The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009-06-08 CPC Packet11water r H cirtHOFASTILLWATER A PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 8, 2009 The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, June 8, 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 May 11, 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. 09-14. 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. 4.02 Case No. 09-18. A Zoning Text Amendment to the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District for special use permits for automotive sales. James and Joyce, Melton, applicant. 4.03 Case No. 09-19. A variance request for the construction of a 22' x 22' garage located at 3025 Marine Circle in the RA, Single Family Residential District, Ronald Larson, applicant. 4.04 Case No. 09-20. A variance request for the placement of a shed in the required front yard setback located at 1921 Broadway Street North in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Melana Morgan, applicant. 4.05 Case No. 09-21. A amendment to the residential planned unit development for house plans and site plan revisions located in the Millbrook Subdivision. Joe Jablonski, U.S. Home Corporation, applicant. 4.06 Case No. 09-22. A special use permit for outside seating and a variance to the parking regulations (Marx Wine Bar and Grill) located at 243 Main Street South in the CBD, Central Business District. Mark Hanson, applicant. 4.07 Case No. 09-04. An amendment to the planned unit development for the sign guidelines and sign ordinance for the Village Commercial District, Liberty Village, located at the southeast corner of Bounty Roads 12 and 15. Marc Putman, Putman Planning and Design, applicant. 4.08 Case No. 09-23. A variance for the construction of an addition on a non -conforming lot located at 505 West Maple Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Levi Brueegemann, applicant. OTHER BUSINESS CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 • WEBSITE: www.ci.stillwater.mn.us City of Stillwater Planning Commission May 11, 2009 Present: Chair Middleton, Suzanne Block, Robert Gag, Dan Kalmon, Mike Kocon, John Malsam, Scott Spisak and Charles Wolden Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge and Community Development Director Bill Turnblad Chair Middleton called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Malsam, seconded by Mr. Gag, moved approval of the minutes of April 16, 2009. Motion passed 7-0, with Mr. Kocon abstaining. OPEN FORUM PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 09-09 A variance request for construction of a 16'x26' attached garage at 2018 Broadway St. N. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Jack Diethert, applicant. The applicant was not present. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings. He noted that the request meets the three criteria necessary for the granting of a variance and staff recommends approval with one condition. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Wolden pointed out the request meets side yard setbacks and impervious surface coverage despite being on a non -conforming lot and moved approval as presented and conditioned. Mr. Malsam seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No.09-10 A variance to the parking regulations and an amendment to a special use permit for construction of a 3-story building at 109 N. Second St. in the CBD, Central Business District. Richard Anderson, applicant. The applicant was present. Community Development Director Turnblad reviewed the proposal and noted the design was approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. He also noted the proposal meets zoning requirements such as height, setbacks, and impervious coverage. The plan does not meet parking requirements; however, he noted the development agreement for the parking ramp includes a provision allowing for construction of a banquet facility at the site in question, and in the Downtown Parking District, it is allowable to meet parking requirements by arrangements other than on -site parking. He concluded that approval is recommended with the conditions as listed in the staff report. Mr. Middleton asked about the parking permits for the new parking ramp. Mr. Turnblad stated the Downtown Parking Commission is still working on the details, but he reviewed the possible types of permits that will be available. Mr. Turnblad said a spread sheet of space uses has been prepared, and there remains a "healthy number" of spaces the City would still like to sell. Mr. Middleton said with the number of new construction projects going on in the area, he wants to be sure there are enough public spaces available; Mr. Turnblad assured the Commission that would be the case, noting that currently about half the spaces would still be available even if there is a moderately aggressive sale of spaces to local businesses. Mr. Gag asked why an amended special use permit is required, when the proposal involves the same use as the current use; Mr. Turnblad responded that whenever a use is expanded, the special use permit 1 t City of Stillwater Planning Commission May 11, 2009 needs to be amended, and he noted that banquet use is a bit different than restaurant use. Mr. Spisak asked about the arrangement between the Lowell Inn and the parking ramp development. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the parking ramp development agreement provisions that pertain to the Lowell Inn, as well as the physical connections linking the ramp to the Lowell Inn facility. Mr. Kocon asked how handicapped parking will be accommodated; Mr. Turnblad stated the Lowell Inn currently has handicapped spots on the street, and there will be 2-4 designated handicapped spots located near the elevator tower on each floor in the ramp. Mr. Spisak asked about the provision for trash enclosures; Mr. Turnblad explained how Mr. Anderson intends to meet that requirement. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Gag noted that plans seem to be in line with what has been anticipated regarding the Lowell Inn expansion, suggesting that the use fits and parking requirements can be met, and moved approval as conditioned. Mr. Kocon seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 09-11 A variance request for construction of a porch at 805 Fifth St. S. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Gregg Carlsen, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the request and staff findings. He pointed out the impervious surface coverage will be reduced in this proposal, but because this is a non- conforming lot, surface coverage will still be above what is allowable; a rain garden is proposed to mitigate the storm water runoff. Mr. Kocon asked about the placement of the rain garden, whether that is determined by the watershed district; Mr. Turnblad stated that is done by City engineering staff in collaboration with the responsible watershed agency. The applicant stated the house has had some moisture problems in the basement and this is an attempt to solve that problem, as well as improve the aesthetics of the home. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Kocon asked the applicant about changes to the roofline of the house; Mr. Carlsen explained that change. Ms. Block moved approval as conditioned. Mr. Kalmon seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 09-13 A variance to the setback and height regulations for construction of an office building at 107 Third St. N. in the PA, Public Administration, and CBD, Central Business District. Michael Monn, HAF Architects, representing Trinity Lutheran Church, applicants. Present representing the applicant were a representative of Trinity Lutheran Church, and Michael Monn. Mr. Pogge reviewed the requested variances and staff findings. He noted the property is split into two zoning districts, CBD on the southern portion and PA on the northern portion. He stated approval of the three variances is recommended with 13 conditions as listed in the staff report. Ms. Block asked expressed a concern about the loss of the previously free parking spaces due to the parking ramp project and asked whether there is a provision to make up for those free spaces in the ramp; Mr. Pogge noted a number of free spaces will be available in the ramp, but stated he was unsure whether they would be limited to three hours, as is the practice elsewhere 2 City of Stillwater Planning Commission May 11, 2009 in the downtown. Mr. Wolden asked about the flow of traffic and the location of drive -up mailboxes. Mr. Pogge reviewed the traffic circulation and the location of the postal drop boxes; a representative of Trinity Lutheran Church reviewed the location of one-way and two-way traffic patterns. Mr. Gag asked about the Heritage Preservation Commission review; Mr. Pogge responded the HPC added several conditions and approved only the foundation footprint, pending additional information regarding lighting plans, materials, and colors. Mr. Spisak asked about retaining walls that go over the east property line; Mr. Monn explained there is an agreement with the adjoining property owner for construction of the retaining wall and shared terrace area and the adjoining owner is in complete agreement with the proposal. Mr. Kalmon asked about the condition regarding the possibility of a second entrance to the Post Office; Mr. Pogge stated the HPC asked that this be looked into due to a concern about the prominence of the tower feature and the appearance this is the main entrance to the building and the Post Office. Mr. Pogge said if the second entrance is not possible, the HPC suggested perhaps moving the tower feature to the north or lessening the tower's appearance on the building. The Trinity Church representative stated the Post Office has agreed to a second entrance so there will be modifications to allow entrance to the Post Office from the building lobby area. Mr. Gag asked about the reason for the prominence of the tower feature; Mr. Monn explained it is due to aesthetics as well as the provision of a mezzanine space so it is a functioning architectural piece. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. Richard Kilty asked about plans for the existing postal building; the applicants responded that is undetermined at this point. Mr. Turnblad pointed out when reuse of the building does occur, the plans will have to go through the same process as a new development. No other comments were heard, and the hearing was closed. Ms. Block asked about the style of architecture; Mr. Monn said the intent was not to utilize a particular style but to complement and respect some of features of the adjacent buildings. Ms. Block suggested the building plans follow the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan and downtown design guidelines. Mr. Spisak said he was comfortable with the setbacks and parking provisions but suggested a condition be added clarifying the circulation patterns will be as stated at this meeting and also said he had a problem with the height variance; he wondered whether the Commission should be acting at this time, given the outstanding issues remaining with the HPC. Mr. Gag agreed he would like to see the final product before taking action, saying he was still wrestling with the height variance. Mr. Pogge pointed out the issues the HPC looks at and the issues the Planning Commission looks at are very different and the real issues before the Planning Commission are non -design related. Mr. Middleton pointed out that conditions 11-13 cover the issues of concern to the HPC. Ms. Block suggested the tower adds to the building, despite the need for a variance; Mr. Pogge said if the height variance is of concern, it could be limited to the tower area. Mr. Kalmon asked about the view of the tower from the St. Croix River; Mr. Monn stated it won't be as prominent as the Trinity steeple; about 10-11 feet above the roofline will be visible from the River. Mr. Kocon said a height variance for the entire roof would be a different matter, but suggested the tower feature does make the building interesting, does reflect surrounding building features, and, as noted by Mr. Kalmon, is a usable space. On a question by Ms. Block, Mr. Monn stated this building would utilize green technology and the goal is to have the building lead certified. 3 City of Stillwater Planning Commission May 11, 2009 Mr. Kalmon moved to approve the variances as requested with the 13 conditions of approval and the additional condition limiting the height variance to the steeple/tower area only. Ms. Block seconded the motion. Mr. Wolden suggested major modifications come back to not only the HPC but also the Planning Commission. Mr. Kalmon amended his motion to reflect Mr. Wolden's suggestion that major modifications to the zoning use permit come back to the Planning Commission for review/approval. Ms. Block agreed to amend her second; amended motion passed unanimously. Case No. 09-15 A special use permit for a wireless antenna facility at 523 Marsh St. W. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. T-Mobile, Steve Carlson, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the proposal and staff findings. He noted the proposal generally meets the eight requirements for the issuance of a special use permit for such a facility. In addition, the City contracted with an engineering firm to review the proposal, and the consulting engineer agreed with the need for the facility for T-Mobile's coverage and that the facility would have no adverse health or safety impacts. Mr. Pogge also noted that the general requirement to have antennas internally located in this instance would require the tower to be higher than allowable. Steve Carlson, T-Mobile, briefly spoke to measures being taken to minimize the impact of the externally -mounted antennas. