Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-05-11 CPC Packet• I heater. T H EOWFYHOFA STILILWA1TERA PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING MONDAY, MAY 11, 2009 The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, May 11, 2009, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street. City of Stillwater Planning Commission regular meetings are held at 7 p.m on the second Monday of each month. All City Planning Commission meetings are open to the public. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF April 13, 2009 MINUTES 3. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Commission may reply at the time of the statement or may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or Tess 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS. The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask city staff to provide background on the proposed item. The Chairperson will ask for comments from the applicant, after which the Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone else who wishes to comment. Members of the public who wish to speak will be given 5 minutes and will be requested to step forward to the podium and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of all public testimony the Commission will close the public hearing and will deliberate and take action on the proposed item. 4.01 Case No. 09-09. A variance request for the construction of a 16' x 26' attached garage located at 2018 Broadway St N in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Jack Diethert, applicant. 4.02 Case No. 09-10. A variance to the parking regulations and an amendment to a special use permit for the construction of a 3-story building located at 102 North 2nd St in the CBD, Central Business District. Richard Anderson, applicant. 4.03 Case No. 09-11. A variance request for the construction of a porch located at 805 5th St So in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Gregg Carlsen, applicant. 4.04 Case No. 09-12. A variance request for the construction of a pool located at 1211 Macey Way in the CCR, Cove Cottage Residential District. Eric Thole, applicant. 4.05 Case No. 09-13. A variance to the setback and height regulations for the construction of an office building located at 107 3rd St N in the PA, Public Administration and CBD, Central Business District. Michael Monn, HAF Architects, representing Trinity Lutheran Church, applicants. 4.06 Case No. 09-15. A special use permit for a wireless antenna facility located at 523 March St W in the RB, Two Family Residential District. T-Mobile, Steve Carlson, applicant. 4.07 Case No. 09-14. A special use permit for a wireless antenna facility located at 1900 Myrtle St W in the RA, Single Family Residential District. AT &T Mobility and T-Mobile, Ken Nielsen and Steve Carlson, applicants. 4.08 Case No. 09-17. A special use permit request for the renovation of an existing duplex into an art and cultural center and a variance to the parking regulations located at 224 4th St No in the PA, Public Administration District. Brian Larson, Larson Brenner Architects, applicant. 4.09 Case No. 09-16. Refinements to the draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. City of Stillwater, applicant OTHER BUSINESS — Review of age i s_or 1 ppotNi-6I EEQ3° RBAeT WUTA'55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 • WEBSITE: www.ci.stillwater.mn.us City of Stillwater Planning Commission April 16, 2009 Present: Dave Middleton, Chair, Suzanne Block, Mike Dahlquist, Robert Gag, Dan Kalmon, John Malsam, Scott Spisak and Charles Wolden Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Absent: Mike Kocon Approval of minutes - Mr. Gag, seconded by Mr. Dahlquist, moved approval of the minutes of March 9, 2009. Motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM There were no comments from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 09-08 A special use permit request for a Type III home occupation permit for an in - home occupational therapy business at 202 N. Greeley St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Lisa Sandstrom, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings and noted there are 12 conditions of approval for this type of home occupation special use permit; Mr. Pogge noted that the applicant has agreed to comply with all 12 conditions. Ms. Block asked about the estimated traffic; Ms. Sandstrom replied that she anticipates there will be no more than 20 visits per week, not 20 clients who might visit on more than one occasion. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Ms. Block moved approval as conditioned. Mr. Kalmon seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Review of Cub seasonal plan sales permit (continued from the March Planning Commission meeting) — Mr. Pogge noted that when the Commission considered the request in March, it requested additional information on the specific location of the garden center, circulation of the gas delivery trucks, potential conflicts with gas delivery and overall impact on parking. Since the March meeting, Mr. Pogge said Cub submitted additional drawings which were included in the agenda packet. The garden center will be placed in the same location as in previous years, in the northwest corner of the parking lot, he said. Regarding circulation of the fuel truck, drawings indicate the proposed route meets all required clearances, he said. Mr. Pogge said staff met with Cub Foods representatives, and Cub indicated it is working to have off-peak fuel delivery to avoid any conflict with customer traffic. Mr. Pogge also stated with the garden center in place, there is a total of 435 parking spaces on site, with an additional 12 proof of parking spaces that could be installed before next year's gardening season should parking become an issue this year; the overall parking requirement for the site is 447, he stated. Mr. Pogge concluded that staff is recommending approval with five conditions. A Cub Foods representative was present and stated he felt all of the questions had been addressed, and, if any other questions arise, Cub will attempt to answer those as well. 1 City of Stillwater Planning Commission April 16, 2009 Mr. Middleton asked about the length of operation of the garden center. The Cub Foods representative stated the request is for operation until about July 5, noting that the length of operation actually depends on the seasonality of product and weather; he said, in most instances, it is Cub's desire to conclude the operation by mid- to third -week in June. Mr. Middleton said his concern was with the potential for two outdoor operations — the garden center and fireworks sales. It was noted that the request for fireworks sales must be approved and that request is submitted by the vendor, not Cub, for consideration. Mr. Wolden expressed a concern about the proximity of the garden center to the liquor store entrance and the truck traffic there. There was a question about frequency of fuel delivery; the Cub representative said that is dependent on movement of product, but said he would expect that at the high end, there would be one delivery per day; he reiterated that the vendor, Holiday, has been very cooperative in arranging for overnight or early morning delivery. Mr. Wolden, seconded by Mr. Malsam, moved approval as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously Mr. Gag spoke of a possible alternate location; the Cub representative responded that location may be off the store's property. Motion to approve as conditioned passed unanimously. Discussion of Millbrook subdivision single-family home design — Several representatives of Lennar were present to discuss proposed additional elevations and house plans in both the CR and large -lot areas of Millbrook; plans include two -car garages, in the CR district, and three -car garages for the larger lots. The spokesperson stated the three -car garage design incorporates the additional garage space into the living space, rather than just adding a stall to the edge of the garage area. Mr. Dahlquist asked if these plans would be additional to the current offerings; the Lennar spokesperson stated the current offerings would be available, but they may phase out those that are not getting any buyer attention, likely resulting in six total plans being available. On a question by Mr. Dahlquist, the Lennar spokesperson stated the three -car garage versions would be limited to the larger lots, but noted they may come back in the future with a request to change the designation of some lots to large -lot even though some home sites may be lost. It was noted that square footage and floor plans are much the same as current offerings — the change is in the addition or deletion of the garage stall. Ms. Block noted a previous concern about the height of homes backed up to Twin Lake and asked if the height has changed in the new plans; the Lennar spokesperson said the heights have not changed. Ms. Block wondered whether the elimination of a garage stall may lead to future requests for sheds. Mr. Wolden asked whether plans would meet setbacks as referenced in Lennar's letter to the City; the spokesperson stated based on their understanding of the design regulations for the area, they know they will have to limit the use of some of the plans to meet the guidelines. Mr. Dahlquist commented that the garages are a much more dominant feature of the new plans; he asked whether these plans would apply to phase 1 only or to future phases, as well. The spokesperson said the request would be to utilize these plans through phase 1 and as the project moves forward. Mr. Dahlquist verified that the developer would be limited to about 25% of the lots based on the garage setbacks of the new plans. Ms. Block spoke of the "monotony" regulations and stated she had noticed two houses, viewed from the rear elevation, of the same color next door to each other; the spokesperson stated the front elevation is related to both color and house plans and there could potentially be two houses of the same color adjacent to each other if they are different house plans. Ms. Block asked about plans for the park; the spokesperson responded that about half of the park is ready for development. Mr. Pogge noted the City has been programming park development funds and 2 City of Stillwater Planning Commission April 16, 2009 because of the low number of residents has decided to wait until the area develops a bit further before developing the park. Ms. Block pointed out the park will serve residents other than just Millbrook residents and wondered if there was any advantage to delaying development. Mr. Pogge said there is a financial consideration in delaying development. Mr. Gag asked about the process for approval of the changes; Mr. Pogge explained both the Planning Commission and Council would hear the request and could consider additional conditions related to the house plans if so desired. Mr. Gag spoke of the amount of time spent considering plans in the past and said he finds the constant changes difficult and frustrating. There was discussion of the changes that have been made to plans in the past. The spokesman spoke of the changes in the market and industry that have prompted the request. Mr. Dahlquist suggested there will be additional changes to the market before this project is completed and the City must be careful not to react incorrectly to every change; Mr. Dahlquist also stated when this project was first considered, the housing types, cottages and traditional, were looked at as adding variety to the City housing stock. Mr. Dahlquist spoke of the importance of ensuring that there is a variety of housing stock, styles, prices, for all residents, a reason why the Planning Commission must careful when considering the proposed changes. The Lennar spokesperson reiterated that the proposal adds variety to what is available and falls within the rules for Millbrook. Mr. Middleton noted there while things change over time, there are some guidelines, such as garage setbacks/prominence, in place for this development, guidelines that the Commission is going to be very critical of when considering the request. Comprehensive Plan update — Community Development Director Turnblad provided an update on the Comprehensive Plan process. He stated the jurisdictional review period is finished, with only Lake Elmo's review/comment yet to be completed, and the Met Council has indicated the City can proceed. He said at the next meeting, the Planning Commission will look at all the comments from the reviewing agencies and decide if any comments have merit to be included in the Plan. After the City Council reviews/discusses comments, the Plan will be submitted to Met Council, hopefully by early June. Mr. Turnblad also stated that at the May meeting, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to refine the land use map, which will be included with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Turnblad reviewed some of the possible land use map changes. Mr. Turnblad said once the Comp Plan is adopted, the Commission will be busy with two consistency projects, looking at properties to ensure they are zoned consistent with the newly adopted maps/Plan. Mr. Kalmon asked if there is any additional time for public comments; Mr. Turnblad stated the public comment period is never closed, even after the Plan is adopted. Ms. Block, seconded by Mr. Wolden, moved to adjourn at 8:10 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 3 Planning Commission DATE: May 5, 2009 APPLICANT: Jack Diethert CASE NO.: 09-09 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a variance to the minimum lot size (7,500 square feet required/6,665 square feet proposed) in order to construct an attached 16 foot by 26 foot garage and associated driveway. LOCATION: 2018 Broadway St N COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: SFSL - Single Family Small Lot ZONING: RB - Two-family District PC DATE: May 11, 2000 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner BACKGROUND The applicants are requesting a variance to the minimum lot size in order to construct an attached 16 foot by 26 foot garage. This property is zoned RB and currently has an existing single-family home. The lot is 6,665 square feet in size. DISCUSSION Chapter 31-308 (b)(1) relates to minimum massing standards in the RB zoning district. The current lots size is 6,665 square feet and the RB zoning district requires 7,500 square feet for a single-family lot. The lot was platted in 1856 and its size has remained unchanged since then except a portion which was purchase for right-of-way by Mn DOT for State Highway 95. The proposed garage meets all required setbacks, impervious coverage limits and all other bulk regulations of the RB zoning district. SPECIFIC REQUESTS In order to construct an attached 16' by 26' garage the applicant is requesting a variance to Section 31-216 of the City Code states that a structure on a non -conforming lot cannot be expanded. Since the lot is nonconforming, a lot size variance in being request to remove the nonconforming status of the lot. 2018 Broadway St N Page 2 EVALUATION OF REQUEST A variance may be granted only when all of the following conditions are found: 1. A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists. Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. The property is a 6,665 square foot lot. The subject property is Lot 1, Block 54 of Carli and Schulenburg's Addition to Stillwater, excluding a portion that of the lot that was ROW for State Highway 95, and was platted in 1856. Except for the loss of right-of-way for State Highway 95, the size of the lot has not changed since itwasoriginally platted. This is a situation that was not created by an act of the current property owner. 2. A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors. This property is zoned as two-family residential, which allows single family and two- family uses. The Commission generally considers garages an important element for residential uses. Without the variance to the lot size the applicant would be deprived the right to construct any garage on the property. Therefore, staff finds that a variance to the minimum lot size is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of rights possessed by other properties in the same district and in the same vicinity. 3. The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan. The authorizing of the variances to the minimum lot size will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title and would not necessary adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan. FINDINGS 1. The current lot size is a hardship that is peculiar to the property and is not created by acts of the owner. 2. The variances to the minimum lot size is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and in the same vicinity; and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. 3. The authorizing of the variances to the minimum lot size will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent property, will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title and would not necessary adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan. 2018 Broadway St N Page 3 ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the requested variance to the minimum lot size. Additionally, staff would suggest the following conditions for approval: a. All minor revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. All major revisions shall be revised and approve by the Planning Commission. Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor" shall rest with the City Administrator. 2.Deny the requested variance. 3. Continue the public hearing until the June 8, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. The 60 day decision deadline for the request is June 15, 2009. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approving the requested variance to the minimum lot size as conditioned. Attachments: Applicant's Form, Site Plan, and letter. PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 AT - Case No: Date Filed: Fee Paid: Receipt No.: ACTION REQUESTED Special/Conditional Use Permit ,( Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development Certificate of Compliance Lot Line Adjustment *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees. The fees for requested action are attached to this application. The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. All supporting matey' hotos, sketches, etc.) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater. ixfeen (16) opies of supporting material are required. If application is submitted to the City Council, twelve copies of supporting material are required. A site plan showing drainage and setbacks is required with applications. A complete legal description of subject property is required. Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay the application process. After Planning Commission approvals, there is a 10-day appeal period. Once the 10-day appeal period has ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits. Address of Project ', / Zoning District C17,/Y A/c, f3. /N/, /,3fi r/7dtoc.t...4.f Description of Project /3d l F�` PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Assessor's Parcel No. 2/ 030620I3O0b � �% � (GEO /Code) ��0r � . �. "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. 1 further certify 1 will comply with the permit if it is granted and used." Property Owner \.J /-=r ��._ 5Representative Mailing Address (;i �� �l zy it. ... S T Mailing Address City - State - Zip�. . ;...'. I 1 n, a� rx ., p �< � "l'� M `; City -State - Zi Telephone No.- : / _ `/ /<<- // Signature irie — (Signature isrequired)C Si r�(Signature is required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions)//'x / £Q Total Building floor area %<3k square feet Land Area v., (,.. (,y/, Existing 7,3 lc, square feet Height of Buildings: Stories Feet Proposed 4/ 16 square feet Principal h' Paved Impervious Area ! : - square feet / 7, 2 j Accessory No. of off-street parking spaces Telephone No. Signature r. ri sheila`,FLAi J FF.FRf l April 9, 2008 Case 09-09 2018 Broadway St N 2,o69-te6 ,zo acid kf7-olicaf ---02,u//r7 (cc_ tt--,e 6.J e cc) ,?7 /7 dJ a-/r/cY-- 02 76 ,z 2018 Lot Size 44.43 x 150 = 6664.5 House 46 x 16 = 736 Garage 26 x 16 = 416 TOTAL 1152 Impervious Coverage 17.29% ze. L/'/ 43 U 1.G 9©d- 1 8 w 1 Uveizh e/ ci cid��/`j c.�.✓e 4' PLANNING REPORT DATE: May 6, 2009 CASE NO.: 2009-10 APPLICANT: Richard Anderson REQUEST: 1) Special Use Permit for Hotel Annex 2) Parking Variance LOCATION: 102 N. 2nd Street ZONING: CBD, Central Business District PUBLIC HEARING:May 11, 2009 REVIEWERS: Public Works Director, City Planner, City Attorney, City Administrator, Assistant Fire Chief, Building Official PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND The Lowell Inn plans to build a three story addition, referred to as The Lowell Inn Annex. It would be located between the existing Lowell Inn and the City's parking ramp, which is currently under construction. The Annex would include a 3,975 square foot banquet center on the ground floor, 6 new guest rooms on the second floor and 6 more new guest rooms on the third floor. The addition is proposed to be constructed in two phases. The first phase includes construction of the entire exterior shell and completion of the ground level banquet center. The interior of the guest room floors would be completed during the second phase of construction. The development agreement for the municipal parking ramp includes provisions for construction of a banquet facility between the Lowell Inn and the parking ramp. Public discussions of the parking ramp also included a potential 2nd and 3rd story above the banquet facility. Lowell Inn Annex May 6, 2009 Page 2 of 6 SPECIFIC REQUEST In order to develop the three-story Lowell Inn Annex as proposed, the owners of the Lowell Inn have made application for approval of: 1. A Special Use Permit for the banquet facility and hotel expansion; and 2. A variance from parking requirements. EVALUATION OF REQUEST The Lowell Inn property is zoned CBD, Central Business District. Hotels and restaurants are allowed by Special Use Permit (SUP) in the CBD zoning district. Therefore, the owners of the Lowell Inn have made application for a SUP. In addition, the amount of parking required for the Lowell Inn Annex is 30 spaces.1 Since the parking lot for the Lowell Inn was sold to the City for development of the municipal parking ramp, the Lowell Inn no longer has on -site parking. Consequently, a variance is being requested from the 30 required spaces. Special Use Permit Sec. 31-207(d) of the City Code states that a Special Use Permit can be approved if the Planning Commission finds that: (1) The proposed use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, and any relevant area plans. Zoning Ordinance Use: The property is zoned CBD. In the CBD zoning district hotels are identified as an allowed use by Special Use Permit. Dining rooms, restaurants and banquet areas are corm -non uses found within a hotel. Therefore, with the issuance of a Special Use Permit the uses of the proposed Lowell Inn Annex are in conformity with the Zoning Ordinance. Parking: One of the Zoning Ordinance's performance standards that is related to the proposal is a minimum amount of on -site parking. As mentioned above, 30 parking spaces are required for the Annex. Since the required spaces are not available on the property, a variance has been requested and is discussed below. ' Stillwater's parking requirement for a hotels is: "One for each unit, plus one for the...manager (plus one-half of required parking for related activities such as restaurants, lounges and retail shops). Therefore, the Lowell Inn Annex would need 12 spaces for the new rooms, 1 for the manager and 17 for the banquet area (50% of the number of spaces generated by dividing the banquet space's 3,975 square feet of space by 120 square feet for each required parking space = 17 spaces). This would be a total of 30 parking spaces. Lowell Inn Annex May 6, 2009 Page 3 of Height: For infill projects downtown, the height of the infill building can be a maximum of 10% more than the average height of the buildings on either side of it. But, it also must be a minimum of no less than 90% of that average. The ramp's tower height is 52 feet, and the existing Lowell Inn is 47 feet tall. The average height is 49 feet 6 inches. So, the maximum height of the Lowell Inn Annex could be 54 feet 6 inches, but the minimum height must be at least 44 feet 6 inches. The proposed height is 44 feet 10 inches. Therefore, the height meets the Zoning Ordinance standards. Setbacks: The front setback of the Annex is proposed to be 15 feet. This is the standard requirement for the CBD district. The rear yard setback for the Annex is proposed to be 23 feet. 20 feet is the standard rear yard setback. The setback from the north lot line will be zero feet, since it will attach to the ramp on this lot line. For infill buildings that will abut other buildings in the CBD district, no setback is required. Therefore, all setback standards of the Zoning Ordinance are satisfied. Impervious surface: The proposed Annex will only add about 300 square feet of impervious surface to the Lowell Inn property, since the Annex will be located over the former parking lot and a previous addition to the Lowell Inn. 80% of a lot is allowed to be covered by impervious surface in the CBD district. With the additional 300 square feet of impervious cover, the property would have a little less than 75% coverage. Therefore, the impervious cover standard is satisfied. Comprehensive Plan City staff is not aware of any provision of the current or proposed Comprehensive Plan that would discourage development of the Lowell Inn Annex. (2) Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. Architectural design A design review permit has been approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. Miscellaneous • Rooftop equipment and roof penetration details have not been submitted yet. Since the rooftops of both the banquet center and the hotel rooms will be visible at least partially from above the 3rd Street bluffline, this information will need to be submitted before a building permit can be issued. Rooftop mechanical units should be avoided. Lowell Inn Annex May 6, 2009 Page 4 of 6 • Stormwater treatment - The footprint of the Annex is small enough that it does not trigger the need for a review by the Middle St. Croix Water Management Organization. • Lighting - Exterior lighting details will need to be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. • Garbage Disposal - There will be no exterior garbage receptacles. • Plans will need to be approved by the fire and building officials. • All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go back to the Planning Commission or Heritage Preservation Commission for review and approval. (3) The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. • Staff finds this criterion to be satisfied. Hotels and restaurants/banquet centers are desirable in the downtown district. And, with the new parking ramp adjacent to it, the proposed use would not disproportionately burden the downtown parking system. Variance As mentioned above, the proposed Lowell Inn Annex would need 30 parking spaces to meet the Zoning Code standards. However, the property has no room for on -site parking. Consequently a variance from the parking standard has been requested. In the Central Business District it is recognized that this condition will occur fairly regularly. Consequently Section 31-510, Subd. 1 (d)(1)i of the Zoning Ordinance allows "alternative provisions" when a proposed project is located within the downtown parking district. In these cases, the City reviews whether there is sufficient parking within the general vicinity of the proposed use. Prior to construction of the parking ramp, the Lowell Inn had 45 off-street parking spaces in their parking lot. The new parking ramp will have 281 spaces. Even with the demand placed upon the ramp by surrounding business, churches, downtown retail customers and employees, the extra 30 parking spaces required for the Lowell Inn Annex certainly can be accommodated within the ramp or in parking lots within a block or two of the Inn. According to the terms of the parking ramp development agreement, the Lowell Inn will have 23 spaces in the parking ramp: one for each of the rooms in the existing Inn. These spaces will be paid for by the Inn at the bulk permit rate. Guests of the Inri s Lowell Inn Annex May 6, 2009 Page 5 of 6 dining rooms, banquet center and Annex guest rooms will have to pay the standard rate for parking in the ramp. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve. If the Special use Permit and variance requests are found to be consistent with review standards, they could be approved with the following conditions: a. The project construction shall be in compliance with the plan set dated 4/16/09, which is on file in the Community Development Department. b. No rooftop equipment shall be visible to the general public. Any exterior mechanical units shall be fully screened. The location and screening of the equipment shall be reviewed and found acceptable by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit. c. A sign permit application must be submitted to and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission prior to installation of any permanent signs on the site. d. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, an exterior lighting plan shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the Community Development Director. The lighting plan shall show the fixture type, wattage, height, location and exterior lighting intensity. All lighting shall be directed away from the street and adjacent properties. Light sources shall be shielded from direct view. e. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to separate the clear water flow in the basement of the Lowell Inn from the sanitary sewer must be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director. f. All gutters, downspouts, flashings, etc. shall be finished in a color that matches the color of the adjacent surface. g. The street address of the building shall be displayed in a location conspicuous from 2nd Street. h. No trash enclosures are planned to be located outside. Therefore, no trash enclosures or trash bins will be allowed without prior approval of the Heritage Preservation Commission. i. All minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the Community Development Director. All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the Planning Commission. Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor" shall rest with the City Administrator. 2. Deny. If the proposal is not found to be consistent with review standards, the Planning Commission could deny the requests. A denial motion requires substantiating findings of fact. Lowell Inn Annex May 6, 2009 Page 6 of 6 3. Table the Special Use Permit request for more details. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval with the conditions found under Alternative 1. cc: Rich Munson, DBA Dick Anderson, Lowell Inn attachments: Site plan Applicant's materials ARCH. PRECAST MASONRY STUCCO FACE BRICK MASONRY ARCH. PRECAST BREAK MTL TRIM DECORATIVE MTL RAILING ARCH. PRECAST BRICK MASONRY ARCH. PRECAST ARCH. PRECAST WALL FEATURE ARCH. PRECAST MASONRY SOLOI-I ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" : I'-0" s 24 x 36 SCALE: I/8" . I'-0" 0 11 x 1-1 SCALE IN FEET 0' 2' 4' g. LOWELL INN ANNEX STILLWATER, MN onto (ii • — Ii �dlillsomI EAST ELEVATION SCALE 1/4" . 1'•0" a 24 x 36 SCALE: 1/8" . I'-0" 6 II x IT SCALE IN FEET 0' 2' 4' 8' architects 7300 HUDSON BLVD. N. , SUITE 230 OAKDALE, MN 55128 PH(651)714-8115 FAX (651)735-1228 www.dbaarchitects,com ELEVATIONS 04-16-09 cs 001,1 14`4C-' NI* Ei 0 I. 1r° tAM%9-1 L60LAT113 210012 8 :3 YO' 1 G d313 1 '3'1 133S AS )11-31611\10 L701_ itiqi 10•IS .0NUSIX3 „ 01 1.731,41400—/ el3M3S 081).LV: 0NIISIX3 a Nv 3A0YGd - DN191100 ONLISI X3 4 -mmoi 05Z 9c 'ON '300 0330 rorfn llfloZi 3d 1332Nd 113PA01 90,4-A313 80013 E.' If Z..A313 210013 6 I'LL•s11313 ti0013 300113S 831.YM diC1 •.9 _ C •00L ANI NOLLO3N1400 331A63S 'NYS 31/41 .9 111,403NO3 CGOL ANI t 0 E L 1,1%1 HVE1S • ---"<"0- 0 LLArn 80013 9-. .0•••• .0** 133 8.1.$ ]awn TIVAV3NO3 30 3003 • al3H10 38 3 NOCI 38 01 83AUS %0Z0 d09 .L1,-.41 9C %O.Z 0 clOS ZOI C4OL ANI 9.60L 3dla *X3 83A0 51.7-1,E; clime XS LT 0 dS'el .9f ZC 9£CL.,=A313 N90-13 3$110H ONLLSIX3 OL *VAN1 0.60L HMS .1133ANI ONV NOLlY301 iovu Nod ivoleveogri/m armoscoa ZASI?,1 1.V Ij1S 011S3A0C .Z/L-L 3(1,0A-1 S" LOL ANI 'NYS %%\V j 171 : \ -- - - -- ' -2... .,_ \ \ • \•.''-', 1, ..-- .-- ..-- 1 ..-- ..-- -0.1 -- -- ,----- A ‘ 0 caN 99 - 0 (le SO ANI Z.9 LL Vi XIS'S0 clOS .9£-'d'l --11VM ONINIV1.321 )40019 - )01°3 otasvt3 96139 S 6 LT1FL A 1r*Z.7L VI 81: 0* SOL ANI 53,3 • ;,4138v.::.:1/V373d131ds 3 ""'" N7-1=1 ElIG -, rnCD m X O t. u D , -0 A lP y m 0 m( D 0 W O A O mZj -0E (1-0 W E ,z€DoiTno is , o Z<ZAmcrny GOAD OAmthm0=D p r t AA OZ A Q Z. n n D co CI co -< Z \\ dOO1S JOIJ31X3 Ny1:1pN � — X X �/ N /-'_j AX A Z, 6_ NZo6 oN Qm 1331135 __�m Z, // XXX-L0 a 103f'Od'd LOWELL-INN ANNEX 102 N. 2ND ST. STILLWATE, M\ 0 NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION DEarchitects 7300 HUDSON BLVD. N. , SUITE 230 OAKDALE, MN 55128 PH(651)714-8115 FAX (651)735-1228 www.dbaarchitects.com — 11 133� NI 3lGOS SNOI1ION00 DNI1SIX3 117 WdINEA 01 NO1OVNINOO -InENE9 SHADED WALL - EXISTING TO REMAIN NyTd a100-U 1G H 9, N LOWELL-INN ANNEX 102 N. 2ND ST. STILLWATE, MN NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION DEarchitects 7300 HUDSON BLVD. N. , SUITE 230 OAKDALE, MN 55128 PH(651)714-8115 FAX (651)735-1228 www.dbaarchitects.com m CNO9EG 0 z 3S'-I 1/4" ///I'A I !// NlbW3� 01 7NI191X3 - T1dm 434GHS GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO vERIFT ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS CN03S XXX-L0 z 1O3foJd LOWELL-INN ANNEX 102 N. 2ND ST, sLLWATIR, MN NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION DEP architects 7300 HUDSON BLVD. N. , SUITE 230 OAKDALE, MN 55128 PH(651)714-8115 FAX (651)735-1228 www.dbaarchitects.com 133d NI 3-17•DS N'rld J00Td Cellill xxx-Lo z lo3ro�d LOWELL-INN ANNEX 102 N. 2ND ST. SILLWATER, MIS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION Dg• architects 7300 HUDSON BLVD. N. , SUITE 230 OAKDALE, MN 55128 PH(651)714-8115 FAX (651)735-1228 www.dbaarchitects.com 30V3 o00n1S -o rn m O Oz 2 3 z m rt 133d NI 31V0S O 8 x X m NOHH'7A3T ±e rn m m z 309'3 000n1S 9NId00 114-4 Nld-3Nd 3 0 A I 19V03d 1-1 7 30Vd Oo0n1S JINNOSVW >10119 3Nn1V3d 1-17m 1SV03d'hONV 9NIdO0 111-1 NH-3Nd 9NIdO0 11W Nld-3Nd 1SV03Nd"hONV 1S703d"hONV .INNOSVW >I0IN9 e 1SV03Nd"1-10N7 0 m O O 71 D D— m — z WIN1 111-1>IV3N9 19V03Nd 1-10 7 mann I I IIIIIII�IIIIUIIIIIIIIIIHIiiiiIII ANNOSVW >I0019 .1111111111 .lNII 30Vd 000n1S 3 n 0 A IMEMEMMI Hill HIIHHHIIIIIIHH I I IHHHHIIIHIIIIIHIIIIu SNOIlVATI: xxx-10 . 1o3roNd LOWELL-INN ANNEX 102 N. 2 STILLWATJ NI ST. NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION DEarchitects 7300 HUDSON BLVD. N. , SUITE 230 OAKDALE, MN 55128 PH(651)714-8115 FAX (651)735-1228 www.dbaarchitects.com Planning Report DATE: May 6, 2009 APPLICANT: Gregg Carlsen CASE NO.: 09-11 REQUEST: 1) Lot size variance 2) Lot width variance 3) Side setback variance for non -conforming house 4) Rear setback variance for non -conforming house 5) Building coverage variance ZONING: RB, Residential Two -Family LOCATION: 805 S. 5th Street PUBLIC HEARING:May 11, 2009 REVIEWERS: City Planner, Building Official PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director 7.17 BACKGROUND Gregg Carlsen would like to add a porch to the front of his home at 805 S. 5th Street. The porch's main purpose is to correct a stormwater problem along the front of the house. The porch would meet all required setback standards. However, the existing house setbacks, lot size and lot width are non -conforming. A non -conforming property can not be expanded. In order to construct the desired addition on the non -conforming property, the City would have to grant variances to the non -conforming features. This would remove the non -conforming status of those features and construction of an addition could be allowed. Also, since there is already more impervious cover on the lot than permitted, Mr. Carlsen would reduce the overall lot coverage by demolishing a porch on the rear of the house and removing a portion of the bituminous parking area in front of the house. This can be seen in the attached site plan. When the entire project is completed, the overall Carlsen Variances May 6, 2009 Page 2 of 4 impervious cover on the lot would be reduced from 55.7% to 52%. However, since this is still over the 50% allowance in the RB zoning district, a raingarden is proposed to mitigate the excess storwater runoff potential. SPECIFIC REQUEST The property is located in the RB, Two -Family Residential Zoning District. The critical standards from the district are presented in the table below, together with the current and proposed measurements. RB Zoning District Required Current Proposed Lot size 7,500 s.f. 5,720 s.f. Same Lot width 50' 40' Same Building cover, max. 25% 34.4% 37.2% Other impervious, max. 25% 21.3% 14.8% Total impervious, max. 50% 55.7% 52% As seen in the table, the proposed porch would slightly increase the magnitude of the non -conforming building coverage from 34.4% to 37.2%. However, with other alterations, the overall project would result in a net decrease in total impervious coverage from 55.7% to 52%. In order for the applicant to proceed with the project, the following specific actions would be needed: 1. Approve a 23.7% variance from the minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet to remove the non -conforming status of the 5,720 square foot lot. 2. Approve a 20% variance from the minimum lot width of 50 feet to remove the non -conforming status of the 40 foot wide lot. 3. Approve a 66% variance from the minimum required side setback, since the minimum setback is required to be 5 feet and the existing house is set only 1.67 feet from the side lot line. 4. Approve a 20% variance from the minimum required rear setback, since the minimum setback is required to be 25 feet and the existing house (after the back porch is removed) will be set only 20 feet from the rear lot line. 5. Approve a 48.8% variance from the maximum allowed building coverage on a lot, since the proposed building coverage would be 37.2% and the maximum allowed building coverage is only 25%. Carlsen Variances May 6, 2009 Page 3 of 4 COMMENTS ON REQUEST Since adding a rather small front porch is a sensible solution to the water problem experienced by the house, and the porch itself will meet all required setbacks, the proposal seems reasonable. Especially, since the net increase of building coverage will only be 160 square feet' and the total impervious cover on the lot will be reduced. The Planning Commission may grant the variances only if the following conditions are found to be satisfied2: 1. A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists. Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. The purpose of the variance process3 is to allow variation from the strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance where, by reason of the exceptional narrowness, shallowness or unusual shape of a specific piece of property or by reason of exceptional size, shape, topographic conditions, the literal enforcement of the terms of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties or undue hardship. In this case, the lot is only about 75% of the size of the standard lot in the RB zoning district, and it is only about 80% of the standard width. The lot was platted long before the current standards were adopted, so the owner did not create the hardship. Moreover, the location of the house in relation to its side and rear lot lines also was not caused by any action of the current owner. 2. A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors. Certainly there are other solutions to the water problem being experienced by the property owner. But, the solution is reasonable and the porch would be in keeping with the massing of the home and the neighborhood. Together with the proposed reduction in overall impervious surface on the lot, and the stormwater mitigation offered by the proposed raingarden, the variances would not in staff's opinion constitute a special privilege. 3. The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan. The proposed porch together with the stormwater management improvements meet this criterion. Massing of the home after the porch is added is in keeping 1 192 square feet for the front porch, minus the 32 square foot rear porch that will be demolished. 