HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet; 4-28-14
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
(651) 747-3900
www.lakeelmo.org
NOTICE OF MEETING
The City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on
Monday, April 28, 2014 at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. April 14, 2014
4. Public Hearing
a. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – VERIZON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS
TOWER. The Planning Commission will consider an application for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 125-foot monopole wireless
communications tower on property owned by the Stillwater Area School District
at 820 Manning Avenue North (Oakland Junior High School). This request
includes the construction of a 12’ by 30’ equipment shelter within a fenced
compound on property to be leased from the school district. Washington County
PID 36.029.21.11.0002.
5. Business Items
a. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT - SHORELAND ORDINANCE UPDATE –
POSTPONED FROM 4/14/14 MEETING. The Planning Commission is asked to
review a draft ordinance that would update the City’s Shoreland Management
Ordinance. The proposed ordinance would add the recently adopted urban
development districts to the City’s Shoreland regulations and update other
sections of this code.
b. AUAR Update – The Planning Commission will receive an update from Staff
concerning the Village Area AUAR and the mandatory five-year update that is
being prepared by the City.
6. Updates
a. City Council Updates – April 15, 2014 meeting: None
2
b. Staff Updates
i. Density calculation discussion
ii. Upcoming Meetings:
May 12, 2014
May 28, 2014 (Wed due to Memorial Day)
c. Commission Concerns
7. Adjourn
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-14-14
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of April 14, 2014
Chairman Williams called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Williams, Dodson, Kreimer, Larson, Haggard, Yocum,
Dorschner, and Lundgren
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Morreale
STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Klatt
Approve Agenda:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
Approve Minutes: March 24, 2014
M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to approve the minutes as amended, Vote: 5-0, motion
carried. Yocum, Dorschner and Lundgren did not vote as they were not present.
Public Hearing: Zoning Text Amendment – Commercial Wedding Venue
Klatt started his presentation by giving some background on this item. Staff has made
some modifications to previously presented versions based on feedback from the
Planning Commission. The wedding venue would be considered an accessory use and
would be regulated by an IUP with a set time frame. It would be allowed on land zoned
AG or RT over 10 acres.
Public Hearing opened at 7:34 pm.
Tara Cadenhead, 12190 Marquess Lane, would like more clarification regarding the food
and receptions. From a safety perspective there are concerns regarding more people
back in that area of the bike path.
Sarah Ziemer, 12136 Marquess Lane, has numerous concerns due to previous events.
Traffic is a concern and noise was an issue. The amplified noise is disruptive. Use of
alcohol is also a concern. Is it a ceremony or is it a reception?
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-14-14
Mark Citsay, 12108 Marquess Lane, shared that it is disconcerting to think that every
weekend their quiet can be violated for another person’s profit. He is also concerned
with the trail safety and the beer cans and activity by the pump-house in the area.
Chip Longacre, 12058 55th Street N, mentioned he only had 2 events last year and one
was a friend’s wedding. He acknowledged that he needs to be more sensitive to the
noise and trash issues. Maybe the person holding event can make sure there is no trash
in surrounding area from event.
Pam Chickett, 5711 Linden Ave, via email, is concerned about running any commercial
business from a residential property. There have been issues with traffic from the past
events. There is poor access to both of these properties and is especially concerned
about emergency vehicles getting there in an emergency. She is concerned about the
noise and traffic that could be generated if both properties held an event on the same
day.
Public Hearing closed at 7:49 pm.
The Planning Commission had concerns with enforcement, food and alcohol, noise,
frequency of events and traffic. They would like to see the initial IUP be for a 1-year trial
period.
Motion was made by Dodson to recommend approval of the draft ordinance for
commercial wedding venue. Motion failed for lack of second.
M/S/P: Larson/Dorschner, move to recommend approval of the draft ordinance for
commercial wedding venue, with reconsideration in one year. There were the following
friendly amendments made: 1) Change the word music to sound in regards to amplified
sound and include the definitions for ceremony and reception 2) make traffic
management a separate item 4) add the word ceremony to the general description 5)
change profit to remuneration. Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
M/S/P: Williams/Lundgren, move to remove items #3 & #4 and substitute the sentence
“service of food and beverages should be limited to during the ceremony only and must
meet any applicable federal, state and local licensing requirements.” Vote: 5-2, motion
carried, with Dorschner and Haggard voting no.
M/S/P: Haggard/William, move to limit the length of ceremonies to a maximum of 3
hours and substitute the word ceremony for events. Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
M/S/P: Haggard/Dodson, to change the wording in item 13 from two days for tent
removal, to one, Vote: 4-3, motion carried, with Williams, Larson and Kreimer voting no.
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-14-14
M/S/P: Haggard/Dodson, add language that no other commercial activity on the
property, Vote: 6-1, motion carried, with Larson voting no.
Business Item: Wildflower at Lake Elmo Sketch Plan
Klatt started his presentation with describing the location and specifics of the
development. This development will have 143 single family homes and is located next
to the Gonyea Homes development. Staff is recommending that a transportation
engineer look at this development. Staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission continue the discussion at a future meeting to resolve some of the
outstanding issues.
Bob Engstrom gave a presentation regarding the development. He explained about the
natural habitat area and why it is important.
The architect talked about the design of the homes and that they are mostly one story
homes. They will be interesting and consistent and fit in with the streetscape.