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. Dan Smith, owner of KLBB radio, 114 S, Brick St., stated he had not had a lot of time to review the proposal; he said his main concern is with RF interference. Ms. Block asked if that concern is related to this proposal only or to any such facilities in the community. Mr. Smith stated potentially any antenna facility could impact the station. Mr. Spisak pointed out there is a note in the engineer's report that says a further study of possible pattern interference will need to be conducted for T-Mobile for the protection of the KLBB station. A representative of the consulting engineering firm stated the FCC has regulations in place that address this concern; he said no study is required for towers located more than one-half mile from an AM station. Mr. Wolden asked who is responsible for correcting any potential problem with interference; Mr. Carlson stated this is covered by the FCC rules and said correcting any problem would be T-Mobile's responsibility according to those rules. The consulting engineer addressed the definition of interference, in this case meaning structural interference, not radio interference, and stated he did not foresee any problem. Mr. Spisak pointed out that in March, the guidelines were changed to state that stealth towers are the preferred design in residential areas; Mr. Pogge pointed out the Council did not take action until May and this application was made before the new guidelines were adopted. Mr. Kocon noted that although the proposed tower is not a stealth tower, it will replace an existing light pole and not create another tower or visual obstacle in the neighborhood. Mr. Kocon moved to approve the requested special use permit as conditioned. Mr. Malsam seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 09-14 A special use permit for a wireless antenna facility at 1900 Myrtle St. W. in the RA, Single Family Residential District. AT&T Mobility and T-Mobile, Ken Nielsen and Steve Carlson, applicants. Mr. Carlson stated they had looked into tabling this request in light of looking further into the AM radio tower location. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and said staff is recommending that this 4 City of Stillwater Planning Commission May 11, 2009 be tabled, in part because City code requires any request within one-half mile of another tower be studied for possible co -location with the existing tower. Mr. Pogge noted the KLBB tower is about one -quarter mile away from the proposed new location; he stated the KLBB tower is 50 years old and both T-Mobile and the engineering consultants believe it is not capable of accommodating the requested equipment. Mr. Pogge pointed out the engineering study states that T-Mobile could replace the KLBB tower as an alternative; however, he stated there are several aesthetic and technical issues that need to be considered should that alternative be pursued. Mr. Pogge pointed out that co -locating both AT&T and T-Mobile on the radio station tower affects RF interference between the radio station and the carriers requiring additional equipment; he also spoke to several potential safety issues. Aesthetic concerns Mr. Pogge spoke to included the required width of the tower, the number of cables, and the non -conformity of the existing tower. Mr. Pogge said staff has had some preliminary discussions with the station owner, Dan Smith, but staff would recommend tabling this request pending further discussions with the three parties. Mr. Kalmon said he would like to see some visual representation of how a new tower would impact the view coming east on Myrtle Street, which is a gateway to the City. Ms. Block also suggested a view across McKusick Lake would be helpful. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. Mr. Smith reiterated his comments made during the earlier case (09-15). No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. The consulting engineer said while his report indicates that it may be possible to co -locate the wireless antennas with the AM tower, he said there are potential problems and it would be a complicated endeavor; he said in reality, technically, the AM tower will not be able to handle the co -locations Mr. Carlson said they feel comfortable that they meet the intent of the City ordinance with the application on the table, but would be OK with tabling the request so the City feels comfortable they are making the right decision. Ms. Block suggested with the explanation from the engineer and the potential safety problems, the Commission ought to vote on the proposal as presented. Mr. Gag said given the fact that Mr. Smith just received the proposal, it would be good to table for 30 days. Mr. Smith said he would like time to consult with engineers before a decision is made. Mr. Gag moved to table; Mr. Wolden seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-1, with Mr. Kalmon voting no, saying he would like to see more information regarding views as a gateway to the City and across Lake McKusick. Case No. 09-17 A special use permit request for the renovation of an existing duplex into an art and cultural center and variance to the parking regulations at 224 Fourth St. N. in the PA, Public Administration District. Brian Larson, Larson Brenner Architects, applicant. Brian Larson, representing ArtReach Alliance, was present. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the request and staff findings. He noted the use is allowable under the PA zoning district. The primary issue at this point, he said, is the need for a parking variance, noting that most of the required spaces could be accommodated in on -street parking. Mr. Middleton pointed out that the library's parking ramp has alleviated the parking needs for the immediate area, and said he had spoken with a nearby business owner who is fully in support of the project. 5 City of Stillwater Planning Commission May 11, 2009 Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Gag, seconded by Mr. Kalmon, moved approval as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. 09-16 Refinements to the draft 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Map. City of Stillwater, applicant. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the parcels in 13 areas that need to be refined to be consistent with the draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the recommended changes in the land use. Most of the changes were to institutional property, changing the guiding land use to be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. In area C, pertaining to two parcels owned by Stillwater Country Club, Mr. Gag, seconded by Mr. Kalmon, moved to keep the parcels low/medium density residential rather than changing to park, recreation or open space. Motion passed unanimously. In area J, there was discussion regarding six parcels on Greeley south of Orleans, whether to designate the area as high density residential or medium density residential. Ms. Block suggested that given the location on Greeley, a high traffic volume road, it makes sense to designate it high density; it was consensus to designate high density as recommended. There also was discussion regarding the current gas station parcels at Curves Crest and Greeley whether to designate the property business park commercial or commercial. It was noted there is a mixture of uses in the area, but the anchor use is industrial; it was consensus to designate the use as industrial. There were no other votes taken; the Commission was in consensus with the recommended land use designations. Mr. Turnblad stated these changes would go to the Council at its next meeting and be forwarded to the Met Council along with the Comp Plan hopefully by the end of May. OTHER BUSINESS Review of agency comments on the draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan — Mr. Turnblad stated that all of the mandatory reviewing agencies have submitted comments, with a few courtesy reviews outstanding. He noted that all of the comments were included in the agenda packet, along with the City's response. Mr. Kalmon asked about the comment 2a from Brown's Creek Watershed District; Mr. Turnblad said he thought that request was overreaching. Mr. Kalmon said he thought the City should at least indicate it is aware of the problem and as new standards come out, the City will consider that in the engineering of its infrastructure. Mr. Turnblad noted that most of the comments were positive. Ms. Block acknowledged the efforts of Yvonne Klinnert, editor of the Courier News which has ceased publication. Ms. Block moved to adjourn at 10:35 p.m. Mr. Gag seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 6 Planning Commission DATE: REQUEST: 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. APPLICANT: Steve Carlson for T-Mobile and Ken Nielson for AT&T LAND OWNER: Stillwater Area School District (ISD #834) LOCATION: South central are of the site at 1900 Myrtle St W COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: SFLL - Single Family Large Lot ZONING: MEETING DATE: REVIEWED BY: Community Development Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner h memo are.i RA - One -Family Residential 1,(1139" #{ 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 M 5. 2009 June" , .20f 9 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 have requested the Planning Commission to consider and approve a Special Use Permit for the placement of the new communication tower. IAcTON By THE (( Commssio 200' u. DISCUSSION rol this u. 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 June;8 to answer any technical questions the Commission or public have on the proposed tower. City Code Section 31-512, Subd. 3 T-Mobile/AT&T Communication Tower 1900 Myrtle St W f u Page 3 8 009 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 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. On I/lay 21st, representatives from T-Mob 1e AT , and I LBI nett with Garrett ,vsiak of Owl Enoineerincrand City Staff F 21 l meetimY in consultation with the Cis corisulttn listed above, requiring the applicants to collocate the ante z `on tl e KLBB tower' would not appear to be the best alternative. Since there are suffic ent is ucs to he- T-Mobile/AT&T Communication Tower 1900 Myrtle St W May 5, 2069' JuneS. 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 I O8 ft2 and a height variance. ula C ci verbally r ret€ !hey. hive d t rnzin rtteritally.,rl c tt ltt r apt"tc .. o e cc u ' it t O et tally Staff has consulted with the City's RF engineer and he is in agreement with T-Mobile's position. „. ti.4, a.n�a.f..em.4.„'Lti . R� 1 r at tialll zoned dirt 0t City code states that antennas must be designed and situated to be visually unobtrusive. Bc tlt T-Mobile externally noorrfi,,. changes in t7 mounted ant'rtri s, ther e order Jor flier l za thi Case,:t; f�c r } I(!$ ? tpbe>r rep ltyr 1.teYt't l?E ss :1101 tas I ces the c?xtrr e t ouitweigh the vie o e tt rrzr lla zzoutateti ratcid U this loOg'ition, `1 2 City Code Section 31-512, Subd. 3 (a) T-Mobile/AT&T Communication Tower 1900 Myrtle St W May 5. 9009 June 8 2t1()3 Page 5 tgl The City's RF engineer has indicated that the tower zvould 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 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 proposed . ,e at 75 feet in height. be in tct (coi lld be wal}.�ct�a�.�-.rri f d'i-x r / ri r f..n��5atl� t%}��. {r� it sc� e4� Jon Additionally, the applicant has indicated in their application that they will permit collocation on the tower. T-Mobile/AT&T Communication Tower 1900 Myrtle St W laSA13 Jttrtc `?}f)9 Page 6 7. A tower may not be located within 100 feet of any existing or planned residential structure. The tozver 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. 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. 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 fihy 1 I, 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. to e. 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. ainted a .1, 'Woo the in order:to blend shall bt penodically painted in order to kE ;'detetx"nination o vvhcn th `tower ktt pity of S r i fix•: of ile, car the current shall x 9 asft�r fecei zng nc�tiee try the City.` Tl nthe other lIdar Tl It. epaint T-Mobile/AT&T Communication Tower 1900 Myrtle St W 004 June 00: Page 7 f. 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. The: ounnx 3. 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 is chooses to deny the request, staff would suggest that the Commission verbally provide the rational for denial and then table action to your Ju jj 1% 2009 meeting when staff will present a formal resolution denying the request for the Commission's consideration. RECOMMENDATION econulends pprc attachments: Applicant's Letter, site plan, and accompanying material THE SIR fHPl.a'.;E: OE MINNES024 Memo Community Development Department To: Planning Commission From: Michel Pogge, City Planner Date: Thursday, June 04, 2009 Re: Updated Report from Garrett Lysiak Message: As of the mailing of the packet, I was still awaiting an updated report from Garrett Lysiak of Owl Engineering. His report will be e-mail and mailed to each of you on Friday once I receive it. Thanks, Mike From the desk of... Michel Pogge, AICP • City Planner • City of Stillwater 216 N. 4th Street • Stillwater, MN 55082 651.430-8822 Fax: 651.430-8810 •email: mpogge@ci.stillwater.mn.us IWL ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS, INC. CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS • EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hemline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-784-7445 • Fax 551.784.7541 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 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 Miles 0.92 Miles 1.13 Miles 1.14 Miles 1.21 Miles 1.84 Miles 1.96 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 55128 651484.7445 • Fax 851.784.7541 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 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. 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 Mainline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-784-7445 • Fax 851.784.7541 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 1/2 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 ENCINEERING & EMC TEST LABS, INC. CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS - EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hemline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651.784.7445 • Fax 651.704.7541 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, xd-411) Garrett G. Lysiak, P.E. ose.i Michael P. O'Rourke 100 100 YARDS -�1 .300 4C0 FEET 100 METERS 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.OW 45-03-15.0N 092-49-43.0W 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 1994-AGL-1224-OE STILLWATER WI 45° 03' 39.00" N 92° 47' 34.00" W 1994-AGL-2842-OE HOULTON WI 45° 03' 39.00" N 92° 47' 28.00" W 1995-AGL-1403-OE HOULTON WI 45° 03' 27.00" N 92° 47' 22.00" W 1996-AGL-3554-OE STILLWATER WI 45° 03' 38.88" N 92° 47' 33.74" W 1997-AGL-1528-OE STILLWATER WI 45° 03' 38.88" N 92° 47' 33.74" W 1997-AGL-3334-OE HUDSON WI 45° 03' 39.98" N 92° 47' 36.54" W 1998-AGL-934-OE HUDSON WI 45° 03' 39.88" N 92° 47' 36.74" W 1998-AGL-6106-OE STILLWATER WI 45° 03' 38.88" N 92° 47' 33.74" W 1999-AGL-3334-OE HUDSON WI 45° 03' 40.00" N 92° 47' 36.40" W 2000-AGL-8288-OE STILLWATER MN 45° 02' 28.20" N 92° 50' 07.00" W 2001-AGL-3505-OE OAK PARK HTS. MN 45° 01' 57.86" N 92° 50' 06.43" W 2008-AGL-5879-OE Stillwater MN 45° 04' 21.10" N 92° 49' 05.19" W 870 178 1048 895 240 1135 882 250 1132 866 185 1051 866 198 1064 866 180 1046 864 199 1063 866 198 1064 866 185 1051 948 110 1058 959 165 1124 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 OMNB 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. 