2 City Code Section 31-208(d) 3 City Code Section 31-208(a) Carlsen Variances May 6, 2009 Page 4 of 4 with the neighborhood. And, the overall impervious cover on the property will be reduced. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has several alternatives. A. Approve If the property owner's proposal is found acceptable to the Planning Commission, it could approve it subject to the following conditions: 1. An escrow for removal of the subject portion of the existing driveway and construction of the raingarden shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of any building permits for the project. The amount of the escrow shall be reviewed and found sufficient by the City Engineer. Upon a satisfactory inspection by the City Engineer of the completed site improvements, the escrow shall be released by the City. 2. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final inspection on the front porch addition, the rear porch must be demolished. B. Deny If the Planning Commission finds that the variances are not advisable, it could deny them: With a denial, the basis of the action should be given. cc: Gregg Carlsen, applicant attachments: Zoning & Location Map Site Plan Application materials Carlsen Site Plan Impervious to be remov porch to be removed 2 v d s acrs N X -a Existing house o 4,0 N NW AAW / raingarden to be added N VARIANCE REQUEST April 14, 2009 Applicant: Gregg and Kathy Carlsen Address: 805 5th St. So Legal Description: Churchill Nelson Slaughter Add'n, Lot-023, Block-005, Lot 23 & W 8 ft. of lot 8-005 Proposed project: We would like to add the porch to provide covered access to the front door, to improve the appearance of the house and help it fit in better with the neighborhood and to help solve longstanding water issues in the basement. The project would entail: * Adding an 8- x 24-ft porch. The footprint would fall within the designated setback requirements. * Removing approx. 1 100 sq. ft. of asphalt which now covers much of the front yard, then landscaping the area, increasing the amount of permeable soil * Removing the 4- x 8-ft. back porch. * Adding a rain garden and functional gutters, then re -grading, to help alleviate water issues. Steps will be taken to prevent increased drainage toward adjacent properties. It ‘3.-k _:) ,t,' A% " 4 01- Ar „ = kst .1, '3 t. 4 Carlsen Variance Location and Zoning • Zoning Districts A-P, Agricultural Preservation RA - Single Family Residential RB - Two Family TR, Traditional Residential LR, Lakeshore Residential CR, Cottage Residential CTR, Cove Traditional Residential CCR, Cove Cottage Residential 11111 CTHR, Cove Townhouse Residential TH, Townhouse RCM - Medium Density Residential RCH - High Density Residential VC, Village Commercial CA - General Commercial CBD - Central Business District BP-C, Business Park - Commercial BP-O, Business Park - Office BP -I, Business Park - Industrial IB - Heavy Industrial CRD - Campus Research Development PA - Public Administration Public Works Facility Railroad WATER Outside City Limits f Willard 805 S 5th U) Churchill Memo To: Planning Commission From: Bill Turnblad Date: May 6, 2009 Subject: Case No. 09-12 The application for Case No. 09-12 has been withdrawn by staff from the agenda. Planning Commission DATE: May 5, 2009 APPLICANT: Mike Monn, HAF Architects CASE NO.: 09-13 REQUEST: Variances in order to construct a 7,600 square foot office building. The variances include: 1. An eight -foot variance from the height regulation for the tower element (35 foot maximum, 43 feet requested); and 2. A variance to the front yard setback (30 required, 15 requested); and 3. A variance from the parking requirements (29 required, 4 provided). LOCATION: 107 3rd St N COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: CC - Community Commercial and A/O Administrative Office ZONING: CBD - Central Business District and PA - Public Administration HPC DATE: May 11, 2009 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner pe'cr DISCUSSION The applicant, Trinity Lutheran Church, is requesting variances related to height, front yard setback, and parking in order to construct a 7,600 square foot new office building at 107 3rd St N. The building will house a U.S. Post Office retail store in approximately 2,000 square feet with the remaining area available as leased general office space. The building is a single story office building with walk out level office in the lower area facing Myrtle and toward the east (rear) property line. The office and governmental uses are permitted uses in the CBD and PA district; therefore, no special use permit is required. 107 3rd St N Page 2 SPECIFIC REQUESTS In order to develop the two-story office building as proposed, the owners have made application for approval of: 1. A eight -foot variance from the height regulation for the tower (35 foot maximum, 43 feet requested); and 2. A variance from the parking requirements (29 required, 4 provided); and 3. A variance to the front yard setback (30 required, 15 requested). EVALUATION OF REQUEST Height Variance The building is located within the Central Business District Blufftop overlay district. In this area, the maximum height is three stories and 35 feet. Heights on this property are measured from the lowest curb on Third Street to the highest roof point. The main roof peak is 32.5 feet high and meets the requirements of the height overlay district. The tower feature is the only area of the building that extends above the maximum height of 35 feet. The tower extends to a height of 43 feet. As an architectural feature the size of the encroachment is minimal will. Therefore, staff finds, that the authorizing of the variance for the tower feature to exceed the maximum height requirement will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title and would not adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan. Font Yard Setback Variance The building is proposed to be setback 12 feet from Myrtle Street and 15 feet from 3rd St N. The building happens to be located within two zoning districts, the CBD at corner and 50 feet off of Myrtle and the PA for the remaining portion of the property. The building meets all setback requirements except for the portion of the building within the PA zoning district. The PA district requires a 30-foot front yard setback where the building only has a 15-foot setback. The applicant could apply to have the entire property rezoned to the CBD zoning. This would also require a change to the comprehensive plan. Currently, the Metropolitan Council is not accepting comprehensive plan amendments from the City until our updated plan is accepted by the Metropolitan Council, which will not occur until mid fall at the earliest. Due to the delay involved in approving a zoning change and the likelihood that it would be approved since it would be consistent with the updated Comprehensive Plan, it would seem reasonable to approved the requested variance. The proposed building meets all other setback and bulk regulations for the CBD and PA zoning districts. Parking Variance As mentioned above, the proposed use needs 29 parking spaces to meet the Zoning Code standards. However, the property will only have 4 on -site parking spaces. 107 3rd St N Page 3 Consequently a variance from the parking standard has been requested. In the Central Business District it is recognized that this condition will occur fairly regularly. Consequently Section 31-510, Subd. 1 (d)(1)i of the Zoning Ordinance allows "alternative provisions" when a proposed project is located within the downtown parking district. In these cases, the City reviews whether there is sufficient parking within the general vicinity of the proposed use. Prior to construction of the parking ramp, this site had 25 off-street parking spaces north of the proposed office building. The new parking ramp will have 281 spaces. Even with the demand placed upon the ramp by surrounding business, churches, downtown retail customers and employees, the extra 25 parking spaces required for this building certainly can be accommodated within the ramp. According to the terms of the parking ramp development agreement, the Trinity Lutheran Church will be credited for 40 spaces in the parking ramp for this site. These spaces will be paid for by the users of the ramp at the normal ramp parking rates. ALTERNATIVES The Commission has several alternatives that can be considered: A. Approval. If the variance requests are found to be consistent with review standards, they could be approved with the following conditions: 1. The project construction shall be in compliance with the plan set dated 04- 17-2009, which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. No rooftop equipment shall be visible to the general public. Any exterior mechanical units shall be fully screened. The location and screening of the equipment shall be reviewed and found acceptable by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Sign permit applications must be submitted to and approved by the HPC prior to installation of any permanent signs on the site. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, an exterior lighting plan shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. The lighting plan shall show the fixture type, wattage, height, location and exterior lighting intensity. All lighting shall be directed away from the street and adjacent properties. Light sources shall be shielded from direct view. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a drainage plan must be submitted to, reviewed by and approved by the City Engineer. 6. All gutters, downspouts, flashings, etc. shall be painted to match the color of the adjacent surface. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the plan shall be submitted to the Middle St. Croix WMO for review and any changes to the plan required by Middle St. Croix WMO and found reasonable by the City Engineer shall be incorporated into the plans. 107 3rd St N Page 4 8. The street address of the building shall be displayed in a location conspicuous from 3rd Street. 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, final plans for the trash enclosure will need to be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. No trash dumpsters shall be located outside a trash enclosure. 10. All minor modifications to the Design Review Permit shall be approved in advance by the Community Development Director. All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the HPC. Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor" shall rest with the City Administrator. 11. Prior to the issuance of a full building permit, final colors for the building, including, but not limited to, the brick, rain screen, window trim, fascia, and trim, shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 12. Prior to the issuance of a full building permit, material samples of all the elements, including brick, rain screen, retaining wall and stairs, shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 13. The applicant shall discuss with the USPS adding a second entrance to the USPS retail area. If the USPS does not want a second entrance, the applicant will need to rethink the main tower entrance. B. Deny. If the proposal is not found to be consistent with review standards, the Planning Commission could deny the requests. A denial motion requires substantiating findings of fact. C. Table the Variance requests for more details. RECOMMENDATION Heritage Preservation Commission The Heritage Preservation Commission approved the design review for the foundation of the building on May 4, 2009 subject to the condition listed above. City Staff Staff recommends approval with the conditions found under Alternative 1. attachments: Site plan Applicant's materials Apr 17 99 01:09p HAF Architects 6514300180 p.2 PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET S1ILLWATER MN 55082 Case No: Date Filed: Fee Paid: Receipt No.: ACTION REQUESTED Special/Conditional Use Permit Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance Lot Line Adjustment *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees. The fees for requested action are attached to this application. The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. Alf supporting material (i e., photos, sketches, etc.) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater. Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material are required. if application is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of supporting material are required. A site plan showing drainage and setbacks is required with applications. A complete legal description of subject property is required. Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay the application process. After Planning Commission approvals, there is a 90-day appeal period. Once the 90-day appeal period has ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits. 1�Z2`b•D�•2D.4-2 oDbp Address of Project ` 2 -2)YCk. r P�N Atcssor's Parcel No.g . Q .2•Q. 42 . ((Jc \ `QA- (GEO Code) Zoning District C. Description of Project O O,rA(\ flats PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION "! hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct 1 further certify 1 will comply with the permit if it is granted and used." Property Own erTr 1 Y st ) aA4lLX OLY \ n.t lL.fiC -' 1 MailingAddressYC• X $ \ City - State - Zip c 1611U,j*1������ Telephone No.\ \4t 1. Signature (Signature is required) glYl , fi r ✓? I -S-lr i^ Representative nW-- ‘Al-CV\.1.3\flice Mailing Address\2 r5 c YCa. cutidit City - State - Zip I. G,F..L iYY11.-) Telephone No. `05`.?, Signatur a is required) mmonn hcdCt( hi -}ems. CS)n PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM Lot Size (dimensions))4b1 x 90 Land Area Case No: Date Filed: Fee Paid: Receipt No.: SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Total Building floor area 3-414 square feet Existing 0 square feet Height of Buildings: Stories Feet Proposed 1411 square feet Principal 2 N/ik Paved ImperviousArea 4050square feet Accessory N/ N(t+ No. of off-street parking spaces IZ. H:\mcnamara\sheila\PLANAPP.FRM April 9, 2008 ARCHITECTS ARCHITECTURE ° PLANNING ° INTERIOR DESIGN April 17, 2009 City of Stillwater Community Development 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater MN 55082 P: 651-430-8820 Project: Third Street Office Building Project No.: 08-049 Re: Planning Administration Application Variance Request Legal Description The west 90.00 feet of Lot 14; the west 90.00 feet of Lot 15; the south 45.00 feet of the west 90.00 feet of Lot 16; all of Lot 17; the north 5.00 feet of the west 90.00 feet of Lot 16; that part of Lot 18 described as: Beginning at the northwest corner thereof; thence south to the southwest corner thereof; thence east to the southeast corner thereof, thence west 25.00 feet, thence northerly to the point of beginning; The west one-third of the north half of Lot 20; Lot 21, except the east 60.00 feet thereof; the east 60.00 feet of Lot 21 Setback Variance Request The Third Street Office Building site is currently a split zone (north side is zoned PA, south side is zoned CBD). The building is currently designed to meet CBD guidelines. It is our understanding the City's Comprehensive Plan intends to make our entire site CBD zone. Altering the site at this time to be rezoned is not an option from a schedule stand point based on future changes to be made to the City Comprehensive Plan, establishing the project's hardship. We feel the building design responds to the existing neighborhood and is consistent with the City's guidelines. Height Variance Request The Third Street Office Building design concept is purely based on historic design of existing neighborhood buildings. We have designed a tower to respond to the numerous existing neighborhood steeples. The tower was also incorporated to complement the City Hall tower. A very small portion of the tower exceeds the City's height restriction. A redesign of a shorter tower would hinder the building's proportion and response to the existing neighborhood steeples, establishing the project's hardship. STILLWATER MN OFFICE 1 2 4 4 5 5 5 T" STREET SUITE A LAKE E L M O, MN 55042 P: 6 5 1- 3 5 1- 1 7 6 ❑ F: 6 5 1- 4 3❑-❑ 1 8❑ W W W. H A F A R C H 1 T E C T S. C O M Member of The American Institute of Architects MAD I S O N W I OFFICE 5008 LINDE LANE SUITE 300 DEFOREST, WI 5 3 5 3 2 P: 6 0 8- 8 4 6- 1 3 0❑ F: 608- 8 4 6- 7 0 9 9 W W W. H A F A R C H I T E C T S. C O M THIRD STREET OFFICE BUILDING THIRD STREET Sc MYRTLE STREET STI LLWATER„ MINN ES DTA ABBREVIATIONS A F p se ARCHIE...7 sav ASO, ':/% 'F‘rIR''O'=r-ONINE• ACT sccuanc,_ TOE ADJ. AI/JUST/NE, A, ABOVE FINISHER ALT ALTERNATE ALUM ALUMINUM ARCH ANCHOR, ANCHORAGE AP Access PANEL APPD APPROVED APPROX.APPROXINIATE ARCH ARCHITECLIURALI ALIT. ALEromATID Ave. sveasac El DRAIN PAR PARALLEL ron rouaosnoa PEID ...7._ BOARD ;1=1"=/:..1: r.7- =1:.°:,"'-' CABINET aaago aaaJorra FFE FINISHED ,00n , PLATE ,.,.. ELEVATION .A.F.,, P.L.., PROPER, 9NE FLEX ,EXIB, FLU FLAMM.. aLea PLUMBING PLF POUNDS PER LINEAR FOOT ;I:IL. Ella:IRON. .INIRESCENT PRI PANEL PC, POLISIEEDIED, PR FRAME., ENS, PR PAIR Fr FOOTIFEMI PREFAB PREFADRICAT901 WS F PRES aaasauae FUR FURRED, EURRINM PRO.] PROJECTION row FUTURE par POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT ,/C FIRE VALVE CA/MEET Per POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH ri , PAINT.. eo aosao BEL BELOw BET. BETWEEN REV BEVELED 131-KS GLOCKIIND, BLOM SUILDINEI am BOT BOTTOM ERG SEARING eFeK maim, BERT BASEMENT 1/16 BOTH EIDER BTI1 ERITIEW THERMAL UNIT PTO PAPER TOWEL DIEPENSER GA GAGE, GAUGE CIALV GALVANISED PIN PARITITON SC OWERAL CONTRALTICRI .'r. 'I.I'..'.-....T ....'T.R FIVO POLVINTL CHLORIDE MD GRADE. ORADINS O, MASKETIEDI . V/0 PLYWOOD e, aLass. 131-A.11,10 El 13,IP BOBLIPSUAI WARD 9 ROAR QTY DLIANTI, 11 a sea NC HOLLOW CORE RAD RADIUS MC. HANDICAPIPEDI aca aErLcorco orlon. aLsa so ocso an Roar Das, HOW HARDWARE Rev REVISION, RWISE101 HEX HEXAGONAL RECIP RECEPTACLE NM HOLLOW MELAL REF. REVERENCE HORIZ NORIEONTAL Kip HIGH POINT RE, REFLECTIED/ IIVEI REG. MOISTER HR HOUR RFINP RE.FORCEIDI. GR. HT oaraor aaa. araaaaao ora HEAT... RN RI., HAND ow Herr wwrca ao ROUSH °PERIN. FWD HYDRAULIC I owe cam CAP CAPACITY cen CEMENT cca caw., ca CORNER WARD CHAN CHAMFER CHEW CHALKBOARD CIR CIRCLE CIRO CIRCUMFERENCE CK CAULIDINNI CL CENTER LINE cLa CEILING CIO CLEARIANCE, aLs cLoauae p,,H co,„„E„ ,,,,,,,,,,,,„, arum CO CLEANEST WEE COEFFICJENT COL. COLUMN roma CCIMINNANION COMP COMPRESS...CON, IIBLE, CONC. CONCRETE CONE CONFERENCE CONN CONNECTION /CD CONS" CONSTRUDMON CONTINUE CONTR. CONTRATTIO. coaa coamooa CFR CARPET/EDI .. ......'....... CERT CASEMENT CT CERAMIC TILE DI1 , CUBIC FOOT !PEEN CU TO CLIBM YARROW CW COLD ww-ren t..a. D S SCILl7H N IRONIC. BAN ssarrsar NEL. INCLUEID1.11N. scam RCHEDULE aro INFORMA.CN SOAP DISPENSER NSIll. INWL,E101.110. Zp,. ...yww, NT INTERIOR EP SQUARE FOOT IEEE, Li SOL SINGLE J XX." SHT eHE, JAN JANITOR SIM RIMILAR , MaINT Bap SANITARY NAPKIN OISPENSER SNP SANITARY NAPKIN RECEPTACLE SPED SPECIFICATION Bp. EIWARE KNOCK., 533 STAINLESS STEEL L STD STANDARD wroa STORADE LAM LAHINATEIDI TITRUCT STRUCTURE, STRUCTORAL LAT. uoarrasL ea.. ausaaao. SUSPENDED LAV LAVATORY Le POUND,. LH Le, OWN° r TREAD LIB LIBRARY YO. TOP OF LIN LINEAR TEL TCLEFHONE LL LIVE LOAD TEMP TEMPEEIATURE LOW WIRT TERR TERRAZZO LT. LIGHT LW 913NTINE TLC TONGUE A GROOVE THK TRICKINESS) LTL um,. Lva LIERavER THRU THROWN TPO TOILET PAPER DISPENBER M ,P ,PICAL DB DECISELISI DBL. DOUELE OEU DECREE., DEPT DEPARTMENT DE! DETAIL DIAS DIWEINAL DirE OMENsiory DISP DISRENSER NIEEZ II. DIVISION ON, DOWN E MAN MANUAL U MAS MASONRY UNOCRWRITER9 LABORATORY or, MEDIUM UR URINAL MERE NIENISPLANE v MEZZANINE YAW VAPOR BARRIER MFR. MANUFACTURE.. ID, wp wq„ p,,,s MIN. MINIMUM war VINYL COMPOSITION TILE MR_ METAL VIW VINYL WALL .WWINO MULL MULLION W N EA. EACH EXP. SOLEXPANSION 00, . EL ELEVATION N.C. ELEC. ELECTRICIALI NO ELW. ELEVATOR NOM EMER EMERMEN, ILLS_ ENCL. ENTILOBERIPEI ENO. ENDINEER os Eq. ECIDAL OC WIPP EQUIPMENT ao rar ESTIMATE orr EWE ELECTRIC WATER OR COOLER OPNG EXP EXPOSED OPP EXH EXHADE7 OZ EXIST MEOW. EXP. EXPANSION EXT. ,CTERIOR ., WEST ...T. W WIDTH NOT . CONTRACT /...p ww,, oomera wa w000 NOMINAL WWW WINDOW NOT TO SCALE W/D WITHOUT o WP WA,RPROOFIN0 OVERALL VP, WORKING POINT ON CENTERIS/ Re REPORT OUTSIDE RIAMETER WWF WELDED WIRE rsamic OFFICE OVERHEA0 y TO YARD OPENING YR. YEAR OPPOSITE ...RC,. LOCATION MAP 1.151- ' ... ' - ... ..... , . .,33 ,,,,,,,,, ,, ,, ••• , • -,::,,,,,4".,, ,--.. •"- 03,,,,•:q=!9, OA; IC, . ,.-0,0 •- 32 ' ' .4 8 fig§ a J.Z 4.L. 2 2 4* AIM.: IMAGE DIRECTORY OWNER ARCHITECT HAF ARCHITECTS, LLC 12445 55TH ST., SUITE A LAKE ELMO, MN 55042 CONTACT: MICHAEL G. HOEFLER PHONE: 651-351-1760 FAX: 651-430-0780 PROJECT TEAM CODE DATA A. APPLICABLE EXIILOING CODES EDDY PINNED°, err IL RULFINO CODE IV/ AMENDMENTS INCORPORATING IHE FOLLOWING. BOOS INTERNATIONAL WILE/IND LICIDE RODE ACCESSIBILF, CORE 3000 INTERNATIONAL FIRE COOL PUDE INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE ZOOS MINNEBOTA DIATE PLUMBING CODE SIXES NA,C1NAL E.CTRICAL CODE WEIS INTERNATIONAL WEL GAS CODE A EI,SNIIC ZONE C. OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION D. CONED/RUCTION ,PE C. ALLOWABLEAREA BOW PER WORT F. ACTUAL AREA .737 EI9- FT. PER STORY B. ALLOWABLE NO. OF SIDRA, H. ACTUAL RR. OP STORIES USA AN ENERGY ,1$ 11,DINC COrO.P.ANN• 21) L.4.30.1)4118 S11.1'..kAVA 17:11, IV2E,S2ITA F \ I I \ II )1' \I1- DRAWING INDEX TO TITLE SHEET AS 1 CONTEXT SITE PLAN WITH EXISTING HOUSE AS 2 CONTEXT SITE PLAN WITH PROPOSED OFFICE AS 3 CONTEXT SITE PLAN WITH PROPOSED OFFICE Li LANDSCAPE PLAN AR 1 ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING AR 2 ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING AR 3 ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING AR 4 ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING Al FOUNDATION PLAN A2 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A3 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A4 LOFT PLAN AB EXTERIOR ELEVATION A9 EXTERIOR ELEVATION Al 0 EXTERIOR ELEVATION All EXTERIOR ELEVATION ISSUE RECORD DATE DESCRIPTION SHEET NO. HAF ARCHITECTS HOEFLER ARCHITECTS LLC 12445 554h STREET SulYE A LAKE ELMO, MN 55042 PHONE 651-351-1760 FAX 651-430-0 I 813 WWW,HAFARCHITECTS.COM RENOLRINCII MICHAEL HOEFLER 24210 DS 049 MINH MOH 4-17-2005 PRELIMINARY ZZ=Z;v7,7.7Z,': DESCRIPTION SHEET iNFORMATION. TITLE SHEET TO Q z �! w w Q 46 z Ctw 1 44 ❑X3 ❑ N7< E aT -ma kk� ❑ N a m a 0 0 I f f I n E a z rc 7 m DESOR P ON 0 P r -fl EX:000NrG 31JIU NG CONTEXT SITE PLAN PROPOSED EXI'ST:NG BULDNG o 6 WOi DU:LONG E IS1'�PJf P. D1WC AF ARCHITECTS HOEG-LER AROHITEDTS LLD 1 2 4 4 5 5 5' STREET SLITS A LAKE ELMD, MN 55042 PHONE 651-a51-tT60 FAX 85 1-420.01 S0 WWW. HAFAROH ITEUTH .❑DM PROJECT: /S TF-FIDE HLOD H IRO HTI LLWATERRLE , MI NI IN EH CITA C/EISICIINI REVIEW I HEREBY OERTIK THAT THIS PLAN. SPECIFICATION CR REPORT WAS PREPARED ST ME OR HADES MY DIRECT RUPERVISION AND THAT AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE LIE MINNESOTA. MICHAEL HOEFLER OEN 24210 OB-049 MMH MOH 04/17/09 PRELIMINARY NOTICE: THE DESIGNS SHOWN ANC ...RIMED HEREIN INCLUDINO ALL TECHNICS, 0/LAWINDS, DAMNS.. AND MOOELS THEREOF, ARE PROPRIETARY AND CANNOT SE COPIED. DUPLICATED COMMERDIALLY EXPLOITED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF HAS ARCHITECTS. THESE ARE AVALABLE FOR LIMITED RENEW AND EVALUATION EY CLIENTS. CONSULT/ON, CONTRACTOR, AGENITES, VENDORS AND OFFIOIS POSONNEL ONLY IN ACCDROANCE WITH THIS NOTICE ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION CONTEXT SITE PLAN PROPOSED AS 2 Q z F A 002 W Y mm❑ W 0 h.-0 a 0 •-a00 F ❑F Z 0W g mah • ❑ am N Z �md 4-a 4 0 Id Id < a� Z • Oxi R74 1< —04 4k� W } 0 z 0 ❑4/17/09 PRELIMINARY W a m 0 O I IL' I& 0 /PARKINS LOT- CONSIRUVIE0 EY omen . . ...................... . ..... ................. NOSGAPE PLAN • •.• EXISTING, BUILDING, THIRD STREET ...... .. . . EXISTING, BUILDING, •.:.*::.: .• .• . . EXISTING, .•• .• BUILDING, • .• .• .• .• ..„.. . . . KEY NOTES I. COWPER STIPS WO RAILS 2 rfrez NW& DETAINS* MALI. MTN CONVIETO LANDOCAPEP AREA 4. GOT! 911760/XMLAZA & MOO POLE PITH LANDSCAPHS 6. AMA YeJ. - SCE PLAID 7. GLEanticAL TRANIrOMMER ary COMDIWUOTED IRMIKRO LOT .1. !WPM 610100.1.1C - SEE LI 10. SIR DETAIN* MALL BLOCKS (ANC41011 wrote) II. OITY SIVIVIALK 12 CITY We ID. MEE* 1-1/2 DR2Itf NOM LOADIN11 DOCK AIM TREE AND SHRUB PLANTINS TYPES SM. SNOW WPM (4) DEL FEVER DIMS (D) OIL MILL& INS (2) OS. slOLDEN SPIREA *NM OI HAF ARCHITECTS H EFLMR AR cHITEOTB LLB 12445 55'. STREET Bulyr A LAKE EL.M CI, MN 55 042 PHONE 65 1 -ast-1760 FAX 651 -420•01B0 WWW.HAFAROHITEOTH.00M PROJECT: THIRD STREET DIP -FIDE OLDS MYRTLE STILLWATER. NA INIRESCETA IDESISOM REVIEW PHONE: MALL.: EMAIL: I HERESY CENT. THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT W. PREPARED SY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I API A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT ILNGER THE LA. OF THE ETA. CIF MINNESOTA. MICHAEL HOEFLER o• 24210 09-049 MMH MOH 04/17/09 PRELIMINARY NOTICE: THE swum INILIWN AND DESCRIBED HENEIN INCLUDING ALT TED.ICIAL DRAWINGS, GRAPHICS, AND MODE. THEREOF, ARE PROPRIETIMMT AND CANNOT SE COPIED, DUPLICATED DR GONNIMMALLY EXPLOIT., IN WHOLE OP IN PART. WITHOUT .PRELLS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MAF ARCHITECTB. THESE APE AVAILABLE FOR LIMIT. REVIEW AND EVALUATION EN CLIENTS. CONSULTANT, GONTRAOTOR, KASS AND OAPS MASNISL ONS IN .COADANGE wing rise Noss voissopr HAFAAPHisse SOS. Au. RANTS ..SERVED ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION SHEET INPONNIATION: LANDSCAPE PLAN Li • HAF ARCHITECTS HOEFLER ARCHITECTa LLC 1 2 4 4 5 5 5 "< STREET a u I T E A LAKE ELMO, MN 55042 PHONE 6 5 1- a 5 1- 1 7 6 0 FAX 6.51-420-0190 WWW.HA%•ARUHITEQTB.UoM TIN IRO EIHAREET FF E aLO TN IRO B. MYRTLE aTI LI-WATER. MIN N EBOTA I HERESY CERTIFY AuT TRIM PLAN. SPECIFICATION UR REPORT WAR PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT RUPERVIBION ANC THAT I AM A DU, LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF me !DATE CF NINNPADTA. MICHAEL HOEFLER 24210 Oa-049 MMH MOH 04/17/09 PRELIMINARY INCLUDING ALL TEOVAICAL DRAWING, GRAM..., AND HOUMA PART, WITHCA EMPRESS WRITTEN PER:ARNIM OF NAF ARCHITECTS. THERE ARE AVAILABLE FOR UNITED REVIEW AND EVALUATION NY CLIENT, CONSULTANT, CONTRACTOR, MERMEN VERMIN AM 12ITRIE PORCIONNLL ON, IN ACCORDANCE WITI. ANS NOTICE, 0 COPYRIGHT HAF ARCNITIMPS DODO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION ARC a MEET INFDRMATION: HITECTURAL RENDERING AR 1 RGHITEGTURAL RENDERING NOT TOSCALE ter.. «^ •.'^`:�^ /J f JJ J' ! y... ^or s+ l-`yr HAF ARCHITECTS HOEFLER ARDHITECTB LLD 1 2 4 4 5 55.r. STREET S L I T S A LAKE 6 LMC, MN 55D42 PHONE 6 5 1- a 5 1- 1 7 6 o FAX 551-42o-D1ao WWW.HAFARUH ITEOTS. OOM 6 ICE THIRD SLCv 9T1 LLWATE RT: I MN E S CTA I HEREBY CERTIFY INAY THIS PLAN. EPECIFICATILIN CR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ISE OR UNDER WE DIRECT SUPERNBION ANO THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF me epoc OF MINNESOTA. MICHAEL HOEFLER 24210 ❑8.049 MMH MOH 04/17/C9 PRELIMINARY NOTICE: me DEBI.. SHOWN .0 OEBCRIFIED Hopp INCLUDINO ALL TECHNICAL ORADINITS, GRAPHICS,. HOVELS DUPLICATED DR CO...1AL, EXPLOITED. IN WHOLE OP IN PART, Armour EXPRESS WRITTEN PEPHISSION OF NAF ARCHITECT.. THE. ARE AVAILABLE FOR UNTIED RENEW AND EVALUATION CLIENT., CONBULTANTII, CONTITNITORB. ADENOILE. VENDERS A. OFFICE PEFIDONNEL ONLY IN ACCORDANCE vorm THIS NOTICE. ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION BNEEARCHITECTURALT I NFORMATION: RENDERING AR 2 RC.HITEGIURAIL. RENDERIN NOT TOSCALE ijr HAF ARCHITECTS HDEFLER ARCHITECTS LLC 1 2 4 4 5 5 5 r" STREET SUITE A LAKE E4M C, MN. 55042 PHONE 6 5 1- a 5 T- 1 7 6 0 FAX 65 1-4E16•01 S1] WWW. HAFAROH ITEDTS .0 OM THIRD. B, MY RTL EFFIDE BLOO STI LLWATER. MINNEB OTA I HEREBY DERN, THAT THIS SPECIFICATION DR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY MN CN UNDER MY OIRECY RUPERVIBION ANC THAT I AM A DULY LICE.. ARCHITECT 1.10ER THE LAWB OF WOHATIIRt MICHAEL HOEFLER 24210 ❑S-049 MMH MGH 04/1 7/09 PRELIMINARY THERM, ME PROMMOIANT AND .HNOT DON, CUPLICATED DR COMMERCIALLY EXPLOITED, IN WHOLE PART. WITHOUT DOME. WRITTEN PERMS.. OF NAF ARCHFITCTS. THESE ARE AAA... FOR LIMITED REM. ANC A.M., VENDORS AND OM. POLSONNYL ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH +HA NEE, COPYRIGHT HAT ARCHITECTS EMS. ALL RICH. Re8E4VED ISSUE DarE DEECRIPTIDN ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING AR 3 ITECTURAL RENDERING NOT TO SCALE T-Mobile/AT&T Communication Tower 1900 Myrtle St W May 5, 2009 Page 5 this site as required by state or federal regulations and the equipment manufacturer. Finally, T-Mobile and AT&T has indicated that they would propose to have the tower be a core -ten finish to match the exiting light poles with the antennas painted brown to match the pole. 3. An antenna placed on a primary structure may be no taller than 15 feet above the primary structure. Any accessory equipment or structures must be compatible with the design and materials of the primary structure and not visible from a public street. The first part of this requirement is not applicable to this request. For the second part staff recommends that the equipment cabinets and building be earth tone colors. 4. Monopoles only are allowed in residential districts. The proposed tower is monopole. 5. Minimum land area for freestanding monopole site in residential districts is one acre. The subject parcel is just over 29 acres in size. 6. A tower and any antenna combined may be no more than 75 feet in height, or 100 feet in height if collocated. The proposed tower is 100 feet with T-Mobiles antennas proposed to be at 97 feet in height and AT&T antennas proposed to be at 75 feet in height. If the antennas were to be internally mounted the tower would need to be 108 feet tall and a height variance would be required. Since the variance would be within 10 percent of the maximum allowable height for a telecommunication tower it seems reasonable to grant a variance since it allows the antennas to be internally concealed. Additionally, the applicant has indicated in their application that they will permit collocation on the tower. 7. A tower may not be located within 100 feet of any existing or planned residential structure. The tower is approximately 345 feet from any existing residential structure. There are no planned residential structures in the area that would be impacted by this tower. 7. A tower must be setback from a street line a minimum of the height of the tower and any antenna; and towers or antennas may be sited in preferred locations as listed in Subd. 2 of this Section 31-512 subject to design permit approval. The tower is approximately 228 feet from the nearest right-of-way. School sites is one of the preferred locations as listed in Section 31-512, Subd. 2. P R O►! R T Y L I N! TOP or moil d -IT1W ' /////l //1J/ l//// ///!/ ////// /////ill/// ///// ,///// /////, /////. //// ../ 4,0/ �l//l ///%�` '//�// %1/1l %1/1/ ///1/ %///1/ ////1 ///// ///// %//1// J11// /////! /41/% //1/1/ %///% //11/ '%/%/ Af r �------�--�/!/---I P R O►! R T Y L I N! TOP 1; /P %/1/////l/%/l /1.1 /f/////'f. ORS ROOD POETS ATOP 4b'X4.Q PAD 190011110 4' OONWCI! PLOM sue ATOP E. OP COPAOTmo SV®rW. - S tlIGTIPIY FOR DETAILS AMAMI "If OM :�-wil.--/I ///' //1//d /// HAF ARCHITECTS HCEFLER ARCHITECT® L1.Q 12445 55T. STREET a LI ITE A LAKE ELMO, MN 55E145 PHONE 8 5 1- a 5 1- 1 7 s o FAX 55 1 -450-C 1 SC WWW.HAFAROHITECT8.00M TN FAIDE aLDo H 1RD MERTLE STI LLWATER. MINN ES CITA I HEREBY CERT!, TIAT THIS PLAN. EPECIFICATION CR REPORT WAS PREPARED SY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERMBION ANC THAT I AN A DEILY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LATH OF THE STATE OF IBINNIEBOTA. offr„ THE MICHAEL HOEFLER 24210 O 5-049 MMH MGH 04/17/09 PRELIMINARY MOTICE: THE DESIGNB HNC.. AND DESCRIBED HEREIN INCLUDING ALL TEOHNICAL DRAWINGS, ORAPHIOS, AND 1.1006LE THEREOF, ARE PROPRIETARY AND oNNNIT: OOPICD, OPPLICF,TEP OR COMMERCIALLY EXPLOITED, IN WHOLE CR IN ZOTIFIS"r":=HT:=17,:;;EZBTNTIT'HT-11:L AND EVALUATION ET CLIENTS, CONSULTANTS, CONTRACTORS, PENNONNNL ON, IN COPYRIGHT TAP ARCHRELTE BOOB. ALL RIRIFTS RESERVED ISSUE DATE DEecRIPrION SHEET INFORMATION' FOUNDATION PLAN Al 2 2 V / / / / / / / / l / / / / / / / 6H 0-0. 610• 6,0• 6�0' 6'4• 0'•O• S-i' 4'-0" 1W 04• OW 04• 0;'-C 4'C 0' 4' 44 4'-0• / y / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / I. l 0 d>' (- dM , 1A' * * — 1 1 1 '- --- 1 j L--J 1 LE I L-. / 1 I L___I _ J 10 l_I - I ION' ke,0' II.6. + - 14,0 I". w• - M40• 647 I 1 1 1 1 gGH• ROOM IL ��r= ■■■ _L J_ I I . — L___I L_ _J / I J! LJ ail IL IVA PRAM! SW t A AID. ra.I. 1 . • / / / //.�/////// // ,IO1 Or 4'4 6'-O• 610• µp• 6w• sw '1'-s• O' 1w sw s1b wa• w-a• 010• 0-0• I' OULDN6 2 / / / WP OP NAY. M.140' / / / 1 /�. / OIOIS 004611.00 14140 / / / / / Tar @l61. • HAF ARCHITECTS HOEFLER ARCHITECTS LLC 1 2 4 4 5 5 5 "' . STREET SUITE A LAKE ELMO, MN 55042 PHONE 651-551-1760 FAX 651-430-01EG WWW. HAFAR0H IT80TH.00M PROJECT OFFICE EILIDE TN IRO S. MYRTLE ®TILLWATER. MINN EgoTA I HEREBY CERTIFY TX. THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION DR REPORT W. PREPARED Err ME OR LINDER MY DI.. SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER T. LAWS OF THE ErrATE or 2100.282.2. MICHAEL HOEFLER 2421❑ 09-049 MMH n..e..e e. M G H onrc 04/17/09 PRELIMINARY NOTICE: THE DENIM. SHOWN AND DESCRINSD HEREIN INDLUDING ALL IMUNNIOAL ORAWIN., GRAPHICS. AND MODELS THEREOF, ARE P.PRIETARY ANC CANNOT SE OOPIED. PART. wrn-Enur ESPRESS .I.EN PERMISSION OF RAF ARCHITECTS. THESE A.A.LARLE MR LIMITED REVIEW ANC EVALUATION PT CONEULTANTIII. 013NTRADTORS, CDPYRIGFIT HAS ARCHITECTS 20.. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION SHEET INFORMATION: LOWER LEVEL PLAN A2 Y'ER LEVEL PLAN IMPS .a 3 1 1 i i z—LAND.GAP! ARRA —! / / / / / / / / / / .e .a ..P PH. ..P 4. a -- O 1 O O O .NVIDIINL -� �G•NG85T!!I175RALK—^"." ♦ND.GAP! AIL .O' !A .O` COMER R .v` .4 1 .o` M .0 .4' S•. .4 O 1 11 3 2 .IP ALIH FRAM TAR t Y «7 74, o ?O .a xo.m..ewx -11Q LEAL MAN SO. ON, //////////// .O' M .*e IONA 4 0 POW 0 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 3 i i I i t 1 A-. z i i • 0 • 0 HAF ARCHITECTS H05FLER ARCHITECTS LLC 1 2 4 4 5 5 5 '. STREET 91llTE A LAKE ELMO, MN 55042 PHONE 651-851-1760 FAX 651-480•01El0 WWW.HAPAROHITEOTs.00M THIIRO SITEIEET HIRO S.MYRTLEFFICE 6�00 HTILLWATER. MINNESOTA, 0E1E11 OH, REVIEW I HERESY CENTRO-114AT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED RV Mt OR LINCER MY DIRECT MYPERNIBION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT WIRER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. MICHAEL HOEFLER 24210 OB-049 MMH IlIWORT, By MOH 04/1.7/09 PRELIMINARY NOTICE: THE DESIGNS SHOWN AND DEBONISED RESET INCLUDING ALL TECHNICAL DRAWINGS. GRAPHICS, AND MODELS EMILDITED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN PTIMISBION OF WAG ARCHITECTS. THESE ARE AVAILABLE FOR UNITED SEMEN, AND EVALUATION BY CLIENT, CONSULTANTS, CONTRACTORS. AGLAICISS, 'WINDOM AND OFFICE PERZONNEL ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WGN THIS NOTICE. COMMIT, RAF ARCHITECTS GOGH. ALL WORTS NERFRYFID ISSUE DATE OEECRwnON SHEET INFORMATION, MAIN LEVEL PLAN A3 AIN LEVEL PLAN • r O • . ti a T a a o a / &GM-+ CONIVICT ROOM PRINT ROOM T PLAN 13043. 4w HAF ARCHITECTS HOEFLER ARCHITECTS L1.0 1 2445 5 }S.'. STREET SUITE A LAKE ELMO, MN 55042 PHONE 6 5 1- 8 5 i- 1 7 6❑ FAX 651-480.01 HO WWW.HAFAR0H ITEOTa.00M IRO TMIRC B. MYRTLE EFFICE BLC� 9TI LLW/SER. MI NNE:B OITA, TWAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE RTATE OF MINNEGOTA. SWAATAst MICHAEL HOEFLER 24210 OB-049 MMH MOH 04/17/09 PRELIMINARY NOTICE: THE [GEISER RHONE AND [MEGRIM° HEREIN INDLEDINO ALL TECHNICAL DRAWER. ORAPTIO. AND MODELS THEM. ARE PROPRIETARY AND CANNOT ISE COPIED, DUPLICATED CR COMMERCIALLY ENFLOITEC, IN WHOLE DR /N PART, WITHOUT ENPREBEI WHITTEN PERMIBBION OF GAF ARCHITECTS. THESE ARE AVAILABLE OBE LIMITED REVIEW ANC ARCM, VRNOORS AND OFFIDE PERSONNEL ONLY IN RecoRRANCP WITH rm. NOTICE. D COPYRIGHT RAF ARCHITECTS ROOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION SHOFTEET INEOPLRMANATI 0 N: L A4 9•,I•-0• • JJOJ J L J JJ JJ O —PIM SEISM L JL KEY NOTE LEGEN I. MOOIL M PAGE NNN NTH UT PUNNO EGO 4'NIN COHNAVE JOTS 2 PACE 6RIGX SPECIAL NEN CUT OGN oCIC COTE 6. PACE ERICK HEM= COME Y LINTOIN HOATACe 100N! CAP 0. MIN NO / PANELS NTH aN1 JEANIE COLOR TO IN memo O. PIN916e9 ter& PAOCIA 1. Yr GOMPONIN►M . OQTIT • PIN1NWm /TOL STAMENS OWN HOOP PANELS N114 NYIM CPA= R4!/4' OA HMI MOONA1e PLATING 4 1NM ▪ NCNNON OI.M hecorIQCTUW. NI1221- SIN NGMME W. NCCAW AUIMIIw even 1N1r - NN EO= 11. 67m.6ew GAIICPT INISTA 4 811 116I44000 4 0T4ACINN6 AN N1O110N6 4 PE AL6 12 MIN SCRIM 1 PN0. JOINT - NAGAI. ®. DAMN LIT NCKATOO VENOMS LOCATED NEIN AR2NTL 14, LAW N PLACE CCIICINI! 67A 16. META LN! NDKA1os COM P= P00161N - NO: PLUMMET ■LAN /-PALL' OP ORE N AMNIA M COMPOSITE PANT PAOGL FL INFANT WJ.L RACE LINGO N POMNINLO 14 MITE/OMAN OPE MEW M ANN • NCNT4L 20. 6RCK GGUNIIVI 6TANTE O G. 16TS. XL STOW OOJ. .INGE *LPN%CCLRNN MATINS STONE ROTAN1tl MALL 24. AMMO NNW 1 OL NATCN 26 6N6 PIT 4WCRNL 26. M110 2/. SLAW LAIN 20. I.MO$8AT 61W 2514176IPAC! LONGO= MMI ONT 6R PACE NOCK LENN LL JOM 3122Ci' Y TOP TOP PIALLG. I11y4' 4p',YL TOP OP 6.IINE'Y P C 112'O`+ TYPICA4. �LVN LJSJN. lLGI6M6' Y 4T0.6 TOP OP-IgigrAD - - $ HAF ARCHITECTS HOEFLER ARCHITECTS LLC 1 2 4 4 5 5 5 'r. STREET 13111TE A L.AK£ ELM D. MN 55042 PHONE 6 5 1- 3 5 1- 1 7 6 0 FAX 851-420.0190 WWW. HAFAROH ITEEIT0. OOM TREET OFEGIE BLOM HIRO 6 MYRTLE 9TI LLWATER. MINNESOTA. I HERESY CERTIFY 110, THIS PLAN. SPECIFICATION DR REPORT WAR PREPARED ST ME OR UNDER NY EIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT AN A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT LINDER THE LAWS OF me Ernee or MINNESOTA. MICHAEL HOEFLER 24210 08-049 MMH MOH 04/1 7/09 PRELIMINARY NOTICE: D-PD DEED. SHOWN AND DESCRIBED HEREIN ENIEREOF. A. PROPRIETARY AND CANNOT SE COPIED. DUPLICATED OR CONNEREIALLY 011,31T03, IN WHOLE DR IN PART. W0NCIUT .PRERS WRITTEN PERNISREDN OF HAY ARCHITECTS. THESE ARE ANAI4SLE POR LIMITED REVIEW ANO EVALUATION CLIENTS. DONSULTAN.. CENTRACTONE. ADENOID, VeNDORD AND WEIDE ELPOONNCL ONLY IN ACCOROANOE WITH THIS NOTICE. DOPYRIONT WAR ARCHITECTS 2000. ALL RICHES RESERVED ISSUE GATE GERCRIPTION SHEETINECwm.ATIUN: ELEVATI dN A8 ATION 9/52•-rc• 4 • O 0 — +EIIOtr' irigo s orwKL YAM 0911185 EIS lIVN— I0 rNG AIssgI TOP 1 00'O I¢W ,v1!UHI. � ID 0 va. =i „„„mmn i nnngmnp nnnnluuIII FIL nnnnnm nni MIN U■� 1■� ■■I _ _ _. _ ■■■ 1111 111111111111111 1111111 1= -- I1111111111111111111 ■■. ■■■ w z J • 0 me HAF ARCHITECTS H 0 EFLER. ARCHITECTS LLC 1 2 4 4 5 5 5 '" STREET SUITE A LAKE ELMO, MN 55042 PHONE 6 5 1- a 5 T- 1 7 6❑ FAX 651-496.01 BO WWW. HAFAROH ITEOTS.00M THIRC 6. TLE FFICE BLOOM MI NON E3 OTA CEHION REVIEW I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN. SPECIFICATION DR REPORT WAS PREPARED EW DIE UNDER MY DIRECT ALGIERVBION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE DTA, OF MINNESOTA. MICHAEL HOEFLER 24210 08-049 MMH MOH 04/17/09 PRELIMINARY NOTICE: THE DEBISNEI SHOWN AND °MONISM HEROIN INCLUDING ALL TECHNICAL ...as. GRAPHICS. AND MODELS PA, WAND, EMPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF H.. ARCHITECTS. THERE ARE AVAILABLE MD LIMITED REVIEW AND ABBACIES/ VENDOR. AND 'Mom 1.[ROcHxn. ONLY IN ADOCROANCE wiTH me Haim, CEIPTAIONY HAS- MICHCEI:1113 10On. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ISSUE 0ArE OEECRIPTION SHEET INFORMATION: ELEVATIDN A9 ATION W • — — ibr gyre* 1•111...12Paterlim0/Dorrom or **wry rerfa4 LIVE- 611112314IC 1- ,,. 0- 4 1 TYT Or 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 111111 — 6.=•R A. - '-'ie` + TOP QLam MGM HAF ARCHITECTS HOEFLER ARCHITECTS LLC 12445 55T. STREET SUITE A LAKE ELMO, MN 55042 PHONE 651-551-1760 FAX 6 5 1- 4 9 0• D 1 S 0 WWW.HAFARUHITEUTH.00M EET OFFICE aLOal TH IRO E. 9 TILLWATE R, MINNE8OTA WAS PREPE.ED SY NE OR UNDER NY DIRECT SUPETTSION AND THAT I AM A CULT LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THIELFwe DP rne wok. or Flroomans. a.oi.r...,low MICHAEL HOEFLER 24210 08-049 MMH MGH 04/17/09 PRELIMINARY NOTICE THE DESIGNS BHOWN ANN NESCRIBED HEREIN INCLUDING ALL TECIHNICIAL DRAwIR00, EIRAPNIDO AND MODELS THEREOF, ARE PROPRIETARY AND CANNOT SC DOHS. DUPLICATED CR COMMERCIALLY E.PILMTED, IN WHOLE ON IN PART, WITHOUT ERPILCUS WPIITEN PERMISSION CIF RAF ARCHITECTS. THESE ARE AVAILABLE MP LIMITED REVIEW AND ALCMS. VSNOORS AND OFFICE poimooNa. ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS NOTICE. 0 COPYRIGHT FiEr IMCMITCTS zoos. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION SHEET INFORMATION: ELEVATION A10 ATION ..44eVriativ e4tIL 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 ="1 1111111 11 = 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1- 0 0. 