Landscaping will be a key issue and the sidewalks will be an integral part of the
development. The space around the home will be maintained by the association.
Bob Engstrom responded to Planning Commission questions. He stated that there
would be a master homeowner association with sub-associations for each courtyard.
He stated that the 10 larger lot homes would not have City sewer because there is a
steep slope. These lots are ¾ of an acre, when the requirement is 1 ½ acres for private
septic unless part of a development. The Wildflower Center would be a new building
with a large open area. It would be a destination place with possibly an art center and
coffee shop. Bob Engstrom would retain ownership.
John Holder, 11834 44th Street, lives in Fields II and represents them. They have had
many discussions with Mr. Engstrom and they have 3 concerns: 1) the issue of drainage,
especially in the drainage pond is critical, 2) the access road to Hwy 5 is a big safety
concern and 3) they do not want any type of retail or commercial in the Wildflower
Center.
M/S/P: Haggard/Kreimer, move to continue discussion of the Wildflower at Lake Elmo
Sketch Plan at a future Planning Commission meeting. Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
Business Item: Zoning Text Amendment – Animal Therapy Ordinance
Klatt started his presentation by reviewing the proposed ordinance for Animal Therapy.
4
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-14-14
He stated that in order to do Animal Therapy, you would need to have a CUP for a stable
and then get an IUP for Animal Therapy. This use would be more of a medical one and
would not fall under just the general stable use. There would be greater impacts than a
stable would have.
Chip Longacre, 12058 55th Street N, stated that he started a 501c3 for this type of
business. He is very excited about the opportunity for this in Lake Elmo. Equine therapy
is a rapidly growing area. This therapy could be formal or informal and would be
conducted by professionals in 1-2 hour sessions. He would like it to be equine therapy
and equine learning so that not only could there by serious psychological therapy for
youth and adults, but there could be corporate learning as well.
The majority of the Planning Commission felt that this use could be covered under the
Commercial stable and should just be an allowed use. Haggard felt that it was different
and more intense of a use that it should be regulated via an IUP as was suggested by
staff. She wanted more information about what would be happening on the site and
what impacts there would be before she was comfortable just allowing it as a use.
M/S/P: Dodson/Lundgren, move to recommend that the Animal Therapy Ordinance as
presented is not necessary and this use should be allowed under a commercial stable.
Vote: 6-1, motion carried, with Haggard voting no.
Business Item: Zoning Text Amendment – Shoreland Ordinance Update
M/S/P: Dorschner/Haggard, move to postpone consideration of the Shoreland District
Ordinance to a future meeting, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Klatt mentioned that this item was a little time sensitive as the current code does not
address the Urban districts and could limit development in the I-94 corridor. He asked
the Planning Commission to review the draft and be prepared to discuss it at the next
meeting.
Updates and Concerns
Council Updates – April 1, 2014 Meeting
1. CUP for 901 LE Ave Family Means passed.
2. Site Plan Review Ordinance passed.
3. Horning lot size variance passed.
4. Launch Properties CUP Concept Plan and Zoning Map Amendment passed.
5
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-14-14
Staff Updates
1. Upcoming Meetings
a. April 28, 2014
b. May 12, 2014
Commission Concerns -
Williams stated that he is concerned about the level of detail given in the minutes. He
would like there to be more of a summary of the discussion vs. a detailed record.
Meeting adjourned at 10:54 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Ziertman
Planning Program Assistant
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 4/28/14
AGENDA ITEM: 4A – PUBLIC HEARING
CASE #2014-07
ITEM: Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Tower Conditional Use Permit
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
REVIEWED BY: Garrett Lysiak, P.E., OWL Engineering and EMC Test Labs, Inc.
Nick Johnson, City Planner
Rick Chase, Building Official
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request from Faulk and Foster Real Estate,
Inc. (c/o Blake Conklin) on behalf of Verizon Wireless Communications for a Conditional Use
Permit to install a new 125-foot telecommunications tower on the site of the Oakland Junior High
School in Lake Elmo. The proposed tower is the first new facility that has been submitted under the
new Wireless Communications Ordinance that was adopted in 2009. As per the ordinance, the City
has retained the services of a consulting engineer to review the plans for compliance with these
requirements. With the recommendation from the City’s consulting engineer, Staff is recommending
approval of the Conditional Use Permit request.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Faulk and Foster Real Estate, Inc., 588 Three Mile Road NW, Suite 102, Grand
Rapids, MI; on behalf of Verizon Wireless Communications
Property Owners: Stillwater Area Public Schools, 1875 Greeley Street, Stillwater, MN (Dennis
Bloom, Director of Operations)
Location: 820 Manning Avenue, Oakland Junior High School. PID Number
36.029.21.11.0002
Request: Conditional Use Permit – Wireless Communications Facility
Existing Land Use: Public School and Related Accessory Uses
Existing Zoning: PF – Public Facility
Surrounding Land Use: Manufactured Home Park, Agricultural Fields, Rural Residential
Surrounding Zoning: MDR – Medium Density Residential, RT – Rural Transitional, and RR –
Rural Residential
Comprehensive Plan: Public/Park
Proposed Zoning: No Change
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
2
History: Oakland Junior High School was constructed in the 1960’s and the site has served as
a junior high school for the Stillwater Area School District. The school serves
children in the Lake Elmo/Stillwater area in grades seven through nine. The School
has been expanded several times during its history, which has included ball fields,
tennis courts, parking area, lighting, and other improvements.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 4/9/13
60 Day Deadline – 6/9/13
Extension Letter Mailed – No
120 Day Deadline – 8/9/13
Applicable Regulations: 150.110 – Wireless Communications Facilities
154.106 – Conditional Use Permits
REQUEST DETAILS
The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from Verizon Wireless Communications, represented
by Faulk and Foster Real Estate, for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new 125-foot high
wireless communications tower and related antenna equipment on the site of the Oakland Junior
High School in Lake Elmo. The proposed tower would be located directly north of the school
building and at the western edge of the school’s northern parking lot. The tower site is located
approximately 550 feet from Manning Avenue and over 700 feet from the 10th Street right-of-way,
and would be situated in the middle portion of the school’s property.