4`h 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 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. (1) 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-Mohile'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 RP -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 fora 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. (I I) 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. 1 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 light 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 stevePcarlsonharrington.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) i m Existing Tower uyed Tower photos Guyed tower with antennas ROCKSOL D COVERAGE G uyed Existing AM Tower Base '1•••'Y'r7"=54.,,T'•••'," ' • • • o s Multi -carrier guyed tower base RS KS C 0 V The existing guyed tower has an Approximate face size of 12". The minimum new tower size would Be approximately 30" or wider. G3D GUYED TOWER The G30 is specificelly developed for medium duty,, 2to 3 cellular carriers, and Enhanced 911 applications, Section Lengths are available in. 5`, 10 , & 20 . Typical Installations range to 400' , 3 , I 3 I s t , I 3 I , I , VICINITY MAP PROJECT DATA PROJECT AREA - * . EXTERIOR LEASE SPACE 2Y-OF 2 60.-C PARTE! ARP • .11 - irMli.il.lArl' BONING TYPE; - . 0 T Mobile• Id 75TH - -• '88 -• 0 •• , ELe'EVTTIO'RNT I FEET (NAV° 88) - • al OATF CIF si OW, TOORDNATEY (ANTENNA PICADOR,. .5, GENERAL NOTES SCOPE OF SUPPLY PROJECT TEAM 2::1;:: ';', iZ2 lilt al _. - - I. THE COICRACTOR SHALL SUPERVISE MO DIRECT WPRK, USING HIS BEST SKILL AK ATTENTION HE S.HALL BE SOLE, RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CONSTRUCTOR M... IFETHODS. 15. CONDUCTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IF MAILS ARE CONSIDERED UMOuND, DN.., NOT wATERPRDor, OR NOT WITHIN CUSTOMARY TRADE PRACTICE. IF 5 PERFORMED. •• E ....... .•....F.K ..- .. E...' ...F.... .. '.'.........' 3.'''''.IS .. THE FOLLOWING T..E DEUNENES THE RESPONSIBIUDES OE DEFERENT PARTIES INVOLVED RI CONI,ETINO THECT. IMPROVFIONTI nwANg 10000100 r-RGENE EGAN. FELD At 0WAK ASSESSOR, PARCEI NIMPFRI i-e c TECHNIQUES, PROCEDURES IND SEQUENCES FOR COORDI.TI00 ALL PORTIONS OF .E WORK UNDER THE CONTRACT WORK Fr mu. Go ASSUMED THAT THERE rs MO OBJECTION TO RESULT THE DEW. DETNLS ARE INTENDED TO SHOW THE ENO OF VI RAW LAND SITE IN CO LOCATION SITE 1 C CESTPE.I WIRELESS CORP. 7415 wAyZATA BLVD. 1.220V*SE. Ba1n STREET mINNEAPOLIS. MN S.25 MI r REpoRT DENTIFTTATIO„ 2. ME CONTRACTOR SHALL PSC THE Joe SITE TO REVIEW THE THE DESIGN. talloR moomcATIoNs niAT BE ((CLUE., AS ART OF THE WORK. ITEm FURNISHED ST INSTALLED al CD( FuRN5HED BY INSTALLED IR BELLERHE. wa Gene rASFInFNT NM, ..- SCOPE OF WO. AND con. JOB SITE CONDITIONS INCLUDINO, BUT NOT LIMITED 70 TOECHANICAL. ELECTRICAL 16. EXISTING ELEVATIONS MID LOCATIONS TO BE JOINED SHALL BC '...E T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR BTS PLAWORM IL -NOBLE CONTRACTOR -- SERVICE, AND OVERALL COORDINAT.. vENInco BY THE COMPACTOR BEFORE CONSTRUCTION. IF THEY DIFFER FROM THOSE SH.M. THE PLANS, THE 01.8 000110014 T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR ENS PLATFORM FOUNDATION CONTRACT. CONTRACT. .SITE OWNER Fl FETA CAI UT, IT, - - 3, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERITY ALL EXISTING. CONE/MONS CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ME ENGINEER SUCH TNT TOWER & TETS PUTFORTA TOUNO.ON CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR PURCELL CABINET (POWER/TELCO) T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR InN„EnT00ERN,T,IITL I,NTRIRT ,R. .GEL °IE..' SITE DIRECTIONS VgaT05 00°14.7044502,0110'01't ,-1,;,.,. BE moomcAnoNs GAN BE MADE BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH PIE WORK. PURCELL .BINET (POWER/TELCO) T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR PURCELL CABINET - BATTERIES T-MOCT.E CONTRICTTOR STILLWATER. MN 55082 , - REPORTED TO THE ENGTHFER REPGRE PROCEEDING WM PURCELL CABINET - .TTERIES T-MOBILE C.TRACT. BTS CABINETS T-110BILE CONTRACTOR SITE DIRECTIONS: -• • THE CONTRACTOR PROTECT ARE CONSIDERED CONSTRUCTION STANDAR.. IF THE BIS CABINETS T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR ANTENNA T-IXOBILF CONTRACTOR GO NORTH ON I-69+ FOR 5.4 MLES TO NM Sa co EAsT ON HITN 36 FOR MILES TO UKE ELMO AvENUE NORTH; GO NOP. ON UT. .m0 AvENoE - STULL ALL AR. FROM DAMAGE WHICH .Y OCC. DURING CONSTRUCTION. ANY DANAGE TO COMRACTOR HAS QUESTIONS REGARDING THEIR EXACT MEANING. THE EII.EER SHALL BE NORTE° FOR CLARIFICATIONS BEFORE ...„.., ""`TT- T-IJOBILE CONTRACTOR COAX CABLE T-1.10BILE CONTRACTOR AR.ITECT/ENOINFFR ER FP. F. iiTi Dix T MOBILE MINNEAPOLIS .1 NORTH FOR 1,5 TITLES TO 7510 SMEET NORTH: GO EAST oN 75. STREET NEW AND MD. CONSTRUCTOR. STRUCTURE, OR EOUIPMENT. STULL BE ITAMMIATELT REP.ED OR REP.E0 0 ME PROCEEDINO WITH WORK. COAX CABLE T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR JUMPER CASTES T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR 80. REST 78th STREET CREST NoRTH FoR 2.2 MILES TO WEST MYRTLE STREET: GO EAST ON WEST MYRTLE STREET FOR .3 MILES. SITE IS ON ME NORTH .DE OF WEST MYRTLE _. - .11SFACTION OF THE TENANT OR BUI.NG OWNER. OR 16. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROM!. ALL NIES,SAcr BLOCKING. JUMPER CABLES t-1.10BILE CONTRACTOR LTNA (LOW NOISE .PLIFIER) I -MOBILE CONTRACTOR SLOTE ADO „.. STREET. p. -... OWNERS REPRRENTATTVE. AT THE EXPENSE OF TIE . CONTRACTOR. gIA "lirtal,:fg`,I TLF"" ' " r'" '" L., (LOR NT5E ',MUT.) I -MOBILE CONTRACTOR GROUNDING KITS FOR COAX ,MOBILE CONTRACTOR CALL 8 HOURS BEFORE OIGGING - ' 1010 ID. CRY APPROVED PUNS S0L BE KEPT IN A PLAN BOX MD GROUNDING KITS TOR C.X T-MORILE C.TRACTOR SITE GROUNDING .TERIALS CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR GOPHER STATE ONE CALL -^ 21%`7,2:g"...PUELZIMtr.,or°,FIZI5k SHALL NOT BE USED Ft WORKMEN. ALL CONSTRUCTION SETS SITE GROUNDING MATERIALS CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR ANTENNA uouNTINC PPE R BRACKET .C.TRACTOR CONTRACT. „.„,„.„E„,. „ ,,,,,,, non CITIES 0002 - MATERIALS OR WORK.NSIBP OR ANY DAMAGE WHICH SHALL APPEAR WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE C.PLETON .AND SHALL REFLECT SAME INFORMATION THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO MAINUN IN GOOD CONDIT... ONE COMPLETE SET OP ANTENNA MOUNTNG pl. R s DAcKLT CONTRACT00 o oNTRAcT. yETY wAGUICIF BRIDGE (COPT TO R) CONTRACTOR CO NTRACTOR ,r.„„„,„ ff.E.L%I.-1....r./A.Z3gs 1.1 R. TOLL TREE I -800-25Z-1166 . ACCEPTANCE Or THE WORK UNDERTHI'S NTRACTI CO. PNS WtiN ALL RENSIONS, ADDENDA ANO CHANGE ORDERS ON THE PREMISE Ar ALL TIMES. THESE ARE TO BE UNDER THE LACARE wAvE.T. DRIPCE (EQPT TO PAR) CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR WAVEGUIDE IAODER (TOWER) CONTRACTOR CONDUCTOR .„,., .„,„ ..5 ' 'A'FILDS=17"EXTRIn'' OF THE JOB SUPERINTENDENT. WAVE520E LA120EN (Tow.) Comm... CONTRACTOR FENcE CoNTRACTOP coNTPACTOR LOINA. MN. SSAS, DRAWING INDEX ITZEITILZ;OTA'RrgltsR"E"AST. r07.12TRIW07,LXLEUROXFX"ClITiLlr=TCONIPLETrON FEN, cONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR UNDERGROUND WORK CONTRACTOR CONTRAcTal A AIN611 Tt NET I -CT PROJECT INFORMATION AND GENERAL NOTES INSITE PLAN OF WORK. ALL AREAS ARE TO BE LEFT IN A BROOM CLEAN CONDITION Al THE ENO OF EACH DAY CODES AND STANDARDS 2.0510120LIN WORK SITEWORK CONTRA,. CONTRACTOR CONTRACT. CONTRACTOR SITEWO. POWER DISCONNECT & MTER BOX cONTRACTOP CONTRACTOR CONTRACT. CONWUCTOR ABBREVIATIONS Al N61 I - OS EN.GEO SITE PLAN 0I0611-A1 ANTENITIA INFORMATION AND TOWER ELEVATION ---. T. THE CONTRACTOR SRA. SAFEGUARDET;TE OWNERS PROPERTY POWER 05.NNECT le METER B. CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR METER „pum „x„.„-• ARCM. ARCHITECT A MPERE OR AMMETER °T.:40RrEFFT%:'OrTTIrE7LIT'Tg"011-0IFTAI.T01'4N'rB7FTER. gLITICTI"07V15IrrOLMTIOCl2ITCATNS';' L'E' ''''''r" ''''" UTLITT LAI, BLDG. BUILDING OF CIRCUIT onANEN AMP FRAME(011.0) C.D. CATO, MN KF .OVE FINISH FLO. • 1 P C.L. CENTER LINE A/C ABOVE GROUND MG. CEILING . AUTOMATIC TRANSFER SWITCH ST... ...DS. EI R B. IT 51-141 SE ME RESPONSIBUTY OE ME CONTRACTOR TO LOCATE ALL EX5T1NO mTELPJES. ARGNEN SHOWN HEREIN OR NOT. AND TO PROTECT THEM FROM CANOWE. THE T. AS111 (AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND .TERNLS) 2. Ad (AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE) WATER TOWER SITE I ROOFTOP SITE I CONC. CONCRETE NC AMPERE INTERRUPTING CARROTY CONST. CONSTRUCT. CB CIRCUIT SR.ER CORM CO TUCTOR cm STANDARD - ATS (1) - STANDARD EQUIPMENT CABINET PLAN VIEWS & ELEVATION VIEWS STANDARD - 000 (I) - ST.DARD EOUIPAIEM 0001001 PAN PEWS CONTRACTOR SHALL BEAR . EXPENSES FOR REP. OR REPLACEMENT OF UTILITIES OR OTHER PROPERTY DMIAGED IN 3. .0 (AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION) a. AY. (AMER.N WELDING SOCIETY) ITEM FURNISHED BY INSTALLED BY ITEM FURNISHED BY INSTALLED BY oRourt 0E7. DETAIL CU COPPER & ELEVATION VIEWS A CONJUNCT. WITH THE EXECUTOR OF WORK. S. WC oNTENnunooa. Gm.. CODE) 6. MOOT (BOINESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION) KS PUTTORTA T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR ROOFTOP PUTPORTA T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR DI OMMETER CEN GENERATOR MAG. DIAGONAL OFT GROUND FAULT INTERRUPTER STANDAR° - ASS () - STANDARD SITE IMPROVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS STANDAR° - AXS (I) - STANDARD FENCANG SPECIFICATIONS .9 ;Hi., BE RESPONSIBLE F,,DRp,,IZADT,APALEDTE /;;Igt.,CONTRACTAT Y AND fAMERICNEI TONAL STAN.,,DATS,,,TcZ.R.E2., BTS T'UTIFORIA FOUND.. CONDUCTOR CONTRACTOR ROOFTOP ANTENNA SLED/ATTACHMENT T-MOBNE CONTRACTOR DIM. DITAE.ON JD JuNCTION BOX „„. ..„ KVA KILOVOLT AMPERE(S) STANDARD - A. (T) - STANDARD FENCING SPEOEMATTONS I UNTIL'TZEOR IIS COLII7LLVDTER1.11.. ' B Iiii ?TTIT ,,...,,,,___. O. NEC uNsnorue. ELECTRICAL CON) .'T PURCELL CABINET (POWER/TELCO) T-MOB/LE GENTRA,TOR PURCELL CABINET (PowER/TELCO) T-TAGBILE C.TRAVOR DWG. DRAWING EA. EACH MATT S r '''FIER " STANDIND - EIS (I) - STANDARD ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS SUNDA. - E2S (I) - STANDARD UTILITY RA. SPECIFTCATIONS TO. ALL CONSTRUCTOR WORK SHALL CONFORM 10 THE IIB.C. AN „ 10. NE. (NATIONAL ELFCTR.L. MANJFACTURERS ASSOCIATI.) PURCELL GANNET - REITERIES T-1.10S. CONtrucToR PURCELL CAM./ - BATTERIES T-MOBILE CONDUCTOR ELEC. ILECTVga. HTS MANUAL TRANSFER SWITCH STANDARD - f 35 (1) - STANOARO ANTENNA. C., & GROUNDING SPECIFICATIONS „ AU. OTHER GOVERNING CODES. ALONG WTH THE GOVERNING .„...., 12, 05NA (OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HULTIIT ADMINISTRATOR) BTS GETINETS T-MOBILE CONTRACT. BTS CABINETS T-MODILE CONTRACTOR „. RE R....FUSED NI.C. STANDARD - EIS (I) - r4,IXTAgDAT,t1.1,•.;ERNA . COOT INSTALLATION RESTRICTIVE CODES. 11 UL (UNDEPWRITERS LABORATORES. INC) ANTENNA T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR ANTENNA NOT IN CONTRACT PNL RANEL STANDARD - ESS (I) - STANDARD EQUIPMENT BUILDING WIRING „ 11. THE CONTRACTOR AND ALL SuBCONTRACTORS SHALL COMPLY WM AU. LOCAL CODE ROGUUTIONS AND STATE DEPARTMENT ...BaBLB--- -.CAE BBB. (MD OR...ES o...2. T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR COM CABLE TT:r210..ILE ,Co,MTPAC,,,,,,o,T,O; c,,,,TEKCST. ...,E.XISIoNG. RH PHASE P. POLY., CHLORIDE SPECTFICATIONS OF INDUST._ RECUT...IS AND MOON OF INDUSTRIAL JUMPER CABLES T-TO.ILE OONTRACTOR JUMPER GOLFS T- C.TRACTOR CALIF GALVAM2CD ETPT RECEPTACLE RBS RIOO„,CALVANCED STELL STANUARD - E65 (I) - STAN.AD ...MOIR° SPECIFICATIONS FOR • SAFETY (0.A) REQUIREMENTS. REFER TO Ilif CODES SECTION OF THIS SHEET. LEGEND LNA (LOW NOSE AMPUFIER) T-MOBILE CONTRA.C1. LNA (LOW NOM AMPLIFIER) =1- CO0RACTOR R.N• HEIL,. HET. . SET L r uNEAL fEFT STANDARD - NIS (1) - SUNDA. ELEcTioCAL SPECIFICATIONS GENERA_ "' GROUNDING WS FOR COAX T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR GROUNO. K. FOR COAX T-MOBILE CONTRACTOR S. SYTOMETR.L TAIL METAL TA. TELEPHONE „„„E„ SUNDA. - N2S (1) - STANDARD CONSTRUCTOR SPECIFICATIONS . - ITLITEVrIg°1TISPVC11"01TIZETSPEP:OWPEr0R7Zr DETAIL NUMBER SITE GROUND!. HATTERLALS CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR STTE GROUNDING .TER1ALS CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR MIN. MINIMUM ,„„„ „,„„,...,E„,„, ,.." r.... GENERAL NOTES SHEET 1 STANDARD STANOARD CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS Of ME 0. AND INCLUDE THOSE IN ME COST OF THE RK TO THE OWNER. DETAIL STE GROUND. MATERIALS CO.UCTOR COMPACTOR SRE °ROUNDING .TERNIS coNTANcron coNnucroa G.T.G. N. To GGNAG u/G UNDERGROUND o C ON CENTER - N. (1) - GENERAL NOTES SHEET 2 • 13. E'XIURED DIMENSIONS HAW PRECEDENCE OVER DRAWING SC.. 401 ANTENNA AWKHEMENTS (TOWER) CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR ANTENNA MOUNTING PIPE & BRACKET CONDUCTOR C.TRACT. V VOLT PL. PUTE W WATTS OR WIRE STANDARD - SFS (T)• - STANDARD EQUIPMENT PUTECRAI FOUNDATION PIAN. SECTIONS. AND DETARS S AND DETAIL DRAWINGS HAVE PRECEDENCE OVER SMALL ANTENNA MOUNTING PIPE & BRACKET CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR ROOFTOP C.X ATTACHMENTS .1.11RACTOR CONTRACTOR ;E,O. C. 1%X.t..m, WP WEATHERPROOF MR wATMOuR mEl. STANDARD - 52S (I) - STANDARD ALICITor. EOLIONEHT PLATY°. SCALE DR..= CNECK ALCURACY Of ALL IMMERSIONS IN ME F FLO. UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED. DO NOT F0R.TE DRAWING ON WH. ORIGINAL DETAJL WAS DRAWN SUNK DENOTES OETNL IS WAYEGUIDE BRIDGE (EQPT TO TINR) CONIT5CTOR CONTRAMoR uNcEpcpuums v.. CONTRACTOR CONDUCTOR 5.S. ST.LESS STEEL UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE SPECTICADOM ''''''''' - S" (r) - i ANY MATERIALS OFF -SITE. OR PERFORM ANY CONSTRUCTOR UNTIL THE ON SAME DURING COAX ArrAcoGNEArs M.) CO.LACTOR CONTRACTOR SITEWORK CONTRACTOR cONTPACTOR SIM. 5111.R spEcS. SPICIFICAROMS ZA=EftrarTPE'L('7CZZNI)"'S'" ACCu0Y OF D./ANG OMONSIONS WIVE BEEN V.IFIED AGAINST ACTUAL FIELD DIMENSIONS. SECT. LEWER FENCE CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR POWER DISCONNECT 1k KIER BOX OGNTRACTOR CONDUCTOR STO STANOARD ,,L. 8yEET_ STANOARD - 54S (1) - STANDARD ANTENNA & C.X MOUNTING SPECIFICATIONS FOR FLUTE° WATER TOWER 1 14. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY CONFLICTS UNDERGROUND 0RK CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR METER UTILITY MIL. STRUCT. SMUCTURAL TOP OF CURB STANDARD - S5S (I) - r,„Emo,,,,,,....77,,,t= MOUNTING SURFACE TANKS & 1 OR ISCREPANCIES WITHIN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS WITH THE CONDUCT DOCUMENTS ME FIELD PRIOR El SECTION SNEWORK CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR T.,. EDP. TOP Of PANIC LEGS N. C.DITIONS TO EXECUTING ME WORK IN QUESTION. Exp., TTIF.L ''''' STANDARO - SOS (I) - STANDAR° COAX CABLE INSTAlUTION SPECIFICATIONS FANDAPID - S7S (1) - STAN.. CPS AMEN. AM3 COAX CABLE ;," ITS'11: [TP , BOTT. OP INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS ...NG SaS (I) STANDARD TYPICAL EQUIPMENT BUILDING PL. NEWS - -8., h sE 'OESVIAAL ÷.. new, etty.soreo ethis N'anW ma. Ha 1 (/RA20W(09 SUED FOR PROP TFA'SN. SmOMLaEN.RTOMOEAUS PU.RS.OEP.EO.N.LY H5c.o.IN' .O. 7pecf.seton, :M 2 r,„AN wLeL.m.w rcy nomo JcnAooYCNEEWE FIELDS A1N611 2 3/2/0 ooNNEDACCESSETSEMENT .........,....................-....------- -- • NT.HnEoe' DN C.O.NS.IDPETR.AT.O.N FOT DN, .MNSIFT.TrMYFT.W. 'F''''''''.PROJECTINFO.&GENERA L NOTES -----.--- •I I• TM• . BN • • 0 1 e R" TI - 010801 N 1/./0 - ..- . NOR 01E0 FOR ANT PURPOSE OTHER THAN w.1 H rr ts Ma xxxx MYRTLE STREET STILLWATER, MINNESOTA __,.„....--.--. FL/WISHED. 17E52 .... . Kurt SCALY ORMAN°. NumBEIR - . . .. . - - - - --- MINNEAPOLIS MARKET AS NO. A1N611-T1 • 1.044..1.Glas[(1 WOE - V. 0 P.. 0 5w6 Mr WWII - VO 0 MO 0 moo. Rm. - Rs o . s two tm No/ 010401111020 B B B I B I I -AANA 1 . , I I \ \ \ \\ XI 1 k:R TRANSFSTING ORMER ezG ze _ IGRR�; RKIo �� FL ,.,, \ \ .� • � I (I (PROVIDED p ORD) BwreE'%/EXISTING-)/ NC MP ®^1I l/' / w / Cf. E.israuo LIGHT POLE (T) / 1 IT ll ®.(J�/�/� Y a„ ..,..%�EiouTEn //./ 1 DBILE �� "/' 1 3• / I LEASE AR / / /"/ /" ;Illy •- _• all` \'' \ \ \ � •i' • ` FXrsnNC PROPERTY L NE I. -- :T. _ _ — vEL Access l 1. ,..� ��,yh'• .. l �- OTBE USED ROAD (TO I E.ISrINp 1\�N� j11 \ II , GRASS ^" Na.l 1! /i Imo EXISTINGECMAINLINK NCE (>rP) 1 x /—///ll /^/T 4 T-NO�EAMEs40Y/6EUETDE !'�/-` n✓ �.b\ • (NOT ID BE INPRM4D A l• �� • A MS TINE) NII —bJ`. -, v' - BILE w.i,` - L;r USEREM Ea :.`, ,� �a+� - WSTIK SIGN w WOODED �" NEW CLASS 5 CRAVE!. (PROVIDED ACCESSBY UN°LGRD) t0'-D• mDE Boo Woo. ' IYxELLPIG LJ g a — — = — EDEST, Om') S_ � —� NG TELCO L II ..• TAL MP) -- EXI TING ELECTRIC �� — ,m — — — _ E.19NryG TPANSED ER /Ex&v°t — �. - _ — PRG-� LANE — ,Nm �_ D RIGM�Ov_wXv [X21STlu°1G NG e. — �_ J I �rReEr w"Wc R r_O - ,Y NORi H '_- SITF PLAN N°T[5 -MOBILEPF FENCED COMPOUND TO BE ATTACHED TO EXISTING x E a REMOVE LIGHT POLE AND REPLACE :.3. ;M a cOtEc±eIEOS°°To`Bc Ro'Eo �o'°a"wDDNG TO De HIGH COAX PORT (BY - MONOPOLETO CONTRACTOR) • NAVE A CDR -TEN wEATNERING STEEL GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD 'ROTA EXISTING PARXINO LOT TO SITE, B. CCHAND T FENCE (NO BED wIRe) ,J -C HIGH C R9tRR FENCE (ND BARBED w. ) IN THE Lo A scuE: I•.so'-o (a zz Xu7 REvNwN DE.Termw — B Fx GP I.:TNL EBXmIGE °w>,Nn a y .wnNe u.e T. Ro,R xo. JAYCEE FIELDS I ol/u/m ISSUED FOR PROPOSAL = / Dr eEEx P INEEAPOLIS - AR' a ATe• .`.i R : G°Gg .. rtDI/zG/DB A1N611 VW* x°aTro Access EASEMENT —/ • MARIS KET DST m> Io.> or wu . ,.G..G .. s SITE PLAN � r w comm..BUT v2 _�/ .:I:. •Mobile II WILL w�ELH H C. ov —.,/ _ �R PNRPDSF O HER , OR xww T s ^"" 0 r riATT XXXX MYRTLE STREET WATER, MINNESOTA s� —/n°ANr ,Tesz u,> oRAVDxcSTILn RMRA1N611-C1 RE2 " _� MINNEAPOLIS MARKET cum uEBT� • I...exanw.GF-v<>oxD❑ BwEuMa=- raoxeo momwA,m-vnowo r.GGNnxG. A,W.A. ma....wa sxr: 1111111111.111.1.111.1.111.1111.1.111.1.11111111 1,1. I 1. I I. I ! I I. I 1 I 1 I 1. I 1 LI ',..1. 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I. I 1. I 1. I v z, I . z. .. i A 1 1 5 i & 3 : ki r_ II pr rif 1.-J 9„ J .. , if / CRI ________ nJ \\\\\\I , q /1 , , j ' I / / ...„ , f V, 1 ...,x 7 i ! I i 1 • •T • •Mo one MINNEAP OLIS MARKET ENLARGED SITE PLAN,,,,, 1.10 r — X r I— --1 X L'.. , I- —"1 1_____Li 7 I 6111i ,..A 1 9 eJ Pi. €F,M sj a Az.l. VS V11113 rL _I (-, 511:g ogZ;I ; 1: ...,.;,, 9§ x r,.. 0- zi . . i g b R ' NI e iN ' ,igl --A z 3 -.441111111kt'"160110r 6% .41.4 wilosio —Aer - . _, ,314 s4 2st:A z ss .?.5 ,. i zAt'''. i '411" gg.- t- i r,.i- •:i. flP -., „ ISbs _.,.....arti.,...- N- f Fel !t4 '<',' _ zli 2211,1 t... . 1 , I< FOR ELECTRIC NNECT TELCO VOVP IERIARIAL EY CONTRACTOR) R 1 4 , 1' „ ',.., , 1 1 ''11,..1 1711 '110.3 k'r_e'X 1 S 11 i .11 x T IA ri I o ,-. r-7-',! c ,., - z 1-MOSELE 2,-0' WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT i-MOSILE 32.-C. WOE LEASE AREA xx MYRTLE STREET .LWATER, MINNESOTA Ruin ER N611-C2 AYCEE FIELDS Al N611 WISED SITE PLAN TO BE ATTACHED TO EXiSliNG STIFIntOmi POLE AND REPLACE gt7ErMTOROIJNO 70 rZAN2TEN KAMER!. TEFL VTR, 5 GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD .-0. OF EXISTiNG 4.-0. HON VI1RE) 14.N C.INLIKK 0117,[10. 1 I i .1. .9. gh0 ':= Rama ma awns '" I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I ./. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '0°' 1 I 1 l l l l l l 1 1 1 1 tI a 100-0r00 00 6� r-,E .w5010* a e s � -"• cn n�E arer µream A 5 FEW VERIFY xa0 Or 1ELO 1E0 nIIMUll m.rs (TOP OF E1,mr,c 51000s ® 60 FEr. PER wm.Ev) E 1. \ \ \ SOUTH ELEVATION i i e~� _____ _L 3i o �g 0- \ \ \ \ I_ 31'• 0 30 S i 3 g€#m,a€eta= v4 Pi�„Ss #��R4 a li ■o nggm� 2 og Vlobile» MINNEAPOLIS MARKET At 1 A4 _ Il smo o$ a3 , u 2= soSs sagg$Ra o �: as EpF� ag11 b m LNA REQUIREMENTS — a3az �ha�� sum ME ETX190V512US Ir./iUA PER SECTOR .. * 4 S a° '� f E. A ,. „ _ u ., L .. DOWNTILT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS ^ n S y3 goo N B£ £ s k g u gF xx MYRTLE STREET STILLWATER, MINNESOTA JAYCEE FIELDS A1N611 ANTENNA INFO. & TOWER ELE a a a 4 c c a LQ $ 7R a 8„ m" a a 9 v v a a D i 2 ., ^" 8 c &� � ^^ '" L & $ g k A m _ 3 sag" Nz 2 Fc 5 000 2^ y a „ ,. u - m „ .5 „ _ a „ _ O P P y i 8 t! g 9 P g o m ro4 Z S 2nd St`' S 1st St ,. 6th Ave w 4th .Ave S ME DESIGN PACKAGE 1 o ACCERTEo.NOCpAMENTS. R.00EED . ..,at .:. RETA4CINTORROCAGNYI&E.t aTOS CONSTITUTE IMTFRNSEfOAAFP DEVELOPED OESI N OEM CALCUAl1C ANAYINS NOS1HODSR MATERIALS EVELPRW RSt:INENT TIES ER IT DCESNOT RELIEVE SUP,RER FROM RELCOMRIAIEF MN CONTRACTUAL 1444imm'shill11111111.1? GOPHER�u. STATE SITE NUMBER: MPLSMN3498 / AT&T MOBILITY APPROVAL Real Estate: Date ONE ) CALL RP: Date SITE NAME: STONEBRIDGE OparaNDaa: Date CALL BEFORE YOU DIG 651.454-0002- Metre 1800-252-1168-Greater MN T-MOBILE SITE NUMBER: Al N611 www.gopheratateonecall.org DRAWING INDEX REV. DIRECTIONS FROM THE BLOOMINGTON AT&T MoBwTY OFFICE: TAKE 1-494 EAST 27 MILES TO HWY 36 (EXIT 52B). TO EAST ON HWY 36 5 MILES TO MANNING AVE. GO NORTH' .ON MANNING AVENUE 1.5 MILES TO CR12. GO EAST ON CR t2 (MMTLE ST) TO BALL PARK ENTRANCE ON THE NORtH'SIDE OF THE ROAD JUST PAST EAGLE RIDGE TRAIL AS DEPICTED BELOW. PROJECT INFORMATION MPLSMN3498-TO1 TITLE SHEET A MPLSMN34984101 SURVEY A MPLSMN3498-001 PLAN VIEW A MPLSMN3498-0O2 ELEVATION - A MPLSMN3498S01 SHELTER FOUNDATION & DETAILS A MPLSMN3498-S02 SHELTER ELEVATIONS A MPLSMN3498-S03 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS • A • MPLSMN3498-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 MPLSMN349S N07 TELCO INTERFACE A MPLSMN3498-NO2 RF DATA SHEET & RF CONFIGURATION A MPLSMN3498-NO3 COAX LABELING. A 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 - mLLwArER, .MN 550e2 CONTACT PERSON: RAY QUEEN ER 651-351-8321 APPUE1460 AT&T Moaun 4300 MARKET POINTE OR., SUITE 350 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55435 LATITUDE: 45'03'29.13' NORTH (NAD 83) LONGITUDE:_ - 92'49'52.807 WEST (NAD 83) ELEVATION: 862.4' AMSL (NAVD 88) JURISDICTION: CITY OF STLLWATER PROPERTY TAX 1.0. No: CURRENT USE: ' TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PROPOSED USE:. TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY VICINITY MAP SITE LOCATION f; N q W, Iz (NVRTIE s1) H, ,P ; g g (NtR1LE ST) a®■ ff a Y g a s 4" SITE QUALIFICATION PARTICIPANTS ILAME COMPANY NUMBER HWY 34 Hwr 3a A/E - AARON EVANS ULTEIG ENGINEERS 763-571-2500 SAC KEN NIELSEN BUELL CONSULTING 612-272-0074 RE 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 SCALE NONE Ultei -4 engineers Mia""Mona . 64 7 Wwwsp....omAu i.o.SG:,: ...1.Ne. SITE No. MPLSMN3498 STONEBRIDGE - �C` �/ Clt$ttAPERV +��-- BLOOWNGTON.m EKBOVA nNaro 0 OAwNO . ME WIRER NEctlro MARGNO NERE HENfeT ERVI T DIV 1 afto enr.anoN TITLE SHEET ' `w•""D u1NNERN EWEE CC RE SUM � A 0] 10/09 A / ISSUED FOR REVIEW An0 COMNENT , K. „ R9E a3/m/G9 a3t is Ne. DATE REVISIONS aY 40 <NK pPP'[m7E N� „e /.6✓.fGr,. MAROC No. N[v MPLSMN3498-T01 A SALE: AS N01E0 _IDESIGNED: RAE LRnwN: Kan RONBL'LEYY A. EVANS 5 4 u az kroM omm PAT 3n r S— r- K— X • X g� ti 0Al � 7 52 �g S D co fi EXISTING ANTENNAS PROPOSED ANTENNAS RELOCATED LIGHTS AND MOUNT GPS ANTENNA PROPOSED ICE (MIDGE; SEE DETAIL 576/S03. PROPOSED EQUIPMENT BUILDING - { PROPOSED ANTENNA LAYOUT 0 2 . SCALE. Y.° = 1 -0" (022"x34") EXISTING T-MOBILE EQUIPMENT CABINETS IXIS7ING 8'-0" HIGH FENCE SOUTH ELEVATION R SCALE: M8i=1'-0" (022"441 PROPOSED P-7 13' LOW -PROFILE PLATFORM (VALMONT #9034421 PROPOSED ANTENNA, TYP. SBA Gma ,.. v,mm raw ms».,,n xw.�Wwgwm MKKc+� SITE No. MPLSMN3498 STONEBRIDGE at&t MC SIGNED DRAW. IS VC CORRECT RECORD OS/10/09 1SSVEO FOR REVIEW ANO COMMENT KR< K. RAE dUE RM310K3 DV CHK APP'C SCALE: AS NOTED DESIGNED: RAE low K. wMK n Of MINNESOTAER ORM ME UM a n* 03/10/09.. N„43119 ROBLEY A. EVANS ELEVATION MPLSMN3498-0O2 I A D B A , - _ .. FOUNDATION GENERAL NOTES: x • r r 1/2' PREFORMED I JOINT FILLER I. THE SITE SHALL BE STRIPPED OF ALL VEGETATION PRIOR TO FILL OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOUNDATION PAD. A COMPACTION TEST RUM' ON EACH - 2. ALL FILL SAND SHALL BE 00%MO. MODIFIED 6" 1110 -COMPACTED TO 90R MODIFlFD PROCTOR. 3. ANY SOFT AREAS (TREE STUMP HOLES. ETC.) SHALL BE CUT CUT 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. .. - - - _ .. - "" v CONCREfE BUILDING SIAB x cr 4-0' SEE DETAILS FOR SLAB lo THICKNESS &REINFORCING Aril L- _J *Mir """W- x /I NOTE: PIQg: '- 11E DOWN PLATE VERIFY PENETRATION DIMENSIONS * #2 GROUND PIG TAIL LOCATIONS (4 rm.) „ AND LOCATION WITH SHELTER SUPPLIER SEE GROUNDING PLAN SHELTER FOUNDATION PLAN N.T.S. - #4 64 1 "EW w 4" THICK CONCRETE SLAB 6'K4' AT DOOR LOCATION SLOPED I/4" PER FOOT AWAY FROM SHELTER +N- pp N TOP OF 0 STEEL PIPE - FILLw/ CONCRETE FILL .& METAL CAP TOP 3/4" 0 R00 5" RADIUS _ n i WELD TO BOLLARD NEAREST GENERATOR RECEPTACLE. (ONE LOCATION ONLY) CONCRETE BASE �. 1" CHAMFER (TYP ) SEE STOOP CROSS SECTION 3" TYP.-, 6"z6" 08/08 WWF 3' TYP- ` - SLAB TO BE LEVEL 41/4' . RESTORE AROUND ' '*' SHELTER TO MATCH .I ., EXISTING. RN. YRYBB§�n. Y - 6tLSi"-R�4, ettf. o`tRW6,. \/� i\i \•/ ,,/X 4'-0' S FIN. FLO0R „� \ TOP OF GEOTEXTILEy BACKFILL ems i �Fr ,)>\/y Q��! ' ��lt-\ FOUNDATION �n GRADE ' yUJ BUILD e ramarrommeskimvprAri :�q'056� 2 i � a� ✓i4 GEOTEXDLE UP AREA UNDERSTOOP • /� - 3 TIES 0 24'.0.C. .GRAVEL #4 REBAR. J I'-0" TYP. 6 MIL VAPOR BARRIER NOTES. I. CONCRETE FINISH TO BE CLASS A TOLERANCE 2. TEST FOR 3000 PSI AT 7 & 28 DAYS PER POUR BY INDEPENDENT LAB. 3. FOUNDATION DESIGNED FOR 2000 PSF ALLOWABLE RIFY SOIL BEATING CAPACITYEPRIORRTTO FOUNDATION IENSTALLATION. BLDG/END ATTACHMENT SECTION A —A \ 1, gel w/ GRAVEL EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL STOOP DETAIL C—C. ' BOLLARD DETAIL 0160 MIS. NTS N.T.S. Ultei ae ILreers WMN. MUM. ALLInvvit*NE „. I.v.se.Y ' w„ ..•RVAOR tw y.wnw�. m Fax: SITE No. MPLSMN3498 STONEBRIDGE• at&t 01006I„Rt0„, *00 €0T6 ewO wNESHELTER INE.TM FOUNDATION & DETAILS IS MINNESOTA a A 03nC/Cs Issue° FOR REVIEW AND CORNS"' K. Ke R E 03/10/09 43714 u°. 04TE REVISIONS 05 CHN 0*0 4 /�' / � C.V. w_ MPLSMN3498-S01 I SCALE: A5 NOTED (DESIGNED: RAE IGRAWN. K. ROBLEY A. EVANS 6 4 3 1 0) in OW; i t. ri 30011:183NO1S 8617CNWSldIN "oN 311S 5 ZOS-86bENWSIdiN N m m m r O 0 N 51 fo 000 000 000 000 A m HS iN3Wd111 z N M Nrn m r O z 000000 000000000 000000 •o> • r "' • 0, : r.'" 71" , • • • J•. • r • , .1.1; • •-; 44, • View Type: Existing Conditions Location: Boutw-ell and 75th St - looking northeast. City: Stillwater Site: AlN6ll ••• View Type: Simulation proposed canister pole Location: Boutwell and 75th S looking northeast. City: Stillwater Site: A1N611 View Type: Existing Conditions Location: Corner of Boutwell Road and 75th Street North - Looking East City: Stillwater Site Number. A1N611 Planning Report DATE: June 3, 2009 CASE NO.: 09-18 APPLICANT: James and Joyce Melton REQUEST: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Allow Automotive Sales by SUP in the BP-C District ZONING: BP-C, Business Park - Commercial LOCATION: 13900 60th Street North PUBLIC HEARING:June 8, 2009 REVIEWERS: City Planner PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND In 1999 the Melton property was issued a Special Use Permit (SUP) for the operation of a used car lot business. The property is zoned BP-C, Business Park Commercial. Until the early 2000s "automobile sales, service and storage" were allowed by SUP in the BP-C, Zoning District. And even though "automobile sales, service and storage" were no longer allowed in the BP-C District, as long as the property continued to be used for "automobile sales, service and storage," the legally non -conforming special use was allowed to continue to operate. However, since 2007 the property has been vacant. And, if a SUP is not used for a six month period, it becomes null and voids. Consequently, "automobile sales, service and storage" are no longer allowed on the property. Recently interest was expressed in leasing the Melton property for a used car lot again. Since the City Code no longer allows that use on the property, the Meltons have made City Code, Ch 31, Sec 31-204, Subd 6(a)(4) Any conditional or special use permit shall expire and become void where the use has ceased for six consecutive months whether or not it is the intent of the permit holder to abandon the use. Melton Amendment June 4, 2009 Page 2 of 3 application for an amendment to the zoning code to allow "automobile sales, service and storage" by Special Use Permit in the BP-C District. COMMENTS ON REQUEST A. Is the request consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? Does the planned future land use allow for the proposed use? The Comprehensive Plan is of no particular help in determining whether "automotive sales, service and storage" should be allowed in the BP-C district, since the Comprehensive Plan generalizes all commercial zoning districts into one future land use category. B. Is the use substantially similar to and compatible with uses that are allowed in the zoning district? The BP-C district consists of general retail and office uses. Unfortunately "general retail" is not defined anywhere in the zoning chapter. To get an idea of what is intended by "general retail," all the permitted uses are listed here: • General retail or services offered to the local or regional market • Department store • Supermarket • Restaurants, fast food, drive in (SUP) • Beauty shop, laundry • Offices (general, professional, financial, medical or dental) • Auto repair (SUP) Note that the performance standards for auto repair are very particular about not storing autos, parts etc outside unless they are "enclosed in a building, or stored behind a secure solid masonry wall or sightly fence not less than six (6) feet in height". • Special events with outside sales (SUP) • Commercial nursery (SUP) • Libraries, art galleries, theater (SUP) • Hotel or motel (SUP) • Wholesale trade It is significant to note that within the BP-C district, permanent (i.e. continuous) outside storage and sales are not allowed. Moreover, city staff believes this is purposeful and appropriate. In the past SUPs were occasionally approved for this type of use in the BP-C district. However, until the early 2000s any use that Councils felt appropriate at the time were allowed in any zoning district with a SUP. As mentioned in the opening paragraphs of this report, this practice stopped in the early 2000s. The practice was tantamount to granting a "use variance", Melton Amendment June 4, 2009 Page 3 of 3 which undermines the integrity of districts and was no longer allowed by State statute. Consequently, the City's zoning ordinance was amended to prohibit it. C. Miscellaneous Mrs. Melton states in her attached letter that the taxes on their property are too high for a retail store to afford to lease her property. Of the 201 commercial properties in Stillwater2, the taxes paid in 2006 ranged from $3,212 to $259,188. Ranking the 201 properties from highest to lowest amount of taxes paid, the Melton property ranked 176th. It was assessed substantially less taxes than the mean tax bill of $29,471. So, though the tax burden may be considerable, it is far less than most commercial properties pay in the city. In terms of size of property and retail space available in the building, the Melton property rests solidly in the middle of the list of commercial properties in the City. Granted many of the smaller properties are downtown, those smaller properties carry a significantly higher tax burden than the Melton property. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has several alternatives. A. Approve If the Planning Commission finds that "automobile sales, service and storage" are an appropriate special use in the BP-C Zoning District, then the Commission should recommend that the City Council approve the request and adopt the ordinance amendment. B. Deny If the Planning Commission finds that "automobile sales, service and storage" are NOT an appropriate special use in the BP-C Zoning District, then the Commission should recommend that the City Council deny the request. C. Table If the Planning Commission would like additional information to help in deciding if the request is appropriate or not, then the Commission should table the request until the July meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff believes the requested special use is inappropriate in the BP-C Zoning District and recommends denial. cc: Joyce Melton, applicant attachments: Non-residential districts - use table Letter from applicant 2 The properties compared are: non-residential; used commercially; improved with at least one building; have an estimated value of >$150,000; not tax exempt; are located within Stillwater (based on 2006 data). Sec. 31-325. Allowable Uses in Non -Residential Districts. ALLOWABLE USES ZONING DISTRICTS CA CBD VC BP-C BP-0 BP -I CRD PA PWFD T, L- General retail business uses or service; local market1 P SUP P SUP General retail business uses or service; local and regional market P P P SUP Specialty retail, incl. antique shops P P Department store P P P Drug store P Interior decorating sales; sale of floor covering, paint, wallpaper, materials and objects of interior decorating P P Appliances and furniture, sale of P P Household goods, sale of (including china) P P Books, magazines, newspapers, stationary; sale of P Gifts, flowers, photographic supplies; sale of P Tobacco products; sale of P Hardware, sale of P P Sporting goods; sale of P Music store P P Retail: food Supermarket, retail food P SUP P Baked goods, manufacture/retail sale of (</= 5 persons employed) P P Baked goods, manufacture/retail sale of (> 5 persons employed) SUP2 P Eating establishments Restaurants3 P SUP P SUP Fast food outlet P Tea rooms, deli, coffee shops, soda fountains, not including the sale of alcoholic beverages SUP Outside eating establishments SUP Drive-in or drive -through: restaurant, eating places or any other use involving a drive-in or drive -through activity SUP SUP 1 Such as grocery, fruit and vegetable store, bakery, general store, barber and beauty shop, clothes cleaning and laundry pickup station, business and professional office and the like, supplying commodities or performing services. 2 SUP may only be issued by the city council. 3 Including restaurants, lunchrooms, cafeterias, and other such eating places; and places for the sale and consumption of soft drinks, juices, ice cream and beverages of all kinds; BUT, excluding drive-in establishments. Stillwater Zoning Ordinance, City Code Ch. 31 Page 76 ALLOWABLE USES ZONING DISTRICTS CA CBD VC BP-C BP-0 BP -I CRD PA PWFD Services Barber or beauty shops P P P Shoe repair shop P Printing shop P Photo processing SUP Tailoring or pressing P Laundry; agencies, self-service, full service, dry cleaning. P P P Laundry employing > 5 persons SUP1 Carpet, bag and rug cleaning SUP1 W v Banks and financial institutions P Offices Office; general, business or professional P P SUP P P P Offices; finance, insurance, editorial or real estate services P SUP P P P Offices; administrative P P Offices; business offices that are accessory to permitted uses on the site SUP Office building P Consultant services such as advertising, engineering, architects and designers SUP Radio or television stations P SUP Offices; medical and dental P SUP P P P P Office display or sales space2 P Automotive Automotive sales, service and storage, excluding gasoline filling stations. (See Section 31-514, for performance standards) P Service stations or fuel sales (See Section 31-514 for performance standards) SUP SUP Gasoline filling station SUP1 Auto repair and related services SUP P3 ' SUP may only be issued by the city council. 2 For a wholesale, jobbing or distributing establishment in connection with which not more than 25 percent of the floor area of the building or part thereof occupied by such establishment is used for making, assembling, remodeling, repair, altering, finishing or refinishing its products or merchandise, and provided that: 1. Any resulting cinders, dust, fumes, noise, odors, refuse matter, smoke, vapor or vibration is effectively confined to the premises; and 2. The ground floor premises facing upon and visible from a major street upon which the premises abut shall be used only for entrances, office or display. 3 Automotive painting, upholstering, tire recapping and major repair, when conducted completely in an enclosed building. Stillwater Zoning Ordinance, City Code Ch. 31 Page 77 ALLOWABLE USES ZONING DISTRICTS CA CBD VC BP-C BP-0 BP -I CRD PA PWFD Entertainment Commercial recreational uses SUP Commercial recreational entertainment SUP Amusement and recreational establishments1 P Outside entertainment, commercial2 SUP Outdoors Outside sales or special events2 SUP SUP Outside storage SUPS SUP4 Commercial nurseries SUP SUP Exterior phonographs, paging systems, musical instruments, etc that may disturb the peace and quiet of the public SUP Institutional Schools, business and technical P P Schools and studios for arts and crafts, photography, music, dance P P Educational institutions, schools SUP P Libraries, art galleries, theaters and other such cultural facilities SUP SUP SUP Libraries or post office P Churches, other places of worship P Day care/nurseries SUP SUPS SUPS Group day care P Governmental facilities SUP SUP Fire station SUP Hospitals, convalescent hospitals and nursing homes SUP Hotel or motel P SUP6 SUP Manufacturing Manufacturing, limited? P Manufacture of baked goods P Manufacturing, processing, fabrication or assembling of limited commodity8 SUP Retail sales of products manufactured on the site SUP 1 Such as armories, assembly halls, bowling alleys, dancehalls, pool and billiard parlors, skating rinks and other social, sport or recreational centers operated as a business, provided the place or building in which it is operated is sufficiently sound insulated to effectively confine the noise to the premises. 2 These uses may be approved directly by the city council if the event is a one time special event not occurring on a regular basis. 3 All outside storage shall be screened by a solid wall or fence and landscaping for public view. 4 Must be screened. S Including pre-schools. 6 Hotel or motel or other uses providing visitors with overnight accommodations. 7 Limited manufacturing means conducting a process fabrication, storage or manufacturing of light materials, including electronic components and accessories. 8 Except junk or storage. 9 So long as no more than 20 percent of building floor area is for retail purposes. Stillwater Zoning Ordinance, City Code Ch. 31 Page 78 ALLOWABLE USES ZONING DISTRICTS CA CBD VC BP-C BP-0 BP -I CRD PA PWFD Wholesale/storage l Wholesale trade P SUP SUP Warehousing and outside storage SUP Warehousing and inside storage SUP Mini -storage SUP Industrial light industrial that is clean and compatible with surrounding properties SUP Bottling works SUP Printing & publishing or lithographic shop SUP SUP SUP Laboratories Laboratories SUP Chemical laboratories SUP Research establishment of industrial, medical or scientific nature SUP Research facilities or research laboratories P P Transportation/public works/etc. Transportation station or terminal P SUP _ Helipads SUP Public works facility including office and meeting space PUD Essential services P P P P P P P P P Public utility transmission lines and facilities SUP Telephone exchange P Parking facilities SUP Private parking facilities > five cars SUP Funeral home or mortuary P SUP SUP Club or lodge P Residences of all classes SUP' SUP SUP2 SUPS Temporary structures SUP = rermtttea use SUP = Use permitted with a Special Use Permit CUP = Use permitted with a Conditional Use Permit PUD = Use permitted with a Planned Unit Development Permit A = Accessory use Blank cell in table means that the use is NOT allowed. 1 SUP may be issued only by city council. 2 Residences on second level only. 3 Residences subject to RCM regulations. Stillwater Zoning Ordinance, City Code Ch. 31 Page 79 RTHPI 0. (: D F h': i N 14 F S. U i A Planning Report DATE: June 1, 2009 APPLICANT: Ronald Larson CASE NO.: 09-19 REQUEST: 1) Size variance for 2nd accessory building 2) Shoreline setback variance ZONING: RA, Single Family Residential Lakeshore Overlay District LOCATION: 3025 Marine Circle PUBLIC HEARING: June 8, 2009 REVIEWERS: City Planner, City Engineer, DNR Regional Hydrologist PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director '% j , BACKGROUND Mr. Larson lives at 3025 Marine Circle in the Croixwood area. He has an attached two car garage and a garden shed on his property. The attached garage is considered by City Code to be an "accessory building". A lot in Croixwood is also allowed to have a second accessory building, as long as it has no more than 120 square feet of floor area. Mr. Larson has would like to replace his second accessory building (the garden shed) with a 480 square foot two -car garage. This is not permitted for two reasons: 1) the second accessory building is too large; and 2) it would be located too close to the shoreline. SPECIFIC REQUEST In order for Mr. Larson to proceed with the project, he has requested: Larson Variance June 1, 2009 Page 2 of 3 1. A size variance to allow the construction of the 480 square foot second accessory building, whereas the maximum allowable size for it is 120 square feed (300% variance); and 2. A 42 foot shoreline setback variance to allow the accessory building to be located +/- 33 feet from the shoreline, whereas 75 feet is the minimum required setback from the normal shoreline of the abutting water basin (56% variance). COMMENTS ON REQUEST The Planning Commission may grant the requested variances only if the following conditions are found to be satisfied3: 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 process4 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. Staff is not aware of any physical characteristics of the property that preclude the landowner from abiding by the 120 square foot floor area limit for the second accessory building space. 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. Mr. Larson would like to construct the second accessory building primarily to store a classic convertible during the winter. Staff does not believe that a second two -stall garage on an RA zoned property rises to the level of a "substantial property right". 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. Mr. Larson states in his application materials that neither of the adjacent property owners object to his proposed second garage, which addresses the first portion of City Code, Section 31-305(a)(2)(iii). This section of code specifically says that any attached garage is considered the first accessory building. The second accessory building would then be limited to 120 square feet in ground area. 2 City Code, Section 31-402, Subd 6(a) requires a 75 foot setback from a water basin that is classified as "Recreational Development". The Long Lake basin is classified as a Recreational Development lake and the DNR Regional Hydrologist has determined that the basin abutting the subject property is a portion of the Long Lake basin. 3 City Code Section 31-208(d) 4 City Code Section 31-208(a) Larson Variance June 1, 2009 Page 3 of 3 this criterion. It is more difficult to argue that the large variances being requested are in keeping with rest of this test criterion, which is that the purpose of the zoning ordinance should not be "materially impaired". The zoning ordinance seeks in this specific instance to: • Maximize open space; • Minimize total garage space; • Keep shoreline yards clear of all "structures" for both aesthetic reasons and to aid in treating stormwater runoff prior to entering a water basin. All variances in any lakeshore overlay district have to be certified by the Department of Natural Resources before the City can issue a building permit. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has several alternatives. A. Approve If the property owner's variance requests are found acceptable to the Planning Commission, the Commission could approve them subject to the following conditions: 1. The existing second accessory building shall be removed from the premises prior to issuance of any building permit associated with the structure or foundation. 2. The shoreline setback variance must be certified by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources prior to issuance of any building permits for this project. B. Deny If the Planning Commission finds that the variances are not advisable, the Commission could deny them. With a denial, the basis of the action should be given. C. Table If the Planning Commission finds a smaller second accessory structure acceptable, it could table the request to give the applicant sufficient time to resubmit a variance request for a second accessory building the approximate size of a one -stall garage rather than the two -stall size as currently requested. RECOMMENDATION City staff does not find that the current proposal meets all of the variance review criteria and therefore recommends denial. cc: Ronald Larson, applicant attachments: Location Map Site Plan Letter from Applicant FOR: ORRI` E. Tis01T'SO\ CONSTRUCTION r3;,i C. R. WINDEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. L AND SURVEYORS Tel. 645- 3646 I381 EUSTIS ST., ST. PAUL, MINK. 55108 ION Lot 9, Block S, Croiwood Fourth Addition, Washineton County, Minnesota. WE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS 15 A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LAND ABOVE DESCRIBED AND OF THE LOCATION Of All BUILDINGS, IF ANY, THEREON, AND All VISIBLE ENCROACHMENTS, IF ANY, FROM OR ON SAID LAND. Doted this 25M day of " 7/7" A D 1925 C. R. WINN 8, ASSOCIATES, INC. by Surveyor, Minnesota Registration No 772ce, To: The Planning Commission I am seeking a variance for 3025 Marine Circle, Stillwater Minnesota. Lot 9, Block 8, Croixwood Fourth Addition, Washington County, Minnesota. I would like to replace the 8-foot by 12-foot storage shed in my back yard, with a 22 foot by 22 foot garage. The enclosed bid is for the 1st stage, which includes the footings, slab, a row of blocks, and pins. My intent is to apply for the structure permit as soon as possible, after the foundation is finished. The primary use of the facility will be secure winter storage for a classic convertible that has never been in snow or salt. I am losing my affordable winter storage. I have approached my neighbors on both sides and they have no objection. Ronald C. Larson Owner The Following Addresses In Croixwood Have Attached Garages and a Free Standing Additional Garage In the Back Yard 2349 Driftwood Drive 2651 Fairlawn Drive 2601 Croixwood Boulevard 2372 Hidden Valley Lane 630 Hidden Valley Court 201 Maryknoll Drive 2928 Marine Circle Adjancent to the Croixwood development behind the Church on County Road 5, across from the Holiday Station. 1148 Parkwood Lane 1156 Parkwood Lane Larson Variance Neighborhood Map er H T H P L A G, 6 4 M N N F_ O; A Planning Commission DATE: June 4, 2009 APPLICANT: Melana Morgan CASE NO.: 09-20 REQUEST: An after -the -fact variance to allow a 30-foot encroachment in to the required exterior side yard setback LOCATION: 1921 Broadway St N COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: SFSL - Single Family Small Lot ZONING: RB - Two Family Residential PC DATE: June 8, 2009 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner MOP DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a variance for a 14.2' by 8' shed with a 14.2' by 6.4' covered porch to encroach into the required exterior side yard setback. In the RB zoning district, the required side yard setback is 30 feet from the side property line along a street frontage. The shed was constructed in the fall of 2008. Currently in the northeast corner the shed has a 0.1 foot setback from the property line along the Hazel St E right- of-way and 0.4 feet setback in the northeast corner. Since the structure currently exists, it requires an after -the -fact variance. This review is being done as if the shed did not exist. SPECIFIC REQUEST In order to allow for the shed/covered porch the applicant is requesting a variance to Section 31-308 (b)(1) of the City Code related to side yard setbacks for accessory buildings. A 150 3rd St S 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 at 1921 Broadway St N is a rectangular 50' by 150' lot with street frontage on three sides. This situation was present prior to the property owner's purchase of the property in 2006. The lot is sloped along the south and east property lines. Without conducting a large amount of grading the location where the shed was placed is logical. The slopes and three street frontages present a hardship for the 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. The property is currently being used as a residential home and can continue to be used as such with or without the variance. As such, it would not appear that a variance is necessary to allow for the continued use of the property as a single- family residential home. Whether or not the desire for an accessory building rises to the level of "substantial property right" is a decision the Planning Commission will need to make. 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 shed/covered porch as constructed does not have any negative impact on any of the surrounding properties. The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan. FINDINGS 1. There is a hardship peculiar to the property. 2. That a variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the right to use the property for residential purposes. Since a single family home exists on the property already, that demonstrates that substantial property rights are already being enjoyed by the property owner. Whether the desire for an accessory structure rises to the level of a "substantial property right" is a judgment call the Planning Commission will need to make. 1503rdStS Page 3 3. That the authorizing of the variance should not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the requested variance to allow a shed with cover porch to encroach 30 feet into the required side yard setback. 2. Deny the requested variance to allow a shed with cover porch to encroach 30 feet into the required side yard setback since an affirmative finding on the required conditions for a variance could not be made by staff. 3. Continue the public hearing until the July 13, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. The 60-day decision deadline for the request is July 14, 2009. RECOMMENDATION Review and take an action Attachments: Applicant's Form, Site Plan, and Photos cx_Atty-viA__ ut Old ehle-/P"Z-) a_ "fr a_,41 c9 e-,44--</ cy A-L-e 141-e: PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Case No: Date Filed: Fee Paid: Receipt No.: ACTION REQUESTED �ecial/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 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 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 PROPERTY IDE TIFI ATION JlILG Q Assessor's Parcel No.p2(/ �30��Q (GEO Code) Zoning District /3 Description of Project±(V- A-ep,f,LA,ezi)/pAeit. �`�,, �/12� "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. I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used." Property Owner OEL,,f e___Nj/e/ /d Representative Mailing Address 41 Mailing Address City - State - Zip r City - State - Zip / Telephone No. . f 1 Telephone No. Signature /e /Ate �f�' C 'Y - Signature (Signature is required) Lot Size (dimensions) x Land Area Height of Buildings: Stories Feet Principal Accessory (Signature is required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Total Building floor area square feet Existing square feet Proposed square feet Paved Impervious Area square feet No. of off-street parking spaces H:Amcnamara\sheila\PLANAPP.FRM April 9, 2008 Lt Ls A (. are Ti4E 9 R P H P L R f. E F td i N N E S 6 1 A Planning Commission DATE: June 4, 2009 CASE NO.: 09-21 REQUEST: Millbrook PUD Amendment related to new house plans and lot layout changes. APPLICANT: Joe Jablonski, Lennar LOCATION: South of State Highway 96 (Dellwood Road North) and approximately 2000 feet east of Manning Ave COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: SFLL - Single Family Large Lot and SFSL - Single Family Small Lot ZONING: TR - Traditional Residential and CR- Cottage Residential MEETING DATE: June 8, 2009 REVIEWED BY: Community Development Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner lc? BACKGROUND Joe Jablonski of Lennar is requesting a PUD amendment in order to add additional house plans and to revised lot sizes in the Millbrook Development. Five new house plans with between 2 to 4 elevations per plan to the current mix of eight plans. The lot layout calls for increasing the lot size of the remaining undeveloped CR lots and decreasing some of the TR lots. The changes would result in the loss of 4 CR lots and the gain of 2 TR lots for a overall decrease of 2 lots in the development. SPECIFIC REQUESTS A PUD Amendment to the Millbrook PUD to permit five new single-family house plans and changes to the current lot layout and sizes. Millbrook PUD Amendment June 4, 2009 Page 2 DISCUSSION House Plans Five new house plans with between 2 to 4 elevations per plan to the current mix of 8 plans. Each of the new house plans contain three -car garages. A porch is proposed on the front of the homes to meet the requirement that the garage be setback six feet from the front of the house. Unlike the previously approved plans, all of these plans place the garage parallel with or forward of the main front plane of the home. This has the potential to create a garage dominate appearance on the homes. Lot Sizes and Layout The proposed revised lot layout increased the lot size of the remaining undeveloped CR lots and decreasing some of the TR lots. The changes would result in the loss of four CR lots and the gain of two TR lots for a overall decrease of two lots in the development. Originally, only two car garages were proposed to be used on the CR lots. The revised lot sizes would permit Lennar to fit three car garages on all of the remaining undeveloped lots, including the CR lots. The adjustments to the lots will require some of the trails to be slightly adjusted. In most cases, there are no issues with these changes. There is a section of trail north of White Pine Way that should be adjusted. The proposed traffic calming median on White Pine Way should be adjusted to the east to align with the new trail location between Lots 7 and 8 on the north side of White Pine Way. Additionally, the trail north of Lots 7 and 8 on the north side of White Pine Way should be adjusted to remove the 90-degree turns. The proposed adjustments to the other trail segments are acceptable. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Continue the public hearing until July 13, 2009 in order for the applicant to submit additional information. The 60 day decision deadline for the request is July 14, 2009; however, if necessary, staff could extend the review deadline for an additional 60 days as allowed by state statutes. Millbrook PUD Amendment June 4, 2009 Page 3 2. Recommend City Council approval of the requested PUD Amendment with the following condition: a. The Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development application shall be substantially similar to the plans prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc., and on file in the Community Development Department as listed in Stillwater City Council Resolution Number 2006-179 except as amended by the revised concept sketch dated May 8, 2009. b. The developer shall complete a Lakeshore PUD worksheet and submit it to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource's (DNR) Area Hydrologist prior to submitting an application for a final plan approval for the lots being revised with this amendment. If the DNR review results in substantial changes to the PUD Amendment, then the developer shall resubmit the PUD amendment or review by the City and Joint Planning Board. c. The proposed traffic calming median in White Pine Way shall be moved to the east and align with the proposed trail between Lots 7 and 8 on the north side of White Pine Way as shown on Area B. Additionally, the trail north of lots 7 and 8 on the north side of White Pine Way as shown on Area B should be adjusted to remove the 90 degree turns. d. Conditions 3 through 14 in Stillwater City Council Resolution Number 2006-179 shall remain in effect with this PUD Amendment. 3. Recommend that the City Council deny the requested PUD Amendment. RECOMMENDATION Review and make a recommendation to the City Council attachments: Applicant's Letter, revised site plan, and accompanying material RESOLUTION NO. 2006-179 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A USHOMES DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON STATE HIGHWAY NO. 96 AND KNOWN AS MILLBROOK CASE NO. 06-06 WHEREAS, US Homes Corporation made application for approval of a Preliminary Plat and Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 170 acre project known as MILLBROOK, said project containing 98 townhomes and 172 single-family lots; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2006 and April 10, 2006 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat and Concept PUD with 17 conditions; and WHEREAS, on April 26, 2006 the Joint Planning Board considered and recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat and. Concept PUD with the same 17 conditions as the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on February 27, 2006 and June 26, 2006 the Parks & Recreation Board considered the proposed trail, sidewalk and park improvements and recommended approval of the trails, sidewalk and park improvements with 8 conditions; and WHEREAS, the Preliminary Plat and Concept PUD are consistent with the City's Ordinances and the City's Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Stillwater hereby approves the Preliminary Plat and Concept PUD for MILLBROOK with the following conditions: 1. The Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development application shall be substantially similar to the following plans prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc., and on file in the Community Development Department, except as modified herein: Site Plan dated 7/21/06 Phasing Plan dated 7/24/06 Buffer Averaging Plan (including trails) - 8 sheets dated 6/26/06 Preliminary Site Map* (Sheets SM2 — SM6) dated 1/17/06 Preliminary Plat (Sheets PP1-7) dated 3/30/06 Final Grading Plan (Sheets GP2, 3, 4, 4A, 5, 6) dated 4/12/06 Final Utility Plan (Sheets 2-5) dated 4/12/06 Preliminary Landscape Plan (Sheets f-4) dated 2/1/06 *Except trails to be as shown in Site Plan dated 7/21/06 2. The developer shall complete a Lakeshore PUD worksheet and submit it to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource's (DNR) Area Hydrologist prior to submitting an application for a final plat for Phase One. If the DNR review results in substantial changes to the Preliminary Plat or Concept PUD plans, then the developer shall resubmit the Concept PUD and Preliminary Plat for review by the City and Joint Planning Board. 