0-1 TOP nr1:124, -no+ ramatm. TG"E'128-1-"ViiIVISNO- HAF ARCHITECTS NOEFLER AR0HITE0TEI LL.6 12445 55T. STREET 11111iTE A LAKE ELMC1. MN 55042 PHONE - 51-/760 FAX 65 1 -420-0 1 SO WWW.HAFAREINITEOT8.00M PROJECT: THIRCE 13-1-FSEET OFFICE El IRD eSe MYRTLE. I_1—WATESL, MINN ES OTA OES11011,1 REVIEW I HEREBT cERTIDT THAT THIS Rum ENECIEICATION OR REED. wAE FREFAREO BY ME OR UNDER DIREEIT SUPERMEMN AND THAT AM • DULY LIMMOMO ARCHITECT UNDER 'NE LAWS OF THE MATE OF MINNESOTA. MICHAEL HOEFLER 24210 013-049 MMH MOH 04/17/09 PRELIMINARY NOTICE: THE OEBIENB BHOWN ANC DESCRIBE° NERE1N INELUOING ALL TroHNIOAL OWENS. BRAWRIos, AND MODELS THEREOF, ARE PRONRICTAITY ARO CANNOT 1ST EDDIED, OLOLEATED OR CONNERCIALLY DEELCITEO, wHoLE oR IN RART, wrocouT EXCHESS *ROVER PERMISMON CT HAF ARCHITECT. THE. ARE AVAIUBLE FOR umiTED RENEW ANC EvALUATION eV MONTS, croNaULTANTS. SONMAGTERS, ,,MITOTNOTZ:tiA"' E OarcHE PEREIONNEL ONLY IN la NOTI CORyRIONT NADARENITELITS10138. ALL Rommi RESERVED ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION EXTERIIR ELEVATION All IOR ELEVATION aer.r-o• R T H P i A f F OF rt 4 N E •S. ij T A Planning Commission DATE: May 5, 2009 CASE NO.: 09-15 REQUEST: Special Use Permit to replace a 90-foot tall stadium style light pole with a new 90-foot tall multi -purpose tower with stadium lights a wireless communication antennas with necessary ground appurtenances. APPLICANT: Steve Carlson for T-Mobile LAND OWNER: Stillwater Area School District (ISD #834) LOCATION: Northwest corner of the site at 523 March St W COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: SFSL - Single Family Small Lot ZONING: RB - Two -Family Residential MEETING DATE: May 11, 2009 REVIEWED BY: Community Development Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner All BACKGROUND Steve Carlson for T-Mobile has made application for a special use permit to replace a 90-foot tall stadium style light pole with a new 90-foot tall multi -purpose tower. The new tower would have stadium lights and wireless communication antennas with necessary ground appurtenances. It would be located at the Stillwater Junior High at 523 March St W on the south side of the football stadium. Necessary appurtenances include a proposed at grade concrete equipment platform that is approximately 12'6" x 7'. On the platform will be up to four equipment boxes with the tallest box being approximately 7' tall. All of the equipment and tower will be enclosed with a 7-foot tall chain link fence. Since the existing fence is 7-feet tall, T-Mobile is permitted to replace it with a like 7-foot tall fence. T-Mobile Communication Tower 523 March St W May 5, 2009 Page 2 SPECIFIC REQUESTS A communication tower in the RB district requires a Special Use Permit from the Planning Commission.1 Therefore, Steve Carlson for T-Mobile has requested the Planning Commission to consider and approve a Special Use Permit for the placement of the new communication tower. DISCUSSION Radio Frequency (RF) Engineering Review The City contracted with Owl Engineering to complete a technical review of T- Mobile's request. Garrett Lysiak and Michael O'Rourke of Owl Engineering completed this review on the behalf of the City. They reviewed the request to ensure compliance with the technical requirement of our code and with other applicable state and federal regulations. Areas they reviewed included but were not limited to possible collocation opportunities on existing towers, an RF interference study, an RF radiation analysis, and airspace impacts. Owl's review found that the tower is necessary to eliminate the present existing poor coverage area around the Junior High site and would not present any adverse health or safety impacts to the public. A suggestion was made by Owl Engineering related to switching from externally mounted antennas to internally mounted antennas. This will be discussed later in the report. A copy of the Owl Engineering report is attached. Mr. Lysiak will also be at the meeting on May 11 to answer any technical questions the Commission or public have on the proposed tower. EVALUATION OF REQUEST The Planning Commission may grant a Special Use Permit for a communication tower in a RB district when the following conditions are mete: 1. Satellite dishes for television receiving only are subject to the accessory structure requirements for residential districts; This is not applicable to this request. City Code Section 31-512, Subd. 3 2 City Code Section 31-512, Subd. 3 (a) T-Mobile Communication Tower 523 March St W May 5, 2009 Page 3 2. All antennas must be designed and situated to be visually unobtrusive, screened as appropriate, not be multicolored and may contain no signage, including logos, except as required by the equipment manufacturers or city, state or federal regulations. For this site, T-Mobile has proposed replace the existing 90 foot stadium light tower with a new 90-foot multipurpose tower. The lights would be mounted at 90 feet high with the antennas for T-Mobile mounted below the lights at 80 feet high. In an e-mail dated May 5, 2009 from the applicant, Mr. Carlson indicated that T- Mobile is willing to install internally mounted antennas; however, this will require the antennas to be mounted above the lights thus resulting in a taller tower. Staff has consulted with the City's RF engineer and he is in agreement with T-Mobile. For the antennas to be internally mounted the tower would likely need to be around 108 feet in height which is 18 feet taller than the current light tower. Additionally, in order to permit room for collocates with internally mounted antennas; the tower would need to be as tall as 132 feet. The code states that antennas must be designed and situated to be visually unobtrusive. In this case, the question is whether to have internally mounted antennas and a tower that is 18 feet taller (or 42 feet taller in order to support one additional carrier on the tower) or permit externally mounted antennas and have a shorter tower. Staff beleives that a shorter tower with externally mounted antennas makes is less visually obtrusive than the taller tower. The City's RF engineer has indicated that the tower would not pose any airspace hazard. This tower is below the height requirement that automatically requires painting and lighting by the FAA. Additionally, since there are no airports within 2 miles of this site it is unlikely that the FAA will require any marking for this tower site at the proposed height. T-Mobile indicated in their application that they will not include any advertising on this site. There will be required regulatory and advisory signage on this site as required by state or federal regulations and the equipment manufacturer. Finally, T-Mobile has indicated that they would propose to have the tower finish match the exiting light poles. The antennas would be painted to match. T-Mobile Communication Tower 523 March St W May 5, 2009 Page 4 3. An antenna placed on a primary structure may be no taller than 15 feet above the primary structure. Any accessory equipment or structures must be compatible with the design and materials of the primary structure and not visible from a public street. The first part of this requirement is not applicable to this request. For the second part staff recommends that the equipment cabinets and the platform be painted a color that matches the wall of the existing press box. 4. Monopoles only are allowed in residential districts. The proposed tower is a monopole. 5. Minimum land area for freestanding monopole site in residential districts is one acre. The subject parcel is just over 37 acres in size and is part Stillwater Junior High site. 6. A tower and any antenna combined may be no more than 75 feet in height, or 100 feet in height if collocated. The proposed tower is 90 feet with T-Mobiles antennas proposed to be at 80 feet in height. The tower is being constructed to permit a collocation at 70 feet. 70 feet is on the low end of what many wireless communication carriers will find acceptable. The City's RF Engineer has verbally indicated to staff that it is possible for a carrier to locate at this height; however, depending on the carrier's network this could be too low. Additionally, the applicant has indicated in their application that they will permit collocation on the tower. A condition to permit the collocation of communication antennas when technically feasible is being made a condition of approval. 7. A tower may not be located within 100 feet of any existing or planned residential structure. The tower is over 350 feet from any existing residential structure. There are no planned residential structures in the area that would be impacted by this tower. 7. A tower must be setback from a street line a minimum of the height of the tower and any antenna; and towers or antennas may be sited in preferred locations as listed in Subd. 2 of this Section 31-512 subject to design permit approval. The tower is approximately 450 feet from the nearest right-of-way and 350 feet away from the nearest property line. School sites is one of the preferred locations as listed in Section 31-512, Subd. 2. Finally, some of the preferred locations are in areas that required a design permit. This location however, is outside the design review areas and therefore does not need a design permit. T-Mobile Communication Tower 523 March St W May 5, 2009 Page 5 ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the requested Special Use Permit to the maximum height for a single user telecommunication tower with the following conditions: a. All revisions to the approved permit shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. b. No signage is allowed, except for required regulatory warning signs. The applicant shall submit all required regulatory warning signs for review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to installation. c. The entire tower shall be a core -ten finish to match the other light standards on the site. d. When technically feasible, the tower owner shall permit the collocation of other communication antennas as a condition of approval. e. The antennas shall be painted the same color as the adjacent tower. The determination on when the antennas shall be repainted will be made by the City of Stillwater Community Development Director. T- Mobile, or the current tower owner, shall repaint the platform and cabinets within 90 days after receiving notice by the City. f. The equipment cabinets shall be painted the same color as the adjacent press box. The determination on when the cabinets shall be repainted will be made by the City of Stillwater Community Development Director. T-Mobile, or the current tower owner, shall repaint the platform and cabinets within 90 days after receiving notice by the City. 2. Deny the Special Use Permit. If the Commission is going to deny the request then the action must be in writing and provide a rational for denying the permit. If the Commission chooses to deny the request, staff would suggest that the Commission verbally provide the rational for denial and then table action to your June 8, 2009 meeting when staff will present a formal resolution denying the request for the Commission's consideration. 3. Continue the public hearing until June 8, 2009 in order for the applicant to submit additional information. The 60 day decision deadline for the request is June 16, 2009; however, if necessary, staff could extend the review deadline for an additional 60 days as allowed by state statutes. T-Mobile Communication Tower 523 March St W May 5, 2009 Page 6 RECOMMENDATION City staff believes that the proposed tower satisfies the necessary conditions for a SUP; therefore, staff recommends approval with the conditions detailed above. attachments: Applicant's Letter, site plan, and accompanying material OWL ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS, INC. CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS • EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hemline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651.784.7445 • Fax 651.784-7541 REPORT REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER IN STILLWATER, MINNESOTA AT 523 MARSH STREET FOR T-MOBILE WIRELESS PREPARED BY: GARRETT G. LYSIAK, P.E. And MICHAEL O'ROURKE MAY 4TH, 2009 ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS, INC. CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS • EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hamline Avenre North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-784-7445 • Fax 651.784.7541 TABLE OF CONTENTS ENGINEERING STATEMENT FIGURE 1 SITE MAP FIGURE 2 AERIAL VIEW FIGURE 3 EXISTING COVERAGE FIGURE 4 PROPOSED COVERAGE FIGURE 5 PROPOSED COVERAGE MYRTLE ST. ONLY FIGURE 6 NEARBY EXISTING TOWERS FIGURE 7 FCC TOWER SEARCH FIGURE 8 FAA TOWER SEARCH FIGURE 9 AIRSPACE SUMMARY REPORT OWL ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS, INC. CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS • EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Namliae Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-784-7445 • Fax 651-784-7541 Engineering Statement The documents submitted by T-Mobile Communications to Stillwater for the proposed tower were reviewed for compliance with the technical requirements of the Stillwater zoning ordinance Sec. 31-512. The site was located and plotted on a USGS 7.5 minute map (Figure 1 "Site Map"). In addition, an aerial photograph is included to show the proposed site location and the surrounding area (Figure 2 "Aerial Site Map"). Coverage Study In reviewing the submitted data it was determined that additional information for nearby T- Mobile Communications telecommunications sites was needed in order to make a signal coverage study determination. The requested information was provided and the data was analyzed. This analysis shows how T-Mobile Communications has designed its communications facilities in the Stillwater area with several surrounding sites providing area wide coverage. Figure 3 shows the results of the coverage study analysis using the data for the proposed site in addition to the data supplied by T-Mobile Communications for the nearby system sites. The analysis was then repeated with the proposed site removed from the analysis in order to determine if there is any gap in communications coverage in the T-Mobile Communications system. Figure 4 shows that a gap in coverage does exist and is identified. Existing Towers The ordinance requires that existing towers or structures that are capable of supporting the proposed facility be identified nearby the proposed tower site. The following sites were found and they are: Comcast KLBB Radio T-Mobile AT&T / Cingular (Holton) Levake Tower (Holton) Mobilite Tower 0.43 Miles 0.81 Miles 1.02 Miles 1.49 Miles 1.55 Miles 1.87 Miles Cable TV Tower AM Radio tower T-Mobile existing site Adjacent to Levake Tower T-Mobile existing site T-Mobile existing site OWL ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS, INC. CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS • EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hemline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-784-7445 • Fax 651.784.7541 Figure 5 shows all of the existing towers within 2 miles in relation to the proposed tower. This information was obtained from searches of the FCC and FAA tower databases. The closest existing tower is a Comcast cable TV tower .43 miles away. T-Mobile has stated that Comcast is not willing to lease space on this tower. Owl Engineering has attempted contact with Comcast to confirm, but has received no return calls. Site Construction The proponent has not purchased the tower as yet and therefore does not have PE stamped drawings available for our review. When those plans are submitted to Stillwater, we will review them to verify the tower meets the requirements of the current EIA-222 standard which requires loading for winds of 80 mph with 1/2" of radial ice. We will also verify the tower is built to accommodate the number of co -locators that the CUP requires. Since the tower is less than 200-feet there is no requirement for any lighting or marking requirements as required by the FAA. Interference Study A search was performed using the FCC frequency database to determine the frequency and location of any city or county public safety facilities within one -mile from the proposed tower location. Using all the identified frequencies either utilized by the city and county an intermodulation (interference) study was performed to determine if any predicted interference products would be generated by the proposed T-Mobile Communications facility. The results of the study indicate that there are no interference products predicted to be generated that would cause interference to any of the identified protected frequencies. RF Radiation Analysis Using the data submitted by T-Mobile Communications we performed a "Worst -Case" radiation analysis to determine the amount of RF energy that would be present at the base of the tower. In making our calculations we assumed that all of the RF energy generated by the facility would be directed downward. This is not the real world situation since the antennas used by cellular systems are designed to radiate towards the horizon. However, using this analysis method we are able to determine that the maximum level of RF radiation reaching the ground at the tower base is less than 8 percent of the ANSI standard value and as such is not classified as an RF radiation hazard. OWL ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS, INC. CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS • EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hamlin Aveaee North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-784-7445 • Fax 651.784.7541 While the calculated RF radiation analysis above is generally accurate, it is customary for new towers located very near to schools have the actual radiation level tested by an independent engineer prior to placing the site in service and then re -tested annually to verify FCC compliance. Airspace Study The proposed tower site was examined for any impact on the local airspace and airports. The nearest public airport is Lake Elmo and is 3.5 nautical miles away. The nearest private airport is Keller and is 5.7 miles to the north. Since the proposal is for a 100' structure, this falls below the FAA airspace criteria and would not pose any airspace hazard. AM Radio Stations The FCC requires that all towers located within % mile of a non -directional AM station and 2 miles from a directional antenna AM station must demonstrate that no pattern distortion is predicted to occur by the proposed tower. A search of the FCC AM database shows that the closest AM radio station to the proposed facility is KLBB radio This is a non -directional station. A further study of possible pattern interference will be need to be conducted for T-Mobile for the protection of the AM station. Collocation on the KLBB Tower Information provided by the radio station indicates that the KLBB antenna tower is more than fifty years old. My inspection of the tower and also by T-Mobile indicates that the present tower will not support the proposed communications system. T-Mobile could replace the existing KLBB tower and then install their system on the new tower. However, there are several technical problems that would have to be addressed in order for this move to occur. Information provided by T-Mobile shows that the cost to construct the new tower at the proposed Myrtle Street location is approximately $75,000. The cost to install a new tower and associated equipment at the KLBB site was estimated to cost $110,000. The owner of KLBB has not indicated if this possible co -location is being considered. OWL ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS, INC. CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS • EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hemline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651.784-7445 • Fax 651.784.7541 Summary The review of the proposed T-Mobile Communications tower indicates that: 1. It would provide the required PCS system coverage to eliminate the present existing poor coverage area in this area of Stillwater. 2. The site is not predicted to cause any interference products to any protected frequency in the area and is not predicted to be an RF radiation hazard. 3. The tower structure has not been designed as yet. When design drawings are available, Owl will review to verify compliance to the City and State requirements. 4. The proposed tower is not predicted to impact any airport in the vicinity. 5. Due to the lack of any existing towers or support structures in the vicinity that are willing to lease space, the site would need to be located very near to the proposed location in order to fill the coverage gap. 6. The city may wish to consider requiring the applicant to enclose the antennas inside the pole design to provide less visual impact. Respectfully submitted, cuLAIJAL Garrett G. Lysiak, P.E. xd"-4'4"-L e ()sea Michael P. O'Rourke fl 1-7\itsb, 1000 YARDS 1 KILOMETER riVe•I irtiaeilaetrer),rafk oq N < 1 MILES 400 FEET 100 METERS Predicted Coverage Blue = In Vehicle Violet = In Building If Veit, ail 1111 _.■■■I IMO ME WI f ��■.Malty M vs *$%\l'a .100 ■■ ■■■. .scrag ■nEililllll■� '►,:�•• ■ ■ rF 'W' Predicted Coverage Blue = In Vehicle Violet = In Building Case 2 - Marsh Street shown with existing coverage Predicted Coverage Blue = In Vehicle Violet = In Building Case 3 - Myrtle Street shown without Marsh Street coverage T-Mobile Proposed Tower Marsh St FIGURE 6 1.87 mi z 45.07253°N 92.81811°W Mobilitie 5 W IiLkins St 95 —1 I 45.05756°N 92.83108°W T- Mobile Proposed Tower - Myrtle S 11 75th St W Linden St \\ 1 13 mi ci ;:---\\ \ v 45.05417°N 92.82861°W Radio Stillwater V KLBB c' ' %E.' 23 N fEl Interlachen Dr , 0.899 m' W Myrtle 'St '''-)., 0 6, 0- , ct W olive tst (1, ir vv t( st s qi In- (r) (c; a 36 ..g c 1 7. roikvcOakriclge R/Id _--rT 7 of-1M cn—W hard St (,;(1) (f) 0) St PI 95 _.11 1' ,i.. 0 45.04528°N 92.82361°W il -is. 0.) m )\---' 1 —1'c Existing Comcast Tower I \ .... \--- F0.441'1v25 Mioni"L'A'rea , Wts h St — .e .c't. e ,, : i w 0 45.04544°N 92.81486°W n 4r T- Mobile Proposed Tower - Ma sh St 23 o \ \\ 24 63rd St N , ! '95 \ 62St N Oak Park \ — nd Heights 1.02 mi —Curve Crest 131\Jo Tower 45.04117°N 92.83528°W L' T-Mobile Existing Site 1r 66 Ctidge 45.06111°N 92.79361°W - AT&T! Cingular d 1.49 n. 1 55 mi on E -Gounty Rd: E hurch E 45.06083°N 92.79111°W levake Tower 11 \ 0 mi 0.5 1 Copyright 0 and (P) 1988-2006 Microsoft Corporation and/or its suppliers. All rights reserved. http://www.microsoft.com/streets/ Portions 01990-2006 InstallShield Software Corporation. All rights reserved. Certain mapping and direction data © 2005 NAVTEQ. All rights reserved. The Data for areas of Canada includes information taken with permission from Canadian authorities, including: 0 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, © Queen's Printer for Ontario. NAVTEQ and NAVTEQ ON BOARD are trademarks of NAVTEQ. 6' 2005 Tele Atlas North America, Inc. All rights reserved. Tele Atlas and Tele Atlas North America are trademarks of Tele Atlas, Inc. 1.5 Figure 7 ASR Registration Search Registration Search Results Specified Search Latitude='45-02-43.6 N', Longitude='92-48-53.5 W', Radius=3.2 Kilometers Registration Number 1 1000742 2 1023182 3 1024660 File Status Number Constructed A0000898 Constructed A0529942 Constructed A0029410 4 1024930 Constructed 5 1052489 Constructed 6 1265492 Constructed Owner Name LEVQUE TOWER CO MARTIN LEVAKE Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC SMITH BROADCASTING COMPANY INC DBA = WEZU RADIO A0529189 Xcel Energy Services Inc. A0579787 New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc. A0611453 Mobilitie Investments II, LLC Latitude/ Longitude 45-03-39.0N 092-47-28.0W 45-01-01.0N 092-47-31.0W 45-03-15.0N 092-49-43.0W 45-01-48.0N 092-46-44.0W 45-03-40.0N 092-47-37.0W 45-04-21.1N 092-49-05.2W Overall Height Above Structure Ground City/State (AGL) HOULTON, WI 73.2 BAYTO W N, 50.9 MN STILLWATER, 64.9 MN BAYPORT, MN 239.2 HOULTON, WI 60.6 Stillwater, MN 22.9 Figure 8 Circle Search for Cases Results (Determined Status) Case Number City State Latitude Longitude Site Elevation Structure Height Total Height J 1990-AGL-2202-OE BAYPORT MN 45° 01' 01.00" N 92° 47' 30.00" W 857 175 1032 1994-AGL-1224-OE STILLWATER WI 45° 03' 39.00" N 92° 47' 34.00" W 870 178 1048 1994-AGL-2842-OE HOULTON WI 45° 03' 39.00" N 92° 47' 28.00" W 895 240 1135 1995-AGL-1403-OE HOULTON WI 45° 03' 27.00" N 92° 47' 22.00" W 882 250 1132 1996-AGL-1716-OE HOULTON WI 45° 04' 14.38" N 92° 47' 14.74" W 870 349 1219 1996-AGL-3554-OE STILLWATER WI 45° 03' 38.88" N 92° 47' 33.74" W 866 185 1051 1997-AGL-1528-OE STILLWATER WI 45° 03' 38.88" N 92° 47' 33.74" W 866 198 1064 1997-AGL-3334-OE HUDSON WI 45° 03' 39.98" N 92° 47' 36.54" W 866 180 1046 1998-AGL-934-OE HUDSON WI 45° 03' 39.88" N 92° 47' 36.74" W 864 199 1063 1998-AGL-6106-OE STILLWATER WI 45° 03' 38.88" N 92° 47' 33.74" W 866 198 1064 1999-AGL-3334-OE HUDSON WI 45° 03' 40.00" N 92° 47' 36.40" W 866 185 1051 2000-AGL-8288-OE STILLWATER MN 45° 02' 28.20" N 92° 50' 07.00" W 948 110 1058 2001-AGL-3505-OE OAK PARK HTS. MN 45° 01' 57.86" N 92° 50' 06.43" W 959 165 1124 2004-AGL-773-OE BAYPORT MN 45° 01' 00.88" N 92° 47' 30.74" W 857 167 1024 2006-AGL-677-OE Bayport MN 45° 01' 36.29" N 92° 46' 51.47" W 693 100 793 2008-AGL-5879-OE Stillwater MN 45° 04' 21.10" N 92° 49' 05.19" W 908 75 983 Figure 9 ******************************************** * Federal Airways & Airspace * * Summary Report * ******************************************** File: STILLWATER MARSCH Location: Stillwater, MN Distance: .8 Statute Miles Direction: 334° (true bearing) Latitude: 45°-02'-43.6" Longitude: 92°-48'-53.5" SITE ELEVATION AMSL 899 ft. STRUCTURE HEIGHT 100 ft. OVERALL HEIGHT AMSL 999 ft. NOTICE CRITERIA FAR 77.13(a)(1): NNR (DNE 200 ft AGL) FAR 77.13(a)(2): NNR (DNE Runway Slope) FAR 77.13(a)(3): NNR (Not a Traverse Way) FAR 77.13(a)(4): PNR (Circling Approach Area) FAR 77.13(a)(4): PNR (Straight -In procedure. Possible TERPS® impact. 21D) FAR 77.13(a)(4): NNR (No Expected TERPS® impact STP) FAR 77.13(a)(5): NNR (Off Airport Construction) Notice to the FAA is not required at the analyzed location and height. NR = Notice Required NNR = Notice Not Required PNR = Possible Notice Required OBSTRUCTION STANDARDS FAR 77.23(a)(1): DNE 500 ft AGL FAR 77.23(a)(2): DNE - Airport Surface FAR 77.25(a): DNE - Horizontal Surface FAR 77.25(b): DNE - Conical Surface FAR 77.25(c): DNE - Primary Surface FAR 77.25(d): DNE - Approach Surface FAR 77.25(e): DNE - Transitional Surface VFR TRAFFIC PATTERN AIRSPACE FOR: 21D: LAKE ELMO Type: AIR RD: 18687 RB: 210.89 RE: 932 FAR 77.23(a)(1): DNE FAR 77.23(a)(2): Does Not Apply. VFR Horizontal Surface: DNE VFR Conical Surface: DNE VFR Approach Slope: DNE VFR Transitional Slope: DNE VFR TRAFFIC PATTERN AIRSPACE FOR: STP: ST PAUL DOWNTOWN HOLMAN FLD Type: AIR RD: 73720 RB: 237.34 RE: 700 FAR 77.23(a)(1): DNE FAR 77.23(a)(2): DNE - Greater Than 6 NM. VFR Horizontal Surface: DNE VFR Conical Surface: DNE VFR Approach Slope: DNE VFR Transitional Slope: DNE MINIMUM OBSTACLE CLEARANCE ALTITUDE (MOCA) FAR 77.23(a)(4) MOCA Altitude Enroute Criteria The Maximum Height Permitted is 2400 ft AMSL PRIVATE LANDING FACILITIES FACIL BEARING DISTANCE DELTA ARP IDENT TYP NAME To FACIL IN N.M. ELEVATION OMN8 AIR KELLER 340.78 5.743 +9 No Impact to Near Airport Surface. Below surface height of 474 ft above ARP. AIR NAVIGATION ELECTRONIC FACILITIES No Electronic Facilities Are Within 25,000 ft FCC AM PROOF -OF -PERFORMANCE NOT REQUIRED: Structure is not near a FCC licensed AM radio station Proof -of -Performance is not required. Please review AM Station Report for details. Nearest AM Station: WMGT @ 1437 meters. HARRINGTON COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES April 17, 2009 City of Stillwater Planning Department Attn: Michael Pogge 216 N. 4th Street Stillwater, MN 55082 INC. Re: Conditional Use Permit Application regarding a T-Mobile proposed wireless antenna facility at the Stillwater Junior High School located at 523 W Marsh Street. Dear Mr. Pogge: Overview T-Mobile provides state-of-the-art wireless telecommunications service throughout the Twins Cities metropolitan area, including the city of Stillwater. This application arises from efforts by T-Mobile to fill a significant coverage gap. Currently, T-Mobile is working to provide improved coverage, including adequate in -building coverage to the residential neighborhood north of Highway 36 and south of Myrtle Street in Stillwater. Wireless carriers such as T-Mobile are facing the challenge of providing quality wireless telecommunications services within residential neighborhoods throughout the country. It is currently estimated nationally that roughly 87 percent (270 million subscribers) of the U.S. population subscribes to wireless service. A growing trend is for households to eliminate the traditional land line phone, and rely entirely on their wireless service. Wireless -only households have more than doubled since 2005 from approximately 8.4 percent to 17.5 percent of all U.S. households (Interview Survey, National Center for Health Statistics, July 2008.). This continuing trend in mobile phone use requires that T-Mobile provide quality in -building coverage in both commercial and residential neighborhoods such as the subject location. T-Mobile Seeks to Fill a Coverage Gap. Existing Resources Considered First: T-Mobile's efforts to provide service to this area focused first on maximizing the use of existing infrastructure surrounding the coverage area, including existing towers, water towers as well as existing T-Mobile antenna facilities elsewhere surrounding the City. These surrounding facilities are operating at maximum capacity. After a thorough search, one tower and one tall building was identified within one half mile of the proposed site. A rooftop location at Lakeview Hospital, 927 Churchill St, was considered, but the landowner showed no interest in pursuing a communication site. In addition, a Comcast cable tower located along Driving Park Road was identified. Comcast is unwilling to lease tower space to wireless carriers. They indicated the need to preserve space for their changing needs. T-Mobile already has facilities at the Houlton, Wisconsin location off Hwy 36/35, a facility at the Brines Market on Curve Crest Blvd, as well as locations in Stillwater Township to the north, Grant to the northwest and the Stillwater Country Club to the north. The neighborhood in question represents a mature residential neighborhood with mature trees and significant ground elevation changes. The Stillwater Junior High location currently has six 90-foot lighting standards for its football/track complex. We have selected the existing site as it meets both the city code requirements for such a facility, and represents a collocation opportunity with an existing tower structure (without adding height). Stillwater Junior High Construction We have identified one possible location on this site that could accommodate a 90-foot light pole replacement with communication antennas placed at 80-feet. This monopole will be designed to support up to two carriers (T-Mobile plus one additional carrier) meeting requirements by the City code. The location selected for the communication 346 COUNTRY ROAD / STILLWATER, MN 55082 i TEL (651) 439-6030 / FAX (651) 846-5128 April 15, 2009 facility is located directly to the west of the existing press box. The communication facility will include a 15-foot by 34-foot fenced compound with the tower and related equipment inside the secured site. Please refer to the site plans attached as Exhibit B for details. Public Safety T-Mobile's need for additional coverage in this neighborhood is driven by the current use of Stillwater residents. Adequate in -building coverage, as well as outdoor and in vehicle coverage is necessary for adequate Enhanced 911 service technology. All wireless base stations must meet the science -based RF emission guidelines of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which establish very conservative exposure limits to ensure that the health of all citizens is protected. The guidelines are designed with a substantial margin of safety (source: CTIA). T-Mobile provides a valuable public safety function in the form of a relatively new technology called Enhanced 911 (E911). E911 is an emergency service designed to provide additional protections for wireless phone users. E911 does three things: 1. Ensures that a wireless 911 call is routed to the nearest emergency dispatch call center; 2. Provides emergency dispatchers with the call-back number of the distressed caller; and 3. Provides the approximate location of the distressed caller. Wireless providers must have enough antennas placed throughout communities to ensure a distressed caller's wireless phone has adequate signal available to make an emergency call, stay connected with the 911 operator, and be located by emergency services. In summary, of all the potential location options in or near this neighborhood, we believe the Stillwater Junior High location represents the best option for a wireless telecommunication site that can meet T-Mobile's coverage needs as well as blending into this residential neighborhood. Once T-Mobile receives zoning approval from the City of Stillwater, we will proceed with finalizing construction plans and submit the necessary engineering specifications to your Inspections Department for review regarding building code compliance. Sincerely, Steven I. Carlson Attachments: • Exhibit A — • Exhibit B — • Exhibit C - • Exhibit D — • Exhibit E — Compliance with Stillwater's Zoning Ordinance Site Plan, Survey and Elevation Drawings Coverage Plot Maps Street map indicating one-half mile search area for existing towers. Photo Simulation Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A T-Mobile USA Conditional Use Permit Application Site Information Applicant Contact Site Location Current Zoning Municipal Utilities T-Mobile Central, LLC (dba T-Mobile USA) Steve Carlson Carlson & Harrington, Inc 346 Country Road Stillwater, MN 55082 651.439.6030 (Phone) 651.846.5128 (Fax) 523 W Marsh Street Two-family residential The site is served by Municipal utilities Adjacent Zoning Direction North South East West Zone Two family residential One family residential Two family residential One Family Residential Case History 523 W Marsh Street is located in the southern section of the City of Stillwater. The current use of the property is as the Stillwater Junior High School. In addition to the school facility, it is improved with a large paved parking lot, a football/track stadium complex, a baseball complex, a tennis complex and several practice fields. This is primarily an irregular -shaped parcel containing 37.10 acres, and is owned by Independent School District 834. Development in the immediate vicinity of the property consists of single and two family homes to the north, south, east and west. A site plan is enclosed in Exhibit 13 for your reference. Introduction T-Mobile USA is requesting a Conditional Use Permit in order to develop a wireless telecommunications monopole tower ("Communication Site") at 523 W Marsh Street. The proposed communication tower will replace and replicate an existing stadium light pole at this Page 1 of 5 location to blend into the surrounding development. The associated equipment necessary for the operation of the antennas would be located adjacent to this tower, and will be secured by a chain link fence. The radio equipment is enclosed in weatherproof cabinets, and set on a concrete slab. Please refer to the attached site plan and drawings for details (Exhibit B). The Permit in question is being requested per the following sections of the City of Stillwater zoning Code: Section Subject 31-512 Regulation of Radio and Television Towers Chapter 31 "Zoning Code" — Section 512 Subd. 1. Purpose. In order to accommodate the communication needs of residents and business while protecting the public health, safety, general welfare and aesthetics of the community, the city council finds that this Section 31-512 is necessary in order to: (a) Facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and businesses of the city; (b) Minimize adverse visual effects of towers and antennas through setting design standards; (c) Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through structural standards, lot size requirements and setback requirements; and (d) Maximize the use of existing and approved towers and buildings to accommodate new wireless telecommunication antennas in order to reduce the number of towers needed to serve the community. Subd. 2. Location preferences for antennas and towers. (a) Water towers. (b) Collocations on existing telecommunications towers. (c) Sides and roofs of buildings over two stories. (d) Existing power or telephone poles. (e) Government and utility sites. (f) School sites. (g) Golf courses or public parks when compatible with the nature of the park or course. (h) Regional transportation corridors. Subd. 3. Antenna and towers in residential districts (RA, RB, RCM, RCH). Any person, firm or corporation erecting a tower or antenna in a residential district must obtain a conditional use permit and meet the following requirements: (a) Communication antennas, subject to the following conditions: (1) Satellite dishes for television receiving only are subject to the accessory structure requirements for residential districts. (2) All antennas must be designed and situated to be visually unobtrusive, screened as appropriate, not be multicolored and may contain no signage, including logos, except as required by the equipment manufacturers or city, state or federal regulations. • T-Mobile's proposed site design includes no use of advertising, and is proposed to have a core -ten finish matching the existing light standards at this school ball field The antennas will be painted to match as well. (3) An antenna placed on a primary structure may be no taller than 15 feet above the primary structure. Any accessory equipment or structures must be compatible with the design and materials of the primary structure and not visible from a public street. Page 2 of 5 • T-Mobile is proposing to replace the existing 90-foot light standard with a similar pole of the same height, replacing the existing lighting at the same location. T-Mobile's antennas will be located below the Lighting at the 80-foot elevation above grade. (4) Monopoles only are allowed in residential districts. • T-Mobile is proposing a monopole design. (5) Minimum land area for freestanding monopoles site in residential districts is one acre. • The subject site is over 37 acres in size. (6) A tower and any antenna combined may be no more than 75 feet in height, or 100 feet in height if collocated. • T-Mobile's proposed structure is a replacement of an existing 90-foot light pole with the communication antennas located at 80 feet. The tower will be structurally designed to accommodate a second wireless carrier at a 70-foot elevation above grade. (7) A tower may not be located within 100 feet of any existing or planned residential structure. • The nearest existing or planned residential structure from the proposed tower location is 349 feet to the east. (8) A tower must be setback from a street line a minimum of the height of the tower and any antenna; and towers or antennas may be sited in preferred locations as listed in Subd. 2 of this Section 31-512 subject to design permit approval. • The proposed tower location is approximately 250 feet from the nearest right of way. Subd. 4. Stillwater West business park districts --Business park commercial, business park office, business park industrial (BP-C, BP-0 and BP -I). Any person, firm or corporation erecting a tower or antenna in the Stillwater West Business Park shall require a conditional use permit and meet the following requirements of this Section 31-512: • This section is not pertinent to T-Mobile's proposal. Subd. 5. Central business district (CBD) and professional administrative (PA) district. Any person, firm or corporation erecting an antenna in central business and professional administrative districts shall meet the following requirements: • This section is not pertinent to T-Mobile's proposal. Subd. 6. St. Croix River overlay district. No communication antenna or communication tower may be located in the St Croix River Overlay District, shoreland or floodplain districts. • This section is not pertinent to T-Mobile's proposal. Subd. 7. Performance standards. All personal wireless communication towers erected, constructed, or located within the city must comply with the following requirements: (a) Colocation requirements. A proposal for a new personal wireless communication service tower may not be approved unless it can be documented by the applicant that the conununications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building