As part of its agreement with the Stillwater School District, the applicant would be leasing a 27 by 40
foot piece of land in the location described above. This space would provide room for the tower
itself and an accessory building to house the equipment necessary to serve the facility. The site plan
also calls for the creation of a small infiltration basin adjacent to the leased property in order to
handle the additional storm water runoff from the proposed impervious surfaces. Access to the site
would be gained via the existing parking area and connection to Manning Avenue.
The applicant has provided detailed drawings depicting the location of the tower and accessory
equipment in addition to a statement concerning compliance with the City’s Wireless
Communications Facility ordinance. Because this statement of compliance includes nearly all of the
text from the ordinance, Staff has not attached the City’s regulations as a separate document for
review by the Commission. Under the ordinance, the City may request assistance in reviewing the
tower proposal by a third-party expert, which was done in this case. The City has hired Garrett
Lysiak of OWL Engineering, which is a communications consulting engineering firm, to review the
proposal for compliance with the City’s requirements. The consultant’s report is attached to this
memorandum with his associated attachments and supporting documentation.
Please note that the consultant’s report states that the applicant’s written request and drawing details
are in conflict with each other concerning the tower’s proposed height (the narrative noted a 125-foot
tower while the drawings depicted a 130-foot tower). The applicant agreed to revise the drawings to
show a 125-foot tower, and the updated drawings are now reflected in the attached materials. This
change is important because the ordinance would have required further documentation to support the
additional height above 125 feet, which is the maximum height allowed across all of the City’s
zoning districts without such documentation.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
3
BACKGROUND
The City of Lake Elmo updated its wireless communications ordinance in 2009 partially in response
to a request to build a new communications tower in a residential area. The revised ordinance was
intended to place a much higher burden on an applicant to demonstrate the need for a new tower
before the City would authorize the construction of any new facilities. In addition, the ordinance
gives the City the ability to hire an outside expert knowledgeable in radio frequency engineering and
communications services to review proposals for consistency with the City’s requirements. In this
case, the applicant has provided documentation concerning the need for the tower to fulfill gaps in
wireless coverage in this portion of the City, and has conducted an analysis of existing facilities in
the area to determine whether or not there is a suitable site near-by that could accommodate a new
facility. Based on the applicant’s submissions and review by the City’s consultant, the applicant has
adequately address the need for a new facility.
One of the key provisions in the Wireless Communications Facility ordinance is a section that
establishes location requirements for new facilities, which also includes a site ranking analysis that
must be observed. In order of preference, new facilities are encouraged to be located: 1) on existing
towers, 2) on existing structures, 3) on existing buildings four stories or higher, 4) on utility poles
over 75 feet in height, 5) on public lands and facilities, and finally 6) on private property in the City.
The applicant has stated that options 1-4 are not feasible in this part of the City (and provided
documentation to support this claim), and therefore has chosen to work with the School District to
build a facility on property that would be considered public property under the code.
The proposed tower location, located in roughly the middle of the School District site, would be
located over 600 feet from any existing or planned residential houses. It is also located in a portion
of the Oakland school property that is occupied by buildings, light poles, accessory equipment, and
other facilities, but out of any traffic movement areas, parking stalls, or other activity areas. While
the tower will be visible from Manning Avenue and 10th Street, views of the tower will be screened
from most sides by trees, buildings, or other obstructions.
The school district has worked with the applicant to site the tower in the least obtrusive portion of its
property that also met the objectives and requirements of the City’s wireless tower regulations. The
tower would be replacing an existing light standard, which would be added back to the tower as an
attachment the structure.
In accordance with the City Code, the tower has been designed to accommodate at least two
additional carriers via mounting locations lower on the tower structure. Because there could be two
additional service providers using this tower, Staff is recommending that the equipment building be
designed to accommodate the needs of future users in addition to Verizon Wireless.
PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES
The City Code regulations concerning wireless communication facilities outline the requirements that
must be met by an applicant in order to construct a new tower within the City. As part of the present
applicant, the City’s wireless communications consultant has reviewed the application materials and
the ordinance for compliance with these requirements. The applicant has also provided detailed
information, drawings, and diagrams to support the present request. The most significant issues that
need to be considered by the Planning Commission include the following:
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
4
• Permit Requirements. A new wireless communications tower may only be allowed upon the
issuance of a conditional use permit by the City. This type of request requires a public
hearing to be conducted by the Planning Commission.
• Proof of Need. The applicant is required to submit a coverage/interference analysis and
capacity analysis that demonstrates the need for a new facility, in addition to other
information as noted in the ordinance. This documentation and analysis has been reviewed
by the City’s consultant, and his opinion is that the applicant has met the threshold for
documenting the need for a new tower. The consultant’s report is attached to this
memorandum.