3. The trail and sidewalk system shall be constructed substantially the same as represented in the following plan sets on file with the Community Development Department: a. Carnelian Marine Trails — Revised (Sheets CM-1, 2, 3) dated 6-21-06 b. Brown's Creek Trail — Revision 3 (Sheet BC 2b-1) dated 6-26-06 c. Brown's Creek Trail — Revision 2 (Sheet BC 2-2 + 2-3) dated 6-22-06 d. Revised Sidewalk Plan (Sheets SP-1, 2,3) dated 6-21-06 4. All trails shall be paved. 5. Prior to release of the final plat for Phase One, a blanket easement shall be provided over the open space outlot on the south side of South Twin Lake for trail purposes. Should the Carnelian -Marine Watershed District rules ever change and allow a trail closer to the lake, the easement will give the City the right to construct that trail. 6. Prior to release of the final plat for Phase One, the developer shall provide a 20 foot wide general easement allowing for future use for trails and utilities on the property along the south side of State Highway 96 right of way. The easement shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and City Attorney and found satisfactory to them in both form and content. 7. The trail connection to State Highway 96 along Outlot F shall be allowed as shown only if the wetland in the ditch is determined by a State licensed delineator to be an incidental wetland. If it is not an incidental wetland, then the trail shall be realigned westward along the rear of Lots 17 through 19. Documentation from the delineator shall be submitted together with final plat application materials for the Phase One final plat. 8. Lots 129 and 149 adjacent to the trail access off of the roundabout will be restricted by covenant to have open rail fencing and non -continuous shrubbery not exceeding four feet in height along their side and rear lot lines abutting the trail corridor. This is to provide for a more inviting entrance to the trail system. 9. The Developer shall provide water service stubs at each park with three stubs to be included at the large active park. A sanitary sewer stub will be provided at the large active park at a place yet to be determined by the City of Stillwater. 10. The two active parks will be graded by the developer as part of the first phase of development and the developer shall establish turf to the satisfaction of the city prior to the City's assuming maintenance of same. This shall at a minimum include mowing, fertilizing, rock picking, leveling, trimming, weed management and over seeding as necessary. Target date for the first transfer of park land will be fall of 2007. 11. The Brown's Creek trail link on the Millbrook property that connects to the Carlson property to the south shall be installed by the developer at the same time that the Carlson property trail is constructed, if prior to construction of the final phase in Millbrook. 12. An as built easement map showing 30 foot easements where possible (minimum of 15 foot) for trails shall be completed and recorded as each section of trail is completed. 13. Final civil engineering plans shall be found satisfactory to the Stillwater Public Works Director or they shall either be: a) revised to his satisfaction; or b) reviewed by the City Council and approved. 14. Prior to commencement of any grading on the subject property, the developer shall enter into a Development Agreement that is approved by the City Council. Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota this 15th day of August, 2006. CITY OF STILLWATER Diane F. Ward, Clerk May 7, 2009 City of Stillwater 216 Fourth Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 Re: Millbrook Dear Honorable Mayor and members of the Council; Clearly the market in Stillwater and elsewhere has slowed significantly. Despite the efforts of a Central marketing campaign, upgrades to our website (www.lennar.com), and adjustments to prices and product lines, sales velocities in Millbrook remain disappointing. To combat the challenging housing market, Lennar is excited for the opportunity to propose changes in Millbrook. New House Plans The new plans are designed based upon focus groups conducted with Lennar buyers, feedback from JD Powers surveys, and market research. The presented series includes design features that meet current lifestyle needs and buyer preferences that are not addressed by the current offerings in Millbrook. The 2009 Landmark series has evolved from the general concept of the currently approved plan set. For the interior, kitchens are expanded and traditional rooms such as a formal dining area have been incorporated into a living pattern that brings the family room, eating area, and kitchen into one large flowing space. Efficiencies in floor plan design and mechanical layout allows the opportunity to offer comparable square footage at more competitive pricing without taking away from the curb appeal of the home. These homes continue turn -of -the -century architectural styling including the incorporation of front porches on all of the plans. Front porches are an important and charming part of the Millbrook neighborhood, creating not only the opportunity to add details such as stone or masonry piers, column designs and roof interest, but to foster a sense of social connection between neighbors. Carefully thought out elevations were created to de-emphasize garages which will be set back a minimum six (6) feet from the front elevation. Based on comments from the Planning Commission and staff, all of the new plans have been adjusted to meet the standards of the PUD. The new plans offer finished square footages of 1,867-2,776 sq ft plus the ability to finish the basement and will add additional interest to an already diverse streetscape. A prototype (Ramsey — Prairie) from this series was recently completed in Rosemount and has received excellent reviews from consumers. Site Plan Revisions In order to accommodate the above proposed house plans we are also including some changes to the site plan. The new plans require a slightly larger homesite. As a result the homesite widths in future phases within the CR - Cottage Residential District have increased to an average width of 65'. The result of the change is a loss of four (4) homesites. The loss will be mitigated by reducing a section of homesite widths in the TR — Traditional Residential District from 90' minimums down to an average of 74'. The result will add two (2) homesites back to the plan, leaving the net change at a loss of two (2) homes. These changes will not necessitate deviation from the setback standards. Trail connections may move slightly but will be maintained in approximately the same locations. A plan is included with this submission that graphically demonstrates the proposed changes. Difficult economic times have changed the way families, Cities, businesses, and even our great nation makes financial decisions. To endure the demands of today's challenging housing market, Lennar continues to evolve house plans to offer homes that are receptive to customers changing wants and needs. We feel strongly that the approval of these new plans will improve interest in Millbrook which ultimately leads to increased permit activity for the City and accelerated construction of amenities for existing residents. We appreciate your support and look foreword to continuing our partnership with the City of Stillwater in creating a successful Community. In the meantime, if you have any questions or comments feel free to contact me. Respectfully, oe Jablonski Lennar Corporation 545 Indian Mound E., Wayzata, MN 55391 • Phone: 952-473-0993 • Fax: 952-476-0194 LENNAR.COM • ••••••=14.00 f=1-t L. 4E::}4 Jr Ij 1 11 111( i 1111111111 HI INC 2. fl A Hem Ilililli lam' lion, 44.4414 llllil11lf11i1 1111111111111111 111II!IIIIIH 111111111111 mum raekt •_�■ 1 s .o� U t 1 r ►1'i I 1 [111►1:I jj n NM NM n CCU Erni •: m Fel n n n n n n r n n 1I I1III111111I111 in n — —F-1 EMMEN MIME ®■■■■ 1 1,11 I 1 1 I 1111 11 it 4'-6" EV -6 1/2" L Ea'-11 I/2" 2' • • ECECTRICA(NOTE1 / ALL CEILING OPENINGS IN GARAGE . UNDER FINISHED SPACES ABOVE, AND ALL OPENINGS ON COMMON WALLS BETWEEN HOME AND GAR TO BE SEALED TYPE BOXES. 4.-10" 2 1. -¢>" 2.-0" 13.-0" 2.-0" 1 2" 5.-0" 10' 0" 3.-0" 10.-0' 14Y6.110Vt totA41411-a- A's 1:40" I !k n 1 cmnnr.,u.' :44 ON a. 1111111111 � i MILLBROOK REVISED CONCEPT SKETCH ugh scAim n_nt �I J,clui m eft" 4op 330133.3.3 0 IrI wh+BM N .3116. FXMRRO UTLOEB MOM ME SHOWN MAN APPROXIMATE WAY O4LY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BETERMME THE ENACT LOCATION OF ANY MO ALL EXMRNO U11U11ES BEFORE COWING. ENCING WORK TIE AGREE. TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY MO ALL DAMAGES ARMING OUT O: WO FAU RE TO EXACTLY LOCATE ANO PRESERVE AN/ AIOAUEASTWO MUTES. '� ®III IIII�II�I II �� tinj n�t(01 001,-E r r Ob v n. AREA B AREA C is) yP SOUTH TWRN LNG OTLO i fll • NORTH 70 W 0 M 100 SCALE IN FEET DEVELOPER: LENNAR CORPORATION 935 WAYZATA BLVD. WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 PHONE: (763) 249-3014 CONTACT: Joe Jablonski ENGINEER, SURVEYOR, LAND PLANNER: SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC 150 S. BROADWAY WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 PHONE: (952) 476-6000 CONTACT: DANIEL SCHMIDT, P.E., R.L.S. REVISIONS BY a 3 REVISED CONCEPT SKETCH LENNAR CORPORATION, INC. DRAYM DLO amass, aM a as, MALE ABSNORM JCR ii ELL: 33361660733033'08ASE_MLL...ONO MEET 1 4 WEFTS VOTRFE EEFORE 00EEFHCNB WOOL HE AGREES TOUEFHLY -. FORAM AFL ALL MOM. MAMA OUT OF He FALHE TO MGM' LOCATE MO FEMME M Y MOM. ELBTNB IITLREL MONO OILREB SHOWN ARE MOWN N MI AHROXFATE WA OEM THE CONTRACTOR MALL BEfNIMNTH E E !MOT LOCMI OF Y 00016M ti \^' • �` `` s�; 9 jd 4 via s I 3 L Ar S.71 � b FES C AREA A LEGEND PROPOSED LOT LINES — — — — MILLBROOK PRELIMINARY PLAT LINES ,- / / / i Fr"n < ^fti ^ NWL-908.0 2 yr-908.17 10 yr-909.05 100 yr-911.00 w . w BONE MOOT MEV HOA OVERLOOK POND#2C NWL-902.0 2 yr-900.98 10 yr-902.54 100 yr-903.98 INFILTRATION / FILTRATION BASIN #1 3 Q 9 REVISIONS BY pee` REVISED CONCEPT SKETCH LENNAR CORPORATION, INC. ORAETN Bu MTE 060601 SOME M MOM 6,s m M W wO01ONOIBABE_L,LL..AMV MET 2 OF 4 NEET6 d 3 i 4 6 j 5 I I PROrQS1J) 1.Or WIO tit 173,74' POND#4C NWL-903.0 2 yr-902.40 10 yr-903.25 OUTLOT E 100 yr-904.64 12 EXISTNOITTERES SNOAN AREBNOWN IN AN APPROMMATE WAY ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OETERMNE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ANYMO ALL EAONO OTIMOES BEFORE COMMENCING WORN NE AGREES TO 9E FOLLY RESPONSERE FOR AM' AND ALL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF HIS FALUE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL E%bTW9 MINES. 4111.1 ,o1roSEIrLO1wlnr►rl 41111 9/ 10 / OUTLOT F POND#2 NWL-898. 2 yr-897.3 10 yr-898.' 100 yr-899. AREA B SCALE W FEET LEGEND PROPOSED LOT LINES — — — — MILLBROOK PRELIMINARY PLAT LINES REVISIONS BY (U Z 1- co a ce w w ce m i a 2 14, 1L` • DE' REVISED CONCEPT SKETCH LENNAR CORPORATION, INC. DRAWN OLE CHECKED OLD DATE 06.00 AS SHORN LCE NO. Elecun FILE N33.60010112W2210eEJ1YL..AMO SHEET 3 OF 4 MEET. Ew5TNU UTLLTER SWIM ARE MOWN N AN APPROXIMATE WAY CHLY. TE? COMWIIIOII NOLL DEIFAYNE TIE VACT LOCATIOHOF ANY AND ALL IMMO MIMES BEFORE COMMENCING WOK MEAMEES TO TO GE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FORM/ AM ALL MIAOW AMMO OUT OF NIB FAEINE TO EXACTLY LOCATE ND PRESERVE ANY MN ALL EXISTING UTtRFE. AREA C MORPH D m m D 40 =V.E N FEET LEGEND PROPOSED LOT LINES MILLBROOK PRELIMINARY PLAT LINES REVISIONS BY ; REVISED CONCEPT SKETCH ORAYM OLE CNit ED pE are EEGEa WALE AS TOWN M.eaa0Nn FEE 0/16168016ITY010I8E_MNL...00/O MEET 4 of 4 MNEETS Current Approved Plans 5 i LENNAR MINNESOTA MILLBROOK CR ZONE COPYRIGHT LENNAR 2007 Quality. Value. Integrity. . IIIN!IIiI!iIam ■ r w mum r r■ ■ umMON , 1 rr��il��MNMt• OWN rr rrrr�r� � a rrr<i7Wa�rw� ; rC_.i_...i�. ��■ rrr�rr�rurr+m. IS NM MINS MI MA�ll/Atae s�...a� • CRAFTSMAN Quality. Value. Integrity. COPYRIGHT JANUARY 2007 Quality. Value. Integrity. COPYRIGHT JANUARY 2007 20 T sue...? ... sx�rn;�q�;?.:.1:,t�:f� %�.•: FRE Quality. Vale. integrity. COPYRIGHT JANUARY 2007 2020 CA E COD Qualify. 'Witte. Integrity. COPYRIGHT JANUARY 20 Springfield—A.tif Pennington-B.tif Lancaster-A.tif Lancaster-B.tif i -M t - 411 • Ofl 1- t4N OON wer (',°a r•-9 C► I-11-1-6) of r-L171/6 El 41ti' - 42' re (» 1 -H 00-r Per • 61' Km f4 ®yJo�� LE MINNESOTA MONOTONY CODE The minimum Monotony code requirements are that no home with the same elevation can be on either side, across the street (directly or diagonal). See drawing below. iTa Although this is a minimum guideline, through panalization Lennar makes every effort to adhere to much stricter standards. Each community is pre - planned at the time that the home sites are released for sale to the public. Because of this policy most home elevations are only repeated once out of every 12 homes. The exterior color packages are also reviewed under these same guidelines. Features reviewed under monotony and panelization: • Roof lines, break up streetscapes with differing roof lines • Overall massing of home • Porches, limit the same porch configuration. • Exterior Colors • Architecture styles, i.e. two Prairie style homes will not be put next to each other. • Overall look, we make every effort to give the streetscape a custom feel with our homes. ♦ 1 LE I III 0 ntn2=2 ri ZHZZDDD� G) cnmcn()WF m Dmmmco Z Z m -i m O 0 o 0 co -z co m V > > cn cn m m V TV VV 1 1 2 D D CD CT) mmm O Z I 1 / /� / \\ \ •\\ / le/ ' \ Z \ / \ ` 0 \ !! ///y�/\\ N. \N. 0 N. \ /O�// N\ / \\ ! 4,, \ ! II \ \ \ L L_I \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ NEAL AVENUE NORTH DI O I • CD rl I1 P- o 1 m 1 m 71 N 1 o 1 / -L 11 3SV8:3lld D m z N D m m O om7 m 0 1 PHASING PLAN MILLBROOK STILLWATER, MINNESOTA U.S. HOMES CORPORATION \ / N `'�Ir Cr ONFRS P `.* UR`F< N SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. 