within a one -half -mile radius of the proposed tower due to one or more of the following reasons: • In our search of the area within one-half mile of the subject location two potential tall structures were considered. A Comcast cable company toweris located approximately 0.4 miles west of our proposed location. Comcast was contacted regarding potential tower collocation, and they indicated they do not lease tower space as their needs for their own tower space is ever changing. We also contacted Lakeview Hospital, just west of our proposed location, regarding the potential to lease rooftop space. The hospital had no interest in working with us. The proposed Stillwater Junior High location essentially represents a collocation of an existing 90-foot tower. (b) Tower construction requirements. All towers erected, constructed or located within the city, and all wiring therefore, shall comply with the following requirements: Page 3 of 5 (1) Monopoles are the preferred tower design. However, the city will consider alternative tower types in cases where structural, radio frequency design considerations or the number of tenants required by the city precludes the use of a monopole. No guy wires may be used. • T-Mobile is proposing a monopole design that will replace an existing stadium light pole. The lighting system will be incorporated into the design at its current height with the communication antennas located at 80 feet above grade. The entire pole will be color matched to the existing light poles with a core -ten finish. The antennas will be painted to match the pole color. (2) Towers and their antennas must comply with all applicable provisions of this Code. (3) Towers and their antennas must be certified by a qualified and licensed professional engineer to conform to the latest structural standards of the Uniform Building Code and all other applicable reviewing agencies. • T-Mobile will provide complete engineering specifications to the city of Stillwater upon application for a building permit (4) Towers and their antennas must be designed to conform to accepted electrical engineering methods and practices and to comply with the provisions of the National Electrical Code. • T-Mobile will provide complete engineering specifications to the city of Stillwater upon application for a building permit. (5) Metal towers must be constructed of or treated with corrosion -resistant material. • T-Mobile is proposing to match the color of the existing stadium lights poles. The monopole is proposed to have a core -ten finish similar to the existing light standards. This finish is a corrosion -resistant finish. (6) Any proposed communication service tower of 100 feet in height must be designed, structurally, electrically and in all respects, to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and comparable antennas at least one additional user. To allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower, the tower must be designed to accept antennas mounted at no less than 20-foot intervals. • T-Mobile is designing the 90-foot light pole replacement to accommodate T-Mobile's need for an antenna array at 80 feet. T-Mobile is designing the structure to accommodate an additional wireless carrier at 70 feet above grade. (7) All towers must be reasonably protected against unauthorized climbing. The bottom of the tower (measured from ground level to 12 feet above ground level) must be designed in a manner to preclude unauthorized climbing to be enclosed by a six -foot -high chain link fence with a locked gate. • T-Mobile will comply with this requirement. (8) All owners and their antennas and relative accessory structures must utilize building materials, colors, textures, screening and landscaping that effectively blend the tower facilities within the surrounding natural setting and built environment to the greatest extent possible. • T-Mobile utilizes weather-proof cabinets that are painted with an ivory -colored, anodized finish. The cabinets will be located adjacent to, and behind the existing press box Existing vegetation to the north, south and east will conceal this facility from any existing or proposed homes in those directions. (9) No advertising or identification of any kind intended to be visible from the ground or other structures is permitted, except applicable warning and equipment information signage required by the manufacturer or by federal, state or local authorities. • T-Mobile will comply with this requirement. Page 4 of 5 (10) Towers and their antennas may not be illuminated by artificial means, except for camouflage purposes (designed as a lighted tower for a parking lot or a ball field) or the illumination is specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other authority. • The proposed tower will not require lighting for airspace safety as it falls well below the 200-foot limit for FAA requirements and does not fall within close proximity to a recognized airport runway approach. A lighting standard will be incorporated into the design to match the existing lighting system. (11) No part of any antenna or tower, nor any lines, cable, equipment, wires or braces, may at any time extend across or over any part of the right-of-way, public street, highway or sidewalk. • T-Mobile's site design complies with this requirement. (12) All communication towers and their antennas must be adequately insured for injury and property damage caused by collapse of the tower. • T-Mohile carries adequate commercial general liability coverage on every facility it owns and operates. (13) All obsolete or unused towers and accompanying accessory facilities must be removed within 12 months of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the city council. After the facilities are removed, the site must be restored to its original or an improved state. • T-Mobile will comply with this requirement. (14) In addition to the submittal requirements required elsewhere in this Code, applications for building permits for towers and their antennas must be accompanied by the following information: i. The provider must submit confirmation that the proposed tower complies with regulations administered by that agency or that the tower is exempt from those regulations. ii. A report from a qualified professional engineer shall be submitted which does the following: a. Describes the tower height and design including a cross section and elevation; b. Demonstrates the tower's compliance with the aforementioned structural and electrical standards; c. Documents the height above grade for all potential mounting positions, or collocated antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas; d. Describes the tower's capacity including the number and type of antennas that it can accommodate; and e. Confirmation by the provider that the proposed facility will not interfere with public safety communications. iii. A letter of intent committing the tower owner or his successors to allow the shared use of the tower as long as there is no negative structural impact upon the tower and there is no disruption to the service provided. Page 5 of 5 Michel Pogge From: Steve Carlson [stevencarlson©comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 3:53 PM To: Michel Pogge Subject: T-Mobile Stillwater Junior High proposal - additional information Mike, I'd like to address the item of switching T-Mobile's antenna design to a concealed canister -style monopole at this location. The current plans for this light pole replacement show the existing lights at the top of the 90 foot pole. Our antennas are proposed to be located below the lighting. A canister pole uses fiberglass sheeting at the top of a pole to conceal antennas. The antennas are mounted to an internal shaft. This internal shaft does not have the structural integrity to support ball field lighting. The only way we could provide a canister -style pole at this location is to build a taller tower with our antennas located above the ball field lighting. Also, we would need to add two canister bays to allow for both GSM wireless phone service antennas, and UMTS data antennas, which would push us over the 100 foot allowed height per code. Please feel free to call and discuss. Sincerely, Steve Carlson Carlson & Harrington steve@carlsonharrington.com phone: 651-439-6030 mobile: 612-810-5279 fax: 651-846-5128 Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4054 (20090505) The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.corn i 8 I 7 6 I 5 4 I 3 2 1 VICINITY MAP PROJECT DATA PROJECT AREA 0 m INTERIOR LEASE SPACE EXTERIOR LEASE SPACE 15'-0" x 34'-0" PARCEL ARFA• T-MOBILE SITE Al N187 a 523 W. MARSH ST. STILLWATER, MN p W. MYRTLE ST. 5' TONING TYPE: D , ® 2 >o FGAL DESCRIPTION • _. ■ ■rr ■ ■ ■ obi © W. MARSH ST. STILLWATER BENCH MARK; - - 899 FEET 88) -. CD (NAVD BASIS OF BEARING: 8 DATF OF SURVFY O COORDINATES (ANTENNA LOCATION): GENERAL NOTES SCOPE OF SUPPLY PROJECT TEAM LATITUDE: 95'-48'-53.5" (NAIL 83-96 AOJ) LONGITUDE: 42'-02'-43.6" (NAIL 83-96 ADJ) 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPERVISE AND DIRECT ALL WORK, 15. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IF DETAILS ARE • THE FOLLOWING TABLE DELINEATES THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF DIFFER NT PARTIES INVOLVED IN COMPLETING THIS PROJECT. IMPROVEMENTS OWNER S IRVFYOR ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: - USING HIS BEST SKILL AND ATTENTION. HE SHALL BE SOLEY CONSIDERED UNSOUND, UNSAFE, NOT WATERPROOF, OR NOT • THE SITE SPECIFIC SCOPE OF WORK WILL PRECEDE ANY DISCREPANCIES FOUND ON THIS SCOPE OF SUPPLY. T-MOBILE EGAN, FIELD & NOWAK - -- RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION MEANS. METHODS, TECHNIQUES, PROCEDURES AND SEQUENCES FOR COORDINATING ALL PORTIONS OF THE WORK UNDER THE CONTRACT. WITHIN CUSTOMARY TRADE PRACTICE. WORK IPERFORMED, ITWILL BE ASSUMED THAT THERE IS NOO OBJECTION TO THE DETAIL. DETAILS ARE INTENDED TO SHOW THE END RESULT OF RAW LAND SITE CO -LOCATION SITE C/O VOICESTREAM WIRELESS CORP. 7415 WAYZATA BLVD. 12920 SE. 38th STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55426 BELLEVUE, WA. 98006ITEM TITI F REPORT IDFNTIFICATION• -° C TO REVIEW THE THE DESIGN. MINOR MODIFICATIONS MAY BE INCLUDED AS PART FURNISHED BY INSTALLED BY ITEM FURNISHED BY INSTALLED BY EASEMENT GTFS; 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT THE JOB SITE SCOPEOB SITE CONDITIONS LUDING, BUT NOT TNODLMITEDNTOJMECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL OF THE WORK. 16. EXISTING ELEVATIONS AND LOCATIONS TO BE JOINED SHALL BE TOWER T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR BIS PLATFORM T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR - SERVICE, AND OVERALL COORDINATION. VERIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR BEFORE CONSTRUCTION. IF T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR BTS PLATFORM FOUNDATION CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR SITE OWNER FI FCTRICAI UTILITIFS SITE DIRECTIONS _ THEY DIFFER FROM THOSE SHOWN ON THE PLANS, THE BTS PLATFORM PURCELL CABINET (POWER/TELCO) T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR PENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 834 XCEL ENERGY I1875 NDEPENDENT - - 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO SUBMITTING HIS BID. ANY DISCREPANCIES, CONFLICTS OR OMISSIONS, ETC. SHALL 8E CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER SUCH THAT MODIFICATIONS CAN BE MADE BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. TOWER & BTS PLATFORM FOUNDATION PURCELL CABINET (POWER/TELCO) CONTRACTOR T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR PURCELL CABINET -BATTERIES T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR S GREELEY ST. STILLWATER, MN 55082 SITE DIRECTIONS: -- REPORTED TO THE ENGINEER BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH PURCELL CABINET - BATTERIES T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR BTS CABINETS T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR FROM 1-494 & HWY 169, GO EAST ON 1-494 FOR 25.2 MILES TO I-694; GO NORTH ON 1-694 FOR 5.4 MILES TO HWY 36; GO EAST ON HWY 36 FOR _ THE WORK. 17. ALL SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED ON THE DRAWINGS ARE CONSIDERED CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. IF THE BTS CABINETS T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR ANTENNA T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR 7.8 MILES TO OSGOOD AVENUE N; GO NORTH ON OSGOOD AVENUE N FOR .5 FOR MILES 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL AREAS FROM DAMAGE WHICH MAY OCCUR DURING CONSTRUCTION. ANY DAMAGE TO CONTRACTOR HAS QUESTIONS REGARDING THEIR EXACT MEANING, THE ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED FOR CLARIFICATIONS BEFORE ANTENNA T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR COAX CABLE T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR ARCHITECT/ENGINEER TELEPHONE IITILITIFS T MOBILE - MINNEAPOLIS MILES; OSGOOD TURNS INTO S 4TH STREET; FOLLOW S 4TH ST .1 TO W MARSH STREET; GO WEST ON W MARSH STREET FOR .2 MILES. - NEW AND EXISTING CONSTRUCTION, STRUCTURE. OR EQUIPMENT, PROCEEDING WITH WORK. COAX CABLE T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR JUMPER CABLES T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR QWEST 8000 WEST 78th STREET - SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY REPAIRED OR REPLACED TO THE CABLES T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR LNA (LOW NOISE AMPLIFIER) T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR SUITE 400 - _ SATISFACTION OF THE TENANT OR BUILDING OWNER, OR OWNER'S CONTRACTORREPRESENTATIVE, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE 18. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY BLOCKING, SUPPORT FOR ALL BACKING, FRAMING. OTHER ITEMS REQUIRING G THE SAME. JUMPER LNA (LOW NOISE AMPLIFIER) LNA T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR GROUNDING KITS FOR COAX T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR EDINA, MN. 55439 CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE DIGGING _ GROUNDING KITS FOR COAX T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR SITE GROUNDING MATERIALS CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR GOPHER STATE 0 N E CALL 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, AND SHALL REPLACE OR REMEDY, ANY FAULTY, IMPROPER, OR INFERIOR 19. CITY APPROVED PLANS SHALL BE KEPT IN A PLAN BOX AND SHALL NOT BE USED BY WORKMEN. ALL CONSTRUCTION SETS SITE GROUNDING MATERIALS CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR ANTENNA MOUNTING PIPE & BRACKET CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR ZONING QUESTIONS & NOTIFICATIONS TWIN CITIES AREA 651-454-0002 MN, TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166 -� MATERIALS OR WORKMANSHIP OR ANY DAMAGE WHICH SHALL APPEAR WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE COMPLETION AND SHALL REFLECT SAME INFORMATION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO MAINTAIN IN GOOD CONDITION, ONE COMPLETE SET OF ANTENNA MOUNTING PIPE & BRACKET CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR WAVEGUIDE BRIDGE (EQPT TO TWR) CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR T-MOBILE - MINNEAPOLIS T 78th STREET REFERENCE DRAWINGS: PLOTTED: _ ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK UNDER THIS CONTRACT. PLANS WITH ALL REVISIONS, ADDENDA AND CHANGE ORDERS WAVEGUIDE BRIDGE (EQPT TO TWR) CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR WAVEGUIDE LADDER (TOWER) CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR SUITE 4008000 DRAWING INDEX ° ALL ES. ESE ARE TO BE UNDER THE E IJOBSE ASUPER ON HOF CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR FENCE CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR EDINA, MN. 55439 y 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL RUBBISH AND WASTE MATERIALS ON A REGULAR BASIS, AND SHALL EXERCISE ST CARE THE UPERINTENDENT. WAVEGUIDE LADDER (TOWER) CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR A16187-T1 PROJECT INFORMATION AND GENERAL NOTES STRICT CONTROL OVER JOB CLEANING THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING FINAL CLEAN-UP UPON COMPLETION FENCE UNDERGROUND WORK CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR UNDERGROUND WORK SITEWORK CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR A1N187-CT SITE PLAN Al N187-C2 ENLARGED SITE PLAN OF WORK. ALL AREAS ARE TO BE LEFT IN A BROOM CLEAN CONDITION AT THE END OF EACH DAY. CODES AND STANDARDS SITEWORK CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR POWER DISCONNECT & METER BOX CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR ABBREVIATIONS A1N187-A1 ANTENNA INFORMATION AND TOWER ELEVATION POWER DISCONNECT & METER BOX CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR METER UTILITY UTILITY ARCH. ARCHITECT A AMPERE OR AMMETER BLDG. BUILDING AF CIRCUIT BREAKER AMP FRAME(RATING) -_ ^ 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SAFEGUARD THE OWNER'S PROPERTY DURING CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL REPLACE ANY DAMAGED ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST ADOPTED METER UTILITY UTILITY C.B. CATCH BASIN AFF ABOVE FINISH FLOOR _ _g PROPERTY OF THE OWNER TO ORIGINAL CONDITION OR BETTER. EDITION OF THE FOLLOWING PUBLICATIONS: C.L. CENTER LINE A/G ABOVE GROUND CLG. CEILING ATS AUTOMATIC TRANSFER SWITCH STANDARD DRAWINGS: EQUIPMENT CABINET PLAN VIEWS - - El 8. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO LOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES, WHETHER SHOWN HEREIN OR NOT, AND TO PROTECT THEM FROM DAMAGE. THE 1. ASTM (AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS) 2. ACI (AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE) WATER TOWER SITE ROOFTOP SITE CONC. CONCRETE AC AMPERE INTERRUPTING CAPACITY& CONST. CONSTRUCTION CB CIRCUIT BREAKER CONTR. CONTRACTOR CKT CIRCUIT• STANDARD - A15 (1) -STANDARD ELEVATION VIEWS STANDARD - A25 (1) - STANDARD EQUIPMENT CABINET PLAN VIEWS - CONTRACTOR SHALL BEAR ALL EXPENSES FOR REPAIR OR 3. RISC (AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION) 4. AWS(AMERICAN WELDING SOCIETY) ITEM FURNISHED BY INSTALLED BY ITEM FURNISHED BY INSTALLED BY DET. DETAIL CU COPPER DIA. DIAMETER GEN GENERATOR &ELEVATION VIEWS STANDARD - A3S (1) - STANDARD SITE IMPROVEMENT. SPECIFICATIONS - REPLACEMENT OF UTILITIES OR OTHER PROPERTY DAMAGED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EXECUTION OF WORK. 5. IBC (INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE) BTS PLATFORM T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR ROOFTOP PLATFORM T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR DIAL. DIAGONAL GFl GROUND FAULT INTERRUPTER STANDARD - A4S (1) - STANDARD FENCING SPECIFICATIONS - -_ 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COMPLETE 6. MOOT (MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION) 7. ANSI (AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE) BTS PLATFORM FOUNDATION CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR ROOFTOP ANTENNA SLED/ATTACHMENT T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR DIM. DIMENSION JB JUNCTION BOX DN. DOWN KVA KILOVOLT AMPERE(S) STANDARD - A5S (1) - STANDARD FENCING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD - EIS (1) - STANDARD ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS SECURITY OF THE SITE WHILE THE JOB IS IN PROGRESS AND 8. IEEE (INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS) PURCELL CABINET (POWER/TELCO) T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR PURCELL CABINET (POWER/TELCO) T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR DWG. DRAWING KW KILOWATT(S) EA. EACH M METER STANDARD - E2S (1) -STANDARD UTILITY RACK SPECIFICATIONS -g UNTIL THE JOB IS COMPLETED PER U.B.C. 9. NEC (NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE) 10. NEMA (NATIONAL ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION) PURCELL CABINET - BATTERIES T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR PURCELL CABINET - BATTERIES T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR ELEC. ELECTRICAL MTS MANUAL TRANSFER SWITCH STANDARD - E3S (1) - STANDARD ANTENNA, COAX & GROUNDING SPECIFICATIONS - 10. ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE U.B.C. AND ALL OTHER GOVERNING CODES, ALONG WITH THE GOVERNING 11. NESC (NATIONAL ELECTRICAL SAFETY COMMISSION) BT5 CABINETS 7-MOBILE CONTRACTOR BTS CABINETS T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR EL. ELEVATION NF NON -FUSED EQUIP. EQUIPMENT N.I.C. NOT IN CONTRACT STANDARD - E45 (1) -STANDARD ANTENNA & COAX INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS -- RESTRICTIVE CODES. 12. OSHA (OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTHY ADMINISTRATION) 13. UL (UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC.) ANTENNA T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR ANTENNA T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR EXIST. FOOTING PNL PANEL FTG. FOOTING PH PHASE STANDARD - E5S (1) - STANDARD EQUIPMENT BUILDING WIRING _ - 11. THE CONTRACTOR AND ALL SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL COMPLY 14. APPLICABLE LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCES COAX CABLE T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR COAX CABLE T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR GA. GAUGE PVC POLYVINYL CHLORIDE GALV. GALVANIZED RCPT SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD - E6S (1) - STANDARD GROUNDING SPECIFICATIONS FOR WITH ALL LOCAL CODE REGULATIONS AND STATE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL REGULATIONS AND DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL JUMPER CABLES T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR JUMPER CABLES T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR RECEPTACLE GND. GROUND RGS RIGID GALVANIZED STELL GUYED TOWERS - SAFETY (OSHA) REQUIREMENTS. REFER TO THE CODES SECTION LEGEND LNA (LOW NOISE AMPLIFIER) T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR LNA (LOW NOISE AMPLIFIER) T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR H.M. HOLLOW METAL SW SWITCH L.F. LINEAL FEET SYM SYMMETRICAL STANDARD - NHS (1) - STANDARD ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS GENERAL NOTES -o - OF THIS SHEET. G GROUNDING KITS FOR COAX T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR GROUNDING KITS FOR COAX T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR MTL. METAL TEL TELEPHONE STANDARD - N23 (1) - STANDARD CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS 1 12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AND PAY FOR ANY PERMITS, LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS NECESSARY FOR PERFORMANCE DETAIL NUMBER SITE GROUNDING MATERIALS CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR SITE GROUNDING MATERIALS CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR MIN. MINIMUM XFMR MISC. MISCELLANEOUS T.p TRANSFORMER TYPIERL GENERAL NOTES SHEET STANDARD - N3S (1) - STANDARD CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS - OF THE WORK AND INCLUDE THOSE IN THE COST OF THE SITE GROUNDING MATERIALS CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR SITE GROUNDING MATERIALS CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR N.T.S. NOT TO SCALE U/G UNDERGROUND O.C. ON CENTER V VOLT GENERAL NOTES SHEET 2 S1S (1) - STANDARD EQUIPMENT PLATFORM FOUNDATION - WORK TO THE OWNER. DETAIL ANTENNA ATTACHEMENTS (TOWER) CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR ANTENNA MOUNTING PIPE &BRACKET CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR PL. PLATE W WATTS OR WIRE STANDARD - PLAN. SECTIONS, AND DETAILS • 13. FIGURED DIMENSIONS HAVE PRECEDENCE OVER DRAWING SCALE, AND DETAIL DRAWINGS HAVE PRECEDENCE OVER SMALL ANTENNA MOUNTING PIPE & BRACKET CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR ROOFTOP COAX ATTACHMENTS CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR REQ'D. REQUIRED WP WEATHERPROOF S F. SQUARE FEET WHM WATTHOUR METER STANDARD - 523 (1) - STANDARD ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT PLATFORM SPECIFICATIONS SCALE DRAWINGS. CHECK ACCURACY OF ALL DIMENSIONS IN DRAWING ON WHICH ORIGINAL DETAIL WAS DRAWN WAVEGUIDE BRIDGE (EQPT TO TWR) CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR UNDERGROUND WORK CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR S.S. STAINLESS STEEL UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE SIM. SIMILAR STANDARD - S3S (1) - STANDARD EQUIPMENT PLATFORM EXTENSION & STANDARD Lli N THE FIELD. UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED, DO NOT FABRICATE ANY MATERIALS OFF -SITE, OR PERFORM ANY CONSTRUCTION BLANK DENOTES DETAIL IS ON SAME DRAWING COAX ATTACHEMENTS (TOWER) CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR SITEWORK CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR SPECS. SPECIFICATIONS BRIDGE SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD - S4S (1) - STANDARD ANTENNA & COAX MOUNTING UNTIL THE ACCURACY OF DRAWING DIMENSIONS HAVE BEEN VERIFIED AGAINST ACTUAL FIELD DIMENSIONS. FENCE CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR POWER DISCONNECT & METER BOX CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR STD. STANDARD STL. STEEL SPECIFICATIONS FOR FLUTED WATER TOWER _ SECTION LETTER UNDERGROUND WORK CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR METER UTILITY UTILITY STRUCT. STRUCTURAL 7,C. 70P OF CURB STANDARD - S53 (1) - STANDARD ANTENNA & COAX MOUNTING SPECIFICATIONS FOR SMOOTH SURFACE TANKS & 14. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY CONFLICTS OR DISCREPANCIES WITHIN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS WITH SECTION SITEWORK CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR T.O.P. TOP OF PAVING LEGS COAX CABLE INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND THE HELD CONDITIONS PRIOR TO EXECUTING THE WORK IN QUESTION. POWER DISCONNECT & METER BOX CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR TYP, TYPICAL TOS TOP OF SLAB STANDARD - S6S (1) - STANDARD STANDARD - S7S (1) - STANDARD GPS ANTENNA AND COAX CABLE cc DRAWING ON WHICH ORIGINAL SECTION WAS DRAWN METER UTILITY UTILITY T/ TOP OF BOTTOM OF INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD - S8S (1) - STANDARD TYPICAL EQUIPMENT BUILDING PLAN VIEWS BLANK DENOTES SECTION IS ON SAME DRAWING B/ & SECTION VIEWS A REV DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION CIIX A APPROVED RF FN OP INSTALL REFERENCE DRAWINGS I hereby certify that this plan specification, or report PROJECT NO. STILLWATER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 1 12/31/OB ISSUED FOR PROPOSAL NCP / NOTICETHIS DRAWING HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED ANO : IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF T-MOBILE - MINNEAPOLIS was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer the laws of the State of Minnesota. DESIGNED BY DATE Al N187 NNO t5 LEND NG, BORROWER FOR THEIR N. PERRUS 12/31/08 PROJECT INFO. & GENERAL NOTES -� ® THEKLT CONFIDENTIAL USE ONLY, AN0 IN CONSIDERATION OF THE LOAN OF THIS DRAWING, THE BORROWER PROMISES A CHECKED BY DATE - / T Mobile AGREES TO RETURN IT UPON REQUEST AND AGREES THAT IT WILL NOT BE REPRODUCED, COPIED, LENT OR Trvx O1 MICIiAEL HACHEY - / OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, NOR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN WHICH IT IS Ala'.. m WI x° APPRov[0 sr DATE 523 W. MARSH STREET STILLWATER, MINNESOTA FURNISHED. 17852 °°'•° N° aMEx APPROVAL DATE SCALE DRAWING NUMBER REV _/ MINNEAPOLIS MARKET AS NOTED AlN187-T1 1 MANUAL CHANGES MADE - YES 0 N0 0 DWG FILE UPDATED - YES 0 N0 0 MODEL UPDATED - YES 0 NO 0 CA00 FILE NO.: AlN187TI .DWG 6 I 7 I 6 I 5 ♦ 4 I 3 I 2 I 1 -� D ;I 1 I a N W EXISTING PROPERTY LINE I I 1- Lti p 0 C . 1 I i% //A - -- I W. HANCOCK ST. - — — 1 I L I I I 1 I EXISTING PROPERTY LINE/ i RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE EXISTING \ BUILDING \ ."1 —e C • REDUCED PRINT SCALES 3 _- EXISTING BUILDING\ \ \ \ i rc Z n � EXISTINGI FOOTBALL T-MOBILE 20'-0" WIDE ACCESS &UTILITY EASEMENT (FIELD I 1 — 110. J99 9 g9h 4Z 4 EXISTING LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED BY CONTRACTOR EXISTING BLEACHERS ® 9 0 90 , 1 I EXISTING BITUMINOUS I ACCESS ROAD —' •dy g9h Ai' _*09 EXISTING.") sB -=---'- -� }---_. GRASS � AREA '--899._-� h 1 : R \ \ \ \ \ . h99. p9g. °�° a \_ EXISTING POWER POLE �° 5 w/ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER '•1 Agg' ��,- ��°—° 99 89930 p EXISTING y89g' _. —..899--- -----_�-____ -__ 090 — BUILDING \ \ \ I __- —899--. Lam g x8975 9 xe98•�.2 I __ _ - ___99_ _ + x898.8 x898.5 WIT 't l EER��� T �\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ EXISTING BUILDING \ \6 ,T"u I 1 904.9 3492 h9g �� L \ \ \ \ \ \_\ U \ \ �\ \ \ \ \ \ ♦ —� _ _ f9p l 90 C _ _/tea_ _ _ ° aew ` x9C5.1 11 \ 0 0� - ° N _ 007 Oh/ 0a' 98- / _ _ —�99T i/`� - = — — _ — . \ \ \ �� h9h °— f. _, °— °999 r359t w\ p qp' I +$ EXISTING OVERHEAD EXISTING 7' HIGH . UTILITY LINES (TYP) CHAINLINK FENCE w/NO BARB WIRE I 0 T-MOBILE 15' X 33' LEASE AREA 0gh' EXISTING POWER POLE w/EQUIPMENT CABINETS gh' +p EXISTING TELCO 98.9 g0� �.' ./ 0A'*/ PEDESTAL i �' g 900 r I I � i EXISTING 900,3 j EXISTING BITUMINOUS BASEBALL 6 %�`P.o'D MELD g98' I ACCESS ROAD 1899.0 _ EXISTING BITUMINOUS AREA 906.6 — — Li ol ol EXISTING \ BUILDING \ • \ w/ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER T-MOBILE 90'-0" MONOPOLE w/RELOCATED STADIUM LIGHTS NOTES: 1. EXISTING TELCO PEDESTAL LOCATED NEXT TO EXISTING LIGHT POLE APPROXIMATELY 170 FEET EAST OF COMPOUND. 2. EXISTING POWER POLE w/ TRANSFORMER LOCATED ON WEST PROPERTY LINE APPROXIMATELY 280 FEET WEST OF COMPOUND. 3. T-MOBILE MONOPOLE TO HAVE A CORE -TEN BROWN WEATHERING STEEL FINISH. 4. CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING UGHT POLE (CITY TO HAUL EXISTING LIGHT POLE FROM SITE). 5. CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE EXISTING STADIUM LIGHTS FROM LIGHT POLE AND RELOCATE TO T-MOBILE MONOPOLE (FIELD VERIFY HEIGHT). 6. CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE 33 FEET OF EXISTING CHAINLINK FENCE AND REPLACE WITH NEW CHAINLINK FENCE TO MATCH EXISTING. i SITE PLAN REFERENCE DRAWN05: PLOTTED: A SCALE: 1"=30'-0 (8 22"x34") REV DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION DSGN C„N APPROVED RF FN OP INSTALL REFERENCE DRAWINGS I hereby certify that this plan specification, or report PROJECT NO. STILLWATER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 1 12/31/08 ISSUED FOR PROPOSAL N= �/ NOTICE: THIS DRAWING HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED AND IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF T-MOBILE - MINNEAPOLIS as prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer lows the State Minnesota. DESIGNED BY DATE Al N187 — / MARKET AND IS LENT TO THE BORROWER FOR THEIR OF under the of of N. PERRUS 12/31/08 SITE PLAN CONFIDENTIAL USE ONLY, AND IN CONSIDERATION CHECKED BY DATE —/ • T M obi' ® e THE LOAN OF THIS DRAWING, THE BORROWER PROMISES AND AGREES TO RETURN80 R UPON REQUEST AND AGREES THAT IT WILL NOT BE REPRODUCED, COPIED, LENT OR °° MICHAEL HACHEY —/ OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, NOR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN WHICH IT IS p,ioN Slarwiurc AKAMd Nam APPROVED BY DATE 523 W. MARSH STREET STILLWATER, MINNESOTA FURNISHED. 17852 �°' Rey Na- CUENT APPROVAL DATE SCALE DRAWING NUMBER REV _/ MINNEAPOLIS MARKET ANOTED p /'� Al N187-Cl L 1 MANUAL CHANGES MADE - YES 0 NO 0 DWG FILE UPDATED - YES 0 NO 0 MODEL UPDATED - YES 0 NO 0 CADD FILE NO.: A1N187C1.DWG REDUCED PRINT SCALES lam' I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I l I l I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I "1 I I I I I I I 1 I II I I I 1 I 1 1 WI I I I I I I I I I I I �I e e e Ix le xe xe xe ex ee e s 1 e e le li le le le I l s m . o I o —DHw OMW aNW aIw M- ^•^ EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES (TYP) EXISTING GRASSY AREA , . :14( . ' ... . . ... " - ---Ti'' ' ' '/,' II" ' ' T-MOBILE 12' WID GATE w/S (PROVIDED BY COI (2) STEEL BOLLARDS T-MOBILE STEEL RACK FOR ELECTRIC METER w/DISCONNECT & TELCO HOFFMAN ENCLOSURE w/BUP TERMINAL (PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR) T-MOBILE 7'412', 6" THICK REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB w/g4 @ 12 E.W. AND 6" OF COMPACTED STRUCTURAL BACKFILL (BENEATH) (PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR) EXISTING 7'-0" HIGH CHAINLINK FENCE I(NO STRANDS OF BARB WIRE) ISSUED FOR PROPOSAL 3 g 0 a \\\\\\ 1 e a V3NV 3SV31 30IM .0-,S 1 31I8OW-1 I• $ a paymj H j-:,_e �s—a—.—a—o—e•—e—e--•Oem \ \ 4; —____ P 0 a—e— x -_ - -_i -F O m I I i\D ■ < y H g4.3 ) g PURCELL ULTRA ULTRA (FUT) SITE SITE _ _. 1 / ,No MHa POP mI71 9 EXISTING 7'-0" HIGH FENCE TO BE REP I`J —� y T-MOBILE 34'-0" M - n� s�oom oZ�Tm 1 vx �0 o�m � o m 1 1 4■ i yoo N�a, moo hJ �� a obile •® NEAPOLIS MARKET • 33.-3" WIDE CHAINLINK (ACED BY CONTRACTOR ENLARGED SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" (® ,, Am�m °� ..m •�\ u I n',, • m ^ D T. N a\ o • NSW/, ` I I 5 O 2 m Om mOm mf D o\e 1 i�O/�� �� %MANI, ) 4N m m y • o �m Er,;o m • _ `t m1 ,, I i o v P, > z i ^' x Rgm�m m CNSo Omg ETI Am -1 zO yAso�mm ,2,, mz Yr Noy �DoFumiopomN ymy APiy it �Z m li In F ny a\ ; Irzm III nN� � e\o L— \ J �� 1 I DRAWING HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED Al PROPERTY OF T-MOBILE - MINNEAPOLIE IS LENT TO THE BORROWER FOR THEIR USE ONLY, AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THIS DRAWING, THE BORROWER PROMIS TO RETURN R UPON REQUEST AND AGR NOT BE REPRODUCED, COPIED, LENT OF SPOSED OF DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, NI Y PURPOSE OTHER THAN WHICH R IS .P x Z N o of V A 1 MANUAL CHANGES MADE - YES 0 NO DWG 1 s-aG 0 > i 2 I DD — I hereby certify that this plan specification, was prepared by me or under my direct sur and that I ore o duly Licensed Professional under the laws of the State of Minnesota. TyP.e w MICHAEL sq,wlw: Pnnt.a Warm 1781 Dale Reg. .4 2 1 I 1 x 0 a m m rn tl D 6 K Ao 1N3113SV3 Alllllfl ONV SS333V 301M ,0-,OZ 31180r-1 I 1 ' w , , m�a wo < z %m 1 - YES L7 NO O MODEL UPDATED - YES 0 HD ❑ CADD FILE i '3 CHECKED BY DATE DESIGNED BY DATE N. PERRUS 12/31/08 $ , 1 c clXISTING 8LEACHERSJ s 8 o / , NOTES: 1. EXISTING TELCO PEDESTAL LOCATED NEXT TO EXISTING LIGHT POLE APPROXIMATELY 170 FEET EAST OF COMPOUND. 2. EXISTING POWER POLE w/ TRANSFORMER LOCATED ON WEST PROPERTY LINE APPROXIMATELY 280 FEET WEST OF COMPOUND. 3. T-MOBILE MONOPOLE TO HAVE A CORE -TEN BROWN WEATHERING STEEL FINISH. 4. CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING LIGHT POLE (CITY TO HAUL EXISTING LIGHT POLE FROM SITE). 5. CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE EXISTING STADIUM LIGHTS FROM LIGHT POLE AND RELOCATE TO T-MOBILE MONOPOLE (FIELD VERIFY HEIGHT). 6. CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE 33 FEET OF EXISTING CHAINLINK FENCE AND REPLACE WITH NEW CHAINLINK FENCE TO MATCH EXISTING. I NJ � m al . SCALE DRAWING NUMBER AS NOTED A1N187-( 523 W. MARSH STRI STILLWATER, MINNES1 STILLWATER JUNIOR HIG A1N187 ENLARGED SITE PI I I I o N ,m r S 1 1 < SCHOOL REFERENCE DRAWINGS: TRIDB-NACN • REDUCED PRINT SCALES PLOTTED: i i i I ' I l,e ,..,., B I 7 I 6 I 5 111, d 3 I 2 I 1 LNA REQUIREMENTS ANTENNA AND COAXIAL CABLE REQUIREMENTS li ^ -_ RELOCATED STADIUM LIGHTS N0. TYPE SECTOR ANTENNA COAXAL CABLE (FIELD VERIFY HEIGHT) (DEGREES) N0. SECTOR DOWNTILT * DIA. COLOR CODE '� TYPE (DEGREES) (DEGREES) CONNECTION LENGTH - '� 1 ETW190VS12UB LNA/TMA PER SECTOR 0' R1 130' 7/8" RED -_ 0000 2 ETW200VS12UB LNA/TMA PER SECTOR 0' Al TMBX-6516-R2M 0' 0' R3 130' 7/8" TRIPLE RED - T-MOBILE 3 ETW190VS12UB LNA/TMA PER SECTOR 120' R4 130' 7/8" QUAD RED D -. ANTENNAS FACING 120' �_ - - - _ T-MOBILE 12" HIGH LIGHTNING 4 ETW200VS121.51 LNA/TMA PER SECTOR 120' A2 TMBX-6516-R2M 0' 0' R2 130' 7/8" DOUBLE RED - a �, $11 ROD (PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR) RELOCATED STADIUM LIGHTS (FIELO VERIFY HEIGHT) 5 E7W190V512U8 LNA/TMA PER SECTOR 240' TMBX-6516-R2M 0' 0' R5 130' 7/8" (5) RED/GRAY 6 ETW200V512UB LNA/TMA PER SECTOR 240' A3 R6 130' 7/8" (6) RED/GRAY _ - T-MOBILE ANTENNAS I I FACING 240' 120' Y1 130' 7/8" YELLOW - O \\// \\ 1\��//� 0000 B1 TMBX-6516-R2M 0' Y3 130' 7/8" TRIPLE YELLOW __ T-MOBILE Y 4 130 7/8" QUAD YELLOW _. ANTENNAS FACING 0' -I 82 TMBX-6516-R2M 120' 0' - 1- 0��)1� lt� Y2 130. 7/8" DOUBLE YELLOW — NOTES: Y5 130'. 7/8" YELLOW/GRAY I 1/2" JUMPER CABLE (TYP) -MAIN GND BAR 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL SET ALL T-MOBILE ANTENNAS TMBX-6516-R2M 120' 0' (5) _ L J FUTURE COLOCATOR LNA ( ) ELECTRICAL DOWNTILT AT TIME TO OF ZERO INSTALLATION. B3 Y6 130. 7/8" (6) YELLOW/GRAY -ES ANTENNAS (2 PER SECTOR) 2. T-MOBILE RF ENGINEERS WILL THEN SET TO PROPER TILT AT SITE TURN -UP. 240' B1 130' 7/8" BLUE Cl TMBX-6516-R2M 0' 83 130' 7/8" TRIPLE BLUE - n- \� B4 130' 7/8" QUAD BLUE T-MOBILE J ANTENNAS T-MOBILE ANTENNAS C2 TMB%-6516-R2M 240' 0' B2 130' 7/8" DOUBLE BLUE _ - NOTE: PARTIAL VIEW OF NEW 7'-0" HIGH FACING 120' _ FACING 240' TMBX-6516-R2M 240' 0' BS 130' 7/8" (5) BLUE/GRAY - • CHAINLINK FENCE w/NO BARBWIRE IS FOR CLARITY. C3 B6 130. 7/8" (6) BLUE/GRAY - C _ T-MOBILE ANTENNA MOUNTING BRACKET • FOR MORE INFORMATION REFER TO STANDARD DRAWING ESS. (PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR) '- -- u a (_'+ T-MOBILE ANTENNAS FACING 0' NOTES: 1. EXISTING TELCO PEDESTAL LOCATED NEXT TO EXISTING LIGHT POLE - Lu 'I APPROXIMATELY 170 FEET EAST OF COMPOUND. 2. EXISTING POWER POLE w/ TRANSFORMER LOCATED ON WEST PROPERTY LINE APPROXIMATELY 280 FEET WEST OF COMPOUND. 3. T-MOBILE MONOPOLE TO HAVE A CORE -TEN BROWN WEATHERING NOTE: T-MOBILE COAX CABLE SHALL BE AVA COAX CABLE. .- - -` - —` - ► m p `6-n o �' o p1 IOBILE ANTENNAS z E i 'r T-MOBILE 90'-0' MONOPOLE W/RELOCATED STADIUM LIGHTS (EXISTING LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED BY CONTRACTOR) /// STEEL FINISH. 4. CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING UGHT POLE (CITY TO HAUL EXISTING LIGHT POLE FROM SITE). 5. CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE EXISTING STADIUM LIGHTS FROM LIGHT POLE AND RELOCATE TO T-MOBILE MONOPOLE (FIELD VERIFY HEIGHT). 6. CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE 33 FEET OF EXISTING CHAINLINK FENCE AND REPLACE WITH NEW CHAINLINK FENCE TO MATCH EXISTING. NOTES: DETERMINED 1. ANTENNA CABLE LENGTHS HAVE BEEN APPROXIMATE PLANS. CABLE LENGTHS LISTED ARE APPROXIMATE AND BASED ON THESE ARE NOT UCED PRINT SCALES _ - -" - �I "op • a s r o ? 0 a 92. 8- T-MOBILE 90.-0. MONOPOLE INTENDED TO BE USED FOR FABRICATION. DUE TO FIELD CONDITIONS ACTUAL ANTENNA CABLE LENGTHS REQUIRED MAY VARY FROM LENGTHS TABULATED. ALL ANTENNA/COAX CABLES TO BE COLOR CODED AT THREE (3) LOCATIONS USING 1/2" WIDE PVC ELECTRICAL TAPE. 4 C - m j W/RELOCATED STADIUM LIGHTS A. TOP OF TOWER (ANTENNA LEVEL) (EXISTING LIGHT POLE TO BE B. BASE OF TOWER T-MOBILE E911GPS GGGK REMOVED BY CONTRACTOR) ANTENNA C. AT BTS CABINET CONNECTION POINT y ,p ,TAD T-MOBILE WAVEGUIDE BRIDGE 3. ANTENNA/COAX CABLES SHALL UTILIZE GROUND KITS GROUNDED (PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR) AT THREE (3) POINTS OF TOWER AS FOLLOWS: — =L I -.1?.. A. TOP OF TOWER (ANTENNA LEVEL) ONE END MECHANICALLY CONNECTED TO TOWER. 8. BOTTOM OF TOWER, ONE END MECHANICALLY CONNECTED TO -^ B T-MOBILE GROUND BAR. Al' BTS CABINET CONNECTION POINT. CABINETS -R T-MOBILE E911 GPS ANTENNA ' 4 ONE THE 505 NNA PLAN.SECTRS MAGNETIC NORTH 5 ALL BE MEASURED 2.5' TH TRUE OFFRTH TRUENORTTH.N _ - R EXISTING 7'-0" HIGH CHAINLINK FENCE TO BE REPLACED WITH T-MOBILE 7'-0" HIGH CIHAINLINK FENCE •��• I *4 '4 - __ - Q J (MATCH EXISTING CHAINLINK FENCE) (NO STRANDS OF BARB WIRE) (PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR) ,��������� ►♦ ��: kFUTURE I ULTRA SITE LTRA SITE PURCELL •�Q�Q�Q • .. � ♦���' :, E911 ANTENNA REQUIREMENTS ����� ANTENNA COAXIAL CABLE ���•��� EE— - . _ .,.. �4NO TYPE SECTOR (DEGREES) LENGTH* DA COLOR CODE -- .....• ::❖ :❖ ::❖ : I ..•• f :I 1: 1 1 CPS L1 (58532A) 2p' I/4' - I •_ I. II 7 71 C. J L °I -. — :•4.*:❖•:•:+:W*.. .:»'::•:•:•:•.