• Location Requirements and Site Ranking. As noted above, a new tower proposal must be
reviewed for compliance with the City’s site ranking requirements. Staff has determined that
the need for service cannot be accommodated with any of the first four site preferences from
the code. The applicant is placing the tower on public land, which is given preference over
private property under the ordinance.
• Prohibited Areas. This section of the code prohibits towers from being located on smaller
residential parcels, within open space or conservation easements, within airport impact zones,
or in any open space preservation district. The proposed site does not fall within any of these
prohibited areas.
• Zoning Requirements. The wireless communications ordinance specifies a maximum tower
height and minimum area required for new facilities by zoning district. The proposal
complies with these requirements.
• Application and Review Procedures. An applicant for a new tower must submit specific
information as required by this section of the code. Of these requirements, the applicant has
not presented a five-year plan for facilities in the community, and has not submitted a
landscape plan that provides screening from the accessory equipment building. Staff is not
recommending that either of these be required with the present application because Verizon
is not planning for any additional facilities in the community at this time, and because the
proposed site is located in the middle of existing accessory buildings and equipment that
otherwise are not required to be screened under the City Code.
• Expert Review. The report from Garrett Lysiak is attached to this memorandum. Mr. Lysiak
will be in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting and will be able to address
questions from the Planning Commission or public at this time.
• Tower Standards. Under this section of the code, and applicant is required to address the
design of the structure, adverse effects on adjacent properties, setbacks, height, lighting,
landscaping, accessory buildings, and other requirements. Specific comments concerning
some of these items are as follows:
o Design. The proposed monopole design is required under the code, and will be
constructed using a Cor-Ten weathering steel. This type of finish will take on a
brownish color after a short period of time, which in Staff’s opinion is preferable to a
lighter blue or white color sometimes used for these facilities. A camouflage-type
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
5
design does not appear appropriate for this site given the lack of larger trees or other
structures in the vicinity of the proposed tower.
o Adverse Effects. Although the tower will be visible to adjacent properties, it is
located in the middle of the school district property and situated well away from any
existing residential neighborhoods. There are other structures in this areas, including
power poles, the Cimarron water tower, and light standards for the school ball fields
that are already visible from surrounding properties.
o Landscaping. Although noted as part of the code, Staff is not recommending that
landscaping be provided around the proposed site since it is located a fair distance
from any adjacent properties. Because the tower is located on school district
property, the school district should be able to make decisions about where screening
or plantings would be appropriate around the applicant’s site.
• Wireless Communications Tower Agreement. The applicant will need to enter into an
agreement with the City concerning the proposed tower consistent with this section of the
code. This agreement will be required before construction may begin.
• Minimum Conditions. The City Code includes several conditions as listed in the code that
must be met by the applicant. Staff is recommending that these conditions be referenced as
part of the Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for a
conditional use permit to allow the construction of a new Verizon Wireless communications tower on
the Oakland Junior High School property. The applicant has provided appropriate documentation
that the proposed site is needed to provide adequate wireless communications service in the City, and
has also documented that there are no other suitable alternatives to provide this coverage either on an
existing facility or as part of another tower in the area. The location on school district property is
preferred to a private site in accordance with wireless communications ordinance, and the proposed
tower site is situated on a central portion of the school site and away from any existing or future
residential subdivisions.
The proposed use will be subject to the recently revised required findings for conditional uses, which
include the following:
1) The proposed use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
2) The use or development conforms to the City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan.
3) The use or development is compatible with the existing neighborhood.
4) The proposed use meets all specific development standards for such use listed in Article 7 of
this Chapter.
5) If the proposed use is in a flood plain management or shoreland area, the proposed use meets
all the specific standards for such use listed in Chapter 150, §150.250 through 150.257
(Shoreland Regulations) and Chapter 152 (Flood Plain Management).
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
6
6) The proposed use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be
compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and
will not change the essential character of that area.
7) The proposed use will not be hazardous or create a nuisance as defined under this Chapter to
existing or future neighboring uses.
8) The proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services,
including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and
sewer systems and schools or will be served adequately by such facilities and services
provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use.
9) The proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public
facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
10) The proposed use will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general
welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
11) Vehicular approaches to the property, where present, will not create traffic congestion or
interfere with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares.
12) The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance.
In reviewing this list, Staff finds that the applicant will be able to comply with the required findings
in order to issue a conditional use permit. Please note that the Staff recommendation includes the
following conditions of approval:
1) The applicant shall enter into a wireless communications tower agreement with the City prior
to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed facility.
2) The applicant shall abide by the minimum conditions as listed in Section 150.123 of the Lake
Elmo City Code concerning wireless communications facilities.
3) All lighting associated with the facility shall comply with the City’s lighting ordinance.
4) The applicant shall design the accessory equipment building to accommodate any additional
equipment that may be needed by additional carriers on the tower.
DRAFT FINDINGS
The Planning Commission should review the application for consistency with the Conditional Use
Permit findings listed above and with the requirements of the Wireless Communication Ordinance.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of request from Faulk
and Foster Real Estate, Inc. (c/o Blake Conklin) on behalf of Verizon Wireless Communications for a
Conditional Use Permit to install a new 125-foot telecommunications tower on the site of the
Oakland Junior High School in Lake Elmo. This recommendation includes the following conditions
of approval:
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
7
1) The applicant shall enter into a wireless communications tower agreement with the City prior
to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed facility.
