days of the City Planner's receipt of a completed
application and shall make its recommendations to the City Council regarding the
preliminary plan, conditional use permit, and preliminary plat.
(C) City Council review.
(1) Within 60 days of the city receipt of a complete application,the City Council
shall review the OP development preliminary plan, conditional use permit, and the
preliminary plat. The OP development.plan, conditional use permit, and preliminary plat
shall require 3 affirmative council votes for approval.
(2) Upon approval,the City Council shall instruct the City Attorney to draw up
an OP development agreement that stipulates the specific terms and conditions
established and approved by the City Council and accepted by the applicant. This
agreement shall be signed by the Mayor, City Administrator, and applicant within 30
days of Council approval of the OP development preliminary plan and conditional use
permit.
(D) Limitation on preliminary plan approval. Unless a final plan covering the area
designated in the preliminary development plan as the first stage of the OP development
has been filed within 6 months from the date Council grants approval, or in any case
where the applicant fails to file final plans and to proceed with the development
according to the provisions of§§ 150.175 et seq., the preliminary development plan and
conditional use pen-nit shall expire. The Council may, at its discretion, extend the filing
deadline for any final plan when, for good cause shown, the extension is reasonable. In
any case where preliminary development plan and conditional use permit approval
expires, the concept plan approval and preliminary development plan approval for that
portion of the OP development that has not received final plan approval is void.
(Ord. 97-79, passed 5-1-2001) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 150.184 OP DEVELOPMENT FINAL PLAN.
(A) The purpose of the final plans is to provide a complete, thorough, and
permanent public record of the OP development and the manner in which it is to be
developed. It shall incorporate all prior approved plans and all approved modifications
thereof resulting from the OP development process. It shall serve in conjunction with
other city ordinances as the land use regulation applicable to the OP development.
(B) (1) Submittals required. After approval of the concept plan and preliminary
plan for an OP development, the applicant shall submit the following material for review
by the city staff prior to the issuance of any building related permits:
(a) A detailed landscaping plan;
(b) All easements and restrictive covenants;
(c) All certificates, seals, and signatures required for the dedication of land
and recording of documents;
(d) General architectural working drawings of all historic structures to be
rehabilitated;
(e) Final engineering plans and specifications for streets,utilities, and other
public improvements,together with all required development agreements for the
installation of the improvements;
(f) Any other plans, agreements, or specifications reasonably necessary for
the city staff to review the proposed construction; and
(g) Final plat.
(2) City Council review. The final plan is intended only to add administration
detail to, and to put in final form, the information contained in the concept plan and the
preliminary development plan, and shall conform to the concept plan and preliminary
development plan. The city shall review and approve the final plan and final plat within
60 days of receipt of a complete final OP development plan and final plat, as certified as
complete by the City Planner.
(Ord. 97-79,passed 5-1-2001) Penalty, see � 10.99
§ 150.185 RECORDING OF FINAL PLAT.
The applicant shall submit to the city the recordable final plat drawings; all easements,
deeds,plans, fees,financial security, and the other documentation as may be required by
the development agreement within 30 days of final plan and final plat approval by the
City Council. The recordable Final Plat, approval resolution, and the other documents
that require recording shall be released by the city to the applicant for the recording only
upon review and approval by appropriate city staff; and,execution by the applicant and
required city officials.
(Ord. 97-79,passed 5-1-2001) Penalty, see � 10.99
§150.186 BUILDING AND OTHER PERMITS.
Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, upon receiving written notice from the
City Planner that the approved final plan has been recorded and all conditions of approval
satisfied, the City Building official may issue building and other permits to the applicant
for development, construction,and other work in the area encompassed.by the approved
final plan; provided,however, that no permit shall be issued except upon proper
application and after the requirements of all other applicable codes and ordinances have
been satisfied.
(Ord. 97-79,passed 5-1-2001)
§ 150.187 LIMITATION ON FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.
Within 18 months after approval of a final plan for OP development,or the shorter
time as may be established by the approved development schedule, construction shall
commence according to the approved plan. Failure to commence construction within the
period shall automatically render void the OP conditional use permit and all.approvals for
the final OP development plan. The City Council may at is discretion extend the
construction time as necessary when good cause is shown.
(Ord. 97-79,passed 5-1-2001) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 150.1.88 METHOD OF AMENDING AN OP CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
Any desired change involving structural alteration, enlargement, or intensification of
the use,not specifically allowed by the specific terms of a previously passed OP
conditional use permit, shall require that an application be filed for an amended permit
and all procedures shall then apply as if a new permit was applied for.
(Ord. 97-79,passed 5-1-2001) Penalty, see � 10.99
§ 1.50.189 INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS; ADDITIONS; EXCEPTIONS.
The City Administrator shall maintain a record of all permits issued, including
information on the use,.locations, conditions imposed,time limits,review dates, and the
other information as may be appropriate.
(Ord. 97-79,passed 5-1-2001)
Planning Commission
Date:
Economic Development Recommendations
Business Item
Item: 5c
ITEM: Request to Develop Recommendations on City Activities for Economic
Development Activities
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director ,
REVIEWED BY: Kelli Matzek, City Planner
Craig Dawson, Interim City Administrator
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
At its last meeting, the Planning Commission worked with staff to develop recommendations regarding
the types of activity the City might begin to undertake in terms of economic development in response to a
request from the City Council_ At this meeting, a preliminary list of activities was presented by staff and
further amended by the Planning Commission. Prior to reporting back to the City Council with this
information, staff is recommending that the Commission review the final list compiled from the last
meeting and make any final adjustments.