• .....V.A.V.V. I IL]1 L�- DOWNTILT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS ICED PRINT SCALES '/E ({ LE { N IIA LTii itF1 T-MOBILE 7'x12', 6" THICK REINFORCED NO. TYPE SECTOR R� (DEGREES) GTM< DIA COLOR CODE CONCRETE SLAB w/#4 0 12 E.W. AND 6" OF COMPACTED i ATCB-B01 SERIES 0' 130' 1/4' - STRUCTURAL BACKFILL (BENEATH) (PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR) NORTH ELEVATION ENLARGED ELEVATION A SCALE: NONE SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" (0 22"x34`) e REFERENCE DRAWINGS: PLOTTED: REV DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION DSGN CHK APPROVED RF FN OP INSTALL REFERENCE DRAWINGS I hereby certify that this plan specification, or report PROJECT NO. STILLWATERJUNIORHIGHSCHOOL 1 12�31�08 ISSUED FOR PROPOSAL NCP / // NOTICE: THIS DRAWING HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED AND IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF T-MOBILE - MINNEAPOLIS HOS d byme or under direct supervision prepare m my pervi and that I a a duly Licensed Professionol Engineer DESIGNED BY DATE Al N187 —/ • MARKET AND IS LENT TO THE BORROWER FOR THEIR USE ONLY, AND IN CONSIDERATION OF under the laws of the Stote of Minnesota. N. PERRUS 12/31/08 ANTENNA INFO. & TOWER ELEVATION TMObil W THE LOAN OF THIS DRAWING, THE BORROWER PROMISES THE LOAN O CHECKED BY 000E —/ • T • � e AND AGREES TO RETURN IT UPON REQUEST AND AGREES THAT IT WILL NOT BE REPRODUCED, COPIED, LENT OR TrP•a�' —/ OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, NOR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN WHICH IT IS MICHAEL HACHEY Ha..�.a. Pem. Hams. APPROVED BY DOTE 523 W. MARSH STREET STILLWATER, MINNESOTA / FURNISHED. — 17852 °�'� INS I • I APPROVAL GATE SCALE DRAWING NUMBER REV —� MINNEAPOLIS MARKET As NOTED Al N187-Al 1 A I MANUAL CHANGES MADE - YES 0 NO 0 DWG FILE UPDATED - TES 0 NO 0 MODEL UPDATED - TES 0 NO 0 CA00 FILE NO.: A1N187A1 .DWG COVERAGE LEGEND IN Building IN Car Outdoor Q ON AIR SITES 0 Proposed Sites 90th St N Exhibit C-1 v l liiii�•'• 1 0 CA1 NO 7`►› , ,y Orleans St W to ° "' Y� "'���' °"v 6 th_St N 1E'OA1 23 m o� T, • F cp °,, ' its ' it y 36 Oth St N tti h •:Yi w• �..� c NT rp 1 — 57 St N ` Stillwater Existing Coverage ? d6fh Ave ighway 35 N Exhibit C-2 (Proposed Coverage with Stillwater JH Site) COVERAGE LEGEND IN Building IN Car Outdoor 0 ON AIR SITES QProposed Sites N187 Proposed Coverage Exhibit C-3 (Proposed coverage with Stillwater HI and Jaycee Fields) COVERAGE LEGEND IN Building IN Car Outdoor 0 ON AIR SITES 0 Proposed Sites Nell & N187 Proposed Coverage Exhibit D (1/2 Mile Radius Tower Search) CL `Qq 75th= st Atj\cri n�` ° ^ne Ln t[ _ Interlachen Dr 1 ,/, �. — ' Oakridge Croixw° °d Blvd r �� Comcast Tower i2 Q ,,/ "I, mac` m`Z` / 'l 4 11 (n -0. y 4 ,� W Orleans St 0 .> - :;urve-Crest ___ - - Existing T-Mobile Site /er Df= W 45.04117,-92.83528 ilk 0. W Wilkins St JI r 64 Inf—ln�nl _ _Z2 2 Proposed T-Mobile Site St > _, a 95 00wlark Dr Z_, c 41 9. W Linden St • W i Mulberry St g ll- ���� it L Rd 5 1 58th St N ' W Myrtle -St, •,\ Y 't_>—tr- CP N `'� W Ramsey VSt Olive St s c Ci L_:c 1 l-1 I__ 1- yv �St N twater: _SDI I��i - W Pine St Lakeview Hospital W Willard St tV co Vi 11 • ---- 60th St N` \ �.., rn (1) _ f L 70- ®Moulton E County--Rd-E- Chur Existing T-Mobile Site 45.06111, -92.79344 -a rn , W\ v Proposed T-Mobile Site .t. ' W Churc Stillwater-JJunior High a s i it rn D m (1)0 0----0.500mi!cn W Marsh St - Q -- 95 77- �-t nN', ', - �3�6 86 Shelton W Orleans St N _1 it 'r- I_ , i _59th-St ;Oak Park ieikh 5-St N 57th--St -N 1�—= Fairview Cemetery p4thF$FN I! 63rd St NJ 23 /'H/ �a of ti 60th St / J[ l tNr 1L24 — 58th St N 21 35 0 mi 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Copyright © and (P) 1988-2006 Microsoft Corporation and/or its suppliers. All rights reserved. http://www.microsoft.com/streets/ Portions © 1990-2006 InstallShield Software Corporation. All rights reserved. Certain mapping and direction data © 2005 NAVTEQ. All rights reserved. The Data for areas of Canada includes information taken with permission from Canadian authorities, including: © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, © Queen's Printer for Ontario. NAVTEQ and NAVTEQ ON BOARD are trademarks of NAVTEQ. © 2005 Tele Atlas North America, Inc. All rights reserved. Tele Atlas and Tele Atlas North America are trademarks of Tele Atlas, Inc. 1.4 = O' 0ct U O C/J C bA a) O •C E•-••' �• Exhibit E-2 00 3 u U v3 a) c E ck -O cr 'C ' O CO a 0 ai .a. U Q • a) • 0 O 0 rn 0 by T-Mobile/AT&T Communication Tower 1900 Myrtle St W May 5, 2009 Page 7 RECOMMENDATION Since there are alternative options to collocate on an existing tower that should be more fully explored, staff recommends that the planning commission table action on this request until June 8, 2009. attachments: Applicant's_ Letter, _site -plan, -and accompanying material OY ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS, INC. CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS • EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hemline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-784-7445 • Fax 651-784-7541 REPORT REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER IN STILLWATER, MINNESOTA AT 1900 MYRTLE STREET FOR T-MOBILE WIRELESS PREPARED BY: GARRETT G. LYSIAK, P.E. And MICHAEL O'ROURKE MAY 4, 2009 OWL ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS, INC. CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS • EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hemline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651.784.7445 • Fax 651.784.7541 Engineering Statement The documents submitted by T-Mobile Communications to Stillwater for the proposed tower were reviewed for compliance with the technical requirements of the Stillwater zoning ordinance Sec. 31-512. Additional information was requested and provided by T- Mobile in order to complete our analysis and review of the application. The site was located and plotted on a USGS 7.5 minute map (Figure 1 "Site Map"). In addition, an aerial photograph is included to show the proposed site location and the surrounding area (Figure 2 "Aerial Site Map"). Coverage Study In reviewing the submitted data it was determined that additional information for nearby T-Mobile Communications telecommunications sites was needed in order to make a signal coverage study determination. The requested information was provided and the data was analyzed. This analysis shows how T-Mobile Communications has designed its communications facilities in the Stillwater area with several surrounding sites providing area wide coverage. Figure 3 shows the results of the coverage study analysis using the data for the proposed site in addition to the data supplied by T-Mobile Communications for the nearby system sites. The analysis was then repeated with the proposed site removed from the analysis in order to determine if there is any gap in communications coverage in the T-Mobile Communications system. Figure 4 shows that a gap in coverage does exist and is identified. Existing Towers The ordinance requires that existing towers or structures that are capable of supporting the proposed facility be identified nearby the proposed tower site. The following sites were found and they are: KLBB Radio Comcast T-Mobile Proposed Mobilite Tower AT&T / Cingular (Holton) Levake Tower (Holton) 0.34 0.92 1.13 1.14 1.21 1.84 1.96 Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles AM Radio tower Cable TV Tower T-Mobile existing site T-Mobile - Marsh St. T-Mobile existing site Adjacent to Levake Tower T-Mobile existing site OWL ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS, INC. CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS • EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hemline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651.784.7445 • Fax 651.764-7541 Airspace Study The proposed tower site was examined for any impact on the local airspace and airports. The nearest public airport is Lake Elmo and is 4.0 miles away. The nearest private airport is Keller and is 4.9 miles to the north. Since the proposal is for a 100' structure, this falls well below the FAA airspace criteria and would not pose any airspace hazard. AM Radio Stations The FCC requires that all towers located within % mile of a non -directional AM station and 2 miles from a directional antenna AM station must demonstrate that no pattern distortion is predicted to occur by the proposed tower. A search of the FCC AM database shows that the closest AM radio station to the proposed facility is KLBB radio This is a non -directional station. A further study of possible pattern interference will be need to be conducted for T-Mobile for the protection of the AM station. Current FCC Rules will require that T-Mobile perform a Partial Proof of Performance on the AM station both prior to and post construction. These measurements will demonstrate if there is any impact on the KLBB antenna system performance. If the measurements show any impact to the radio station T-Mobile will have to install a detuning skirt on the tower to eliminate the problem. Collocation on the KLBB Tower Information provided by the radio station indicates that the KLBB antenna tower is more than fifty years old. My inspection of the tower and also by T-Mobile indicates that the present tower will not support the proposed communications system. T-Mobile could replace the existing KLBB tower and then install their system on the new tower. However, there are several technical problems that would have to be addressed in order for this move to occur. Information provided by T-Mobile shows that the cost to construct the new tower at the proposed Myrtle Street location is approximately $75,000. The cost to install a new tower and associated equipment at the KLBB site was estimated to cost $110,000. The owner of KLBB has not indicated if this possible co -location is being considered. THPLA GE 44 MINN ESO A Planning Commission DATE: REQUEST: APPLICANT: LAND OWNER: LOCATION: COMPREHENSIVE ZONING: MEETING DATE: REVIEWED BY: May 5, 2009 CASE NO.: 09-14 Special Use Permit to replace a 60-foot tall light pole with a new 100-foot tall multi -purpose tower with lights and wireless communication antennas with necessary ground appurtenances. Steve Carlson for T-Mobile and Ken Nielson for AT&T Stillwater Area School District (ISD #834) South central are of the site at 1900 Myrtle St W PLAN DISTRICT: SFLL - Single Family Large Lot RA - One -Family Residential May 11, 2009 Community Development Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner WI BACKGROUND Steve Carlson for T-Mobile and Ken Nielson for AT&T have made application for a special use permit to replace a 60-foot tall light pole with a new 100-foot tall multi- purpose tower. The new tower would have lights and wireless communication antennas with necessary ground appurtenances on the Jaycee Field at 1900 Myrtle St W. For T-Mobile the necessary appurtenances include a proposed at grade concrete equipment platform that initially will be 12' x 7' that could expand in the future to 18' x 7'. Initially four equipment boxes will be located on the platform with up to six in the future. The tallest box will be approximately 7' tall. T-Mobile/AT&T Communication Tower 1900 Myrtle St W May 5, 2009 Page 2 For AT&T the necessary appurtenances include a proposed building that is 11'5" wide, 20' long, and approximately 10 feet tall. The shelter is proposed to have an aggregate finish. No color information for the building was included on the plans. Both T-Mobile and AT&T plans call for the equipment area and tower to be enclosed with an 8-foot tall chain link fence. Per city code the proposed fence is require to be reduced to no taller than six -feet in height. SPECIFIC REQUESTS A communication tower in the RA district requires a Special Use Permit from the Planning Commission.1 Therefore, Steve Carlson for T-Mobile and Ken Nielson for AT&T has requested the Planning Commission to consider and approve a Special Use Permit for the placement of the new communication tower. DISCUSSION Radio Frequency (RF) Engineering Review The City contracted with Owl Engineering to complete a technical review of T- Mobile's request. Garrett Lysiak and Michael O'Rourke of Owl Engineering completed this review on the behalf of the City. They reviewed the request to ensure compliance with the technical requirement of our code and with other applicable state and federal regulations. Areas they reviewed included but were not limited to possible collocation opportunities on existing towers, an RF interference study, an RF radiation analysis, and airspace impacts. Owl's review found that the tower is necessary to eliminate the present existing poor coverage area around the Jaycee's Field site and would not present any adverse health or safety impacts to the public. A suggestion was made by Owl Engineering related to switching from externally mounted antennas to internally mounted antennas. This will be discussed later in the report. A copy of the Owl Engineering report is attached. Mr. Lysiak will also be at the meeting on May 11 to answer any technical questions the Commission or public have on the proposed tower. KLBB AM Tower City Code Section 31-512 Subd. 7 (a) requires all proposals for new personal wireless communication service towers to demonstrate that their equipment cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building within a one -half -mile radius of a proposed new tower. In their report, Owl noted the existence of the KLBB AM tower just south of the site. This tower is more than 50 years of age. Both Owl City Code Section 31-512, Subd. 3 T-Mobile/AT&T Communication Tower 1900 Myrtle St W May 5, 2009 Page 3 and T-Mobile inspected the tower and found that the present tower will not support the proposed communication system. A new AM tower structure would be required in order to support T-Mobile's & AT&T's equipment. Owl engineering notes in their report that T-Mobile could replace the existing KLBB tower and then install their equipment on the new tower. Several technical issues and aesthetic concerns need to be weighted by the City in considering this collocation option. Technical Issues 1. Collocating on the tower introduces a number of interference and maintenance issues in this type of multi -use tower structure. These issues will affect both KLBB and the cellular communication companies and will require additional equipment to eliminate RF interference issues. 2. The entire AM tower is electrified which presents safety concerns for both T- Mobile and AT&T. Additionally, the AM station would be required to go off the air when T-Mobile or AT&T needed to complete equipment maintenance. Aesthetic Concerns 3. The width of the tower would need to increase. Currently the tower is approximately 12 inches wide on all three sides. A new tower that is able to support both T-Mobile's and AT&T's equipment would need to be a minimum of 30 inches wide. 4. Even though the tower is a non -conforming structure, replacing the tower is legally permitted by City Code and State Statues. With that said, replacing the tower and adding additional users to the tower extends the useful life of the non -conforming tower and diminishes the likelihood that the AM tower would be removed in the future. Staff has had a number of discussions with the owner of KLBB concerning the possibility of collocating both T-Mobile's and AT&T's equipment on the KLBB tower site. The owner of KLBB has indicated a wiliness to explore some type of collocation arrangement. Since there are sufficient issues to be reviewed and discussed amongst all of the parties, staff recommends that the request be tabled until June 8 to allow time for the parties to meet and see if a single tower with all three users collocated on it is feasible and advisable. T-Mobile/AT&T Communication Tower 1900 Myrtle St W May 5, 2009 Page 4 EVALUATION OF REQUEST The Planning Commission may grant a Special Use Permit for a communication tower in a RA district when the following conditions are mete: 1. Satellite dishes for television receiving only are subject to the accessory structure requirements for residential districts; This is not applicable to this request. 2. All antennas must be designed and situated to be visually unobtrusive, screened as appropriate, not be multicolored and may contain no signage, including logos, except as required by the equipment manufacturers or city, state or federal regulations. For this site, T-Mobile and AT&T have proposed that the existing 60-foot light pole be replaced with a new 100-foot multipurpose tower. Lights for the baseball field would be mounted at 60 feet high. The antennas for T-Mobile being mounted 97 feet high and the antennas for AT&T being mounted at 75 feet height. In an e-mail dated May 5, 2009 from the applicant, Mr. Carlson indicated that T- Mobile and AT&T are willing to install internally mounted antennas; however, this would require a taller tower and a height variance. Staff has consulted with the City's RF engineer and he is in agreement with T-Mobile's position. For the antennas to be internally mounted the tower would likely need to be around 108 feet in height, which is above the maximum allowable height for a tower in a residentially zoned district. City code states that antennas must be designed and situated to be visually unobtrusive. In this case, the issue is internally mounted antennas for both carriers requires the tower to be 8 feet taller. Does the extra 8 feet outweigh the view of externally mounted antennas? If the tower were ultimately located at this location, it would seem appropriate to approve an eight foot height variance and have internally mounted antennas. Additionally, the variance is less than 10 percent of the maximum allowed height and allows the antennas to be visually unobtrusive. The City's RF engineer has indicated that the tower would not pose any airspace hazard. This tower is below the height requirement that automatically requires painting and lighting by the FAA. Additionally, since there are no airports within 2 miles of this site it is unlikely that the FAA will require any marking for this tower site at the proposed height. T-Mobile and AT&T have indicated in their application that they would not include any advertising on this site. There will be required regulatory and advisory signage on 2 City Code Section 31-512, Subd. 3 (a) • T-Mobile/AT&T Communication Tower 1900 Myrtle St W May 5, 2009 Page 5 this site as required by state or federal regulations and the equipment manufacturer. Finally, T-Mobile and AT&T has indicated that they would propose to have the tower be a core -ten finish to match the exiting light poles with the antennas painted brown to match the pole. 3. An antenna placed on a primary structure may be no taller than 15 feet above the primary structure. Any accessory equipment or structures must be compatible with the design and materials of the primary structure and not visible from a public street. The first part of this requirement is not applicable to this request. For the second part staff recommends that the equipment cabinets and building be earth tone colors. 4. Monopoles only are allowed in residential districts. The proposed tower is monopole. 5. Minimum land area for freestanding monopole site in residential districts is one acre. The subject parcel is just over 29 acres in size. 6. A tower and any antenna combined may be no more than 75 feet in height, or 100 feet in height if collocated. The proposed tower is 100 feet with T-Mobiles antennas proposed to be at 97 feet in height and AT&T antennas proposed to be at 75 feet in height. If the antennas were to be internally mounted the tower would need to be 108 feet tall and a height variance would be required. Since the variance would be within 10 percent of the maximum allowable height for a telecommunication tower it seems reasonable to grant a variance since it allows the antennas to be internally concealed. Additionally, the applicant has indicated in their application that they will permit collocation on the tower. 7. A tower may not be located within 100 feet of any existing or planned residential structure. The tower is approximately 345 feet from any existing residential structure. There are no planned residential structures in the area that would be impacted by this tower. 7. A tower must be setback from a street line a minimum of the height of the tower and any antenna; and towers or antennas may be sited in preferred locations as listed in Subd. 2 of this Section 31-512 subject to design permit approval. The tower is approximately 228 feet from the nearest right-of-way. School sites is one of the preferred locations as listed in Section 31-512, Subd. 2. T-Mobile/AT&T Communication Tower 1900 Myrtle St W May 5, 2009 Page 6 Finally, some of the preferred locations are in areas that required a design permit. This location however, is outside the design review areas and therefore does not need a design permit. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Continue the public hearing until June 8, 2009 in order for the applicant to submit additional information. The 60 day decision deadline for the request is June 16, 2009; however, if necessary, staff could extend the review deadline for an additional 60 days as allowed by state statutes. 2. Approve the requested Special Use Permit for a telecommunication tower with the following conditions: a. All revisions to the approved permit shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. b. No signage is allowed, except for required regulatory warning signs. The applicant shall submit all required regulatory warning signs for review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to installation. c. The entire tower shall be a core -ten finish to match the other light standards on the site. d. The fence shall be no taller than six feet in height. e. When technically feasible, the tower owner shall permit the collocation of other antennas as a condition of approval. f. The antennas shall be painted the same color as the adjacent tower. The determination on when the antennas shall be repainted will be made by the City of Stillwater Community Development Director. T- Mobile, AT&T, or the current tower owner, shall repaint the platform and cabinets within 90 days after receiving notice by the City. g. The equipment cabinets and building shall be earth tone colors. The determination on when the cabinets or building shall be repainted will be made by the City of Stillwater Community Development Director. T-Mobile, AT&T, or the current tower owner, shall repaint the cabinets and/or building within 90 days after receiving notice by the City. 3. Deny the Special Use Permit and Variance. If the Commission is going to deny the request then the action must be in writing and provide a rational for denying the permit. If the Commission is chooses to deny the request, staff would suggest that the Commission verbally provide the rational for denial and then table action to your June 8, 2009 meeting when staff will present a formal resolution denying the request for the Commission's consideration. T-Mobile/AT&T Communication Tower 1900 Myrtle St W May 5, 2009 Page 7 RECOMMENDATION Since there are alternative options to collocate on an existing tower that should be more fully explored, staff recommends that the planning commission table action on this request until June 8, 2009. attachments: Applicant's Letter, site plan, and accompanying -material OWL ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS, INC. CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS • EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hemline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-784-7445 • Fax 651-784-7541 REPORT REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER IN STILLWATER, MINNESOTA AT 1900 MYRTLE STREET FOR T-MOBILE WIRELESS PREPARED BY: GARRETT G. LYSIAK, P.E. And MICHAEL O'ROURKE MAY 4, 2009 OWL ENGINEERING & EMC ZEST LABS, INC. CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS • EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hemline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-784-7445 • Fax 651-784-7541 TABLE OF CONTENTS ENGINEERING STATEMENT FIGURE 1 SITE MAP FIGURE 2 AERIAL VIEW FIGURE 3 EXISTING COVERAGE FIGURE 4 PROPOSED COVERAGE FIGURE 5 PROPOSED COVERAGE -MARSH ST. ONLY FIGURE 6 NEARBY EXISTING TOWERS FIGURE 7 FCC TOWER SEARCH FIGURE 8 FAA TOWER SEARCH FIGURE 9 AIRSPACE SUMMARY REPORT OWL ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS, INC. CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS • EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hemline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-784-7445 • Fax 651.784.7541 Engineering Statement The documents submitted by T-Mobile Communications to Stillwater for the proposed tower were reviewed for compliance with the technical requirements of the Stillwater zoning ordinance Sec. 31-512. Additional information was requested and provided by T- Mobile in order to complete our analysis and review of the application. The site was located and plotted on a USGS 7.5 minute map (Figure 1 "Site Map"). In addition, an aerial photograph is included to show the proposed site location and the surrounding area (Figure 2 "Aerial Site Map"). Coverage Study In reviewing the submitted data it was determined that additional information for nearby T-Mobile Communications telecommunications sites was needed in order to make a signal coverage study determination. The requested information was provided and the data was analyzed. This analysis shows how T-Mobile Communications has designed its communications facilities in the Stillwater area with several surrounding sites providing area wide coverage. Figure 3 shows the results of the coverage study analysis using the data for the proposed site in addition to the data supplied by T-Mobile Communications for the nearby system sites. The analysis was then repeated with the proposed site removed from the analysis in order to determine if there is any gap in communications coverage in the T-Mobile Communications system. Figure 4 shows that a gap in coverage does exist and is identified. Existing Towers The ordinance requires that existing towers or structures that are capable of supporting the proposed facility be identified nearby the proposed tower site. The following sites were found and they are: KLBB Radio Comcast T-Mobile Proposed Mobilite Tower AT&T / Cingular (Holton) Levake Tower (Holton) 0.34 0.92 1.13 1.14 1.21 1.84 1.96 Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles AM Radio tower Cable TV Tower T-Mobile existing site T-Mobile - Marsh St. T-Mobile existing site Adjacent to Levake Tower T-Mobile existing site OWL ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS, INC. CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS • EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hemline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-784-7445 • Fax 651.784.7541 Figure 5 shows all of the existing towers within 2 miles in relation to the proposed tower. This information was obtained from searches of the FCC and FAA tower databases. The closest existing tower is an AM tower for KLBB radio. All the other nearby towers except the Comcast tower are currently being used by T-Mobile as cell sites. Site Construction The proponent has not purchased the tower as yet and therefore does not have PE stamped drawings available for our review. When those plans are submitted to Stillwater, we will review them to verify the tower meets the requirements of the current EIA-222 standard which requires loading for winds of 80 mph with '/z" of radial ice. We will also verify the tower is built to accommodate the number of co -locators that the CUP requires. Since the tower is less than 200-feet there is no requirement for any lighting or marking requirements as required by the FAA. Interference Study A search was performed using the FCC frequency database to determine the frequency and location of any city or county public safety facilities within one -mile from the proposed tower location. Using all the identified frequencies either utilized by the city and county an intermodulation (interference) study was performed to determine if any predicted interference products would be generated by the proposed T-Mobile Communications facility. The results of the study indicate that there are no interference products predicted to be generated that would cause interference to any of the identified protected frequencies. RF Radiation Analysis Using the data submitted by T-Mobile Communications we performed a "Worst -Case" radiation analysis to determine the amount of RF energy that would be present at the base of the tower. In making our calculations we assumed that all of the RF energy generated by the facility would be directed downward. This is not the real world situation since the antennas used by cellular systems are designed to radiate towards the horizon. However, using this analysis method we are able to determine that the maximum level of RF radiation reaching the ground at the tower base is less than 8 percent of the ANSI standard value and as such is not classified as an RF radiation hazard. While the calculated RF radiation analysis above is generally accurate, it is customary for new towers located very near to schools have the actual radiation level tested by an independent engineer prior to placing the site in service and then re -tested annually to verify FCC compliance. OWL ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS, INC. CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS • EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hemline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651.784.7445 • Fax 651-784-7541 Airspace Study The proposed tower site was examined for any impact on the local airspace and airports. The nearest public airport is Lake Elmo and is 4.0 miles away. The nearest private airport is Keller and is 4.9 miles to the north. Since the proposal is for a 100' structure, this falls well below the FAA airspace criteria and would not pose any airspace hazard. AM Radio Stations The FCC requires that all towers located within '/2 mile of a non -directional AM station and 2 miles from a directional antenna AM station must demonstrate that no pattern distortion is predicted to occur by the proposed tower. A search of the FCC AM database shows that the closest AM radio station to the proposed facility is KLBB radio This is a non -directional station. A further study of possible pattern interference will be need to be conducted for T-Mobile for the protection of the AM station. Current FCC Rules will require that T-Mobile perform a Partial Proof of Performance on the AM station both prior to and post construction. These measurements will demonstrate if there is any impact on the KLBB antenna system performance. If the measurements show any impact to the radio station T-Mobile will have to install a detuning skirt on the tower to eliminate the problem. Collocation on the KLBB Tower Information provided by the radio station indicates that the KLBB antenna tower is more than fifty years old. My inspection of the tower and also by T-Mobile indicates that the present tower will not support the proposed communications system. T-Mobile could replace the existing KLBB tower and then install their system on the new tower. However, there are several technical problems that would have to be addressed in order for this move to occur. Information provided by T-Mobile shows that the cost to construct the new tower at the proposed Myrtle Street location is approximately $75,000. The cost to install a new tower and associated equipment at the KLBB site was estimated to cost $110,000. The owner of KLBB has not indicated if this possible co -location is being considered. OWL ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS, INC. CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hemline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-784-7445 • Fax 651-784.7541 Summary The review of the proposed T-Mobile Communications tower indicates that: 1. It would provide the required PCS system coverage to eliminate the present existing poor coverage area in this area of Stillwater. 2. The site is not predicted to cause any interference products to any protected frequency in the area and is not predicted to be an RF radiation hazard. 3. The tower structure has not been designed as yet. When design drawings are available, Owl will review to verify compliance to the City and State requirements. 4. The proposed tower is not predicted to impact any airport in the vicinity. 5. Due to the lack of any existing towers or support structures in the vicinity that would structurally accommodate T-Mobile, the site would need to be located very near to the proposed location in order to fill the coverage gap. 6. The city may wish to consider requiring the applicant to enclose the antennas inside the pole design to provide less visual impact. Respectfully submitted, 442---4L-4 Garrett G. Lysiak, P.E. e °sea Michael P. O'Rourke FIGURE 1 - SITE MAP 1 MILES SCALE 1:24000 1000 YARDS 1 KILOMETER 400 FEET 100 METERS cQ' c CD m o 0 0 o--1a `D ao N j N 2. >m a w rn0 7 m = o Ot0O Aga o 0 o na ,so )4,m m o ^ su - - o m ©'a ODo c = m - N y C O N 2 N onD O00 �_ m rn a „m_ o � 3 m <Do� m� a m Qaa �03 z Zdo mOx 0 0 ANy 0 GG N am m • FD w 0 <0 -i mz O a ©a O 0 m o Z O s v Dg 3 3 m - N m ti - d 'n m D 0. o 03 m m � � O oy N F n� N _. N gi3 N N N J K. a.O N M � O D3 �n m m o D° 3 = 0 (1) N and Je^30 a erett St E 9� op N - �-��--4��i 4 S -1 ,t st r7 O C Z S,0 , N T-Mobile Propoed Tower- Myrtle Street .11111. Figure 7 ASR Registration Search Registration Search Results Specified Search Latitude='45-03-27.2 N', Longitude='92-49-51.9 W', Radius=3.2 Kilometers Registration Number Status 1 1000742 Constructed 2 1024660 Constructed 3 1052489 Constructed 4 1265492 Constructed File Number Owner Name A0000898 LEVQUE TOWER CO MARTIN LEVAKE A0029410 SMITH BROADCASTING COMPANY INC DBA = WEZU RADIO A0579787 New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc. A0611453 Mobilitie Investments II, LLC Latitude/Longitude 45-03-39.0N 092-47-28.0W 45-03-15.0N 092-49-43.0 W 45-03-40.0N 092-47-37.0W 45-04-21.1N 092-49-05.2W Structure City/ State HOULTON, WI Overall Height Above Ground (AGL) 73.2 STILLWATER, 64.9 MN HOULTON, WI 60.6 Stillwater, MN 22.9 Figure 8 Circle Search for Cases Results (Determined Status) Case Number City State Latitude Longitude Site Elevation Structure Height Total Height J 1994-AGL-1224-OE STILLWATER WI 45° 03' 39.00" N 92° 47' 34.00" W 870 178 1048 1994-AGL-2842-OE HOULTON WI 45° 03' 39.00" N 92° 47' 28.00" W 895 240 1135 1995-AGL-1403-OE HOULTON WI 45° 03' 27.00" N 92° 47' 22.00" W 882 250 1132 1996-AGL-3554-OE STILLWATER WI 45° 03' 38.88" N 92° 47' 33.74" W 866 185 1051 1997-AGL-1528-OE STILLWATER WI 45° 03' 38.88" N 92° 47' 33.74" W 866 198 1064 1997-AGL-3334-OE HUDSON WI 45° 03' 39.98" N 92° 47' 36.54" W 866 180 1046 1998-AGL-934-OE HUDSON WI 45° 03' 39.88" N 92° 47' 36.74" W 864 199 1063 1998-AGL-6106-OE STILLWATER WI 45° 03' 38.88" N 92° 47' 33.74" W 866 198 1064 1999-AGL-3334-OE HUDSON WI 45° 03' 40.00" N 92° 47' 36.40" W 866 185 1051 2000-AGL-8288-OE STILLWATER MN 45° 02' 28.20" N 92° 50' 07.00" W 948 110 1058 2001-AGL-3505-OE OAK PARK HTS. MN 45° 01' 57.86" N 92° 50' 06.43" W 959 165 1124 2008-AGL-5879-OE Stillwater MN 45° 04' 21.10" N 92° 49' 05.19" W 908 75 983 Figure 9 ******************************************** * Federal Airways & Airspace * * Summary Report * ******************************************** Location: Stillwater, MN Distance: .4 Statute Miles Direction: 99° (true bearing) Latitude: 45°-03'-27.2" Longitude: 92 °-49'-51.9" SITE ELEVATION AMSL 861 ft. STRUCTURE HEIGHT 100 ft. OVERALL HEIGHT AMSL 961 ft. NOTICE CRITERIA FAR 77.13(a)(1): NNR (DNE 200 ft AGL) FAR 77.13(a)(2): NNR (DNE Runway Slope) FAR 77.13(a)(3): NNR (Not a Traverse Way) FAR 77.13(a)(4): PNR (Circling Approach Area) FAR 77.13(a)(4): PNR (Straight -In procedure. Possible TERPS® impact. 