2) The applicant shall abide by the minimum conditions as listed in Section 150.123 of the Lake
Elmo City Code concerning wireless communications facilities.
3) All lighting associated with the facility shall comply with the City’s lighting ordinance.
4) The applicant shall design the accessory equipment building to accommodate any additional
equipment that may be needed by additional carriers on the tower.
Suggested motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the request by Verizon Wireless Communications for a
Conditional Use Permit to construct a new 125-foot high wireless communications tower and
related antenna equipment on the site of the Oakland Junior High School in Lake Elmo
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Report from OWL Engineering (Garrett Lysiak) with Attachments
2. Application Form
3. Legal Description
4. Application Narrative and Ordinance Review
5. Verizon Coverage Maps
6. Tower Photo Simulations
7. Co-Location Statement from Certified Engineer
8. Verizon PCS Broadband License Information
9. Letter of Authorization – Stillwater School District
10. Interference Letter from Verizon Wireless
11. Search Area Map
12. Detailed Plans and Specifications – Proposed Verizon Tower and Antenna
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ....................................................... Community Development Director
- Report by Staff .................................................. Community Development Director
- Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members
- Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair
- Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair
- Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members
- Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 4/28/14
AGENDA ITEM: 5B – BUSINESS ITEM
CASE # 2014 - 20
ITEM: Zoning Text Amendment – Shoreland Ordinance Update
SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is asked to review a draft Shoreland Ordinance intended to update the
City’s shoreland provisions in advance of upcoming sewered growth in the community. The Planning
Commission postponed review of the ordinance at the last meeting on 4/14/14. The City will work
with the DNR to review the draft ordinance in advance of a future public hearing.
RECCOMENDATION:
No formal action is required at this time. The Planning Commission is asked to provide initial
feedback regarding the draft shoreland ordinance. This feedback, along with DNR review, will
inform a future draft, at which time staff intends to hold a public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Shoreland Ordinance, dated 4/14/14
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff
- Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff
- Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members
- Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
ARTICLE 17. SHORELAND MANAGEMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT
§154.800 Shoreland Management Overlay District
§154.800 Shoreland Management Overlay District
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Shoreland Management Overlay District is to preserve and
enhance the quality of surface waters and conserve the economic and natural environmental
values of shorelands through the following activities:
1. Regulate placement of sanitary and waste treatment facilities on shorelands of public
waters to prevent pollution of public waters and public health hazards resulting from the
facilities.
2. Regulate alteration of shorelands of public waters to prevent excessive sediment pollution,
increased water runoff and excessive nutrient runoff pollution.
3. Preserve and enhance the unique aesthetic appearance and ecological value of the
shoreland.
4. Regulate the construction of buildings and changes of land use in shorelands to minimize
property damage during periods of high water.
B. Shoreland Management Overlay District
1. Shoreland Classifications. The public waters in Table 17-1 have been classified by the
commissioner of natural resources as natural environment (NE), recreational development
(RD) and tributary (T) shorelands. Where noted, riparian dedication is required by the
City.
Table 17-1: Shoreland Classifications
DNR ID # Name Location Class
150 FTa
Riparian
Dedication
Required
82011601 Armstrong (north of CSAH 10) Sec 28, T29, R21 NE No
82011602 Armstrong (south of CSAH 10) Sec 28, T29, R21 NE No
82010500 Berschen’s Pond Sec 10, T29, R21 NE No
82009900 Clear Sec 2 & 11, T29, R21 NE No
82010100 DeMontreville Sec 4, 5 & 9,T29, R21 RD No
82011000 Downs Sec 24, T29, R21 NE No
82010900 Eagle Point Sec 22 & 27, T29, R21 NE No
82010600 Elmo
Sec 13, 14, 23, 24 & 26, T29,
R21 RD No
82010800 Friedrich Pond Sec 15 & 22, T29, R21 NE No
82011300 Goose Sec 27, 34 & 35, T29, R21 NE Yes
82011100 H.J. Brown Pond Sec 26, T29, R21 NE No
82007400 Horseshoe Sec 25, T29, R21 NE No
82010400 Jane Sec 9 & 10, T29, R21 RD No
DRAFT 4/14/14 1
DNR ID # Name Location Class
150 FTa
Riparian
Dedication
Required
82011700 Kramer Sec 35, T29, R21 NE Yes
82041900 Margaret Sec 26, T29, R21 NE No
82010300 Olson Sec 8 & 9, T29, R21 RD No
N/A
Raleigh Creek North (to Eagle
Point Lake) Sec 16, 21 & 22, T29, R21 T No
N/A
Raleigh Creek South (Eagle
Point Lake to Lake Elmo) Sec 22, 23 & 227, T29, R21 T No
82011200 Rose Sec 25 & 36, T29, R21 NE No
82010700 Sunfish Sec 14, T29, R21 NE No
82010000 Unnamed Sec 4, T29, R21 NE No
N/A Unnamed to Wilmes Lake Sec 33, T29, R21 T No
N/A Unnamed Tributary Sec 25, T29, R21 T No
Classifications
RD = Recreational Development Lake Classification
NE = Natural Environment Lake Classification
T = Tributary River Classification
Notes to Table 17-1:
a. As measured from and perpendicular to the ordinary high water level (OHWL)
2. Land Uses in Shoreland Districts. All uses of land shall be regulated by the applicable zoning
district subject to applicable conditions. Notwithstanding the underlying zoning district,
the following uses shall be regulated in shoreland districts as specified in Table 17-2:
Table 17-2: Permitted, Conditional and Interim Uses, Shoreland Classifications
Shoreland Classification
Land Uses
Recreational
Development
Natural
Environment
Tributary
River
Residential P P P
Commercial P C C
Public and Civic Uses P C C
Outdoor Recreationa C C C
Agricultural and Related Usesb P P P
Industrial and Extractive Uses - - -
Utilities, Transportation and Communications C C C
Accessory Uses P P P
DRAFT 4/14/14 2
Shoreland Classification
Land Uses
Recreational
Development
Natural
Environment
Tributary
River
Planned Developments (PUDs) C C C
Notes to Table 17-2:
a. City owned parks and open space and any uses or structures accessory to such uses are
permitted within shoreland areas.