The attached sheet contains both the recommended activities and standards that should be considered if
the City were to move forward with an Economic Development program, The items in bold have been
added or amended since the last Planning Commission meeting. Please note that some of the
background information related to this item has not been resubmitted from the last meeting, but will be
made available to any Commissioners not present at the last meeting upon request.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission review the revised list and authorize staff to present
this document to the City Council as an initial response to the Council's request.
ATTACHMENTS:
1, Revised List of Potential Economic Development Activities and Standards
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- introduction and Presentation by Staff_.—....................... Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
- Questions from the Commission...................................Chair & Commission Members
- Planning Commission Discussion........................................................ Chair Facilitates
Action by the #Manning Commission..............................Chair & Commission Members
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVIES AND STANDARDS
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW—7/13/09
RECOMMENDED DISCUSSION TOPICS:
Based partially on discussions concerning Lake Elmo's long range plans, the Planning
Commission has considered the issues that will need to be addressed in the future that likely fail
under the definition of economic development. The intent of the list below is to help the City
Council begin thinking about the issues that will need to be considered as the City works towards
implementation of its Comprehensive Plan. Some of the issues that have been identified by the
Planning Commission include the following (please note that these issues are being phrased in a
way that provides a response to the Council's initial request for the types of activities the City
might begin to undertake);
1) Creating an economic development plan as a component of the Comprehensive Plan.
2) Determining the types of business that will be appropriate for Lake Elmo and that are
most compatible with the City's objectives of maintaining its rural character.
3) Identifying where commercial activity should take place within the parameters of the
future land use plan and where this activity would be most beneficial to the residents of
the community.
4) Establishing the role that retail will play in the City's business areas, and how to help
promote the retention andfor creation of retail activity that will serve the needs of
residents.
5) Figuring out how to provide services to businesses in the most efficient manner possible.
S) Addressing whether or not the City should be actively promoting the community and
attracting businesses into the community.
7) Maintaining the character of the Village Area, including the mix of residential and
commercial uses that presently exist.
8) Meeting the needs of the residents that live and employees that work in the City of Lake
Elmo, i.e. providing services to support these people.
9) Conducting market studies to help determine what types of business activities could be
supported by the community.
10) Helping the City Council develop an action plan to accomplish the objectives for
employment by 2030 as stated in the Comprehensive Plan.
11) Promoting the preservation of a rural/agricultural economy and the City's connections to
its rural heritage.
12) Assisting with efforts to encourage alternative modes of transportation to ensure
residents and businesses are not unduly burdened by long commutes and traffic
problems.
13) Acting as an agent for the acquisition and development of property for public purposes,
including the planned community center within the Village area.
14) Providing financing options for the City and private entities to accomplish the goals and
objectives that have been established for commercial areas_
15) Helping the City develop areas with "high density"jobs with an employment base of 40
employees per area in the planned business park at the intersection of Manning Avenue
and Interstate 94.
16) Working within a revised organizational chart that incorporates the broader function of
community development into the City's structure.
17) Developing a master plan for the 1-94 business park.
18) Preserving the existing tax base and employment in the community by retaining
existing businesses and/or attracting new businesses to replace those that have
left.
19) Putting the City in a position to take advantage of opportunities for park and ride
and other mass transit improvements that could benefit flake Elmo.
20) Promoting legislation that will provide tax advantages to businesses locating in
Lake Elmo and that will help minimize the loss of business to surrounding states.
21) Developing support for a community focal point and supporting Lake Elmo as a
destination for residents and businesses.
22) Advertising Lake Elmo's assets to promote the businesses that the community
would like to attract.
23) Determining appropriate measures to help ensure that the City is being inclusive
rather than exclusive.
24) Helping to develop a vision for the community and those activities necessary to
distinguish Lake Elmo from other places.
25) Identifying industries and development activity that could set Lake Elmo apart
from other communities, i.e. the promotion of green development and buildings.
26) Establishing what role the arts or other amenities might play in strengthening the
employment base and opportunities in the community.
27) Analyzing the results of the 2010 Census to help determine how the community
has changed and what needs to be done to meet the current residents' and
business' needs.
28) Studying the potential impacts associated with the intensification of agricultural
uses and how to promote and encourage these uses.
29) Defining what"sustainable development" means to the community and developing
standards for sustainable businesses.
30) Considering the role water-oriented development and recreation activities can play
in Lake Elmo's future.
31) Discussing issues that are affecting current businesses in the community and
acting as a resource to encourage cooperation among these businesses.
The second part of the Council's request of the Planning Commission is to consider what
commercial uses and standards for sustainable commercial development should be permitted in
the City, Some suggested standards are listed below:
1) Projects should follow sustainable development practices:
a. Buildings should be designed for long-term use.
b. New structures should minimize their environmental footprint.
2) New buildings should embrace LEED standards.
3) Natural materials should be given preference to alternative designs.
4) Buildings should reflect Lake Elmo's rural character,
5) Access management should be used to minimize traffic impacts.
6) Businesses should be promoted that achieve a high level of employment density.
7) Commercial activities should be compatible with surrounding land uses.
8) Mixed-use development should be promoted in the Village area.
9) Commercial uses and buildings that cater to automobile traffic alone in the Village area
should be discouraged.
10) Form-based zoning is preferable to standard ordinances that only specify minimum
requirements.
11) Existing architecture and design should be considered within new development.