21D) FAR 77.13(a)(4): NNR (No Expected TERPS® impact STP) FAR 77.13(a)(5): NNR (Off Airport Construction) Notice to the FAA is not required at the analyzed location and height. NR = Notice Required NNR = Notice Not Required PNR = Possible Notice Required OBSTRUCTION STANDARDS FAR 77.23(a)(1): DNE 500 ft AGL FAR 77.23(a)(2): DNE - Airport Surface FAR 77.25(a): DNE - Horizontal Surface FAR 77.25(b): DNE - Conical Surface FAR 77.25(c): DNE - Primary Surface FAR 77.25(d): DNE - Approach Surface FAR 77.25(e): DNE - Transitional Surface VFR TRAFFIC PATTERN AIRSPACE FOR: 21 D: LAKE ELMO Type: AIR RD: 21235 RB: 196.04 RE: 932 FAR 77.23(a)(1): DNE FAR 77.23(a)(2): Does Not Apply. VFR Horizontal Surface: DNE VFR Conical Surface: DNE VFR Approach Slope: DNE VFR Transitional Slope: DNE VFR TRAFFIC PATTERN AIRSPACE FOR: STP: ST PAUL DOWNTOWN HOLMAN FLD Type: AIR RD: 72867 RB: 232.73 RE: 700 FAR 77.23(a)(1): DNE FAR 77.23(a)(2): DNE - Greater Than 6 NM. VFR Horizontal Surface: DNE VFR Conical Surface: DNE VFR Approach Slope: DNE VFR Transitional Slope: DNE MINIMUM OBSTACLE CLEARANCE ALTITUDE (MOCA) FAR 77.23(a)(4) MOCA Altitude Enroute Criteria The Maximum Height Permitted is 2400 ft AMSL PRIVATE LANDING FACILITIES FACIL BEARING DISTANCE DELTA ARP IDENT TYP NAME To FACIL IN N.M. ELEVATION OMN8 AIR KELLER 345.64 4.847 -29 No Impact to Near Airport Surface. Below surface height of 385 ft above ARP. AIR NAVIGATION ELECTRONIC FACILITIES No Electronic Facilities Are Within 25,000 ft FCC AM PROOF -OF -PERFORMANCE REQUIRED: Structure is near a FCC licensed AM radio station Proof -of -Performance is required. Please review AM Station Report for details. Nearest AM Station: WMGT @ 419 meters. CARLSON HARRINGTON COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES INC. April 15, 2009 City of Stillwater Planning Department Attn: Michael Pogge 216 N. 4th Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr. Pogge: Re: Conditional Use Permit Application regarding a T-Mobile / AT&T proposed wireless antenna facility at the Jaycee Fields property located on Myrtle Street, Stillwater, MN. Overview T-Mobile and AT&T provide state-of-the-art wireless telecommunications service throughout the Twins Cities metropolitan area, including the city of Stillwater. This application arises from efforts by both carriers to fill a significant coverage gap. T-Mobile and AT&T are working to provide improved coverage, including adequate in - building coverage to the residential neighborhoods along Myrtle Street in north -central Stillwater. Wireless carriers such as T-Mobile and AT&T are facing the challenge of providing quality wireless telecommunications services within residential neighborhoods throughout the country. It is currently estimated nationally that roughly 87 percent (270 million subscribers) of the U.S. population subscribes to wireless service. A growing trend is for households to eliminate the traditional land line phone, and rely entirely on their wireless service. Wireless -only households have more than doubled since 2005 from approximately 8.4 percent to 17.5 percent in the U.S. (Interview Survey, National Center for Health Statistics, July 2008.). This continuing trend in mobile phone use requires that wireless carriers provide quality in -building coverage in both commercial and residential neighborhoods such as the subject location. T-Mobile and AT&T Seek to Fill a Coverage Gap. Existing Resources Considered First. Efforts to provide service to this area focused first on maximizing the use of existing infrastructure surrounding the coverage area, including existing towers, water towers as well as existing antenna facilities elsewhere surrounding the City. The only existing tower located within one-half mile of the subject site is a 200-foot guyed tower located just south of Myrtle Street. This is an AM broadcast tower. Due to the nature of AM broadcast towers (the entire tower is a transmitter of RF signal), and the lack of structural integrity issues for attachment of new wireless antennas and lines, it is not feasible for wireless carriers to collocate. No other towers, water towers or tall buildings are located within one-half mile of the subject site. The neighborhood in question represents a mature residential neighborhood with mature trees and significant topography changes. No existing towers or other tall structures exist in this neighborhood to collocate antennas. We have selected the existing site as it meets city code requirements for such a facility, and because of its secluded and well screened setting. This site also provides value to two wireless carriers seeking to improve wireless service in Stillwater. In addition, by locating the new monopole at the Jaycee Fields park, we are able to replace one of several existing 60- foot light standards, helping to blend into the surrounding neighborhood. Jaycee Fields Proposal We have identified a location on this ball park facility that could accommodate a 100-foot light pole replacement with communication antennas placed at 100 feet, 85 feet and lights replaced at the existing 60-foot elevation. This location will support two carriers (T-Mobile and AT&T Wireless) meeting requirements by Stillwater code. The 346 COUNTRY ROAD / STILLWATER, MN 55082 / TEL (651) 439-6030 / FAX (651) 846-5128 April 15.2009 ocation selected for the communication facility is the replacement of the right field light pole on Field #1. The :ommunication facility will include a 60-foot by 32-foot fenced compound with the tower and related equipment inside the secured site. Please refer to Exhibit B attached to this application for site plan details. Public Safety The need for additional coverage in this neighborhood is driven by the current use of Stillwater residents. Adequate in -building coverage, as well as outdoor and in vehicle coverage is necessary for adequate Enhanced 911 service technology. All wireless base stations must meet the science -based RF emission guidelines of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which establish very conservative exposure limits to ensure that the health of all citizens is protected. The guidelines are designed with a substantial margin of safety (source: CTIA). T-Mobile and AT&T Wireless provide a valuable public safety function in the form of a relatively new technology called Enhanced 911 (E911). E911 is an emergency service designed to provide additional protections for wireless phone users. E91 1 does three things: 1. Ensures that a wireless 911 call is routed to the nearest emergency dispatch call center; 2. Provides emergency dispatchers with the call-back number of the distressed caller; and 3. Provides the approximate location of the distressed caller. Wireless providers must have enough antennas placed throughout communities to ensure a distressed caller's wireless phone has adequate signal available to make an emergency call, stay connected with the 911 operator, and be located by emergency services. In summary, after thoroughly researching all possible options in or near this neighborhood, we believe the Jaycee Fields location represents the best option for a wireless telecommunication site that can meet both T-Mobile's and AT&T's coverage needs as well as blending into this residential neighborhood. Once zoning approval is received from the City of Stillwater, we will proceed with finalizing construction plans and submit the necessary engineering specifications to your Inspections Department for review regarding building code compliance. Sincerely, Steven J. Carlson Agent representing T-Mobile dV/Vvi Ken Nielson Buell & Associates Agent representing AT&T Wireless Attachments: • Exhibit A — Compliance with Stillwater's Zoning Ordinance • Exhibit B — Site Plan, Survey and Elevation Drawings • Exhibit C - Coverage Plot Maps • Exhibit D — Street map indicating one -half -mile search area for existing towers and Landmark homes. • Exhibit E — Views from Landmark Homes and Photo Simulation • Exhibit F - Minnesota Historical Society Approval Letter Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A T-Mobile USA / AT&T Mobility Conditional Use Permit Application Site Information Applicant Contact Site Location Current Zoning Municipal Utilities T-Mobile Central, LLC (dba T-Mobile USA) AT&T Mobility Steve Carlson Carlson & Harrington, Inc 346 Country Road Stillwater, MN 55082 651.439.6030 (Phone) 651.846.5128 (Fax) Jaycee Field located on Myrtle St. One family residential The site is served by Municipal utilities Adjacent Zoning Direction North South East West Zone Residential Residential Residential Gravel pit site Case History Jaycee Fields is located in the center section of the City of Stillwater. The current use of the property is as the Jaycee baseball fields. This site currently has three baseball fields with overhead lighting. This is primarily an irregular -shaped parcel containing 32.42 acres, and is owned by Independent School District 834. Development in the immediate vicinity of the property consists of single family homes to the north, south and east. A gravel pit is located to the west of this site. A site plan is enclosed in Exhibit B for your reference. Introduction T-Mobile USA and AT&T Mobility are requesting a Conditional Use Permit in order to develop a wireless telecommunications monopole tower ("Communication Site") at Jaycee Fields. T- Mobile has acquired lease rights from the Stillwater Area School District for this project, and Page 1 of 5 will act as the lead developer. AT&T will be a sub -tenant on the new structure. The proposed communication tower will replace and replicate an existing 60-foot tall light pole at this location to increase its ability to blend into the surrounding development. The associated equipment necessary for the operation of the antennas would be located adjacent to this tower, and will be secured by a chain link fence. The radio equipment is enclosed in weatherproof cabinets, and set on a steel platform. Please refer to the attached site plan and drawings for details (Exhibit B). The Permit in question is being requested per the following sections of the City of Stillwater zoning Code: Section Subject 31-512 Regulation of Radio and Television Towers Chapter 31 "Zoning Code" — Section 512 Subd. 1. Purpose. In order to accommodate the communication needs of residents and business while protecting the public health, safety, general welfare and aesthetics of the community, the city council finds that this Section 31-512 is necessary in order to: (a) Facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and businesses of the city; (b) Minimize adverse visual effects of towers and antennas through setting design standards; (c) Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through structural standards, lot size requirements and setback requirements; and (d) Maximize the use of existing and approved towers and buildings to accommodate new wireless telecommunication antennas in order to reduce the number of towers needed to serve the community. Subd. 2. Location preferences for antennas and towers. (a) Water towers. (b) Collocations on existing telecommunications towers. (c) Sides and roofs of buildings over two stories. (d) Existing power or telephone poles. (e) Government and utility sites. (f) School sites. (g) Golf courses or public parks when compatible with the nature of the park or course. (h) Regional transportation corridors. Subd. 3. Antenna and towers in residential districts (RA, RB, RCM, RCH). Any person, firm or corporation erecting a tower or antenna in a residential district must obtain a conditional use permit and meet the following requirements: (a) Communication antennas, subject to the following conditions: (1) Satellite dishes for television receiving only are subject to the accessory structure requirements for residential districts. (2) All antennas must be designed and situated to be visually unobtrusive, screened as appropriate, not be multicolored and may contain no signage, including logos, except as required by the equipment manufacturers or city, state or federal regulations. • T-Mobile's proposed site design includes no use of advertising, and is proposed to have a brown colored core -ten finish and brown painted antennas to blend in with the existing brown wooden light poles on the site. Page 2 of 5 (3) An antenna placed on a primary structure may be no taller than 15 feet above the primary structure. Any accessory equipment or structures must be compatible with the design and materials of the primary structure and not visible from a public street. • Not applicable (4) Monopoles only are allowed in residential districts. • T-Mobile is proposing a monopole design. (5) Minimum land area for freestanding monopoles site in residential districts is one acre. • The subject site is over 32 acres in size. (6) A tower and any antenna combined may be no more than 75 feet in height, or 100 feet in height if collocated. • T-Mobile's proposed structure is a replacement of an existing 60- foot light pole with a 100 foot monopole designed for both T-Mobile and AT&T's use, with the lighting replaced at the its existing 60-foot height . (7) A tower may not be located within 100 feet of any existing or planned residential structure. • The nearest existing or planned residential structure from the proposed tower location is 355 feet to the southeast. (8) A tower must be setback from a street line a minimum of the height of the tower and any antenna; and towers or antennas may be sited in preferred locations as listed in Subd. 2 of this Section 31-512 subject to design permit approval. • The proposed tower location is approximately 260 feet from the nearest right of way and is located on a school district property and is utilizing a light (utility) pole location, both listed on the preferred locations list in the Stillwater zoning code. Subd. 4. Stillwater West business park districts --Business park commercial, business park office, business park industrial (BP-C, BP-0 and BP -I). Any person, firm or corporation erecting a tower or antenna in the Stillwater West Business Park shall require a conditional use permit and meet the following requirements of this Section 31-512: • This section is not pertinent to T-Mobile's proposal Subd. 5. Central business district (CBD) and professional administrative (PA) district. Any person. firm or corporation erecting an antenna in central business and professional administrative districts shall meet the following requirements: • This section is not pertinent to T-Mobile's proposal Subd. 6. St. Croix River overlay district. No communication antenna or communication tower may be located in the St Croix River Overlay District, shoreland or floodplain districts. • This section is not pertinent to T-Mobile's proposaL Subd. 7. Performance standards. All personal wireless communication towers erected, constructed, or located within the city must comply with the following requirements: (a) Colocation requirements. A proposal for a new personal wireless communication service tower may not be approved unless it can be documented by the applicant that the communications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building within a one -half -mile radius of the proposed tower due to one or more of the following reasons: • There is one 200-foot AM guyed tower located south of the subject property near the Our Savior Lutheran Church property. This AM tower is not suitable for collocation for two primary reasons. 1) it was not designed to accommodate cellular antenna installations structurally, and 2) the entire tower acts as a broadcast antenna. Interference with the AM broadcast and the wireless carrier's would be extremely difficult to mitigate. No other existing towers, water towers, or tall structures exist within one-half mile of the proposed tower location. Page 3 of 5 (b) Tower construction requirements. All towers erected, constructed or located within the city, and all wiring therefore, shall comply with the following requirements: (1) Monopoles are the preferred tower design. However, the city will consider alternative tower types in cases where structural, radio frequency design considerations or the number of tenants required by the city precludes the use of a monopole. No guy wires may be used. • T-Mobile is proposing a monopole design that will replace an existing light pole. The lighting system will be incorporated into the design at its current height with the communication antennas located at 100 feet and 85 feet above grade. The entire pole and antennas will be color matched to the existing light poles (2) Towers and their antennas must comply with all applicable provisions of this Code. (3) Towers and their antennas must be certified by a qualified and licensed professional engineer to conform to the latest structural standards of the Uniform Building Code and all other applicable reviewing agencies. • T-Mobile will provide complete engineering specifications to the city of Stillwater upon application for a building permit (4) Towers and their antennas must be designed to conform to accepted electrical engineering methods and practices and to comply with the provisions of the National Electrical Code. • T-Mobile will provide complete engineering specifications to the city of Stillwater upon application for a building permit. (5) Metal towers must be constructed of or treated with corrosion -resistant material. • T-Mobile is proposing to use a core -ten finish on the monopole which is similar to many steel light standards. It is a reddish brown color, and is highly resistant to corrosion. (6) Any proposed communication service tower of 100 feet in height must be designed, structurally. electrically and in all respects, to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and comparable antennas at least one additional user. To allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower, the tower must be designed to accept antennas mounted at no less than 20-foot intervals. • T-Mobile is designing the100-foot light pole replacement to accommodate T-Mobile's need for an antenna array at 100 feet and for AT&T's antennas at 85 feet (7) All towers must be reasonably protected against unauthorized climbing. The bottom of the tower (measured from ground level to 12 feet above ground level) must be designed in a manner to preclude unauthorized climbing to be enclosed by a six -foot -high chain link fence with a locked gate. • T-Mobile will comply with this requirement. (8) All owners and their antennas and relative accessory structures must utilize building materials, colors, textures, screening and landscaping that effectively blend the tower facilities within the surrounding natural setting and built environment to the greatest extent possible. • T-Mobile utilizes weather-proof cabinets that are painted with an ivory -colored, anodized paint finish. The cabinets will be located adjacent to and within the fenced communication compound AT&T's equipment will be enclosed in a precast concrete building with an aggregate exterior finish. Existing vegetation to the north, east, south and west will conceal this facility from any existing or proposed homes in those directions. In addition, a large hill exists between the equipment location and Myrtle Street to the south that will effectively hide the compound from the closest right of way. Page 4 of 5 (9) No advertising or identification of any kind intended to be visible from the ground or other structures is permitted, except applicable warning and equipment information signage required by the manufacturer or by federal, state or local authorities. • T-Mobile will comply with this requirement. (10) Towers and their antennas may not be illuminated by artificial means, except for camouflage purposes (designed as a lighted tower for a parking lot or a ball field) or the illumination is specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other authority. • The proposed tower should not require lighting for airspace safety as it falls well below the 200-foot limit for FAA requirements. A lighting standard will be incorporated into the design to match the existing lighting system. (11) No part of any antenna or tower, nor any lines, cable, equipment, wires or braces, may at any time extend across or over any part of the right-of-way, public street, highway or sidewalk. • T-Mobile's site design complies with this requirement. (12) All communication towers and their antennas must be adequately insured for injury and property damage caused by collapse of the tower. • T-Mobile carries adequate commercial general liability coverage on every facility it owns and operates. (13) All obsolete or unused towers and accompanying accessory facilities must be removed within 12 months of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the city council. After the facilities are removed. the site must be restored to its original or an improved state. • T-Mobile will comply with this requirement. (14) .In addition to the submittal requirements required elsewhere in this Code, applications for building permits for towers and their antennas must be accompanied by the following information: i. The provider must submit confirmation that the proposed tower complies with regulations administered by that agency or that the tower is exempt from those regulations. ii. A report from a qualified professional engineer shall be submitted which does the following: a. Describes the tower height and design including a cross section and elevation; b. Demonstrates the tower's compliance with the aforementioned structural and electrical standards; c. Documents the height above grade for all potential mounting positions, or collocated antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas; d. Describes the tower's capacity including the number and type of antennas that it can accommodate; and e. Confirmation by the provider that the proposed facility will not interfere with public safety communications. iii. A letter of intent committing the tower owner or his successors to allow the shared use of the tower as long as there is no negative structural impact upon the tower and there is no disruption to the service provided. Page 5 of 5 Michel Pogge From: Steve Carlson [stevencarlson@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 3:44 PM To: Michel Pogge Subject: Additional T-mobile information - Jaycee Fields Attachments: AM Tower information.ppt; AM Tower information [Compatibility Mode].pdf Hello Mike, I've attached a power point file (and PDF copy) for your review showing additional information regarding the AM Tower located near our Jaycee Fields proposal. I would like to present some the most significant challenges of collocating on the existing AM Tower: • The current 200-foot AM Tower is not designed for any new wireless antennas. It would need to be replaced with a new structure that is larger is size and structural capacity to be construction code compliant. • Replacing this existing tower would mean going from a slim tower with an approximate 12" width, to a minimum of approximately 30" (a 150% increase in size). • Other technical difficulties would need to be addressed in regard to interference and maintenance of the new multi -use structure. • The new, larger tower would act as an increase in non -conformity of this use. I do not believe guyed towers are allowed in the City's code, nor are heights in excess of 100 feet. • Safety of our maintenance personnel is a key issue for both T-Mobile and AT&T. The AM Tower is a 5,000 watt broadcast tower, meaning it carries heavy voltage in the tower steal itself. This tower and AM Broadcast would need to be turned off for any maintenance needed of the two wireless tenants. On the issue of using concealed antennas in a canister -style pole, vs. our proposed traditional antenna mounts: • Both T-Mobile and AT&T utilize GSM technology and UMTS technology to offer both wireless phone service, and high speed data service to their respective customers. This requires separate antennas, and would require two vertical 12' canisters to provide both technologies. In other words, the top 48 feet of the tower (two GSM antennas bays and two UMTS antenna bays) would be utilized for concealed antennas • The existing Tight standard is 60 feet, and to maintain the current ball field lighting, we need to maintain this 60- foot lighting location. • Adding the 48 feet of antenna canisters to the 60-foot light standard results in a total height of 108 feet. • To achieve the canister style tower site at this location, we would request a tower height variance of 8 feet over the 100 foot maximum height allowed. Please feel free to call with questions. Steve Carlson Carlson & Harrington steve@carlsonharrington.com phone: 651-439-6030 mobile: 612-810-5279 fax: 651-846-5128 Infotniation from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4054 (20090505) 1 41 Jemoi BuRs!x 0 0 CD CD -' Di) R33 CD: (2n) co) (1) m c0 CD CO 0) 0) CD 0 0) CD CO CD 0 0 CD 0 cn -4 Ill Cu CL, —1 - 13 g_ Z** W - o na (il cp a 61 D. ca (I) E cu F' 0 fu r) CU Z1 co cu - m cu— 0 6 n CD o_ ID w 111 o Di 13, m tom 0- eL e ko 3 1:13N401£13.M19 QED REDUCED PRINT SCALES I' I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 '/4' I I I I I I I I I 11 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 3/81 I I I I I I I I I I I I x a i a xxe e e x 4e 11t t 1 x 4 a D I m x. 0 I O MO' 11119N1V ,ON 311! °CVO 0 ON 0 S3A - 031Y0d0 130011 ❑ ON 0 S3A - 031Y0d0 3111 0M0 ❑ ON ❑ S3A - 30VW S30NV143 iVONYW I . N GENERAL NOTES 1- SCOPE OF SUPPLY M MODIFIED ACCESS EASEMENT ISSUED FOR PROPOSAL REVISION DESCRIPTION ■ ■ Ib S i 2 I ■ \\\\\\ b 1 15. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IF DETAILS ARE CONSIDERED UNSOUND, UNSAFE, NOT WATERPROOF, OR NOT WITHIN CUSTOMARY TRADE PRACTICE. IF WORK IS PERFORMED, IT WILL BE ASSUMED THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO THE DETAIL. DETAILS ARE INTENDED TO SHOW THE END RESULT OF THE DESIGN. MINOR MODIFICATIONS MAY BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE WORK. 16. EXISTING ELEVATIONS AND LOCATIONS TO BE JOINED SHALL BE VERIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR BEFORE CONSTRUCTION. IF THEY DIFFER FROM THOSE SHOWN ON THE PLANS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER SUCH THAT MODIFICATIONS CAN BE MADE BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. 17. ALL SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED ON THE DRAWINGS ARE CONSIDERED CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. IF THE CONTRACTOR HAS QUESTIONS REGARDING THEIR EXACT MEANING, THE ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED FOR CLARIFICATIONS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK. 18. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY BLOCKING. BACKING, FRAMING, HANGERS OR OTHER SUPPORT FOR ALL OTHER ITEMS REQUIRING THE SAME. 19. CITY APPROVED PLANS SHALL BE KEPT IN A PLAN BOX AND SHALL NOT BE USED BY WORKMEN. ALL CONSTRUCTION SETS SHALL REFLECT SAME INFORMATION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO MAINTAIN IN GOOD CONDITION, ONE COMPLETE SET OF PLANS WITH ALL REVISIONS, ADDENDA AND CHANGE ORDERS ON THE PREMISE AT ALL TIMES. THESE ARE TO BE UNDER THE CARE OF THE JOB SUPERINTENDENT. CODES AND STANDARDS ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST ADOPTED EDITION OF THE FOLLOWING PUBLICATIONS: 1. ASTM (AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS) 2. ACI (AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE) 3. AISC (AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION) 4. AWS (AMERICAN WELDING SOCIETY) 5. IBC (INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE) 6. MDOT (MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION) 7. ANSI (AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE) B. IEEE (INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS) 9. NEC (NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE) 10. NEMA (NATIONAL ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION) 11. NESC (NATIONAL ELECTRICAL SAFETY COMMISSION) 12. OSHA (OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTHY ADMINISTRATION) 13. UL (UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES. INC.) 14. APPLICABLE LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCES LEGEND V Z ■ 4 REFERENCE DRAWINGS N Mobile N. MINNEAPOLIS MARKET N A S NOT BEEN PUBLISHED AND T-MOBILE - MINNEAPOLIS HE BORROWER FOR THEIR ND IN CONSIDERATION OF G, THE BORROWER PROMISES ' UPON REQUEST AND AGREES IODUCED, COPIED, LENT OR IRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, NOR ITHER THAN WHICH IT IS ■ O hereby certify that this plan specification, or report as prepared by me or under my direct supervision Id that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer Icier the laws of the State of Minnesota. TFF" °f MICHAEL HACHEY Aire PORIW Nome: Roo. No.: 17852 \\O~�an~r01T41121ATQ �()-11AZPIZ Dr p�XD lP rF7FF.n7 00r Pnlm-DA N. p Np Cl< C p G7 p AH0L7. 0= !;o>��O OzNn'T_pNrrrDtnCTOC� ms�N rI;PPo£p<lyT� ,iFfz D2nm2H mzmpyt p oiDA -R21°,7nytDDAxi pp 29 A9O qm O Ay m NA0Ft F<\O. AXmr AA --R:713D mNOApOy� O~mm Dm-Oyy DDTt mD \OpZTTD HUypNRPrmOmOZ"OOnC11)5.'"rnu9 Z L-AZA ynr ZN20mn2mD O ABBREVIATIONS IMPROVEMENTS OWNER SURVEYI T-MOBILE EGAN. F C/0 VOICESTREAM WIRELESS CORP. 7415 W 12920 SE. 38th STREET MINNEAF BELLEVUE, WA. 98006 ITT OWN $ f1 FCTRI, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 834 XCEL El 1875 S GREELEY ST STILLWATER, MN 55082 ARCHITECT/ENGINEER TELEPHI T-MOBILE - MINNEAPOLIS OWEST 8000 WEST 78th STREET SUITE 400 EDINA, MN. 55439 7ONING QUESTIONS & NOTIFICATIONS T-MOBILE - MINNEAPOLIS 8000 WEST 78th STREET SUITE 400 EDINA, MN. 55439 PROJECT TEAM OODI T-MOBILE SITE Al N611 xz W. MYRTLE ST. STILLWATER, MN 75TH ST. N. W. MYRTLE ST. STILL% 5 _ P 1 VICINITY MAP Wo CLIENT APPROVAL. DATE CHECKED BY DATE C. MILLER 1/26/09 DESIGNED BY DATE N. PERRUS 01/20/09 z d Z_ O ACI O H T A $A3 S N ry'Nv2 y0A ODP, A A m r „ 9vA A n K y Z p v N t�tyl N N N N N N N N N 1/� NNU�yty ✓y N f�tyl DDDD g gg g g g g g g g g g g g gggggg g gg zmmm o a yy yy p 0 0 0 0 ooyoypyypyp o 0o m A A A A A A A N A I' A A A o DAAAAA i A A - Nil115 O 00 O O O O '' 0 0 ' O 0000 O 00 I I I I DRAWING INDEX CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE DIGGING GOPHER STATE ONE CALL TWIN CITIES AREA 651-454-0002 MN. TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166 SITE DIRECTIONS: FROM 1-494 & HWY 169, GO EAST ON 1-494 FOR 25.1 MILES TO I-694; GO NORTH ON 1-694 FOR 5.4 MILES TO HWY 36; GO EAST ON HWY 36 FOR 4.1 MILES TO LAKE ELMO AVENUE NORTH; GO NORTH ON LAKE ELMO AVENUE NORTH FOR 1.5 MILES TO 75TH STREET NORTH; GO EAST ON 75TH STREET NORTH FOR 2.2 MILES TO WEST MYRTLE STREET; GO EAST ON WEST MYRTLE STREET FOR .3 MILES, SITE IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST MYRTLE STREET. SITE DIRECTIONS OS !� ��= Cm A m' . a m - O T m r y i ti4 mA A pAy A PROJECT DATA PROJECT AREA: N SCALE DRAWING NUMBER REV AS NOTED A1N611-T1 2 xxxx MYRTLE STREET STILLWATER, MINNESOTA JAYCEE FIELDS Al N611 PROJECT INFO. & GENERAL NOTES I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 1 1 1 1 1>> I A 1.2., FA :ill'N IA/1 IW/1 N N lZA Z 01 1N/1 Ti m' U A 4 N D E N N N 1N/i N N IA N N N N N N 2 . . v ... N I 1 1 I I I I I CC I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I g21/IA .�D DGIT��DDDTDDiYZ~�NKDmDmDmDDD� N�ti�� 2Amm NgzzN_g„zaz�z zmyym>g>mgm>z>pprpygy'fyzpyppyzyzg>yppyicliRg pip yD rDD TD"D0'5 NDD t PE"DOAnAtVEAIl.AA.LAElin ZoiZ A S A A n A n A- A A A A r O O 0 0 - O- O m O D y Oy O O O O O O y O y OZ y O O O O O O -10 -10 N i('�zO yOy Zg2 0200A�0g AA202Zr~m22NZO z0 3;m ; A Fy X N m N 0 C N N N N z n N O N i N N r-1 p p m S C S C D y ('fy0> A�Amm D2C2C Oz D DK,T,T,T npn OGO mtom Z Z D m kTRAti �grq' y E r R pgoAND� ? y D D O_ D m_ > p C p_. 2 2 N N p g x N m p Oz O 300 UUz11 OOyy IioOyTs rPS"' 9 A E Oyy XNm+l+1m m m m y Np~ SxOxj� �~ A A Q O X (t l9�IA -l�Z Z 2 E > sGo � "� r NF�A m A n n Z np �l D-t C OO>s pCm2Z� cgc� y y f N OD §i11Zi11^ v v m W � 2 DyAy Nr O E y 0 i A 0"Z n z i C FA bN mGZ'1 OGZI Z S Z O O V1 N S ONN 5< D 1rn i7 A O A y ti toil Z o 2 O O y vFi Z N 2 T , Z p N s � is F Z N N V A D N ; O Z UIN ; �V A iDN Fz 2 v D N01 m T bg ti z D . D v m A - II D O JC ,. 1EE1+1 m m -TIT 9> np N O I O - RETERENCE DRAWINGS: I . REDUCED PRINT SCALES PLOTTED: 4 1 I I tnt 1/x I Ins I s REDUCED PRINT SCALES V°' 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I/• I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3'8 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I i s a a m a a R x e e a a • 0 e e > Iv ea — N $ n MODIFIED ACCESS EASEMENT ISSUED FOR PROPOSAL REVISION DESCRIPTION ax \\\\\K< 1 V T REFERENCE DRAWINGS X }Ig A Z % a / ~ %I OO a X O o a -A K—a Xq v tl y / Ts / 00m z */x oo +/ m / o s maim x• g _ o m m I a c�lil / / C° vox 1,,,:-'/ m No i -' x/x/x : _— _— z / H OAti coA0 Nm czoi " I o n'/mff -- e — dOd_151X3/i rA• vy — — Mobile \ Cii ';/1":— 11/-7--71-7-1/C /:----\ : (1/1?"?' )/(''') i—\--6'1 t Pi o. I1. N a S pN ✓p c " OD7 y \ �mN mX ///! MANUAL CHANGES MADE — YES 0 N0 0 DWG FILE UPDATED — TES 0 NO 0 MODEL UPDATED — YES 0 NO 0 CADD FILE NO.: A1N611C' IOTICE: THIS DRAWING HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED AND, 1 THE SOLE PROPERTY OF T—MOBILE — MINNEAPOUS NRKET AND IS LENT TO THE BORROWER FOR THEIR :ONFIDENTIAL USE ONLY, AND IN CONSIDERATION OF HE LOAN OF THIS DRAWING, THE BORROWER PROMISES kW/ AGREES TO RETURN IT UPON REQUEST AND AGREES 'HAT IT WILL NOT BE REPRODUCED, COPIED, LENT OR ITHERWISE DISPOSED OF DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, NOR 5E0 FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN WHICH IT IS URNISHEO. N 7 m Er" m yl 8. O I I rO N �AOI, £ Orn •T,+ I� • WoZ m o� ' rl /A I 2A y 7 0 /2 / og m 0 / -- / / II \ tea $ or-i CCF o \ > 86 / F \om J DOE) \ y\O T /V iZ o J . m I- 6 ry/'� s� yy4 59. /' m� \ y y / A y + m0 aR A �\\ m 0 2 / / I hereby certify that this plon specification, or report s prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. T1T'J °' MICHAEL HACHEY sgneNre: mnxa xee:.: 64. Rp. Ne.: 17852 F EXISTING PROPERTY LINE fx N. KC + / \+ / / +\ J+ x N Z L) V A O m _ CLIENT APPROVAL DATE 6 9 CHECKED BT DATE C. MILLER 1j DESIGNED IN DATE N. PERRUS 01 PROJECT N0. m � om fx m N a NOTES: 1. T—MOBILE FENCED COMPOUND TO BE ATTACHED TO EXISTING OUTFIELD FENCING (BY CONTRACTOR) 2. CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE EXISTING LIGHT POLE AND REPLACE w/NEW T—MOBILE MONOPOLE IN SAME LOCATION. 3. T—MOBILE COAX CABLES TO BE ROUTED UNDERGROUND TO 24" HIGH COAX PORT (BY CONTRACTOR) 4. T—MOBILE MONOPOLE TO HAVE A COR—TEN WEATHERING STEEL FINISH. 5. LANDLORD TO PROVIDE A NEW CLASS 5 GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD FROM EXISTING PARKING LOT TO SITE. 6. CONTRACTOR TO REPLACE 59'-0" OF EXISTING 4'-0" HIGH CHAINUNK FENCE (NO BARBED WIRE) w/8'-0" HIGH CHAINUNK FENCE (NO BARBED WIRE) IN THE OUTFIELD. rz cio . SCALE DRAWING NUMBER AS NOTED Al N611-C1 xxxx MYRTLE STREET STILLWATER, MINNESOTA JAYCEE FIELDS Al N611 SITE PLAN REFERENCE DRAWINGS: . REDUCED PRINT SCALES PLOTTED: A ix I i 1 NpRe xx 0 Laa 1I REDUCED PRINT SCALES1/e•IIIIIIIIIIIII1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1/♦•1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3/8'1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 ♦ 0 12 10 20 24 Se 32 36 0 2 ♦ 6 e 10 12 14 16 III 0 2 ♦ 6 e 10 12 D I m V 0 1 0 N -• o Y / +� MODIFIED ACCESS EASEMENT ISSUED FOR PROPOSAL REVISION DESCRIPTION 1^' O / o O / f O m (a1) / OZO p N 0J / T,MOB/lE PO•, lI l 0' WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT /I / ii rm og I \\\\\\,1 / I x I m1 y ., r 0 / i O p / xOm m LAI o / 1 —x s /' Ilil REFERENCE DRAW i / j o 0 / x_o ox T-MOBILE 25'-10" WIDE FENCED AREA j 0W a -ram- " D y m F, 1 xp m pmpo T-MOBILE X X r w X C� X , o � p„Ox mpm2 m1 f 1x o <m mpr`� D 2 m'' I n r--7 r, ,_----_1— — — L-«� X X� 1 11, � Ems I A m� m ..� p1A; 0 m m v — Mobile ENLARGED SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1 Ay K"J SNN OZ.TIN O D �'J 1 y qy A � J G, CCm X mvmmsm Km n o1 r D :'° L g_;- PI9 O mm x F—�J I I pJ x I T' X m p C C In2Dol=aIi =om� 4o1sngzj�m - O-II D-60; _ ANO l:1- o 1 A D O �a0`I m m � I^ el 1 L_ 18'-11` L J Dlral ZZ �1Z �� �_ v0 m THIS DRAWING HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISH )LE PROPERTY OF T-MOBILE - MINNEA ,NO IS LENT TO THE BORROWER FOR TI TIAL USE ONLY, AND IN CONSIDERATION I OF THIS DRAWING, THE BORROWER PF IS TO RETURN IT UPON REQUEST AND /ILL NOT BE REPRODUCED, COPIED, LEI E DISPOSED OF DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTI I ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN WHICH IT D. ® a 60.-0" WIDE LEASE AREA e nm I- X Rn 13'-°� m g u m Z A a to L of 91'T' o I ZO Oil 000 Z N O A Z m Z m O m p S agr, O�m cpi tmi i �bmpy px s 0vaz 0 0 mm n �o�m AKD N*At'ii iallomoo • N J Dij x Z Z O OZm ?Film go 8,E Z n m y �O 'Hp p Op p"a A p m N m O OAp�m � /r NUAL CHANGES MADE - YES C - 4¢a�il� . ��0 020 / Z m �mm AQo .`4 \ AipH / / 54 _ z ❑ ? . o•10- Ooo 5: �� 1 X ap =ym Tr m,ZI w P II ne.- . , i ,Y - ��8. z� m�i - mZ', C .y 1 1 I_v_T..-I I 1 ymOS Nvgy ";O ovmmv�ya E o a12 PF Yp7 <m nzo= 4.-0, MIN. / I /' --t---J mom 03.22 Aor: m -o c N D O : ZmA 00 •<r 0 N0 0 MODEL UPDATED - YES 0 I, s X X s < T > m00 < o � 0 A.- o o i 0c `aW ici S< �z< o�0mm zvo vA g0c Nim i::, '.i o - li nN: G. _ m �o Eoa �� �r00 '0 o �`m ozm en, mAn p00 � z ryes m„o o v oim 2 a� vo VI �X Nm mT 'o 0 o'9 T-MOBILE 23a-5" WIDE FENCED AREA I I "J - ❑ i1 N ~ ?2 2 r L v 9 m !f! 2 m 4 o m x z z T-MOBILE 20'-0" WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT I T-MOBILE 32'-0" WIDE LEASE AREA CARD FILE N0: A1N611C. NUMBER Al N611-C2 (xx MYRTLE STREET LLWATER, MINNESOTA IAYCEE FIELDS Al N611 ARGED SITE PLAN D TO BE ATTACHED TO EXISTING RACTOR) ISTING LIGHT POLE AND REPLACE IN SAME LOCATION. BE ROUTED UNDERGROUND TO DNTRACTOR) VE A COR-TEN WEATHERING STEEL :W CLASS 5 GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD TO SITE. F-0" OF EXISTING 4.-0" HIGH :D WIRE) w/8.-0" HIGH CHAINLINK I THE OUTFIELD. I N Q REFERENCE DRAWINGS: REDUCED PRINT SGLES PLOTTED: 0 S 3 1 I I - ' IW3 1/]NU REDUCED PRINT SCALES '/R' I I I I l I l I l I I I I l I l I l I l I l l l xl 1 1 1 xl l l l l l l l l 1' I I I I I I I I I 11I 111 I I I I 11I VIV I I I I I I I I I I I I I D D i e e ro e e O m 1 e E .. e e 0 : . p a e N u N 100'-0' TOP OF T-MOBILE MONOPOLE 5 - 97'-6" C/L 7-MOBILE ANTENNAS m o_ - c.' c o n 88'-0" C/L FUTURE AT&T ANTENNAS P N o FIELD VERIFY HEIGHT OF RELOCATED STADIUM LIGHTS (TOP OF EXISTING LIGHTS ® 60 FEET PER SURVEY) EASEMENT v 0 0 REVISION DESCRIPTION A \ SOUTH I , 1 �s11 1 II k=4c_--J II II II_ 11 i m P. �- D Z Z 0 m 4ug, 2 SCvxtc1 A \\\\\\ 1 I I I �� z 1 1 I titi pO tl P7♦❑ 40I I O�m0 m o \ sm -mI v ® mO PNw Np1 Ip1 4D mXD° 100�1 pw y A ZiF Si == m4C7 pZ lZIAX �2mm O DN '. . O m t-p'Aix O O O y O W n n mnn: Z Zy09 D in I_Thij �A Z pSSX ODN ED COMPOUND TO BE ATTACHED TO EXISTING sIG (BY CONTRACTOR) REMOVE EXISTING LIGHT POLE AND REPLACE .E MONOPOLE IN SAME LOCATION. CABLES TO BE ROUTED UNDERGROUND TO PORT (BY CONTRACTOR) )POLE TO HAVE A COR-TEN WEATHERING STEEL ROVIDE A NEW CLASS 5 GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD PARKING LOT TO SITE. I REPLACE 59.-0" OF EXISTING 4'-0" HIGH E (NO BARBED WIRE) w/8'-0" HIGH CHAINLINK BED WIRE) IN THE OUTFIELD. m II 4. ti 2 TAR' .z01 Z O . V-gyp m ..m x N rl oO aAo • • g i pi nDNC oZZZ o�m 4 4 OIO0vpmm ON Ci r' N�m 2 m20Om T9 sr1§8 4VA p2Z -0O Oz➢�po�� mmNm VA� N y yr m� ma 7p_a N p'0 A D xmp � miz Cn --II 3 Im/1 q A ElSO Ij Isimi I+/ , D p m Z ( gyml ocs of Wy® An o noti ZOly 2ynOm�mrl 1 OmZA? D 73 G% m�_.. j mm o<im y I �z n2K(O/1 2('P. ZO gym Om0 ODSZ OW p n 1�:r, Oy O e- ��...�.I I•. ,.1 mo OOm I. .pi0� y�D Nm 'r'1mp �2 Fv'"i o ag., u-i m \`.: o �; 4i p nvi�n-^' inz�y cino ppx� obi o wzm"1 r m < I v p z r 1. ap �v os o z ml gi rz a yy 00 O N VOIOmADo-1�p O -ai-,y i'n 00 _0 ZS VI "1 O Z C n r << yv 260 OOm 9a PD^1 m�AO mm N� ODC � p P 2P 2y Z n 0 2 2 ; Ko2l.10 Om , mO00mm Z U m O 0 A I OQym �^ C DAB Zm F.ZO"'' V D m II" . I O w 2 n A p p Z m :III' �C� �fr.1 mOZ I 52E Err, Om9 9 w r - m A MANUAL CHANGES MADE - YES 0 NO 0 DWG FILE UPDA' A TY, O N •' NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL SET ALL T-MOBILE ANTENNAS TO ZERO DEGREES ELECTRICAL DOWNTILT AT TIME OF INSTALLATION. 2. T-MOBILE RF ENGINEERS WILL THEN SET TO PROPER TILT AT SITE TURN -UP. Of V• P w N Z LNA REQUIREMENTS — AI SO nDp m OI'.I mpm m 2g o- K AZpp Z ZZ p - fx mmOl pg0 Z a^S Am i x n . 5 m I hereby certify that this plan specifics was prepared by me or under my dire and that I am a duly Licensed Profess under the laws of the State of Minnes. TyPM x M NmWn: WNW Norm: . pmm0 0Am0 C aOm w % On9mN Zen m n�OP om ®S � 7; �s1 NA v f1m o 0 0 ETW200VS12UB LNA/TMA PER SECTOR ETW190VS12UB LNA/TMA PER SECTOR ETW200VS12UB LNA/TMA PER SECTOR ETW190VS12UB LNA/TMA PER SECTOR ETW200VS12UB LNA/TMA PER SECTOR ETW190VS12UB LNA/TMA PER SECTOR 7 m w 4 4 4 q q om n p ,m.,o I E B ❑ i mPmn -1 w N 2 mti m mm u N D o7t ❑ ON A w N J O 0 ;mmm m m m MODEL UPDATED YES 0 NO 0 N DATE N - O - O ZtiZpAm0Dy-yZpmD rmOVZD N to o I V' - ii w I N ANTENNA AND COAXIAL CABLE REQUIREMENTS ANTENNA I 1 COAXIAL CABLE b NO b y0 DOWNTILT CONTROL REQUIREMEN COAXIAL CABLE Co'N m mm3mmDmHZm ODmpD tymn nO2p0 VpU)mOp nC2Om A S.21 A N SCALE DRAWING NUMBER AS NOTED A' O L1 (58532A) - 20' 1/4 911 ANTENNA REQUIREMENTS ANTENNA I COAY .Z >oOFA Cy id0p Zlmr r NN _m xxxx MYRTLE STREET STILLWATER, MINNESOTA JAYCEE FIELDS Al N611 ANTENNA INFO. & TOWER ELE mr _ q Fza `tiAA<>` E,9`2 Dr 8 AfZ pm8Z "q,m0_ mm Z oAz xz F�zAri Z;mDoDmODmZom AEZ m y Z nwjm 2A OZ F,(v N,m O rm0m ADm 0 NNI O Op y yO 0 g00 AO p O m0°DOm NOTE: T-MOBILE COAX CABLE SHALL BE AVA COAX CABLE. ORMATION REFER TO STANDARD OF o 4 4 q q q .ao a- m o 4 4 4az Oo mn -- uA C 2 m m K K A Z0 - r OiU N A T U N A Oi OU - p N N P _. w A N A N N N N N N N N P P1 N\ n O KmO f o CZ i O ^ iA Ai n• O S grDo n \ \m m m \O \m \ \ m\ m m\ O 0 IO0 O I OWI Z q 0 O .. ytim pNZ to v m i m O O" A1K m ...Fx m r mD r OK A mm.. - A .. O O O p ma p A Ga n o m m m ' mm m o 70, om F 0 0 0 'i. o aip P mg o ' p o 0O N Q Z REFERENCE DRAWINGS: . REDUCED PRINT SGLES PLOTTED: e I I 1 103 1/3 L1e UM 0 0 m G) m r m G) m z m cr J)1 Connecting ♦c Center St gwa,i • J ui 6 saw ac - en Ct_ -9R1 o Uod t ggertp' St ne Tree Ln z m x o- 0 it V 0 0 CD CD 0. 0 0 CD V ) w — CD CD a CD CD fCI cn 1V oa 0 0 0 1) f) 0 z (1) cD m _0 m 0 0 0 1 1 N 0. 0) M .a Jamol 0) 0 0 ~fie afe� Dr —illy, 4/ 0) n 'n m m a m 2 z �L — N Cr) vzo.,,1ON S4n`'$e Ave N Id ti CD z ( \' 0 FE N LE Greeley St "C-- 0 5_ O cn U19 0SCJ 0,19°S co TT I S(LI cn g ro °' S 6th ? 1c 9 S lab S ;a fD I£ w 6th o�4thAve S °'z v • co S 2nd St S 1st St Ave S S env 419 1 v, N z N IVIII* Et+ 0) 1S P S S 15 PuZ S 0 0 3 0 =r CA 0 CD ns co z- d/allow-1 Pas' F��� ' 12. N William N Everett St 0 1S (0 N �CI. St [i N )UL 1S419N" r 1S p1Z N NMainSi� 0 0 Hilltop cn 11 mi '. INS a) m aNX aCD Cr UO Triangle 0 1 H ligTgxj Ultei engineers 5201 East River Poa8 Sutra 308 Minneapolis. Minnesota 55421 P00150 763.571.2500 Fax: 763.571.1163 Manassas aisinsaii Omit Lakes •Ergo -Sloe Falb Web: www.u1660.com Met Job No. 208.1008 MPLSMN3498-T01 TITLE SHEET A MPLSMN349&4B01 SURVEY A MPLSMN3498-001 PLAN VIEW A MPLSMN3498-0O2 ELEVATION A ' MPLSMN3498-S01 SHELTER FOUNDATION & DETAILS A MPLSMN3498-S02 SHELTER ELEVATIONS A MPLSMN3498-503 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS A M PLSM N3498-SO4 CONSTRUCTION NOTES A MPLSMN3498-E01 ELECTRICAL NOTES & SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM A MPLSMN3498-E02 POWER DISTRIBUTION CENTER A MPLSMN3498-E03 GROUNDING PLAN A MPLSMN3498-E04 GROUNDING DETAILS A MPLSMN3498-E05 GROUNDING DETAILS A MPLSMN3498-E06 GROUNDING DETAILS A M PLSM N3498-N01 TELCO INTERFACE A MPLSMN3498-NO2 RF DATA SHEET & RF CONFIGURATION A MPLSMN3498-NO3 COAX LABELING. • A DRAWING INDEX REV.' SITE No. MPLSMN3498 STONEBRIDGE MANNING AVE (CR 15) VICINITY MAP DIRECTIONS FROM THE BLOOMINGTON AT&T MOBILITY OFFICE: TAKE 1-494 EAST 27 MILES TO HWY 36 (EXIT 528). TO EAST ON HWY 36 5 MILES TO MANNING AVE. GO NORTH .ON MANNING AVENUE 1.5 MILES TO CR12. GO EAST ON CR 12 (MYRTLE ST) TO BALL PARK ENTRANCE ON THE NORTH 'SIDE OF THE ROAD JUST PAST EAGLE RIDGE TRAIL AS DEPICTED BELOW. V o � O v z g..o $ 13) �" fE N Cn m 0 Z m 5 (s�twq�R 8��1 v m tn . ____,...„ dd'0336. BRICK ST o N ly7 m tn 1a �v3 rp ti CThi h7 N ti SCALE AS NOTED DESIGNED: RAE roRAWN: FBA O D g o o N y -$�` . SmJ N_ i Z N ISSUED FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT . NAME COMPANY NUMBER AfE • AARON EVANS ULTEIG ENGINEERS 763-571-2500 SAC KEN NIELSEN BUELL CONSULTING 612-272-0074 RF RAGHU PARIGI AT&T MOBILITY 612-325-8961 CON JERRY HEALY AT&T MOBILITY 952-842-4826 LANDLORD RAY QUEENER ' ISD #834 651-351-8321 SITE QUALIFICATION PARTICIPANTS SCOPE OF WORK: AN UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY CONSISTING OF INSTALLING PANEL ANTENNAS ON A MONOPOLE AND THE PLACEMENT OF AN EQUIPMENT SHELTER. SITE ADDRESS: MYRTLE STREET W AND DEER PATH STILLWATER, MN 55082 PROPERTY OWNER: 1875 SOUTH GREELEY STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 CONTACT PERSON: RAY QUEENER 651-351-8321 APPLICANT: AT&T MOBILITY 4300 MARKET POINTE DR., SUITE 350 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55435 • LATITUDE: 45'03'29.13" NORTH (NAD 83) LONGITUDE:. 92'49'52.8(r WEST (NAD 83) . . . ELEVATION: 862.4' AMSL (NAVD 88) JURISDICTION: CITY OF STILLWATER PROPERTY TAX 1.D. No: CURRENT USE: • TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PROPOSED USE: TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PROJECT INFORMATION D el i mmX v ri A THE SIGNED DRAWING IS THE CORRECT RECORD DOCUMENT, NOT 1HE Aut0CAO DISKETTE. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED SY NE 0R UNDER NY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY UCENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DATE 03/10/09 RIG. No.43119 ROBLEY A. EVANS m A a PERMISSION TO PROCEED DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ACCEPTANCE OR APPROVAL OF DESIGN DETAIL CALCULATIONS, ANAYLSIS, TEST METHODS OR MATERIALS DEVELOPED OR SELECTED BY THE SUPPUELL IT DOES NOT RELIEVE SUPPLIER FROM FULL COMPUANCE WITH CONTRACTUAL OSLGAI MLS. . 2 0 COMMENTS A Q sncmat sswG.