b. Vegetative clearing within shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is not permitted.
3. Shoreland Standards. The following standards in Table 17-3 shall apply within shoreland
areas to principal, conditional and accessory uses and structures:
Table 17-3: Shoreland Standards
Shoreland Classification
Standards
Recreational
Development
Natural
Environment
Tributary
River
Minimum structure setback from County, State
or Federal road right-of-way 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet
Minimum structure setback from an unplatted
cemetery or historical sitea 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet
Minimum structure setback from the Ordinary
High Water Level (OHWL)b, c
Riparian dedication required 200 feet 200 feet 200 feet
Riparian dedication not requiredd
Sewered 75 feet 100 feet 75 feet
Unsewered 100 feet 150 feet 100 feet
Minimum structure setback from top of bluff 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet
Minimum septic system setback from OHWL 75 feet 150 feet 75 feet
Minimum low floor elevation above OHWL 2 feet 2 feet 2 feet
Maximum impervious lot coverage
With riparian dedication 50% 50% 50%
Without riparian dedication
Sewerede 30% 30% 30%
Unsewered 15% or 6,000 square feet (sf), whichever is larger
Minimum lot sizef, riparian lots
Riparian dedication required Same as zoning district
Riparian dedication not required, sewered
Single family detached 20,000 sf 40,000 sf Same as zoning
district Two-family or duplex 35,000 sf 70,000 sf
DRAFT 4/14/14 3
Riparian dedication not required, unsewered
Single family detached
40,000 sf 80,000 sf
Same as zoning
district
Minimum lot sizef, non-riparian lots
Riparian dedication required Same as zoning district
Riparian dedication not required, sewered
Single family detached 15,000 sf 20,000 sf Same as zoning
district Two-family or duplex 17,500 sf 26,000 sf
Riparian dedication not required, unsewered
Single family detached
40,000 sf 80,000 sf
Same as zoning
district
Minimum lot widthf
Riparian dedication required Same as zoning district
Riparian dedication not required, sewered
Single family detached 80 feet 125 feet 80 feet
Two-family or duplex 135 feet 225 feet 115 feet
Notes to Table 17-3:
a. Reduction of the required setback from a historic site is permitted with the approval of the
office of the Minnesota State Archeologist.
b. Where structures exist on both sides of a proposed building site, structure setbacks may be
altered without a variance to conform to the adjoining setbacks from the Ordinary High Water
Level (OHWL), provided the proposed building is not located in a shore impact zone or bluff
impact zone.
c. With the exception of public crossings of public waters, roads, driveways and parking areas shall
meet the minimum structure setback. Where no alternative exists, such improvements may be
placed within the required structure setbacks provided they are designed to adapt to the
natural landscape, soil erosion is minimized and no construction shall occur in shore or bluff
impact zones.
d. Commercial and public and civic uses with public waters frontage shall be setback double the
required setback or be substantially screened from the water by vegetation or topography,
assuming summer, leaf-on conditions.
e. The maximum amount of impervious surface allowed for sewered lots zoned Rural Single Family
(RS) is 15% of lot area or 6,000 sf, whichever is larger.
f. Minimum lot size and width requirements apply to residential uses only.
4. Design Criteria for Structures
a. Water Oriented Accessory Structures. Each lot may have one (1) water oriented
accessory structure not meeting the normal structure setbacks if the structure complies
with the following provisions:
i. Structure Height. The structure or facility must not exceed ten (10) feet in
height, exclusive of safety rails, from the average grade of the structure to
DRAFT 4/14/14 4
the peak of the roof. Detached decks must not exceed eight (8) feet above
grade at any point.
ii. Structure Size. Water oriented accessory structures cannot occupy an area
greater than two-hundred and fifty (250) square feet.
iii. Structure Setback. The setback of the structure or facility landward from
the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) must be at least ten (10) feet on a
recreational development lake and fifty (50) feet on a natural environment
lake.
iv. The structure or facility must be treated to reduce visibility as viewed
from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography,
increased setbacks or color, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions.
v. The roof may be used as a deck with safety rails, but must not be enclosed
or used as a storage area.
vi. The structure or facility must not be used for human habitation and must
not contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities.
vii. Watercraft Storage Facilities. As an alternative for recreational
development water bodies, water oriented accessory structures used solely
for watercraft storage, and including the storage of related boating and
water oriented sporting equipment, may occupy up to four hundred (400)
square feet provided the maximum width of the structure is twenty (20)
feet as measured parallel to the configuration of the shoreline.