150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN. 55391 (952) 476-6000 J J xIN 0 Z 0) co l Planning Commission DATE: June 3, 2009 APPLICANT: Mark Hanson OWNER: Rob McGarry CASE NO.: 09-22 REQUEST: A special use permit for outdoor seating and a variance to the parking requirements LOCATION: 243 Main St S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: CC - Community Commercial ZONING: CBD - Central Business District PC DATE: June 8, 2008 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a special use permit to allow outdoor seating for Marx Wine Bar & Grill. The outdoor seating area would be located behind Marx on Water Street. Since no on -site parking would be provided for the restaurant expansion, a parking variance is also needed. SPECIFIC REQUEST Mark Hanson, on behalf of the owner, has made application for a Special Use Permit to allow outdoor seating for up to 24 guests. In addition, a parking variance is being requested for 12 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: 243 Main Street S Page 2 (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 - Currently vehicles park in the area behind Marx's that is proposed to be converted to outdoor seating. Generally, the lot is used by apartment tenants and for some parking for Marx's employees. The current parking lot, if property striped, would accommodate six parking spaces. Based on the apartments and the restaurant use, without the patio, the site requires 31 parking spaces1. Since the site currently provides only six spaces the City can only require: 1) the six spaces being removed to be made up; and 2) the new demand from the outdoor patio to be provided. The patio will contain 24 seats which require 6 parking spaces (1 space per 4 seats). These 6 together with the loss of the six existing spaces create a deficit of 12 parking spaces. A variance has been requested for these 12 spaces. (2) Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. Architectural design - On June 1st, the HPC reviewed and conditionally approved a proposed design for the new wall surrounding the patio. Miscellaneous • Plans will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. Specific issues are listed in the conditions below. • 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 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. Variance As mentioned above, the proposed removal of the parking area and the outdoor patio will generate the need for 12 parking spaces, to meet the Zoning Code regulation. However, with the removal of the parking area on the site, the property will have no on -site parking. Consequently a variance from the parking requirement has been requested. It has become common in the downtown zoning district to view the re -use of existing space as grounds for satisfying the "hardship" criteria for variance requests. Obviously, the existing set of circumstances prevents the business from creating the The building currently houses Marx's restaurant on the first floor and three apartment units on the second floor. Apaitnients require 1.5 spaces per unit; with one covered, plus 1 space per 3 units for guest parking. With three apartment units, the apartments require six park spaces, three of which are required to be covered. Additionally Marx's has 3200 square feet of restaurant space, which requires 27 parking spaces (1 space per 120 square feet). 243 Main Street S Page 3 required number of on -site parking spaces. It is for situations such as these that Section 31-510, Subd. 1 (d)(1)i of the Zoning Ordinance was written. It allows for "alternative provisions" when the property being considered is in a parking district. The City has established a downtown parking district, which would allow for such "alternative provisions". Only in new construction has the City aggressively required the construction of new parking spaces. About the only consistent "alternative provision" that the City has required under these circumstances is that property owners purchase monthly parking permits for the required number of spaces. This encourages the parking user to park in lots that are a little further away from the site, allowing closer free parking to be used by visitors. In keeping with past practices, staff finds the variance review criteria to be met and would recommend approval of the variance with the condition that the property owner be required to buy 12 monthly parking permits for site. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the requests in whole or in part. 2. Deny the requests. 3. Continue the request for more information. The 60 day decision deadline for the request is July 13, 2009 and the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2009. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the special use permit and variance as conditioned. CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL If the Commission chooses to approve the project, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 2. Detailed lighting fixture specifications must be submitted for review by City Staff before installation. Shielded light fixtures shall be used with appropriate wattage of light bulbs to be approved by City Staff. 3. A new full curb shall be installed on Water Street along this site. The sidewalk shall be modified to accommodate the new curb. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, final plans for the curb and sidewalk must be submitted to, reviewed by and approved by the City Engineer. 4. An ADA accessible corridor shall be established between the end of the ramp off of the raised pedestrian sidewalk and the sidewalk along the east of this site. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, final plans for the ADA accessible corridor shall be reviewed by and approved by the City Engineer. 243 Main Street S Page 4 5. The trash dumpster shall be enclosed and screened as required by the downtown design guidelines. If the trash enclosure is to be located on a parking space then a lease shall be obtained from the City prior to locating the enclosure on City Property. 6. The applicant shall receive all appropriate Washington County Health Department approvals. 7. The applicant shall submit a SAC determination letter prior to the issuance of a building permit. 8. The application shall submit plans for the wall certified by a structural engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 9. The applicant shall receive Fire Department approval of any fire pit on the site. 10. The property owner shall purchase six monthly parking permits to compensate for the new outdoor patio seats and six monthly parking permits to compensate for the three apartment units for a total of twelve monthly parking permits. Six of these permits must be purchased concurrently with the building permit. The other six shall be purchased prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the outdoor eating area. 11. Outdoor seating shall be limited to 24 seats. attachments: Applicant's Form and packet PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 A Case No: Date Filed: /S 9. Fee Paid: Receipt No.: TION REQUESTED Special/Conditional Use Permit V 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 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 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. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project gi I gram. Zoning District Description of Project Assessor's Parcel No. �/ (GEO Code t/ a,�- �0i.0-- (%.. of CV( vice- %f f rrlf �el)etc- e--f �r tA%c -e( Sir a 4"..-(9 4e€,-- ( i "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. I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted aid used." Property Owner Mailing Address City - State - Zip Telephone No. Signature G-'(/'/ L-/5-0 .1ov(a S' ((tom AN 3Sv 4z- Cis q> >3 S (Signature is Lot Size (dimensions) Land Area uire Height of Buildings: Principal Accessory Representative Mailing Address City - State - Zip Telephone No. Signature 4-if c S-i) 7 - Y3 73 (Signa ure is required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Total Building floor area square feet Existing square feet Stories Feet Proposed square feet Paved Impervious Area square feet No. of off-street parking spaces H: \mcnamara\sheila\PLANAPP. FRM April 9, 2008 Check list for Planning Applications Incomplete or unclear applications/plans will be returned to the applicant and may result in delay of application processing. Check and attach to application. In The application form completed and signed by the property owner or owners authorized representative. A complete legal description of subject property. V Building plans clearly dimensioned and scaled (16 copies). El The site plan showing exterior property lines, easements, lot width and depth and lot area building(s) location. (See attached site plan example, a parcel boundary survey may be required). Er All adjacent streets or right of ways labeled. ❑ Location, elevation, size, height of building or addition, dimensions, materials and proposed use of all buildings and structures (including walls, fences, signs, lighting and hooding devices) existing and proposed for the site (if the site is in a Historic District, additional design detail maybe required). ❑ Distances between all structures and between all property lines or easements and structures. ❑ Show Adjacent buildings to this application site and dimension from property line. ❑ All major existing trees on the site (4 inch caliber or greater), giving type, location, size and other site coverage conditions. ❑ Show existing significant natural features such as rock outcroppings or water courses (existing and proposed marked accordingly). ❑ Locate all off-street parking spaces, driveways, loading docks and maneuvering areas with dimensions for driveway widths and parking space sizes. ❑ Pedestrian, vehicular and service points of ingress and egress; distances between driveways and street corners. ❑ Landscape plan showing number of plants, location, varieties and container sizes (landscape plan). ❑ Existing and proposed grading plan showing direction and grade of drainage through and off the site; indicate any proposed drainage channels or containment facilities. ❑ Required and existing street dedications and improvements such as sidewalks, curbing and pavement (may not be required). ❑ Letter to the Planning Commission describing the proposed use in detail and indicating how this use will effect and compatibility with adjacent uses or areas. ❑ Applications for new structures on slopes of 12 percent or greater must include an accurate topographic map. The map must contain contours of two -foot intervals for slopes of 12 percent or greater. Slopes over 24 percent shall be clearly marked. ❑ Other such data as may be required to permit the planning commission to make the required findings for approval of the specific type of application. e 5/01 Applicnt/owner"signature. Date hq, 511 NitA 19-e:›nchie •Ax-- 5-rick tz tkrEAk 6Xt1 6-0-17e- gir \ 71' 2 ULJ ki t-t leo sk..) bec14) '= ; , rx c, r Doc, 4— ..6.1,8/14MX 1,0 LOUL 'Sll3UH3a> rn, s i ,W01 NV1d 1d]ONOO 1❑3d1S NIVW m 2i31VMlli1S :J0J aavAianoo aoHHThX V1OS3NNIW 133J 9Z 33.83S SOS 1 ?I IbM❑CIIS Q8SI'dd L df1❑O ❑1X❑ Sdd3 ❑N❑1S m'SDNd❑ N❑dI lH❑❑dM >18IdS /038f1S HIIM 1-1dM d❑1WI8❑d /l8N❑S!W 100d 8 Iv . i No13�,30, MY a;S M3N l❑❑dlS d❑IHt ?I1H \8JIS J8SIdd .6.1_,y,l 3AS5 1Sd] 1d]ONOD NOI1VAM ld]ONOO o 41, 000nis 3N01S Memo To: Planning Commission From: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Date: June 4, 2009 Subject: Case No. 09-04, Liberty Village Amendment to a Planned Unit Development The above -mentioned case will be table until the July 13, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting. i liwater R T H P l A C E: 6 F M i N N E S O 1 A Planning Commission DATE: June 3, 2009 CASE NO.: 09-23 APPLICANT: Levi and Joleigh Breeggemann REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a variance to the minimum lot size (7,500 square feet required/5,400 square feet proposed) in order to construct a new 13' x 5' addition. LOCATION: 505 Maple St W 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 Planner4#99 BACKGROUND The applicants are seeking to demolish an existing 7' x 5' addition on the southwest corner of the home and replace it with a new 13' x 5' addition to their home. The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed and approved the demolition request at their June 1st meeting. This property is zoned RB. The lot is 5,400 square feet in size and as such the property owners need a variance to expand a -structure on a nonconforming lot. DISCUSSION Chapter 31-308 (b)(1) relates to minimum massing standards in the RB zoning district. The current lots size is 5,400 square feet and the RB zoning district requires 7,500 square feet for a single-family lot. The lot was platted in late 1800's with Sabin s Addition and its size has remained unchanged since then. The proposed addition meets all required setbacks, impervious coverage limits and all other bulk regulations of the RB zoning district. SPECIFIC REQUEST In order to construct an attached new addition 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. 505 Maple St W 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 5,400 square foot lot. The subject property is Lot 2, Block 2 of Sabin s Addition to Stillwater. The size of the lot has not changed since it was originally platted in the late 1800's. 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. Without the variance to the lot size, the applicant would not be able to expand their home. The proposed addition meets all required setbacks, impervious coverage limits and all other bulk regulations of the RB zoning district. 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. Since the property will continue to meet all other code requirements; 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. 505 Maple St W 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 July 11, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. The 60 day decision deadline for the request is July 16, 2009. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approving the requested variance to the minimum lot size as conditioned. Attachments: Applicant's Form, Site Plan, and letter. City of Stillwater City Planning Commission 216 Fourth Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Members of the Planning Commission, The use of this property will be within the set -backs set by the city, however, my lot is only 5,400 S.Q. feet therefore I need a variance to build on my lot It will greatly improve our usable space. All building will conform to all codes. Sincerely, Levi Breeggemann Joleigh Breeggemann " Z r OD va PI 0 1-) 9..) ..... "Pin r .-.1 --- W. 0 7C) L N 7 C S Tr% etz., Tre, 0 ' Roca 0 7€-• C,c) 1 t r, c. • 1211$ Ito tg„ti-11 I cp‘, /I A P LE S i . c�J,