+m5vtetE F 0 oEegNDEVIATIDHFROMaTAfCMD B❑ MEIRDNOTFOLLGWDNEC110N0PR0VCE0 G❑�1 01 1Dra C❑ spoOwNERREMIISMOCHMOEs N0 AS E6ERERATEDONNWEWooSYoN O Q OESIGNIN0Ur0HAX6E511.Rs50005GREd. : 1.1D AT8TOINMe®5DEDES.GM E 0 aEniatos1soasion J 0 Omem 1 ❑ ACCEPTED•NO COMMENTS, PROCEED A&E DESIGN PACKAGE MPLSMN3498-T01 DRAWING NAME TITLE SHEET DRAWING No. IREV ' MOBILITY APPROVAL Date fn D bI CONSTRUCTION •1 J► W • 0 0 Cl 0 A N O 0 0 z 68 4Y a EOO-86tCNws1d V 1 0 J m d 0 f*t 0 0 r O nzug z cn 3AINO SS333V ON 3ON3J ONLISIX3 (-) cn m 0 o m� al-o 33cn_ mW ca. rQt 0 tl gD a n y m 73 N 2 1NT0100 ONV M3IA38 NO4 Q3nS { 5 rn p ygt O tl ccgm5-4453,0 Z � N q. cn 38Q� 5 tX bg 0m 9 ti zO3 8617ENws1dw m r L n � N A 6O'-O" = EXISTING LIGHT BRACKET (VERIFY) 75'-0" = CENTERUNE OF PROPOSED AT&T 'ANTENNAS 97'-6" = CENTERUNE OF EXISTING T-MOBILE ANTENNAS 0 0 rit Z 8 / N31NV ONIISIX3 100'-0" = TOP OF EXISTING MONOPOLE / s inoAv1 VNN3INV 0350d0Nd 310dONOIN ONIISIX3 "al. 'VNN3INV 03SOd021d fox 0. -0 -IQo rt CO' rO - r "J 0 ('» 0 Ultei 14engineers 5201 East River Road Suite 308 Minneapolis. Minnesota 55421 . P8611e1 783.571.2500 P081 783.571.1183 tMatw026 8. Bawds. 0080i111MBB. Fargo -Bhp Fab Web: www.uttalg.a0m LAta10 Jab No. 208.1008 c t N ozr Eiz y 00zam . 0lo0� z zm Fr, O Y j\/ \\ z 73Om too 0 _ I) D z m z, 'Q 1 1'-5' • / o� o� z fl m - ti \ : ri * of * o°bbI�o o1°s0 #3 TIES 24" .O C GRAVEL BACKFILL 6 MIL VAPOR BARRIER 1.'-0" TYP. CLASS A TOLERANCE. 7 & 28 DAYS PER POUR BY )R 2000 PSF ALLOWABLE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY SOIL TO FOUNDATION INSTALLATION. • BLDG/FND ATTACHMENT SECTION A -A 3" .1 6"x6" D8/08 WWF 3" TYP.- L ± SLAB TO BE LEVEL 1 /4" N O O * * * NOTE: TIE DO) )IMENSIONS * #2 GROUND PIG TAIL LOCATIONS (4 TYP. ;HELTER SUPPLIER SEE GROUNDING PLAN SHELTER FOUNDATION PLAN N.T.S. r ` L • r 1/2" PREFORMED JOINT FILLER C .. CONCRETE BUILDING SLAB SEE DETAILS FOR SLAB THICKNESS & REINFORCING L 1 \ ' F * N O O SITE No. MPLSMN3498 STONEBRIDGE 3 *aw•° at&t • 4300 MARKET POINTE DRIVE, SUITE 350 BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55435 v Z * \ * * * \ 111 \/, - Zrm 5Q �z �o z m 4 �m rO x�-. t • z oc qw t o 9 m Tip z � o 4 m CZ) m m m ,��i D a a o oz .p7'A mA m `�.c rm W O rn0zg z sd A g 2 to • ISSUED FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT %Jv DOOR '. E • /1014 „ I, o b-oo o z z r- oocs• *t A v n T ID x P z CO6" 5,-6" 3'-6" FOUNDATION GENERAL NOTES: 1. THE SITE SHALL BE STRIPPED OF ALL VEGETATION PRIOR TO FILL OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOUNDATION PAD. 2. ALL'FILL SAND SHALL BE 0-15. P.I. WITH A COMPACTION TESL RUNON EACH 6" LIFT — COMPACTED TO 90% MODIFIED PROCTOR. 3. ANY SOFT AREAS (TREE STUMP HOLES, ETC.) SHALL BE CUT OUT AND RECOMPACTED TO SAID PROCTOR. 4. THE SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP THE SITE SO IT WILL HAVE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AT ALL TIMES. 5. ALL EXCAVATIONS SHALL BE FREE OF WATER BEFORE POURING CONCRETE. 6. MINIMUM SOIL BEARING CAPACITY OF 2,000 PSF IN ALL FOUNDATION AND SLAB AREAS. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT t AM A DULY LICENSED PRGF55SN7NAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DATE 03/10/09 R01 Ne,43119 l.Gt✓ ROBLEY A. EVANS THE SIGNED DRAWING IS THE CORRECT RECORD 000UMENT, NOT THE AutoCAD DISKETTE. 0 3' A ',. MAX. t'-0" MPLSMN3498-S41 DRAWING NAME SHELTER FOUNDATION & DETAILS DRAWING No. - IREV Q • a o " Tl r ..a 4111$ 0 o m o g rn z f.A f> -,107 m9�'Ttm°A m.' r�tmi)-e y�� n + i -1F irno0000 d Dzf y z r-o0-13rn mto o(Mm Z0 O3 rn { 9D o c N D 0 0 0 3 01 0 10 Itar0100 OAN WiA32! 2104 03rISSI 01 10 01 A CI ZOS-8617£14411S1dIN fa rn m rn 0 z G1 z z rn 0 r- 0 b. 111 / 0 rn > - XI 0 ul M 0 Z 8 21 a 0 0 6" 10'-0" Iv c?.. 0 000 OtY I OrNr, 000 I 000 -N 00 I I (Nor\ 4 )NAL OPTI, ;UIDE WAVE RT PC JND CONDUCTOR IES (1YP.) • . 6' 000 000 000 000 c L 14 - 000000 000000 000000 - 000000 z =oo° ilgiNi000 000.,---' 000 rn ., 0 i c).. CNOC, (Cr,r, 1 . , . orNo oor, I L_ 3 ONAL :GUIDE )RT TELCO ENTRY 0 (770 10.-0- co 0. PLANNING REPORT DATE: May 8, 2009 CASE NO.: 2009-17 APPLICANT: Brian Larson, Larson Brenner Architects PROPERTY OWNER: ArtReach Alliance REQUEST: 1) Special Use Permit for Cultural Facility 2) Parking Variance LOCATION: 224 N. 4th Street ZONING: PA, Public Administration/Institutional PUBLIC HEARING:May 11, 2009 REVIEWERS: City Planner, Assistant Fire Chief, Building Official, Assistant City Engineer PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director • j BACKGROUND • ArtReach Alliance has purchased the residential structure at the corner of Mulberry and North 4th Street. Their short term plan is to convert the structure into office and administrative spaces. • Active space in the remodeled building would be located on the first and second floors. The first floor of the building would be remodeled as four offices, two of which would double as gallery space. The six bedrooms in the second story would be remodeled as office/studios. The intent of the second floor space would be for staff offices or artist studio space. • Mechanical and electrical equipment and storage would occupy the basement. The third level attic space will not be used in the near future. SPECIFIC REQUEST 1. The property is zoned PA, Public Administration/Institutional. Within this zoning district "libraries, art galleries, theaters for the performing arts, and other ArtReachAllianceAlliance May 8, 2009 Page 2 of 5 such cultural facilities" are allowed by Special Use Permit. ArtReach Alliance has requested approval of such a Special Use Permit. 2. The proposed use requires 17 on -site parking spaces. 6 spaces at most are available on the property. Consequently, a variance has been requested for the 11 deficient spaces. EVALUATION OF REQUEST Special Use Permit Sec. 31-207(d) of the City Code states that a Special Use Permit can be approved if the Planning Commission finds that: (1) The proposed use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, and any relevant area plans. Zoning Ordinance Parking: One of the Zoning Ordinance's performance standards that is related to the proposal is a minimum amount of on -site parking. As mentioned above, 17 parking spaces are required for the proposed use. Currently there are two off-street parking spaces on Mulberry in front of the detached garage. There are also three or four spaces in the back yard. During normal business hours there could be a need for as many as nine spaces. So, there would be a need for up to four cars to park on the street during business hours. Assuming both of the office/gallery spaces on the first floor are used at once for showings, as many as 24 visitors could be in the building. The zoning ordinance requires one space for every three visitors, or eight parking spaces. Most showings would occur in the evenings, so only a couple of the staff would have to be on the site. This could result in a need for about 10 parking spaces. The eight visiting cars would likely park on the street. Since on -street parking will be needed to support the proposed facility, a variance has been requested to allow this. The variance is addressed below. Setbacks: The plans before the City do not call for an expansion of the building. Therefore, setbacks are not applicable to the review of this case. Just a note though: the ArtReach Alliance driveway encroaches on city property, which can be seen in the attached site plan. The site plan also shows that a small corner of the City Hall parking lot encroaches on the ArtReach property. Perhaps a land trade is in order. Comprehensive Plan The 2030 Comprehensive Plan envisions the area between Mulberry and Myrtle along both N. 4th and N 3rd Streets to be a ArtReach Alliance May 8, 2009 Page 3 of 5 public/institutional district. The Downtown Chapter of the Draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan states "This district is home to many of the civic buildings in the community including city hall, the Stillwater public library, the fire/police station, the post office, the city water works and other public offices. Some existing single family housing, public parking lots and two significant church facilities also give form to the district. The framework plan recommends preserving and reinforcing this evolving institutional district through complimentary land uses, architecture and streetscape treatments." The proposed use as an office, artist studio and small gallery facility is compatible with the mix of public institutional uses in this district. (2) Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. Architectural design Remodeling will be restricted largely to the interior of the building for now. Consequently, exterior architectural review is not applicable at this time. Miscellaneous • Lighting - Exterior lighting details will need to be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. Since the facility is on the perimeter of the public/institutional district, exterior lighting has the potential to impact neighborhood residences more than institutional uses that are closer to the center of the district. • Outside assembly - As with the issue of exterior lighting, outside activities have the potential to create a concern for neighbors. Outside weddings at the public library across the street from ArtReach Alliance is a point in case. The exhibits are planned for display inside in the small galleries, and it would be good if ArtReach Alliance did not plan on outside activities on the site. (3) The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. • This is addressed under (2) above. Variance As mentioned above, the proposed use would need 17 parking spaces to meet the Zoning Code standards. However, the property has room for only five or six on -site parking spaces. Consequently a variance from the parking standard has been requested. In the Central Business District it is recognized that this condition will occur ArtReach Alliance May 8, 2009 Page 4 of 5 fairly regularly. Consequently Section 31-510, Subd. 1 (d)(1)i of the Zoning Ordinance allows "alternative provisions" when a proposed project is located within the downtown parking district. Unfortunately for this case, the edge of the downtown parking district is one block to the east on 3rd Street. Therefore, a variance would be required. Assuming all of the offices and upstairs studios are in full use and both galleries are exhibiting at the same time, the ArtReach property would be short 11 spaces. These spaces would have to be found on the surrounding streets. Practically speaking however, the exhibits will likely be on evenings and weekends when the offices in the building are not completely occupied. It is also unlikely that both galleries would be having showings at the same time. So it is not expected that 11 cars will usually have to find spaces. But if they do, they could all fit on the south side of Mulberry Street. Given that the proposed facility is the reuse of a building, and the property can only support a limited number of cars, it is reasonable to expect that an institutional use of the site would require off street parking. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve. If the Special use Permit and variance requests are found to be acceptable, they could be approved with the following conditions: a. The remodeling and reuse shall be in compliance with the plan set dated 4/12/09, which is on file in the Community Development Department. b. Any signs on the property will require a permit from the Heritage Preservation Commission prior to installation. c. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, an exterior lighting plan shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the Community Development Director. The lighting plan shall show the fixture type, wattage, height, location and exterior lighting intensity. All lighting shall be directed away from the street and adjacent properties. Light sources shall be shielded from direct view. d. Outside assemblies will only be allowed with approval of the City Council after holding a public hearing. Notice for the hearing shall be mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the ArtReach Alliance property. 2. Deny. If the proposal is to be unacceptable, the Planning Commission could deny the requests. A denial motion requires substantiating findings of fact. 3. Table the requests for more information. ArtReach Alliance May 8, 2009 Page 5 of 5 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval with the conditions found under Alternative 1. cc: Brian Larson Jessica Pack attachments: Zoning Map Neighborhood Map Site plan Applicant's materials ArtReach Alliance Site Plan ArtReach Alliance property ArtReach Alliance Zoning Map Mulberry St ArtReach Alliance Zoning Districts r_ A-P, Agricultural Preservation RA- Single Family Residential RB - Two Family TR, Traditional Residential LR, Lakeshore Residential CR, Cottage Residential CTR, Cove Traditional Residential CCR, Cove Cottage Residential CTHR, Cove Townhouse Residential TH, Townhouse RCM - Medium Density Residential RCH - High Density Residential VC, Village Commercial - CA - General Commercial CBD - Central Business District BP-C, Business Park - Commercial 1111. BP-O, Business Park - Office BP -I, Business Park - Industrial IB - Heavy Industrial CRD - Campus Research Development MIN PA - Public Administration Public Works Facility I. Railroad WATER 1 Iili Outside City Limits I � ArtReach Alliance Special Use Permit Application Narrative - City of Stillwater Property Address: 224 4th Street North Stillwater, MN 55083 PID #280302013015 ArtReach Alliance was founded in Stillwater, Minnesota in 1992 as a grassroots organization and has grown into a community -based, multi -disciplinary organization serving artists and art patrons alike. ArtReach Alliance is a non-profit organization whose mission is to connect the St. Croix Valley community and the arts. ArtReach sponsors community arts events and arts education, supports the work of artists and other arts organizations, and provides arts leadership within the St. Croix Valley community. ArtReach Alliance is supported through memberships, individual gifts, ticket sales to events, donations from community and business patrons, and by grants from foundations and corporations. ArtReach's goal is to continue to be a stable, evolving, growing organization that connects our community to the arts through artist resources, experiential programming, audience development and information. ArtReach Alliance proposes to remodel and renovate the existing building (previously a residential duplex rental unit) at 224 4th St. North. Since owning the property, some site and building clean up has already taken place. Though major renovations are not foreseen for the near future, the proposed minor remodeling and renovation is intended to allow ArtReach Alliance to use the main and second levels of the building for office and administrative purposes. A designated accessible parking space on West Mulberry Street will have a curb cut leading to a new accessible walkway to the building's northwest entrance porch. On the main level, a unisex accessible toilet will be added. The main level will have four offices, two of which designated as gallery/offices for display of community artwork. The second level's six existing bedrooms are designated as office/studios, to be used for office staff or as artist studio space. The lower (basement) level will be used for mechanical/electrical equipment and for storage. The third or attic spaces will not be used. The existing detached garage may be used for storage. Current ArtReach Alliance staffing includes 4 staff with varying numbers of volunteers. There are two off-street staff parking spaces at the garage drive on the north side of the property. An existing bituminous driveway accessed from North Fourth Street leads to a gravel area between the house and garage that could be used for up to four more off-street parking spaces. A survey of existing on -street parking shows approximately 25 spaces on the south side of Mulberry proceeding west of Fourth , 18 spaces immediately north of the Mulberry on Fourth Street, and 22 spaces south of Mulberry on Fourth Street extending to City Hall. Other parking areas connected with the Library, City Hall, and Trinity Lutheran Church may possibly be available depending on their programming times and schedules, as shown on the attached diagram. , CITY LOT BELOW: 4TH ST S @ W SIDE: 4TH ST S @ E SIDE: 4TH ST N @ E&W: MULBERRY @ S SIDE: 25 SUBTOTAL: LIBRARY LOT: TRINITY LOT: 247 SPACES Zz Ou c W ZN Cep OS o EL, PROVIDE NEW ALLE551BLE 5316NT TOILET AND CODE- COMPLYIN6 HANDRAILS: PRovIDE BLOGKIN6 • WALLS AS REWIRED PROVIDE TOILET ROOM EXHAUST FAN 4 LI61.0 • CEILING: PROVIDE WALL L16N1 CENTERED ABOVE MIRROR X SINK L- PROVIDE NEW EXTERIOR WOOD ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE DOOR wTN PANG XAROLW6I, CLOSER 4 ACCl6dELE T#TAL THRESHOLD. PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE WALL r> 3+7 P LAVATORY -IV LEVER -- HANDLES / FRAPPED TRAP 4 RUMORS PROVIDE 30" WIDE X 46' N16M MIRROR. MOUNT 00 SOITOM EDGE IS 40" MAX AFP 20"X16" ACCESSIBLE LAVATORY EXI5TIN6 CHIMNEY 1 1 "�N IKANtE` 104 ff,MiJDROOM 11051 '7 1T v WALL THI KNESS r AS REO TO MAINT CLE 5 UNILE3- - qy FPO 04- z MIN. 6'-6 REMOVE WOOD STRIPS, VERIFY CASED OPENIN66— IS MIN. 32" CLEW WIDEN IF REOII 0111ER TO RENXNE EXISTING CABINETS. VW ! DIS/MASHEIR LAP EXISTI06 PLIR61N5 BELOYI FLOOR LEVEL • I - BASEMENT NEM V WOOD BASE TO MATCH REMOVE EXI5TIN6 WALL - DASHED 07 REPAIR GEILIN6 08 OPENING CLEAR INSIDE AP4v11M _ 10 REPLACE M550N6 SNITCH PLATES 4 RECEPTICLE PLATES WORKROE OM REMOVE CABINETS 4 11031 RANGE • RELOCATED WALL EXISTING CABINETS 4 SINK TO REMAIN REPAIR OR REPLACE EX15TIN6 ACOUSTICAL N., CEILIN6 TILES STORAGE 11021 It— r 1 II 1 G LL11061 1 OFFICE / NEW TRACK LIjMT SYSTEM WIREMLLD F EXISTINS 1 FAN FIXTURE () 6'-O' LENGTH SINSLl CIRCUIT LINE VOLTA6EITRACK W/ LOW VOLT MR16 1 FIXTURES Mr/1 EACH STAIR: ONE 0000II11016 NEW I H." DIAMETER WOOD 1 I HANDRAIL -RETURN L �4 PAfNTLTYT� _ REPAIR EX1511N6 METAL BALUSTER OF n I lob II 08 REMOVE WOOD TAIR 1071 DN UCI IN REMOVE EXISTING POCKET DOOR 1 II L MAIN FLOOR PLAN REMOVE EX1571N6 RADIATOR 4 LAP 1 I 1 1 1 I I I L J I GAFLLERY/ 11011 / ADD TEM BASE TO MATCH ADJACENT 07 01 REMOVE PORTION O WALL & CEILING. 02 REMOVE EXISTING WALL CONSTRUCTION TO THE EXTENT INDICATED, FIELD VERIFY LOCATIONS OF CONCEALED STRUCTURAL MEMBERS. CHASES, PIPING ANO OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS. 03 PROVIDE NEW 3'-0' ACCESSIBLE INTERIOR 000R WITH ACCESSIBLE LEVER HARDWARE WITH PRIVACY SET: NEW CASING TO MATCH ADJACENT: PATCH FLOOR 6 REQUIRED. 04 REMOVE EXISTING CASEWORK AND APPLIANCES TO EXTENT INDICATED TO ALLOW FOR NEW WALL CONSTRUCTION. OS NEW WALL CONSTRUCTION TO LATCH EXISTING WALLS: PAINT TO MATCH. D. REMOVE EXISTING WALL CONSTRUCTION: REPRODUCE OLD ARCHWAY VISIBLE FROM ROOM 108 510E OF WALL 07 REMOVE WALLPAPER. lE> PATCH & PANT WN.LS. CEILING & TRIM. => INSTALL NEW UNDERLAYMENT & SHEET VINYL. 10 INSTALL NEW COVED VNYL BASE. 11 REMOVE EXISTING LAUNDRY PIPES, WATER, DRAIN. ELECTRICAL 5 VENTILATION & CAP IN BASEMENT. NEW 6" SASE 4 BASE SHOE WHERE MI551N6 IN THIS ROOM OFFICE 11081 VERIFY 31" CLEAR • DOORWAY 4 PROVIDE NEW LEVER NARR'URE: IF NOT. REMOVE DOOR 4 HINGES, PATCH 4 PAINT GASED OPENING 08 I I (REMOVE PANEL( REMOVE WALL i4 PATCH, RELOCATE STOR ELEGTRILAL MEI I, --ADD HEW BASE TO 6' MATCH ADJACENT \--PM I STAIR 4 I�` RAILIN6 ITYP) `CABINET REMAINS: PAINT NEW TRACK LI6HT SYSTEM WIREMOLD FROM EXISTING FAN FIXTURE (4) 6'-0" LEN6T14 51N61-E CIRCUIT LINE VOL7A6E TRACK TV LOW VOLTA6E INR16 FIXTURES (TYP) ED [-TASK/DISPLAY L1614TIN6 BY OMER R OFF( 1/4"=1'-0„ REMOvE EXIS11N6 DOOR 4 STORM DOOR PROVIDE NEW EXIT DOOR TO FIT EXI5TIN9 OPENING; PROVIDE PANIC HARDWARE. CLOSER ! LEVER 109 Apb TWO NEW LODE GOTATt.0144 RAILS 1K4" DIA 5T. •IP0 EXTENSION' TOP BO TOh. ANCHOR BOTTOM IN i.ONC. AND TOP W/ FLAME • PORCH DECK - PAINT LARSON BRENNER ARCHITECTS 4NI 1A7111 MUM MR. 31111..11, WX11m.. 4+As t.k.4we: a1.4anMw l..X.o� 11111.43.3171 m.MmMMNI.711.I.e11 MW. M/12/00 LUX RJT hereby e• Owl m ow we eparei ere or 04110 by W N 1 .. . I.n *IUM AsM .t Ne..M.. 14e '1 T /T XXXI% STILLWATER ARTS CENTER TYPICAL: PATCH -- BASES OF COLUMNS 4 COVER VI/ 04" PAINTED MIRAIEK TRIM PAINT COLUMNS. EXTERIOR TRIM • WINDOH40 4 DOOR MORON FASCIA 4 PORCH CEILING 33.1 tiW. FIRST FLOOR PLAN A3 • OFFICE S TU DI 12101 TAPER PMSH CEILING 1 PAINT —L 72111 HA TOILETD OO 07 CXIBTM6 I -11 11 Of PROVIDE NEW WALL IN EXISTING DOOR OPENING, PAINT TO MATCH. D2 PROVIDE NEW 32 DOOR M EXISTING OPENING, PANT TO MATCH, REUSE SALVAGED EXISTING DOOR N POSSIBLE 1=2 REMOVE EXISTING WALL, PATCH AND PANT TO MATCH EXISTING, SALVAGE BASE, USE O HALL 202. => PROVIDE NEW 3? DOOR TO WATCH EXISTING DOORS AND CASING, PANT TO MATCH. =2 PROVIDE DEADBOLT LOCK FOR DOOR TO ATTIC. => REMOVE WALLPAPER. =2, PATCH & PAINT WAILS, CEILING & TRIM. UPPER FLOOR PLAN HALL 12061 11 a 11 11 11 11 OFFICE` STUDIO 12131 RELOCATE ELECTRICAL REGEPTIGLE STOR SECURE PANEL r~ n -41 STOR of REMOVE STARS oN CEILING IN THIS ROOM fT> OFFICE/ 12161 NEVI it; WOOD HANDRAIL CONTINvOUS. RETURN TO NALL W TOP 1 BOTTOM 1 PAINT aTII EPM5TM6 HANDRAIL TO REMAIN STUDIO 12041 PEN R HARDBALL CONTINUOUS, L RETURN TO STALL00S,V•DLL R BOTTOM 1 PAINT \ COVER FOR PLUMBING ACCESS PANEL I ADD NEN BASE TO MATCH ADJACENT ADD GAP TO BASE y- IT> STOR 12051 HALL I•� REMOVE EX15TIR6 vv FAN LIEN,, NEN L16NT BY OIMER STOR. 12011 PAINT WOOD BASE, PAINT BEAD BOARD. FINISH TARNS GELLING 07 TOPE, 12031 ICI `I. EMEND E1115TM6 6UARDRAIL TO 02' HE16NT. EMEND ONE MEISEL POST 1 PROVIDE NEVI TOP RAIL 1 BALUSTERS W EXTENSION: VERIFY SPACING OF ENISTIN6 1 NEW BALUSTERS 15 LESS THAN 4'. AL16N NEX11 EXISTING, PAINT. OFFICE/ os STUDIO o7 12001 REMOVE 6LUE FROM FLOOR, BAND FLOOR, APPLY POLYURETHANE. 2. IF GLUE REMOVAL IS NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT FLOOR DAMA6E, SAND FLOOR AND APPLY 2 COATS OF WATER BASED POLYURETHANE. A4 1 /4" = i r—D,r 11*5TING RADIATOR PAINT EXTERIOR TRIM 1 0000 LARSON BRENNER ARCHITECTS 1NUImWIeW1XCIW tiW 01/12/01 t'nerria XXXX I beret, alit, OM MI* Fr. �N.'«Mrq nroleval am. maw. ..MINT slab et Wm. . WpeA 1Aw..1.. XXXXX M.Fee 11. STILLWATER ARTS CENTER Seel MUr. SECOND FLOOR PLAN Seel Plumber, A4 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Directors DATE: May 8, 2009 RE: Case No. 09-16 — Refinements to Draft 2030 Future Land Use Map BACKGROUND As the 2030 Comprehensive Plan developed over 24 months through open houses, public comments, committees, sub -committees, commissions and the City Council, many aspects of the p'ian were being juggled simultaneously. Not surprisingly, some of the iterations of the many discussion items were not captured in the current draft of the Future Land Use Map. In all, 88 properties need to be re-examined to make sure they are guided for the appropriate future land use. Institutional land uses are a prime example of how discussions evolved but the Future Land Map did not always keep step with the evolution. At one point in the process all properties that are currently used for institutional purposes were going to be shown on the Future Land Use Map as guided for Institutional development. This was a change from the 2020 Comp Plan, which generally guided institutional properties for the same residential uses that surrounded them. So the draft 2030 Future Land Use Map was changed to show these properties to be guided institutionally. Later in the process, it was decided by consensus that these properties should not be guided institutionally after all, rather they should be guided for whatever the surrounding neighborhood is guided. Essentially we flip-flopped on the issue. Only a part of the impacted properties were changed back on the Future Land Use Map. The future land use map was revised to show this shift in thinking for school and church properties, but the hospital and city properties were missed. Consequently, 33 parcels need to be refined on the draft 2030 Future Land Use Map to be completely consistent. The target date for submitting the Draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council is June 1, 2009. Prior to that date we need to have the future land use map in a finalized format. PROPOSED MAP CHANGES As can be seen in the attached overview map, there are 13 geographical areas that have properties which need to be re-examined for consistency within their neighborhoods, as well as with the various chapters of the Draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Each of the areas is briefly discussed below. FLU Map Refinements Page 2 Area A • Two proposed changes • Both of the properties proposed to be changed are owned by the City and were shown in the draft 2030 Future Land Use Map (FLU Map) as guided for INSTITUTIONAL uses. One is the well house in Liberty Village; the other is the well house in Liberty on the Lake. • Staff recommends changing the guiding for the Liberty Village well house from INSTITUTIONAL to NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL; and the Liberty Village well house from INSTITUTIONAL to LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. • As discussed above, this proposed change is consistent with the policy decision to guide institutional uses the same as the neighborhood they are located within. Area B • One proposed change • This parcel is owned by the City. It is located next to the Jaycee Fields and is used, in part, for yard wastes and snow storage. It was guided in the 2020 FLU Map for SINGLE FAMILY LARGE LOT uses. It is guided in the draft 2030 FLU Map for INSTITUTIONAL uses. • Staff recommends changing the guiding for this site from INSTITUTIONAL to LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. This change leaves the 2020 FLU Map guiding intact. It is also consistent with the policy decision to guide institutional uses the same as the neighborhood they are located within. Area C • Two proposed changes • These two parcels are both owned by the Stillwater Country Club. They are not needed for golf purposes and the club explored developing them as single family lots last year. Both parcels were guided in the 2020 FLU Map for SINGLE FAMILY SMALL LOT uses. Assuming they were used for golf purposes, both lots were guided for PARK, REC OR OPEN SPACE in the draft 2030 FLU Map. • Staff recommends keeping them guided as they were in the 2020 Comp Plan. The classification that represents the former SINGLE FAMILY SMALL LOT use is now called LOW/MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. Therefore we recommend guiding the two parcels LOW/MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL in the 2030 FLU Map. Area D • Twenty-one proposed changes • All but two of these twenty-one parcels are owned by the City. The other two have City held easements for trail purposes. • In the main these properties are the land that was purchased from the railroad. The intended uses for this former railroad property are trail, parking lots and roadways. The 2020 Comp Plan showed the properties as guided basically for RAILROAD use. The 2030 FLU Map shows is basically as DOWNTOWN MIXED USE and PARK, REC AND OPEN SPACE. Unfortunately, the FLU Map Refinements Page 3 individual parcels in the 2030 FLU Map were not guided according to the intended uses. • Staff recommends re -designating these parcels to be consistent with their planned use. Area E • Three proposed changes • These three parcels were owned by Trinity Lutheran Church and therefore were guided in the draft 2030 FLU Map as INSTITUTIONAL. They are now owned by the City (or have a parking easement encumbering them) and are part of the parking ramp which is under construction. • Staff recommends re -designating these parcels to be consistent with actual use and to be consistent with the abutting properties. Area F • One proposed change • This parcel is an undeveloped area owned by the City. Originally it was intended to provide for the construction of an alley. However, the alley was never constructed. It is now used as open space behind a row of single family homes and abutting a ravine. • The 2020 Comp Plan ear marked this parcel for SINGLE FAMILY SMALL LOT use. The 2030 draft FLU Map called it out for PARK, REC AND OPEN SPACE use. Given its situation surrounded by private single family properties, its use as park or natural area for public benefit is not possible. • Staff recommends keeping the parcel as it was in the 2020 Comp Plan. The classification that represents the former SINGLE FAMILY SMALL LOT use is now called LOW/MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. Therefore we recommend guiding the parcel LOW/MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL in the 2030 FLU Map. Area G • Twenty-five proposed changes • These parcels are all a part of the Lakeview Hospital campus. The 2020 Comp Plan guided them all for SINGLE FAMIL LARGE LOT or SINGLE FAMILY SMALL LOT uses. As part of our institutional policy flip-flop, the draft 2030 FLU Map changed their designation to INSTITUTIONAL. The city then decided it should be single family residential, but staff missed the map change. • Staff recommends changing all twenty-five properties to SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: either small lot, or large lot as shown in the attachments. Area H • Four proposed changes • These four parcels represent the underlying lots for the 8 condominiums of the former Nelson School. The 2020 Comp Plan guided this property for SINGLE FAMILY SMALL LOT uses, since that is how the surrounding neighborhood was guided. (The project was developed with a Special Use Permit.) However, since FLU Map Refinements Page 4 the lots are small, the density per acre is quite high. So, the draft 2030 Comp Plan designated it as HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL to reflect its actual use. • The existing Special Use Permit allows it to continue legally, and even be rebuilt if desired. But should there be a catastrophic fire or the like, and a new developer did not want to rebuild, a HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL guiding would allow any number of projects that would not be compatible with the surrounding single family neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends keeping the equivalent of the 2020 designation on this property. Area I • Three proposed changes • These three properties lie within a transitional area on Osgood that oddly enough is bordered on its north side by property in Oak Park Heights. The area is a rather eclectic mix of uses. • The 2020 Comp Plan guided all three of these properties for MULTIPLE FAMILY development. The actual use of the three lots is commercial: an office building with its parking lot; and the cemetery office. Therefore, the draft 2030 FLU Map guided the property for COMMERCIAL use. However upon closer examination, the general and high intensity retail and other commercial activities that would be allowed in this COMMERCIAL designation are likely too intense for the otherwise predominantly residential neighborhood. • Therefore, staff recommends a NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL designation for these three parcels. Area J • Twelve proposed changes • These twelve properties are located in the area of Greeley lying between Highway 36 and Orleans. This, like Osgood, is a transitional neighborhood with an unusual and perhaps incompatible mix of uses. • Area J has four clusters of properties that need future land use changes. - Greeley south of Orleans ■ These six parcels could either be guided for HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (12+ units/acre) or MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (6-14.5 units/acre). If the 6-unit apartment did not exist in this area, the obvious guiding would be MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. But with a density of 10 units per acre, the apartment parcel would need a zoning of RCM to have a conforming zoning classification. The only future land use category consistent with RCM zoning is HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. (See attached consistency chart.) • HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL guiding would encourage the area to redevelop with more density. But the density would not be out of character along Greeley in this particular area. • MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL would encourage the apartment to redevelop into a townhome property. • Staff recommends changing the guiding to HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. FLU Map Refinements Page 5 Property behind HRA apartment. • 2020 Comp Plan guides this one parcel wetland for PARK OR OPEN SPACE use. The draft 2030 Comp Plan guides use of the parcel for HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. The 2030 Plan saw the apartment on the property and therefore guided the future use consistent with the apartment. We missed the fact that this part of the property is wetland. • Staff recommends changing the future land use to PARK, REC OR OPEN SPACE. SW Quadrant of Curve Crest and Greeley • These three parcels are the site of a gas station. Therefore, the 2020 Comp Plan guided use of the site as BUSINESS PARK COMMERCIAL. The draft 2030 Comp Plan encouraged it to change to an industrial use like the other properties south of Curve Crest in the area. • Staff finds the gas station use on this corner to be logical and recommends changing the 2030 guiding to COMMERCIAL. Intersection of Greeley and Hwy 36 • These two parcels are vacant and are owned by the state for future intersection improvements. • The 2020 Comp Plan identified these parcels for future commercial use. The 2030 draft Comp Plan recognized the vacant nature of the parcels and guided use for open space. • Staff recommends changing the future land use to ROAD. Area K • One proposed change • This property is owned by the City. It is the site of the water tower on Northwestern. • The 2020 Comp Plan gave this property a commercial designation. The draft 2030 Future Land Use Map guided it for INSTITUTIONAL use. • Staff recommends changing the guiding for this site from INSTITUTIONAL to COMMERCIAL. This change is consistent with the policy decision to guide institutional uses the same as the neighborhood they are located within. Area L • Eleven proposed changes • These eleven properties represent the high density neighborhood on Cottage Drive just north of Orleans. The neighborhood includes higher density townhomes, fairly dense cottage homes, the Ann Bodlovick HRA apartment building and the senior center. • The 2020 Comp Plan guided this area as BUSINESS PARK COMMERCIAL and as ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY. The 2030 FLU map guided the neighborhood as LOW DENSITY RESIDNENTIAL. Though the 2030 guiding seems to make no sense, it is in response to the zoning of the area. It is zoned RA, Single Family Residential. The history of the zoning is unclear, but it does not seem to pass the "common sense test" today. In several months when the City FLU Map Refinements Page 6 begins looking at the zoning of properties city-wide to make sure they are consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, staff will likely recommend rezoning this neighborhood to RCM, Medium Density Multiple Family Residential. • Staff recommends changing the future land use guiding of the neighborhood to HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. It is the only residential classification which has a density high enough match the existing density of the area. Area M • One proposed change • This property is owned by the City. It is the site of a city water tower. • The 2020 Comp Plan gave this property a SINGLE FAMILY LARGE LOT designation. The draft 2030 Future Land Use Map guided it for INSTITUTIONAL use. • Staff recommends changing the guiding for this site from INSTITUTIONAL to LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. This change represents keeping the same single family residential as guided in the 2020 Plan and is also consistent with the policy decision to guide institutional uses the same as the neighborhood they are located within. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Each of the 88 parcels is listed in the attached spreadsheet. The spreadsheet summarizes fairly detailed information for each of the parcels, including a proposed future land use designation. The ID number in the left hand column of the spreadsheet is the same number used for that parcel on the attached neighborhood maps. This together with a copy of the draft 2030 future land use map, the zoning map, and the zoning/land use consistency table should provide the necessary information to determine the appropriate future land use for each of the parcels. RECOMMENDATION The recommended future land use category for each parcel is given in the far right hand column of the attached spreadsheet. Attachments: Zoning District/LU Map Consistency Table Proposed FLU changes — spreadsheet Overview Map 8 Neighborhood Maps City-wide 2030 Future Land Use Map City-wide zoning map Zoning & FLU consistency chart Zoning District Consistency Future Land Use Categories Corresponding Zoning Districts' SRR, Semi Rural Residential < 0.4 units/acre AP, Agricultural Preservation 0.1units/ac LDR, Low Density Residential 1- 4.4 units/acre RA, One Family 4.4 units/ac TR, Traditional Residential 4.4 units/ac LR, Lakeshore Residential 2.2 units/ac CR, Cove Traditional Res. 3.1 units/ac LMDR, Low -Medium Density Residential 4.4 9.7 units/acre CCR, Cove Cottage Res. 4.4-6.2 units/ac RB, Two Family 5.9-8.7 units/acre CR, Cottage Residential 7.3-9.7 units/ac MDR, Medium Density Residential 6-14.5 units/acre TH, Townhouse 8.7 units/ac CTHR, Cove Townhouse Res. 14.5 units/ac RCL, Low Density Multi -Family 6.2 units/acre HDR, High Density Residential 12+ units/acre -no max. RCM, Medium Density Multi -Family 15.6 units/ac RCH, High Density Multi -Family 29.0 units/ac NC, Neighborhood Commercial VC, Village Commercial, CA, General Commercial COM, Commercial CBD, Central Business District BP-C, Business Park Commercial BP-O, Business Park Office DMU, Downtown Mixed Use CBD, Central Business District BPI, Business Park/ Industrial BP -I, Business Park Industrial IB, General Heavy Industry CRD, Campus Research & Dev. RDP, Research & Development Park CRD, Campus Research & Dev. INST, Institutional PA, Public Administrative Offices PWF, Public Works Facility Park, Recreation or Open Space LR, Lakeshore Residential CTR, Cove Traditional Residential RA, Single Family Residential TR, Traditional Residential CCR, Cove Cottage Residential Two Family Residential RBPROS, CR, Cottage Residential TH, Townhouse, Cove Townhouse RCL, Low Density MF RCM, Medium Density MF RCH, High Density MF PROS, Park, Recreation or Open Space WA, Water Water RAIL, Railway Railroad ROW, Right -of -Way Right -of -Way 1 Densities represent the maximum permitted in district. Corresponding zoning district means that the future land use might be appropriate in the district if compatible with surrounding properties. Comprehensive Plan Consistency Proposed Changes to Draft 2030 Land Use Map ID GEOCODE Land Use Use Detail CONDOMINIUMS Use Notes PART OF NELSON SCHOOL PART OF NELSON SCHOOL Dwelling Units 2 Address 1018 Street 1ST ST S Owner Name Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Change Make Non -Con? 2020 FLU SFSL Draft 2030 FLU HDR Proposed FLU LMDR 400 3303020110164 RES MORE THAN 4 UNITS KRIESEL,KARI E &GARY L & ANN E RB Existing SUP? 401 33030201101570161 RES MORE THAN 4 UNITS CONDOMINIUMS 2 RB Existing SUP? SFSL HDR LMDR 402 33030201101490155 RES MORE THAN 4 UNITS CONDOMINIUMS PART OF NELSON SCHOOL 2 RB Existing SUP? SFSL HDR LMDR 403 33030201101460147 RES MORE THAN 4 UNITS CONDOMINIUMS PART OF NELSON SCHOOL 2 RB Existing SUP? SFSL HDR LMDR 404 3203020120033 INSTITUTIONAL WATER TOWER CITY 0 CITY OF STILLWATER RA N SFLL INST LDR 405 3203020430006 INSTITUTIONAL WELL HOUSE CITY 0 CITY OF STILLWATER BPO N BPO INST COM 406 3303020410027 COMM LAND & BLDGS 0 6303 OSGOOD AVE N HAGSTROM,ROBERTSJR RCM CA N MF COM NC 407 3303020410028 INSTITUTIONAL CEMETERY OFFICE 0 6373 OSGOOD AVE S FAIRVIEW CEMETERY ASSN RCM CA N MF COM NC 408 3003020340040 INSTITUTIONAL PUBLIC WORKS CITY 0 CITY OF STILLWATER TR N SFLL INST LDR 409 3303020410026 COMM LAND & BLDGS PARKING LOT 0 HAGSTROM,ROBERTSJR RCM CA N MF COM N NC 410 2903020130012 INSTITUTIONAL CITY YARD WASTE RECYCLING 0 CITY DEPT PUB WORKS STORAGE RA Existing SUP? SFLL INST LDR 411 2803020410025 COMM LAND & BLDGS PARKING LOT CITY 0 CITY OF STILLWATER RB CBD N RAIL PR DMU 412 2803020140060 COMM LAND & BLDGS PARKING LOT CITY 0 CITY OF STILLWATER RR CBD N PC PR DMU 413 2803020410113 COMM LAND & BLDGS PARKING LOT CITY 0 CITY OF STILLWATER RB CBD N RAIL PR DMU 414 2103020430069 PARK & REC GOLF COURSE 0 STILLWATER COUNTRY CLUB RB N SFSL PR LMDR 415 2103020430068 PARK & REC GOLF COURSE COMM LAND & BLDGS 0 STILLWATER COUNTRY CLUB RB N SFSL PR LMDR 416 2803020140071 COMM LAND & BLDGS PARKING LOT OPEN SPACE 0 CITY OF STILLWATER RR PROS N RAIL DMU PR 418 2803020340036 OPEN SPACE CITY 0 CITY OF STILLWATER RB N SFSL PR LMDR 419 3303020330006 OPEN SPACE FUTURE INTERCHANGE 0 14100 60TH ST N STATE OF MN -DOT BPC ROAD N BPC PR ROAD 420 3303020330009 OPEN SPACE FUTURE INTERCHANGE 0 MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION BPC ROAD N BPC PR ROAD 421 3203020240007 RES 4 UNITS FOURTEEN 4 UNIT BUILDINGS 56 COTTAGES PHASE III PARTNERSH RA RCM N ASF LDR HDR 422 3203020240008 RES 4 UNITS FIFTEEN 4 UNIT BUILDINGS 60 2102 ORLEANS W ORLEANS HOMES #1 RA RCM N ASF LDR HDR 423 3203020240002 RES 4 UNITS SIXTEEN 4 UNIT BUILDINGS 64 1401 COTTAGE DR ORLEANS HOMES #1 RA RCM N ASF LDR HDR 424 3203020240003 RES MORE THAN 4 UNITS PART OF BUILDING 0 ORLEANS HOMES #1 RA RCM N ASF LDR HDR 425 32030202400300041 RES MORE THAN 4 UNITS 12 UNIT BUILDING 12 RA RCM N ASF LDR HDR 426 32030202400420053 RES MORE THAN 4 UNITS 12 UNIT BUILDING 12 RA RCM N ASF LDR HDR 427 32030202400540065 RES MORE THAN 4 UNITS 12 UNIT BUILDING 12 RA RCM N ASF LDR HDR 428 32030202400660075 RES MORE THAN 4 UNITS 12 UNIT BUILDING 12 RA RCM N ASF LDR HDR 429 32030202400180029 RES MORE THAN 4 UNITS 12 UNIT BUILDING 12 RA RCM N ASF LDR HDR 430 3203020240016 RES MORE THAN 4 UNITS APARTMENT BUILDING ANN BODLOVICK BLDG HRA 50 2400 ORLEANS ST W WASHINGTON CO HRA RA RCM N BPC LDR HDR 431 3203020240017 INSTITUTIONAL SOCIAL SERVICES CHARITABLE INSTITUTES 0 2300 ORLEANS ST W COMM VOLUNTEER SERV & SR CNTR RA RCM CUP ASF LDR HDR 432 3203020240001 OPEN SPACE CITY 0 CITY OF STILLWATER RA N ASF PR LDR 433 3003020320013 INSTITUTIONAL PUBLIC WORKS CITY 0 CITY OF STILLWATER AP VC N CN INST , NC 434 2803020420064 PARKING LOT CITY PARKING LOT 0 TRINITY EVAN LUTHERAN CHURCH PA CBD N AO INST DMU 435 2803020420063 PARKING LOT CITY PARKING LOT 0 TRINITY EVAN LUTHERAN CHURCH PA CBD N AO INST DMU 436 2803020420059 PARKING LOT CITY PARKING LOT 0 TRINITY EVAN LUTHERAN CHURCH PA CBD N AO INST DMU 438 3303020320016 COMM LAND & BLDGS 0 STANFOUR LLC BPC N BPC BPI COM 439 3303020230001 SURFACE WATER STORMWATER POND COUNTY 0 WASHINGTON COUNTY RB Existing SUP SFLL INST LMDR 440 3303020220031 SURFACE WATER STORMWATER POND COUNTY 0 WASHINGTON COUNTY RB Existing SUP SFLL INST LMDR 441 3303020220029 INSTITUTIONAL HOSPITAL 0 LAKEVIEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL RB Existing SUP SFLL INST LMDR 442 3303020220027 INSTITUTIONAL HOSPITAL PARKING LOT 0 LAKEVIEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL RB Existing SUP SFLL INST LMDR 443 3303020220019 INSTITUTIONAL HOSPITAL DRIVEWAY 0 919 CHURCHILL ST W LAKEVIEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL RB Existing SUP SFLL INST LMDR 444 3303020220028 INSTITUTIONAL HOSPITAL PART OF BUILDING 0 LAKEVIEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL RB Existing SUP SFLL INST LMDR 445 3303020220030 INSTITUTIONAL HOSPITAL PART OF BUILDING 0 LAKEVIEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL RB Existing SUP SFLL INST LMDR 446 3303020220023 INSTITUTIONAL HOSPITAL PART OF BUILDING 0 LAKEVIEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL RB Existing SUP SFLL INST LMDR 447 3303020220022 INSTITUTIONAL HOSPITAL PART OF BUILDING 0 LAKEVIEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL RB !Existing SUP SFLL INST LMDR 448 3303020220025 INSTITUTIONAL HOSPITAL PARKING LOT 0 927 CHURCHILL ST W LAKEVIEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL RB Existing SUP SFLL INST LMDR 449 3303020220024 INSTITUTIONAL HOSPITAL PARKING LOT 0 939 CHURCHILL ST W LAKEVIEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL RB Existing SUP SFLL INST LMDR 450 3303020210088 INSTITUTIONAL HOSPITAL 0 921 GREELEY ST S STILLWATER MEDICAL GROUP PA RB Existing SUP SFLL _ INST LMDR 451 3303020210090 INSTITUTIONAL HOSPITAL PARKING LOT 0 LAKEVIEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL RB Existing SUP SFLL INST LMDR 452 3303020210091 INSTITUTIONAL HOSPITAL PARKING LOT 0 LAKEVIEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL RB Existing SUP SFLL INST LMDR 453 454 455 3303020210092 INSTITUTIONAL HOSPITAL PART OF BUILDING 0 LAKEVIEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL RB Existing SUP Existing SUP SFLL INST INST LMDR 3303020210087 3303020210079 INSTITUTIONAL HOSPITAL PART OF BUILDING 0 LAKEVIEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL RB SFLL LMDR INSTITUTIONAL HOSPITAL PARKING LOT 0 821 CHURCHILL ST W LAKEVIEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL RB Existing SUP SFSL INST LMDR 456 457 458 459 460, 3303020210080 INSTITUTIONAL INSTITUTIONAL HOSPITAL PARKING LOT 0 822 ANDERSON ST W LAKEVIEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL RB RB Existing SUP Existing SUP SFSL SFLL INST INST LMDR LMDR 3303020210089 3303020230002 3303020240035 3303020240038 HOSPITAL PARKING LOT 0 910 ANDERSON ST LAKEVIEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL INSTITUTIONAL INSTITUTIONAL HOSPITAL HOSPITAL BUILDING & OPEN SPACE 0 0 0 1112 1104 S S LAKEVIEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL RA Existing SUP Existing SUP Existing SUP SFLL SFLL SFLL INST INST INST LDR LDR LDR EVERETT EVERETT ST ST LAKEVIEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL RA INSTITUTIONAL HOSPITAL LAKEVIEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL RA 4/14/2009 page 1 of 2 Comprehensive Plan Consistency Proposed Changes to Draft 2030 Land Use Map ID 461 462 GEOCODE Land Use Use Detail Use Notes PART OF BUILDING Dwelling Units 0 [ Address Street Owner Name Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Change Make Non -Con? 2020 FLU] SFLL Draft 2030 FLU INST Proposed FLU 3303020240040 INSTITUTIONAL HOSPITAL LAKEVIEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL RA RA Existing SUP 3303020240039 INSTITUTIONAL HOSPITAL PARKING LOT 0 LAKEVIEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL L Existing SUP SELL INST 463 INSTITUTIONAL HOSPITAL 0 RB Existing SUP SELL INST LMDR 464 3303020320033 RES 6 UNITS 6 1634 GREELEY ST S ROETTGER,DAVID L & NANCY C RB RCM N MF MDR HDR 465 3303020320036 RES 1 UNIT 1 1602 GREELEY ST S WYLIE,JASON R RB RCM CUP MF MDR HDR 466 33030203200380041 RES 2 UNITS CONDOMINIUMS 2 RB RCM CUP MF MDR H HDR 467 3303020320037 RESIDENTIAL YARD HOA OUTLOT 0 ZAMBRANO,JOHN & PEGGY A RB RCM N MF MDR HDR 468 3303020320021 RESIDENTIAL COMM LAND & BLDGS TOWING SERVICE 1 1656 GREELEY ST S RITZER,RICHARD J RB RCM CUP MF COM H HDR 469 3303020320034 COMM LAND & BLDGS TOWING LOT 0 RITZER,RICHARD J RB RCM Existing SUP? MF COM HDR 470 3303020320002 OPEN SPACE WETLAND 0 1611 GREELEY ST S WASHINGTON CO HRA RB PROS N OPS HDR PR 471 COMM LAND & BLDGS PARKING LOT 0 BPC N BPC BPI C COM 472 3303020320017 COMM LAND & BLDGS PARKING LOT 0 STANFOUR LLC BPC N BPC BPI COM 473 2803020140071 ROAD ROAD CITY 0 CITY OF STILLWATER RR ROAD N RAIL DMU ROAD 474 2803020140071 RR OPEN SPACE CITY 0 CITY OF STILLWATER RR PROS N RAIL DMU PR 475 2803020140060 COMM LAND & BLDGS PARKING LOT CITY 0 CITY OF STILLWATER RR CBD N RAIL PR D DMU 476 2803020140071 ROAD ROAD CITY 0 CITY OF STILLWATER RR ROAD N RAIL DMU ROAD 477 2803020140060 ROAD ROAD CITY 0 CITY OF STILLWATER RR ROAD N RAIL PR ROAD 478 2803020140055 COMM LAND & BLDGS PARKING LOT CITY 0 CITY OF STILLWATER RB CBD N PC PR D DMU 479 2803020140055 COMM LAND & BLDGS PARKING LOT CITY 0 CITY OF STILLWATER RB CBD N PC PR DMU 482 2803020140060 ROAD ROAD CITY 0 CITY OF STILLWATER RR ROAD N ROW DMU ROAD 483 2803020140071 R ROAD ROAD CITY 0 CITY OF STILLWATER RR ROAD N RAIL DMU ROAD 417 ROAD ROAD CITY 0 CITY OF STILLWATER RR ROAD N RAIL DMU ROAD 484 2803020140071 COMM LAND & BLDGS PARKING LOT CITY 0 CITY OF STILLWATER RR PROS N RAIL DMU PR 485 2803020140071 COMM LAND & BLDGS PARKING LOT CITY 0 CITY OF STILLWATER RR _ PROS N RAIL DMU PR 486 2803020110003 ROAD ROAD CITY 0 CITY OF STILLWATER CBD ROAD N CC DMU ROAD 488 2803020110049 ROAD ROAD CITY 0 CITY OF STILLWATER CBD ROAD N ROW DMU ROAD 487 2803020110035 ROAD ROAD 0 601 MAIN ST N MN ZEPHYR LTD _ CBD ROAD N CC DMU ROAD 489 2803020410045 COMM LAND & BLDGS PARKING LOT 0 NEW STILLWATER PROJECT LTD CBD PROS N RAIL DMU PR 490 2803020410044 COMM LAND & BLDGS PARKING LOT 0 225 NELSON ST E DOCK CAFE CORP RB PROS N RAIL DMU PR 4/14/2009 page 2 of 2 rinre- Sycamore l St. Croix Av a 10 PI upram NM' MI 141 E/4„04. 1147.1 pm - Ina 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Future Land Use Map Refinements Map 1 April 17, 2009 Proposed Future Land Use Low Density Residential Low/Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial Commercial Downtown Mixed Use Research, Development Park Industrial Institutional Park, Rec or Open Space Marina Road R-O-W Open Water Pal 417 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Future Land Use Map Refinements Map 2 April 17, 2009 Proposed Future Land Use Low Density Residential Low/Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial Commercial Downtown Mixed Use Research, Development Park Industrial Institutional Park, Rec or Open Space Marina Road R-O-W Open Water --Orleans k 1 1 1 Oak Park Heights 406 Upper 63rd St Oak Park Heights Oak Park Heights in 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Future Land Use Map Refinements Map 3 April 17, 2009 Proposed Future Land Use Low Density Residential Low/Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial Commercial Downtown Mixed Use Research, Development Park Industrial Institutional Park, Rec or Open Space Marina Road R-O-W Open Water E 418 Pine 62 c13 t 2 Churchill Street 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Future Land Use Map Refinements Map 4 April 17, 2009 Proposed Future Land Use 1 Low Density Residential Low/Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial Commercial Downtown Mixed Use Research, Development Park Industrial Institutional Park, Rec or Open Space Marina Road R-O-W Open Water Orleans 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Future Land Use Map Refinements Map 6 April 17, 2009 Proposed Future Land Use Low Density Residential Low/Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial Commercial Downtown Mixed Use Research, Development Park Industrial Institutional Park, Rec or Open Space Marina Road R-O-W Open Water 405 Highway 36 Orleans Curve Crest 1 472 470 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Future Land Use Map Refinements Map 5 April 17, 2009 Proposed Future Land Use Low Density Residential Low/Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial Commercial Downtown Mixed Use Research, Development Park Industrial Institutional Park, Rec or Open Space Marina Road R-O-W Open Water 410 MYrt/e 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Future Land Use Map Refinements Map 7 April 17, 2009 Proposed Future Land Use Low Density Residential Low/Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial Commercial Downtown Mixed Use Research, Development Park Industrial Institutional Park, Rec or Open Space Marina Road R-O-W Open Water PPR N S E r County Rd 12 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Future Land Use Map Refinements Map 8 April 17, 2009 Proposed Future Land Use Low Density Residential Low/Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential 1 Neighborhood Commercial Commercial Downtown Mixed Use Research, Development Park Industrial Institutional Park, Rec or Open Space Marina Road R-O-W Open Water d E 0 0) 4) F v 0) 0 E 2 cc 0 v cc 0 c cc 1 U E E E 0 0) 0 0 m w U m E E U a 0 m' m O a 0 m m 1_1111_I 11-1 In 0 0 0 0 a 0 1111 anzrcammrr 0 0 0) N 1 cc 1W a 'll wry!: 111111 11:1 jl Hill .lu IIII EH IIIII 1E1 1111 . Sri MP �w'III 4' iilii Ii 111 111: n. Ih:l 11111 111 IIII 11� INC 11= OVAII II I■11 Olur 1 IIII: W� ; ■r= r a■ 1111�11 /i111'sr: l:, Am* War sir `---&OWP � .. :CIE i 111E 111E 1 /r � l� �A .AI ■■111111■1■ ) :1 IIII.. IIIIIII■ IIII. I IIII 111■■1 �` ■IIIII IIIII■11 ' • ■II■I I1■III 1,111° IIlI�11111111 IIIII=��II111111:: 1■11■1111 �� noun mnln nn_m �r\�` 1■■nn noon n ■m , .■IllllII■ I111111I1. 11/1111111 �_ ar.to Otos' liltrita ♦ .DN t p,' .r�� era• .r� 1\Q. � .31WHI �\0� ,r1�� �� L'11111111 .'11111= :.■IIIII. IIIi. II LIIIII • Ft AlI � 4 � ing 11�et!mem IIIII CII L7. n g 222 ern.- . � - �\ ®■.= eu �1,�.In��■I-= tin SIII II.II.11 kiIIl—-:�- I" .11111.11IIIII umm 11■1■ .L _-- [•I IIII..HFN ■lu■ 11■II111111 111111 .IIIII .IIIII 1.1 ■.Inl■ IIIII :IIIII III■II :■■, l I 11I111) IIII. ;■un m Inn nn1 mn■Inu Inn nn .:■ ® IIII'II unr un�n f ��111111�®in®%nor Itia_i.11 \ 1 IA ■111■• 111■. 1I111 ■11■1111 111111// 1111111/ 11111111 c1 11■1111■ -1H 111 Ill H 1: Sii no .111 ■11 11111 ■■■1:: 1I1�. II c 0 5 E n .IIlII- 01111111 1111111111 11111111 n■111PJ.IIIIP '911111= gis., 0011 0.1131." 111 01111111., iiiiil91 ■IIIII.. - / pii.w4Etwmirm -41 .4 4.ttio.0.. 11%i� 1111111111 11111111 .1■I■11 4n1111 /111111 ■■■■11l■1111111 11■111111 /111/111 LI nu1111 .1111111 11■111. 1111■111 /111/1111 El ,lIIIIIIII IrIIII\. ��v..nu iIII. I.to it,.,•41 ser • A�s,411i7h. 7risr.s.--)7_41,411 1111�T11 -11 110 11 l't Al 1mi1111s IrU.11 111111111 :111111r. C.1.11 -1 IIIINII :I MN HIM UP EnEng .'rd 111�s. 11 on - 1 _ Kollin 064 lEtge 1UIi � Inn. .NINIUM2111,. Elm ■� 11111/. 1111 11• J11111111p�111�11%17 �1";111., Ir. ��I Il _11 :■. TNF 1IRTKPLACE CF •INNEIOTA Draft Proposed 2030 Land Use 2008 Comprehensive Plan 800 0 800 1,600 Feet •- 2030 City Limit Low Density Residential Low/Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial - Commercial IIIII Downtown Mixed Use Research & Development Park Industrial Institutional rit7tIl, Park, Recreation or Open Space - Marina Road R-O-W Surface Water Wetland Bonestroo December 8. 2008 D510/51002OO1lgrslmaps/Future Lana Usamrtl DATE: May 7, 2009 TO: Planning Commission REGARDING: Draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan Comments from Review Agencies PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director • On December 15, 2008 the City released its approved Draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan to surrounding governmental agencies for their review and comments. By state law these agencies were allowed 6 months to complete their reviews. We have received comments back from all mandatory reviewing agencies. We have also received comments back from almost all of the agencies that received courtesy review copies. Attached are all of the comments and staff responses to each. It will be the Planning Commission's task on May 11, 2009 to decide if the staff responses are satisfactory. The Commission's recommendations will then be forwarded to the City Council for their May 19, 2009 meeting. After the City Council decides upon responses to the comments, the draft comp plan will be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for their review. attachment: Comments and Responses Draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan Review Agency Comments & Responses AGENCY DATE AGENCY COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE Change Plan? Mn Department of Transportation 3/4/09 Reviewed transportation chapter and "finds it acceptable" No response requested/necessary No State Historic Preservation Office Did not return courtesy review comments yet. No National Park Service 2/13/09 1) Hope that the City will maintain the resources important to the Riverway. 2) Appreciates the City's support for protection of the Riverway through its Comprehensive Plan. No response requested/necessary No Mn Department of Natural Resources Did not return courtesy review comments yet. No Brown's Creek Watershed District 2/10/09 1) General Comments a) The Plan should include discussion of the City's MS4 responsibilities. b) Transportation Ch, page 3, Objectives: BCWD commends City on including pervious and green technologies for stormwater treatment. c) Natural Resources Ch, page 17states that residents expressed interest in having increased trail access to natural resources. BCWD encourages environmental education and stewardship, but hopes the City recognizes the need to protect resources by buffering them. Trails in buffer areas will be reviewed by BCWD on a case -by -case basis. d) Water Resource Ch, Surface Water Management section: City's Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP) is incorporated into Comp Plan by reference. The BCWD approved the LSWMP contingent upon a signed Maintenance Agreement, which has not yet been executed by the City. e) Water Resource Ch, Surface Water Management section: reference to the BCWD rules could be made (http://bcwd.org/BCWD rules 07.pd1) 1) General Comments a) The City's Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP), which is incorporated into the updated plan by reference, discusses the City's MS4 responsibilities. To avoid duplication, the MS4 discussion is not repeated in the updated plan as well. b) Thanks! c) The City recognizes the value of buffer protection as well as bringing people closer to their natural environment. On a case -by -case basis, the two values will need to be evaluated. d) According to our City Engineer, the City is working to finalize the agreement this year. e) We can add a reference in our Water Resources Chapter to the rules found on BCWD website. f) The 2009-2013 CIP has not yet been published, either in paper or electronic format. When it is, we will post it on the City's website. 2) Comments regarding MR 8410 a) MR 8410.0090, Assessment of Problems, gives general guidelines to watershed districts about assessing "existing problems affecting the organization". Does BCWD have convincing scientific evidence that "climate change" is an existing problem affecting the water resources with the WD? b) The City's LSWMP, which is incorporated into the updated Comp Plan by reference, includes implementation strategies. To avoid duplication it is not repeated in the updated plan as well. c) A comprehensive plan amendment procedure is already identified in detail in Chapter 31 of the City Code. Therefore, it is not repeated in the updated plan. 3) Comments regarding BCWD Watershed Management Plan a) Any discrepancies are likely unintentional. If BCWD identifies the discrepancies, the City could examine them to deteriiiine if they should be changed in our plan. b) City staff believes the referenced elements are addressed adequately in the stormwater management amendments made to the City Code per Ordinance 995 on May 20, 2008 and in the City's SWPPP (MS4). 1) a) No b) No c) No d) No 0 f) No 2) a) No b) No c) No 3) ','` e b) No f) Reference to the Appendix including the City's Capital Improvement Plan is made, but not included in the review draft. BCWD would welcome additional opportunities to partner with the City on water quality improvement projects. 2) Comments regarding Minnesota Rule 8410 a) Assessment of Problems: Climate change impacts into 2030 are mentioned in the Greenway Corridor section of the Natural Resources Chapter. Given the potential impacts to natural resources and water resources as well as storm sewer infrastructure, BCWD would like to see the incorporation of overarching language into the goals and policies as to how the City plans to address climate change in the next 21 years. b) Corrective Actions: Per the BCWD approval of the LSWMP, once the Stoiniwater Maintenance Agreement is signed it should be included by reference as preventative work under Implementation Priorities and the City CIP. c) Amendments to Plan: A plan amendment procedure should be developed and included in the Comprehensive Plan. 3) Comments regarding BCWD Management Plan a) Natural Resources Chapter, page 13, includes a map of the wetland resources in the City. There are some discrepancies with the management classification of certain water bodies when compared with the BCWD 3rd Generation Watershed Management Plan. BCWD anticipates addressing these classification categories on a case -by -case basis as needed in the future. b) The following elements that are called out in the BCWD 3rd Generation Watershed Management Plan are not provided in the City's updated Comp Plan: i. Outline the City's spill response and containment plan ii. Describe the City's street sweeping, right-of-way maintenance, road de-icing, salt storage, snow plowing and snow storage programs and demonstrate they will minimize water resource impacts and are consistent with the goals and policies of the BCWD Plan. Carnelian -Marine -St. Croix 2/11/09 1) Suggest acknowledgement of St. Croix River Basin Team's phosphorus reduction goal of 20% 1) The 20% goal is acknowledged in Sec 4.6 of the City's 1) No 1 of 6 Draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan Review Agency Comments & Responses Watershed District 2) Suggest acknowledgement of TMDL work being done on St. Croix River 3) General Comments a) About 136 acres of City in CMSCWD; all drain into South Twin Lake b) CMSCWD Board approved the City's Local Surface Water Management Plan on 1/7/08 c) The BCWD comments regarding MR 8410 are consistent with the CMSCWD's concerns and will not be repeated as part of this review 4) Specific Comments a) Ch 1, Community Background, should include reference to CMSCWD on Page 4, Par 2, Sentence 2 b) South Twin Lake is a headwater lake to Silver Creek and is included in the District's Silver Creek Corridor Management Plan. This should be mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan's discussions on corridors and used as a reference when the City develops a corridor zoning overlay. c) The "Water Resources" Map on Page 12 of the Natural Resources Chapter refers to the watershed district's old name. It should be revised. Also, two additional wetlands were identified in the plans for Millbrook and need to be included on the map. d) The "Water Resources — Wetlands" Map on Page 13 of the Natural Resources Chapter refers to the watershed district's old name. It should be revised. Also, the wetlands associated with South Twin Lake are listed as "pending". Provide additional information on what that means. e) South Twin Lake is impaired for nutrients and the District is currently working with the MPCA to establish a TMDL for the lake. The comprehensive plan mentions the need to meet TMDL standards when established but did not list the specific impaired water bodies. f) The capital improvement program plan identifies these District related projects; Millbrook Park in 2009, 2011 and 2012; annual trail improvements and a major road improvement project for Neal Avenue. These projects should be designed to protect associated resources and may _ need permits from the District. LSWMP 2) Section 7.3.4 of LSWMP commits to incorporating TMDL studies into the LSWMP as those studies are completed. 3) General comments a) It might be an interesting fact to add to the water resources map. Probably could also include the acreages for the other two water management groups.s b) and c) need no responses. 4) Specific comments a) This reference will be included. b) We'll find a place to insert this fact and reference. c) We will change the name of the watershed district on the map. Also, as development occurs and additional wetlands are delineated, they will be required to be managed per the management classifications outlined in the plan. d) We will change the name on the map. The two pending wetlands are the two delineated during the development planning process. The map will be updated to show the management classification. e) The LSWMP, which is part of the Comp Plan by reference, includes a listing of the impaired waters in Section 2.6. f) No response necessary 2) No 3) Yes b) No c) No 4) b'e e` e) No f) No 2 of 6 Draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan Review Agency Comments & Responses Middle St. Croix WMO Did not return courtesy review comments yet. No Stillwater Area School District 12/22/08 No comments No response requested/necessary No Washington County 2/4/09 1) Land Use Chapter a) The county acknowledges the land use direction for specific sites in the western portion of the city and will continue to work with the city on management of the local and county transportation system based on these plans. The county will also continue to manage land in those remaining areas of the township that will ultimately be annexed to the city based on the orderly annexation agreement. 2) Transportation Chapter p p a) Within Stillwater CSAH 5 begins at TH 36 and ends at TH 96. It encompasses sections of Stillwater Blvd., Olive St, and Owens St. There are different locations within this Chapter where reference to CSAH 5 is unclear. b) Goals and Objectives: There is a mingling of Transportation, Transit and Pedestrian/Bicycle items. To help clarify each of these items, we would recommend that there be three sections. All objectives, policies and programs related to these main sections should be listed under these sections. c) Page 4, Program 5: It is likely that many of the locations selected for placement of these gateway signs will be along county roads. When the city begins to develop these guidelines, we would like to be a part of the process. d) Page 9, Year 2030 Traffic Volume Projections: The projections shown on Figure 4 assume that a new St. Croix River Bride has been constructed. We recommend that this information be included in the text to help clarify why some traffic volumes actually decrease on county roads (i.e. CSAH 5 and CSAH 12) e) Page 11, Minor Arterials: Within the city limits CSAH 12 starts at CSAH 15 goes to CSAH 5 (Owens St). East of CSAH 5 the road becomes a city street (Myrtle). Any reference to the section east of CSAH 5 should not be shown as a county road. Myrtle St east of CSAH 5 is classified as a B Minor Arterial. f) Page 18: The bullets identified for corridor expansion consideration should be clarified. CSAH 5 from TH 36 to Croixwood is a 4-lane divided roadway. From Croixwood Ave to TH 96, CSAH 5 is a 2-lane roadway. The section from Croixwood Ave to Owens St has traffic volumes below the LOS D/E boundary. g) Page 18: The second bullet should read "CSAH 24 from TH 36 to 62nd Street." Traffic volume decreases significantly north of 62nd Street. h) Page 18: The third bullet should read "CSAH 5 north of CSAH 12 to TH 96." i) Page 18: The fourth bullet should read "Myrtle St east of CSAH 5." Also, there are no traffic volumes shown on the map for Myrtle St east of CSAH 5 so it is unclear why this section is identified. j) Page 18: There are no traffic volumes shown on Figure 4 for Brick St between CSAH 5 and CSAH 12. They should be shown on the map if this section of road is going to be identified as a roadway needing expansion based on traffic volumes. k) Page 19, Key Intersections and Roadway Extensions: The acronym for Intersection Control Ranking System should be changed to ICRS. 1) Page 20, Curve Crest Blvd and 62nd St: The county strongly supports the connection of these two roads and encourages the city to establish these roadways as collectors and design them to that standard. m) Page 20, CSAH 5/Owens Street/Myrtle Street Intersection: The traffic study for this intersection and the surrounding area has been completed. A copy of that study has been sent to 1) Land Use Chapter a) No response necessary 2) Transportation Chapter a) Reference to CSAH 5 will be clarified. b) The steering committee considered separate sections for each transportation mode, but decided against it. c) When the city begins considering gateway signage, we will include the county in the consideration process. d) We will include this in the text. e) The noted corrections will be made. f) The identified revisions will be made. g) Correction will be made as noted. h) Correction will be made as noted. i) We'll either add the volumes to the map, remove the segment from the list, or clarify further why it is on the list. j) We'll either add the volumes to the map, remove the segment from the list, or clarify further why it is on the list. k) We'11 take care of htat. 1) The 62nd Street connection will be designed as a collector. m) We will reword this section of the chapter to reflect the current status of the study. n) The preferred Brick Street collector improvement is NOT TO WIDEN the road. Rather, it is to add a center turn lane and eliminate on -street parking. o) We will make this revision. p) It is recognized that not having a full movement intersection at Northland and CSAH 12 is contrary to a number of goals iterated in the Comp Plan. And while many people agree with the assessment, it was not politically possible for the City to adopt a plan that would allow additional traffic into Croixwood. q) It was not politically possible for the City to adopt a plan that would allow additional traffic into Croixwood. 1) No 2) a?gyres b) No c) No des P, j %s e s % s n) No ,'p p) No q) No 3 of 6 Draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan Review Agency Comments & Responses the City Engineering Department. The results of that study show that capacity improvements are needed as the CSAH 12/CSAH 5/Myrtle St intersection. However, through an open house held for this study, we received much feedback on this area, particularly related to on -street parking and pedestrian crossings. The county is currently taking the results of the study and feedback from the open house under consideration and has no immediate plans to make changes to the area. In addition, the construction of the new St. Croix River bridge is expected to reduce traffic volumes in this area. n) Page 22, Brick St, Second Paragraph: The explanation given for the expansion of Brick Street is unclear. Based on the projected traffic volumes, this roadway is well under the capacity of a 2-lane roadway. A clearer explanation should be given as to why this roadway is recommended to be widened. Also, if the city is proposing to encourage traffic to use Brick St as a collector road and connection between CSAH 12 and CSAH 15, there should also be discussion about any needed improvements on CSAH 12 and CSAH 5 at this intersection. o) Page 22, Brick Street, Third Paragraph: Washington County uses MnDOT State Aid standards for design standards. Washington County should be removed from reference and replaced with MnDOT State Aid. p) Page 23, CSAH 12 at Northland Avenue Intersection: The discussion in the section revolves around a future roadway connection to the north opposite of the existing Northland Avenue access location. The county fully supports the future street connection to align with the existing Northland Avenue intersection. However, the focus in this section is on how to limit movements. at this intersection to minimize through traffic traveling south on Northland Avenue from the. north. This seems to be a contradiction to Goals 1, 2, 3 and 6 and several of the objectives, policies and programs identified in this chapter. q) Figure 5 (Roadway Functional Classification): Central and western Stillwater are supported by four existing collector roadways under the city's jurisdiction (Croixwood Boulevard, Northland Avenue, Boutwell Road and Neal Avenue). The city should carefully consider the effects of any plan to limit traffic on Northland Avenue and Croixwood Boulevard, because these two roadways will likely no longer function as collector roads, but as local streets. This will leave two existing roadways that function as collector roadways for the area where most of the city's growth will occur. If there are not sufficient collector streets to support the transportation system, local streets and minor arterials will act in part as collector roads. This will begin to violate expectations of the drivers and the adjacent land owners as to the purpose of these roadways. Because central and western Stillwater are going to experience the majority of the growth for the city, we would encourage the city to develop a robust roadway system plan that identifies future collector streets and how they connect to the county and state highways and other collector streets. 3) Parks and Trails Chapter a) Page 3, Program 4: We would recommend including Washington County as a governmental unit that you may want to integrate into your system. b) Page 16, Third Paragraph: The trail on the north side of McKusick Lake is part of the system around Lake McKusick that connects to the McKusick Ravine trail but is a county trail (maintained by the city). The County Road 12 trail and the County Road 5 trail, at the north and south entrances to the city, are also county trails (maintained by the city). c) Page 18, Second Paragraph: The White Bear Lake -Stillwater Regional Trail is identified in the Lake Links Trail Network Master Plan as the HWY 96 Corridor and includes the Brown's Creek Ravine trail. 4) Miscellaneous a) Land and Water Legacy: Washington County's Land and Water Legacy Program will have 4 of 6 3) Park Chapter a) An oversight; it will be added. b) The city has no formal agreement with the county to maintain the CSAH 12 trail or the CSAH 5 trail north of town. The text will be changed to reflect agreements that exist for other trail segments. c) This language will be added. 4) Miscellaneous a) Unfortunately at this late date, geographically —specific 3) 4) a) No Draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan Review Agency Comments & Responses matching funds available to assist local governments to acquire interests in land to meet local land protection priorities. To qualify for the County's funds, projects must be in a local land protection plan. Washington County encourages Stillwater to include geographically -specific land protection priorities in the parks and open space section of your comprehensive plan. b) Groundwater Resources i) Page 2, Chapter 2 — Land Use: The city could incorporate the implementation action below as an additional policy within this section: "Require groundwater monitoring plan or groundwater protection plan as part of a permit application for businesses that store, use, or transport hazardous materials and for properties formerly used as a waste disposal site or waste transfer facility. Where available, use wellhead protection plans to assist with this process." ii) Page 3, Chapter 3 — Natural Resources: The county recommends incorporating the implementation action below within this section: "Develop land use regulations to protect groundwater resources based on completed studies and rankings of groundwater recharge areas." iii) Page 3, Chapter 3 — Natural Resources: The countysuggests referencingand gp gg supporting the Washington County Groundwater Plan within this section with language such as: "The Washington County Groundwater Plan provides a county -wide framework for the protection and conservation of groundwater resources. The Groundwater Plan "ownership" and implementation falls to every community, watershed organization and state agency with a vested interest in protecting Washington County's groundwater resources." iv) Page 19, Chapter 3 — Natural Resources: The county suggests including the city's Wellhead Protection Plan (WHPP), in accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 7420. The county suggests including the city's WHPP delineation map(s). The county also recommends incorporating the implementation action below in support of the WHPP: "Assure coordination with other LUGs for groundwater sensitive areas, wellhead protection areas, water use contingency and allocation plans, and other groundwater issues where the plans may affect other jurisdictions." v) Page 1, Chapter 10 — Water Resources: The county suggests including details of the WHPP and maps in this section or at least make a reference to the section on WHPP in Ch 3 — Natural Resources. c) Healthy Communities Comments i) Ch 8 — Parks: It is suggested that the City consult the resources for Safe Routes to School http://www.saferoutesinfo.or document to assist with trail plans. The city will land protection priorities will have to wait for a future amendment to the 2030 plan. b) Groundwater Resources i) and ii) While groundwater protection is an important public policy issue, it was not part of the scope of the 2030 Comp Plan Update and requires more study and public discourse in order to develop an implementation strategy. iii) This can be incorporated into the 2030 Comp Plan. iv) We can include a reference to our Wellhead Protection Plan. We can add the WHPP delineation map(s). v) We can add the reference. c) Healthy Communities Comments i)Our Public Works De ailiiient consults the Pk?�). Safe Routes to School documents. On our system maps we can clearly identify the stairs, and perhaps the number of steps. ii) On our system maps we show the various pedestrian ways into downtown. Unfortunately, even if a user of the system avoids the staircases into downtown, the steep grades of sidewalks is unavoidable. iii) We can calculate and add the number of trail miles: Perhaps we can do this with the number of sidewalk miles as well. b) i) No ii) No 1t Yes v) c) ii) No also be using existing links between neighborhoods including stairs. The county would recommend that alternative routes for people who cannot navigate stairs also be considered or that maps indicate the change of terrain to assit with appropriate level of use. ii) Ch 9 — Transportation: Page 4 references the use of connecting stairways for linking neighborhoods to other amenities. The county would recommend that alternate routes for people with various abilities be considered. iii) Page 16, Ch 8 — Parks: The description of parks leaves out the number of trail miles. City of Oak Park Heights 2/4/09 1) Land Use Chapter a) Objective within Community Size, Shape, Separation section states: "Encourage neighboring communities to incorporate compatible land uses along their corporate limits that are shared with the City of Stillwater". The City of Oak Park Heights agrees with this and has a similar No response requested/necessary No 5 of 6 Draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan Review Agency Comments & Responses . statement in their Comprehensive Plan. b) Appendix A, Site A (former Bergman site) guides the land use here for Research and Development in a business park setting. The Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan guides land use across Highway 36 to the south as commercial or business park. 2) Parks and Trails Chapter a) Goal 3 of the Parks, Trails and Riverfront section of the chapter states: "Work to develop an area -wide interconnected recreation and facilities plan with other local governments..." The City of Oak Park eights supports this statement and indicates a similar goal within its plan. b) Under Program 4 of the Efficient Use of Facilities section, a statement reads: "Explore methods to integrate a trail system within the systems of surrounding local governments." The draft Parks and Trails Plan map for the City of Oak Park Heights shows the potential interconnections between the Stillwater and Oak Park Heights trail systems. The interconnections align with what the City of Stillwater's plan. 3) Transportation Chapter a) Policy 12 of the Transportation Chapter states: "New and upgraded bridges, crossings, overpasses and TH 36 frontage road shall include bicycle lanes where feasible". The City of Oak Park Heights supports this policy. 4) Community Resources Chapter a) Policy 4 indicates: "Coordinate the provision of urban services, water, sewer, stoiui sewer policy, police and fire protection with adjacent local governments to provide more efficient services and save costs." The City of Oak Park Heights is in agreement and their plan provides a similar policy. 5)Implementation Chapter a) Under the Intergovernmental Coordination section, the plan states: "Continued coordination with these entities is integral to ensuring successful implementation of the plan". The City of Oak Park Heights pledges to do the same in its plan. City of Grant 2/18/09 Natural Resources Chapter includes a policy statement that "Encourages the City of Grant and Stillwater Township to use the rural cluster concept in areas adjacent to the City of Stillwater to maintain open space/recreation opportunities". The City of Grant does not permit cluster developments and would request that Stillwater change the proposed policy statement to reflect the City of Grant's existing policies. We could change our language to state Stillwater's preference for clustered development, but state that we recognize and honor the City of Grants existing policies. es City of Lake Elmo 4/17/09 No comments No response requested/necessary No Stillwater Township 2/18/09 1) Natural Resources Chapter Natural Resources Chapter includes a policy statement that "Encourages the City of Grant and Stillwater Township to use the rural cluster concept in areas adjacent to the City of Stillwater to maintain open space/recreation opportunities". The Township currently allows and encourages cluster developments and supports this policy. 2) The Plan mentions that the City will request an amendment to the Orderly Annexation Agreement because of land use proposed in the Annexation Area which does not meet the requirements of the Annexation Agreement. The Township will work with the City through the Joint Planning Board regarding any proposed amendment to the Annexation Agreement. No response requested/necessary No 6 of 6