b. Stairways, Lifts and Landings. Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative to
major topographic alterations for achieving access up and down bluffs and steep slopes
to shore areas. Stairways and lifts must meet the following design requirements:
i. Stairways and lifts must not exceed four (4) feet in width. Wider stairways
may be used for public open space or recreation properties.
ii. Landings for stairways and lifts must not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet
in area. Landings larger than thirty-two (32) square feet may be used for
public open space or recreation properties.
iii. Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts or landings.
iv. Stairways, lifts and landings may be either constructed above ground on
posts or pilings or placed into the ground, provided that they are designed
and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion.
v. Stairways, lifts and landing must be located in the most visually
inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the surface of the public
water assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, whenever practical.
vi. Facilities such as ramps, lifts or mobility paths for physically handicapped
persons are also allowed for achieving access to shore areas, provided that
the dimensional and performance standards of subsections (i) through (v)
above are satisfied.
5. Subdivision Standards. The following standards shall apply to subdivisions in shoreland
areas:
a. Each lot created through subdivision must be suitable in its natural state for the
proposed use with minimal alteration. In determining suitability the City will consider
susceptibility to flooding, existence of wetlands, soil and rock formations with severe
limitations for development, severe erosion potential, steep topography, inadequate
water supply or sewage treatment capabilities, near-shore aquatic conditions
unsuitable for water-based recreation, important fish and wildlife habitat, presence of
DRAFT 4/14/14 5
significant historic sites, or any other feature of the natural land likely to be harmful to
the health, safety, or welfare of future residents of the proposed subdivision, or of the
community at large.
b. Subdivisions must conform to all other official controls adopted by the City of Lake
Elmo. Subdivisions will not be approved that are designed so variances from one or
more standards in official controls would be needed to use the lots for their intended
purpose.
c. If, in a group of two or more contiguous lots under the same ownership, any individual
lot does not meet the requirements of this section, the lot must not be considered as a
separate parcel of land for the purposes of sale or development. The lot must be
combined with the one or more contiguous lots so they equal one or more parcels of
land, each meeting the requirement of this section as much as possible.
6. Agricultural Activities. The following standards shall apply to agricultural activities in
shoreland areas:
a. The shore impact for parcels with permitted agricultural uses is equal to a line parallel
to and 50 feet from the OHWL.
b. General cultivation farming, grazing, nurseries, horticulture, truck farming, sod
farming, and wild crop harvesting are permitted uses if steep slopes and shore impact
zones are maintained in permanent vegetation or operated under an approved
conservation plan (resource management systems) consistent with the field office
technical guides of the local soil and water conservation district or the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service.
c. Feedlots and manure storage are not permitted within the shoreland of watercourses or
in bluff impact zones, and must meet a minimum setback of 300 feet from the ordinary
high water level of all public water basins identified in subsection (1).
d. The use of pesticides, fertilizers or animal wastes within shoreland areas shall be done
in such a way as to minimize impacts on shore impact zones by proper application or
use of earth or vegetation.
7. Shoreland Alterations. The purpose of this section is to prevent erosion into public waters,
fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent back
slumping and protect fish and wildlife habitat. Shoreland alterations shall be allowed in
accordance with the following standards:
a. No principal or accessory structure or use shall be placed within bluff or shore impact
zones other than agricultural activities as permitted by subsection (5)(b).
b. Shore impact zones shall be maintained in permanent vegetation or operated under an
approved conservation plan consistent with the field office technical guides of the local
soil and water conservation district.
c. Intensive Vegetative Clearing. Intensive vegetation clearing within shore and bluff
impact zones and/or steep slopes is not permitted. Intensive clearing within shoreland
areas outside of bluff or shore impact zones and steep slope areas is permitted subject
to City approval of an erosion and sedimentation control plan that is consistent with
the City’s Storm Water and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance (§150.270).
d. Limited Tree Clearing. Limited clearing of trees and shrubs and the cutting, pruning
and trimming of trees within bluff and shore impact zones or steep slopes to
accommodate picnic areas, trails and water access and to provide a view to the water
from a principal dwelling site shall be permitted provided the screening of structures,
as viewed from the water, is not substantially reduced. These provisions do not apply
to the removal of tree limbs or branches that are dead or pose a safety hazard.
DRAFT 4/14/14 6
e. Grading in Shoreland Areas. Any grading or filling on steep slopes or within shore or
bluff impact zones involving the movement of ten (10) or more cubic yards of material
or involving more than fifty (50) cubic yards of material elsewhere in a shoreland area
shall require the submission of a Grading Permit. Approval shall be granted only if the
following conditions are met:
i. Any filling or grading in any Type 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 wetland shall be in
conformance with the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 and shall require
consideration of how extensively the proposed activity will affect the
following functional qualities of the wetland:
a) Sediment and pollution trapping and retention
b) Storage of surface runoff to prevent or reduce flood damage
c) Fish and wildlife habitat and endangered plants and animals
d) Recreational use
e) Shoreline or bank stabilization
f) Historical significance
ii. The smallest amount of bare ground is exposed for the shortest time
possible;
iii. Ground cover such as mulch is used for temporary bare soil coverage and
permanent ground cover, such as sod, is established;
iv. Methods to prevent erosion and trap sediment during construction are
employed;
v. Altered areas are stabilized to accepted erosion control standards;
vi. Fill is not placed so as to create unstable slopes;
vii. Plans to place fill or excavated material on steep slopes are certified by
qualified professionals as to slope stability;
viii. Alterations below the OHWL are authorized by the Commissioner of the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources per Minn. Stats. § 103G.245;
ix. Placement of natural rock riprap, including associated grading of the
shoreline and placement of a filter blanket, is permitted if the finished
slope does not exceed three feet horizontal to one foot vertical, the
landward extent of the riprap is within ten feet of the OHWL and the
height of the riprap above the OHWL does not exceed three feet; and
x. Alterations of topography shall only be permitted if accessory to a
permitted or conditional use.
f. Dedicated Riparian Areas. Riparian areas dedicated to the City shall be protected from
intensive development. Permitted uses include passive open space, pedestrian trails,
public parks and park-related structures, facilities for public water access, fishing
piers, parking lots for park users, and stormwater treatment ponds. Unless being used
for active park purposes, the riparian areas shall be maintained in permanent natural
vegetation.
8. Sand and Gravel Extraction. The following standards shall apply to sand and gravel
extraction uses:
a. Processing machinery shall be located consistent with setback standards for structures.
b. A site development and restoration plan shall be developed by the owner for approval
by the city which addresses dust, noise, possible pollutant discharges, hours and
DRAFT 4/14/14 7
duration of operation and anticipates vegetation and topography alterations. It shall
identify actions to be taken to mitigate adverse environmental impacts and measures
to be employed to restore the site after excavation.
9. Stormwater Management. Stormwater management shall be in accordance with the City’s
Storm Water and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance (§150.270). In addition, the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Minnesota Stormwater Manual shall be used as
guidance. Within shoreland areas, the following standards also apply:
a. Existing natural drainage ways, wetlands and vegetated soil surfaces must be used to
convey, store, filter and retain storm water before discharge to public waters.
b. Development must be planned and conducted in a manner that will minimize the
extent of disturbed areas, runoff velocities, erosion potential and reduce and delay
runoff volumes. Disturbed areas must be stabilized and protected as soon as grading is
complete and facilities or methods used to retain sediment on the site are removed.
c. Use of fertilizers, pesticides or animal wastes within shoreland areas must be done in a
way to minimize impact on the shore impact zone or public water by proper
application.
d. New constructed storm water outfalls to public waters must provide for filtering or
settling of suspended solids and skimming of surface debris before discharge.
10. Private Utilities. The following provisions shall apply in shoreland areas:
a. Private subsurface sewage treatment systems shall meet applicable City and County
requirements and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Chapter 7080 standards.
Publicly owned sewer systems shall be used where available.
b. Any private water supply to be used for domestic purposes shall meet quality standards
established by the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency.
11. Planned Unit Developments. Residential planned unit developments shall be permitted in
shoreland areas subject to the requirements of Article XVI of this chapter.
a. Design criteria for planned unit developments within shoreland areas:
i. At least 50 percent of the total project area shall be preserved as open
space. The open space computation shall not include road rights-of-way, or
land covered by roads, structures or parking surfaces.
ii. Open space shall include areas having physical characteristics that are
unsuitable for development in their natural state and areas containing
significant historic sites or unplatted cemeteries.
iii. Open space may contain outdoor recreational facilities for use by the
owners of residential units or the public.
iv. The appearance of open space areas, including topography, vegetation and
allowable uses, shall be preserved.
v. PUDs shall be connected to public water supply and sewer systems.
vi. Before final approval of a PUD is granted, the developer/owner shall
provide for the preservation and maintenance, in perpetuity, of open space
and the continuation of the development as a community.
12. Nonconformities. Nonconformities, substandard lots and structures, and nonconforming on-
site sewage treatment systems within shoreland areas shall meet the requirements
specified in Article IV of this chapter.
DRAFT 4/14/14 8
a. The expansion or enlargement of a riparian substandard structure shall meet the
shoreland development standards set forth in subsection (3) except as follows:
i. The extension, enlargement or alteration of a riparian substandard
structure or sanitary facility may be permitted on the side of the structure
or facility facing away from the OHWL without following the variance
process.
ii. An improvement to a riparian substandard structure or sanitary facility may
be allowed to extend laterally by a conditional use permit (parallel to the
OHWL) when the improvement is in compliance with the other dimensional
standards of this chapter. In no case shall the improvement extend closer
to the OHWL than the existing structure.
iii. Decks may be allowed without a variance where riparian dedication is not
required, provided as follows:
a) A thorough evaluation of the property and structure reveals no
reasonable location for a deck meeting or exceeding the existing OHWL
setback of the structure;
b) The deck encroachment toward the OHWL does not exceed 15 percent
of the existing shoreline setback of the structure from the OHWL or
does not encroach closer than 30 feet, whichever is more restrictive;
and
c) The deck is constructed primarily of wood, and is not roofed or
screened.
iv. If a riparian substandard structure is demolished, replacement shall comply
with the dimensional standards of this section.
C. Required Notice to the Department of Natural Resources. The zoning administrator shall send
copies of notices of any public hearings to consider variances, plats, ordinance amendments,
PUDs or conditional uses under local shoreland management controls to the commissioner of
the department of natural resources or his designee at least ten days prior to the hearings. In
addition, a copy of the approved amendments, plats, variances and conditional uses shall be
sent to the commissioner or his designee within ten days of the final decision.
DRAFT 4/14/14 9